From early adopters to everyday and ordinary...

When monitoring trends, sociologists and marketeers like to talk about "early adopters".  They mean the people who first have the courage and the nuance to start a trend, or be the first to be seen to be doing something new or otherwise unusual. 

At the dawn of the motoring age the aristocracy were early adopters of private motor vehicle ownership; paving the way for motorisation for the masses to come later.  In technology, those of you who brought an Apple iPod more than 9 years ago were early adopters of a new way of listening to music, before we all started doing it.




I have no evidence to back me up, and I'm highly aware that the experiences I am about to discuss are limited only to one small corner of Hackney, near to where I live - but around Broadway Market I believe there is a clear pattern of people using bikes passing the "early adopter" stage and moving in to the mainstream.  6 or 7 years ago there were still lots of cyclists around Broadway Market, but they seemed to me to be primarily male, more focused on "gear", or indeed fixed wheel riders.  The fixed wheel "craze" really took off amongst the young art and design creative community in the East End and had a large scene to back it up and help to nurture it (such as specialist shops, bike polo groups etc), and long may it continue.  But as Mikael Colville Anderson of Copenhagenize fame describes in his presentation "Behavioural changes for urban cycling", the fixed wheel craze is sub-cultural (that is to say only appeals to a limited group of people) whereas when something is mainstream ("cultural"?) it appeals to all sorts of different everyday and ordinary people, and indeed is accessible to all.

Now, don't get me wrong, I rather like fixed wheel bikes, and I have no more beef with people who want to tear up the city in a single speed alley cat than I do with someone who wants to pootle to work on a Dutch upright bike.






But I am certain that we've passed the narrow-cast "craze" stage of cycling around Broadway Market and moved on to the "everyday and ordinary".  That is to say, the "sub-cultural" riders would cycle regardless of whether it was a mainstream activity or not, but perhaps the prevalence of "sub-cultural" riders in recent years has helped to encourage others to become early adopters and help to mainstream cycling.  I've talked before about Hackney and how the organic grid of cycle routes and different types of infrastructure have helped to create conditions which are inviting for cycling, but I wonder what the key factor is in helping to make cycling here seem so much more mainstream than elsewhere in London.  Note in my pictures the age range and diversity of the cyclists portrayed.  Note the lack of helmets, high visability gear and cycle-specific clothing.  I have my own ideas as to what I think are driving the move from early adopters to mainstream cyclists in my neighbourhood (regular readers won't be surprised to hear I think that design and planning have a lot to do with it) but what do you think?  Is cycling still a narrow-cast reserve of the few where you are, or, like Broadway Market, is it becoming everyday and ordinary?  If you currently cycle only in cycle-specific gear, helmets and high-vis what would convince you to change to a more leisurely European style of riding? 

As always, I'm keen to hear your thoughts!

Share |

Is the LCC pro cycle lanes or not?

I'm a member of the London Cycling Campaign, mainly for insurance purposes but also to support the only dedicated cycling campaign we have here in London.  Much of the work they do at a local level is excellent and they have a large, loyal grassroots following.

Every few months or so they send me their 'London Cyclist' magazine and I spend a happy half hour or so reading up on their latest bike parking, lethal lorries, cycling budget or bike theft campaigns.  The most recent issue has a happy four pages dedicated to various varieties of bike parking systems (who knew there were so many?!) as well as a whole page of reviews of different brands of tyres... all exciting stuff, of course, but it was a letter from a member that really caught my eye this month so I thought I'd share it with you all here:

SEGREGATED LANES

Your last issue (Aug-Sept 2010) once again features a continental city where cycling is much safer than London - this time Copenhagen.  And as with the other cities, the prime reason for that safety is segregation of bikes and motor traffic.  Ritte Bjerregaard (former Mayor) says: "Copenhagen could never have become a successful cycling city if we hadn't created such a distinct divide between bike lanes and cars."
I have wondered for a long time why the LCC says so little about segregation of bikes and cars.  If the cities held up to us as examples stress it, why do we downplay it?  The argument that London streets are too narrow doesn't wash.  Some are, but many aren't.  Separated bike lanes are not even mentioned in the LCC's election manifesto - unless they come under the eighth and last point as 'reallocation of road space'.
In the same issue, LCC campaigns officer Charlie Lloyd says that the "number one reason non-cyclists give for not using a bicycle is that they don't feel safe."  I would think that there's nothing safer for cyclists than segregated cycling routes.  But where does LCC stand on this?

Bill Saltmarsh, SE27

The LCC responds:

When speeds and volumes of vehicles are high, LCC says separate bicycles and cars.  However, removing through traffic from residential areas and reducing speed limits can also work towards creating a cycle-friendly city.

So I thought I'd apply a little litmus test to the London Cycling Campaign's words... do LCC really push to separate bicycles and cars when speeds and volumes of traffic are high?  Do they really speak up for segregated infrastructure?  Flicking through the last 4 issues of their 'London Cyclist' magazine you wouldn't think so.  There have been...
3 features on bike theft,
2 on cycle parking,
2 on the cycle hire scheme, 
2 on HGV safety as well as features on the Skyrides,
bike week,
the Tweed Run,
Bikeability,
Rollapullaza,
cycle touring,
the general election,
a road danger map
...and one interview with the former Mayor of Copenhagen in which she clearly states that segregation is key to cycling numbers and subjective as well as physical safety.  The benefits and potential for Dutch-style cycling infrastructure here in London barely get a mention.  Hmmm...

I know a number of the people who work at the London Cycling Campaign and I know that they are extremely passionate about cycling, and indeed very knowledgeable on the ins and outs of how to deal with local planning authorities etc etc.  That is not in question here, and neither is the campaign's commitment to cycling.  I also understand how, with a wide membership base with differing views of the best approach to growing cycling they have to appeal to all.  But I would like to see a little honesty around the issue of segregated infrastructure.  If the campaign think cycle lanes are rubbish, that's okay, I'm happy to cancel my membership, but if they do think it's supposed to be part of a multifaceted approach to growing cycling can we start to hear a bit more out loud about how they are pushing for it please?  Surely that's not too much to ask, right?

Share |

The dog that barks the loudest gets the bone; is it time for a cycling lobby?

It's so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye to Cycling England which hit the skids last week as part of the coalition Government's so-called 'Bonfire of the Quangos'.  The body had a pitiful cash burn and was practically unknown outside of cycling circles, but did help the Government invest in cycling projects based on expert advice, and was the guardian of the re-badged cycling proficiency test "Bikeability"... 

...Here in London even the cycling campaigns are keen to clamour about 'record levels of investment in cycling in the capital', but recent calculations from the Green Party show that our Mayor, Boris Johnson, is only spending about half of what he says he is stumping up in cash. (ie under spending the cycling budget by as much as 50%)  All of the spin but none of the win for the end users, us cyclists... 

...Meanwhile, over in our highest house the good lords and ladies are bumbling along talking about high vis jackets and helmets as if they were the be all and end all of all things two-wheeled. 

I'd despair if it didn't all make me so angry.

In the case of Cycling England, 'Bikeability' will be brought in-house at the Department of Transport, but it's funding is only guaranteed "till the end of this parliament" (which, considering the uncharted territories of running a country by coalition may well be sooner rather than later).  Meanwhile, funding for cycling projects (if any) will come from a newly devised "Local Sustainable Transport Fund".  That is to say, funding for the things that can really matter the most on the ground - the construction of segregated cycle lanes, bike hubs at train stations, bike stands for kids at schools - will be funded from the same pot as improved bus timetables, schemes to implement charging points for electric cars (of which Transport Secretary Philip 'Hoverboard' Hammond seems particularly keen) and any other scheme that can be spun as 'sustainable'.  The transport minister with portfolio for cycling, Lib Dem Norman Baker said "...there will no longer be a dedicated cycling pot of money, but instead a much broader fund, we feel that Cycling England is not the right way to continue to incentivise and encourage local authorities and others to stimulate cycling."

Cycling is going to be up against some seriously well-organised money-thirsty transport schemes.  Bus firms have them, rail firms have them, car manufacturers practically invented them... is it time cycling got serious about its own lobby?

Until recently perhaps Cycling England's most prescient purpose was as a pyramid head for the disparate and varied stakeholders involved in cycling; it drip-fed up to the DfT the ideas, advice and requests of the CTC, Sustrans, British Cycling, the Cycle Training Standards Board and others.  Now, in a classic 'divide and conquer' manoeuvre by the Government these organisations will be left squabbling and scrabbling for every morsel the DfT may care to throw their way.  Meanwhile, the bus boards, the train operating companies and the electric vehicle manufacturers will be flexing their well-toned lobby muscles.  If the future funding of sustainable transport is to be decided in an arena fashion, cycling will be the first to be thrown to the lions.  Or, if you like, the dog that barks loudest gets the bone.

The UK's cycling organisations, if they don't want to implode upon one another in a fit of survivalism, need to get their act together and unify to see this present funding crisis out.  We need to play the game on the playing field that the Government has chosen to provide us.  Cycle England will be gone by spring 2011 and it won't be coming back.  We need a new national umbrella body of some kind to represent the local, regional and national stakeholders at Whitehall.  At present none of our cycling campaigns are broadly popular or skilled enough to be able to do this alone.  More crucially still we need our retailers to be involved.  The Bicycle Association and the Association of Cycle Traders are pissing in the wind if they think their voices can be heard alone.  But their efforts, combined with that of the likes of the CTC, would double their strength and double their volume and help to put them on a more even footing with the likes of the bus and train companies.  On a public front we have plenty of cycling celebrities to add to our voice - get the likes of Victoria Pendleton and James Cracknell, Dermot O'Leary and even Lord Berkeley on side and the publicity follows.  Run a campaign incorporating all cyclists calling for support for cycling.  Remember the impact the NSPCC's green button 'full stop' campaign against child cruelty had?  Something on that kind of scale injecting a bit of cyclist's pride into the voter demographic will help to secure funding in the future.  So long as cyclists are few and represented by many small voices they'll not get the funding we all know they deserve.  Present them as many and with one loud voice and suddenly the Government will start to listen.  Again, the dog that barks the loudest gets the bone.

Get people involved!  If there's one thing the wider public think of Quangos is that they were London-centric 'jobs for boys like us' type outfits.  We all know that David Cameron has this thing about 'Big Society' so let's make it an opportunity to give him some good news; lobby for investment into a project to train out of work miners from Newport as cycling instructors so they can train their kids or something equally worthy and you'll soon have a happy PM praising you from a pit-head press conference and the funding will soon follow...  As I said, the Government has chosen the playing field, cyclists have to be ready to play on it.

Of course, a question of funding comes in to play here which in these financially difficult times is a tough one to address.  It's all well and good proposing to form a national cycling lobby, but who will pay for it?  Let us think of the ubiquitous coffee chain for a moment.  Those popular coffee shops which you find all over the country start by opening just one cafe, and start selling coffee for £1 a cup.  Of that pound 50p is profit, 25p goes on staff, 10p goes to the coffee farmer and supplier, 10p on overheads and that last 5p goes into a little pot to save up to open the next coffee shop.  When that opens you have double the amount of money going into the 'new shop' pot and so on and so forth until you can open shops all over the country, or even the world.  Of course bicycle retailers can only open so many bike shops.  So long as cycling remains a minority modal share of national journeys there are only so many opportunities to sell bikes.  But instead of putting that 5p towards a new shop, why not put it towards an autonomous organisation that helps to gain funding for cycle paths, money for national cycle networks or mountain biking hubs, secures the provision of cycle parking at stations, trains up the next generation to be efficient and enthusiastic cyclists?  Suddenly you'll have a hell of a lot more cyclists than if you leave things in their current status quo.  And all these new riders need new bikes, new locks, new lights and lovely accessories.  NOW you need to open a new shop, and another, and another... and suddenly you're in a position to badger the Government to drop VAT on new bikes, or give tax breaks to bike manufacturers in the UK (all part of transferring to a carbon neutral economy, remember?).  It puzzles me why this hasn't been proposed or discussed before but if a very small percentage of sales of all new bikes and cycling accessories sold in the UK went directly back into a national cycle lobby focussed on securing funding to grow cycling, surely this would be a self-fulfilling prophecy or funding circle?  Everyone wins, right?

We've had a few days to weep and wail over the loss of Cycling England, and that's only right because they did do some good work after all.  But it was, to be frank, a punitive organisation in the first place which worked extremely hard in return for very little.  Now that it is going there is a very real risk that petty in-fighting will descend upon the cycling advocacy scene here in the UK (which is exactly what the Government would like) but we need now to renew and increase our efforts if we don't want to enter another decade of cycling being out in the wilderness.  We have till March 2011, when Cycling England's mandate runs out.  Bike campaigners, retailers, advocates, lobbyists, riders, manufacturers et al; as Philip Hammond would say "Gentlemen, start your engines!"

Share |

City cycle style? Can't it be like this everyday please?

Last Friday the City of London's historic Smithfield meat market played host to the first City Cycle Style event.  Bike manufacturers, cycle clothing designers and chic cyclists united to put on a new kind of cycle trade show, combining music, food, fashion and fun. 

There were glamorous girls kicking back in cargo bikes from Velorution, hot young guys on tricked out bikes looking dapper in spats.  The latest on offer from those fleuro-weavers Dashing Tweeds graced the catwalk as did some nice-but-a-bit-expensive panniers from Michaud.  A great range of town bikes suitable for city exploring were on view; Viva made a great impression, whilst Moulton showed off two of their very latest designs, with the stripped-down belt-driven TSR-2 especially popular with those taking test rides after the event.  All set against the iconic/ironic back drop of a couple of gleaming red London buses parked under the beautifully lit Smithfield market hall roof.

I've written before how cycling in the UK has a major PR problem surrounding the wider public's perception of people who choose to get about by two wheels.  The vast majority of people who don't choose to cycle just can't see themselves riding because they don't subscribe to the current dominant image of cyclists; that 'Lance Armstrong look'.  Perhaps events like last Friday's can go some way towards showing that you don't necessarily have to armour up in lycra, day-glow and helmets in order just to ride a bike to the shops and back.

Mikael Colville-Andersen, of Copenhagen Cycle Chic would probably be quite perplexed by there even being the need to hold such a show.  He is as equally dismissive of those who would try to set cycling's stall out as purely the reserve of sports riders as he is of people who seek to sell you 'urban cycling clothing'.  His thinking (from this blog post) is quite clear on the subject; "You have a closet filled with clothes, don't you? If you're walking about town, you'll wear them. You have clothes for hot weather and clothes for cold weather. Whatever clothes you wear as a pedestrian are suitable for riding a bicycle. You KNOW this. You were young once. You did it then....  ..If you want to ride a bicycle to work or the supermarket over short distances, you do not need 'gear'. Just open your closet."

David Hembrow, from A View from the Cycle Path, takes a different view.  Commenting on a previous post of mine about 'What's stopping women from cycling', he explained that he thinks 'cycle chic' (if you want to call normal, everyday and ordinary utilitarian cycling that) comes not from a desire by cyclists to be stylish but as a consequence of cyclists no longer being under stress.  "The hats and hi-vis come from the conditions. They're a symptom of cyclists under stress. Once cycling becomes subjectively safer, these things disappear. I don't think you can force it."  He writes eloquently on his blog what he thinks the steps are that the authorities ought to be taking to make cycling a less stressful and subjectively safe activity for all: it starts, of course, with providing top class decent cycling infrastructure everywhere, and then building on that.

Me?  I take a view somewhere in the middle.  There's no doubt that there is a sense that the bourgeois are early adopters of 'chic cycling' here in the UK.  But the idea that it somehow costs money and you have to buy another form of expensive gear to subscribe to everyday and ordinary cycling doesn't sit easily with me either. In the same breath there is no doubt that the wider public view of cycling as being a physical, sporty activity is unhelpful and events like Friday's can help to dispel that view.  All in all, Friday night's bikes and fashion show was a great showcase of the potential and opportunity that lies in cycling in the urban environment and shows that perhaps, one day, the streets of London could be filled with effortlessly cool cyclists just like Copenhagen.  Part of that will come from how people choose to present themselves as cyclists, much more will come from 'non-cyclists' taking up riding as a consequence of how our roads provide for those who do so.  Perhaps events like Friday's can be a useful stepping stone towards that path?

Share |

The National Travel Survey; cycling's canary in the coal mine?

** A warning that this is a long and at times involved and fiery blog post; I've spent many hours going over the figures contined herein and considering the best steps forward.  I thought long and hard about what I wanted to say to our 3 main cycling campaigns, and how I wanted to say it, and whilst I know a post of such length is an endulgence, I do hope you'll be able to find the time to read it and join the debate**

The Government published its National Travel Survey at the beginning of the month showing travel trends and figures for 2009.  Detailing how we all move around Britain - by automobile, train, bicycle and foot - the ongoing survey from the Department of Transport shows how and why we get about.  The CTC, our national cycle campaign, has been quick to jump on the results with the headline "National Travel Survey proves cycling is on the increase".  But I think a more detailed look at the survey, and the national health of cycling in general, is in order here.

The CTC states "Government data... ...confirms that in 2009 cycle use increased to the highest level in decades"  If you were a copy editor on a deadline you might feel inclined, on the basis of the CTC's press release, to run a front page splash with a headline like "Meteoric rise in cyclists!" or perhaps even "Cycling grows and goes!".  But the truth is rather more prosaic and shows that despite the efforts of the likes of the CTC, the LCC and Sustrans, and the work of official bodies like Cycling England, cycling seems to me to in fact be in serious trouble.

In 2009 cycling made up just 2% of modal share of all journeys in the UK.  By comparison, rail (including the London Underground) makes up 3%, buses and coaches represent 7%, walking 23%, other (ferries etc) 3%, whilst trips by car account for a massive 63% of all trips by modal share. 

Despite their relatively small percentage share, rail and bus travel are making progress; between 1995/97 and 2009 the average distance travelled by bus outside London increased by 5%, within London by some 66%.  Over the same period, rail travel saw an increase of 44%.  The number of trips per person per year by bus in London increased by 47% between 1995/97 and 2009. 

These are the kind of figures that Government statisticians like to see; clear results as a consequence of direct investment in a type of transport.  No self-respecting civil servant is going to recommend investing money into a scheme which doesn't bear tangible results which can be boasted of at the next general election.

Cycling has made a little progress; average annual distance by bike for Britain's cyclists has increased from 42 miles per person in 2008 to 46 in 2009. That is more than the 1995/97 average. That means average trip length has increased from 2.4 to 2.8 miles.  Hardly a rolling revolution, wouldn't you say?  The survey states clearly:  "Frequency of bicycle use has remained fairly stable over time since 1998/00. In 2009, 14% of respondents said they ride a bicycle at least once a week and a further 9% said they did so at least once a month. 68% said they use a bicycle less than once a year or never."

The likes of the CTC might find small victories in the increases in average journey length by bicycle, or the fact that more people in high social economic groups are now cycling, but I do not.  I see these figures against the back drop that the rest of the National Travel Survey presents:


"DfT Vehicle Licensing Statistics show that there has been a continued growth in the number of licensed cars in Great Britain (an increase of 25% between 1997 and 2009)."

Clearly travel by private automobile is still seen as something inherently more desirable than travel by bike.  The only place in the country that has turned this statistic around to any extent is, of course, central London which has decreased the number of cars on its roads through the introduction of the Congestion Charge.  The decrease in cars lead to an increase in cyclists, a relationship that is nearly impossible to replicate elsewhere with such a large increase in cars in Great Britain.  Even outside of Zone 1 (in Waltham Forest, say) cycling in London is hardly the nirvana it is sometimes made out to be.

If you look at the overall figure, below, it is clear to see that despite campaigning efforts to the contrary, cycling as modal share is on a steady downward pattern.  And whilst all journeys have decreased overall, there are more cars than ever on our roads (click on the image for a closer look at this graph)  The green line represents cycling as a percentage of all journeys since 195 and despite the occasional upward tick, the stronger trend is clear, Britain is abandoning the bicycle and cycle rates are flat-lining:

And there's more doom and gloom for future cyclists, too:

"Overall the average length of a trip to school has increased from 2.1 miles in 1995/97 to 2.5 miles in 2009. During this period, the average trip length for primary school children has increased from 1.3 to 1.5 miles, and for secondary school pupils, 2.9 to 3.3 miles. School runs have increased in modal share to 21% of AM peak journeys."

More children than ever before are being driven to school instead of riding.  The CTC's own Bike Club muses on these figures in a recent blog post of their own.  They were alarmed to find that since the 1970s cycling levels amongst young people in the UK have fallen to about a third of previous levels and that now, on average, young people cycle as much as average UK adults (that is to say, very very little).

Against these somewhat depressing figures the CTC states in its press release "We expected that the recession, along with high fuel prices, would lead to an increase in cycling... ...sales of bikes have soared by 25% over the same period."  This to me says two things; firstly that people are still buying more and more cars despite the economic constraints of our current financial climate, and that people are considering cycling more - even going to the lengths of buying a new bike - but cycling less.  Why is this?  What's keeping people from their bikes?  Why are more and more parents driving their children to school instead of letting them cycle?  What's stopping women from cycling?  The answer, I suspect, is in the road conditions that would-be cyclists discover when they set out on their shiny new bikes for the very first time.  For all the glossy posters encouraging us to 'Catch up with the bicycle', for all the talk right now about there never having been a better time to cycle, cycling on the roads in the UK is still too large an emotional investment for most people.  The British are not really so afraid to actually get on their bikes and ride, nor are they fearful of the weather or finding somewhere to park their bike at the end of their journey (though all these things, of course, are contributory factors) The primary reason why most people in the UK do not cycle even though they can and it makes sound economic and health sense to do so, is because in order to cycle on the roads here you have to do so in spite of the prevailing road conditions and not because of them.  For most, 'sharing the road' with vehicular traffic is just a step too far.

Einstein once said that do something over and over again and expect a different result was true madness, and yet this is exactly what is happening here in the UK.  The UK had a "National Cycling Strategy" back in 1996 which had an aim of doubling cycling by 2002 and doubling again by 2012. It was quietly abandoned by the Government in 2004 after the rate of cycling had actually declined over the previous 8 years. [1]  Over the past 15 years the number of cyclists on the road, by comparison to other transport modes, has grown smaller and smaller.  Yet our cycling campaigns are still calling for the same thing over and over; more cycle parking, SMIDSY campaigns, even pot hole reports. None of the three major campaigns in the UK; Sustrans, the CTC or the London Cycling Campaign are calling for segregation out right.  Did anyone spot the elephant in the room?

Let us consider the city of Assen, in the Netherlands, home to British bike blogger David Hembrow.  It's a largish town of some 65,000, relatively flat and populous, with a population growth of 1.5% per year.  Not unlike countless other towns in the UK and totally unremarkable in most over ways.  But for cyclists like you and I it is remarkable.  You see, unlike here in the UK where the cycling rates pitch down the graph on an ever-downward ebb, cycling rates in Assen are actually increasing.  In 2009 this small town quietly announced that it's cycling rate as a percentage of ALL journeys (not just commuting to work) had grown from 37% four years ago to 41% now.  That is to say not only does it have a higher modal share than ANY town in the UK, but also that this share is growing.  If that's not a measure of success, then I don't know what is.  The key to this success?  Segregation.  David's blog shows in painstaking detail how we can go about 'Assenising' the UK, and for very little money in comparison, say, to building more railways or roads (remember all of the UK rail network represents just 3% of modal share.  How much money gets spent on it?  Considerably more than cycling!)

If you're like me and a little sceptical of facts and figures, especially those drawn up by Governments, let us take a more humanistic approach to this all.  Do you want to see mass cycling in the UK?  Yes.  OK, mass cycling means everyone will  be able to ride a bike as a primary means of transportation; Mums, kids, Grans... Would you be happy for your Gran to cycle on the A-road nearest to your house, mixing it up with the A-road traffic?  No?  Me neither.  Would you be happy for your Gran to cycle on smooth, segregated, wide, well maintained cycle paths like these....

Yes, that's a cycle path! From David Hembrow's A View from the Cycle Path
Yes?  Well then, what are we, and our national cycle campaigns waiting for?  The past 15 years have shown that campaigning for better bike parking or pot hole repairs are having little or no effect on overall cycling rates here in the UK.  In the same time Holland's cycle rate has grown and grown because it has built and continues to improve a quality designated system of segregated cycle paths along side nearly every road in the country.  Yes, it will be tricky, yes there are probably places where it won't be possible (certain parts of central London or the hillier parts of Yorkshire spring to mind) but at least let's all hear the canary in the coal mine before it falls off it's perch completely. 

If we all want mass cycling here in the UK there is only one thing for it; Assenise! Assenise! Assenise!  To do so will involve pushing for Dutch-style infrastructure at a national level.

I would like to see a commitment from our three main cycling campaigns that this is what they are aiming for too, and that they mean to achieve this aim by lobbying for segregated cycle infrastructure.  Otherwise I fear, for all the self-serving campaigns they can muster, the downward slide on the National Travel Survey can only continue.  What's it to be?

Why cyclists must lead if "superhighways" are to be a success

Today sees the launch of the first two of twelve proposed Barclay's Cycle Superhighways; bright blue radial cycling routes running from the suburbs to inner London.  Perhaps because the word 'superhighway' counjures up images of smooth, broad fully segregrated Dutch-style infrastructure, and perhaps because in places they are more than a little bit crap in their design, their development has been monitored closely and received some fairly negative press from the bike blogging fraternity here, here, here and even by myself, here.

It's clear that the cycle superhighways are a branding exercise designed to demonstrate to new and potential cyclists the possibility of cycling.  Outside of the cycling fraternity most people would have no idea that the cycle lanes are less than perfect by international design standards; they'll see Boris riding on the tea time news tonight, and the well-branded direct route running past their local tube station, and consider cycling.  For that, and for all the peripheral works surround the cycle superhighways (free cycle training, increased cycle parking, better signage etc) the bright blue lanes should be seen as a good thing.

As to Boris Johnson's original claim that "No longer will pedal power have to dance and dodge around petrol power... ...the bicycle will dominate and that will be clear to all others using them"[1], the cycle superhighways are not going to provide that kind of utopian reality.  There is off peak parking on top of the blue lanes all along the routes, and there has been no re-allocation of road space along the routes meaning that the width of the 'car' lane has been effectively narrowed by 1.5 metres; we should not therefore be surprised to find cars on the blue paint.  Does the bright blue paint help to alert drivers to the presence of cyclists?  Maybe.  But we should all be acutely aware that the non-segregated lanes do nothing to provide protection to cyclists from other road users.  Indeed, if a car wants to swing into the cycle lane there is nothing to stop them from doing so, as Secretary for State Vince Cable so ably demonstrated last week, and as these photos so keenly show:

Photo from the Bike Show, with thanks

It's worth bearing in mind, of course, that the two routes being opened today are pilots, with lessons learnt from these taken on to the construction of the future routes.  It's essential that as many cyclists as possible engage with Transport for London as to what their ideas would be to improve the scheme.  It's clear that like these two routes, the future superhighways will not be segregrated 'Dutch-style' lanes.  Colin Buchanan over at his transport planning blog, argues that this is a classic 'chicken and egg' situation; "Unfortunately pursuing really radical measures for cyclists will come up against the inertia of a whole range of political, institutional, and professional pressures. The question is, how do we create mass cycling in a society that has for so long accommodated mass motoring?  The answer is you start where you can!"  The future of cycling policy in London rests in the hands of cyclists; it is up to us to write the letters, lobby our MPs, point out the design faults and praise the good stuff, effectively 'crowd sourcing' the shape of things to come.  It's clear that the fancy branding and headline nature of the cycle superhighways will inevitably lead to an increase in cycling rates - a good thing of course - but if we wanted to really increase the rate we should be looking at increasing, not cutting the level of traffic police and safety cameras, retaining the western congestion charge zone, a 20MPH blanket speed limit for all of London, and of course removing HGVs (the biggest threat to cyclists) from our roads during the morning rush hour.  As the LCC correctly points out, at present the success of the cycle superhighways currently rests with other road users and how they choose to treat them.  A splash of blue paint goes a long way for raising awareness of cyclists, but some strong quality legislation, and effective enforcement of existing rules would go even further, as Green London Assembly member Jenny Jones explains:

Bringing about a cycling revolution in London is no easy task, and of course it's great that something at least is being done.  But if we all want to see a cyclised city in the future it's up to us all to get involved and shape the direction of things to come - whether that be Dutch-style cycle lanes or bright blue paint - what would you do to improve the lot of the London cyclist?

Cycling video round up

There are loads of videos out there at the moment on our favourite subject...


Let's start in one of my favourite cycling cities, Amsterdam, where someone has decided to express their love for cycling culture in the city through the medium of, um.. ...rap!  It's not as naff as it sounds and I enjoyed it.  The moment at 3 minutes 30seconds where the girl runs behind the back of the bike and jumps on the pannier rack is pure Holland in my eyes: I once tried to do this in front of a crowded street cafe and failed miserably, ending up sprawled across the road and being laughed at.  I can't reccomend it highly enough(!)

As most of you know by now London is at last about to launch it's very own bike hire scheme.  From July 30th some 6000 hire bikes will be available for free short rentals around the city and I for one can't wait for this addition to the streetscape.  Here's a video from Transport for London on how the whole scheme works (see if you can't spot a little animated cameo from our cycling Mayor near the end):

Lastly, Camden Council have produced this thoughtful little film about the danger posed by heavy goods vehicles to cyclists in London.  I like the fact that the messages are quite clear; that we all need to look out for one another, that a cyclist will always come off worse in an accident and that cyclists should avoid the 'danger zone' on the inside of lorries for the sake of self preservation.  It's great at least that Councils are taking steps to address this problem.  What do you think?

Cycle parking victory for ibikelondon!

Remember this post about the shocking lack of bike parking provided at the stations on the brand new billion pound East London Line? 

You'll recall that the new muliti-million pound Dalston Junction bus and train station had opened without a single cycle parking stand, despite Transport for London's own standards stating that "Secure cycle parking should be incorporated in new developments that have the potential to attract new cyclists."  New Zone 1 station Shoreditch High Street had been provided with just 6 stands, despite the rules that at Zone 1 stations there should be one bicycle parking space for every 200 people entering the station...

So far, so depressing... I was less curious to know if TfL and it's team of architects had totally over-looked their own guidelines (or chosen to ignore them), but more importantly to try to find out what could be done to improve the situation.  We are, after all, going to need considerably more than a handful of cycle stands at new stations if we are ever going to really have a 'velorution'.  Following my initial blog post, questions were asked, letters were written.  The Mayor himself, Boris Johnson, was questioned at the Assembly.  I've just had the following news, which I am thrilled to share:



Parking space for 180 bicycles will be installed at the following four new stations: 

Shoreditch High Street will have a further 19 stands installed to compliment it's existing 6, providing space for 50 bicycles.

Dalston Junction will have 15 stands installed on rail land, and be complimented by a further 25 stands provided by the London Borough of Hackney at Dalston Square, providing cycle parking for 80 bicycles.

Haggerston will provide space for 38 bicycles, whereas previously there were just 5 cycle stands.  Again, Hackney will also install further complimentary stands nearby in addition.

When complete, Hoxton station will have space for 62 bicycles.

There are ongoing land use issues at the older re-styled stations at Wapping, Whitechapel and Rotherhithe.  Cycle parking at Shadwell is now under review.  The 6 stands at Surrey Quays are all that the space constraints at the station allow, according to TfL so there will be no change there.

Whilst we're not talking about Dutch standards here (remember Assen, the town with a population of 65,000 and 2,300 bike parking spaces at it's local station?!), it's certainly an improvement on the previous situation. 

What concerns me most is that it took complaints by cyclists just to get the facilities we need provided in the first place.  The Mayor and Transport for London (of which he is Chair) have policies telling them all they need to know when it comes to designing in the needs of cyclists.  Indeed, the Mayor's own 10 point plan for creating a 'cycling revolution' in the capital states that there must be "an increase in secure cycle-parking on streets, in workplaces, and at stations and schools".  So what is happening here?  Do actions really speak louder than words?  As work begins across the city on London's new Crossrail stations, London's cyclists are watching...

Boris Johnson's tale of two superhighways.

Let's compare the following two videos...  The first is from Transport for London and shows London's Mayor, Boris Johnson, riding out on one of his pilot cycle superhighways.  Check the funky music! Dig the fancy graphics! Behold how the section of 'superhighway' the Mayor is riding along is entirely segregrated from traffic!

Video courtesy of the esteemed Carlton Reid.

Now let's review a video that our friends at the London Cycling Campaign have put together, showing the as-yet unfinished two pilot routes of the so-called 'Cycle Superhighways'.  Notice a difference?  Yeah, me too.  Where's that fancy flying wooshy blue flash when you need it?!

Whilst the remedial schemes taking place along the routes are to be commended (more cycle parking, improved filter routes leading to the 'highways' and better signage) there is increasing concern that first-time cyclists attracted to these routes will be forced to the side of the road, onto the unsegregated painted lane (which is just 1.5metres wide) and into danger.  There has been no re-allocation of road space along these routes meaning the width of the 'car' lane has decreased by 1.5 metres.  No one should be surprised therefore to find that other vehicles just drive over the top of the cycle lanes.  Will the bright blue paint help to alert drivers to the prescence of cyclists?  Perhaps.  Will the lanes guarantee a place where "No longer will pedal power have to dance and dodge around petrol power... ...the bicycle will dominate and that will be clear to all others using them"(1), as the Mayor described at the policy launch?  I doubt it.  From what I've seen so far this is a typical media-friendly soundbite from the Mayor, backed up with second rate reality.  The sad thing of course is that the project has a budget running into the millions.  Having gone through the plans and drawings on the Tfl website, so far as I can see none of this money is being earmarked for re-allocating road space or re-engineering dangerous junctions.  The only segregrated sections of the lanes (you know, the bits that are good for filming promotional videos on) will be pre-existing segregated cycle lanes, such as the one on Cable Street which will be incoporated into the new route.

I'm prepared to accept that the two routes being rolled out at present are just pilots, and have been planned and implemented in a very short period of time, but so far I am entirely unimpressed and furthermore very concerned about the safety record which these routes will produce.

There is one thing I CAN guarantee: poor quality, second-rate cycling infrastructure like this will do nothing to improve the safety rate of London's cyclists, the wider public's perception of cycling as being a safe activity (remember, they'll be the ones in the cars and buses watching cyclists being squeezed off the road) and will therefore NOT bring about mass cycling in London.

The 'superhighways' (painted in Copenhagen Blue, no less - it must be the colour that makes them safe!) featured here are unfinished, and there is still time for TfL to pull the hat out of the bag.  Let's hope that this video from the LCC gives them the incentive to do so. 

Meet the man unlocking our streets for cyclists

Cycle theft is a growing problem in London; in 2009 some 23,175 bikes were reported stolen, a 30% increase on 2008. Part of the problem is having somewhere suitable to lock your bike, but Councils are loathe to spend their precious budget on cycle parking, especially if it is at the expense of car parking or pavement space, and involves digging up their roads.

This is where modest, polite but energetic young designer Anthony Lau steps in.

First introduced at the 2006 Architecture Biennale, Anthony’s ingenious yet simple design fits a hoop to existing street furniture to create simple, safe cycle locking points. Since it’s inception his company has grown and grown, winning a clutch of design and innovation awards and Boroughs all across London (and indeed the whole of the UK) are fitting his Cycle Hoops. Last month in Camden he launched the latest incarnation of his product; the lamp column cycle hoop which fits to lamp post columns, in addition to his inaugural design which fits to street sign posts.

At the launch of the new hoop, Camden’s Executive Member for the Environment, Councillor Chris Knight was full of praise for the latest addition to Camden’s streetscape:

“We found that other cycle stand designs had failings; maybe the bike would fall to the side and across the pavements, or, as with single pole fixings they’d actually encourage theft whereby... ...the bicycle could be lifted over the top. This design beats all of those things and does it extremely well, and is a very good looking piece of street furniture.

I’m really keen to promote Tony and his company because they’ve come up with something that is clever, attractive and safe and does everything we would ask of it. We’d like to see it rolling out across London!”

Praise indeed, and Councillor Knight may see his wish come true sooner than he imagined, with Tfl ordering hoops to be installed along the new Cycle Superhighways, and no less than 6 London boroughs counted as clients on Anthony’s websites.

And as we’ve discussed here before on the blog, with 27,000 cycle parking spaces needed to meet existing demand in the City of London alone, Anthony may well have hit upon a winning idea here, as he explains:

“We work closely with the Council to ensure the street engineers are happy with what we are doing, and the planners are happy with what we are doing. This trial of the new lamp hoop will hopefully show that this is a useful product that can have a place on London’s streets.

There is a perceived problem with other types of cycle parking in that they are seen as a trip hazard or a blight, people think they make a mess, whereas here we’re utilising existing street furniture. And of course the Councils choose sites carefully; they’re e not going to put these up where they create an obstruction and will put them in good locations. So there’s no negative points; it helps provide parking which is what cyclists want, it reduces theft in the boroughs and keeps the streets tidy.”

I like to keep a healthy dose of scepticism about all things to do with locking bicycles because I have seen bicycle thieves in action and know what sharp operators they can be. I tried to kick and bend the new cycle hoop out of place, then tried to lever it off the lamp column completely. I failed, miserably. The metal fabricators who construct the hoops in a factory in Kent have done a superb job. Better still, because the very design of the hoop creates a ‘tight lock’ the bike can’t be used as leverage to snap the lock. Armed with a decent lock and the sense to lock your bike right, I think your bike secured to a Cycle Hoop will be safe as houses.

Of course, for cycling to be a success on our streets we need a tapestry of cycle parking: mass parking at train stations, secure under-cover bike racks inside offices, clusters of Sheffield stands on street corners and cycle parking on our actual streets, right outside our front doors. I’ve touched before on why ease of access to secure cycle parking matters but the crux of it is this: you need to be able to lock your bike as easily and securely as you do when you leave your car in the street outside. The Cycle Hoop can help to do this; let’s hope it goes from strength to strength.

What's stopping women from cycling?

To mark International Women's Day I joined the London Cycle Campaign's led ride around London in glorious sunshine over the weekend, and questioned why is it that on a national level 79% of all bicycle journeys are made by men.  What's stopping women from cycling?

What's stopping women from cycling? from ibikelondon on Vimeo.

This is my first attempt at making a blog entry by video - I apologise now for the shakey camera work!  Please do let me know what you think of the video, and also, what do you think can be done to bring about rider equality?

WANTED: Twenty seven thousand bike parking spaces

Much was made of the revelation last week that the new ‘Shard of Glass’ skyscraper at London Bridge will provide just 250 cycle parking spaces for it’s 6,500 inhabitants. What will ultimately become the tallest building in Britain falls short when it comes to cycle-friendly credentials. Sadly, in our car-centric capital city, it’s not alone.

The City of London planning officer will admit in a meeting today that there is existing unmet demand for some TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND cycle parking spaces within the City. That is not projected demand; not figures dreamt up to predict what demand for cycle parking might one day be; but demand as it stands NOW.

To me this says two things loud and clear:

One: There are an awful lot of cyclists on Inner London’s roads now and clearly a lot of people are cycling into the City to work. This is a good thing.

Two: The City (and, to be fair, Westminster Council too) are totally unprepared for the volume of cyclists apparent on our roads, and have been caught napping. This is a sad thing.

The planning paper notes that a number of major City businesses (particularly in the financial quarter) report that more than 10% of their workforce are already cycling to work, and the City sees no reason why this would not be the case with the majority of businesses. If the City has a workforce of some 374,000 people, 10% equals some 37,000 pedal-powered office workers.

At present, there are just 834 on-street cycle parking racks in the City, providing parking for 1,668 cycles, and approximately 100 cycle parking spaces in the City’s off-street public car parks.

The Bicycle PlantLock beautifies the traditional bike stand and adds a touch of greenery to the urban landscape (this one seen near Bobbin Bicycles in Islington. Available to purchase here.)

Having acknowledged that they have been caught unawares by the volume of cyclists present, and must do more to provide for them, the planning agenda goes on to be more encouraging:

“A 10% modal share is very significantly below the existing cycling modal share of some English cities (such as Cambridge with 25% cycle journeys to work) and of some overseas cities in countries such as the Netherlands that are not greatly dissimilar to England culturally or geographically (such as a 38% cycling modal share in Amsterdam). It would therefore seem appropriate to treat a 10% modal share as the absolute minimum that the City should be aiming to provide for.”

(Someone should tell Mayor of London Boris Johnson about this and ask him to revise his rather wet aims for just 5% modal share by bike by 2026 – wakey wakey Mr Mayor!)

Cycle parking is more serious an issue than at first it seems: being able to secure your bike once you’ve reached your destination is a serious consideration for most cyclists, and with cycle theft at record levels in London, cycle security could in fact be a stronger deterrent to would-be cyclists than even the road environment and perceived safety in traffic, as London Cycling Campaign communications office Mike Cavenett explains:

"Bike theft is cited as the most common reason for people giving up cycling. In 2008 there were over 17,000 bikes reported stolen in London. It must be tackled more seriously by the police. The costs to Londoners and to the city are phenomenal."

Over-subscribed bicycle parking in the Borough of Hackney.

The City of London, just like the City of Westminster, proclaims to love uncluttered streets. As a consequence they don’t love street parking for bicycles. They’ve never been fans of Sheffield stands or worse still; bikes parked at random locked to any convenient railing. Indeed, it took a House of Lords decision to stop Westminster from chomping through locks and throwing away the bikes without telling the owner in a fit of ‘clean street’-loving, ‘railing-liberating’ bicycle removal. Strangely, they have a less than vigorous approach when it comes to revenue-spinning automobile parking and the various signage, parking metres and street clutter that come with it...

And so it is no surprise that the key strategy being proposed in today’s planning meeting to deal with the City of London’s famine of cycle parking is to provide off-street secure bicycle parking bays in council-run car parks. Indeed, they have already allocated £25,000 towards providing off-street cycle parking this year.

This is great; secure cycle parking is a fantastic thing, especially as cycle theft is such a blight on London. But it is no ‘cure all’ and cannot be the only strategy adopted.

Off-street cycle parking isn’t always immediately obvious to the passing cyclist (and signage is usually pretty poor), and it’s not of any use to visiting cyclists calling into buildings for brief meetings or just passing through.

In order for cycle provision to truly succeed there needs to be a tapestry of cycle parking available:

Large, secure off-street cycle parking, in a well-signed, well-lit and convenient place (there’s no point putting push bike parking on the top deck of a multi-story car park for instance!)

Clusters of Sheffield stands making up mini bicycle hubs – such as the 150 or so stands in groups of 20 around the perimeters of Berkeley Square in Westminster.

Smaller groups of stands at the end of most roads, or in every public space.

And individual cycle parking facilities along streets and outside individual business premesis, such as the innovative and easy to install Cyclehoop. Products like this can help give a formality to the perceived blight of ad-hoc bicycle parking as well as help to improve bike security. Furthermore it's designed and based here in London; supporting a newly-established business like Cyclehoop is the sort of thing that local Councils ought to be doing!

The Cyclehoop is fixed to existing street furniture such as lamp posts and sign posts. (http://www.cyclehoop.com/)

Two last points about cycle parking; having somewhere to store your bicycle is a matter of convenience (and as we’ve discussed here before being able to access your bicycle conveniently is a key to encouraging cycling) but it will never stop determined thieves. Consequently, cycle theft MUST be taken seriously by the Police. Indeed, the City of London has its' own exclusive Police force: we need to ensure that they are fully au fait with just how important reducing cycle theft is and they must be seen to be proactive in dealing with the issue. (I’d encourage them to start at Brick Lane market...)

And we need to get over this idea of a bicycle locked on the street being an aesthetic inconvenience – it’s just the product of lots of people using a smart means of transport. Of course if I left a ten by eight foot box of my stuff in the street that WOULD be selfish, but somehow bikes chained to railings are not okay whilst private cars parked in our gridlocked street are...?

You go figure it out, I’m off to oil my U-lock.

City of London Council: good on you, but you've got some catching up to do!