The London Traffic Report 2007 shows that taxi carry just 2.9% of commuters on the roads in the morning peak and just 0.6% of all commuters in central London. Yet taxis are allowed to take up a huge and disproportionate amount of the road space, including being given access to the bus lanes. Why is this?
I posted this question on the excellent Another Cycling Forum and despite 30 or so comments am none the wise. The closest to a consensus is that the The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) has a lot of political clout, though it is not clear why that should be. Someone suggested that it is because the great and the good use taxis a lot.
We all need to use taxis occasionally and I wouldn’t want to price them out of the market. Perhaps this is a red herring: it is the cars we need to get off the road, create safer road space for cyclists and then all will be well.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Road Rage: The Battle for Britain's Roads
There was an excellent programme on BBC One last night (Monday 7th January, 9pm). To quote the blurb, “Britain is in the grip of an escalating road rage crisis. Filming on some of the UK's most traffic-choked streets, this special investigation exposes just how bad the situation has become; as violence and abuse in the war between motorists, cyclists, wardens and police escalates without any solution in sight. For decades, the UK's ever-growing number of motorists have been kings of the road; paying tax and fuel duty, they believe the streets belong to them. But now the balance of power is shifting. Increasing numbers of cyclists and pedestrians are demanding, and exercising, equal rights to the road and the anger on each side is mounting. Strong language.”
It was produced by Steadfast Productions Ltd and narrated by Jamie Theakston. It would be great if they could make it available for repeat viewing. It might be available on the BBC iPlayer.
Overall it was fairly balanced and there was some great footage showing the problems cyclists face in London. Having said that it is somewhat spoilt by a section on an excessive City of London police crackdown on cyclists while they continue to ignore drivers breaking the rules. The Evening Standard wrote about this last night. 'Mike Bowron, City of London police commissioner, says there is "a significant minority, known as Lycra louts, who are literally trying to dominate the road and they are a sort of clan". Police dismiss a recent report claiming cyclists can be safer if they jump red lights.'
It was produced by Steadfast Productions Ltd and narrated by Jamie Theakston. It would be great if they could make it available for repeat viewing. It might be available on the BBC iPlayer.
Overall it was fairly balanced and there was some great footage showing the problems cyclists face in London. Having said that it is somewhat spoilt by a section on an excessive City of London police crackdown on cyclists while they continue to ignore drivers breaking the rules. The Evening Standard wrote about this last night. 'Mike Bowron, City of London police commissioner, says there is "a significant minority, known as Lycra louts, who are literally trying to dominate the road and they are a sort of clan". Police dismiss a recent report claiming cyclists can be safer if they jump red lights.'
More Tfl Cycling Data
I wrote to Tfl asking for clarification on some of the data in the London Travel Report (colinshepherd@tfl.gov.uk or Londonstreets@tfl.gov.uk).
They write, “Chart 3.5.5 in the London Travel Report (LTR) shows that the areas with higher percentages of journey to work by cycling coincide with the Thames in west and central London, which may indicate why the Thames crossings show a higher percentage than the average. Conversely, figure 3.5.5 shows areas of outer London with very low levels which is in agreement with the cycle flows we observe in outer London. However, the percentages obtained from the total cycle flows observed on screenlines, including the Thames, may be different to the percentages of commuting cyclists.
“Further information on the numbers of cyclists crossing all screenlines and cordons is available at the following link. In summary, this shows that in 2005 cycle percentages were 0.35% for the boundary cordon, 1.7% for the inner London cordon and 6.7% for the central London cordon. Again this is in broad agreement with figure 3.5.5.”
The latest Tfl data shows 18,000 cyclists entering central London in the morning peak against 78,000 people by car in 2006. There was also a slight reduction in the number of cyclists crossing the Thames screenline, in 2007, at 39,000 down from 43,000 in 2006. It is not clear what caused this.
Another way of looking at the data is to ignore rail and tube and focus on the totals for road users. Not only do cars take up a disproportionate amount of road space for the number of people carried (in addition to the accidents and pollution) but also taxis seem extraordinarily wasteful. Why are taxis given such priority?
Buses: 116,000 (47.9%)
Cars: 78,000 (32.2%)
Cycles: 18,000 (7.4%)
Motorcycles: 15,000 (6.2%)
Coaches/Minibuses: 8,000 (3.3%)
Taxis: 7,000 (2.9%)
Total: 242,000 (100.0%)
(Table 1.3.1: People entering central London in the morning peak, 2007)
Overall it is very hard to deduce a lot from the cycling data as different sources with different definitions are used for each of the tables. The one thing we can say with certainty is that more comprehensive and consistent data is needed.
They write, “Chart 3.5.5 in the London Travel Report (LTR) shows that the areas with higher percentages of journey to work by cycling coincide with the Thames in west and central London, which may indicate why the Thames crossings show a higher percentage than the average. Conversely, figure 3.5.5 shows areas of outer London with very low levels which is in agreement with the cycle flows we observe in outer London. However, the percentages obtained from the total cycle flows observed on screenlines, including the Thames, may be different to the percentages of commuting cyclists.
“Further information on the numbers of cyclists crossing all screenlines and cordons is available at the following link. In summary, this shows that in 2005 cycle percentages were 0.35% for the boundary cordon, 1.7% for the inner London cordon and 6.7% for the central London cordon. Again this is in broad agreement with figure 3.5.5.”
The latest Tfl data shows 18,000 cyclists entering central London in the morning peak against 78,000 people by car in 2006. There was also a slight reduction in the number of cyclists crossing the Thames screenline, in 2007, at 39,000 down from 43,000 in 2006. It is not clear what caused this.
Another way of looking at the data is to ignore rail and tube and focus on the totals for road users. Not only do cars take up a disproportionate amount of road space for the number of people carried (in addition to the accidents and pollution) but also taxis seem extraordinarily wasteful. Why are taxis given such priority?
Buses: 116,000 (47.9%)
Cars: 78,000 (32.2%)
Cycles: 18,000 (7.4%)
Motorcycles: 15,000 (6.2%)
Coaches/Minibuses: 8,000 (3.3%)
Taxis: 7,000 (2.9%)
Total: 242,000 (100.0%)
(Table 1.3.1: People entering central London in the morning peak, 2007)
Overall it is very hard to deduce a lot from the cycling data as different sources with different definitions are used for each of the tables. The one thing we can say with certainty is that more comprehensive and consistent data is needed.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Matthew Parris Apologises
From January 3, 2008 Matthew Parris writes, "I offended many with my Christmas attack on cyclists. It was meant humorously but so many cyclists have taken it seriously that I plainly misjudged. I am sorry."
It is not exactly a fulsome apology but it is good to see the cycling community making its voice heard.
It is not exactly a fulsome apology but it is good to see the cycling community making its voice heard.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Matthew Parris ‘humorously’ advocates killing cyclists
Newspaper columnist Matthew Parris wrote a piece in The Times (27th Dec) that said, “A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists….. Driving or walking, don’t you just hate the way that, riding two or three abreast, they shout and curse at you or whir their angry little bells, as though it’s your problem that they need to clear the way?”
As if we need to add to the 2006 death toll of 146 cyclists, 599 motorcyclists, 675 pedestrians and 1,612 drivers and passengers killed on the roads. (Road Casualties 2006)
The article attracted a lot of comment, neatly polarized between the usual deranged cycle-haters and cyclists. I’m not really sure that it deserves much comment yet if some enraged motorist does string wire across a lane, would Parris have any liability? As one of the commentators pointed out, Mr Justice Hughes, when sentencing Abu Hamza to seven years for incitement to murder, said "No one can say now what damage your words may have caused - no one can say whether any of your audiences, present or wider acted on your words."
Another correspondent pointed to an April 2007 story in The Times headlined, " Biker killed by barbed wire: A farmer is under investigation for manslaughter after the death of an Italian motocross enthusiast who was practically decapitated by barbed wire stretched across a country track. Marco Badiali, 48, who was married with two children, bled to death from a “deep wound across his throat”.
Finally, riding two abreast is perfectly legal and is safer: it forces drivers to slow down and overtake properly instead of squeezing past. Cyclists do not need to “clear the way”!
For the record, the Highway Code, Rule 66, states, “You should never ride more than two abreast.”
As if we need to add to the 2006 death toll of 146 cyclists, 599 motorcyclists, 675 pedestrians and 1,612 drivers and passengers killed on the roads. (Road Casualties 2006)
The article attracted a lot of comment, neatly polarized between the usual deranged cycle-haters and cyclists. I’m not really sure that it deserves much comment yet if some enraged motorist does string wire across a lane, would Parris have any liability? As one of the commentators pointed out, Mr Justice Hughes, when sentencing Abu Hamza to seven years for incitement to murder, said "No one can say now what damage your words may have caused - no one can say whether any of your audiences, present or wider acted on your words."
Another correspondent pointed to an April 2007 story in The Times headlined, " Biker killed by barbed wire: A farmer is under investigation for manslaughter after the death of an Italian motocross enthusiast who was practically decapitated by barbed wire stretched across a country track. Marco Badiali, 48, who was married with two children, bled to death from a “deep wound across his throat”.
Finally, riding two abreast is perfectly legal and is safer: it forces drivers to slow down and overtake properly instead of squeezing past. Cyclists do not need to “clear the way”!
For the record, the Highway Code, Rule 66, states, “You should never ride more than two abreast.”
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Transport for London cycling statistics
I have been trying to make sense of the data in Tfl’s Travel Report 2007. Some of the data is hard to pin down, but here are some highlights:
- On an average day in 2005 there were just over 27 million journey stages in London. 2% were by cycle versus 40% by car. Tfl quotes the figure of 480,000 bike journeys per day
- Table 1.4.1: 17,000 cyclists enter central London in the morning peak compared to 84,000 cars. That is more than 20%.
- Table 1.6.1: 3% of people working in central London commute by bike, versus 9% by car and 68% by train and tube. I’m not sure what to make of that 1:3 rate of cyclists to drivers in central London. Perhaps the point is that the selfish 9% take up 90% of the road space, cause all of the 3,700 annual deaths and serious injuries and, of course, most of the pollution.
- Chart 3.5.4: 43,000 cyclists cross the River Thames screenline every day. Hmm: how should I reconcile that with the 17,000 entering central London in the morning peak? This must imply many many more cyclists entering central London every day, but no figures are given.
- Chart 3.5.5 shows the proportion of people cycling to work by borough. There is a huge variation with a general tendency towards greater cycle use by residents of the centre and west of London. Is this because cycling is an affluent middle class hobby?
- In a separate report, Transport 2025, Tfl says: "6.6.9 Cycling: London has experienced unprecedented growth in cycling in recent years. The aim is to build on this success in the future with a target to increase cycling trips by more than 400 per cent by 2025. This could increase the mode share of cycling in London from one percent now up to five per cent by 2025, equating to more than one million extra trips every day."
It is not easy to reconcile all the figures but it is clear that by 2025 there will be more cyclists than cars in central London. Actually cycling in central London rose 20% from 2004 to 2005. Maybe it won’t take 17 years for cyclists to be in the majority.
- On an average day in 2005 there were just over 27 million journey stages in London. 2% were by cycle versus 40% by car. Tfl quotes the figure of 480,000 bike journeys per day
- Table 1.4.1: 17,000 cyclists enter central London in the morning peak compared to 84,000 cars. That is more than 20%.
- Table 1.6.1: 3% of people working in central London commute by bike, versus 9% by car and 68% by train and tube. I’m not sure what to make of that 1:3 rate of cyclists to drivers in central London. Perhaps the point is that the selfish 9% take up 90% of the road space, cause all of the 3,700 annual deaths and serious injuries and, of course, most of the pollution.
- Chart 3.5.4: 43,000 cyclists cross the River Thames screenline every day. Hmm: how should I reconcile that with the 17,000 entering central London in the morning peak? This must imply many many more cyclists entering central London every day, but no figures are given.
- Chart 3.5.5 shows the proportion of people cycling to work by borough. There is a huge variation with a general tendency towards greater cycle use by residents of the centre and west of London. Is this because cycling is an affluent middle class hobby?
- In a separate report, Transport 2025, Tfl says: "6.6.9 Cycling: London has experienced unprecedented growth in cycling in recent years. The aim is to build on this success in the future with a target to increase cycling trips by more than 400 per cent by 2025. This could increase the mode share of cycling in London from one percent now up to five per cent by 2025, equating to more than one million extra trips every day."
It is not easy to reconcile all the figures but it is clear that by 2025 there will be more cyclists than cars in central London. Actually cycling in central London rose 20% from 2004 to 2005. Maybe it won’t take 17 years for cyclists to be in the majority.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Riding pavement and ad hominem arguments
I’m new to cycling activism and am taken aback by the venom of the attacks on cycling. Actually a lot of the debate about all aspects of cycle provision seems to be more ideological than economic.
I posted a comment on the Evening Standard story about Cross Rail noting the disparity between the £16 billion to be spent on that and the £3.5 million awarded for the Sustrans schemes. The first riposte from George McKenzie of Leicester said,
“Cyclist might start to get a better deal if they were less arrogant, obeyed traffic signals, and kept off the pavement. And why are they always in a hurry? Two days ago I saw a young girl carrying a coffee hit by a stupid cyclist who, to cut by a red light, mounted the pavement, rounded the corner and SPLAT!. Luckily she was uninjured but her clothes were a mess. Why do it?”
The latest issue of The Spectator magazine has a Festive Notebook by Joan Collins in which she writes,
“A friend of mine was walking to pick up her grandson when a punk on a bike smashed her to the ground on Kensington High Street. He didn’t even stop. Her leg was broken.”
In George’s case it is not clear what his anecdote has to do with the cost effectiveness of Cross Rail versus more cycle routes, or whether he is talking about Leicester or London. Nor do I understand what he means by mounting the pavement to cut a red light. In Joan’s case I simply don’t believe her story – at least I can’t find any online reference to what would undoubtedly have been a newsworthy incident.
I cycle in London every day and very rarely see cyclists on the pavement. When you do there are normally extenuating circumstances such as road works that have created additional dangerous choke points. Sometimes beginner cyclists take to the pavement in particularly dangerous areas but they are not a danger to pedestrians.
So why do anti-cyclists resort to these ad hominem arguments? (Ad hominem meaning an argument based on emotions and not reason or logic, or attacking an opponent’s motives or character). Is it because they know that the economic case for more cycling provision is so strong? Or is it that motorists get infuriated by cyclists overtaking them?
Is there any data? There are some 480,000 cyclists riding in central London every day. If any do ride on the pavements it must be the tiniest of percentages, and certainly much lower than the percentage of drivers speeding, jumping lights, ignoring advanced boxes or using their mobiles. Let’s keep things in perspective.
I posted a comment on the Evening Standard story about Cross Rail noting the disparity between the £16 billion to be spent on that and the £3.5 million awarded for the Sustrans schemes. The first riposte from George McKenzie of Leicester said,
“Cyclist might start to get a better deal if they were less arrogant, obeyed traffic signals, and kept off the pavement. And why are they always in a hurry? Two days ago I saw a young girl carrying a coffee hit by a stupid cyclist who, to cut by a red light, mounted the pavement, rounded the corner and SPLAT!. Luckily she was uninjured but her clothes were a mess. Why do it?”
The latest issue of The Spectator magazine has a Festive Notebook by Joan Collins in which she writes,
“A friend of mine was walking to pick up her grandson when a punk on a bike smashed her to the ground on Kensington High Street. He didn’t even stop. Her leg was broken.”
In George’s case it is not clear what his anecdote has to do with the cost effectiveness of Cross Rail versus more cycle routes, or whether he is talking about Leicester or London. Nor do I understand what he means by mounting the pavement to cut a red light. In Joan’s case I simply don’t believe her story – at least I can’t find any online reference to what would undoubtedly have been a newsworthy incident.
I cycle in London every day and very rarely see cyclists on the pavement. When you do there are normally extenuating circumstances such as road works that have created additional dangerous choke points. Sometimes beginner cyclists take to the pavement in particularly dangerous areas but they are not a danger to pedestrians.
So why do anti-cyclists resort to these ad hominem arguments? (Ad hominem meaning an argument based on emotions and not reason or logic, or attacking an opponent’s motives or character). Is it because they know that the economic case for more cycling provision is so strong? Or is it that motorists get infuriated by cyclists overtaking them?
Is there any data? There are some 480,000 cyclists riding in central London every day. If any do ride on the pavements it must be the tiniest of percentages, and certainly much lower than the percentage of drivers speeding, jumping lights, ignoring advanced boxes or using their mobiles. Let’s keep things in perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
