Just Bike

Should bikes be treated like cars?

One of the beauties of bike riding is the freedom. You buy one, or find one, and just jump on. There are no taxes, no fuel to buy and almost anything that goes wrong can be fixed by the rider. They’re also cheap enough that anyone can own one.

But should bikes be treated more like cars? Is it even possible to do so? Bike riding seems to be getting more and more popular, a result of green concerns, money concerns and the attentions of politicians. London Mayor Boris Johnson plans to spend £111 million on cycling infrastructure in the capital in the coming year. It might not surprise you to learn that Johnson is a keen cyclist.

So as the use of bikes explodes, and bike-sharing schemes in many European cities bloom, are we heading for a changes in the law?

Taxes

One way to pay for bike lanes is to levy a tax. This could be on sales, or something like the vehicle tax on cars. Many drivers like this idea, as they bemoan that they are giving cyclists a free ride. But road tax doesn’t exist, and there are many other taxes which pay for their upkeep, including the vehicle excise duty of cyclists who own cars.

Also, once bike lanes are built, they require little maintenance other than stopping cars from parking in them. It’s also likely that taxation would be impossible to enforce. How would you know who had paid for what? Bikes would need to carry registration plates, and that seems unlikely. A sales tax on new bikes would slow sales and be, in these times of peak oil, political suicide. It looks like we’re safe for now.

Insurance

Car-advocates often propose mandatory third party insurance for cyclists. It is available, and it’s cheap — a testament to the difference in damage-causing capability beween a two wheeled, human powered bike and a two-ton, petrol-fuelled monster.

As bikes become more common in cities, it is likely that pedestrians will start to sue cyclists for crashing into them, so insurance could be useful. But again, how would you possibly police mandatory insurance without registering all bikes and making them carry number plates? Add to this that most policies would be void the moment that a rider runs a red light of hops onto a sidewalk and you’re looking at a whole mess. Which brings us to:

Road Laws

Cyclists flout the law. We run red lights, drive on the pavement (legal here in Barcelona, although wearing an iPod will get you a fine) and head in the wrong direction down one-way streets. All clearly illegal, but all, at times, the safest thing to do. Sure, a bad cyclist may do all three at once, at top speed, and give some poor grandmother a heart attack. But for the more careful rider, a slip down a one-way street can avoid a dangerous junction, for example.

It has been argued that red lights and street directions shouldn’t apply to cyclists anyway, as they are not inventions for safety but inventions to lubricate traffic-flow, specifically motor-traffic. As a bike, carefully and sensibly ridden, cannot cause a traffic jam, it follows that they should not have to abide by these traffic schemes. With the exception of driving on the correct side of the road, why should bikes obey car laws?

Roadside Assistant

As easy as bikes are to fix, not everybody want to repair a flat or gets their hands dirty on their way to work. Roadside assistance for cyclist has just been announced for AA of America members in Oregon and Southern Idaho. The catch is that you’ll have to have a car to get it, as there is no standalone package for cyclists: it’ll come as part of the Plus, Plus RV and Premier packages. These start at $105 (£62) per year.

Neither will the mechanic fix it for you. He will give you a lift, for up to 25 miles, but apparently it is too hard to mend a bicycle. Marie Dodds of the AAA told Oregon Live that “there are a million sizes of tires and tubes. Our people are not prepared to repair bikes.”

This seems like an excuse: apart from removing the bottom bracket of my bike, I can repair everything on it with a multi-tool, a 15mm wrench, a pump and a puncture repair kit (slipped into a pocket made from an old inner-tube section). I can true a wheel, break and remake the chain and swap in a new saddle, all with a kit that fits into a pocket. I’m sure that an AAA van could carry everything needed in a small tool-box, and how much space does a box of different sized tubes take up?

Still, late night rescue in the rain is still a nice service to have.

What do you all think? Should bikes be, legally, treated like cars, or should cars be penalised further to push people onto bikes? There are plenty of opinions, and we haven’t even started on the savings in health costs made by riding instead of driving. Have at it in the comments, and keep it clean.

Source: Charlie Sorrel, Wired

How do you beat the biking-to-work blues?

I did the maths. Approximately 252 working days a year (minus holidays), multiplied by 14 miles each day, equals … 3,128 miles. This is the distance I commute, per year, from my house in Walthamstow to the Guardian offices in King’s Cross.

I wouldn’t trade my bike commute for the world – and especially not for the London underground. But the number does seem high, especially considering that I am a relatively slow cyclist (it usually takes me around 40-45 minutes to get to work).

That’s a lot of time to spend pushing pedals along the same route, day in, day out. And while I take pride in my carefully crafted journey, which took weeks to perfect (a shortcut here, a nicer street there), I can’t deny it any longer: I am experiencing commute fatigue and I need a change in my routine. Here are a few things I have tried or am thinking about trying in order to fight my growing boredom on the road:

1. Change your route. This seems simple enough, and has a few definite perks in my eyes. I fear that overfamiliarity with a route may lead me to become less careful over time, as I presume to know every light, every turn and every roundabout by heart. Tinkering with my circuit might help to keep me alert – and, let’s face it, it’s always fun getting lost in London’s backstreets. The downside is that the new journey is likely to waste precious minutes, which could have been spent in bed.

2. Listen to your MP3 player. I’d hesitate to blast Rage Against the Machine at full volume through my earphones, as I’d like to hear cars coming, but I won’t settle for music on low volume that I can’t hear. I have therefore plumped for podcasts – talk shows, ebooks and stories are good enough to entertain me, played with some volume but not so loud as to put my life at risk. Most podcasts are also the perfect commuting length, lasting just under an hour. I would personally recommend Good Food, This American Life, Radio Lab and of course, the Guardian’s bike podcast – but would love to hear about your favourites, too.

3. Become a bike-geek. Invest in a bike computer, and track your progress or set yourself goals. The cheapest ones on the market should still be able to crunch numbers and tell you your average, current and maximum speeds, and will also sport an odometer and a timer. I really enjoyed using mine – until it was stolen, along with my previous bike. In the same vein, you can download many iPhone applications, such asMapMyRide, which let you calculate elevation and show you street level views.

4. Contemplate. With such an emphasis placed on having to ride as fast as possible – while avoiding dangerous drivers and discourteous pedestrians – perhaps a deliberate attempt to slow down and enjoy the act of cycling could be in order, if only once or twice a week. Setting aside a few more minutes to arrive at work on time leaves you free to ride around town and contemplate the seasonal changes. Alternatively, count how many cats you can spot in one go, or take mental notes on new autumn fashion trends by people-watching. You’ll be surprised at how many faces will quickly become familiar.

So, those are my tips to counter commuter fatigue. What are yours?

Source: Jessica Reed, The Guardian

Law change could offer greater protection to cyclists and pedestrians

Government advisors are considering making car drivers’ insurance companies legally liable for compensating pedestrian and cyclist victims of road crashes.

Widespread press reports have been arousing anti-cyclist sentiments as motor vehicle lobby groups mistakenly claim the change means drivers would automatically be considered at fault.

The changes, only affecting civil law cases, would make the most powerful vehicle in a collision liable, which would also make cyclists liable to pay compensation if they hit a pedestrian.

LCC has repeatedly lobbied for this law change, bringing it to the attention of national and regional government for over a decade.

The proposed system known as ‘Strict Liability’ is based on the principle that anyone who uses a vehicle that might become a dangerous object in a collision, should be liable to compensate for any injuries arising from the use of that vehicle on the road.

Strict Liability rules apply in the Netherlands and Germany where pedestrian and cyclist casualty rates are much lower than in Britain.  These rules encourage road users to adopt a dute of care for others.  Without them victims are often left with no resources to pay for rehabilitation after a crash.

Change to encourage more walking and cycling
The move is one of a raft of measures being considered to encourage more walking and cycling in the UK. Others include more 20mph residential speed limits, wider schools cycle training and provision for cyclists in major planning applications.

LCC communications officer Mike Cavenett said, “The current system isn’t fair: if a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle, they are far more likely to suffer serious injury than the driver or passengers. It seems reasonable that the people who use the most damaging vehicles should pay for most of the injuries caused.

“There is a bias against vulnerable road users which means, sadly, drivers are less likely to worry about collisions because they know they’re very unlikely to be held accountable.”

Current system biased against the vulnerable
LCC is fighting for the law to be changed so vulnerable road users can claim injury damages from drivers who hit them, unless it can be shown that the cyclist or pedestrian behaved recklessly.

Drivers would not be criminalised by the law change, but they would have an added degree of responsibility when driving a fast-moving vehicle in crowded city streets.

It is not yet clear if the government is prepared to adopt advice supporting this change in preparation of the proposed National Cycling Plan.

Source: London Cycling Campaign

Bicyclists vs. Pedestrians: An Armistice

ONE of the great battlefields in the war between bicyclists and pedestrians in New York City is the Brooklyn Bridge. Pedestrians think all bicyclists are out-of-control maniacs; bicyclists — the majority, anyway — are just trying to avoid cars and not break a sweat. The stripe painted down the center of the elevated Brooklyn Bridge walkway, to separate bicyclists from pedestrians, has become a line in the sand. We need to erase that line once and for all.

There are various reasons for the battle of the Brooklyn Bridge. Brooklyn seems to sprout bike commuters, as do its vaguely do-it-yourself cultural attitudes that the real estate race has not yet destroyed. The walkway, meanwhile, is narrow. Thus, on any given day, we see on one side a herd of pedestrians, part tourists photographing the Statue of Liberty, part people walking to work — a volatile mix to begin with. On the other side of the line are two kinds of bicyclists, most pedaling peacefully, a few confusing bike commuting with driving rocket cars on the Bonneville Salt Flats. It’s a recipe for confusion and arguments, not to mention accidents.

Indeed, the Brooklyn Bridge is just one of several bike-pedestrian flash points in the city; skirmishes (and anti-bicyclist sentiment) have arisen on the Hudson River Greenway and on the Central Park and Prospect Park loops. But the Brooklyn Bridge battle, maybe because the bridge is iconic, is the most charged. The New York City Department of Transportation has experimented with lane sizes, signs and bollards, but with more people walking and more people biking (both good developments), chaos quite naturally ensues, in addition to shouting and calls, not for the banning of pedestrians — that would be wrong, everyone agrees — but for the banning of bicycles.

I hear the call to ban bikes on the Brooklyn Bridge walkway all the time, but up to now I, a Brooklyn resident who sometimes shows up a little late for meetings in Lower Manhattan with chain grease on his hands, have resisted. Today, though, I am prepared to accept a bicycle ban on the walkway, allowing just one condition.

Before I describe the condition, a very brief history of transportation on the Brooklyn Bridge, which opened in 1883. By 1902, when it was fully operational, it accommodated horses, horse-drawn trolleys, trains and pedestrians, and they were — all of them — charged a toll: one cent for pedestrians, two cents for livestock and 20 if you had a carriage pulled by horses. More than 340,000 people crossed daily that year, according to a chart published in 1988 by the Federal Highway Administration (and recently rediscovered by Streetsblog). By 1907, the bridge’s peak year, 426,000 people crossed every day. The toll was abolished in 1911.

(I personally am a result of this historic transportation mix, as my grandparents, family legend has it, met on a Brooklyn Bridge trolley around 1917.)

In the 1940s and ’50s, as more cars crossed, trains and trolleys were removed. By 1989, the number of people who crossed daily had dropped to 178,000.

I realize that most people who want to ban bikes on the Brooklyn Bridge walkway want the bicyclists to use the Manhattan Bridge. True, the Manhattan Bridge has an excellent bike-only lane. But this is the kind of idea that sounds good only to a non-Brooklyn Bridge bicyclist; the Manhattan Bridge bike lane is great for getting to a lot of places, but a long way to go for downtown.

Thus, I present the following condition. Yes, ban bicycles on the Brooklyn Bridge walkway, but allow them on the roadways, where they are now not permitted, by creating physically protected bike lanes. This may sound like going back to the old days when the bridge carried nearly four times as many people with a fraction of the pollution, but here is one of those cases in which a conservative, backward-looking proposal feels right. If the city were to experiment with the idea on a weekend, all they would have to fear would be a shortage of hot chocolate at the South Street Seaport caused by the influx of parents and children from Brooklyn.

While we’re at it — and while the bridge undergoes a four-year refurbishment set to begin this year — why not also get some buses on the bridge, as we wait for light rail?

If we bicyclists cede the Brooklyn Bridge walkway, then it might be a step toward winning the public’s respect. Then, just maybe, pedestrians would call a truce and recognize that their real enemy is the car, that bikers are like pedestrians in that they are just trying to get to work without the use of a gurney.

After the first Battle of Brooklyn, at the end of August 1776, the defeated American forces managed to stay alive by retreating to Manhattan at around the same place where the Brooklyn Bridge lands today. Less remembered is the meeting a few weeks later between the British and the Americans at the Conference House on Staten Island. The British hoped to broker a peaceful “reunion with America,” but they couldn’t stop referring to the Americans old-style, as British subjects, so the Americans walked, refusing to turn back the clocks.

It’s the same with bicyclists. They are full-fledged New Yorkers now, not maniacs who need to be banned. We are all fighting to make the streets safe for something other than driving and parking. The livability revolution has begun. There is no turning back.

Robert Sullivan, the author of “The Thoreau You Don’t Know,” is writing a book about the American Revolution.

Source: Robert Sullivan