Cyclists on the Thames Path and Albert Embankment

Tim can you provide a link or some other evidence for your claim that the bikes are a massive black hole? Also that user targets are not being met? Usually when making strong assertions it's good form to provide some back up

Are you really keeping a log of every cyclist you see and making up names like Miss Snotty Knickers based on your view of a woman on her bike?

I don't see why I should have to "supply evidence" when it's all in the public domain and has been widely reported but OK...

Financial black hole
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8245610/London-bicycle-hire-scheme-in-uphill-struggle-to-make-money.html

Here's who is benefitting from this gargantuan subsidy
http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2010/12/survey-finds-that-boris-bikes-are-posh-boys-toys.html

And as for the targets - apparently 180000 trips a day is the long term target. We're even close to 30000 yet on any single day and it is therefore perfectly realistic to assume that this will never ever happen. This wild overestimation coupled with what must have been a work of fiction in relation to fee paying journeys is presumably why over £100m of London taxpayers money was allowed to be spent on this fiasco.

As for the "log" you refer to I have nearly been seriously injured twice after being ridden into by people on bicycles whilst I was committing the heinous offence of walking to catch a bus. I therefore have been taking rather an interest in what happens on the short stretch of river walkway and pavement I use every day. Kate Hoey has it perfectly right - there is a perfectly acceptable cycle lane in Lambeth Palace Road!

lol i know debra joan i agree with you i read it back and i realised that myself! im still trying to wise up on my computer skills,but i will get better i hope! cheers

Tim:

A few things to think about re your "Black Hole", in no particular order:
- Nothing makes money when it's first set up.
- Casual users have only just been able to use the bikes, so their revenue will only come on stream now.
- I'm not sure it's supposed to be a revenue-generating exercise, anyway, is it? (Presumably you'd support pro-pedestrian measures - but would you expect to pay for them in order that they be judged a success?)
- The scheme started in winter: there's always less cycling in winter.
- It's only just starting to extend itself to tube and rail stations. Don't you think that will have some effect on use?

And, as for The Horror of Men Who Earn Over £50k Riding Bicycles: well, you only have to look at some of the comments attached to the blog post you're claiming as evidence, to see how poorly reasoned it is.

I suspect that you could have some sympathisers on here, if only your posts didn't come across as so rigidly one-sided, and showed a little understanding of the other side's argument.

I'm only just catching up on this and find it very interesting.

First I note a Mr. E. Woodward, he thinks that the danger of 'serious injury from a cycle' that he is being subjected to as a pedestrian is the same peril that a cyclist faces on the road.
Mr. Woodward, if you in any way believe that the potential injuties of Pedestrian v cyclist are the same as Cylist v Bus, then to me that displays a very ill thought through argument. Cyclists on the road are being killed by vehicles, I believe one a month, plus numerous serious injuries. Are cyclists killing 12 pedestrians a year? I think not.

Then I move to the rantings about the video posted by LCC. Of course they filmed it a quiet time. I would much imagine if those who object would make a similar video would they go there at 8am on a Sunday morning? No, of course not, they would go during rush hour on a Monday morning proudly proclaiming "See how busy it is". Wise up people, everyone is selective about the facts they use to illustrate a point.

Then I note that Tim wants the cyclists on the roads, fine. However he then objects to Boris bikes on safety grounds stating the roads are now more dangerous because of them? Because of course any cyclist who owns thier own bike is, by definition, then a better rider? I think not as he has already blasted them earlier.
Perhaps then the Boris bikes should be allowed on the pavement?

To me the bottom line here is compromise.

We are all being encouraged to be greener and use alternative forms of transport. Hence more cyclists.
So all very green and good - if green is your thing.

As with public transport pricing which does nothing to encourage people out of their cars (but thats a whole new topic)cycling is being encouraged, yet any meanigful infrastructure to support it is not being put in place. Cycle superhighways are nothing more than a blue line on a road that people still drive in and park on, so fail there.

Until decent separation of all 3 travelling groups (Pedestrians, Cyclists and Motor Vehicles) we all need to show a bit of consideration about shared space. All three of these groups I have mentioned cause annoyes, and are annoyed by, each other.

It's not perfect, but wasting energy and money and a 'ban this' or 'ban that' campaign is not attacking the real solution.

I'm afraid much of this is irrelevant to the topic. In essence the issue is about whether it is safe and practical to allow cycling on a river path which is used by a lot of pedestrians. The simple answer is it isn't and the reasons are detailed at some length in this forum.

I've no objection to a well run Boris Bike scheme but, given that we're talking London here and not Amsterdam, a responsible method of managing it is to educate users about safety (a mandatory crash helmet would be a good start). And something which is economically (note I said economic and not financial) viable would be too. Neither is the case. The economic sums are just madness. The gargantuan financial investment has not an earthly of being matched by the softer economic benefits, the miniscule financial return and the opportunity costs of removing the availability of this finance from elsewhere (one of the effects was the huge TFL bus and tube fare rises). The whole thing is lunacy and that's not unfair word when looked at in these terms.

Look at the sums! This will never ever ever make money, never has a hope in hell of recovering more than a fraction of the money invested (over £100 MILLION) and has already cost an amount equivalent to the cost of numerous sorely needed public health facilities which, thanks to this scheme, we won't have.

The scheme started last summer and the take up has been dismal - most days less than 10000 trips vis a vis a target of 180000 - this will never come even close to being achieved either. The scheme maximum daily usage so far was 26000 trips and it's difficult to see it ever getting over 40000. Given that the sums assumed the 180000 figure you have to question the rationale applied which clearly emanated in Batty Boris Land.

And it is a fact that the people who use the service and are therefore being subsidised are the ones who can most afford to pay for it. A good idea might be to put the charges up twenty fold or more so that the rest of us might have a chance to get our money back!! The users can afford it.

Actually I thought Gazzarc's post was entirely relevant. The best solution is a proper separation of the three road users

By the way Tim Purcell, you chastise Gazzarc's post for not fitting your very narrow definition of what is relevant, then rant on for four paragraphs about Boris bikes. At least be consistent. Is the problem cyclists on the Thames path or is it a general attack on cyclists, the cycle scheme, and non-revenue raising government spending?

I was actually trying to address the two most recent posts in the best way I can. I don't believe there is a half way house as you describe it to the river path cycling issue because the alternatives are not feasible for all the reasons I've documented here. And I don't think there should be a compromise either as all the fault lies with the vast majority of the cyclists (most of whom are not local to Lambeth) who have turned it into an unsafe area for everyone else - particularly local residents with small children or mobility issues. People who don't matter to the Mayor and those people who waffle on about cyclists rights like Lady Snotty Knickers in her rude tirade to the Community Support Officers that I witnessed this morning.

Take or leave the Boris bike issue. The issue there is less of opinion and more about fact. The economics of the scheme belong in the madhouse and anyone who believes they don't needs to buy a calculator! THE END.

The target for daily trips is 40000 (averaged over the year), and it averages around 20000 now, so they're half way there. If you're going to use figures as arguments then please don't invent them like your 180000.

If they meet their target (not impossible given how long the scheme has been running so far) then it will be revenue-neutral in terms of running costs after three years. That is unheard of in transport terms. That doesn't include the startup £115 million (+ sponsorship) but that cost is spread over 6 years and in the scheme of things is very low when compared to other transport spending.

Further, let's take the current 20000 trips, 35% of which switched from tube and 23% from bus, and consider that the subsidy paid by the taxpayer for each bus trip works out at around 30p and for the tube around 60p, and include those into the calculations.

Now add the fact that over 100,000 people have become members of the scheme and 60% were not previously cycling before. Consider the improvements to health and quality of life for those 60,000 (OK not all are riding regularly, but the point still stands).

Is this going to add up to be profitable? Probably not! But government services are almost never profitable and this one is costing an awful lot less than most when looking at the whole picture.