Get behind the bike #3

Continuing our series, another great reason to get behind the bike, legs of steel.

Get behind the bike #2

Continuing our series, today we bring to you another good reason to get behind the bike.

Bikes don't kill people...

 although very occasionally cyclists die while travelling – they’re not being killed by bikes.

Own the Road - Cyclists Live Longer

An interesting thought, it brings to mind the gun lobby, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Imagine for a moment nobody was ever killed while riding a bike, but every year a hundred people were killed by nutters walking in to gyms and shooting people using exercise bikes. Two things would happen; exercise bikes would become rather unpopular; nobody would blame exercise bikes for the deaths.

Though, what if our killer gave a warning? Get off the exercise bike or I'll shoot you! But our stubborn little cyclist refuses to budge. Are they now liable for their own death?

Let's move the scene, our little gym bunny plonks their bike down in the middle of a shooting range, jumps on and starts pedalling away. The gun club members know the bike is there, but that's okay, they are all trained, experienced, licenced firearms users, they can shoot past it at the targets without fear of killing anyone. Until they get a bit tired or complacent, or just plain lazy.

It's fair to say cyclists can be dumb, some of them can be real effing idiotic, but very few are so dumb as to be responsible for their own demise. The motorist is the party allowed the responsibility and the privilege of driving a potentially hazardous item around the roads and ultimately it is their actions that decide if someone lives or dies.

A new cycling campaign

For too long cycling has often been viewed as po-faced, miserable, drudgery. Panting along on a grey hybrid in the pissing rain from home to work, praying you make it alive because it seems like every motorist is out to kill you. Well, no more I say! Today we adopt a practice that the mad men of motor manufacturing learnt many moons ago, sex sells.

Motorists, we aren't the enemy, we are you, just a thinner, sexier you with better bums. For too long car manufacturers have been deceiving you that your car will make you look sexier, it won't, you can't take your car to bed with you, once between the sheets, what have you got? A pale flabby backside and a belly. Fear not, help is at hand because you can bring to the bedroom the trim waist, firm bum and shapely leg that a regular few miles on a bike will give you.

Motorists, get behind the bike!

Celebrity Cycle Chic

There is something aesthetically pleasing about the elegance of the bicycle and a well-dressed woman. You certainly get noticed far more than if you were sitting at the back of a bus.'

Any excuse for a picture of Kelly Brook riding a Pashley, proving a pretty girl on a bike is incomparable with the back of a bus. With Christian Louboutin shoes and a floaty fifties frock she's a picture of style, roll on summer!

Politics of Cycling

It seems of late that you can’t pick up a newspaper or turn on an interweb without a politician giving you their opinion of cycling.

Whether it’s Ken Livingstone saying cyclists should get priority at traffic lights; David Cameron offering support to the Times’ Cities fit for Cyclists campaign; or Nigel Farage saying we’re a bit of a nuisance in town and country.

It’s Mr Farage who has inspired me to write today, I confess I don't know an awful lot about him, certainly not enough to know his views on cycling before he mentioned them on Wednesday. One thing I did know though was that UKIP claim to be on the libertarian side of the spectrum, indeed they went so far as courting former  Libertarian Party members when that party closed its doors. Libertarianism is of course a rather broad church and will encompass views from "I will drive a car whenever and however I want" right across to "I will ride a bike and avoid paying tax".

Even so, I am still a little surprised that someone on the libertarian side would be hostile to cyclists riding two abreast or whatever they do to annoy him, because for all their faults cyclists are not much of an inconvenience to anyone. For some reason whatever negative effect a cyclist does have will be amplified in the mind of the person inconvenienced. 

Consider a pair of cyclists riding two abreast, you're driving along, they are ahead, you slow down, maybe ten seconds passes, a minute even, let's be outrageous and say two whole minutes pass while you are behind them waiting for an opportunity to overtake. If it is so difficult to overtake that you must wait two minutes before you can do so chances are it's a windy little lane and you probably shouldn't be doing more than 40mphish anyway, Sunday cyclists probably average 15mph so you are only delayed something like 1m20s. Clearly an eternity. Yet the amplification of negativity seems largely confined to cyclists, I don't really hear the same expressions of anger directed at horse riders or walkers.

Anyway, the point I want to get around to is that cycling is pretty much the most libertarian form of transport. Cyclists are, depending on who you speak to, the direction the conversation moves in and what side they got out of bed, hippy environmentalists, flashy mamils, aggressive pricks etc. But complaints about cyclists generally fall under the banner of it being unregulated, low cost, anti-authority, hence why it is libertarian. Look at all the libertarian benefits

1. No licence

2. No registration

3. No emissions tax

4. No VAT on bike (if C2W) or fuel

5. No fuel duty

6. No insurance (unless you so choose)

7. Every mile ridden is money kept out of the government pocket and in yours

8. Very limited possibility of committing a criminal or traffic offence so reducing potential interaction with police or courts.

9. You're unlikely to ever be liable for significant injury or financial claims

10. You can largely get away with breaking traffic laws, although getting caught goes against 8.

Why would a libertarian of any colour be against such an anti-authoritarian pursuit? It is truly wrong to consider things on a simple left/right spectrum, the political compass is two dimensional, with regulation of economics on one axis and regulation of society on the other. In cycling the anti-establishment left and the libertarian right meet together on the social axis. 

A565 Route Management Strategy

The A565 is the main route north up the coast from Liverpool. South Road is the main shopping district in Waterloo. Sefton Borough Council are proposing the following changes to the junction, mainly to further ease the flow of traffic.

Sefton Council proposal
Google Maps

The consideration given to cyclists is rather unimaginative, a couple of extra advanced stop zones, but even they don't have any designated cycle access to them. In fact the only real benefit I can see is that when turning right into South Road cyclists can be slightly less concerned about being hit from behind by vehicles going straight on.

It looks like they are purchasing land on the east side of the road, using some of it to widen the carriageway for cars and the rest is given over to a grass verge. I'm sure they could fit in a cycle lane and protected left turn if they tried. How about making South Road a shared space area?

£1.5m and all that is gained is two right turn lanes.

Times like this I wonder if there's some sort of online junction design tool, perhaps the collective wisdom of the crowd could do better than the professionals.