Just returned from Paris where their bike scheme is incredibly well used.
The bike stands where we travelled were empty every day and filled each late night.
Today I watched the delivery of bikes to the stands along Earls Court. Many of you will have seen the stands springing up.
What do people think of the scheme
Anyone use it?
like Paris , a 30 minute ride is free.
Hopefully unlike Paris, the majority wond be vandalised or stolen!
Comments
Ive seen hundreds of them flying around the city.
Seems to be catching on really well!
They bikes are necessarily "sturdy" (they've got to last a few years), but the gearing & low centre of gravity makes them easy to ride (and you feel pretty safe & stable on them too). I've actually managed to cycle from Oxford Circus down to the Embankment (via Piccadilly, Haymarket & Traf. Sq.) without any problem. You get some interested looks from pedestrians & smiles from other Boris Bikers. It's actually making London slightly more pleasant :o)
Looks like a great idea - hope it catches on, though I worry about the numbnuts who inhabit London sometimes - like the ones who smashed up the recently rennovated bandstand/shelter at the corner of Greenwich Park
18 months after the Paris scheme started, just over half the 15,000 bikes had been stolen!
In 2009
20,000 bicycles
1,250 stations
Cost 400 euros each to replace
7,800 "disappeared"
11,600 vandalised
1,500 daily repairs
Staff recover 20 abandoned bikes a day
Each bike travels 10,000 km a year
42 million users since launch
The main reasons why people who would normally not cycle deciding to do so is that: 1). You don't have to invest in a bike 2). You don't have to worry about it being stolen.
Some might argue that it won't be as successful in London as it rains more often. That's not actually true. London has 611mm of rain per year, Paris has 607mm, and Lyon surprisingly has 778mm.
Hopefully it will lead to more cycle lanes in London.
However I see no reason why Oxford Street couldn't become pedestrianised. It just needs re-organisation and the courage to do it.
Its Ok I feel better now!!!
The noise they make, the damage to roads and infrastructure or the pollution they create or the fact that they get about town almost as quickly as cages?
Cars do relatively little damage to the environment. Its spin induced excuses for tax hikes. Lets hit the motorists.
Motorcycles even less damage to the environment, I ride a motorbike, cyclists get in the bloody way, most have very little road sense, they use the same part of the road as a motorbike, if one is in my way i can get round, but the summer cyclists come out and they are two or three abreast, have you seen elephant and castle in the rush hour on a nice day its like the bloody tour de France, they are just dangerous.
They are not insured, they pay no road tax, I'm not interested in the arguement that a lot of cyclists have cars and there for pay road tax, it should be paid per vehicle. (I wonder how many would ride if you had to be insured and taxed) and to cap it all they want there own little cycle lanes which my raod tax pays for. They should be banned. Oh yes they wear lycra.
I don't know about the environmental stuff particularly but motor vehicles do create massive wear and tear on the roads. I ride along very busy cycle routes that haven't been repaired for at least 10 years and show no sign of any damage.
Many cycle routes are funded by local authorities: some of the national routes received funding from National Lottery grants so the vehicle excise licence fee doesn't pay for cycle routes any more than any other form of taxation. Similarly many roads are the responsibility of local authorities and are maintained using funds raised by local taxation i.e. council tax (my car tax doesn't pay for the upkeep of my road - my council tax does though). Households don't pay more council tax for owning lots of cars, bicycles or motorbikes although your logic suggests this should be the case.
I agree that some cyclists have not just poor road sense but a lack of care for other road users. It's got noticeably worse over the last 5 years. These people are a menace to other cyclists too. That said, as a motorist, I've noticed that the number of twattish motor scooter riders has increased massively. These riders would be twattish using any form of transport.
On the point of insurance, drivers and riders of motor vehicles are required to have a minimum third party insurance because of the potential damage that they can inflict on others. Car insurance costs more because the risks and statistics show that they are more likely to injure others. Cycles are relatively low risk to other road users (including pedestrians) and very rarely cause fatalities. That's why successive governments have never seen the need to require bicycle insurance. Interestingly, one of the reasons why our motor insurance premiums are so high is the number of drivers and motorcyclists who cause accidents and are uninsured.
You're lucky you don't ride in the countryside because you'd be contending with horses and tractors, most of which don't pay road tax!
'Many cycle routes are funded by local authorities:' - Many cycle routes may be, most are not.
'Similarly many roads are the responsibility of local authorities and are maintained using funds raised by local taxation i.e. council tax ' - some roads may be funded, most are not.
'Households don't pay more council tax for owning lots of cars, bicycles or motorbikes although your logic suggests this should be the case.' - Great arguement this one, my logic only says this if you twist it. However if you wish to use the Council tax as leverage in an arguement then it works in my favour because the more people you have in your house the more council tax you pay!!!!
I totally agree with you view on scooters.
If you want to cycle go ahead on the cycle lanes provided, cylists should be banned from the road IMHO, they are dangerous, expecially in the inner city, ironically where they are most used.
Also, I live in Kent not far from Brands Hatch and Wrotham Hill, on Wednesdays they have cycle races up and down the hill, the buggers are everywhere, this is a fast stretch of road, its an accidents waiting to happen.
The roads were made for cars, motorbikes, lorries buses etc. not push bikes, I get fed up with the cycle lobbiests wanting to hijack our roads and shoot down motorists, and I've not even mentioned running red lights and cycling on the pavement.
Dont get me wrong I don't wish any harm to cyclists I just wish they would all piss of to the velodrome,
Oh yes dont get me started on horse riders on the road!
Have a nice day and keep it sunny side up.
So there were no roads until the car was invented?
And they are built for the exclusive use of motorised vehicle for the same reason.
I would love to see the cycle fraternity put there hand in there pocket and pay for road tax, imagine the revenue generated!! However they would just bitch and moan as ever!!
Alternatively, all the cyclists can just use cars instead and contribute to horrendous traffic jams. Then everyone can moan about that instead... :roll:
My point is if other cities can cope with cars, bikes, horses and carriages on the same roads, why is London any different? When you say 'it's not OK here', is it really not? Apart from a few irate 'cyclist hating' car drivers posting here, there are also a few posters who say the situation is fine in London too.
Kin ell the roads that we have now are/wer econstructed for motorised transport NOT cycles!!
I'm sympathetic to some of your points, but this thing about cyclists not being entitled to use the roads doesn't add up. What we need is not any particular road user banned from the road, but for all the people using the roads, be that on foot, bike, car, lorry, bus or segway, to be better educated in how to behave and more considerate/aware of other road users needs and behaviour.
My work means I do around 30k miles a year on all manner of roads and all over the country. It gets on my tits when i find cyclists two a breast on a narrow road, or jumping red lights, or holding up traffic on the main carriage way when there is a specifically provided cycle lane just next door, but I have to say the vast majority of downright dangeroaus or reckless behaviour I see comes from cars or motorcyclists.
OK lets do it this way. In the modern world Motorists pay road tax for the up keep of the road NOT cyclists. (if the Gov choose to spend the money on something else, that is up to them). So my logic is this...if you pay ROAD tax and INSURANCE then you are entitled to use and have a say in how roads are managed! Easy really. Let the cyclists pay road tax and insurance and take a test then they can cycle their sweaty arses off to their hearts content!! Until that happens I will be against cyclists on the roads...and yes I do own the road, albeit a small part of them!!
Nope. There is no such thing as 'road tax'. You pay tax for your car, we all pay for roads whether we have a car or not (or bike come to that). Check it out:
Road tax myth
I look forward to your debate about insurance??? And a riding test!!!!!!
Look cyclists should not be on the road until they fulfill the same criteria as other road users!!
If cyclists are as responsible(???) as they sat they are, then logic says the above is worth doing!!
And by your reasoning, does that mean pedestrians shouldnt use the road either as they arent insured and don't pay 'road tax'??
'And by your reasoning, does that mean pedestrians shouldnt use the road either as they arent insured and don't pay 'road tax'?? , - The last time I looked Pedestrians had a pavement to walk on?? If they are on the road then they would be a bloody nuisense as well!!
So Floyd, you dont wanna pay insurance then, me neither but I have too and so should cyclists
I guess you have never heard of a pedestrian being sued for damaging a car after stepping in front of it, and also getting charged by the Ambulance service for the lift to A+E.
Its only a matter of time before accidental liability insurance will become an option for pedestrians!! I ve got a dog and even that is insured should it run out in th road and causes an accident, I think you will find that if a pedestian is deemed negligent then they will pay the damages!! Next!
I have not cycled since my Raleigh chopper went missing a couple of decades ago.
I agree with Exiled.
What do you think the premium would be for a cyclist?
Would it be more or less than the postage and cost of preparation of the documents needed to create it?
If it was financially worthwhile to get people who generate such miniscule insurance risks, why do you think it isnt done??
You have to pay insurance because you are a risk to other road users and property.
And judging by your illogical approach to them shown on this list, cyclists in particular.
"zzzzzzz...24 Red..."
Is that the sound you make when admitting you are utterly wrong on the facts?
Bibble said:
"if we did not pay road tax, then even more tax would come out the government pot to be spent on the roads"
And if I didn't pay VAT on baked beans the same thing would apply.
Bibble said:
"I look forward to your debate about insurance??? And a riding test!!!!!!"
There is of course a case for cyclists having insurance. Before we compel things in this country however, there needs to be an overwhelming interest for others. Insurance is compulsory for cars because of the high level of damage, injury and death they cause. That does not apply to bikes - I will leave you to check out the stats. That's not to say cyclists don't cause accidents, but when they do overwhelmingly they are the ones that suffer the consequences.
Also of course the government wants to promote cycling because it is cleaner, healthier and cheaper than driving, so they are unlikely to create financial barriers to taking it up.
To a lesser extent, the same probably applies to cycling proficiency. I anticipate the council-run schemes drying up as the cuts take effect. They certainly couldn't resource compulsory tests. However, all cyclists should be responsible and take lessons. Southwark for example offers two free sessions, total of four hours, with a well-trained instructor. Fantastic service.
Haven't we had all this debate before on another thread?
I've got a Boris bike key, there's a few teething problems with it and I reckon it'll be a long while before it's available to non-members. But it's a good thing to have and it's good to be able to borrow a bike for a half-hour pootle through Hyde Park or wherever.
I think when Boris agreed to take on the idea he inherited, neither he nor TfL really thought through how people would use it - as a substitute for buses and the Tube when commuting. In a way, it's part of the appeal for me - it's a bit of a journey into the unknown as more people start to ride bikes.
It won't do much to reduce traffic in town, mind - only those who absolutely have to, cabbies, or idiots, drive in central London.