Bike facilities are discriminatory

MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by MikeF »

She says "My comments were taken completely out of context by a newspaper who never spoke to me." Email her.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
rmurphy195
Posts: 2199
Joined: 20 May 2011, 11:23am
Location: South Birmingham

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by rmurphy195 »

This is the councillor for Edgbaston in Birmingham. Edgbaston includes not only the famous cricket ground but also Cannon Hill Park, and the Midlands Arts Centre, and a chunk of a main cycle route into Birmingham. The said councillor has clearly not bothered to look at what goes on in her own constituency before coming out with these statements.

If she had she will find, on her doorstep
    Lots of cyclists of all shapes, sizes and colours using the MAC, the cycleway, and the cafe near the main entrance of the park. It does seem to reflect the make-up of the differing population groups in her constituency.
    That during the week most of the cyclists around seem to be of my age or older (I'm 63)
    Not everyone wears "immodest dress" or skin-tight clothing - shorts, long trousers, shirts etc. clearly illustrate that people can dress "modestly"
    Since the early days of cycling bikes for women to use have been available, and still are

The nature of some of her reported comments apply to other sports, such as athletics - should the Alexander Stadium not be supported by Birmingham council then?

To decry the long-standing efforts of organisations such as Push-Bikes in this way is, to say the least, a little unpleasant.

I must admit however I'm a bit concerned re the reported plan to give bikes away - is it 2,000 of them? - I don't see why I should pay for other people to have new bikes when there are plenty of cheap, used bikes around that they can obtain for themselves.
Brompton, Condor Heritage, creaky joints and thinning white (formerly grey) hair
""You know you're getting old when it's easier to ride a bike than to get on and off it" - quote from observant jogger !
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by beardy »

I must admit however I'm a bit concerned re the reported plan to give bikes away - is it 2,000 of them? - I don't see why I should pay for other people to have new bikes when there are plenty of cheap, used bikes around that they can obtain for themselves.


That isnt really the sort of viewpoint that you would expect from a member of CTC the nation's leading cycling charity. Full of bright young things of all types.
That is more the sort of viewpoint you would expect from somebody in something like a Cycle Touring Club. Full of beardies in sandals.

Your subscriptions may not pay for bikes exactly but it is doing the same sort of subsidising and unlike the Council Tax it is voluntary.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by Bicycler »

I agree that there are enough no longer used bikes hanging around in sheds. That said, we sometimes forget how little non-cyclists know about bikes and many would be deterred by the prospect of trying to find and buy a used one or by having bought one which didn't work properly. Maybe restoring and giving away old bikes would be better value than giving away new ones.

However, compare it to many other green initiatives and subsidising bikes sounds like quite good value for money. If used for utility purposes replacing a car journey then this cuts congestion and pollution. Surely better than giving a grant of up to £5000 or £8000 per electric car or van (https://www.gov.uk/plug-in-car-van-gran ... -youll-get) which despite producing less pollution still produce the same amount of congestion and share many of the other negative social costs of normal motor vehicles. Same with "free" VED for ordinary cars which produce a bit less CO2 than others.

Even if a bike is only used for leisure and becomes a person's regular exercise then that in itself will massively reduce the chance of that person being obese and increase their life expectancy as well as reducing the likely burden upon the NHS.

I reckon that if you could guarantee them being used then you could justify free bikes for all who asked for one. The benefits would massively outweigh the meagre costs.
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by Si »

There are schemes in Birmingham to give away reconditioned bikes. The problem is that the standard of the bikes is very hit and miss - some, even in ideal condition, are not what you would want to ride across the city on in bad weather.....they'll be better at putting people off cycling than Cllr Alden. And others are so knackered when they come in that once labour is added in you might as well have bought a new bike. Remember the bikes are being bought in such quantities that they are commanding a healthy discount over what you or I might pay. Just imagine if you dumped 5000 bikes out of sheds on someone and said "fix them all up and hand them out to people"....it'd take for ever and cost a load anyway.

We have also found that things work a lot better when people can see a recognised 'brand' for want of a better word. The hire bikes that we use now are all of the same make and are of a reasonable quality....people see these being ridden around and they want to know more about them and more about the project. Plus it all looks much more professional and people take it more seriously.

If you are counting on people with no knowledge of cycling to find and do up their own bikes then you will be waiting a very long time.

Those getting the free bikes will have to demonstrate a need for it, they will have to attend bikeability L2, they will have to do basic bike maintenance classes and they will have to log their journeys to prove that they are making proper use of the bike.

It's also good for the local cycle trade as several local bike shops are being used to assemble the bikes, and with all of these new bikes around you can be sure there will be a lot more people wanting bits, repairs, etc.


I don't see why I should pay for other people to have new bikes

Rather do this than continue to subsidise all of those car journeys :wink:
rmurphy195
Posts: 2199
Joined: 20 May 2011, 11:23am
Location: South Birmingham

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by rmurphy195 »

beardy wrote:
I must admit however I'm a bit concerned re the reported plan to give bikes away - is it 2,000 of them? - I don't see why I should pay for other people to have new bikes when there are plenty of cheap, used bikes around that they can obtain for themselves.


That isnt really the sort of viewpoint that you would expect from a member of CTC the nation's leading cycling charity. Full of bright young things of all types.
That is more the sort of viewpoint you would expect from somebody in something like a Cycle Touring Club. Full of beardies in sandals.

Your subscriptions may not pay for bikes exactly but it is doing the same sort of subsidising and unlike the Council Tax it is voluntary.


Please re-read my post which is about a Birmingham councillor and Birmingham council plans - so it's the council tax I'm talking about. And I do have a beard, but no sandals thank you.
Brompton, Condor Heritage, creaky joints and thinning white (formerly grey) hair
""You know you're getting old when it's easier to ride a bike than to get on and off it" - quote from observant jogger !
merseymouth
Posts: 2519
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by merseymouth »

Hi All, The way I see things on the cycling front is this - Cycling must be dangerous obviously, well enough cyclists get killed or seriously injured! If they haven't got the sense to wrap themselves in nearly a ton of metal what else is to be expected? Whatever make them think that roads are there for their use? Why should the Police be expected to protect idiots on pedal-cycles, after all one rarely sees a Police Officer on a pedal-cycle, and even then it's ridden safely on the pavement! If a Police Officer is seen walking you suspect he/she is in the Super's Bad Books.
All of the above is written with tongue very clearly in cheek. But the comments about the Police reflect the reality we all encounter every time we ride out. The Beat Bobby was always Proactive, deterring offenders, these days they are all Reactive, at best closing doors after cyclist's have been slaughtered!
We have Laws on the statute book for safety reason, which if used in tandem with well thought out, viable cycle facilities should reduce the perceived risk and increase the numbers of folk who abandon the normal waste of space cars! Following Liverpool's folly of scrapping Bus Lanes is crass & counter productive, increasing traffic problems not solving them. After all most city centre congestion is caused by people who choose not to live in the city, but who hog the jobs, then take the money out of the city's economy? City cycling provision will only work if a limit is put in place to minimize car use. TTFN MM
iviehoff
Posts: 2411
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 4:38pm

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by iviehoff »

I've known some disabled and elderly people who could travel by bike even when they couldn't walk very well.

London Underground is pretty tricky for the less than able bodied, perhaps we should stop funding that.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by Psamathe »

I think cycling is generally becoming more and more discriminatory. I see there are now cycling events where men are just "not welcome"/not allowed.

Ian
rmurphy195
Posts: 2199
Joined: 20 May 2011, 11:23am
Location: South Birmingham

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by rmurphy195 »

rmurphy195 wrote:
beardy wrote:
I must admit however I'm a bit concerned re the reported plan to give bikes away - is it 2,000 of them? - I don't see why I should pay for other people to have new bikes when there are plenty of cheap, used bikes around that they can obtain for themselves.


That isnt really the sort of viewpoint that you would expect from a member of CTC the nation's leading cycling charity. Full of bright young things of all types.
That is more the sort of viewpoint you would expect from somebody in something like a Cycle Touring Club. Full of beardies in sandals.

Your subscriptions may not pay for bikes exactly but it is doing the same sort of subsidising and unlike the Council Tax it is voluntary.


Please re-read my post which is about a Birmingham councillor and Birmingham council plans - so it's the council tax I'm talking about. And I do have a beard, but no sandals thank you.


AND I should add - given the recent news that the same council that is funding the give away of several thousand free bikes is now going to reduce by almost half the availability of its main central library (which used by thousands, including me) which will deny its use to a great many people, isn't something a bit wrong with priorities?
Brompton, Condor Heritage, creaky joints and thinning white (formerly grey) hair
""You know you're getting old when it's easier to ride a bike than to get on and off it" - quote from observant jogger !
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by Bicycler »

Not necessarily. Firstly you have to consider that the free bikes programme will almost certainly have received some external funding, so not providing bikes might not have meant money freed to be spent on libraries. Secondly, as mentioned above motor vehicle use and lack of exercise bring about some truly massive costs upon the taxpayer. If you could be sure of the bikes getting used you could easily justify giving the things away across the country. If being given a bicycle gets somebody in the habit of regular exercise what price could you put upon it?

Like it or not we are heading into a future where books will not be printed, but where addressing the problem of mass motorised transport use will become increasingly urgent priority.
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Bike facilities are discriminatory

Post by Si »

rmurphy195 wrote:I must admit however I'm a bit concerned re the reported plan to give bikes away - is it 2,000 of them? - I don't see why I should pay for other people to have new bikes when there are plenty of cheap, used bikes around that they can obtain for themselves.


Please re-read my post which is about a Birmingham councillor and Birmingham council plans - so it's the council tax I'm talking about. And I do have a beard, but no sandals thank you.
....
AND I should add - given the recent news that the same council that is funding the give away of several thousand free bikes is now going to reduce by almost half the availability of its main central library (which used by thousands, including me) which will deny its use to a great many people, isn't something a bit wrong with priorities?


No. It is not a choice between library or bikes. The money for the bikes is part of sustainable travel funding - if it isn't used on the bikes then it goes back to Westminster and they direct it to another town. So what do you want: lots more people on bikes (via a project that targets those who had previously found it difficult to get into cycling) and losses at the library, OR no support for cycling and losses at the library.

As far as new bikes are concerned, a scheme has already run that used reconditioned bikes and loaned them out for extended periods. Problem is that they tend to be very basic, not great to ride and often require quite some effort to keep them going. Thus the new bikes should require less maintenance and be easier to ride, meaning that people are more likely to continue cycling.

So the bottom line is: there is the opportunity to really promote cycling in Birmingham, it will not be costing you anything extra or taking money away from Birmingham's library, hospitals, etc, Are you for it or against it?
Post Reply