Cycling bans in pedestrianised town centres

[dcbwhaley]

Of course, I suspect that the case would have had a very different outcome if the pedestrian had deliberately pushed the cyclist off balance, or stuck a walking stick in the bike spokes, as suggested by the previous poster.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2024 ==

Someone with your attitude caused the death of a 79-year old cyclist in Huntingdon in 2020.

Pedestrian Auriol Grey jailed over Huntingdon cyclist death

Auriol Grey gestured and swore at Celia Ward, who fell into the path of a car and died.

www.bbc.co.uk

I do't feel that injuring someone is fair game but I feel that if someone cycles so close that they threatens to injure me I am entitled to push them away. The appeal court judge in overturning the the Huntingdon case ruled that that was the case.

And you are unlikely to push a cyclist under a car in a car free area.

 

[JohnMcL7]

These bans seem to spring from the nuisance caused by delivery riders. My observations are that what these people are using are motorbikes not electric bicycles - they have throttles and don't require pedalling, may seem to reach 30mph (one passed me easily doing 40).
The legal definition of an ebike requires that it have limited assstance up to 15.5mph and no throttle above walking pace.
The existing laws around motor vehicles are being ignored and cyclists are being collectively punished for the failure of policing.

You're correct and it's frustrating these illegal motor vehicles are referred to as illegal ebikes given these vehicles are not close to ebikes and the riders aren't cyclists. There are plenty existing and harsh laws for such people that clearly need to be enforced if the delivery riders are a problem. Amongst the many legal ebike riders I have seen a couple of non-delivery riders on illegal motorbikes but for the most part it's delivery riders I see on them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're correct and it's frustrating these illegal motor vehicles are referred to as illegal ebikes given these vehicles are not close to ebikes and the riders aren't cyclists. There are plenty existing and harsh laws for such people that clearly need to be enforced if the delivery riders are a problem. Amongst the many legal ebike riders I have seen a couple of non-delivery riders on illegal motorbikes but for the most part it's delivery riders I see on them.

Yep. They are untaxed, uninsured, un-type-approved mopeds (would be class AM or A depending on top speed if they were legal). They have the benefit over a petrol moped without tax and insurance that you don't need to run an ANPR check to see if there is one, they're obvious to the naked eye, at least to the extent that it's worth stopping the rider and checking. (There do exist e-"fat bikes" that meet the EAPC regulations, but you're very unlikely to see a delivery rider riding one, they're more for kids* because with those wide tyres they will be very underpowered).

This all just comes down to a shortage of police officers on the ground and an unwillingness of those who are there to stop them even where they see one.

* And if you see a kid obviously under 14 on any e-bike they should be stopped because that's illegal full stop, same with scooters, whether rented or not.

 

[Meerkat]

Why are bikes banned in pedestrian areas? Are there really many pedestrian injuries or is this “Ooh that looks dangerous and my friend’s colleague’s Gran got hit by one”?
Cyclists have a high interest in not hitting pedestrians as it usually results in rapid unplanned dismounts which are more painful than being hit by a cyclist, and can knacker your bike.
They seem to do fine mixing bikes and people in Holland, and any ban is only going to be followed by the unproblematic cyclists - the yobs and delivery riders won’t care.

ps are delivery riders tracked? If so maybe the companies should be taking more responsibility. They should already be taking responsibility for illegal bikes (decent companies wouldn’t want illegality by people fully kitted out in their brand……..)

 

[bramling]

Why are bikes banned in pedestrian areas? Are there really many pedestrian injuries or is this “Ooh that looks dangerous and my friend’s colleague’s Gran got hit by one”?
Cyclists have a high interest in not hitting pedestrians as it usually results in rapid unplanned dismounts which are more painful than being hit by a cyclist, and can knacker your bike.
They seem to do fine mixing bikes and people in Holland, and any ban is only going to be followed by the unproblematic cyclists - the yobs and delivery riders won’t care.

ps are delivery riders tracked? If so maybe the companies should be taking more responsibility. They should already be taking responsibility for illegal bikes (decent companies wouldn’t want illegality by people fully kitted out in their brand……..)

For all the “someone is going to get killed” emotive stuff on social media, pedestrians being injured or worse by cyclists is very rare. However I can certainly understand the issue causing significant annoyance, indeed some cyclists can be very aggressive on shared paths. But cyclists don’t have a monopoly on problematic behaviour in public spaces, it’s just a group that people seem to focus on for some reason.

Nowadays in this country problems seem to arise wherever people co-exist. If one thinks things are bad between pedestrians and cyclists, have a look on a river at the relationship between fishermen and boats!

 

[takno]

For all the “someone is going to get killed” emotive stuff on social media, pedestrians being injured or worse by cyclists is very rare. However I can certainly understand the issue causing significant annoyance, indeed some cyclists can be very aggressive on shared paths. But cyclists don’t have a monopoly on problematic behaviour in public spaces, it’s just a group that people seem to focus on for some reason.

Nowadays in this country problems seem to arise wherever people co-exist. If one thinks things are bad between pedestrians and cyclists, have a look on a river at the relationship between fishermen and boats!

The cyclist takes up more space, and is in a position to go much faster, cause more damage, and in most cases to force their way through without regard to the inconvenience this causes others. The relationship is somewhat similar to bikes and cars, except that cyclists don't have to pass even the most basic tests, carry insurance or take any responsibility for the damage they cause

To add insult to injury, planners and politicians seem to routinely regard pedestrians and cyclists as essentially the same group of people. It's extremely common to see them put bike lanes in place of bus lanes, encourage bike parking on pavements, or declare pavements as shared spaces to the huge detriment of pedestrians. Having done this they then seem to want us to celebrate, like they actually believe they've done pedestrians a favour.

 

[bramling]

The cyclist takes up more space, and is in a position to go much faster, cause more damage, and in most cases to force their way through without regard to the inconvenience this causes others. The relationship is somewhat similar to bikes and cars, except that cyclists don't have to pass even the most basic tests, carry insurance or take any responsibility for the damage they cause

To add insult to injury, planners and politicians seem to routinely regard pedestrians and cyclists as essentially the same group of people. It's extremely common to see them put bike lanes in place of bus lanes, encourage bike parking on pavements, or declare pavements as shared spaces to the huge detriment of pedestrians. Having done this they then seem to want us to celebrate, like they actually believe they've done pedestrians a favour.

Not necessarily disagreeing with any of the above, and personally I tend to agree that shared-use paths don’t work particularly well in practice. However the notion that cyclists *can* cause more damage is somewhat overblown, as generally this doesn’t seem to happen in practice.

For their part, people walking aren’t blameless either, in general situational awareness is appalling nowadays, and however much one finds cyclists an annoyance anyone riding a bike has to have some level of it just to be able to get from A to B.

 

[takno]

Not necessarily disagreeing with any of the above, and personally I tend to agree that shared-use paths don’t work particularly well in practice. However the notion that cyclists *can* cause more damage is somewhat overblown, as generally this doesn’t seem to happen in practice.

For their part, people walking aren’t blameless either, in general situational awareness is appalling nowadays, and however much one finds cyclists an annoyance anyone riding a bike has to have some level of it just to be able to get from A to B.

Certainly I have been knocked off my feet and bruised as I walked out of my front door by a cyclist who was unaccountably riding at speed on the pavement. That isn't the sort of thing that I would be running off to report to the police, particularly since the (not-very-young respectable looking female) cyclist didn't hang about to take responsibility, but it certainly caused me pain for the next couple of days, and could easily have resulted in broken bone for somebody slightly older.

On the whole my main concern is the psychological effect on pedestrians of having a few close run-ins. I don't want to be slightly injured, or even alarmed, and I dread the thought of a cyclist coming at me ending up swerving into traffic or a canal. I know several people who now mostly drive where they used to walk, or who just leave the house less, which in neither case is a good thing.

I agree that situational awareness is often poor, and as a pedestrian it can be frustrating having people stop suddenly in front of you, or carry on walking 3 across the pavement when you are trying to go in the other direction. People are people though, and there shouldn't be a requirement to be super-aware just to leave the house. Pavements and pedestrian areas need to be a safe place for people with poor situational awareness or disabilities, and the low speed, good manoeuvrability and excellent stopping times inherent in walking support that. The same simply can't be said for cyclists.

 

[ChrisC]

Not necessarily disagreeing with any of the above, and personally I tend to agree that shared-use paths don’t work particularly well in practice. However the notion that cyclists *can* cause more damage is somewhat overblown, as generally this doesn’t seem to happen in practice.

For their part, people walking aren’t blameless either, in general situational awareness is appalling nowadays, and however much one finds cyclists an annoyance anyone riding a bike has to have some level of it just to be able to get from A to B.

I have no problem with most cyclists. I am a cyclist myself and as mentioned already I now ride a legal folding e-bike. Genuine responsible cyclists cause few problems even when riding through pedestrianised streets. The problem in many of our cities these days are those masked and hooded riders on illegal ebikes that go at speed without any pedalling. They ride at speed through busy streets of pedestrians and just expect people to jump out of their way. The bikes they ride are more like electric motorcycles and are illegal.

 

[dcbwhaley]

Why are bikes banned in pedestrian areas? Are there really many pedestrian injuries or is this “Ooh that looks dangerous and my friend’s colleague’s Gran got hit by one”?
…..)

A number of my friends in the hiking club are against bicycle's on bridleways because they NEARLY got hit by one

 

[Peter Sarf]

Why are bikes banned in pedestrian areas? Are there really many pedestrian injuries or is this “Ooh that looks dangerous and my friend’s colleague’s Gran got hit by one”?
Cyclists have a high interest in not hitting pedestrians as it usually results in rapid unplanned dismounts which are more painful than being hit by a cyclist, and can knacker your bike.
They seem to do fine mixing bikes and people in Holland, and any ban is only going to be followed by the unproblematic cyclists - the yobs and delivery riders won’t care.

ps are delivery riders tracked? If so maybe the companies should be taking more responsibility. They should already be taking responsibility for illegal bikes (decent companies wouldn’t want illegality by people fully kitted out in their brand……..)

My bold :-
Think about a young man hitting an old person....
There is a reason old people do not generally play contact sport.

As someone who is currently on blood thinners I cannot afford to take a blow - particularly to the head where there is a good chance it would be fatal. I am very very unlikely to be hit at speed by a pedestrian unless they are running.

It is not you average cyclist that is a problem it is the ones riding very fast with no concern for others.

The cyclist takes up more space, and is in a position to go much faster, cause more damage, and in most cases to force their way through without regard to the inconvenience this causes others. The relationship is somewhat similar to bikes and cars, except that cyclists don't have to pass even the most basic tests, carry insurance or take any responsibility for the damage they cause

To add insult to injury, planners and politicians seem to routinely regard pedestrians and cyclists as essentially the same group of people. It's extremely common to see them put bike lanes in place of bus lanes, encourage bike parking on pavements, or declare pavements as shared spaces to the huge detriment of pedestrians. Having done this they then seem to want us to celebrate, like they actually believe they've done pedestrians a favour.

My bold.
This is frustrating me in Croydon. The bus routes now pass further from the town centre because of cycle lanes - cycle lanes that are still not getting used. Other routes have pavements over run by bikes - perhaps the idea is to discourage walking !.

Certainly I have been knocked off my feet and bruised as I walked out of my front door by a cyclist who was unaccountably riding at speed on the pavement. That isn't the sort of thing that I would be running off to report to the police, particularly since the (not-very-young respectable looking female) cyclist didn't hang about to take responsibility, but it certainly caused me pain for the next couple of days, and could easily have resulted in broken bone for somebody slightly older.

On the whole my main concern is the psychological effect on pedestrians of having a few close run-ins. I don't want to be slightly injured, or even alarmed, and I dread the thought of a cyclist coming at me ending up swerving into traffic or a canal. I know several people who now mostly drive where they used to walk, or who just leave the house less, which in neither case is a good thing.

I agree that situational awareness is often poor, and as a pedestrian it can be frustrating having people stop suddenly in front of you, or carry on walking 3 across the pavement when you are trying to go in the other direction. People are people though, and there shouldn't be a requirement to be super-aware just to leave the house. Pavements and pedestrian areas need to be a safe place for people with poor situational awareness or disabilities, and the low speed, good manoeuvrability and excellent stopping times inherent in walking support that. The same simply can't be said for cyclists.

It is true that it only takes a minority to spoil a place or reputation (of cyclists).

The advantage of cars is they have a registration number and the driver has a licence to lose.

I have no problem with most cyclists. I am a cyclist myself and as mentioned already I now ride a legal folding e-bike. Genuine responsible cyclists cause few problems even when riding through pedestrianised streets. The problem in many of our cities these days are those masked and hooded riders on illegal ebikes that go at speed without any pedalling. They ride at speed through busy streets of pedestrians and just expect people to jump out of their way. The bikes they ride are more like electric motorcycles and are illegal.

This is the basic problem and the government and others are doing far too little and to late to address this trend.

It was the same with SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles). They seem to be taxed quite heavily now but the number of these larger vehicles mean I am tempted to get a bigger vehicle for myself so I feel safe.

I really am thinking about a safety helmet and maybe some chest pads just so I can walk safely.

 

[Meerkat]

It is not you average cyclist that is a problem it is the ones riding very fast with no concern for others.

Who won’t be bothered by being banned from pedestrian areas. In fact they will be able to go faster without the other cyclists in the way!

 

[Peter Sarf]

Who won’t be bothered by being banned from pedestrian areas. In fact they will be able to go faster without the other cyclists in the way!

My thinking is that if the rules were actually enforced they would have their bike removed from their possession.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

A number of my friends in the hiking club are against bicycle's on bridleways because they NEARLY got hit by one

I'm against asteroids for a similar reason.

 

[dcbwhaley]

I really am thinking about a safety helmet and maybe some chest pads just so I can walk safely.

A good idea. Because if you are knocked over by an at fault mototristr the damages will be reduced becaause you were not wearing a helmet

 

[Peter Sarf]

A good idea. Because if you are knocked over by an at fault mototristr the damages will be reduced becaause you were not wearing a helmet

Damages !. I am just thinking about not getting hurt.

 

[Nottingham59]

People walking aren’t blameless either, in general situational awareness is appalling nowadays,

Though people walking may have cataracts; or extreme short sight; or tunnel vision. Or be deaf. Or extremely unsteady on their feet, so they can't react quickly even if they are aware of a cyclist heading towards them at speed. Or have macular degeneration. What's appalling about that? Do you blame them for being outside?

The whole point of pavements with kerbs is to do just that: curb ingression by motor vehicles and keep at least some part of the King's Highway safe for everyone.

 

[renegademaster]

The bus routes now pass further from the town centre because of cycle lanes

They have made this slightly better with routing busses through St Georges Walk but ultimately they need to reopen it all the way up to the Cinema along the original route. For a Tory mayor who got elected on backlash to LTNs and similar schemes, Perry has really been useless at reversing them.

 

[Dr_Paul]

In and around London we have a new invention: a combined bus-stop and bike-lane. I'm riding nicely along a bike-lane between the pavement and the carriageway, and suddenly there's a crowd of people milling around the entrance of a bus, and a stream of people alighting from it, all in the bike-lane. The bike-lane is segregated from the road by a kerb, so it's not possible to overtake the bus, as it was when the bike-lanes were merely marked off with a white line on the road. Now, I don't ride that fast and am able to pull up; but the box-boys on their high-speed e-bike delivery missions are a different matter. On other occasions, I'm waiting to board a bus or have alighted from one, and a box-boy or other inattentive or impatient cyclist comes bowling along the bike-lane towards me. It's worse for the old folk or mums with little kids in buggies or with toddlers. Lots of people to whom I've spoken don't like this arrangement and feel that it's dangerous. Who thought up this brilliant idea?

 

[Crithylum]

In and around London we have a new invention: a combined bus-stop and bike-lane. I'm riding nicely along a bike-lane between the pavement and the carriageway, and suddenly there's a crowd of people milling around the entrance of a bus, and a stream of people alighting from it, all in the bike-lane. The bike-lane is segregated from the road by a kerb, so it's not possible to overtake the bus, as it was when the bike-lanes were merely marked off with a white line on the road. Now, I don't ride that fast and am able to pull up; but the box-boys on their high-speed e-bike delivery missions are a different matter. On other occasions, I'm waiting to board a bus or have alighted from one, and a box-boy or other inattentive or impatient cyclist comes bowling along the bike-lane towards me. It's worse for the old folk or mums with little kids in buggies or with toddlers. Lots of people to whom I've spoken don't like this arrangement and feel that it's dangerous. Who thought up this brilliant idea?

I agree they are stupid. A 'fix' for this design would be a requirement for cyclists to stop when a bus is stopped, however I think we can all predict how that would work in practice.

I quite like the design where the bus shelter is on an island about 3m wide between the bike lane and the road, with a (sometimes zebra) crossing between the island and the pavement. This design works best when the bike lane is at road level, and the crossing is raised at an appropriate smoothness. This means that cyclists and pedestrians have enough time to see each other (even if riding carelessly), and the hump adds discomfort for those cycling at inappropriate speeds. Having a height separation also helps with segregating the waiting for bus area from the cycling area. Without a height separation a different paving material and/or tactile edge should be provided. The bigger issue is this design requires more width, so may not always fit.

Back to the original topic of the thread, when cycling I usually try to avoid pedestrianised areas, and will take a longer route as a result. As I cycle at a speed appropriate to the conditions, this means that my average speed is often halved in these areas. Although I very much appreciate the ability to cycle through these areas if my final destination is within one of these areas. A crackdown on these illegal motorcycles is definitely necessary. The ones that especially make me mad are the ones with fake licence plates with "electric assist pedal cycle", even though they are accelerating without pedaling above 6km/h.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Though people walking may have cataracts; or extreme short sight; or tunnel vision. Or be deaf. Or extremely unsteady on their feet, so they can't react quickly even if they are aware of a cyclist heading towards them at speed. Or have macular degeneration. What's appalling about that? Do you blame them for being outside?

The whole point of pavements with kerbs is to do just that: curb ingression by motor vehicles and keep at least some part of the King's Highway safe for everyone.

Indeed.

Add to that that if a motorist has become unfit to drive they can be expected to walk. Ideally they will walk on the nice safe pavement and not mess about with the faster vehicles except at designated crossings. But now they are no longer a danger to others but are at higher risk to themselves - so not much incentive for an elder person to give up their car.

They have made this slightly better with routing busses through St Georges Walk but ultimately they need to reopen it all the way up to the Cinema along the original route. For a Tory mayor who got elected on backlash to LTNs and similar schemes, Perry has really been useless at reversing them.

Yes. I too have been waiting for the council to give us bus passengers back the route along the High Street to George Street. I have not noticed any change since we gained a Mayor.

In and around London we have a new invention: a combined bus-stop and bike-lane. I'm riding nicely along a bike-lane between the pavement and the carriageway, and suddenly there's a crowd of people milling around the entrance of a bus, and a stream of people alighting from it, all in the bike-lane. The bike-lane is segregated from the road by a kerb, so it's not possible to overtake the bus, as it was when the bike-lanes were merely marked off with a white line on the road. Now, I don't ride that fast and am able to pull up; but the box-boys on their high-speed e-bike delivery missions are a different matter. On other occasions, I'm waiting to board a bus or have alighted from one, and a box-boy or other inattentive or impatient cyclist comes bowling along the bike-lane towards me. It's worse for the old folk or mums with little kids in buggies or with toddlers. Lots of people to whom I've spoken don't like this arrangement and feel that it's dangerous. Who thought up this brilliant idea?

Yes I have got off a bus and then realised my assumption of a pavement was wrong. I have noticed on some routes a recorded warning is played but like all the other noises I tend to ignore them. Like the one telling us to hold on when the bus is moving. We know that but it would be useful if they told usbb before the beast starts to move !.

 

[Via Bank]

my controversial view is that

• If, in Britain, we gave people direct & attractive cycle routes and didn’t expect them to alternate between dodging 30mph traffic and dismounting/walking, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. More people would cycle, and they would do so at normal speeds, like they do in countries like Holland and Denmark
• The box boys on illegal jerry-rigged e-motorbikes are a product of both hostile street design for cycle-like vehicles and a form of modern slavery where workers are effectively penalised by their employers for following the rules when delivering cooked meals to their customers. All the risk is either taken on by the rider or externalised onto the public.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The box boys on illegal jerry-rigged e-motorbikes are a product of both hostile street design for cycle-like vehicles and a form of modern slavery where workers are effectively penalised by their employers for following the rules when delivering cooked meals to their customers. All the risk is either taken on by the rider or externalised onto the public.

That situation indeed comes up because we want supercheap delivery despite what is basically happening being the meal put in a taxi for delivery - we aren't willing to pay the full taxi fare as we probably should (and even then you don't make a fortune driving taxis).

 

[takno]

my controversial view is that

• If, in Britain, we gave people direct & attractive cycle routes and didn’t expect them to alternate between dodging 30mph traffic and dismounting/walking, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. More people would cycle, and they would do so at normal speeds, like they do in countries like Holland and Denmark
• The box boys on illegal jerry-rigged e-motorbikes are a product of both hostile street design for cycle-like vehicles and a form of modern slavery where workers are effectively penalised by their employers for following the rules when delivering cooked meals to their customers. All the risk is either taken on by the rider or externalised onto the public.

Copenhagen is pretty awful in many places for bikes encroaching onto pavements, particularly for parking, and in many cases the bike routes have been created at the expense of footpaths and bus lanes.

Furthermore, on the longer wider stretches of bike lane, the bike lane is often the most difficult and dangerous part of the road to cross, with riders going at speed with minimal regard for crosswalks and paying scant attention to what's around them.

Bikes are also a problem in pedestrian areas there, including delivery riders, albeit that the riders have a different brand of bag. I wouldn't want to speculate on their employment status.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Legislation.
Zero hours contracts and the pressure to take risks should be dealt with smartly.
As usual in this country we do nothing until too late.

 

[johncrossley]

Copenhagen is pretty awful in many places for bikes encroaching onto pavements, particularly for parking, and in many cases the bike routes have been created at the expense of footpaths and bus lanes.

How else can you attract people to bikes and out of cars without cycle paths? The whole point of cycle paths is to reduce car traffic, surely you can see that?

 

[takno]

How else can you attract people to bikes and out of cars without cycle paths? The whole point of cycle paths is to reduce car traffic, surely you can see that?

I don't think attracting people onto bikes is a particularly useful aim. Walking and public transport is a far more viable way to manage urban transport than bike, and for the most part people walking to their local takeaway or learning to cook is a far better way to manage food distribution.

People have been convinced by some incredibly dodgy stats from the bike lobby that bikes are more space-efficient than buses, but that's a complete nonsense if you spend even 5 minutes working through the figures. We've been told for years that cycling is active travel which will solve the obesity crisis, but the idea of actually powering your own bike is rapidly dying off. There's really not that much to recommend them.

If you are going to do bikes though then it's imperative that the space you take to do it is taken from cars and not from pedestrians or buses.

 

[bramling]

I don't think attracting people onto bikes is a particularly useful aim. Walking and public transport is a far more viable way to manage urban transport than bike, and for the most part people walking to their local takeaway or learning to cook is a far better way to manage food distribution.

People have been convinced by some incredibly dodgy stats from the bike lobby that bikes are more space-efficient than buses, but that's a complete nonsense if you spend even 5 minutes working through the figures. We've been told for years that cycling is active travel which will solve the obesity crisis, but the idea of actually powering your own bike is rapidly dying off. There's really not that much to recommend them.

If you are going to do bikes though then it's imperative that the space you take to do it is taken from cars and not from pedestrians or buses.

The advantage that cycling has over walking is that it’s significantly quicker, and for certain types of journey this applies over public transport too.

If you take a stereotypical journey from Home Counties to a workplace in London, the bike is likely to offer significant time gains getting from home to station and from station to workplace, as well as offering flexibility. This is of course where folding bikes come into their own. I have used bikes in this way in the past, and the time saving was absolutely immense.

I do agree with the point about food delivery bikes though, they are a complete menace, and their main purpose seems to be to provide dubious employment opportunities.

 

[johncrossley]

and for certain types of journey this applies over public transport too.

That's part of the objection. Some people don't like the fact that cycling competes with public transport. The obvious example is to look at public transport mode share in the Netherlands. It is negligible for short distance travel because bikes are so dominant. In a smaller city (up to about 200,000 population) you can easily cycle anywhere in not much more time than it takes to wait for a bus, even if the bus runs every 15 minutes. In the larger cities like Rotterdam distances are longer and there is a metro system so there is more public transport use, although bikes are still very popular.

If you take a stereotypical journey from Home Counties to a workplace in London, the bike is likely to offer significant time gains getting from home to station and from station to workplace, as well as offering flexibility. This is of course where folding bikes come into their own. I have used bikes in this way in the past, and the time saving was absolutely immense.

This is where bikes increase public transport mode share. They increase the catchment area of railway stations or metros. The vast multi-storey bike parks at Dutch railway stations is a clear indication of this.

 

[renegademaster]

complete nonsense if you spend even 5 minutes working through the figures

I find this hard to believe unless you are assuming every bus is full , which unless it's a school leaving time , is rarely true.