Update April 2018-Crossrail and Cycle carriage policy

[reddragon]

Indeed. I haven't seen any attempts to seriously estimate the affect the cycling has on bills for NHS treatment, but I'd be astonished if people cycling didn't save the NHS a significant sum of money - because those people are less likely to need treatment for a range of long term (and very expensive) conditions, whose occurrence is at least in part linked to lack of exercise - most notably including diabetes.

Yes less certain bills from inactivity related illnesses but a lot more from the activity related!

I do cycle, so know both sides and walking on a country lane without paths is where motorists are at their worst. No campaigns for 1.5m safe passing distance there!

 

[WelshBluebird]

You ought to visit railcam.nl and watch the level crossing most of the time it's fine, but I've seen numerous cyclists take the gamble with an approaching train.

But once again, the same can be said for motorists.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes less certain bills from inactivity related illnesses but a lot more from the activity related!

Given that cycling is the only mode of transport that has ever made a serious attempt at killing me (I've had a couple of car accidents but they were very minor) it would be interesting to do the sums on cost to the State overall (including healthcare and infrastructure provision) of the following over, say, a 50 year period:-

1. Banning or heavily discouraging cycling, with no dedicated facilities provided.

2. Encouraging cycling to the Dutch level, with cycles considered first in any traffic system design, and cycling considered to be the default mode of transport for any short-distance journey (up to say 3-4 miles).

3. The "do nothing option" of cycling being permitted and some infrastructure but mostly using normal roads.

And possibly, as an interesting outlier:

4. Not banning cycling, but regulating it for safety in the equivalent manner to motorcycling, i.e. compulsory protective clothing, tax, insurance, licensing and number plates.

 

[Bantamzen]

Whilst the number of people cycling increases, the amount of space on trains for them does not, nor is it likely to. And herein lies the problem, at what point does a TOC implement some type of restrictions and how do they enforce them? And its not just on trains, its moving around the stations and platforms. Two quick examples from the last 24 hours display that *some* cyclists don't seem to make the connection between safety and their habits.

-Yesterday a cyclist boarded a Skipton bound 333 at Leeds, having walked past the carriage with cycle storage and/or space for them & boards the very front set of doors with a large mountain bike. Someone must have said something to him as he then had a conversation with someone he must have known about how he was stick of getting told off about his bike, and cited being told by staff to stop riding his bike on platforms as an example!

-This morning a cyclist was carrying, no struggling to carry his bike down the stairs from the main bridge at Leeds whilst 2, maybe even 3 trainloads of commuters were trying to get past. I suggested to him that in future he ought to use the lifts, a very timeous piece of advice given just moments earlier the regular announcement about using the lifts with suitcases etc had been played over the tannoy. He just glared angrily at me as if I was in the wrong.

Now I will readily admit that most cyclists do generally use common sense any obey rules / advice, but it is becoming more obvious that more are not and are slowly but surely causing more issues for crews and passengers alike. And for most services anywhere in the country it does not take too many cyclists causing issues, or indeed simply too many trying to board services for TOCs to feel the need to intervene. Clearly the growing popularity in cycling is not being matched by capacity, so I'm afraid that cyclists, particularly in the peaks on busy services are going to have to accept that restrictions may have to be applied.

 

[reddragon]

Given that cycling is the only mode of transport that has ever made a serious attempt at killing me (I've had a couple of car accidents but they were very minor) it would be interesting to do the sums on cost to the State overall (including healthcare and infrastructure provision) of the following over, say, a 50 year period:-

1. Banning or heavily discouraging cycling, with no dedicated facilities provided.

2. Encouraging cycling to the Dutch level, with cycles considered first in any traffic system design, and cycling considered to be the default mode of transport for any short-distance journey (up to say 3-4 miles).

3. The "do nothing option" of cycling being permitted and some infrastructure but mostly using normal roads.

And possibly, as an interesting outlier:

4. Not banning cycling, but regulating it for safety in the equivalent manner to motorcycling, i.e. compulsory protective clothing, tax, insurance, licensing and number plates.

1 - cycling should be encouraged

2 - The Netherlands are flat so that is easy

3 - not good enough

4 - probably best financially for the UK

 

[radamfi]

2 - The Netherlands are flat so that is easy

Now we have electric bikes, hills are irrelevant.

4 - probably best financially for the UK

Contradicts your response to 1.

 

[JamesRowden]

Given that cycling is the only mode of transport that has ever made a serious attempt at killing me (I've had a couple of car accidents but they were very minor) it would be interesting to do the sums on cost to the State overall (including healthcare and infrastructure provision) of the following over, say, a 50 year period:-

1. Banning or heavily discouraging cycling, with no dedicated facilities provided.

2. Encouraging cycling to the Dutch level, with cycles considered first in any traffic system design, and cycling considered to be the default mode of transport for any short-distance journey (up to say 3-4 miles).

3. The "do nothing option" of cycling being permitted and some infrastructure but mostly using normal roads.

And possibly, as an interesting outlier:

4. Not banning cycling, but regulating it for safety in the equivalent manner to motorcycling, i.e. compulsory protective clothing, tax, insurance, licensing and number plates.

5. Ban private motor vehicles from urban roads (for the same rationale as banning cycles on the central section of Crossrail: big, get in the way and need somewhere to park).

 

[Clip]

5. Ban private motor vehicles from urban roads (for the same rationale as banning cycles on the central section of Crossrail: big, get in the way and need somewhere to park).

Its very far from being the same rationale

 

[Via Bank]

1 - cycling should be encouraged

2 - The Netherlands are flat so that is easy

3 - not good enough

4 - probably best financially for the UK

I do not concur with your assessment of 4. Virtually every country that had a bicycle licensing system or required compulsory insurance has got rid of the requirement, because it costs a fortune to administer for very little benefit. Much like licensing for dogs.

If cyclists did start to pay road tax, then so should electric vehicles - and as they are heavier and cause more wear on the roads, they should pay considerably more. (NB: even if VED did directly fund roads, which it doesn't, then the amount raised from it is a drop in the ocean compared to the costs of maintaining the existing network, let alone building the Government's new motorways and bypasses.)

2. I could believe had I not actually visited the Netherlands. It, and Denmark, aside from not being completely flat, get considerably stronger winds than the UK. Stockholm and Helsinki are considerably hillier than London or Brighton, and still have more cycling. The answer is infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure, and that means we simply must reallocate space away from motor vehicles.

In fact, to bring this thread back on to topic, let's consider this: the current vogue for railway station "improvements" outside London seems to be to build a bigger car park. Not only is this space-inefficient, it also encourages people to drive to the station, partially offsetting any environmental benefit gained by taking the train in the first place.

Why can railway companies not run an OV-fiets style cycle hire system? Why can we not offer financial incentives for people who cycle to the station rather than driving? Perhaps offering a discount on foldable bicycles for season ticket holders? You could even hire out cargo bikes for people with heavy luggage, or children.

 

[radamfi]

There is a scheme called Bike & Go which is fairly similar to OV Fiets in some ways, primarily in the north and East Anglia, franchises that had or have Abellio involvement. It isn't as good as OV Fiets though, as you have to queue up at the ticket office for the key, whereas in the Netherlands you just swipe and go.

 

[SamYeager]

If cyclists did start to pay road tax, then so should electric vehicles

Although electric vehicle owners do not pay vehicle tax they still need to apply for vehicle tax so they are still regulated.

You still need to apply for vehicle tax even if you don’t need to pay vehicle tax.

I haven't bothered checking but I assume electric vehicles are also subject to MOTs as well.

 

[gallafent]

So, no, cyclists do NOT emit more CO2/mile than train passengers.

… and, to bring out an important aspect of this, vegetarian or vegan cyclists probably emit a very large amount less than others (putting aside other important environmental impacts such as water abstraction and land use).

 

[matt_world2004]

Maybe when Crossrail 2 is designed, the tunnelled section should include cycle/foot tunnels along the route which could also serve as am evacuation point if nessescary

 

[theageofthetra]

Although electric vehicle owners do not pay vehicle tax they still need to apply for vehicle tax so they are still regulated.



I haven't bothered checking but I assume electric vehicles are also subject to MOTs as well.

The correct operation of the battery packs on hybrids does not form part of the MOT. So loads of Uber/private hire Prius are polluting central London, avoiding road tax and congestion chg and doing 30mpg because the packs are getting old and failed/failing- many are Jap grey imports which are not cost effective to get through that country's very strict regs on 3yr+ old vehicles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I haven't bothered checking but I assume electric vehicles are also subject to MOTs as well.

Yes, though with few being more than 3 years old I bet few have actually been carried out.

 

[theageofthetra]

Yes, though with few being more than 3 years old I bet few have actually been carried out.

Loads are over three years old- the Prius has been on sale for 17 years. They are basically worthless in Japan if they dont have their 'Shaken' and very high garage fees mean that most vehicles get sold abroad to other RHD markets at their huge electronic car auctions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Loads are over three years old- the Prius has been on sale for 17 years. They are basically worthless in Japan if they dont have their 'Shaken' and very high garage fees mean that most vehicles get sold abroad to other RHD markets at their huge electronic car auctions.

The Prius is not an "electric car", though, it's a hybrid.

 

[theageofthetra]

The Prius is not an "electric car", though, it's a hybrid.

Still avoids road tax and CC in London though-besides you can't plug an electric car in if you live in a flat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Still avoids road tax and CC in London though-besides you can't plug an electric car in if you live in a flat.

I know, it's just that I was responding to a specific question as to whether an electric car required an MoT or not. The Prius is a hybrid, and therefore was not included in the question.

 

[radamfi]

Indeed. I haven't seen any attempts to seriously estimate the affect the cycling has on bills for NHS treatment, but I'd be astonished if people cycling didn't save the NHS a significant sum of money - because those people are less likely to need treatment for a range of long term (and very expensive) conditions, whose occurrence is at least in part linked to lack of exercise - most notably including diabetes.

I went to a Sustrans conference in association with the Dutch Embassy about 3 years ago. There was a representative from Dutch healthcare and she said that the Dutch government had worked out that it is cheaper to invest in cycling than not, partly because of reduced healthcare costs.

 

[gallafent]

Still avoids road tax

Assuming you mean VED (road tax having been abolished in 1937), that's not true for all of them, on some it's a tenner (Prius 2007 TSpirit, for example) …

 

[coppercapped]

It is not seriously questioned that cycling does nothing to improve one's health or that cycles are not a solution to some transport issues. Cycling as a sport should not be confused with cycling as a mode of transport - and this, in my observation, is a problem which is peculiar to the UK.

The point being debated here is whether cycles should be permitted on Underground or Metro train services where the passenger loadings vary between high and crush loaded. Increasing the floor area of such trains to allow for the carriage of bicycles will lie somewhere between very expensive and eye-watering.

In these circumstances I would argue that bicycles should not be permitted on the trains - unless the bicycle is collapsable and can be carried. A normal bicycle and its rider take up the same floor space as three people at least. Under crush loaded conditions this loss of capacity is unacceptable - unless the rider pays for three tickets.

It might be 'unfair' and 'not good for health' and 'sending the wrong messages' and so on, but I don't want also to have to avoid the sharp bits of bicycles as well as all the other people in the narrow underground passages of the Underground or even the wider passages of Crossrail. The ownership of a bicycle does not bring with it a God-given right to take it everywhere.

And I speak as a cyclist who is quite happy to cycle through towns and along country byways.

 

[DarloRich]

It is not seriously questioned that cycling does nothing to improve one's health or that cycles are not a solution to some transport issues. Cycling as a sport should not be confused with cycling as a mode of transport - and this, in my observation, is a problem which is peculiar to the UK.

The point being debated here is whether cycles should be permitted on Underground or Metro train services where the passenger loadings vary between high and crush loaded. Increasing the floor area of such trains to allow for the carriage of bicycles will lie somewhere between very expensive and eye-watering.

In these circumstances I would argue that bicycles should not be permitted on the trains - unless the bicycle is collapsable and can be carried. A normal bicycle and its rider take up the same floor space as three people at least. Under crush loaded conditions this loss of capacity is unacceptable - unless the rider pays for three tickets.

It might be 'unfair' and 'not good for health' and 'sending the wrong messages' and so on, but I don't want also to have to avoid the sharp bits of bicycles as well as all the other people in the narrow underground passages of the Underground or even the wider passages of Crossrail. The ownership of a bicycle does not bring with it a God-given right to take it everywhere.

And I speak as a cyclist who is quite happy to cycle through towns and along country byways.

this! Very much this!

 

[rebmcr]

… and, to bring out an important aspect of this, vegetarian or vegan cyclists probably emit a very large amount less than others (putting aside other important environmental impacts such as water abstraction and land use).

Depends how many beans I've eaten!

 

[reddragon]

Ignoring the rests of your post, which I think was somewhat exaggerated, and tarring all cyclists with the sins of some cyclists....



Cycling: Most widely quoted estimate seems to be 21g/km (one source)
Train: Various estimates that generally hover around 50-60g /km (one source)

So, no, cyclists do NOT emit more CO2/mile than train passengers.

There's also an issue that CO2 that you breathe out arguably forms part of the natural carbon cycle - CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere in the process of growing food, and then released when the food is eaten and digested by animals/people, resulting in no net CO2 emissions. This is in contrast to burning fossil fuels (to power trains), for which you are releasing CO2 that has been in the ground as oil for millions of years, and so is not part of the carbon cycle. (The situation is a bit complicated though when you take into account eating meat, and modern industrial food processes).

These figures are flawed, as they do not relate to the actual food we buy but the best possible 'food' case for cycling and worst possible case for a train.

Well, it is on a cycling website!

 

[radamfi]

These figures are flawed, as they do not relate to the actual food we buy but the best possible 'food' case for cycling and worst possible case for a train.

Well, it is on a cycling website!

Is it correct that cyclists will definitely eat more? Maybe non-cyclists eat the same but allow the energy to be converted into body fat rather than burning it off cycling?

 

[AM9]

Is it correct that cyclists will definitely eat more? Maybe non-cyclists eat the same but allow the energy to be converted into body fat rather than burning it off cycling?

... and then dump their bad health on the NHS.

 

[Clip]

Reading one of those examples there got me thinking about the claims made in it when I read this sentence

The production of a bicycle sets you back only 5 g per kilometer driven.

Really? So what about the transportation of cycles to the shops that sell them too or the building of trucks to transport them and the humans to build them - they haven't seemingly covered those and whilst I guess it wont add up much more than what a car takes to produce I would be amazed if it wasn't at least triple or more than the 5gpkm quoted.

 

[coppercapped]

... and then dump their bad health on the NHS.

...so maybe there is an argument for health insurance to be arranged through private companies who will make sure that their premiums are consistent with their eating and mobility habits?

 

[JamesRowden]

...so maybe there is an argument for health insurance to be arranged through private companies who will make sure that their premiums are consistent with their eating and mobility habits?

Or just make people pay for self-inflicted conditions.