Interesting statistics

gordj65

New member
Read in a trade magazine the other day that in the year 2010, (last year for the thickies), there were more deaths among cyclists on the road than powered two wheelers.
while this is good news from a motorcycling point of view, in as much as there has been a reduction of ptw deaths, it is quite sad for the cyclists amongst us and obviously for the grieveing families.
What I wonder is will this lead to a reduction in the number of campaigns government and local government sponsored encouraging people to cycle to work? will we see an increase in campaigns to encourage Motorcycle/scooter use?
Sadly I very much doubt it. Cyclists are very much better used to the ways of government manipulation and they have the green lobby behind them, whilst we have MAG, who for too long campaigned on motorcycle helmet laws, long after anybody else saw a point to it and who are run by well meaning but inefectual guys called colin, with long straggly hair and a Metallica T shirt
 

colz

New member
Read in a trade magazine the other day that in the year 2010, (last year for the thickies), there were more deaths among cyclists on the road than powered two wheelers.
while this is good news from a motorcycling point of view, in as much as there has been a reduction of ptw deaths, it is quite sad for the cyclists amongst us and obviously for the grieveing families.
What I wonder is will this lead to a reduction in the number of campaigns government and local government sponsored encouraging people to cycle to work? will we see an increase in campaigns to encourage Motorcycle/scooter use?
Sadly I very much doubt it. Cyclists are very much better used to the ways of government manipulation and they have the green lobby behind them, whilst we have MAG, who for too long campaigned on motorcycle helmet laws, long after anybody else saw a point to it and who are run by well meaning but inefectual guys called colin, with long straggly hair and a Metallica T shirt

Ma name is colin, i have numerous metallica shirts and up until xmas had long hair!!! Aint got nuthin to do with mag though.:p
 

Gizmo

Forum Geek
might it be something to do with the number of journeys by each category? motorcycling really is a minority of journey's and is in terminal decline hence fewer accidents, conversely cycling use is increasing and has more? cycling generates a worthwhile contribution to the economy and improved health, government has reduced a lot of the support but thats cos of a bigger programme of cuts more stats for you http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14610857

motorbike groups face a touch challenge, it contributes little to the economy, can hardly be called environmentaly friendly when your average small 4 seater car does better mpg and the majority of use is recreational. one can hardly blame MAG when they've got little positive spin to put on things.....
 
might it be something to do with the number of journeys by each category? motorcycling really is a minority of journey's and is in terminal decline hence fewer accidents, conversely cycling use is increasing and has more? cycling generates a worthwhile contribution to the economy and improved health, government has reduced a lot of the support but thats cos of a bigger programme of cuts more stats for you http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14610857

motorbike groups face a touch challenge, it contributes little to the economy, can hardly be called environmentaly friendly when your average small 4 seater car does better mpg and the majority of use is recreational. one can hardly blame MAG when they've got little positive spin to put on things.....

I can show you the future of motorcycling. It's looks quite a bit like the past:

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/N...1-121mpg-from-hondas-new-vision-110-commuter/

121mpg, and at £1800 new, very slightly cheaper than a 4 seater car. Ok, it won't carry 4 people, but then neither will a £1000+ bicycle.

As for motorcycling contributing little to the economy... WTF? Just for the record; Motorcycling in the UK contributes £2.8bn per year to the coffers of the UK (and that's excluding fuel sales), it employs over 65,000 people and brings in an additional £580 million from motorcycle-related tourism:

http://www.mcia.co.uk/downloads_temp/f1723bf9-dfe5-4649-89db-8cefc7d77ec4_Imported_File.PDF

Never been into Metallica, but I was/am partial to "Stranger in a Strange Land" and I loved those album covers with Eddie the Head on... :D
 

Gizmo

Forum Geek
I can show you the future of motorcycling. It's looks quite a bit like the past:

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/N...1-121mpg-from-hondas-new-vision-110-commuter/

121mpg, and at £1800 new, very slightly cheaper than a 4 seater car. Ok, it won't carry 4 people, but then neither will a £1000+ bicycle.

As for motorcycling contributing little to the economy... WTF? Just for the record; Motorcycling in the UK contributes £2.8bn per year to the coffers of the UK (and that's excluding fuel sales), it employs over 65,000 people and brings in an additional £580 million from motorcycle-related tourism:

http://www.mcia.co.uk/downloads_temp/f1723bf9-dfe5-4649-89db-8cefc7d77ec4_Imported_File.PDF

Never been into Metallica, but I was/am partial to "Stranger in a Strange Land" and I loved those album covers with Eddie the Head on... :D

As regards the future, maybe in Asia with small cc petrol but not here - the recent EU study linked to electric bicycles and power outputs (at what point does pedelec become a motrocycle?) is a question thats now at the forefront of both pedal and motorbike manufacture as it blurs lines, on one hand you have huge growth in pedal assisted and electric powered in mainland europe whilst scooter use declines, on the converse you have projects like Zero motorcycles http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/ that are more motorcycle than bicycle. I rode one - used it for hacking around taichung a few weeks ago,and once the price starts to drop it'll provide a viable alternative to petrol as they are good fun and more than just transport and given a choice between that and a small capacity petrol engine with similar running costs I'd go electric.

The future of motorcycling (in the UK and europe) is closer allied to that than petrol. what will be really interesting is the distribution channel on the small scooter like pedelecs and whether it goes via cycle or motor, at present its going bicycle but i can foresee the technical ability needed to service will be more akin to motorcycles and its existing network which might provide the motorcycle industry with a welcome uplift.

Companies like ecolve are doing so and might provide a future for it but they are few and far between, take a look at http://www.ecolve.co.uk/ecolve-electric-vehicles/models/spark/ and you can see where the mass transport future might lie

That links in to the MCIA study, I agree it made a contribution in 2009 but its a contribution thats in rapid decline, bike sales drop and use drops, the current state of economy will have hit it even harder and I'd be interested to see the same study repeated at the end of 2011. The one area that does hold up is the impact it has on our balance of trade, all credit to triumph for there ability to export, its one area of the cycle industry we lost and should never have done so. If motorcycle dealers and the distribution channel can move (an area they seem slow to pick up on).

its interesting to watch and see how it is going to play out as we look at electric and work out where our industry fits and what we can provide but at the moment it does seem like cycling is providing a real transport alternative to petrol for a lot of people. Is that at the expense of the motor/motor cycle industry? i'd say yes, our growth comes from others decline but if it swaps to electric and the motorcycle industry pick up on that it moves again and so does the ability to apply pressure to government. A return to 50's/60's with its bicycle and motorcycle use would be the real answer though :)
 
That links in to the MCIA study, I agree it made a contribution in 2009 but its a contribution thats in rapid decline, bike sales drop and use drops, the current state of economy will have hit it even harder and I'd be interested to see the same study repeated at the end of 2011. The one area that does hold up is the impact it has on our balance of trade, all credit to triumph for there ability to export, its one area of the cycle industry we lost and should never have done so. If motorcycle dealers and the distribution channel can move (an area they seem slow to pick up on).

It's very good of you to concede that Motorcycling makes an economic contribution, after the facts are presented! :)

The question that should be at the front of your mind is... why aren't you reading about that on the BBC website? Well, apart from the fact that "if you sell hammers, everything looks like a nail", you need to return to Gord's original statement, which it would appear has some validity:

Sadly I very much doubt it. Cyclists are very much better used to the ways of government manipulation and they have the green lobby behind them

Cycling has a place in the transport infrastructure, but for frequent journeys above 10 miles and those than venture outside of urban areas, it's place is very limited. The sad truth is, there is too much "greenwash" obscuring the reality - scooters, peds, even electric-assisted bikes have been around for ages, but there isn't the semi-rabid support than the cycling lobby generates. Until the focus includes powered two-wheel transport (hell even the Netherlands allows mopeds to use some cycle lanes!) the congestion, journey times and accident rates will continue to climb.

As for electric bikes and cars - a great idea, but very few things are as energy dense as refined petroleum and until you can charge one as quickly as you can fill a 50L tank with liquid fuel, they will remain an interesting eccentricity.
 

Gizmo

Forum Geek
It's very good of you to concede that Motorcycling makes an economic contribution, after the facts are presented! :)

The question that should be at the front of your mind is... why aren't you reading about that on the BBC website? Well, apart from the fact that "if you sell hammers, everything looks like a nail", you need to return to Gord's original statement, which it would appear has some validity:



Cycling has a place in the transport infrastructure, but for frequent journeys above 10 miles and those than venture outside of urban areas, it's place is very limited. The sad truth is, there is too much "greenwash" obscuring the reality - scooters, peds, even electric-assisted bikes have been around for ages, but there isn't the semi-rabid support than the cycling lobby generates. Until the focus includes powered two-wheel transport (hell even the Netherlands allows mopeds to use some cycle lanes!) the congestion, journey times and accident rates will continue to climb.

As for electric bikes and cars - a great idea, but very few things are as energy dense as refined petroleum and until you can charge one as quickly as you can fill a 50L tank with liquid fuel, they will remain an interesting eccentricity.

i think you just reinforced Gordon's point that the motorcycle lobby have no idea what they are doing :D, you might see it as "better used" to many in cycling we aren't strong enough and will push harder to lobby more. Cycling has and will always fight for rights as its been under threat a lot longer than motorbikes and we want more dedicated cycle lanes and better safety, that not wrong its the way it should be :)if that means targeting what resource one has in the correct place thats exactly how it should be done. read the report on cycling and you can see it extolls virtues of fitness and fewer working days lost, thats another key area the cycling lobby use as governments push to reduce healthcare costs. motorcycle use simply doesn't offer those benefits :(


the case for motorbikes as a transport solution isnt that good either, as i said efficiencies on the type of vehicle needed for longer journey isn't there (most of us wouldn't commute 25/30 miles a day on a scooter), the majority of use is recreational thus is the opposite of what governments want to hit emission targets thats a very hard position to negotiate from :(

As regards electric, you will always have more efficient fuels, batteries are heavy and on a light vehicle contribute to a higher than average overall weight BUT for the majority of use its not an issue. petrol isn't that efficient on short journey times, engines need to heat up etc etc, low average speeds with lots of stopping and idling engines, motorcycles dont even shut off like most fuel efficient cars do. So whilst it may be "energy dense" if a high proportion of that energy is wasted because of the journey type it don't really matter provided you have enough fuel to make your journey neither does the additional amount of energy you have spare. Electric is coming, I'll be in Germany in a few days for a show which will have even more electric presence than last year, its one of the fastest growth areas I see with the likes of Panasonic and Bosch now heavily invested, it will replace scooters, it already is, as the technology advances and prices come down it'll see further growth.

I use a motorbike bike for transport and do see benefits but struggle as to how it could form part of any government transport solution where its seen as a predominately recreational activity that uses a valuable resource, creates CO2 emissions and impacts upon others with its noise/speed (real or perceived) and thats hard to get away from. change that and you might have a chance , somehow I cant see that happening.

oh there are lot of reports that never make the BBC, congestion figures, use, failure to meet co2 emissions etc etc.
Sustrans report on failure of government to back greener travel for example

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/about-su...es/governments-failing-to-back-greener-travel

which inevitably will increase pressure to reduce car/motorcycle journeys and replace with alternatives and given that high fuel prices for a year only resulted in a 1% reduction in traffic (dft latest report) doesnt seem to have had a major impact one does wonder what it will take to get car drivers out of their boxes and for people to look at real alternatives be that pedal or motor.....

Interesting times anyway, as the world slows down we're in for a lot of change
 
i think you just reinforced Gordon's point that the motorcycle lobby have no idea what they are doing

Yes, compared to the cycling lobby they are amateurs! Being the loudest voice doesn't make you the right voice though...

the case for motorbikes as a transport solution isnt that good either, as i said efficiencies on the type of vehicle needed for longer journey isn't there (most of us wouldn't commute 25/30 miles a day on a scooter), the majority of use is recreational thus is the opposite of what governments want to hit emission targets thats a very hard position to negotiate from :(

Do you want the bad news? In the report your BBC article was based on, of a total 3.7 million cyclists identified, over two thirds are "recreational" or "family" users. In other words, not replacing car journeys! There seems to be great deal of wishful thinking regards cycling as a form of transport.
 
Last edited:

Gizmo

Forum Geek
Yes, compared to the cycling lobby they are amateurs! Being the loudest voice doesn't make you the right voice though...



Do you want the bad news? In the report your BBC article was based on, of a total 3.7 million cyclists identified, over two thirds are "recreational" or "family" users. In other words, not replacing car journeys! There seems to be great deal of wishful thinking regards cycling as a form of transport.

It doesn't matter how its achieved its about getting results and right or wrong is just perspective :)

yeah, 2.5m recreational cyclists and only 1.2M using it for transport which doesnt alter their right to enjoy that time safely and without the fear of traffic as it isnt linked to whether it replaces a journey or that journey is transport its about making any journey safe which links to the accident stats Gordon started this thread on earlier, unless recreational cyclists dont get knocked off by cars? they still form part of the accident stats whether its a ride to work or recreationally! and yes recreational is majority of cycling use but1.2M are using it for transport is equal to the total number of motorcyclists no matter how they use their bikes ;)

Cycling still isnt anywhere near its potential as a method of transport but its linked to many factors, links to public transport with rail/bus/MRT systems set up to carry bikes which really does limit its use for longer journeys, safe cycle lanes, employers providing secure cycle parking, showers etc etc that is what safe and sustainable transport policy is about and we've got a long way to go.

One can make stats do whatever one wants, interpret them in ones own way but what is important is that we make roads safer no matter who uses them or whether its transport or recreational, worth fighting for no matter whether you are cyclist or motorcyclist IMHO
 

gordj65

New member
"it will replace scooters, it already is," I'd like to know exactly where you get your figures for on this one. Scooters in the uk are the ONLY ptw growth market , up 20% on the first six months of this year. I very much doubt that electric powered bicycles are are matching that, as personally ive only seen one electric scooter on the road, which the owner was desperate to trade into us as it didnt any where near match the manufacturers claims. ive only seen a couple of electric pushbikes (outside of shops) this year and they were on the back of a german tourists camper van.
Electric cycles from what i gather from a friend who decided at present, not to stock them in his cycle shop, still have a lot of catching up to do regarding range, longevity and replacement part prices. I gather battery packs have a life of between 2-3 years and then can be as much as tow thirds the initial purchase price to replace. If a small two stroke engine or four stroke for that matter , it wont be any where near as expensive to repair.
(i do hasten to add that i know electric powered two wheelers are probably up a hundred percent over the first six months of the year, but when youve only sold 2 in the country last year, that still isnt a lot)
 

Gizmo

Forum Geek
http://www.bike-eu.com/facts-figure...-bikes-developing-at-unprecedented-speed.html

if you use uk figures it'll be small as we lag behind europe (as we did on scooter use) try looking at a bigger picture and you can see the trend. 50 -125 regs might be up but at less than 1000 units in jan 2011 its still less than the 2009 estimate of UK e and pedelec sales, a figure I'm pretty certain has increased a lot since then! look at just how many pedal bikes get sold in the UK, estimates vary from 1.5 to over 3M each year, even a couple of % of that as electric exceeds scooter sales.

http://www.gopedelec.eu/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=126&Itemid=86 was only report i could find without trawling through loads of useless data but still gives a reasonable estimate of e bike sales

Real world try looking at schemes like the one in peaks and lakes http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-14098214 cant recall ever seeing a scooter scheme like that providing 50 bikes to rent nor stuff like the London hire bikes or way J C Decaux use pedal bike rental in cities like Paris which actually lend themselves perfectly to e bikes as each drop point can have charging built in and majority of journeys are short, its coming and will let more people try an electric bike and will result in more sales.

As I said, i don't see the distribution being via pedal bike shops, they simply aren't geared up to service them and your experience backs this up. The points on battery life are valid and until there is some form of standardisation of battery pack size to guarantee replacements in years to come its off putting to consumers. its all being addressed, new EU/CEN regs are under consultation now, the electric and battery technology advancing apace which leads me to believe it'll get more consumer friendly, be better supported by dealers and distributors and thus gain market share, of course I might be totally wrong but if i had to put money on which will be the biggest gainer in the next 5 years my money wouldn't be on scooters.......
 

silverburn

New member
An interesting debate indeed! And nobody is swearing or making reference to hitler yet...:D

Personally, I use both pie and petrol powered 2 wheels to get to work - 48 mile round trip. Neither of the other alternatives - train or car - are viable; they are both too expensive and too slow.

But I'm mad, so I'm hardly representative of Joe Bloggs. Joe Bloggs does not ride to work because:

- it's raining (then again, neither do I!)
- it's cold
- it's hilly
- it's not as fast as the car*
- it's not as safe as the car **

* I suspect this is the killer argument, even if it's not actually true. But for most cases, I bet the car is still faster (especially here in Scotland, where journeys are longer, and traffic less severe).

** this is the second. Frankly, our cycle network is woefully lacking in investment and maintenance, compared to our continential cousins. 75% of my journey is on cycle path, and I consider myself very fortunate for that here in the UK. I wouldn't do my journey if I had to use the main roads - and I consider myself an experienced cyclist.

I suspect though that more will consider it in the future - contracting disposable incomes, and the horrific petrol prices will force them onto bikes, whether they're the first choice or not.
 
Last edited:

silverburn

New member
Also noticed

That the link to the 121mpg scooter...only 121mpg?

I had an old PS125i, which was a good wee scooter...and it did 100mpg on my route. 121mpg doesn't seem like such a huge advance. If they could match the improvements the tin-box engines have made, it should be doing 150mpg, I recon...
 
An interesting debate indeed! And nobody is swearing or making reference to hitler yet...:D

Personally, I use both pie and petrol powered 2 wheels to get to work - 48 mile round trip. Neither of the other alternatives - train or car - are viable; they are both too expensive and too slow.

But I'm mad, so I'm hardly representative of Joe Bloggs. Joe Bloggs does not ride to work because:

- it's raining (then again, neither do I!)
- it's cold
- it's hilly
- it's not as fast as the car*
- it's not as safe as the car **

The cold and raining one applies to quite a few motorcyclists as well, although it has to be said, it's much easier to ride a motorcycle in effective wet / cold weather gear than it is to ride a bicycle.

** this is the second. Frankly, our cycle network is woefully lacking in investment and maintenance, compared to our continential cousins. 75% of my journey is on cycle path, and I consider myself very fortunate for that here in the UK. I wouldn't do my journey if I had to use the main roads - and I consider myself an experienced cyclist.

My question to the panel is... how much should we be investing in separate infrastructure, when things like scooters can use what exists already at no cost to the taxpayer (and in fact be generating tax income via fuel and road tax)? What would happen I wonder if we gave fuel efficient powered two wheeled transport the kind of tax breaks that bicycles enjoy?

The BMW C1 is the kind of thing that will remove most of your cycling objections - and appeal to the pure "a to b"er rather than the hardened motorcyclist. Which brings us to an interesting point - are the only people who cycle to work often - the "hardcore" - and is it a case of diminishing returns chasing another few % with ever increasing amounts of money and legislation. What if the majority of people have no interest in cycling to work, and we are unlikely to enjoy the participation rates of the poster boy of the cycling nation - the Netherlands - as it's largely flat, enjoys milder weather than somewhere like Scotland or northern England?
 

silverburn

New member
My question to the panel is... how much should we be investing in separate infrastructure, when things like scooters can use what exists already at no cost to the taxpayer (and in fact be generating tax income via fuel and road tax)? What would happen I wonder if we gave fuel efficient powered two wheeled transport the kind of tax breaks that bicycles enjoy?

I'd like to see at least *some* expenditure at the black spots where there's been a cycling death or serious injury. It doesn't need massive expenditure either - but I bet it's far cheaper than the end-to-end cost of another cyclist death. How about priority signals, ASRs, shared paths. Allow cyclists to use "wheel chair accessible" underpasses, if available. I'd also like to see some sort of red-light-style camera enforcement where a cyclist was killed, despite an ASR (Advanced Stop Region - you know, the 'cyclist only' bit at the front of some lights), or priority signaling.

Oh, and some free stuff - stop putting down those super-slippery square metal studs on pedestrian crossings and going mentals with the slippery white paint at junctions!

Some dedicated infrastructure would be ideal, but as you imply - the costs are significant. Converting old railway lines or canal paths is an option, but only if the town/city was blessed with them in the first place!

But it does need someone to engage their brain, during the design phase. Preferably someone who *actually* cycles, and not just some white-line painter from the council with a bit of spare time.
 

silverburn

New member
The BMW C1 is the kind of thing that will remove most of your cycling objections - and appeal to the pure "a to b"er rather than the hardened motorcyclist.

And therein lies the problem - on the continent (admittedly where the weather is better), scooter use is rife, and the C1 sold well. Most people are car drivers, or have no passion to be a motorbiker - but they know that 2 wheels is the quickest and most convenient way to get/park anywhere, and it's cheap too. Especially when they don't even need to get wet or wear a helmet (C1). And most importantly - it's classless, socially acceptable and even fashionable.

If Ducati made a scooter with the same ethos and attention to performance/detail that it made the Diavel with, it would sell more scooter in the EU than it could make, even if they cost £500 more than the equivalent benchmark (a Honda, I suspect).

I think the UK is still backward in this regard; scooter ownership is merely for the working class riff raff. Someone who can't afford a car. Which is a real shame, and our transport situation won't improve until people 'get it'.
 

Gizmo

Forum Geek
The cold and raining one applies to quite a few motorcyclists as well, although it has to be said, it's much easier to ride a motorcycle in effective wet / cold weather gear than it is to ride a bicycle.



My question to the panel is... how much should we be investing in separate infrastructure, when things like scooters can use what exists already at no cost to the taxpayer (and in fact be generating tax income via fuel and road tax)? What would happen I wonder if we gave fuel efficient powered two wheeled transport the kind of tax breaks that bicycles enjoy?

The BMW C1 is the kind of thing that will remove most of your cycling objections - and appeal to the pure "a to b"er rather than the hardened motorcyclist. Which brings us to an interesting point - are the only people who cycle to work often - the "hardcore" - and is it a case of diminishing returns chasing another few % with ever increasing amounts of money and legislation. What if the majority of people have no interest in cycling to work, and we are unlikely to enjoy the participation rates of the poster boy of the cycling nation - the Netherlands - as it's largely flat, enjoys milder weather than somewhere like Scotland or northern England?

electric powered vehicles (2 or 4 wheel) already have tax breaks in VED (road tax hasnt been around since the 1930's) the problem is that they didn't band motorcycles based on emissions like cars , not sure I'd want to go down that route as we'd end up with a scenario whereby high power bikes like Ducati's would be paying large amounts like high powered cars now do :). I pay £260 a year for a 185HP car, I'd imagine a 170HP SBK would be rated the same!

A lot on where the future lies also links to what our economy can sustain, we've been through 30 years of artificial growth based on a reduction in manufacturing and service led growth, less factories, more commuting, more retail/distribution. That is going to alter, we wont have the money to do what we have been doing and as it tightens up attitudes change. As that happens people look for cheaper alternatives, its interesting working in the emerging economy of Taiwan/China, one sees the move from bicycle to scooter then to car, its all directly linked to wealth. In the UK we went from everyone cycling to work and using pedal bikes for holidays in the 30 - 50's, the growth in motorcycles allowing more of the population to travel further in 50's and60's and into the car era of 70's and then cars/motorbikes as leisure toys as they are used by some now. If one looks at that cycling use in the 50's it wasn't affected by weather, wasnt linked to interest it was driven by a need to travel cheaply. As our economy grew so did personal wealth and the cost of powered vehicles reduced proportionality to that, thats probably about to change again, disposable income is reducing at the same time vehicle prices and running costs are increasing, so far it doesn't seem to have altered traffic though with only a 1% drop in traffic volumes in the first quarter of this year despite high fuel prices but eventually it has to.


We'll never return to the lifestyle of the 50's but we are moving to a situation where the cost of travel will dictate what gets used and its directly linked to income. Its also linked to the way we build houses and workplaces, journey distances are greater now but if you co-ordinate your transport network and put cycle lanes in people will use them. thats where the joint motor/cycle solution falls down, what is actually needed is the ability to get to stations or MRT/bus systems and either transport a bike or store a bike so any investment needs to be carried out in conjunction with that. Should that system also allow powered 2 wheel use, yes, electric and restricted speed motor could share routes what you need to avoid is a disparity in speed/size of vehicle and to make sure its safe. How you integrate scooters into any other system i'm not sure so maybe the routes wouldn't even need to be the same .

As regards the comment on hardcore, you just need to go into London at 8.30am and watch any traffic light as it turns red, the cyclists build up and majority aren't what I'd consider serious cyclists, they commute by bike because its cheap and quick not because of a love of cycling. same thing with the way the Boris bikes get used, people just want to get around time quickly and cheaply and its growing which suggests that the investment is not a diminishing return.....


How much should one invest in the future? a lot more than we are now thats for certain :)
 
As regards the comment on hardcore, you just need to go into London at 8.30am and watch any traffic light as it turns red, the cyclists build up and majority aren't what I'd consider serious cyclists, they commute by bike because its cheap and quick not because of a love of cycling. same thing with the way the Boris bikes get used, people just want to get around time quickly and cheaply and its growing which suggests that the investment is not a diminishing return.....

I used to live in London and in the winter cyclists are pretty thin on the ground.

This creates another problem. The fair weather cyclists will expect road / public transport capacity when they are not using their bikes. So the public transport infrastructure (run by private companies) gets extra problems coping with fluctuating demand. Commute into London from the suburbs even in the 'summer' and you'll notice the trains are packed tighter on wet days.

So you take up resources (not to mention space on the road) to enable cycling, but then that is barely used for 6 months of the year. This is my point - that money could be better spent improving the capacity of the trains and buses and keeping the road network in good condition for all road users, rather than dedicated facilities for a very small number of them.

While cycling in London diminishes in the winter, it stops dead in Carnoustie!
 

Gizmo

Forum Geek
I used to live in London and in the winter cyclists are pretty thin on the ground.

This creates another problem. The fair weather cyclists will expect road / public transport capacity when they are not using their bikes. So the public transport infrastructure (run by private companies) gets extra problems coping with fluctuating demand. Commute into London from the suburbs even in the 'summer' and you'll notice the trains are packed tighter on wet days.

So you take up resources (not to mention space on the road) to enable cycling, but then that is barely used for 6 months of the year. This is my point - that money could be better spent improving the capacity of the trains and buses and keeping the road network in good condition for all road users, rather than dedicated facilities for a very small number of them.

While cycling in London diminishes in the winter, it stops dead in Carnoustie!



its a complicated equation and as I keep saying involves a structured approach with joined up thinking, its crazy to me that I could live 1 mile away from a metro station on Tyneside 8 miles from work, both easy to pedal and even in winter I'd do so but got to station I then cant get my bike on a train which would do the majority of the journey when the weather is bad, so you are right there are other places to spend cash but if you do so join it up and integrate it. thats what a transport policy is not bits taken in isolation or one user group crying that another gets better funding :)

look at some of the crazy spend we, 3/4 bn for 5 miles of motorway WTF, that could of been used to fund miles of alternatives but its get ploughed at the car, that needs to change and be spread to alternative/public transport but that needs to include bikes as well as scooters and pedestrians

I'm not bothered how goals are achieved if its at the expense of cars or motorbikes so be it, much as i like owning both there is already more than adequate provision and I feel safe using them, I don't when i try and use my pedal bike for a journey.......
 

gordj65

New member
the C1 (an ugly thing if ever there was) was designed to be ridden helmetless as it was safer this way, but if you rode it like that in this country, you stood to be prosecuted as it was still classed as a motorcycle, so therefor a helmet must be worn at all times even though that made it MORE dangerous. This shows the stupid thinking in general towards two wheeled transport in this country.

I believe that in the lake district there is a scheme where by 16year olds can get a grant towards a scooter to provide them transport to and from work etc. I dont know the full criteria for it , but its the only area in britain offering this.

To the best off my knowledge, providing cycle lanes etc is still by a long shot, the most expensive way per passenger mile of travelling than any other option. While i can see the point of a lot of the improvements for cycling, some are a waste of time in certain places. I live in a small country town outside Edinburgh and we have those advance stop boxes for cyclists at the traffic lights. Theyve been there id guess about 8 or 9 years and during that time they have been repainted at least once. I'm not saying I'm there evryday at rush hour, but i would say im there most days as its part of my daily commute and i have only ever seen one that is 1 cyclist using them in all that time. I'm not saying there havent been more, I'm only saying thats my experience. I know to prevent fines from europe (which we are probably the only ones stupid enough to pay) we have to meet targets to encourage cyclists, but when these things are not effective and not being used whats the point, surely the money would be better spent educating drivers while their learning to drive on their responsibilities towards cyclists and other road users, than miles and miles of underused road markings, just so we can tick a box in europe somewhere.

By the way everyone i think knows my dislike of cycling and cyclist in general, but this thread wasnt started to knock cyclists. it was meant to knock pressure groups and the governments who listen to them
 

Gizmo

Forum Geek
the C1 (an ugly thing if ever there was) was designed to be ridden helmetless as it was safer this way, but if you rode it like that in this country, you stood to be prosecuted as it was still classed as a motorcycle, so therefor a helmet must be worn at all times even though that made it MORE dangerous. This shows the stupid thinking in general towards two wheeled transport in this country.

I believe that in the lake district there is a scheme where by 16year olds can get a grant towards a scooter to provide them transport to and from work etc. I dont know the full criteria for it , but its the only area in britain offering this.

To the best off my knowledge, providing cycle lanes etc is still by a long shot, the most expensive way per passenger mile of travelling than any other option. While i can see the point of a lot of the improvements for cycling, some are a waste of time in certain places. I live in a small country town outside Edinburgh and we have those advance stop boxes for cyclists at the traffic lights. Theyve been there id guess about 8 or 9 years and during that time they have been repainted at least once. I'm not saying I'm there evryday at rush hour, but i would say im there most days as its part of my daily commute and i have only ever seen one that is 1 cyclist using them in all that time. I'm not saying there havent been more, I'm only saying thats my experience. I know to prevent fines from europe (which we are probably the only ones stupid enough to pay) we have to meet targets to encourage cyclists, but when these things are not effective and not being used whats the point, surely the money would be better spent educating drivers while their learning to drive on their responsibilities towards cyclists and other road users, than miles and miles of underused road markings, just so we can tick a box in europe somewhere.

By the way everyone i think knows my dislike of cycling and cyclist in general, but this thread wasnt started to knock cyclists. it was meant to knock pressure groups and the governments who listen to them

Er, you'll find that councils had a target for alternatives to car/motor if they wanted to build more roads it wasnt an EU target for cycle lanes!, many chose to take the cheap option and paint lines down roads, many of which are unsafe and not actually what was needed and cyclists hate them as much as anyone else! Councils don't always consult the cycling lobby! Government has a policy to reduce Co2 emissions and are failing to met it, try reading http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/f...rter_travel_executive_summary_August_2011.pdf and you'll see it is for bikes, pedestrians and public transport (smarter travel choice ). they arent spending enough on it and what they do isnt always applied int he best way.

take a read of this page http://www.sustrans.org.uk/about-su...es/governments-failing-to-back-greener-travel then follow the links at the bottom. try the meeting carbon targets report, page 189 on is linked to motor vehicle and see where electric fits, theres little mention of cycling in it nor pedestrians hence why the likes of sustrans lobby!

Organisations like sustrans aren't just for bikes its about sustainable transport and as i keep saying we need an integrated policy which gives safe routes to links with other transport like bus/tram/MRT and with space to put bikes on them and many cyclists would rather see funds applied to that not painted lines down roads. Personally I'd rather see safe routes to schools, reducing the mum and kids using car school trip run it would have a major impact on traffic density at peak times, it actually involves very little mileage of cycle route but would have big benefits and I get frustrated when i see councils waste money on useless cycle lanes :mad:


We need pressure groups like Sustrans, if we dont we'll get more wasted cash, it needs to be directed where its needed by user groups not politicians!
 

gordj65

New member
Er, you'll find that councils had a target for alternatives to car/motor if they wanted to build more roads it wasnt an EU target for cycle lanes!, many chose to take the cheap option and paint lines down roads, many of which are unsafe and not actually what was needed and cyclists hate them as much as anyone else! Councils don't always consult the cycling lobby! Government has a policy to reduce Co2 emissions and are failing to met it, try reading http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/f...rter_travel_executive_summary_August_2011.pdf and you'll see it is for bikes, pedestrians and public transport (smarter travel choice ). they arent spending enough on it and what they do isnt always applied int he best way.

take a read of this page http://www.sustrans.org.uk/about-su...es/governments-failing-to-back-greener-travel then follow the links at the bottom. try the meeting carbon targets report, page 189 on is linked to motor vehicle and see where electric fits, theres little mention of cycling in it nor pedestrians hence why the likes of sustrans lobby!

Organisations like sustrans aren't just for bikes its about sustainable transport and as i keep saying we need an integrated policy which gives safe routes to links with other transport like bus/tram/MRT and with space to put bikes on them and many cyclists would rather see funds applied to that not painted lines down roads. Personally I'd rather see safe routes to schools, reducing the mum and kids using car school trip run it would have a major impact on traffic density at peak times, it actually involves very little mileage of cycle route but would have big benefits and I get frustrated when i see councils waste money on useless cycle lanes :mad:


We need pressure groups like Sustrans, if we dont we'll get more wasted cash, it needs to be directed where its needed by user groups not politicians!

i remember vaugely the sustrans report into the tram fiasco (I,m fairly sure they supported the proposed road pricing) in edinburgh, before it all started and was disgusted by what i read, since then i have never trusted anything they said. perhaps they are better now
 

Gizmo

Forum Geek
i remember vaugely the sustrans report into the tram fiasco (I,m fairly sure they supported the proposed road pricing) in edinburgh, before it all started and was disgusted by what i read, since then i have never trusted anything they said. perhaps they are better now

they did a report into how the trams integrated with the cycle network and were critical of the way little provision had been made for cycles, closeness of trans to cycle ways and compared edinburgh's system to other tram systems, exactly what any pressure group should do, the outcome might not be what you like but the fact is they got involved, did the report and tried to change things. http://www.edinburghtrams.com/inclu...am_Cycle_Integration_study_-_Final_Report.pdf

Its a long report but shows the way they do things, its well put together, uses real experience and highlights problems. one of the final sections focus on the need to train cyclists to adapt tot he trams so itsthey recognise that its not the tram/councils problem its also cyclists responsibility. report on all that running on Spokes http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2009/12/tramline-tribulations-advice-documents/. Its not my area of expertise, i know a bit about it as I'm interested in the integration of bikes and public transport ie getting bikes on trains and buses so i had to ask a mate at sustrans to help me with it but i think you can see that its not backing the trams nor is it saying don't do it, its just trying to find a way to fit bikes into what ever happens.

its also got some real useful stats on stuff like safe routes to schools, 94% of kids have a bike yet schools dont encourage them to ride because of the density of traffic, FFS surely any cycle money could go to sorting that out?, kids love bikes, love the freedom it gives them yet get discouraged from riding by their school, madness.

Final one try reading this http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/policy/Sustrans_MoreHasteLessSpeed_100301.pdf it shows where a lot of cyclists want action directed, aimed at journeys under 5 miles so no need for miles and miles of white painted line cycle lanes which don't get used, focus on where its needed and make them safe. which is back to where we started reducing cycling casualties........
 

gordj65

New member
they did a report into how the trams integrated with the cycle network and were critical of the way little provision had been made for cycles, closeness of trans to cycle ways and compared edinburgh's system to other tram systems, exactly what any pressure group should do, the outcome might not be what you like but the fact is they got involved, did the report and tried to change things. http://www.edinburghtrams.com/inclu...am_Cycle_Integration_study_-_Final_Report.pdf

Its a long report but shows the way they do things, its well put together, uses real experience and highlights problems. one of the final sections focus on the need to train cyclists to adapt tot he trams so itsthey recognise that its not the tram/councils problem its also cyclists responsibility. report on all that running on Spokes http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2009/12/tramline-tribulations-advice-documents/. Its not my area of expertise, i know a bit about it as I'm interested in the integration of bikes and public transport ie getting bikes on trains and buses so i had to ask a mate at sustrans to help me with it but i think you can see that its not backing the trams nor is it saying don't do it, its just trying to find a way to fit bikes into what ever happens.

its also got some real useful stats on stuff like safe routes to schools, 94% of kids have a bike yet schools dont encourage them to ride because of the density of traffic, FFS surely any cycle money could go to sorting that out?, kids love bikes, love the freedom it gives them yet get discouraged from riding by their school, madness.

Final one try reading this http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/policy/Sustrans_MoreHasteLessSpeed_100301.pdf it shows where a lot of cyclists want action directed, aimed at journeys under 5 miles so no need for miles and miles of white painted line cycle lanes which don't get used, focus on where its needed and make them safe. which is back to where we started reducing cycling casualties........

unfortunatly its not just the schools who put the kids off, my lad used to take his chopper to school (the push bike one not the helicopter before anyone says) it was vandalised by other kids. took his Kona stinky and they tried to steal it . and his isnt a bad school, just the sort of arseholes you get nowadays
 

Mike the Bike1

New member
its a complicated equation and as I keep saying involves a structured approach with joined up thinking, its crazy to me that I could live 1 mile away from a metro station on Tyneside 8 miles from work, both easy to pedal and even in winter I'd do so but got to station I then cant get my bike on a train which would do the majority of the journey when the weather is bad, so you are right there are other places to spend cash but if you do so join it up and integrate it. thats what a transport policy is not bits taken in isolation or one user group crying that another gets better funding :)

look at some of the crazy spend we, 3/4 bn for 5 miles of motorway WTF, that could of been used to fund miles of alternatives but its get ploughed at the car, that needs to change and be spread to alternative/public transport but that needs to include bikes as well as scooters and pedestrians

I'm not bothered how goals are achieved if its at the expense of cars or motorbikes so be it, much as i like owning both there is already more than adequate provision and I feel safe using them, I don't when i try and use my pedal bike for a journey.......

Announced in today's Scotland On Sunday that bicycles will be carried on buses for the first time in Scotland by FirstGroup as part of an experiment.
Bicycles will initially be carried foc but a £1 charge may be levied in time. Scotrail currently doesn't charge on trains for transporting bicycles.
Long distance coaches carry bikes in the under floor luggage compartments but First is believed to be only bus carrier in Scotland to start offering a service where bikes will be able to be wheeled on.
 
Top