As a fair-weather cyclist - the kind that wonders why everyone else is in such a rush - I'm really at a loss with London's "coordinated" attempts to sort itself out as a great cycling city. Here's the latest campaign, to tackle theft:
LCC's eight-point campaign plan:
1. Creation of a police anti-theft squad A dedicated police team must tackle cycle theft, engaging in pro-active ‘stings’ to find persistent offenders and gangs.
2. Tougher action against selling stolen on websites Websites need tough rules on ID, and sellers must be made to provide real photos and frame numbers.
3. Code of practice for bike shops Bike shops must make proper checks on seller ID and bike provenance. A new code of practice will enable those that sign up to it to demonstrate their good standards.
4. Tougher action against street markets Well-known locations for selling stolen bikes such as Brick Lane market must be policed much more aggressively.
5. A central repository for recovered bikes A central location where people could recover stolen bikes would make it easier to unite owners with the large number of bikes that are recovered.
6. Regular stakeholder meetings Cyclists, police and politicians must meet regularly to ensure that cycle theft is given sufficiently high priority.
7. Increasing secure parking provision Thousands more secure cycle parking spaces need to be built for homes, estates, shops, educational institutions, workplaces and transport hubs.
8. Better education for cyclists Cyclists must be given sensible information to help them protect their bikes, such as registering the frame number online, buying insurance, and using strong locks. They also need tips on avoiding buying stolen bikes.
Why is secure parking for bikes item number 7? An eight-point plan is useless, unless it's set in order of priority. And right now secure infrastructure is item 7. First will come police squads, dealing with cyber crime, canvassing shops with codes of conduct, chasing market holders, building a database, meetings. Unless of course, this list isn't prioritised.
In the Netherlands the reality is that cycle theft is rampant, but most people ride cheap bikes and are used to it, albeit irritated. London's bike boom is a consumer boom as much as it's about getting around - people buying smart bikes and worrying about where to put them. There isn't really any good storage - in Dutch cities there are manned parking stations, there are safe places to park at work and there's plenty of places to hook your bike outside where you need to be. It's not perfect, but it's probably (quite seriously) a five million times better situation than we have in London.
The list, indeed the London Cycling Campaign site, smacks of lots of time spent in brainstorms, or on "advocacy", and no role to play in building infrastructure. The absolutely most important thing that matters if London is to be a great city to cycle in is that infrastructure is reprioritised towards bikes. Most crucially bikes must take priority over pedestrians and cars (which is basically the way it works in Holland - get out of my way, I'm on a bike).
Almost all the lessons we need are close by, in countries like Holland and Denmark. Indeed a study two weeks ago argued that Dutch children were the happiest in Europe - it's not measured, but I have no doubt that a contributing factor is that most cycle to school. Or ride to school with their parents.
Trying to define this stuff ourselves, how London should work as a cycling city, as some kind of exercise in original thought, is a bit like making your own nails to build a fence. Or building your own web browser to display web pages.
We need to gather the best practice lessons fast but step forward, onwards. We don't have the right infrastructure - pathways and storage - and if we're going to build it quickly, when there's no money around, we need to be smart. The London Cycling Campaign website could be about infrastructure and every decision should be visible. Every junction, pavement, post, ramp. Where are improvements planned? What do people want? Which companies are helping co-fund secure storage (in, for example, each office lobby)? Which council budgets, and which taxpayers, are paying for what? Instead we have people trying to change behaviour. In what sounds to me like meetings that will have intangible outcomes. Seven, in fact.
Related reading: If Lincoln Cathedral is architecture, what is a bicycle shed (by Joe Simpson) A lesson in business from the French (by Mark Charmer)Mark Charmer is founder of The Movement Design Bureau, a think tank.
LCC is not trying to change cyclist behaviour, rather it's politicians and the police that we're targeting.
There are some really easy 'wins' with theft in London: such as tackling the markets and the websites that blatantly sell stolen goods - something that shouldn't be tolerated in any civilised city, and cause untold anger and frustration.
Yes, London needs infrastructure too (indeed, the very next LCC campaign will focus on parking), but right now London's cyclists need to see theft prioritised by police and politicians. Until that happens, no-one will see any point to having the secure parking of which you speak.
Holland halved its theft problem over a decade with a high-profile, concerted, nationwide effort based around pro-active policing - London and the UK need the same.
You do LCC a disservice to claim we're tired brainstormers - we're cyclists who suffer the same frustrations as you, and infrastructure is as high on our priorities as anything else.
Mike Cavenett
London Cycling Campaign
Posted by: mike cavenett | May 05, 2010 at 04:01 PM
Comparisons with Holland need to be put in context. Average journeys (especially commutes) in London are far longer than in the Netherlands. Out in the suburbs we also have some hills. Consequently the sort of heavy, low performance bikes ridden by most Dutch riders are not conducive to most daily commuters in London.
Posted by: ma499 | May 06, 2010 at 01:34 AM
@ma499 Your argument is flawed I'm afriad, I'll think you'll find the average commute by bike in Holland is comparable with that of the UK, only there are a lot more people doing it. And, believe it or not there are plenty of big hills in some parts of Holland (unlike London which is flat as a pancake!), and where cycle modal share is still up there in the double figures (instead of 8% at it's highest level in London (Hackney) David Hembrow, on his excellent blog 'A View from the Cycle Path' pretty much shoots down every myth about Dutch model cycling and shows how it can be adopted here in the UK - I recommend it!
Regarding the LCC's latest campaign, whilst I DO think a focus on bike theft is a good thing, I agree that I would like to see more overt and detailed campaigning about PROPER cycle infrastructure as their primary concern, with things like thievery and behavioural changes as secondary campaigns. A good post, Mark, thanks for sharing.
Posted by: MarkA | May 06, 2010 at 11:50 AM
I'm not sure you friends of mine in the UK have gotten to the root of the problem. And That I would sum up as needing to go from a "CND" country to a "CNO" one, and that is where you will find lots and lots of money -- which will provide the infrastructure and then some.
"Car Not Driven" and "Car Not Owned". Do you know the difference? Here in the States, a CND person pays $8,000 each year on average for each car, and there are very few dollars for additional infrastructure (or programs) for supplemental mobility systems. To get in gear and focus on how you can take, let's say 20% of the car owners in the UK and CONVERT them to CNO people, you will see substantial amounts of money stay in the consumizen's pockets and that money can flow into many needed new areas - as well as not flow at all out of one's pocket. (Oh yeah, a "Consumizen" is both a "Consumer" and a "Citizen" and both these people pay for transportation, and most often are one in the same person).
We are in the age of the mobile web, and there is absolutely no need for car ownership levels to remain where they area. Great intra-London mobility can be done. Your public transit system is great, you have micro-rental (carshare) vehicle popping up all over (in fact nearly doubled in past year), there are new modes of light and local vehicles (ultras small e-vehicles) commercially available that could be promoted, and iPhones to hitchhike (where you pick up Facebook friends and not stranger). All of these light and tiny powered modes are easier for "car drivers" than asking everyone to "push" their way to work. All together we (or UK) has the making of an amazing intelligent multi-mobility system that could redirect billions of pounds to the things that make sense.
Dan Sturges
Follow yourself: DNAsturges
Posted by: Dan Sturges | May 06, 2010 at 03:52 PM