Bike Pride! (or what the gay rights movement could teach cycling)

There’s been lots of discussion online recently about the best approach towards growing cycling for the future. Opinions have varied hugely; some believe we have to do all we can to protect existing cyclists’ rights and to look after those who currently choose to get out there by bike. Others have stressed the importance of the potential market for cycling and how we must bring about conditions which will make cycling possible for everyone, instead of hoping that anyone taking to two wheels will simply endure the current status quo. Some are focussed on commuter cyclists whilst others want more everyday widespread ridership. Some are worried about potholes, some about child safety, some fear that their local velodrome is falling apart while others still are looking for the right conditions for a long distance cycle tour.

In recent online debates about the establishment of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, there’s been somewhat of a “my way or the highway” undertone from both sides. Carlton Reid, on his bike blog Quickrelease.tv believes that cycling is at risk of splintering, of its message becoming diluted, garbled or even watered down by the creation of another voice for cycling. He believes that in order to succeed, ‘cyclists’ must all pull together in the same direction.

This is where I believe cycling campaigners are missing a trick here in the UK. As my opening paragraph shows, cyclists are a diverse bunch with disparate interests, and rightly so. Some people I know who cycle do so because they believe they are helping to transition to an oil-free society. Others who I know couldn’t give two hoots about traffic reduction if it would impede on their ability to drive, and likewise there are plenty of cyclists I know who care less about their right to ride on all roads and more about creating conditions which they believe would allow their children to cycle safely from one side of town to the other. To expect all of us to work together to the same detailed aims and in the same direction is futile; no one campaign group or aim is going to please everyone on two wheels and risks alienation and inertia by attempting to do so.

If you will indulge me, I’d like to take you on a little social history lesson. Bear with me, as I am certain that similarities and lessons to be learnt will soon become apparent.

Being gay in 1960s Britain was not a particularly comfortable or attractive experience; it was not till 1967 that being gay was even decriminalised. General social attitudes were hostile, gay people were perceived as an odd minority, and if you had any kind of need of recourse to the law you were not guaranteed an even-handed experience, or even for the law to see your side of the story at all. There were, of course, just as many gay and lesbian men and women in the ‘60s as there are today, but many stayed ‘in the closet’ choosing to marry and act out straight lives because the alternative was so wholly unappealing, not to mention terrifying. Amongst gay people themselves there were those who advocated for a quieter, inconspicuous existence for fear that pushing too hard or rocking the boat might lead to harsher enforcement of anti-gay laws and a reduction in any hard won tolerances, no matter how minor those tolerances might be.

Starting to sound familiar at all?

Things came to a head in New York, where America’s gays and lesbians lead an equally unpleasant existence, in June 1969. Any gay bars or nightclubs were strictly illegal and very underground. One such bar was the Stonewall Inn. After a series of Police raids, public ‘outings’ and a general atmosphere of oppression, the gays fought back. An ill-conceived and poorly managed raid on the bar on the night of June 28th rapidly turned into a riot. Gay men and women, drag queens and transvestites took to the streets claiming ‘enough is enough’. People poured out of adjoining bars and the riot turned in to an all-out pitched battle between gay people and the Police; as news spread around the bars and street network of New York more and more people came out to join the protestors, and riots raged for several nights. For the first time in Western history gay people stood up for their rights, and literally fought for them.

The Stonewall Riots in New York lasted several nights.

Now, I’m not advocating that cyclists start a riot anytime soon - I’m not convinced that it would help our cause - but the Stonewall Riot was a ‘touch stone’ event, and what happened next is what is really interesting.

Even before the advent of the internet age, good ideas spread fast. Within six months two gay right advocacy groups had formed in the United States of America and the first ever ‘Gay Pride’ marches took place exactly one year later in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. A gay rally was held in London in June 1970, and the first Pride March in 1972. Sydney’s Mardi Gras followed in 1978. Fast-forward to today; in 2010 an estimated one million people took to the streets of London to celebrate Pride, and Mardi Gras is worth an estimated 30 million dollars to the Australian economy. In the UK nearly all legislative hurdles to LGBT equality have now been overcome. It is arguable that this would not have been possible without the Pride movement.

The first gay pride march in London

Just as in cycling, there is a broad diversity of gay people with widely differing needs. Some gay people were concerned that they were serving in the military illegally, and lobbied to change the law on that front. Others had concerns about immigration rules which discriminated against multi-national gay couples, whilst others still had worries about hospital visiting rights, wills and probate, adoption and family rights or civil partnerships. The list of hurdles that have been overcome is substantial; with successes such as adoption or immigration rights the success has only affected a small minority of gay people. If each of these ‘minorities within a minority’ had lobbied the Government alone they’d have struggled much longer in order to achieve their goals. However, by participating in Pride they could approach the law makers by demonstrating they were part of a much larger and more powerful voting block. This has been the legacy of Pride; legislative changes which affect a small amount of people but which are important none the less have been secured with the back-up of a million people in the street. Those who wanted adoption rights marched in support of those who wanted to serve openly in the military and vice versa. Solidarity won the day.

As I’ve mentioned, cycling is already represented by a number of different campaigning groups with different aims. Some people want to build more bike lanes; some people want to increase the budget for cycle training. Some of us want to see money spent on developing sports cycling; others still want to improve the lot of cycling commuters. Since the abolition of Cycling England our campaigns must each negotiate with the Government one by one. Separately they have a few thousand members here, or a few thousand members there. No one campaign group is big or powerful enough to be able to go Parliament with a consensus for cyclists. Meanwhile, our Government is busy dismantling Cycling England, dicking around with the Cycle To Work scheme, giving drivers cash for scrap cars and offering huge subsidies on electric motor. In the Courts the judiciary is still letting dangerous drivers get away with murder and our city planners are certainly not ‘thinking bike’ as they design a massively expanded M25.

Cyclists demonstrate for better conditons for bicycle, Copenhagen City Hall square, 1970 via Copenhagenize

Whilst we all want different things for cycling, and our diversity is a strong point, when it comes to having our voices heard it is also our Achilles’ heel. It is too easy for our Government to fend off all the minority voices within cycling by getting them to fight for scraps (like the recently established Sustainable Travel Fund). Despite our diversity, however, there is one thing we all agree on and that is that the Government should ‘Put Cycling First’ in all that it does. It’s great that we have different cycling campaigns for different types of cyclists, but perhaps they could learn something from the Gay Pride movement and once a year have all types of cyclists come together to show strength in numbers and solidarity in their similarities. None of our cycling campaigns ought to claim to be the primary voice of cyclists, and neither should they dismiss those which don’t agree with their own ideals. However, I can’t help but feel that British Cycling, or the CTC or even the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain could get the Government to sit up and take notice an awful lot more if they represented not their few thousand individual members but could say they were speaking as part of the million cyclists who had recently taken to the streets...

Maybe it’s time we had a Bike Pride ride of our own? (But please, no Kylie Minogue...)

Share |

Cycling Sucks!

I stumbled across this clever little video put together by Dutch sixth form students via Twitter yesterday and well, it says everything really, doesn't it?

The copper at the start of the vid says "So, just how fast have we been driving today, Sir?", and the caption at the end says "Cycling is annoying, isn't it?"

Promiting cycling positively indeed.  A big thumbs up from me, have a great two-wheeled weekend everyone!

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 |

Mark Ronson: The Bike Song

I just had to share this with you all having watched this clip yesterday and then not being able to get the song out of my head ever since (you have been warned!)  Needless to say this is just the kind of cycling image I approve of (and I kind of like the idea of a gang of living bikes that can chase off thieves!)  Anything that makes cycling look everyday, ordinary or dare I say it, even cool, gets a big tick from me. (And who wouldn't think that twins on a tandem weren't cool?!)


Those of you logging in from London may well recognise the streets of SE1 in the video; much of it was filmed in Snowsfield just south of the river.  And you may well indeed recognise some of the bikes, provided as they were (as I understand it) by willing volunteers from London Fixed Gear and Single Speed forum and the good people at the fabulous Bobbin Bicycles.


Ride your bike until you get home!

Share |

Transport for London; promoting cycling positevely

Just a few weeks ago I wrote about the National Travel Survey and what we really need to do to achieve mass cycling here in the UK.  I know that achieving those aims are going to take many years and a lot of political persuasion.  Until that day it is important that we continue to encourage and grow cycling numbers - no matter how the road conditions might be; if there isn't a groundswell in cycling numbers to start with there will be no appetite for bigger projects.  To that end we need to convince people who don't currently ride a bike to actually consider cycling.  We can help those people with free cycle training, getting them hooked on two wheels again with things like the Barclay's Cycle Hire Scheme, or even through projects like the cycle superhighways which, no matter how poorly implemented, may at least provoke non-cyclists into thinking about the clear route they provide to work.  These are all schemes implemented by Transport for London, but they're not stopping there.  They've produced the following set of videos to encourage people to consider cycling in London, showing some of the tools available to do it, and to demonstrate some of the benefits.  That they do it with everyday and ordinary cyclists (and a smatter of celebrities) is no bad thing.  Fun though performance cycling and all the gear and get up that go with it as I've said on this blog before no one who doesn't already cycle isn't going to take it up if they feel they have to make themselves in any way 'other' in order to do so.  Carlton Reid over at his brilliant blog 'Quickrelease TV' put it so eloquently in his post "Sell cycling with positives, not safety."  Only 2 of the 5 cyclists featured in the new videos are wearing helmets and there's nairly a scrap of high-vis in sight.  Someone at TfL must be listening.... I hope you enjoy the vids, I did, and as a cyclist it helped to remind me how riding a bike makes me feel sometimes. 

Which is your favourite?

Letting their kids cycle?! Report them to social services!

The Telegraph reports the following:

A couple have been warned they could be reported to social services unless they stop their young children cycling to school on their own.

Oliver and Gillian Schonrock let their daughter, eight, and son, five, cycle a mile unsupervised from their home in Dulwich, south London, to Alleyn’s junior school.
They believe cycling to school is good for their children’s independence and self-confidence. But other parents and the headmaster have said it is irresponsible.
The children’s route takes them along a pavement beside roads busy with traffic on the school run. At about the halfway mark they cross a relatively busy road where a lollipop lady is on duty. On the return journey they are supervised by one of the parents or their nanny.
Mrs Schonrock said she was “confident that the benefits to our children far outweigh the potential risk from `stranger danger’, road traffic accidents and other factors.”
Mark O’Donnell, headmaster of Alleyn’s junior school, could not be contacted yesterday. But he told a Sunday newspaper that the school was under an obligation to consider the children’s safety.
“If a school feels a child in their care is at risk, they have a legal responsibility to notify the local authority,” he said.
“Is an eight-year-old responsible enough to come to school with a five-year-old and take responsibility when it comes to crossing busy roads? Or what would happen if the five-year-old has a tantrum?”


What is most disturbing about this article?  That children cycling and making their own way has become so rare as to become strange?  Or, that the powers that be (those 'other parents and headmaster') think the children should stop what they are doing because they think it is dangerous, rather than addressing the source of the danger itself (which is, more than likely, these other parents driving their kids to school themselves)?
 

Won't someone just think of the children?!  Quick, report this reckless mother to social services!

 
I don't know this school and I'm sure that the 8.30AM crush to get to class is quite hairy at times - sadly, these days, most schools in the UK are.  But encouraging these kids to stop riding their bikes and to join the melee is not going to make the situation any better.  And as their mother (and more kudos to her by the way) points out, the wee ones cycle on the pavement, cross the road under the care of a Lollipop lady ('cos that's what she's there for, right?) and that the benefits to her children far, far outweigh any potential negatives.  The result? She might be reported to social services, whilst those who create the source of the danger are entirely overlooked.
 
If we are truly supposed to be fostering a change in cycling culture here in the UK, and we don't want our next generation to grow up to be obese, riddled with chronic diseases, car dependent and at serious risk from car danger (for that is what is at stake here) surely it would be better for the headmaster, instead of reporting the poor parents to social services, doing something proactive about the road he thinks is so dangerous outside his school?  Proof, if ever it were needed, that whilst conditions may be getting better for cyclists in London the actual riding of a bike is still not seen as an everyday or ordinary activity.  Promoting dangerous behaviour at the expense of a minority who are 'doing the right thing'; it's what Mikael from Copenhagenize would call 'ignoring the bull'.
 
There is of course a simple, effective solution to this problem; do as the Dutch do and ban cars from schools all together.  We know that walking and cycling are better for kids than being driven, so why not?  It would be a brave politician indeed who proposed such a move in the UK but I cannot think of a single reason why children in central London would need to attend school by car, and a 1000 reasons why they should not.  If every school had good quality secure cycle parking, free cycle training for it's pupils and decent cycle paths leading to and from it, within just a few short years the situation on the ground would be very different.  I've said here before why we need more bikes with baby on board.  Rather than being extraordinary, Mr and Mrs Schonrock's children would be the norm, like in the video of cycling to school in Holland, from David Hembrow, below. 
 

 
The problems associated with driving kids to and from school have been discussed in this country for very many years; indeed the situation has become so bad that parents who do send their kids to school by bike are clearly seen as irresponsible.  We can keep 'ignoring the bull', or we can look to the countries that have success in changing the status quo and follow their lead... Which is it going to be? Which should it be?  We can't keep talking and ignoring the sad status quo for ever...


**Blog update: 5th July 2010, 11.25AM**


The Daily Mail is also covering this story here, and includes a poll of it's readers as to whether they would allow their children to ride to school or not, sadly it's fairly evenly split down the middle, as are the comments from readers.


London's Mayor, Boris Johnson, has also jumped on the story with his column in the Sunday Telegraph: "They [Mr and Mrs Schonrock] have taken the sword of common sense to the great bloated encephalopathic sacred cow of elf and safety. And for this effrontery they are, of course, being persecuted by the authorities... " Strangely, he then manages to turn the story into a promo piece about his efforts at City Hall to combat gang violence; not something I'm sure really effects privately educated 8 year olds in well to do suburban Dulwhich, but still...


**Blog update: 5th July 2010, 3.18PM**


School Travel Director, Paul Osborne, from the national sustainable transport charity 'Sustrans' writes:

“Parents have the right to decide how their children travel to school; they know the capabilities of their children and should be allowed to act accordingly. If others are unwilling to let their children walk or cycle, our streets clearly need to be made safer.

“The government is rightly concerned about the rise in obesity, traffic congestion, pollution and the stifled lifestyles of children; children should be encouraged to cycle to school, not prohibited.

“Half of all children want to cycle to school but just two per cent do. A third of children are now driven to school, many for journeys of less than one mile.

“Sustrans works with schools, pupils and parents to encourage children to walk and cycle, especially for journeys up to three miles, as the majority of children do in many northern European countries. To do this, all children need: safe routes to schools; to experience up to date on-road cycle and pedestrian training, and 20mph speed limits on all our residential roads. Our experience of doubling cycling in the schools that we work with shows that it is possible to encourage children to become more active, confident and independent.

“Sustrans wants every child and young person to have the knowledge, skills and confidence to establish the habit of travel by foot and bike early in life.”

.

..or in other word, it's possible to change for the better, so why not? We have nothing to loose but our 4x4s.

The myth of the red light jumping cyclist

I was chatting with a colleague about cycling recently, and observed an incredible change in her opinion about us when the subject of traffic lights came up.  Her eyes widened, she seemed exasperated.  I asked her what was wrong; “It’s terrible when cyclists get hurt you know, but they bring it on themselves... all cyclists in London are the same; you all jump the red lights!” she cried. I should point out that my colleague is a cyclist herself, albeit from out of town, and is otherwise completely rational... The sad thing is, she’s not the only one who thinks this – you’ve all seen what our national newspapers write about us. So where does this idea come from, this myth of the mass red light jumping cyclists, and just how dangerous is it?

Those of you who follow me on Twitter will know I sometimes make informal cycle counts at junctions on my way to work, usually at Bishopsgate, Holborn Circus or the junction with High Holborn at Long Acre. When I get caught on red at these lights I’m able to count all the cyclists passing through the junction or lining up alongside me to wait our turn on one revolution of the traffic lights. The record so far has been at the junction of Holborn and Long Acre, where I counted some 37 cyclists in one turn. Needless to say I couldn’t do this if I’d jumped the red light, and I know that particular junction is usually like a mini Critical Mass when the lights turn green; I once saw 17 cyclists patiently waiting their turn with me in the Advanced Stop Line. I can confidently say that many more cyclists wait at the lights than jump them.

As one of the most vulnerable road users we have the most to loose if we put ourselves in positions of danger; for this reason most people don’t jump red lights all of the time because, obviously, it is not safe to do so. However, using the same theory I know that many cyclists sometimes RLJ to remove themselves from a source of danger behind the white line. There are specific junctions on my morning commute that I know very well; one in particular has no ASL, leads to a narrow in the road, and also has a four-way red stop built into its traffic light sequence that allows pedestrians to cross. If I get to the stop line at this junction and find that an HGV pulls up directly behind me I will not hesitate to remove myself from the source of danger (the fact that the HGV driver can’t see me) by jumping the red light, just as I would keep myself from dangerous situations by not red light jumping at other junctions.

The Mayor of London’s recently published Cycle Safety Action Plan reveals some interesting statistics about cyclists and London’s roads. The report data (from 2007) shows that 79% of all cycling casualties occurred at or within 20 metres of a junction in London. It also shows that the second largest source of cycle casualties, after close proximity impacts with other vehicles, comes from other vehicles disobeying junction controls. That is to say 17% of all cyclists killed or seriously injured were hit or forced off the road by other vehicles jumping the lights or ignoring a give way line. By comparison, just 5% of cyclist’s KSI were caused by the cyclists doing the same.

To me this says two things clearly;

Firstly, our junctions should be better designed to accommodate safely the growing number of cyclists on London’s roads. More ASLs (which of course rely on Police enforcement) would be a good start, but we could do so much more; how about cyclist’s needs being programmed into the traffic lights sequence itself – they have ‘advanced green lights’ for cyclists in other countries, why not here in the UK? As my comments about counting cyclists show, there is clearly the demand for it.

Secondly, and perhaps more tellingly, the stats tell us loud and clear that other road users are just as likely to break the law as cyclists, and the consequences are much more deadly when motorised vehicles are involved. The roads need policing; road safety should be enforced to ensure people’s lives are protected. It seems short-sited indeed that our Mayor is reducing road Police and their budgets; a move that won’t benefit cyclists or pedestrians.

The Guardian newspaper’s Bike Blog recently ran two articles; one trying to show why anti-social cycling is a nuisance but not necessarily a danger, and another looking at why the City of London Police seem to target red light jumping cyclists. One thing that both of these articles failed to mention is the idea that in the great ‘pecking order’ of the road, cyclists should always give utmost consideration to pedestrians, as the most vulnerable road user, just as we’d expect motorised vehicles to look out for us.  I’ve heard cyclists argue that irresponsible riding isn’t a danger because ‘no one ever got killed by a bicycle’. Sadly this is not true, and if we follow the rule of the pecking order we should be giving way to pedestrians always. Furthermore, irresponsible riding can intimidate the elderly and the less agile; there is no reason to jump red lights in a manner which could lead to others feeling they have limited ability to use the roads safely. Over the years cyclists have been all but bullied off the roads; those of us who remain should not in turn be bullying pedestrians away. The data for London, if I had it to hand, would of course show that many more pedestrians are stuck down by cars every year than by bicycles. The always excellent Malcolm Wardlow BSc MBA in 'Assessing the actual risks faced by cyclists' backs me up:

"Typically only 3 to 7 third parties are killed in fatal bicycle crashes annually, as against 145 cyclist deaths. In fatal car crashes 1,600 third parties (600 passengers, 650 pedestrians, 75 cyclists, 250 motorcyclists) are killed in addition to 1,100 drivers.

...the belief that cycling is dangerous turns out to be a factoid; opinion based on long repetition, not evidence."

But the griping about red light jumping is louder and much more prevalent about cyclists than it is about motorists; despite the lesser risk. It seems to me that it boils down to another PR problem that cyclists face (in addition to being perceived as poor, or ‘green’ or “lycra-clad road warriors”), this idea that the way in which we cycle around junctions, red lights and pedestrians is somehow not only a great danger to ourselves but also a danger to the most vulnerable road user; the pedestrian.

Fixing this problem will only come from two solutions... More and more people cycling and it being perceived as an everyday and ordinary activity (and with this, more people understanding at first-hand what it is like to ride on our roads) would be a good start, and with this should come the re-design of our roads to accommodate more cyclist’s needs. But to really improve our reputation in London, and by default therefore attract more cyclists in the interim, we must mark one another’s behaviour ourselves. For sure, jump that red light if you feel it will improve your chances of surviving your commute to work, but don’t do it just for the sake of getting there faster (I hate the “lights break my cadence” argument, what are your legs made of, match sticks?!) and if you are going to do it, make sure you do it with absolute regard for pedestrians. When counting cyclists at one of the junctions a few days ago I saw another cyclist come storming up behind me, through the red light and straight into a gaggle of pedestrians crossing the road with total disregard for their safety, or how it would make them feel. I wasn’t sad to see one of those peds give him a mouthful. Do yourself – and cycling – a favour, and cross that line with care.

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?

Topshop girls ride again!

That megalithic cavern of fast fashion for bright young things, Topshop, is a real friend of the bicycle it seems.

Last year they famously hosted a concession stand for young designer Amy Fleuriot, founder and designer of Cyclodelic; a London clothing and accessories label that creates striking designs for women who don't want to forfeit fashion over function when arriving by bike.  (Hint: there's no lycra here!)

Now, timed to co-incide with London Fashion Week, Topshop have launched their latest in-store spring display with a host of beautiful bicycles accompanying their models.

When passing through on Satuday I asked a staff member about the bikes - what, I wondered, was the purpose of it all?

"We just wanted some pretty bikes to go with the pretty clothes, that might make our young customers consider the bicycle without, you know, having to think they have to wear the weird stuff." she said.

Well, indeed.

There's a great inequality in cycling between the sexes here in the UK; men dominate, making up 76% of trips.  Sadly it would seem that a lot of girls give up pedal power when they reach their teenage years, and never get back on.  The Darlington Media Campaign took a group of 'non-cycling English girls' and packed them off to Bremen to try and rehabilitate the bicycle into their lives.  The results make for an astonishing film, the short version of which is below.  If you haven't seen it already I HIGHLY reccomend you do. 

I like to think that with projects like this, and with the likes of the mighty Topshop promoting cycling positively to girls, things might just improve...

February commuters, London...

It was morning rush hour, the junction of Cambridge Heath and Bethnal Green Road, on a cold February morning.  Experimenting with my new camera and how it operates in that dusty grey early light we get at this time of year, and checking out the early morning commuter street style.  I love the guy with the smoke on the go at the traffic lights striking a pose, and the dude with the purple Doc Martens with purple hat, and of course the girl in the red coat who looks like she's straight out of Copenhagen Cycle Chic. 

All my cycling photos can be found here on Flickr and are covered by a creative commons license.

Know your enemies, know your limits: cyclists and HGVs in London

Cycling in London is not a dangerous activity. Contrary to popular belief not all drivers are trying to run us off the road, and not all cyclists are jumping red lights, mowing down pedestrians and flicking the finger at driver. As I’ve discussed here before, cycling is as safe as walking in Central London – I came to this conclusion using data that the media was using to portray riding a bike as being akin to chewing depleted plutonium...

But , as in everything in life, there are dangers involved in cycling, and we should do our best to address the source of these dangers and limit our exposure to risk – especially if that risk is avoidable. In my opinion, the biggest threat we face on the road are not car drivers but Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). In 2004 twenty two cyclists were killed in the UK in collisions with HGVs. Last year alone in London, of the 13 cyclists who died on our roads nine were killed by HGVs – of those nine, eight were women. In total, HGVs account for about 45% of all London cyclist’s death, but account for just 5% of traffic. The British Medical Journal, in their 1994 paper ‘Death of Cyclists in London’ said “the risk of heavy goods vehicles being involved in accidents in which cyclists die in inner London can be estimated at five times that of buses, 14 times that of light goods vehicles, and 30 times that of cars.” Clearly, this is not acceptable. Cyclists; know your enemies.

I thought it was common knowledge amongst all London cyclists that to ride down the inside of an HGV (or a large truck or bus for that matter) is an invitation for disaster, but last week alone I saw two cyclists doing just that. Cyclists are vocal and organised in calling for their full rights on the road, and the first to point out poor driving by others - and rightly so - and yet as the stakeholders who will always invariably come off worse in any road traffic accident, we must be pro-active in recognising that our own behaviour is the first line of defence we have with which to protect ourselves. Cyclists; know your limits.

We can spend thousands of pounds on driver training and complementary safety measures on our roads, but if cyclists put themselves willingly in positions of danger, there’s very little that anyone can do about it. We need to look out for ourselves, before we ask others to look out for us.

This video from the Metropolitan Police, was produced in association with Transport for London as part of their ‘Exchanging Places’ program which gave cyclists the opportunity to sit in an articulated lorry cab and see the driver’s point of view.  Whilst a little dry, I think this video is excellent in demonstrating what the lorry driver can't see – it’s worth noting that the lorry used in the film has every conceivable type of mirror attached – far more than many HGVs (especially those operated by smaller operators) actually do.

Of course, I am absolutely against any idea of blaming the victim – many of the cyclists who have died as a consequence of HGV collisions have been accomplished cyclists acting within the law or following the cycle paths put down on the road for them (many left curb approaches to Advanced Stop Lines encourage riders to go up the inside of traffic to reach the traffic lights). Indeed, 7 London cycle couriers have died as a consequence of collisions with HGVs and lorries and it’s arguable that they are the most knowledgeable cyclists on our roads. Not all HGVs have as many mirrors fitted as the truck in the film. Even if they did there is no guarantee that the driver is looking in those mirrors as you pass by. The simple fact is this; cyclists and large vehicles sharing the same piece of road is a source of conflict – sometimes with awful consequences.

Meryem Ozekman was 37 when she was crushed to death by a lorry on the Elephant and Castle roundabout in 2009.

There is a growing awareness of this problem amongst the authorities and some measures are being brought in to try and combat the issue – there will soon be a trial allowing cyclists to turn left on red lights, thus allowing them to get ahead of the danger posed at junctions, and new trixi mirrors will be installed at junctions along the London Cycle Superhighways, allowing large vehicles to see fully down the side of their vehicles. But more can, and must, be done.

If large vehicles are going to be allowed into city centres where a large volume of pedestrians and cyclists are inevitable, standards for HGV drivers and the state of their vehicles must be improved.

The Met Police Commercial Vehicle Education Unit was set up to tackle shoddy safety standards amongst hauliers – of the 3000+ lorries it has pulled over and assessed on London’s roads since 2005, a massive 70% have been found to have illegal defects. Sadly, our Mayor Boris Johnson is scrapping this scheme – it’s duties will apparently be absorbed by the traffic Police (whose numbers have also been cut by 20% in recent years) and covered by a voluntary traffic safety scheme that hauliers are under no obligation to join. This is the same Mayor who was almost taken out whilst cycling by a truck whose rear doors were held shut with a wire coat hanger...

More must be done at higher levels to incentivise haulage firms to prioritise safety over the speed of their next delivery. The Crown Prosecution Service must bring the highest charges if a driver is proven to be at fault, unlike in the case of cyclist Anthony Maynard, who was run over from behind in 2008 by a van driver who claimed in his defence that he didn't see Anthony cycling – this was excuse enough for no charges to be brought against the driver. More recently, the tragic death of 30 year old Eilidh Cairns has made the headlines; she was crushed to death on a road that the inquest into her death deemed too narrow to pass on. The inquest also found that if the driver had adjusted his mirrors correctly, he would have been able to see Eilidh clearly. The point in the road at which the accident happened was just 2 metres wide – the driver’s vehicle was 2.5 metres, raising the question of why he was on that particular road in the first place. A verdict of accidental death was delivered.

Ms Cairns's sister Kate said “The one thing we didn't want was an accidental verdict. We agree it was not intentional but we believed it was avoidable. People in power act as though these accidents just unfortunately happen to female cyclists and people have to deal with it. There is a huge problem with female cyclists being on the streets of London with HGVs and politicians are not doing enough to address that.

“These cyclists are not soldiers going into battle. They are just women going to work and nobody is doing anything to stop this needless slaughter.”

Eilidh’s family and friends have been instrumental in increasing awareness of the issues surrounding HGVs on our streets – they have been able to have an Early Day Motion tabled in Parliament calling for MPs to consider the law as it currently stands and what could be done in the future to stop the deaths: an essential first step in having this vital issue discussed at a higher level. At present 47 Members for Parliament support it, but it needs more signatures - write to your MP using an easy online form here and ensure they are fully aware of how important this issue is and ask them to add their support to EDM 600, which can be found here.

Last word goes to Kate Cairns, Eilid’s sister: ”We need to address the source of the danger. Policies of protection are not enough. I think we should be considering future lorry design, how compatible they are with our streets and the way the fleets are managed. By supporting this EDM MPs are working towards finding a real solution. It makes sense when all benefits are taken into account”

If you are a London cyclist and have ever wobbled slightly as the enormous wheels of an HGV pass you by, my advice to you would be two things: help protect others by urging your MP to support this motion, and help yourself by staying back in the traffic at junctions when there is a lorry ahead of you – no one is ever in that much of a rush that they need put themselves in unnecessary danger.

City's cyclists should have their say (and Mayor Boris should listen)

Mayor of London Boris Johnson held a meeting last Friday with representatives of some of the UK’s biggest cycling manufacturers and retailers. Aiming to brainstorm ways to encourage more cycling in London - with a specific focus on fixing the issues of safety and security – sadly, the Mayor is misguided if he thinks he is inviting the right people to City Hall...

Whilst high level cycling industry big-wigs undoubtedly have a passion for bikes and all that goes with them, it’s questionable how focussed they are on the real issues at hand. Representatives of big corporations are ultimately, no matter how well intentioned, going to be driven by their bottom line and profit margins.

Increasing bike security? As cyclists we all know the answer to this is better and more frequent cycle parking, given the same kind of street patrols and CCTV as vehicle parking, and the Metropolitan Police making at least a token start at taking cycle theft seriously. The industry, I suspect, will recommend we buy bigger, and stronger locks – maybe even two, or three per bike (which is now becoming the standard in London)

Getting more people on bikes? As regular readers here will know, I firmly believe that we need to take the ‘other’ out of cycling and rehabilitate it as an everyday and ordinary activity in people’s lives again. If you want mass cycling rates, the masses need to be able to associate with cycling. I’d probably start with the inequality in cycling rates between men and women and be asking why aren’t more women cycling? On this point I am inclined to agree with BikeBiz Editor Carlton Reid: “Not all cycling women want to be Audrey Hepburn with a basket-on-the-front, pearlised-pink Dutch bike. But there’s no escaping that this sector is the one that produces the best photographs for promoting cycling to a mainstream audience. Forget helmets, Lycra and speed; non-cyclists find all that a big turn-off”.  Promoting the public face of cycling as mainstream?  That's not something the bicycle industry has been doing, as I’ve previously discussed.

And, as we've otherwise discussed here, if the Mayor really wants to see cycling levels explode across London, he could do a lot worse by not scrapping the only Police department entirely dedicated to reigning in errant HGVs - the cause of the majority of fatal incidents in London.  Perhaps he could focus on a truly original cycle safety action plan instead of the current limp offering City Hall is presently putting forward.  I've said it before and I'll say it again; aiming for cycling to be just 5% modal share of all traffic by 2026 is less like a velorution and more like a wet Wednesay matinee of Les Miserables.

2010 does stand to be a record year for cycling in London. Transport for London, under the stewardship of Mayor Johnson, will launch 6000 new bikes onto our streets with the launch of the Zone 1 bike hire scheme. The first two of 12 ‘cycle superhighways’ (essentially existing cycle lanes re-painted and re-branded to raise their awareness) will open to the general public. The cycling budget for the next five years is a fairly hefty £110 million pounds. The potential for a political backlash from the Mayor’s outer-London car-dependant voting block is massive if these schemes are seen to fail. As such, you’d think he’d be inviting representatives from the cities of Copenhagen, Groningen or Amsterdam to his cycling summit, rather than a self-publicising ex-promoter of a pedal car race from Dorset.  (No, dear readers, I kid you not.)

I’m sure the people from our various bike manufacturers are lovely people, and that they believe their hearts are in the right place, but I don't believe they have the day-in day-out first hand experience of cycling in our capital city that the city’s cyclists do. Bike shops traditionally do not make much money on the bikes they sell – the profit margin lies in the sporting cyclist’s favourite mantra; “Accessorize, accessorize, accessorize.” London’s cyclists know, however, that no amount of whiz-bang gadgets or sweat-whicking clothing are going to get more people on two wheels – only strong clear infrastructure and safe roads for all will do that. Perhaps with their help the city can avoid installing nightmarish cycle lanes such as this, or remember to include cyclists in all of their transport projects in the future, unlike here.

It’s great that the Mayor and his people are seeking out industry opinion, but if they want to know how to really make 2010 London’s cycling year they could start with talking to our city’s cycling groups, dare I say it, it’s cycling bloggers, and - shock-horror-gasp! – even the city’s cyclists themselves.