Boris's £50 a day commuter bikes are daft
Comments
-
bice wrote:Il Principe wrote:bice wrote:
If you had £57 million to spend to improve cycling in London would you have blown this figure on a modest cycle hire scheme for mainly recreational users?
Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town) or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment, or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?
Do you actually cycle in London??
Only every day.
And yet you think a kerbed cycle lane on embankment of all places would be a good idea? It would be a fcking terrible idea.- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
Il Principe wrote:bice wrote:Il Principe wrote:bice wrote:
If you had £57 million to spend to improve cycling in London would you have blown this figure on a modest cycle hire scheme for mainly recreational users?
Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town) or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment, or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?
Do you actually cycle in London??
Only every day.
And yet you think a kerbed cycle lane on embankment of all places would be a good idea? It would be a fcking terrible idea.
Well, I don't use it very often, thank God, though I did to an office party in Cheyne Walk last week. I have ridden it with my daughter at weekends.
I think dedicated cycle lanes like Copenhagen are the way to go, and drastically restricting private motor vehicle use in the city centre would get more people on bikes than a modest hire scheme that isn't interested in encouraging rail commuters to cycle.
Quite a few posters here have mentioned the deterrent effect of the London traffic. Isn't that a good place to start?0 -
bice wrote:OK, I concede you have a point about the charges and these do have to be sharp to prevent pratting about. (Although I reckon it can easily take more than half an hour to get from, say, London Bridge to Hyde Park corner in bad traffic, and then charges kick in.)
But these bikes are equivalent of £9,500 each - so far, before thefts, breakages etc add to the scheme's costs - and are not going to be available near railway stations.
If you had £57 million to spend to improve cycling in London would you have blown this figure on a modest cycle hire scheme for mainly recreational users?
Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town) or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment, or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?
The iniative is gesture politics, surely? (And the mayor is anti-congestion charge and pro 4x4 Chelsea Tractor use). Where is the coherence?
It will be triumphed in the Standard (of course), but just buying 285,000 £200 hybrids and handing them out might have been more effective.
The bikes have to be rugged and usable by all - so £200 hybrids wouldn't work.
It will generate an income which, I would presume, would cover the running costs at least.
It will take a few thousand people off public transport - the value of which is immeasurable in terms of comfort and overcrowding.
And the mayor is very pro-cycling, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there?
I think it's a great idea - get more people cycling, it's faster, cheaper and more convenient than the tube and will hopefully add to the "safety in numbers" for cyclists in London.
PS - a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment?! Are you mad? How would we SCR?0 -
Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town)
I leave a bike at Paddington. Don't have a problem with the existing facilities. Of course I'm sensible - use a good lock and don't use a highly attractive bike. This wouldnt be a priority for me.or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankmentor massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?0 -
jedster wrote:Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town)
I leave a bike at Paddington. Don't have a problem with the existing facilities. Of course I'm sensible - use a good lock and don't use a highly attractive bike. This wouldnt be a priority for me.
Me neither - I commuted from Liverpool Street for 3 years and left a bike there with no difficulty. I used a decent lock though.jedster wrote:or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment
+1 - I seem to recall a poll on here which was very damning for separated cycle lanes. I personally don't like them at all, especially the kerbed ones.
J, out of curiosity, why don't you think the layout of London is amenable to them?
Bice, you cycle along the embankment with your daughter? :shock: How old is she? There are alternate east-west routes, y'know... nicer ones...0 -
bice wrote:OK, I concede you have a point about the charges and these do have to be sharp to prevent pratting about. (Although I reckon it can easily take more than half an hour to get from, say, London Bridge to Hyde Park corner in bad traffic, and then charges kick in.)bice wrote:But these bikes are equivalent of £9,500 each - so far, before thefts, breakages etc add to the scheme's costs - and are not going to be available near railway stations.bice wrote:If you had £57 million to spend to improve cycling in London would you have blown this figure on a modest cycle hire scheme for mainly recreational users?bice wrote:Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town)bice wrote:or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment,bice wrote:or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?bice wrote:The iniative is gesture politics, surely?bice wrote:(And the mayor is anti-congestion charge and pro 4x4 Chelsea Tractor use)bice wrote:Where is the coherence?bice wrote:It will be triumphed in the Standard (of course), but just buying 285,000 £200 hybrids and handing them out might have been more effective.0
-
lost_in_thought wrote:I don't think many tourists will use it though, they'll be scared of navigational issues and London traffic, and not unfairly - I spent most of my first few weeks on a bike in London getting lost! Look out for numpties on hire bikes though.
Having recently ridden in Paris... but admittedly limited riding in London.
I'd rather cycle in London than Paris. Yet I would still cycle in Paris.
I lost count of the number of red lights I jumped, one ways I went the wrong way up, just to avoid being rammed by some 'artistic' driving...
Honestly: you think traffic in London is bad, go to Paris or Milan (where I am from), where they have similar schemes, and you'll be amazed!0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:+1 - I seem to recall a poll on here which was very damning for separated cycle lanes. I personally don't like them at all, especially the kerbed ones.
Both options should be available: I take my boy to school. I use cycle tracks when available and they are by far the better option, since I am going very slowly, and likely to need to stop to check on him, and don't want to risk a numpty coming into me.
But I also cycle very fast on the road, and prefer the width and visibility of the road to the narrow sections of cycle tracks.
Segregation is not the right term, cause it implies the road would then be off-limits.
I prefer the term cycle tracks, or even cycle-superhighways.
Just like motorways, they enable faster safer transport, yet vehicles are free to choose!
They work in Copenhagen, and that didn't happen overnight. They have been working on their cycling culture for the past few decades.
It can work elsewhere, here!
One thing though: don't make helmets compulsory any time soon, or no-one will be find riding convenient.
Helmets do make you safer, but don't make people want to cycle. And that's a far bigger and better battle to fight for!
(together with better training for both riders *and* drivers)0 -
Specialized Needs wrote:bice wrote:OK, I concede you have a point about the charges and these do have to be sharp to prevent pratting about. (Although I reckon it can easily take more than half an hour to get from, say, London Bridge to Hyde Park corner in bad traffic, and then charges kick in.)bice wrote:But these bikes are equivalent of £9,500 each - so far, before thefts, breakages etc add to the scheme's costs - and are not going to be available near railway stations.bice wrote:If you had £57 million to spend to improve cycling in London would you have blown this figure on a modest cycle hire scheme for mainly recreational users?bice wrote:Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town)bice wrote:or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment,bice wrote:or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?bice wrote:The iniative is gesture politics, surely?bice wrote:(And the mayor is anti-congestion charge and pro 4x4 Chelsea Tractor use)bice wrote:Where is the coherence?bice wrote:It will be triumphed in the Standard (of course), but just buying 285,000 £200 hybrids and handing them out might have been more effective.
I would just add that dealing with London traffic is the single most important issue to encourage cycling in the city.
Regarding segregation of traffic, it is sometimes essential and would be beneficial on long straight, dual carriageways. (Some cycle tracks, ie Richmond Park, where cyclists and pedestrians are supposed to share show that cyclists are just as big sods as motorists once they have the whiphand.)
I think it is inconsistent of Boris to oppose congestion charge (and support 4x4s) and champion cycling. Getting private cars out of central London during the daytime is essential. (In the 1950s the governor of the Bank of England used to get the Tube, while even middling execs are too grand for that now.)
I think this scheme is largely irrelevant and would probably have been better done by some Ken-style community funding to out-of-work young people. (Yes, the bikes would have been rickety, the admin weak and some money have gone astray. But that's social investment for you.)
£57 million, so far, is not peanuts.0