*Guest Post* by Andrew Stephen: Resolve in the Face of Thievery

Crews of grinches are working in teams, spotting, plotting and thieving their way around London’s streets. They nab innocent bikes tucked snugly on racks, lampposts, and road signs. A dull roar has arisen about the sharp uptick in London’s bike thievery, and frankly, the only thing we should lose is the ‘dull’ part. But it happens in every city, especially when metropolitans increase numbers of cyclists in vast proportions like London has. Statistics are stark: 22,000+ bike thefts reported last year, while most thefts go unreported, and estimates of real thefts are as high as 100,000.

This situation we’ve arrived at is terribly sub-optimal given the momentum cycling has gained in London. The number of cyclists in London have more than doubled since 2000, with over 540,000 trips taken per day. People are excited to avoid traffic, improve their health, save money and have fun on their way to work. There have also been tragic deaths, 16 in total last year, along with 555 serious injuries. But this is gradually changing in our favor as well. Though better road design is without doubt the single most important factor needed to improve safety, having more cyclists on the road also helps. There is strength, and more importantly, visibility, in numbers. Despite all of these encouraging signs, the number of cyclists has plateaued and bike thefts are rising.

Some are saying that Londoners are discouraged by bike thefts and riding less often or not at all, and thus the recent plateau in the number of cyclists. Anecdotal evidence points to the contrary, however. I have met a number of bike commuters who have had their rides nicked, but are proceeding with firm resolve. They contend that bike thievery is similar to bike accidents. There is safety in numbers. The more Londoners who identify as cyclists, the more invested the general public will be in preventing thieves from practicing their craft as blatantly as they have become accustomed. 

Meet Simon. He is a daily bicycle commuter who’s not deterred by thieves in the slightest. Simon’s daily commute travails the handful of kilometres from Westfield to the London Palladium. Last week his lovely Bianchi Vigorelli with a full Ultegra set was callously nicked right outside his office. Exhausted from a long day of meetings and stressful client demands, Simon arrived to find his D lock sawed in two, and the bike nowhere to be found. He had done everything right: registered the serial number with MPS’s Transport for London officers, insured it with Butterworth Spengler, and upon discovering the theft, immediately reported it. He wasn’t locking it up deep in Westminster, where most thefts take place. He didn’t lock it with a merely superficial cable lock. Simon said, “I did everything my research told me to do to ride safely and securely in London’s streets”.

It’s not that big a deal, Simon contended. “Those who are shocked by bike theft must simply get over it. It may be an inconvenience in the moment, and sure, you may have a particular affinity for your bicycle, but frankly, if you follow the recommended procedures it will prove to be a blip on an otherwise lovely biking life.” Simon is a lifelong cyclist, and in that time he has had 2 bikes stolen, including his Bianchi and the rear wheel, seatpost, and saddle of his beloved Fuji Feather single speed. “I learned to use a cable in combination with my D lock when the Fuji was torn apart”, Simon said. 

Down, but not out. Simon's single speed Fuji Feather missing a few pieces…

Most of us know someone who have had their car stolen or vandalized. The main difference is that bikes are so much more easily replaced. Certainly, more thefts have taken place recently, but even with the uptick of theft, bikes are still far more practical than commuting by car. Simon’s Fuji was easily put back together with refunds from his insurance company, including a brand new freewheel, seatpost, and saddle. He has already filed his MPS and insurance paperwork and a new road bike is on the way. Simon found a 20 quid cruiser lounging about in the backyard for the meantime. “It was really quite easy to proceed after the theft”, Simon reported. “When you insure and register, you’ve got very little to worry about if you bike goes missing”. 

The best we can do is to take more care using D locks and cables in combination, greater coordination with police, refusing to purchase bikes without serial numbers, and the like. Simon has bought Abus’ particularly effective chain from the UK’s Bikesnbits, in anticipation of the new road bike. One can also use two different types of locks to force thieves to use two separate tools for lock jimmying. 

Abus Expedition Chain Lock 70/45 85cm

Simon left us with his firm resolve to continue cycling no matter what thieves do: “We’re all out here, hundreds of thousands of people who love riding, love saving money, gas, the environment - we’re not going to capitulate because thieves have begun targeting cycles. We’re going to keep riding, keep loving our commutes, keep our eyes out for thieves, and spread the word about insurance, locks, and registration.”

Why the BBC's 'War on Britain's Roads' was complete rubbish

Many people have criticised the BBC's recent 'War on Britain's Roads' programme so I know I'm hardly the first person to be saying these things. Yet, the programme was so infuriatingly banal that say them I must.

While being an hour of reasonably well-produced television, 'War on Britain's Roads' was brutally misinformed as to the real reasons that cyclists and motorists come into conflict on our streets. The programme went for the 'human-angle', interviewing both cyclists and motorists involved in incidents and eventually implicitly concluding that we should all get along better and perhaps lorries should have more mirrors and sensors on them.

A taxi driver very dangerously cuts up a cyclist. Rather than this just being condoned out-of-hand so we can all move on, we are interested treated by the BBC to 'both sides of the story'. This is bullshit. The taxi driver was at fault. He shouldn't have passed the cyclist so close. He could have killed the cyclist. Why can't this just be accepted as a fact?
If the cyclist can knock his frame to tell him he's too close, then he's too close. There shouldn't be any debate over this.

This is all 'true'. But it's also the sort of trite rubbish that a child could come up with simply by imagining a road that's being used by a cyclist, a motorist, and an HGV.

There is no pathological, eugenic difference between Britons and Hollanders.

The reason Dutch people do not have a 'War' on their roads is that Dutch roads are designed so that cyclists and motorists can both use the roads safely.

This is done in many ways. One of these is putting in cycle lanes on most roads where cars are doing 30mph or more which prevents motorists becoming angry about cyclists slowing them down when they want to drive at 30mph or above.

Do the BBC recommend implementing more and better cycle lanes, even implicitly? 

No. They seem to imply instead that motorists should perhaps maybe calm down a bit if they don't have space to overtake, and cyclists should maybe just bite the bullet if they get hit because they're 'taking control of the road'. (and on that note, can you think of a more idiotic and unnecessarily inflammatory way to describe cycling in the primary position?)

Similarly, after focusing on the tragic story of a young woman who was killed by a left-turning lorry, did the narrator draw the conclusion that enforcing a London-wide ban on HGVs that lack industry-standard mirrors and motion sensors would be a good idea?

No. It was simply left to the woman's bereaved mother to pursue her solo-campaign with the lorry companies that still fill our streets with dangerously ill-equipped vehicles. But why should this be one woman's responsibility? Anyone can get killed by a left-turning lorry. It's everyone's responsibility. Yet the BBC's opinion seems to be that people who (idiotically?) choose to cycle are some 'other tribe' that need to fend for themselves and don't come in for the basic rights of government-led safety that any normal citizen is entitled to.

How many of these cyclists have a head-cam? None. The BBC failed to mention that the agressive head-cam footage used for the programme was completely unrepresentative of both the cycling style and experience of the majority of Britain's cyclists who rather surprisingly don't choose to cycle on road-bikes at 30mph.

I could go on all day about the problems with the programme, but I'll end with a final thought:

Throughout we were treated to a fair range of clips of motorists behaving badly, then cyclists behaving badly, in what I presume was an attempt to give a 'balanced view' of the situation. Yet, did the narrator mention that in the case of motorists behaving badly cyclists die (119 so far in 2012; a five-year high). And did the narrator mention how many motorists have been killed by cyclists jumping red lights? I confess I don't know the exact figure off the top of my head but I imagine it's somewhere around zero.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not condoning red-light-jumpers for a second. But there is, at least for my money, a complete difference both in degree and consequence between the crimes of bad driving and bad cycling.

I would have preferred it if BBC's 'War on Britain's Roads' could have pointed this fact out. Or if one of the cyclists interviewed had had the presence of mind to do so when confronted with the extreme footage of a messenger race at the end of the programme, instead of blithely suggesting that a "punch in the face" was the solution to the 'everyday' problem of a bicycle courier competition held for a cash-prize 6 years ago.

--------

If you'd like to make a complaint about the programme you can do so in about 2 minutes here. (The BBC do at least have a very quick and easy online complaint-making system in place...)

For two much more thorough and better researched pieces on the same subject please also see:

- As Easy As Riding A Bike's excellent recent article: That 'war' on Britain's roads - the statistics
- Peter Walker's latest piece in The Guardian: BBC's War on Britain's Roads: even more fake than we feared

Some thoughts on 'SkyCycle': a further defence of Boris Johnson's cycling credentials

Clearly we can all take as read that the SkyCycle idea publicised earlier this year is absolute rubbish and neither practically nor financially viable. However, I would argue that putting it on the table was actually a very shrewd move by Boris Johnson and co at TfL.

Snazzy (if completely unrealistic) computer animations like this help capture the tabloid imagination.

Unlike, for instance, a proposed protected cycle-lane (which all cyclists would much more prefer) SkyCycle plans are 'sexy' and thus got significant tabloid coverage. This publicity constructively helps to put cycling on the map to the general British populace as a viable mode of transport, and reinforce the idea that cycling conditions in this country are currently substandard and something needs to be done.

Furthermore, by giving the impression (whether correct or not) that they have pursued and then discarded the SkyCycle scheme, if Boris Johnson and TfL then turn around and say (as they do appear to be doing now) that what we actually need are early-start cycle-only traffic lights and cycle bus stop By-Passes, then their arguments have significantly more clout with those that oppose improving road layout for cyclists. They can say, 'look, we've looked into a number of options but a protected cycle lane and reduced motor traffic capacity is really the only solution'.

Perhaps I'm being too kind to Mr Johnson, but I don't think it's wise for cyclists to underestimate the depth of anti-cycling feeling that a politician like Boris has to negotiate in order to deliver any lasting road layout solutions; especially when these very solutions will often result in increases to average motor traffic journey times in London.

Surprisingly good plans from TfL for Bow Roundabout Junction Review

TfL have just released some rather radically effective new plans for Bow Roundabout. They propose:

1. Cycle-only early-start traffic lights with a cycle-only Advance Stop Box which will be 18 metres deep. This is an unsatisfactory compromise solution that has been effectively critiqued by the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) here.

2. Cycle Bus Stop By-Pass. This is, by contrast, a very impressive idea since it will prevent cyclists coming into conflict with buses at the bus stop on the approach to the roundabout. Buses are a inescapable feature of London's traffic and as such are not going to go away anytime soon. However, cycle bus stop By-Passes are a very rare, even non-existant, sight in London at present. The implementation of a successful and popular Cycle Bus Stop By-Pass at Bow Roundabout could pave the way for their installation across London's busier roads which is really a very exciting prospect indeed.

(For pedestrians getting off buses that need to cross the By-Pass, TfL are also intelligently proposing a specific pedestrian crossing on the cycle lane which is visible on the map below. This is a much better idea than having a general-crossing free-for-all for the duration of the By-Pass because it limits pedestrian-cyclist conflict to a specific area and gives cyclists a specific location where they need to look out and give way to pedestrians, thereby reducing the risk of pedestrians and cyclists not seeing each other.)

Map of proposed changes. Click here for a PDF download of the image.

I would urge, in no uncertain terms, that anyone interested in Cycling in London visits https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/betterjunctions/bow_roundabout and takes the 'Online Survey' sometime between now and 19 Dec 2012 in order to let TfL that they are doing the right thing.

It's just as important to let know organisations like TfL know when they are doing stuff right as it is to let them know when they are getting it wrong (c.f. the closure of Upper Ground covered impressively well by Cyclists in the City).

That way we can hopefully see more Cycle Bus Stop By-Passes (and Cycle Early Start systems) being rolled out all over London; i.e. not just at junctions where people have to die before TfL start doing anything about the road layout situation.

#cyclesafe

Doubling of Boris Bike Fares from 2 January 2013 - DISASTROUS move by Boris Johnson and TfL

EDIT (25/4/13) - As predicted... Boris Bike rentals drop by a third in the first three months of 2013 (and that's despite an overall increase in the total number of journeys made by bike in London, and large amounts of 'cycling publicity' caused by our new Cycling Commisioner)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From 2 January 2013 daily access to the London Cycle Hire Scheme will double from £1 to £2, weekly access from £5 to £10, and yearly access from £45 to £90.

This is an absolutely atrocious move by Boris Johnson and TfL at just the point when cycling in London generally, and usage of the Boris Bikes, seems to be on the rise.

As this blog has previously argued, one of the principle advantages of the London Cycle Hire Scheme (if not the principal advantage) is the low cost of renting a Boris Bike, making it in almost all situations the cheapest way of getting around London short of walking.

Increasing the charge for access fees by 100% - while bus and tube fares rise by only 4.2% - will completely destroy London Cycle Hire's position as the cheapest form of transport in London, and make single bus and tube journeys, in certain situations, a cheaper way for a Londoner to get from A to B than renting a Boris Bike.

Similarly, raising the price of annual subscriptions will make it much harder to woo new members to the scheme and may convince many existing customers (like myself) to choose not to renew their membership next year.

Yearly membership to London Cycle Hire to double from £45 to £90 from January 2nd 2013.

While their might be a very slight uptake is usage from certain sections of the upper-middle classes that will inevitably see a more expensive product as worth buying simply on account of its higher price, the overall and unavoidable effect of this price hike will be to further to cement an image of cycling that is centered on the rich, white, middle class.

This is exactly what cycling shouldn't be.

Cycling is the cheapest, greenest, and healthiest mode of transport known to man. It should therefore be associated with all social groups, especially lower-income segments of the population.

Instead Boris Johnson and TfL's latest decision will only further entrench a completely unnecessary and invalid view of cycling that is restricted to 'lyrca-louts' and 'arsehole-bankers'.

Moreover, if the doubling of rental costs results in a dip in Boris Bike usage, this fare increase could very well lead to an increase in cycling deaths and fatalities in London.

Over the past few years large numbers of Boris Bikes in Central London have helped to calm traffic and make the streets safer for everyone. This benefit to all Londoners that choose to cycle (or walk) will be lost if Cycle Hire usage declines.

This blog has championed Boris Johnson's efforts in the past, but this fare increase is idiotic, incompetent.

Worse, it will in any case be ineffectual, since too few Londoners use the Boris Bike scheme to contribute anywhere near the billions of pounds needed for the continuing tube upgrade (and £180 million which the new routemasters cost). The fiscal burden should instead be borne by the tax payer, and tube and bus users themselves.

If you believe that the planned price rises are ridiculous and cretinous, please feel free to drop Barclays Cycle Hire, Boris Johnson, and TfL an email and let them know your thoughts.

-----

Please see also similar responses from The Evening Standard, I love Boris Bikes, and The Telegraph on this issue.

TfL / Royal Parks: Bring Boris Bikes to the Mall

Back in July 2009 TfL, led by our cycle-friendly Mayor Boris Johnson, proposed installing a large 38-bike Cycle Hire Docking Station on the Mall as part of the initial 2010 implementation of the Boris Bike scheme. (For those interested the full details of the refused planning application can be found here.)

There is currently a massive glut of Cycle Hire Docking Stations in the Mall Area. See for yourself on this map.

Among those idiotically opposed to the Docking Station was the Conservative MP for Westminster, Mark Field, and the proposed site on the Mall was eventually rejected on the grounds of:

"impact on streetscape"  (!)

Yes, installing a Docking Station here would clearly change the large pavement area on the North side of the Mall in some small, minor and purely cosmetic way. But as has been shown with other public events like the Notting Hill Carnival and the Olympic Games, the Cycle Hire bikes can be quickly and easily removed during busier periods to prevent excess congestion. When this is done all one is left with is a few stands barely waist height. There really is no logical reason not to extent the Cycle Hire Scheme to comprehensively cover the Mall/Constitution Hill area.

Moreover, if there is one part of Central London where the roads are wide and empty enough to accomodate large amounts of cycle traffic it is the Mall. The entire network of roads around Buckingham Palace are almost comically large and this whole area could really become a very pleasant place to cycle around in the near future.

This is something devoutly to be wished, since a higher numbers of cyclists (instead of cars and taxis) on these streets would make the whole neighbourhood:

1. Cleaner

2. Less polluted

3. Quieter

4. Safer (no one can argue that even the most irresponsible cyclist in London is a fraction as dangerous as a car going at 30mph or more)

5. Less congested (cyclists take up far less road space than the equivalent amount of passengers using cars, taxis, or even buses)
6. Safer cycling (since as cyclist numbers increase political support for tough decisions in favour of cyclists - e.g. reallocating road space in cyclists' favour, cycle-only traffic signals, adequate cycle parking in urban centres - will become ever greater)

The Mall's proximity to the wonderful off-road East-West cycle routes available through Hyde Park also mean that it is (comparatively) very pleasant to travel to and from by bike meaning a Docking Station there would be very well popular with both tourists and locals alike.

From the official Westminster Council planning application. Space for a Docking Station here? YES YES YES. Boris Bike racks have been squeezed into far smaller spaces in the more cycle-friendly boroughs of London.

As I've argued before in this blog, Cycle Hire schemes function as a highly effective 'gateway drug' to much higher levels of cycling by all portions of the population, not just on cycle-hire bikes. This is one reason why cycling rates in London have risen so markedly in the last two years despite the amount of safe cycle infrastructure in the city, and the statistical risk to cyclists, remaining relatively static from 2010 to 2012.

Therefore, it is clearly in the interest of everyone interested in cycling in London to improve the currently woeful lack of Cycle Hire Docking Stations in the Mall area. How can this be done?

The Mall as it is now. Full of (mostly empty) taxis and not a single cyclist in sight.

Well, fortunately I've been informed by TfL that they are now re-applying for planning permission for a Docking Station on the Mall as part of the 2013/2014 Phase 3 expansion of the Boris Bike scheme which will (hopefully) include substantial intensification of the scheme in Central London. This intensification is needed to help accomodate increased commuter flow of bikes from the South-West areas of London which are being brought into the area covered by the scheme.

Therefore, if you want to help support TfL's, and the Mayor's, efforts to gradually tame Westminster and make it that little bit less cycle-toxic, please sign this petition by I Love Boris Bikes to bring the Cycle Hire Scheme to the Mall.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/tfl-royal-parks-bring-boris-bikes-to-the-mall-3

If TfL can show evidence of widespread support for a Docking Station here they are much more likely to get a successful planning application for it.

Furthermore, if you are a resident in the Borough of Westminster please consider writing personally to your local councillors and Mark Field MP, as letters from personal constituents can often be more effective than large scale campaigns.

Doing the simple things well with road design for cyclists

Below is a picture of Storey's Way, Cambridge (googlemap street view: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=cambridge+uk&hl=en&ll=52.21213,0.107503&spn=0.017303,0.0318&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.483365,65.126953&hnear=Cambridge,+United+Kingdom&t=m&layer=c&cbll=52.213776,0.104975&panoid=-l2D8TEtu8I4pkMgJsVPPg&cbp=12,20.89,,0,1&z=15)

Cycling right-turn cycle safety box outside Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge

The very simple cycle 'box' painted on the road provides greatly increased safety to any cyclists turning right here. Drivers on both sides of the road are alerted to the potential presence of a cyclist by the red paint on the road and cyclists are therefore much less likely to get hit by a vehicle while waiting to turn right.

Moreover, this kind of cycle infrastructure costs virtually nothing; it's just some red paint, a white cycle sign, and some chevrons.

What is surprising though is that this kind of street layout is still a comparatively rare sight in the UK.

Equivalent situation street design in London (Ladbroke Grove). The road is blocked with paving in the middle, but no effort has been made to make this permeable for cyclists or to use the road space which is being taken up anyway to provide a safe box for cyclists turning right. I imagine this design was put in during the 80s.

It's up to all of us to help inform our local planning officials and let them know about the little things like this which can make a cyclists journey so much safer and are so easy to implement!

(Obviously much bigger elements of cycle infrastructure are crucially important too. But it really does surprise me how many local planning officials would - if they knew it existed - be happy to implement smaller elements of cycle infrastructure like the cycle-box in the first photo. It's our job to make them better informed so we don't get more of the second photo.)