Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

London Bike Scheme

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!
«13

Comments

  • Its good to have them here.
    Ive seen hundreds of them flying around the city.
    Seems to be catching on really well!
  • Seen loads and its early days will only get more busier, and if next weeks strikes happen could be a very busy few days for them.
  • Boris Johnson is a bumbling buffoon but I'd have to begrudgingly admit that this was a good idea. The first few days the cycling bays were full but as the idea has caught on I've seen more and more people using them.
  • I've used them a few times (and the wife is working on the scheme for TfL!) - they're actually really good.

    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)
  • [cite]Posted By: LawrieAbrahams[/cite]Boris Johnson is a bumbling buffoon but I'd have to begrudgingly admit that this was a good idea. The first few days the cycling bays were full but as the idea has caught on I've seen more and more people using them.

    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.
  • Interesting insight F Blocker - thanks.
    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
  • Roll on November wet, windy and dark by 4:00. In London with no helmet on.....accident waiting to happen for sure!
  • This began in Lyon (while I was living there) before Paris followed suite. I was such a huge success that there were certain 'stations' that never had enough bikes and others that were over-full. This problem was overcome by special trucks that relocated bikes and also partly because people got wise as to where to go to find one.

    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.
  • As much as I think Boris has been a bad (yet entertaining) mayor, this is a very good idea, hopefully it will be a massive thing and another step to reducing traffic on London's road. Would love to see places like Oxford Street restricted for pedestrians and cyclists only, but I doubt we'd ever see something like that happen, not until flying cars.
  • [cite]Posted By: JollyRobin[/cite]flying cars.

    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.
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]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.

    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.
  • [cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]The hover-board has been invented but is not allowed to be commercially available for this reason.

    What?
  • [cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]The hover-board has been invented but is not allowed to be commercially available for this reason.

    What?

    Really? When? Where? This is news to me. Have you been watching Back to the future 2 or something? ;-)
  • The army have been using Hover-boards for years. It makes it hard for the Taliban to follow their tracks, don't you watch the news?
  • [cite]Posted By: JohnBoyUK[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]The hover-board has been invented but is not allowed to be commercially available for this reason.

    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!
  • So these bikes then, do they allow you to cycle at speed on the pavement, through red lights, along pedestrianised zones or up one way streets the wrong way just like a normal cycle seems to? Sounds great.
  • [cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: JohnBoyUK[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]The hover-board has been invented but is not allowed to be commercially available for this reason.

    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
  • Ban the bloody lot, lets see how many environmentalists think its a great idea in January, February and March - I detest cycles on the road!!

    Its Ok I feel better now!!!
  • What gets your goat Bibble?
    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?
  • Ok here goes.

    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.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited September 2010
    [cite]Posted By: bibble[/cite]Ok here goes.

    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!
  • Oh Dear,

    '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.
  • Roads made for cars lorries etc?
    So there were no roads until the car was invented?
  • You've forgotten caravans, most disappointing, cyclists seem to have stolen our position of most hated road user. But as we take our folding bikes with us wherever we go, all is not lost. It's interesting though in Italy, especially in the Tuscan hills, motorists are very much expected to give way to cyclists and they so so without rancour or question. Cycling and competitive cycling is a national obsession so the attitudes are very different. Why is it in this country so many persist with the belief that roads are built for the exclusive use of their motorised vehicles?
  • [cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]You've forgotten caravans, most disappointing, cyclists seem to have stolen our position of most hated road user. But as we take our folding bikes with us wherever we go, all is not lost. It's interesting though in Italy, especially in the Tuscan hills, motorists are very much expected to give way to cyclists and they so so without rancour or question. Cycling and competitive cycling is a national obsession so the attitudes are very different. Why is it in this country so many persist with the belief that roads are built for the exclusive use of their motorised vehicles?

    I suspect it is because in this country the minds of many drivers are almost as narrow as the roads in our major cities.
  • No there were no roads before the cars etc, there were tracks though. So yes they belong to motorised vehicles because we pay for them, when are cyclists going to get this concept?

    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!!
  • I'm with Bibble on this, hate cyclists - I'd make them pay tax and have insurance.
  • Cycling on roads seems to work ok over here and plenty of other places around the world! All about the attitude of local and national governments and especially road users, all of whom need to appreciate the Universe does not revolve around them.

    Alternatively, all the cyclists can just use cars instead and contribute to horrendous traffic jams. Then everyone can moan about that instead... :roll:
  • Ajax, dope is legal out there too assuming you are in the land of the clog, I dont get the 'well its Ok here etc', I will counter that with 'its not Ok here'!!
  • Dope is indeed decriminalised here in the land of the clog - another idea for Boris to consider? ;-)

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!