TOCs being anti bike?

[Jeni]

If there were fewer cars and more cyclists on the roads, we would all be much safer.

Cyclist's would be safer, but pedestrian's certainly wouldn't be!

 

[jopsuk]

Cyclist's would be safer, but pedestrian's certainly wouldn't be!

Says someone unaware of how many pedestrians are killed every year by cars in this country. Meanwhile pedestrians killed by bicycles doesn't happen every year.

 

[cjp]

If this thread is purely about space taken, (which it's not), pray tell the world what your policy would be with wheelchairs?

Exactly what the TOC have done (under legal compulsion mind) which is adapt to carry them.
They have done the same for cycles but limited and with restrictions.

 

[Beveridges]

Says someone unaware of how many pedestrians are killed every year by cars in this country. Meanwhile pedestrians killed by bicycles doesn't happen every year.

I am a pedestrian sometimes. I find cars more infuriating and life threatening than cycles. I also waste loads of time every day waiting until it is safe to cross roads - due to cars, not cycles.

They need to build more footbridges over roads to benefit the pedestrian rather than having to wait for green men at traffic lights.

I see the argument from all sides as I often do all three - Pedestrian, cyclist and driver.

 

[jon0844]

Footbridges? Surely not, given the length of the ramps for those not able to use the stairs.

Admittedly, traffic light crossings cost a fortune but not as much as a bridge!

Anyway, cyclists present more of a risk to me. Sure a car would likely kill me, while a cyclist merely hurt me (and I have been clipped and it does hurt), but I can easily predict what a car will do and massively reduce risk.

 

[aleph_0]

I am a pedestrian sometimes. I find cars more infuriating and life threatening than cycles. I also waste loads of time every day waiting until it is safe to cross roads - due to cars, not cycles.

They need to build more footbridges over roads to benefit the pedestrian rather than having to wait for green men at traffic lights.

I see the argument from all sides as I often do all three - Pedestrian, cyclist and driver.

Or, for rather less money, have the green man appear much quicker after the button is pressed.

 

[90019]

Or, for rather less money, have the green man appear much quicker after the button is pressed.

The majority of pedestrian crossings I encounter during my working day, from pressing the button the lights change almost immediately, unless someone has just crossed and the lights for the road have only just changed back to green.

 

[reb0118]

Anyway, just booked a trip to Scotland and back with bike reservations on the sleeper and EC. Fun bit with the EC booking- you know right away if you're travelling on an HST or a 91+Mark 4, as on the HST your bike booking is in Coach A (the Guard's part of the TGS, the seated part is coach B) and on a 225 your booking is in coach P (the DVT).

Never been with a bike on the sleeper before- presumably the station staff at Euston will point me in the right direction? I'm guessing it goes in the appropriate BUO (I'm in a standard class berth)?

That's right. You can get up to six bikes in the van. Bring some bungee cords to attach your bike as there is some generous lateral movement enroute esp. over Shap & Beattock. (Also at Lunan Bay on the Aberdeen route)

 

[nw1]

Sure, the current rules say that a red light means stop. My point is that that in many locations, that is an inappropriate rule that amounts to telling cyclists to unnecessarily put their lives in danger.



Ummm, did you read the bit of my post where I said: when you can see that you’re not going to inconvenience anyone else? If you read that sentence then you should be able to work out the answer to your question.



To clarify: At no point in my post did I say anything about pedestrian crossings so I'm baffled as to why you think that's what I was talking about. Of course I would not cycle across pedestrians trying to cross a crossing.



Obviously I have no idea what the situation is on that train, having never travelled on it. So I can't tell what the cyclist you are referring does or whether or not it is needlessly inconsiderate. However I would point out that just because he has a bicycle does not mean his need to travel on that train is any less than yours. Is he really being inconsiderate or is it rather that all the passengers, including you and him, are victims of an insufficient rail service?

To my mind the issue is not so much what the level of provision is (though that is important) but the fact that on SWT, etc, these days there is less cycle provision than there was under the old slam-door stock and thus the move towards less cycle space is anti-progressive and has led to a deterioration in cycle provision.

It's all part of a problem of recent government thinking (particularly this lot, but New Labour to some extent too) in which everything always has to be thought of purely in terms of economics rather than the greater good, and anti-progressive policies and attitudes are seen as acceptable. The idea that being able to take your bike on the train to cycle in the countryside improves your quality of life is not taken into consideration. This is of course much less important than some of the real problems of thinking about things purely in economic terms - loss of jobs in the public sector and deterioration of vital public services is much, much more important - but it does illustrate what I think is wrong with recent governments.

But enough of that, given we have to live with the ethics of contemporary governments what can be done? Like some other posters I'd prefer to pay a small supplement of £2, 10% or whatever if it meant some way of funding increased cycling spaces. The money would of course have to go on that and that only - not just another way of raising general revenue. Add that to an online reservation system for ALL trains (i.e. if you pay this supplement you'd be guaranteed a reservation) and I think I'd be satisfied. In SWT-land you have to turn up hoping there'll be a space, which is why of late I've never taken a bike on a train, as I don't particularly want to be stranded somewhere for at best 30 mins, at worst an hour-plus, waiting for a train which has bike space.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A fair question. These to my mind are the obvious examples - all taken from the extra rules for cyclists that you linked to:

Rule 63: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
That seems sensible on first read – obviously you wouldn’t cycle on a pavement packed with pedestrians, but the rule is too wide. It tells you that even if it’s a pavement away from a town centre (perhaps a 70mph slip-road type junction in the country) that would allow you to avoid entering a dangerous junction, and there are no pedestrians anywhere on it or nearby, you must still cycle in the dangerous junction instead of on the pavement.

Rule 69: You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
The problem here is that very often if you’re at the head of a queue waiting at a red light controlling a junction, and provided you can see that it’s safe to go, it’s much safer to go a few seconds before the lights change to green, so you’re clear of the junction before it fills up with turning lorries etc.

Rule 71: You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.
Crossing the stop line and waiting just past it when the lights are red is often the only way to be clear of other traffic so that you are relatively safe when the lights change and you can go.

I’d say all three of these rules are appropriate for *some* locations, but there are other locations for which obeying them is dangerous and breaking them (when you can see that you’re not going to inconvenience anyone else) is much safer.

As someone who is probably a pedestrian 19 times out of 20, and a cyclist 1 of 20, my general attitude is that there are a number of places where cycling on pavements ought to be allowed. Not in towns or other busy places, but there are certainly instances in the countryside where you have to cycle along a busy and dangerous main road when a quiet, barely-used pavement would provide a safe alternative as long as you act sensibly and watch for any pedestrians that might be around, getting off your bike when you approach them and giving them the right of way.

More generally I do think more needs to be done to cater for cyclists, too much of the time they are forced to share dangerous busy roads with motor traffic. Also in some countryside areas there are gravel tracks, good enough to be used by cars, which are pedestrian (and perhaps horse) only, no bikes allowed, which seems a bit silly - concrete examples include some wide gravel tracks in the New Forest and the Woolmer Forest perimeter track near Liphook (the old Longmoor Military Railway to get back on-topic!) Apparently the reason might be the landowner (e.g the MOD) doesn't want to be sued if a cyclist has an accident. This of course is another of today's big problems in society: an obsession with litigation leads to a loss of freedom for all.

 

[Chrisgr31]

A very exciting topic!

On the original topic the problem of the big rides is not getting the bikes away from the finish its getting them to the start. On the main London to Brighton for example transport is provided to bring the bike back to London. The problem though is getting your bike to the start in the first place, and of course away from it if the organiser returns it there for you.

A few years ago I rode from Bridlington to Morecombe as part of a work ride for charity. Two of us from London did it and we booked our bikes on the train, gave us an incentive to get to Morecombe on time! In order to get my bike to London I had to start work late to avoid the peak hour ban on Southern. For my colleagues in Newcastle and Leeds who were more numerous a minibus was organised and it was towing a bike trailer, it also took our luggage between night stops. So all easily sorted.

Fold-up bikes are a right pain on Southern commuter services these days, for a start not all of them fold up properly, then many won't fit on the lower level of the luggage rack so are put on the upper level, only problem is that the upper level of the luggage rack is usually used as a seat! Then of course there are those that leave them in the doorways!

Southern have recently done a lot of work to increase bike storage at their stations, and I think that were they have installed additional bike storage they are also monitored by CCTV although I assume its not live and can only be checked if something gets stolen.

I use Boris bikes in London have never had any real problem although they are heavy, shame they have doubled in price this year though.

I suspect that bike usage is going to increase though as the cost of fuel makes cycling a more financially attractive proposition. Its strange really the government encourage us to buy bikes through cycle to work schemes, and then make the TOCs use stock that can't carry said bicycles.

Whats really needed is to either store bicycles vertically, or to have double height storage for them so the space which currently allows 3 bikes would allow 6.

Also making it easier to book a bike on a train would help, currently you can use national sites to book your journey and seat, why not add the abilty to book a bike space for the whole journey and charge for it at say 50% of the train fare capped at £10? Could do the same for large suitcases etc!

 

[jopsuk]

Um, bike bookings on trains where they're available (and usually required) are simply done (for free) through most booking sites.

And most of the mass-participation rides that have transport from the finish also have transport to the start- after all, if you're going to hire a coach and lorry, might as well make it for the whole day.

 

[Northerner]

My suggestion along with a few others would be Compulsory booking of cycles with associated charge. Very akin to an excessive luggage charge Inline with airline procedures, & Limited to only 2 cycles per set of doors. Train specific obviously.
Remember that these bikes are usually stored in the only means of escape, there are also the associated delay to trains by the loading and unloading of bikes. Passenger Trains are for the
Conveyance of "passengers" not oversized packages
Furthermore with the comments about cyclist obeying road laws, I live in Oxford and I can assure you that it is the majority not the minority that totally ignore the rules of the road. A few minutes observing the madness of Botley rd during peak hours would convince even the die hard defenders of cycle users.
I would go so far as suggesting a cycle tax and licence or formal training which would benefit the user and the motorists.
I am sure that this will cause some angst among other members, but please remember that: I am cyclist, and I respectfully use trains everyday. But then mutual respect is something that is missing in today's general society

 

[BestWestern]

I'm always amazed at the vitriol directed towards cyclists in the UK. I don't defend cyclists breaking the law or behaving in an inconsiderate manner. However, just think about it for a moment. Cars are one tonne or more of high powered metal - spewing out pollution, occupying a lot of road space, creating noise, killing thousands of people per year (look at the accident statistics), consuming fossil fuels, etc. And car drivers are hardly known for obeying the law - think about the attitude towards speeding.
If there were fewer cars and more cyclists on the roads, we would all be much safer.

To take your final point, roads would be safer with more bikes and less cars; no, they wouldn't. At least not if everybody in a car simply switched to a bike. Traffic would be far less predictable, pedestrians would take far more risks when crossing those roads, there would be thousands more idiots riding unlit bikes at night, jumping on and off the pavements when it suited them, disregarding the road laws at junctions, ignoring traffic signals and everything else.

A very significant proportion of cyclists in the UK have a bad attitude. They feel that their mode of transport gives them some kind of 'ideal mix' of being able to use the roads when it advantages them, but then also being able to shortcut the rules in equal measure when that helps them out too. Many of them have shockingly poor roadsense, and there seems a general mentality in many cases that it is everyone else's job to look out for them, dodge them and avoid putting them in hospital because the driver is always to blame. And when they are on the pavement, the speed at which some will ride clearly suggests that it is the pedestrian who is tasked with moving out of the way, as the cyclist has not a cat in hell's chance of being able to read what is ahead and react accordingly in good time.

It would be a very postive thing if everybody concerned could have the right attitude and we could have a bike-friendly society filled with healthy, considerate cyclists. As things stand at the moment however, bikes don't mix well with the pedestrians on the pavements or with the traffic on the roads.

 

[radamfi]

Of course, the rants against cyclists only occur in the UK because cyclists are required to share the road with motor vehicles. That will inevitably lead to conflict. I'm surprised that I have to point out yet again that the Dutch way of segregation of cyclists on quality cycle paths (i.e. not cycle lanes or poor quality paths like in the UK) means that such rants are rare or non-existent in the Netherlands.

Similarly, the Dutch have largely solved the problem of cycle carriage on trains by having instant cycle hire by a swipe of a card at most main railway stations. Cycles are banned on trains nationwide in peak hours and you do have to pay a daily fee for use off-peak. Free carriage in the UK is only possible because so few people cycle in this country! If UK cycle usage rose to levels in the Netherlands, or even Belgium, Germany or Denmark, then the trains would be swamped with bikes unless a fee was charged.

Main Dutch stations have secure manned cycle parking open from first to last train. This means that commuters can use two bikes. They park one bike at their home station during the day and pick up their other bike at the station near work. Or they can hire a bike instantly using a swipe card.

 

[BestWestern]

...The Dutch have largely solved the problem of cycle carriage on trains by having instant cycle hire by a swipe of a card at most main railway stations. Cycles are banned on trains nationwide in peak hours and you do have to pay a daily fee for use off-peak. Free carriage in the UK is only possible because so few people cycle in this country! If UK cycle usage rose to levels in the Netherlands, or even Belgium, Germany or Denmark, then the trains would be swamped with bikes unless a fee was charged.

Main Dutch stations have secure manned cycle parking open from first to last train. This means that commuters can use two bikes. They park one bike at their home station during the day and pick up their other bike at the station near work. Or they can hire a bike instantly using a swipe card.

By far the best solution to the problem. But, depressingly, very unlikely to be replicated to any worthwhile degree on our muddled, fragmented, profit-centred system. Shame.

 

[jon0844]

We have some pretty good cycle lanes now where I live and they're rarely used. I am not entirely sure what most cyclists want a lot of the time.

And I've seen many problems with bikes and pedestrians in Amsterdam. No doubt the difference being that many more pedestrians are probably cyclists at other times, but they still don't tolerate the bad ones.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[radamfi]

We have some pretty good cycle lanes now where I live and they're rarely used. I am not entirely sure what most cyclists want a lot of the time.

And I've seen many problems with bikes and pedestrians in Amsterdam. No doubt the difference being that many more pedestrians are probably cyclists at other times, but they still don't tolerate the bad ones.

First of all, you used the word 'lanes' which automatically makes them poor quality. I can't emphasize enough that the 'paths' have to be very high quality with all the bells and whistles that a modern Dutch path has. You will know whether the path is good enough quality by whether it is used or not.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/10/consistent-convenient-high-quality.html

gives you an idea of the modern Dutch cycle path.

Amsterdam, despite its image as the cycling capital of the world, is actually very poor standard compared to the rest of the country with narrow paths and merely painted lanes as opposed to paths. The outer suburbs of Amsterdam have better quality paths but still not comparable to the best towns. The town highlighted in the above link has a much higher cycle rate than Amsterdam. Amsterdam has a below average cycle rate in NL.

 

[jon0844]

I cycle on them without difficulties. Are there different species of cyclist?!

These are new roads (new estate) with paths off the road, but this does mean sometimes going a bit further to cross roads and having to use traffic lights (toucan crossings) to cross busier roads. I assume that puts people off, but nevertheless they are there and they keep cyclists away from motor vehicles.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[radamfi]

People who currently cycle in the UK are the 'low hanging fruit'. That is, they are the tiny minority of the population already prepared to cycle on roads with fast or heavy traffic. They will only be interested in a cycle path if it is quicker than the road, if the surface is as smooth as the road, or if the path is wide enough for fast cycling.

The main task is to get 'normal people' who aren't enthusiasts to cycle (i.e 95% of the population). They will be the ones attracted by Dutch quality of infrastructure.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I cycle on them without difficulties. Are `there different species of cyclist?!

To some extent yes On the whole, motorists will pick the fastest route for their journey. Only a very small number - for example some new drivers - will adjust their route for safety reasons. In that regard, motorists are quite a homogenous group.

Cyclists' requirements are more varied. The bigger vulnerability of cyclists combined with different confidence levels and different preferences for how fast they want to go make it harder to design one - say - cycle path that's suitable for everyone.

Case in point: There's a two mile stretch of road near my house where the council has painted lines to let you cycle along the pavement. A nice gesture but I almost never use it because the road is relatively safe (30mph, no big junctions), and the pavement cycle lanes are too slow for me (not very wide, so need to slow to near walking pace for any pedestrians, and the usual problems whenever you hit a side road). On the other hand to my partner, much less used to cycling and very nervous of traffic, those paths are a godsend without which very likely she simply wouldn't cycle down that road.

A path that's good enough for all cyclists would have to be one that safely separates you from traffic without slowing you down appreciably compared to the road. Very easy to build if you're designing a town from scratch, but hard to graft on to existing densely populated towns

 

[maniacmartin]

I agree with the previous posters.

I am the "low hanging fruit" category who will take only use cycle lanes if they do not slow me down. If its faster for me to turn right off a dual carriageway, and its legal, then that's what I'll do

 

[radamfi]

Very easy to build if you're designing a town from scratch, but hard to graft on to existing densely populated towns

But the Dutch didn't always have their cycle paths. They retrofitted them to existing towns in the 70s:

http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-got-their-cycling-infrastructure/

 

[jon0844]

How would you ever expect to change things in London or other towns with precious little room?

Even if you closed some roads to cars to build a proper cycle network, the fact that some cyclists prefer the shortest and fastest route would mean them still taking short cuts down the wrong way on a one way street, using pavements wherever convenient and ignoring traffic lights.

We have a problem with cycle paths not joining up, or ending just where they'd be needed most (as it's too expensive to fix an awkward junction), but I can't see us ever getting much more. We'll just expect more people to cycle and put up with what we have.

 

[radamfi]

How would you ever expect to change things in London or other towns with precious little room?

The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in Europe that isn't a microstate or small island. If they can do it then anyone can. The Dutch have gone to seemly extraordinary lengths to improve cycling infrastructure, even replacing what would seem like excellent infrastructure to someone looking in from the UK, for example moving a canal to make the cycle path more straight and direct. If you had watched the video in my earlier post, you would have seen that they worked out how to redesign supposedly 'narrow' roads to make them work for cyclists yet maintain access for motor vehicles and parking.

They are still at it even now:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/making-a-1960s-street-grid-fit-for-the-21st-century/

Actually, London does has a lot of pretty wide roads, even in central London, and it is notable that some of the recent cycling deaths have been in such environments.

There are always excuses why countries with a very low cycle rate (notably English speaking countries) can't do any better. Britain says it is too crowded, America and Australia say they are too spread out. Hills are another excuse. If hills are so important, why is there so little cycling in Lincolnshire and East Anglia? The problem is the lack of infrastructure.

We'll just expect more people to cycle and put up with what we have.

That way you won't get much more cycling than we have at the moment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even if you closed some roads to cars to build a proper cycle network, the fact that some cyclists prefer the shortest and fastest route would mean them still taking short cuts down the wrong way on a one way street, using pavements wherever convenient and ignoring traffic lights.

It is very common for one-way streets in the Netherlands to be two-way for cyclists. Even in Camden in London there are quite a lot of one-way side streets which have the sign "except cyclists" below the no entry sign. That is an easy win.

Traffic signals, again, are better in the Netherlands because they typically have their own stage and can cross the road unopposed. They often have timers so the impatient ones can see how soon the green light is. A lot of them allow cycles in all directions to cross at the same time, minimising wait times. Since waiting times for cyclists are generally kept short, there is not so much incentive to jump red lights. Right turners often don't have to wait at all.

 

[jon0844]

I am not against any of these things but am simply being more realistic.

I've seen the two way one way streets (for bikes) around TCR/Bloomsbury and they're fine because they separate the traffic. Otherwise it isn't acceptable, and cyclists that do it don't realise the danger they put themselves in.

If cycling in London has doubled then it's no surprise accidents are going up. People with no experience getting a bike for hire are probably even more vulnerable.

 

[radamfi]

I am not against any of these things but am simply being more realistic.

On his blog, David Hembrow has highlighted the dangers in setting your sights too low.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013/03/what-do-we-want-gradual-change-when-do.html

We've had so called 'realism' for the last 40 years and what has come from it? The only way is to demand what the Dutch have got. Anything else will mean that there will continue to be a very low cycle rate in the UK. The Dutch don't actually spend that much, about 30 euros per person per year. Easily affordable within the current transport budget if it was spent differently.

 

[jon0844]

We've done some things really well though, like accessibility. I am in Sweden and it's amazing how inaccessible (or unsafe in the case of some ramps on steep steps) it is even in Stockholm.

I do think fixing London for bikes is unlikely, if only because it can really only come at the detriment of ordinary road vehicles. We can say we want people out of cars, but to where? Already overcrowded trains and buses? People can't cycle everywhere, as London is huge and people come in from many miles out, so we're back to the point of the thread (bikes on trains) and also the fact that fixing everything to make places more bike friendly will cost billions and take ages.

Sure, it could be done, and perhaps one day it will, but not anytime soon.

 

[radamfi]

According to

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/benefits-of-cycling-summary.pdf

more than half of all car trips in Outer London are less than 2 miles in length.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I do think fixing London for bikes is unlikely, if only because it can really only come at the detriment of ordinary road vehicles. We can say we want people out of cars, but to where?

Besides radamfi's point about so many journeys within London being easily short enough to cycle, don't forget that London's roads are heavily congested. If a proportion of existing drivers swapped to other transport modes, an immediate result would be that many buses in London would run faster, thereby increasing capacity on the buses. (Since faster journeys would mean the same number of vehicles and drivers could give a more frequent service).

 

[jon0844]

There's the time where you make changes but don't move people out of cars, where it would be carnage.

If our tubes and buses could cope with loads more people, I'd say we should build multi storey or underground Park and Ride car parks near all the primary A roads into town, thus stopping people driving the last mile or two and switching to public transport (or hiring bikes)..