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!
0
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
This was not Boris's idea - it came as a result of a study carried out by TfL staff into the Paris system and other round the world. The initiative was started before Boris took control, so the best you can say is that he "championed" the idea.
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.
Will never happen as they are far too dangerous. The hover-board has been invented but is not allowed to be commercially available for this reason.
However I see no reason why Oxford Street couldn't become pedestrianised. It just needs re-organisation and the courage to do it.
London is statistically the driest city in UK. The amount of rainfall probably isn't the biggest factor for cyclists (once you're wet, you're wet). The number of days it rains is probably a bigger factor and the other is temperature. I bet London is colder than Lyon from November to March. I've been cycling from New Eltham to London for years with decent kit but autumn and winter can be awful. Hopping on a hire bike in winter without a decent jacket, gloves and footwear will probably put some people off cycling forever.
What?
Really? When? Where? This is news to me. Have you been watching Back to the future 2 or something? ;-)
Yeah, I actually went looking to see if this is true, as far as I can tell, it's not. However, Nils Guadagnin, has created a board that hovers, and can realign itself with some fancy lazer technology, however it can't carry any weight!
I had exactly the same thought process and went straight to wikipedia! It was painful having my hopes raised and dashed like that
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'm a car driving, commuter cycling former motor cyclist so I have no axe to grind on this.
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?
I suspect it is because in this country the minds of many drivers are almost as narrow as the roads in our major cities.
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.