Boris' cycle hire scheme

[dellzeqq]

There's a lot of differences between the Paris scheme and the London scheme, but the big one is political. The Mairie says it's going to happen and it does. No ifs, buts, no shillyshallying around. And in some parts of Paris it seems to work beautifully, although there are precious few bikes (far fewer than London) on the main boulevards.

The second one is spatial. There's a lot of Paris in a relatively small and well-defined area. London is lumbered with zone 2, a kind of twilight zone which is neither in the centre, nor in the suburbs, lacking vibrant local centres. Johnson has decided to leave zone 2 alone, whereas TfL and Ken were intent on taking it to all 32 boroughs, effectively out to the margins of zone 5 - their efforts being thwarted by a couple of Conservative controlled boroughs. The Parisian scheme works in their equivalent of zone 2, but that equivalent is more compact, better-heeled and has thriving shopping streets.

A zone 1 scheme might work, but I'm with those who think it will mostly be picked up by tourists. For Londoners it's really a bit of window dressing. There's a huge unfulfilled demand for cycle parking, especially secure cycle parking, and the only people who can supply that demand are Westminster City Council (who have gone quite some way with streetside racks), Network Rail (small, grudging gestures, and naff-all for Crossrail), the City of London (forget it) and employers (ha-ha-ha, Ove Arup excepted).

The irony is that those with most to gain - the employers and the railway companies - are the least interested.

 

[Origamist]

Ermmmm....


...to be fair, there is a cycle network in Zone 1 - not a very good one, but then again, cycle networks aren't everything. Green paint and white lines are no substitute for just cycling.

I think that LCC are conflating different things in that article - it also seems to be a bit of a 'mind melt' as they struggle to find a raison d'etre.

The LCC are right to piggy-back their campaigning agenda/vision on the bicycle hire scheme, but the wish-list is a bit of a hotch-potch (with a few LCC old favourites thrown in):

1. 20mph speed limit in the Cycle Hire zone
2. Widen bus lanes to aid cyclists
3. Introduce widespread permeability measures: make one-way streets to two-way, allow cycle contraflow, create short-cuts for cyclists
4. Fix gaps in existing cycle routes
5. Uniform cycle signage
6. Riverside routes - complete routes along the Victoria and Albert Embankments
7. Cycle-friendly central London parks - Regents Park, Kensington Gardens, Holland Park and Battersea Park)
8. Remove dangerous gyratories
9. Improve provision for bikes at bus, train and tube stations
10. Improve Thames bridges and their approaches
11. Create urban greenways - link the main parks and garden squares (Berkley, Hanover, Manchester, Russell and others) and reconnect the squares to the urban realm

The BikeGrid charter does go beyond the scope of the central LCN and is worth supporting in principle, as is the call for a strategic response from TFL and the boroughs. It certainly sounds good in theory:

"The proposed BikeGrid is a network of safe, continuous, high-quality cycle routes running north-south and east-west, with one complete central ring."

What that means in practice is another matter (the LCN flattered to deceive).

Any news on the CTC's collision reporting database?

 

[HJ]

I think it's a good idea, but what happens when a japanese tourist ends up under a bus? I think the Daily Mail brigade will have a field day. I'm prety convinced most on the bikes will follow the example of the RLJ'ing majority and show bugger all road sense.

Sorry, maybe I missed something, but which planet are you on

 

[Origamist]

More detail:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_8293000/8293273.stm

 

[garrilla]

flop

 

[Sam the Eagle]

I tried the hire scheme in Barcelona this summer and thought it was great, especially for short rides in the city centre, so I can't wait to try it here.
The bikes are good for riding at a leisurely pace. They do get wrecked and it's not unusual to get one with a flat tyre, broken gear shifter or seat clamp but there are generally enough of them around so you can pick up another one.
The great thing is that the first 30 mins are free, and that's generally more than enough to get from A to B.
The only problem I can think of is the number of people riding without helmet or elementary skills (such as common sense), but that's a small price to pay. It just seems that some people in this town/country can't wait to find any reason to denigrate them

 

[StuartG]

It is a very brave venture. I hope fellow cyclists will support it.

The main attraction will be tourists - and what is wrong with that? Overseas (or even visiting Mancunian) cyclists will love it. My fear is vandalism & theft. I was in Copenhagen a few weeks ago. Their 'free' bikes had nearly all disappeared leaving only a few unrideables, a real disappointment - and they don't have the crime issues of London.

In the end we have to break the theft problem if cycling is ever again to become a popular way to travel. The aim here is that people will ride 'dock to dock' and not park. We shall see.

 

[chap]

I am in favour of the London Cycle Scheme

As some who have read previous posts may know, I am all in favour of the bicycle scheme ad believe that it could prove a turning point in Britain as far as bicycle provisions are concerned.

The Velib bikes would have been perfect: low maintenance yet effective - one seldom requires more than 3 gears in London - yet the Bixi cycles are popular in Montreal, and the same shall be used in our capital.

Going to Paris, one sees a lot more cyclists (tourists and locals) using the velib, there are a few lost bicycles, but the overall success has led them to consider an electric motorcar version called Autolib or something... It is the change in perception which I am hoping for here, too many write off London as a bad place for cycling, if more people do it, then there will be a stronger voice in opposition to these barriers (e.g. HGV's in the city center, motorbikes in bus lanes, lack of connected routes). This can only be a good thing.

It is almost too hard for them to fail, there is already huge demand for more cycling facilities, and plenty of cyclists (the number has risen by magnitudes over the past decade).

Only the most incompetent mis-managment can screw this up, therefore it is in our interests to ensure that this does not become another short-term political toy.

 

[HJ]

...
The only problem I can think of is the number of people riding without helmet or elementary skills (such as common sense), but that's a small price to pay. It just seems that some people in this town/country can't wait to find any reason to denigrate them

Why would this be an issue?? There is not legal or actual requirement for any non-racing cyclist to wear a helmet.

 

[Bristol Dave]

Why would this be an issue?? There is not legal or actual requirement for any non-racing cyclist to wear a helmet.

Leave it!!

BD

 

[HJ]

Cycle is as safe as walking in a city, so why do you think you need to wear a silly hat to cycle but not to walk? Common sense is far less common that is often suggested...

 

[StuartG]

Leave it!!

Absolutely. Helmets etc are a second order problem. No problem if the scheme does not succeed. Don't confuse the issue now - we can, and I'm sure will, argue about it later. Don't let it divide us now.

 

[HJ]

Watching the video I was left wondering about the safety angle, the concern seems to be about tourist using the bikes, why would this cause a "safety" problem? No one has suggested that tourist shouldn't be allowed to drive. Also that there were going to be "safety courses", but who for?? Given that 90% of crashes involving cycles and motor vehicles are the fault of the driver, are all driver in London going to be sent on a "safety course"? If so that would be real progress!!

 

[HJ]

Absolutely. Helmets etc are a second order problem. No problem if the scheme does not succeed. Don't confuse the issue now - we can, and I'm sure will, argue about it later. Don't let it divide us now.

The lack of helmets won't be a problem if the scheme does succeed, although Bell Sports won't be happy...

 

[StuartG]

The point HS is that helmet wearing is optional. Its a bit difficult to incorporate an option to hire a helmet with the bike. Even as a non-wearer I would support the provision by other means - like tourists being able to borrow them against a deposit from tourist related locations. But there is no point in stalling the scheme until this and other considerations (like non-CC holders) are all in place.

Create a demand first!