Why all London cyclists should actively support a rapid and extensive expansion of the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme (Boris Bikes)

I've noticed on London cycling blogs that some regular cyclists can be slightly sniffy about Boris Bike users.

They, in my opinion, are failing to realise that Boris Bike users are the London cyclist's best friend.

As I've already written about in detail, all London cyclists have a very strong vested interest in seeing overall cyclist numbers increase. The only way this will happen is if new people get cycling. These kind of people do not read cycling blogs; they are probably unaware of the relative joys of Copenhagen; and they may not even understand what the phrase 'segregated cycle lane' means.

These 'Boris Bikers' represent a far more diverse cross-section of Londoners than the two regular (athletic, male, geared-up) cyclists pictured at back of the photo. It is this kind of broad range of Londoners that will have to start cycling regularly before we can see figures as high as 10-20% of journeys made by bike in the capital. Moreover, the 'Boris Bikers' pictured here are intelligently unafraid of cycling in the middle of the traffic lane, helping to slow motorists, prevent dangerous overtakes, and make the road safer for everyone, including pedestrians.

However, it is only these people than can give cycling the kind of majority support that will mean we can start seeing more of the kind of infrastructure which Love London Go Dutch are trying to implement, because these improvements to cycling infrastructure will necessarily require not just an allotment of significant amounts of government money on cycling (and away from other areas of transport) but also a very real political cost to those in power in the form of a relative decrease in motorist space/freedoms.

There is, quite simply, a direct correlation between the Mayor's room for manoeuvre with regard to utility cycling, and the amount of Londoners who regularly cycle. The more cyclists on the road, the more London authorities can do to improve cycling. That is the definition of a democracy (unfortunately).

So we know they're important, but how do we get these 'newbies' on their bikes? Well, the Boris Bikes are one extremely effective way. In fact, recent costumer research showed that 49 percent of Barclays Cycle Hire members say that the scheme has prompted them to start cycling London.

Boris Bikes provide a distinct and recognisable visual reminder to everyone in London that utility cycling is a perfectly viable method of transport.  Their users are also often less experienced than other cyclists meaning that newcomers feel less nervous having a go themselves. Motorists give Boris Bike users more space and are likely to adapt their driving accordingly in an area where there is a steady stream of Boris Bikes, thus making the area safer for all cyclists. Boris Bikes are quite literally bigger (in terms of width) than most other bikes on the road meaning motorists feel less inclined to share lane space with them so will sometimes give Boris Bike users an entire lane of road, and perhaps in the future might support the creation of segregated cycle lanes so that they (the motorists) no longer have to worry about the Boris Bikers swerving in front of them or hitting their wing mirrors when they try and filter through traffic at the lights.

Arnold Schwarzenegger on a Boris Bike providing an important piece of positive publicity for all London cyclists.

Furthermore, perhaps getting a day pass for a Boris Bike (£2) and have a short jaunt around London is actually much less daunting financially, and indeed socially, than buying a good road bike, high quality helmet, high-vis wear, and suddenly deciding to commute to the office one morning?

And once you've had a jaunt, maybe you get a pass for a week and try using the Boris Bikes to get home from work a few times when you're not particularly pressed for time. And then maybe you realise that getting around London on a bike is far cheaper, quicker, and easier than driving. Perhaps you even feel better after a short cycle around town and you like the health benefits of cycling regularly.

And then you might think, "man, these bikes weigh a ton, all these people are shooting past me on proper bikes". So you russell up the cash and get a proper bike which is even easier to travel about town on than your old Boris Bike, especially now you know a few good cycle routes into town and to/from work. Or, you might even think, "actually I like not having to worry about locking my bike up, I'm going to get a year membership and become a regular Boris-er; the weight factor just makes them better exercise".

And, in either case, hey presto, we've got another 'convert to the cause'. We've got another person (every vote counts) calling for better cycling lanes in their area, maybe writing to the local councillors. And suddenly a year after installing Boris Bike racks the council have decided to widen the cycle lanes leading to and from these racks in response to the increased cycle traffic on the roads.

Every cyclist can use these lanes. Indeed every cyclist in London benefits from the whole range of advantages brought by the Boris-er. Therefore every London cyclist should actively support the rapid and extensive expansion of the BCH scheme (and the altered tariff plan giving 60 minutes, instead of 30 minutes, free use to registered users - described in detail here - which will help promote longer journeys, more registered users, and a more socially diverse ridership).

Primarily because they can't go as fast as regular bikes, Boris Bikes don't always appeal to cyclists. This doesn't matter. The critical political advantage of the Boris Bike is that it appeals to non-cyclists (like One Direction), and can therefore produce dynamic political change.

Boris Bikers help 'normalise' cycling in London, showing even the most idiotic Daily Mail reading retard that anyone can use a bike to get from place to place in the UK, not just lycra louts and other fictional characters.

You could argue that the money spent expanding the scheme could be better spend on cycle infrastructure, e.g. a segregated lane so that your child can cycle to school. That is undoubtedly true.

However, the keystone problem with this kind of thinking is that it fails to take into account the fact that heavy political concessions are required to take a lane of traffic out of a main road so that you can replace it with a two-way segregated cycle lane. Ditto the removal of a street's worth of car parking spaces. By contrast, very few political concession are required to remove three parking spaces on a street (or perhaps slightly reduce the amount of space available on a pavement) in order to make space for a 25-bike Docking Station for BCH users.

I'm not saying London cyclists shouldn't campaign for better cycling infrastructure. This is, of course, crucial, necessary, and on-going. There are, of course, still some town planners out there who genuinely believe that cyclists mixing with traffic on busy roads is something to aimed at (!) and these people should have their eyes opened to best-practice in countries like Holland and Denmark. All this can hopefully by now be taken as standard by anyone interested in improving cycling rates in London.

What I am saying is that if the political climate is not yet sufficiently bike friendly to get a cycle lane installed, then campaigning for the inclusion of your residential area in the BCH scheme (and the altering of tariffs to encourage more cycling - e.g. first 60 minutes free instead of first 30 minutes) could, after a year or two, change the political climate sufficiently to get that cycle lane installed in the future.

Boris Bikes getting large amounts of love from a range of different people, none of whom resembles your 'typical cyclist'.

Furthermore, if we saw the BCH scheme expanded to 30,000 bikes over the next few years (not an unrealistic aim given that 12-14 million live in Greater London) we just might see a lane of the Euston Road being given over exclusively to cyclist traffic and much bigger concessions granted to cyclists in Central London (through which the majority of BCH users travel).

So, if the BCH scheme doesn't include your local area, why not write to your councillor and ask for it to be included (you could also add that it was socially unfair that only rich areas of Central London currently had the right of residential access to a scheme that all tax payers are funding); Islington, a very cycle friendly borough, has already realised the importance of getting better BCH coverage implemented; they're even clever enough to start an online petition.

If your local Docking Station is always empty/full, why not write to your councillors and MP (using the brilliant wesbites: www.writetothem.com and http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/) asking for it to be expanded.

If you have friends coming to visit in London, why not suggest they have a bike ride around Hyde Park, or even use Boris Bikes to travel about in town. Or, if you're making a journey for which you can't use your regular bike, consider using a Boris Bike instead. If you can do the journey in under 30 minutes, at £2, Boris Bikes are (almost) the cheapest form of transport in London (even without a yearly registration!). If you can do the journey in under 60 minutes, at £2 + £1, Boris Bikes are still cheaper than many other modes.

Sign any petitions you can to increase Boris Bike cover, such as:

• Large Boris Bike Docking Station on The Mall: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/tfl-royal-parks-bring-boris-bikes-to-the-mall-3
• Kentish Town/Camden Town expansion: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/mayor-of-london-put-nw5-on-the-cycle-hire-map#bikes4nw5
• Brixton expansion: http://campaignengineroom.org.uk/bikes2brixton
• Islington expansion: http://www.change.org/petitions/transport-for-london-and-islington-council-roll-out-the-london-cycle-hire-scheme-to-the-whole-of-islington
• Steele's Village expansion: http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/bikesforourvillage

Lastly, when you're on the streets, show a little bit of love to your blue-cousins, because like it or not, they might represent one of the best chances of getting the government to implement the Dutch-style of cycling infrastructure that all London cyclists desperately want.

(comments welcomed)

P.S - For on-street evidence of increasing numbers of cyclists causing a lane to be created to accomodate them (rather than vice-vera - both methods are good!) please see this.

P.P.S - After politically campaigning for the extension and intensification of the BCH scheme, the second best way to support its expansion is to actively promote usage as much as possible. This is because the higher the usage figures are, the easier it is to persuade local  and central government to extend the scheme since it can then be shown to be benefiting a larger proportion of voters and tourists.

Catch-22 (for London cycling)

I recently have become extremely (and perhaps even comically) into cycling in London. So I’ve decided to start a blog where I can express my opinions to people other than my (by now already very bored) close friends.

I’d like to start by discussing something that I feel some cycling lobbies have slightly forgotten; that we live in a democracy, not a benevolent dictatorship.

This means that no matter how progressive our leaders are, they are unlikely to force through expensive, radical changes to road layout on an unwilling populace. Though hopefully every town planner in the UK now understands the commonplace truth that segregated cycle lanes are a million times safer than sharing road space, these lanes will simply not be implemented en masse unless there is perceived widespread majority political support for them.

Hyde Park cycling brood. Cycle campaigners needs to be getting new people to cycle as well as making the Government improve conditions.

Jon Snow correctly said with regard to cycle infrastructure, "build it and they will come". However, any democratic government inevitable must function on the default position of ‘if they come, then we’ll build it’.

I was recently struck by the City of London’s response to a complaint that intermittent cycle paths on Hampstead Heath were a ‘right pain’. The Local Authority replied that the Heath was a ‘compromise’ and some groups would ‘ban cycling altogether’. Given this 'compromise' situation, surely the most effective way to improve cycling provision on Hampstead Heath would be to make the group saying ‘ban cycling altogether’ as small possible, and the group in favour of more cycle paths as large as possible?

This means cyclist lobbies putting time and effort into getting new people onto bikes. Perhaps even getting motorists themselves onto bikes, instead of declaring war on them…

There are many different ways of doing this. Disheartening as it is to say it, TfL’s continual increase of public transport prices has probably been one of the effective.

But there are various paths which cycle lobbies could pursue themselves:

They could start by whole-heartedly supporting the expansion of the BCH scheme, whose popular and visible Boris Bikes cannot help but decrease the size of the ‘ban cycling altogether’ group and make cycling a more visible issue in every voter's, and politician's, mind.

Giving extra publicity to popularist news-stories such as Arnie getting on a Boris Bike also helps ("heck, if Schwarzenegger is cycling around London, maybe I should too? It can't be that dangerous/polluted/stressful if Arnie is doing it, can it?"). So does making sure the London Cycling Wikipedia page is regularly updated (no one wants to start doing something which 2% of Londoners did way back in 2010; people want to become part of what is on the increase, not what is staying stagnant).

Getting one of our recent cycle ‘heroes’ from the Olympics to publicly support increased cycle infrastructure in London would be better still; the recent AV referendum showed us how influential celebrities can be atswinging public opinion. (However, I must admit this might be harder than I imagine it to be).

In short, cycle lobbies should - in addition to their current policies - actively support anything which brings cycling in London into the eyes, ears and minds of people who are not currently cyclists in London; anything which makes cycling in London look like a majority issue, rather than a minority one. With this in mind, there is even something constructive to be taken from Boris Johnson’s recent elevated cycle highways idea:

Even if it never gets built, there is at least an article published about it in the Daily Mail (which has a mass readership), and anyone reading this piece is subconsciously accepting the given assumption in the article that cycle lanes in London remain an issue that needs to be dealt with.

Yes, more people would certainly be using this route on a bike if that cycle lane was protected. The cyclists in the picture would also be statistically safer. But they're not going to die simply because the lane isn't segregated (especially if they are aware of the truck behind them and take active steps to avoid it). And neither are helmets, hi-viz, or even proper footwear necessary for safe cycling around our Capital. We need to be encouraging these 'casual' cyclists, while unremittingly pressing local authorities to have that cycle lane improved.

We should accept that there is a horrible Catch-22 to cycling in London: mass amounts of people are unlikely to start travelling by bicycle until we have much better infrastructure, but the political will to build this infrastructure is unlikely to present itself unless many more people start cycling.

So with regard to fatalities and injuries cycling lobbies need to, in a sense, ‘look both ways’. They need to tell the government that it isn’t good enough and dangerous junctions need to be improved (as they are doing with admirable vigour).

But simultaneously they need to tell the general public that cycling in London - if you are responsible, cycle well, and avoid noted dangerous junctions - is without doubt comparatively (to other modes of transport) safe enough for anyone to get involved in.

‘Scaremongering’ about London’s roads will simply reduce cycling numbers, and therefore the political will to improve roads, making them even more dangerous than they already are, indirectly contributing to more cycling fatalities.

----

To be clear, I am not saying that any of the activities which cycle lobbies currently engage in are pointless or ineffective. On the contrary the work they do is extremely important and necessary.

I am suggesting that in addition to all the work they already do, cycle lobbies should also be much more actively seeking to promote cycling as a method of transport in London in any way they can, even if that might mean reassuring Joe Blogs that cycling in London can be an easy business if you approach it right, while telling the government that it isn’t half easy enough and radical changes must be made.

It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but until we have something approaching the 50% rate of commuter trips by bike which Copenhagen boasts, we are unlikely to have anything approaching their cycle network. 

I’m playing devil’s advocate in this article; the two can clearly grow in tandem with each other and in no way am I excusing the woeful lack of government action in improving conditions for utility cycling. However, it is simply a political fact that the more people we can get on two wheels, the faster cycle provision is going to improve in our capital.

There is no reason, if we make clear to new cyclists the importance of cycling responsibly in a city like London, not to pursue both these goals (more people on bikes + more infrastructure) at the same time.

(comments welcomed)