Cycling


Following on from my last post after five years the on street cycle storage has finally arrived and so have the first set of keys.

Cycle storage now in use

It was interesting standing in the street talking about the cycle storage with a council officer and seeing the number of people coming up and asking how they could get a key. Apparently there is already a waiting list of places, even though many of the people living in the street don’t even know what the cycle storage are as they have not seen them opened before. I get the distinct feeling there will soon be demand for more!

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

Just over five years ago (in September 2009) I wrote a blog post “Cycle parking, please can we have more…” in which I talked about the problems with lack of secure bicycle parking in Edinburgh. I flagged up issues the particular problems for tenement dwellers in Edinburgh, where storage is often a very real problem (as it is across most Scottish cities), added to which people living in tenement areas are less likely to own a car.

Three years ago things were looking positive as there where the first glimmerings of hope that something might actually be happening. There had been an announcement that City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) has proposed a Pilot of on-street residential cycle parking. I was one of the first to put in an application and waited with bated breath, well almost. As the closing date for application was December 2011, it seemed reasonable to expect that here might be something on the ground by the summer of 2012. In early May a letter arrived inviting all those who had applied to be a part of the trial parking project to a site meeting to consult on how it might work in practice. So it was that my self and one of my neighbours met with a number of officials, including the CEC’s cycling officer (Chris Brace), a CEC Project Engineer (Scott Mannion), one of the environmental manager (David Doig) and LBP Crime Prevention Officer (Carol Menzies). We had a wide ranging discussion, as we stood in the spring sun shine, covering all aspects of how that cycle parking (and its location) could affect the street, from accessibility to security, from refuse collection to turning space, and more. The meeting ended with a general consensus that the best location for the cycle storage was at the southern end of the street on the west side, on an area of concrete pavement which is currently just dead ground. It felt like something was really about to happen after two years of campaigning and lobbying, finally we were getting what was needed.

For a couple of months nothing happened, no information, nothing. In late July 2012 a letter arrived saying that the council was going to hold a written consultation for all residents in the street. A number of my neighbours came to ask me about this as they wanted to know more about the proposal, everyone I knew who lived in the street was in favour of the idea of having a secure cycle parking facility (even those who owned cars and those who didn’t own a bicycle). The written consultation was than followed with a series door to door interviews, and it was beginning to feel like someone at the Council was doing all they could to find an objector, so that they could stop the scheme (maybe I am being too cynical here).

Following all this consultation things went quite again until late June 2013 when another written consultation arrived, this time with plans showing the proposed location of the cycle storage on the opposite side of the street from that which residents said they wanted in the earlier consultation. I am told that there eleven responses to this consultation, all in favour of having the cycle storage on street and three saying explicitly that it should be on the far side of the street (the other made no comment on the location). One wonders why it is felt necessary to have quite to much “consultation” when they don’t bother to take notice of what the people who are going to live with the infrastructure actually have to say. It strikes me that a large amount of public money is wasted in this way.

Move forward to June 2014 and the City Council break their radio silence again with a letter to say that three different types of secure on street cycle storage across five locations across the city. The three types of storage chosen were the Cyclehoop Fietshangar, Cycle-Works Velo-Box lockers and Cycle-Works Streetstores (the latter a somewhat experimental design to judge by their website where there are several different prototype designs shown). The letter went on to say that the installation would be completed by the end of July 2014.

By this time I was starting to feel I would only believe when I saw it, so you can imagine my surprise and delight when I was told of shiny new Cyclehoop Fietshangars had been sighted in the city!

On street cycle storage in Edinburgh ©EdinburghCycleChic

Then came the news that Cycle-Works Velo-Safe lockers had also been sighted.

On street cycle storage in Edinburgh ©EdinburghCycleChic

On street cycle storage in Edinburgh ©EdinburghCycleChic

This was real progress at last! But wait where were the Cycle-Works Streetstores? There was no sign of them anywhere and again silence from the City Council, after some prompting there was a few vague comments that they were coming soon. July turned to August, the Festival came and went, September, still nothing, then finally in October Streetstores were sighted for the first time!

On street cycle storage in Edinburgh ©EdinburghCycleChic

How does the scheme actually work? Now there’s a question I keep getting asked, well, places in the cycle storage is offered to first to residents living within 100m of the stores. Only two places per flat are allowed per flat (which is rather unfair on students living in Houses in Multiple Occupation or HMOs) and place are allocated on a first come first serve basis. Each person gets a gets an individual contract and must give the details of the bicycle they are intending to store. The contract also states that the storage can only be used to store “a security-tagged bicycle belonging to or in the care of the member”, later in the contract it talks of bicycles with a permit and displaying a permit sticker.

As to costs and pricing, the contract states that “during the period of the Scheme the Council will not make a charge for participation in the Scheme. The Council may bring the pilot Scheme to an end on giving 14 days’ notice to the Members, and thereafter charge the Member for continued participation in a new scheme and take a deposit for the access key”. Nowhere, in the contract does it give any indication of how long the pilot Scheme will run for, nor is there any mention of how much the charge might be in the future. Elsewhere, it has been stated that the “cycle parking would be … trialled for around 2 years“. Also “It is expected that there would be a charge of around £5 per month per user for the use of the covered storage options to help cover running costs”. This would mean that it would cost £60 a year to park a bicycle compared with £31.50 to park low emission car in the same permit zone. When you bear in mind that 10 bicycle can be accommodated in the space required for one car, this seems rather excessive, no doubt the Council will say that this reflects cost of maintaining the cycle storage, whilst Blythe ignoring the costs involved in controlling car parking in the city. If the council are to introduce such a high charge for cycle parking, then it would only be reasonable that all subsidies for car parking be dropped and that the cost of car parking be brought up to a matching level.

 

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

I recently came across Dublin Cycling Stories, which is a series of short portraits of people who use bikes to get around Dublin. These films were made with support from the Dublin Cycling Campaign and Dublin City Council. The site is inspiring in many ways and there are lessons here for Edinburgh. After all, Dublin and Edinburgh are capital cities of a similar size, both are emerging cycling cities, although Dublin is way ahead of Edinburgh, as we shall see.

Where Dublin has got it right, and where other emerging cycling cities should take note, is that the influencers in the city have made it a priority to promote the Cycling Stories as a normal way of life for Dubliners, and not just a fringe lifestyle for the brave few. These short films were made to show the world how gloriously easy, fun and sexy a bike ride can be, what a great idea!

Let’s start with Lisa’s story, the young mum taking her child to nursery …

… this shows that cycling can be easy and fun, something that both mother and daughter enjoy.

Then there is Paul’s story, he uses a bicycle for work …

… as a photographer he has to carry equipment about with him, but he can easily do so by bike and it’s obvious that going by bike has many advantages over using a car.

For a bit of contrast we have Julie’s story…

… she’s a student and tells us about how cycling gives her freedom (and how hills aren’t really a problem).

Next, we have Georgia’s story, showing how easy and sociable cycling can be as a way of getting about the city …

… in Georgia’s story we see clearly how far ahead Dublin is of Edinburgh in terms of infrastructure.

The film shows Dublin as having a connected network of cycle paths, where space has been taken from motor vehicles. Edinburgh is only just beginning to timidly experiment with this on George Street …

George Street, Edinburgh

… although in true Edinburgh fashion, they have only gotten half way through doing it, then downed tools for the Festival. George Street looks great, but doesn’t actually connect with anything at either end and is not part of a direct route to go anywhere, showing a frustrating lack of thought about cycling as a means of transport by the planners (and they call themselves transport professionals?).

Another thing that is different in Dublin, compared with Edinburgh, is evident from the dublinbikes story …

… Dublin claims to have the most successful bike share scheme in Europe. Edinburgh has yet to dabble with a bike share scheme, although such schemes have been real game changers in other cities. Will Edinburgh ever get a bike share scheme?

Well let’s just say that Rob Grisdale, MD of nextbike UK was sighted in Edinburgh yesterday, and he wasn’t here to do the festival (although I am told, he did manage to take in a show or two). So will Edinburgh ever get a bike share scheme? Given the City of Edinburgh Council’s desire to remain stuck firmly in the 1980’s it would seem not, but as Stirling is showing, the council doesn’t have to be in the lead, it could be a forward-looking social enterprise that takes the lead. I am not going to say more here, but there are ideas forming.

Possibly the greatest lesson these films have for Edinburgh (or indeed other cities) is that by promoting positive images of average people using the humble bicycle as a means of transportation, cycling can be used to “humanize” the city. In the last century the coming of the car brutalised our cities, now in the 21st century, civic leaders are starting to recognize the importance of the bicycle to creating living cities of the new millennium – the ones which embrace multi-modal transportation.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

Hardly a week goes by without another victim blaming letter to the papers, the latest was entitled Cyclists must help themselves (quoted below in full):

Wearing a helmet while cycling may be a “peripheral issue”, according to W Henderson (Promote cycling, not use of helmets, Letters, July 27).

However, surely it is highly desirable in urban traffic? We do not enjoy the excellent traffic segregation and social cohesion of “Denmark and The Netherlands”, nor are we ever likely to. The antiquated and cramped fabric of our towns and cities and our unwillingness to think, and spend, boldly – it’s the British way after all – have seen to that.

No-one disagrees that cycling is good for you and should be encouraged and funded more, but if the increasingly shrill cycling lobby insist on their right not to do everything reasonable to be seen and be safe, then “strict liability” – the proposal that in the event of a collision the motorist is presumed to be at fault – cannot be seriously entertained. In particular, the perverse refusal to use high-visibility accoutrements, good lights and a warning bell is unacceptable and stupid. Legislation is the only way.

 

I am saddened by the knee jerk victim blaming attitude expressed in this letter. Repeated studies have failed to find evidence that wearing “Hi-visibility” clothing make any significant difference to the frequency of cyclist or pedestrian road casualties. It is important to note that the UK has one of the worst records in Europe for pedestrian safety. Before anyone said that the numbers of pedestrians killed or seriously injured on our roads is declining, this is entirely due to the fact that people are walking less, once that is taken in to account pedestrian KSI rates are rising.

The evidence from repeated studies of collisions involving motor vehicles and vulnerable road users, that in over 85% of cases it was the drivers that was solely at fault. In under 15% of cases was there joint liability between drivers and vulnerable road users, and in only about 1% of cases was the vulnerable road user solely at fault for the collision.

It really is time that we learned from other countries that there is a better way. All but five countries in Europe (those being the UK, Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland) have some form of “strict liability”. Why is it that the opponents of the current campaign for introduction presumed liability in Scots civil law, are not holding up Romania as a beacon of freedom and liberty?

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

The following letter was published in The Herald on Monday 28 July 2014 from a Mr Stewart of Cumbernauld:

I NOTE with interest your report on the sentencing of drivers convicted of killing cyclists (“Motorists who kill cyclists let off lightly“, The Herald, July 22.)

Whilst many of us would agree that sentences for a wide spectrum of offences are inadequate, a figure in the article represent what might be expected: in 54 per cent of cases where a cyclist was killed by a motorist, the driver was charged. Simple statistics would predict a 50/50 ratio of culpability where two individuals were involved; that is, a cyclist and a driver. The law would take its course after an individual was charged and the result would depend on the evidence given in court.

In the article Chris Boardman was quoted as saying “our legal system doesn’t support fully enough the more vulnerable road user and it doesn’t reflect the responsibility people have when they drive a car”. Road users could be said to be more responsible than cyclists in that they have to pass a rigorous driving test and carry third-party insurance. We would all agree that this does not guarantee responsibility, but it is a grounding.

Cyclists, however, are largely not insured and do not have to pass a test of any sort. I can vouch as a driver that many cyclists do not respect, assuming they have read, the Highway Code. Some may have personal accident insurance but what about third party insurance? Can someone tell me why both insurance and a test are not mandatory for cyclists? They, after all, are road users who can err and cause an accident.

Of course cyclists are more vulnerable; what may be a simple bump between cars can easily mean a death where a cyclist is involved. There is equal onus on both to be careful and to abide by the Highway Code. Cyclists freely undercut motorists between vehicles and the kerb. This is one of the major causes of accidents and should not be allowed – except, of course, where there is a cycle lane.

Drivers have a horn, the purpose of which is to let other road users know you are there in circumstance where another may be unaware. In my experience many cyclists do not have a bell and if they do they do not use it appropriately. A bell is not adequate to alert other drivers.

There has been comment recently about presumed liability of drivers involved in cycling accidents, where there is inconclusive evidence. There should be presumed liability of all parties until the evidence or lack of it indicates otherwise, and to prejudice drivers is wrong.

 

This letter is wrong on so many points, but does tell us something about the attitudes which has lead to the lack of justice for vulnerable road users. The first error is the statement that “Simple statistics would predict a 50/50 ratio of culpability where two individuals were involved; that is, a cyclist and a driver”. This statement suggest that both are equally vulnerable which is clearly not the case and there is no evidence to support it. When was the last time you heard of a driver being harmed when in collision with a cyclist or pedestrian? There have been a number of research studies which have shown that in over 80% of cases the driver is wholly responsible for collisions with more vulnerable road users. In less than 20% of cases is there construable negligence by the cyclist or pedestrian, and even in these cases in less than 1% was the cyclist or pedestrian shown to wholly responsible.

Then we have the “cyclists don’t have to take a test and have third party insurance” argument, no consideration as to why that is. The reason the people are required to hold a licence, take a test and has compulsory insurance is because driving is funereally dangerous. That is not to say that cycling is completely safe, on rare occasions pedestrians are killed by cyclists, however, these cases account for only 0.4% of all fatal collision and in all cased the cyclists were prosecuted.

The reason that cyclists don’t have to take a test and have insurance, is because they do very little harm. This can be seen in the premiums which cyclist who do have third party insurance. Members of British Cycling and the CTC have 3rd party insurance cover up to £10m as part of their membership, which cost just £24 or £41 annual respectively. Also a number of household insurance policies offer similar levels of third party cover as part of the bundle, this show clearly that actuaries in the insurance industry believe that cycling poses very little risk to other.

On the other hand the cost of collisions involving motor vehicles in the exceeds £18bn every year. Therefore, society recognises that large, heavy objects travelling at high speeds represent a high degree of danger, and in an attempt to mitigate this all people wishes to use a motor vehicles in public places are required to have compulsory insurance. We are all human and prone to human error, the difference between someone in control of a bicycle weighing <15 Kg and a motor vehicle weighing>1 tonne, is the scale of damage which can be done to others.

While I am about it I might as well deal with the other common comment that cyclists are a danger to other because they ride on pavements and jump red lights. An analysis of police data involving collisions with pedestrians shows that 4% of injuries to pedestrians at red lights were attributed to cyclists, with 96% being attributed to motorists. The same report found that only 2% of injuries to pedestrians on the pavement could be attributed to cyclists, the other 98% were caused directly by motorists.

Then we have statement that “one of the major causes of accidents” is cyclists filtering through traffic, however, there no evidence to support this claim. There are large proportion of collision leading to death or serious injury which take at road junctions, but analysis of police data show that in almost 90% of case the motorist was at fault. Further more the only thing that the Highway Code has to say about filtering through slow-moving traffic, is “take care and keep your speed low” (Rule 88). Also, Rule 211 which tells motorists to “look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.”

Finally there is a comment about presumed liability in where he suggests it should be presumed all parties should be equally liable, this is patently wrong, as I have shown above all road users are not equal and vulnerable road users need to be protected by the law. The UK is one of only five countries in Europe which does not have some form of Presumed Liability, the others being Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland. Why aren’t those who oppose the introduction of Presumed Liability pointing to Romania as a shining beacon of liberty and freedom?

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

Next Page »

Bear