A woman riding a Boris Bike killed by a lorry on Boris's Cycle "SuperHighway" 2. Paint on the road is not cycle infrastructure; TfL and the local councils need to confront this before even more Londoners are killed.

Last night we heard the tragic news that a woman riding a Boris Bike on one of the Mayor's supposedly top-quality Cycle "SuperHighways" was killed by a collision with a lorry which in all probability drove into her. This is the first time a Boris Bike user has been killed in London, but it isn't the first death along the route of Cycle Superhighway 2 (CS2). Very, very sad.

Photo of the scene via @velorución on Twitter

This recent and shocking death, the first on a Barclays Cycle Hire Bike could be a political catastrophe for the Mayor, Boris Johnson.

You can interpet the story in many ways, but one of them is surely that of a woman lured by TfL's copious and expensive advertising of 'cycling' into riding one of Boris Johnson's new Barclays bikes, expecting to be safe on Boris Johnson's 'international standard' Cycle Superhighway 2, and then being tragically killed because the Cycle Superhighway is in fact a death trap where cyclists mix freely with aggressive motorists and HGVs that can, and do, kill them all too easily.

This death also comes only a few days after TfL released data showing that the total number of people seriously injured or killed on bikes on London's roads last year was up 60% on the long term average 2005 - 2009.

UK road casualty figures for those not on a bike are at a record low, but this figure masks the fact that cycling road casualties are increasingly sharply.

In fact, cycling fatalities are going up more quickly than the increase in riders on the road. Cyclist deaths rose 10% during 2012, with serious injuries up by 4%, the latter increasing for the eighth consecutive year.

Pic courtesy of @geographyjim

As this graph shows, cyclists are coming to take up an increasingly high percentage of all those killed or seriously injured in London. Motorists and pedestrians are getting safer, but cyclists are getting far more vulnerable.

The main reason for this is London's stunning lack of safe bicycle infrastructure. Segregated tracks like Tavistock Place, or the protected contra-flow on King Street in Hammersmith, are notable for their scarcity. Cycle "Superhighway" 2, like most of the cycle "superhighways", is simply some blue paint on the road where cyclists and heavy traffic mix freely.

Picture of CS2 outside Aldgate (near where this woman died) from June 2013, courtesy of Cyclists in the City. The lorry driver overtook these cyclists on a corner, putting them both in a life-threatening situation, stuck between an iron fence and a 30-tonne vehicle. The driver did this because the road is made up of 'general traffic lanes' that encourage lorry drivers to overtake cyclists with 50cm to spare, putting thousands of lives at risk everyday in our capital. The easy solution is to provide a cycle-only lane that those driving motorised traffic cannot enter.

It is easy to see from the above photo just how dangerous it is to mix cyclists and heavy traffic. Fatalities can, will, and do happen. Enough is enough.

And yet, at the City of London Cycling Forum last Tuesday officials representing the City of London explained their plans to spend over £12 million redeveloping the Aldgate gyratory, and in the process delivering just 70m of segregated bike lane.

That's right, £12 million for 70m of actual protected space in which tragic deaths can no longer occur.

What was just as concerning was that both of the City of London and TfL are using the weasel words - this route is for the 'experienced commuter' - to avoid putting in any decent infrastructure to fatal routes like the CS2. The problem with this type of thinking is that if you don't make cycle routes safe then people die on them. It doesn't matter if they are 'experienced commuters' or 'first-time cyclists'. Mixing humans on bikes with steel-clad HGVs is fatal.

It's not rocket science. This map of collisions in the Aldgate area, shown at City of London Cycle Forum,  shows clearly where proper junctions and segregated infrastructure that prevent cyclists and traffic mixing are desperately needed. You can guess where last night's fatality occurred... (Photo via @nuttyxander)

I pointed out to the City officials that rather than focusing on a hard to understand network of routes for cyclists of 'different abilities', wouldn't the simplest thing to encourage cycling be to make those routes that cyclists currently use much safer than they currently are?

Countless surveys tell us that the primary factor putting people off cycling is that they think it's too dangerous. Deaths, like the one on Boris's Cycle "SuperHighway" last night, are only going to further reinforce this view. Surely the best way to encourage cycling is to take routes that already have heavy cycle traffic, like Cycle "SuperHighway" 2 or London Bridge, and create proper segregated infrastructure that means that needless and avoidable deaths like these can become a thing of the past.

If the woman cycling on a Boris Bike on CS2 last night had been on an actually segregated lane (as pictured here, 9th Avenue New York) the fatal collision with a lorry would have been almost impossible.

And yet, instead we find local officials planning 'Quiteways' along roads that continue to contain dangerously and intimidatingly large volumes of through traffic. And, there are no immediate plans to put proper protection for cyclists onto extremely busy cycle routes like Waterloo Bridge where in rush hour over 40% of the vehicles are bikes.

Waterloo Bridge has a cycle lane but it's actually a car park (can you see the outline under all those parked cars?). This is why we need segregated, physically separated cycle lanes on these busy routes. And we need them now before more Londoners die. Photo courtesy Cyclists in the City.

Appalling. Simply appalling.

TfL and London's Councils need to put their heads together and sort all the already busy cycle routes in London, making them subjectively and objectively safe. If they spend their precious time elsewhere they're only going to have more deaths on their hands on heavily cycled routes that are supposed to be safe. Like CS2. Like CS7. Like London Bridge.

And those working in transport planning in London should be forced to get on a bike and cycle our 'Superhighways' like the deadly, fatal CS2, before they come up with schemes that cost £12 million and deliver a laughable 70m of segregated cycle track.

Transport planners need to have ridden a bike on London's busy streets before they create computerised animations (as the City of London team did at the most recent Cycling Forum) that show computerised HGVs turning left over computerised cyclists, and computerised cyclists calming filtering through a 0.5m gap between a stationary bus and a stack of cars waiting at a red light. It is not safe for cyclists to be driven over by HGVs or filter through 0.5m gaps. It is ridiculous that anyone could think in this way.

Yet this is how local transport officials still plan for cycle use. Hence only 70m of segregated space in a £12 million redevelopment.

Appalling. Simply appalling.

Philippine De Gerin-Ricard, a 20 year old French student, was killed by a lorry driver while riding a Boris Bike along one of Boris Johnson's Cycle "SuperHighways" that is now being investigated by police for being of a criminally poor design. Photo courtesy Evening Standard.

Cycling is now the dominant mode of travel on Central London's roads, yet still idiotically ignored by Westminster Council in new Bayswater plans.

The Evening Standard published an article a few days ago with some rather stunning figures about bike travel in London:

• On Theobald's Road 64% of vehicles in the morning peak are bikes.
• On Kennington Park Road 57% of vehicles in the morning peak are bikes.
• On Old Street 49% of vehicles in morning peak are bikes.
• In Central London 24% of all traffic are bikes during the morning peak; 16% acros the whole day.
• On Blackfriars, Waterloo and London bridges cyclists make up 42% of traffic and 15% of people, though they take up only 12% of road space
• By contrast: taxis on Oxford Street take up 37% of road space but only carry 1% of passengers!

As Andrew Gilligan says "These extraordinary figures disprove any claim that cycling is marginal and that investing in it is indulgent." I believe it's importnat to make that clear, especially to members of the general public that may not cycle themselves. In fact, I think Gilligan's approach of securing approval for his £1 billion cycle plan by stressing the benefits to those that don't cycle is extremely intelligent.

Cycling is important. Those that choose to travel by bike not only help the environment and reduce road congestion, they also work all manner of jobs and contribute significantly to London's (and Britain's) GDP.

This idea that only those that drive actually have jobs, and so to promote economic growth we need to build more roads, is absolutely crap, as Evening Standard's latest figures show.

These guys are clearly adding nothing to London's economy.... Photo from Standard article.

If we want London to grow economically we need to make its workforce safer. Therefore, since 24% of all vehicles during the morning peak are bikes, we logically need to make those that choose to cycle safer.

And yet cycling is still being designed out of London's roads by awful new schemes such as Westminster Council's proposals for the Bayswater area.

These plans are, frankly, atrocious. Cycle parking is being removed since it is 'clutter' (yes, 'clutter'!). Car parking spaces will be increased leading to more congestion, more fumes, more noise, more road traffic accidents, and more road traffic deaths.

Photo from PDF of Westminster's proposed 'improvements'.

You can see in the photo of the proposed 'improvements' for Queensway North a couple of things:

• No cycle lanes of any kind. This is simply idiotic. Plenty of space for segregated lanes in each direction on this Queensway.
• Cyclists positioned in a 'death zone' between opening car doors from stationary vehicles and oncoming taxis and private cars that are driving dangerously close to them. The Highway Code, by contrast, states motorists should "give cyclists at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car".

Notice a difference between this photo (courtesy of The Highway Code) and the last one?

Moreover, these plans are also bad economics. Westminster Council note that "Queensway is a busy shopping street at the heart of Bayswater." They want to improve its qualities as "a shopping and leisure destination". Yet, in their efforts to achieve this Westminster Council are pretending they're in the 1970s, lagging embarrassingly far behind New York City's Department for Transport that has long recognised the economic benefits that increased cycle traffic brings:

Photo courtesy NYC Department of Transportation. The figures speak for themselves.

Westminster Council may not be much bothered about achieving a 58% decrease in injuries to all street users. Perhaps they aren't... That's very sad if it's the case....

But, if they want to be "encouraging people to stay and use the streets shops and eateries" in Bayswater they might just take note of the 49% increase in retail sales. (Yes, 49%!)

What is shocking about these plans is not just that they demonstrate little or no concern for preventing traffic accidents and deaths, but they are also bad, bad economics.

Westminster Council have also tried to contextualise their improvements within the surrounding area, but again they are dangerously off-track.

Map from consultation document showing Bayswater and surrounding areas.

There are a few crucial bits of information left off this map:

• Portobello Market is a 5 minute cycle away.
• Later in 2013 the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme will be expanding to encompass the entirety of Portobello Market (it already covers Westbourne Grove and Paddington Station).
• Hyde Park, and particularly 'Broad Walk', a long, wide path located next to Queensway, accounts for a huge proportion of the total Boris Bike trips made every year, as this video shows:

Therefore, there might be a significant commercial advantage to be gained if a safe cycle network were created linking Portobello, Westbourne Grove, Paddington, Hyde Park, and of course, Bayswater.

But are Westminster at all interested in this? No. 

Are they even aware of the potentially enormous economic benefits to be had if tourists on Boris Bikes could be lured out of Hyde Park to spend money in Bayswater? No.

Are Westminster Council even considering that most token of gestures to make pedestrians and cyclists safer, something that the City of London recently wrote had "little or no disbenefit", a 20mph speed limit? No, no chance (at present...). 

Do they want their pedestrians and cyclists to be safer? Not if it slows down motor traffic...

We are left with: more car parking; more motor cars; more road traffic accidents and deaths.

That's all we're getting in Bayswater, despite the fact 24% of morning peak vehicles are now bicycles. Appalling.

But something can be done - if you take a similar view to these plans then please:

A) Fill in the consultation online: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/environment/planning/majorprojects/queensway/

The feedback form includes a specific section "cycle parking and provision", so it's well worth filling in. Perhaps these plans can be improved on. I certainly hope so.

B) Write an email suggesting that cycle lanes and a 20mph zone (among other improvements for cyclists such as more cycle parking) could be very profitably integrated into the Bayswater plans to:

Councillor Edward Argar

Cabinet Member for City Management, Transport and the Environment

Westminster City Council

eargar@westminster.gov.uk

Since Councillor Argar is also Cabinet Member for 'the Environment' there should be an added incentive for him to embrace cycle and pedestrian safety by promoting cycling as an environmentally friendly form of travel...

Plenty of space on Queensway for proper segregated cycle lanes like this example from Montreal, Canada. Trouble is, Westminster won't build them... Image courtesy of StreetsBlog.org

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.

60 Minutes Free for Boris Bike Registered Members - Idea for a New Tariff

I would like to propose changing the BCH tariff system so that registered members have the first 60 minutes free, rather than the first 30 minutes. What follows is an analysis about why this is a good idea:

ADVANTAGES

• Increase numbers cycling on Boris Bikes, especially over longer journeys.
• Addresses social issues:
• Current 30 minute cap means that less athletic members of the population find it harder to get the 23kg bikes around the city in 30 minutes and are being financially discriminated against by the existing tariff. A 60 minutes free period would encourage a much broader section of the population attempt journeys over 5km on the (comparatively slow) Boris Bikes.
• Current 30 minute cap also favours users that either work in the City or live in a (usually very affluent) area of Central London, e.g. Marble Arch, from where it is much easier to make a 30 minute journey to another Central London destination than from, say, Sheperd's Bush. A 60 minute cap will encourage those with residential access to bikes in parts of London further from the centre (and usually less affluent) to get cycling as they face no financial penalty for making a longer journey. Current scheme criticised for not being 'inclusive' enough. This is the solution.
• Increase revenue:
• 60 minute cap creates a tariff incentive to casual users to register for the year, increasing BCH revenue.
• Over 95% of journeys are made in under 30 minutes now anyway so the increase of the cap to 60 minutes will have a negligible negative impact on revenues in that area since tariff revenues for a 30-60 minutes journey are already so insignificant a part of BCH revenues.
• Increasing use of bikes (both in terms of total journeys and average journey length) will mean that Barclays will be contractually obliged pay TfL more in sponsorship.
• Decreases congestion at Docking Station rental point terminals:
• More registered users means that more people will be getting bikes out directly with keys which will help reduce journey times for all users.
• Realistic time-frame for implementation:
• The BCH scheme is due to be expanded in 2013 so tariff change could easily be integrated into these already planned changes.
• Health benefits:
• Tariff will resulted in longer average journey distances meaning those using the Boris Bikes will be fitter than before with obesity, diabetes, etc. improvements.
• New York cycle hire scheme has a dual tariff system giving a larger amount of time free to registered members so it is definitely possible.
• A dual tariff for tube and bus journeys has been incredibly effective at getting Londoners to overwhelming switch to Oyster. Dual tariff for Boris Bikes could be equally effective at getting Londoners to register for the years rather than just being casual users (meaning they are likely to make far more casual journeys with the bikes since they've already paid membership for the year).
• Better behaved cyclists:
• Boris Bikers will no longer have a time pressure to get their bikes back in under 30 minutes, and since few will want to cycle for longer than 60 minutes, Boris Bikers will, on average, become less agressive cyclist (jumping red lights etc.).
• Government can present change in tariff as part of Olympic 'Legacy' for utility cycling in London so the move would be very politically expedient.
• Barclays could even decide to fund the change themselves causing no extra cost to the tax payer which would be a good publicity boost for the bank after the LIBOR scandal.
• Never underestimate the economic power of 'free' as opposed to £1.

60 minutes free would persuade this young lady to become a registered (rather than casual) user.

DISADVANTAGES

• More bikes in use at any one time leading to increased pressure on the system.
• SOLUTION:
• By only extending 60 minute free tariff to registered users this problem will be minimised. Tourists and casual users who are most likely to leave bikes in the park etc. (and therefore out of use) will still only have 30 minutes free in order to keep enough bikes in circulation.
• Increase the size of the docking stations around London which already experience high usage. Increasing the size of an existing docking station is significantly cheaper and easier than building a new one and also helps ease problems with stations either having no bikes or no spaces at certain times of the day. Current average is 14 bikes per dock. This could easily be increased to an average of 20 bikes per dock.
• Initial cost of implementation.
• SOLUTION:
• Persuade Barclays to pay because it will be good publicity for them.

If you too would like to use the Boris Bikes for 60 minutes for free as a registered user than why not drop TfL a line and let them know (then, they might just change the tariff in 2013!):

BarclaysCycleHire@TfL.gov.uk

--------

Click here for a BBC article about how cycle blogging lead directly to positive change with the creation of Boris Johnson's 'Cycling Vision for London'.