Feed aggregator

An unexpected 55-kilometre-long evening ride

BicycleDutch - 22 January, 2018 - 23:01
Half an hour after the railways announced it wasn’t certain the trains would go riding again after the storm last Thursday and that it would be wise to seek alternative … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

Mythes rond deelfietsen genuanceerd

Fietsberaad - 22 January, 2018 - 00:00

Er circuleren nogal wat mythes rond de effecten van deelfietsen. Bijvoorbeeld dat er meer gefietst zou worden door de introductie van de deelfiets. Dergelijke argumenten worden vooral commercieel ingezet door de aanbieders van deelfietssystemen. In een Vlaamse rapport worden enkele van die beweringen kritisch tegen het licht gehouden.

Categories: News

Why doesn’t [population x] cycle?

At War With The Motorist - 21 January, 2018 - 17:47

I wrote this thing a year and half ago but never quite got around to shaping it into anything I was quite happy with. Well, since the BBC have come around with yet another “what is stopping women cycling?” story, I figured I’ll never finish it and may as well get rid of it…

Another tweet scrolled past me this evening asking why a segment of the UK population doesn’t cycle.

Is cycling a 'white' thing? Help us find out what stops people from BME groups cycling: Do our survey & pls rtw https://t.co/AhO2P8QWPq

— Life Cycle UK (@LifeCycleUKteam) June 7, 2016

It’s certainly an admirable exercise, trying to address inequalities in access. And there are certainly inequalities to address. But there is little to learn about what the inequalities are, or what the solutions to them might be, by comparing current cycling rates between different populations, or by asking the question “why don’t x cycle?”.

Because it’s not just x who don’t cycle. Black and minority ethnic populations don’t cycle, but neither do white populations. Women don’t cycle, but neither do men. And the number one reason all of these populations don’t cycle is the same.

That’s not in any way to say there aren’t inequalities of access, or to dismiss the additional barriers that women and minorities face, or to belittle the diverse ways that different people and populations can experience the same barriers. Only that when it comes to “why don’t people cycle”, the biggest concerns by far are the same for everyone.

Here is an entirely hypothetical society that we can imagine, with some entirely made up data for different populations in that society:

Compared to population X, 4 times as many population Y cycle. And 3 times as many again population Z cycle. When you only look at the few who currently cycle, these populations look vastly different in their propensity to cycle. But look at the many who aren’t cycling and you see they’re not very different at all. Almost nobody in any of those populations cycles. Clearly they live in an environment which is very hostile to cycling.

Some of the people would never ever cycle, no matter what the environment for it were like. But for the vast majority of people in all demographics, there are circumstances in which they would happily cycle, were the environment different. There are barriers stopping them, but they are only barriers in the context of the prevailing environment.

Indeed, in our hypothetical society, while Xs are currently substantially less likely to cycle than Zs, if you radically change the environment to shift the cut-off point to the left, the proportion of Xs to Zs converges until Xs slightly outnumber Zs.

Perhaps in our hypothetical society, Xs on average actually make more of the types of short journeys to which cycling is inherently the most suitable form of transport — but compared to Zs are typically burdened by this society with other duties, expectations or threats to their safety which make cycling extra unattractive in the prevailing conditions.

Understanding the burdens Xs face may be a worthwhile exercise in itself. But they’re not the answer the question “why don’t x cycle?” — and addressing them alone won’t change the fact that, just like everyone else, they overwhelmingly don’t.

Categories: Views

Strategic

As Easy As Riding A Bike - 19 January, 2018 - 14:22

What does the word ‘strategic’ mean?

The Oxford English Dictionary on ‘strategic’

Identifying long-term aims and interests – and working out how to achieve them. That sounds quite sensible, doesn’t it? Who could argue with that?

Yet I found myself having to look the word up, after Transport for the North – the organisation formed to ‘transform the transport system across the North of England, providing the infrastructure needed to drive economic growth’ – used it in a way that implied active travel is outside the remit of ‘strategic’ transport.

https://twitter.com/Transport4North/status/943075328049770496

This might have just been some clumsy wording from the person running their social media account, but this attitude is reinforced not just in the imagery Transport for the North uses, but also in the reports it produces.

Planes, electric cars, trains, motorways – but not much sign of active travel here –

Spot the missing modes of transport

Or indeed here –

Container shipping, airports, motorways, trains, and people using a travelator, instead of active travel.

Equally, as Carlton Reid has spotted, Transport for the North’s new Strategic Transport Plan contains essentially no discussion of active travel, choosing instead to focus on road and rail connections between urban areas. This is despite Transport for the North’s remit covering journeys ‘within the North’, which will obviously include all those short trips that could be walked and cycled – in fact, the majority of the trips we make. 68% of all British trips are under 5 miles; 23% are under 1 mile.

From the latest National Travel Survey.

So what’s going on here?

I think it’s indicative of a belief – one that’s widespread across Britain, and not just limited to the North – that only certain forms of transport, and certain types of journeys, are worthy of investment, and serious consideration. Only motorways, roads, railways, airports and shipping can be thought of ‘strategically’ (whatever that actually means). The mundane ordinariness of walking and cycling for trips under 5 miles in length isn’t apparently something that deserves to be thought of ‘strategically’.

Closely tied to this belief is an assumption that walking and cycling will just happen by themselves, with words like ‘encourage’ and ‘promote’ featuring prominently alongside soft measures that history has shown will have very limited effect without the kind of investment, planning and engagement we conventionally apply to other ‘strategic’ modes of transport. This is why the person who composed the tweet for Transport for the North – the one that bluntly stated their focus on ‘strategic’ transport excludes walking and cycling – was evidently happy to suggest that local transport authorities ‘do a great job promoting walking and cycling’. (That ‘promote’ word again).

In reality, it’s pretty obvious to most campaigners that local authorities – with a few honourable exceptions – really do not do ‘a great job’ on walking and cycling. Quite the opposite. They’re hamstrung by a combination of limited budgets, limited political will, and limited expertise, or a combination of all three. These problems plainly won’t be solved if organisations like Transport for the North continue to treat walking and cycling as someone else’s problem.

And even if Transport for the North only want to define ‘strategic transport’ as intra-urban trips, that still doesn’t excuse a lack of consideration for walking and cycling. Not only will cycling in particular still form an important connection at either ends of journeys on public transport, as well as a way of making journeys of 5-10 miles into towns and cities (increasingly likely with the widespread prevalence of e-bikes), any new road and rail infrastructure should consider opportunities for developing walking and cycling links as part of that development. All too often new projects can impose barriers on these modes of transport; failing to think ‘strategically’ will fail to deliver important new connections for walking and cycling.

A ‘by-product’ underpass for walking and cycling in Nijmegen – a useful direct route, delivered as part of a junction upgrade

A new cycling and walking underpass under a motorway on the outskirts of Delft, providing a direct route into the city centre.

A new cycling and walking suspension bridge, spanning a large new turbo roundabout near the Hook of Holland

A cycling suspension bridge, providing a direct route across a large junction on the outskirts of the city of Zwolle

In the Netherlands, not only is cycling catered for ‘strategically’ in planning – in other words, it is taken just as seriously as other modes of transport – but it is also embedded in road and rail projects too, ensuring that cycling actually benefits from schemes that deliver other aims.

With the increasing importance of improving public health, and the importance of ensuring that – with more and more of us living in urban areas – we make journeys by the most efficient, healthy and sustainable modes of transport, a failure to think genuinely strategically about walking and cycling would be truly disastrous. We need to make those short, sub 5 mile trips as easy, as safe and as convenient as possible, by walking and cycling. That won’t happen if it these modes get ignored by the organisations with power and responsibility.

Categories: Views

Spinning lights om community-gevoel onder fietser te versterken

Fietsberaad - 19 January, 2018 - 00:00

We hebben het meer gezien: verlichting die ‘meefietst’ met de fietser. In Denemarken wordt het concept nu toegepast in 12 tunnels.   

Categories: News

Dutch Cycling Embassy weg bij Connekt

Fietsberaad - 17 January, 2018 - 10:41

Het samengaan van de Dutch Cycling Embassy en Connekt is van de baan. ‘Verschil in bedrijfscultuur’ wordt als één van de oorzaken genoemd.

Categories: News

Houten: Cycling City of the Netherlands 2018

BicycleDutch - 16 January, 2018 - 13:15
The municipality of Houten has been awarded the honourable title of Cycling City 2018! This was announced by Stientje van Veldhoven, State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management on a … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

Houten verkozen tot Fietsstad 2018

Fietsberaad - 16 January, 2018 - 00:00

Houten is de beste Fietsstad van Nederland. Dat is de uitkomst van de verkiezing van Fietsstad 2018 van de Fietsersbond

Categories: News

The Netherlands’ Cycling City 2018

BicycleDutch - 15 January, 2018 - 23:01
Later today, the Netherlands’ Cycling City of 2018 will be announced by Stientje van Veldhoven, State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management on a cycle congress in Utrecht, organised by … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

Jongeren op het platteland vaker met de auto

Fietsberaad - 15 January, 2018 - 00:00

Het autobezit van jongeren die op het platteland wonen is twee keer zo hoog als van stadsjongeren. De universiteitssteden springen eruit als gemeenten waar relatief weinig jongeren een auto bezitten.

Categories: News

Fietsgootjes kunnen fietsverbindingen bekorten

Fietsberaad - 12 January, 2018 - 09:03

Het is een detail dat nogal eens over het hoofd wordt gezien: fietsgootjes. Maar soms kan een fietsroute drastisch bekort worden door zo’n gootje.

Categories: News

Exclusive interview with Cyclists’ Alliance Founder

Velo Vision - 11 January, 2018 - 11:15

On 19 December 2017 the Cyclists’ Alliance was formed, a professional union for women in competitive cycling. VeloVision was very excited to hold what we believe is the first on camera interview with founder Iris Slappendel about the union.

Below we have full length and highlight interviews.

Full length:

Highlights:

Categories: News

Should cyclists be able to hurt or kill with impunity?

Road Danger Reduction Forum - 10 January, 2018 - 16:48

Following the Alliston case (discussed here and here) we have discussed the demands for parity between cyclists and motorists with regard to the response from the criminal justice system, not least from the Kim Briggs Campaign . In particular, we have studied the meaning of The Times instruction to cyclists to “respect the rules of the road like everyone else” . We showed 
that this would in fact mean that “cyclists” (the term refers to everybody who may ever ride a bicycle) would actually have to break rules and laws a lot more, and have to endanger other road users far, far more. That’s the actual rule and law breaking: what about the responses of the criminal justice system once the rule and law breaking has been detected, and in particular once collisions have occurred?

A step by step guide to letting errant drivers off the hook

The first step in looking at any supposed “punishment” for offenders is the response to rule and law breaking by the police before collisions occur. Secondly, the police may investigate after collisions have happened – although there are no legal requirements to report to the police if nobody has been injured. Thirdly, there is a legal requirement for the police to investigate after a Road Traffic Collision (RTC) where somebody has been hurt. Fourthly, an investigation may lead to charges being brought against a driver: these vary in the potential severity of a sentence. Fifthly, a guilty verdict has to be reached if there is to be any sentence. Sixthly, if that guilty verdict is reached, there are different severities of “punishment” that can be given by the (Crown or Magistrate’s) Court. Seventhly, there are ways in which “punishments” may be reduced in their severity. Finally, even the less severe “punishments” may be removed.
What follows is not a study which analyses all cases in the UK – although there is reference to the survey by our friends in RoadPeace – but rather an illustration of typical cases, drawn from media reports of cases in the UK in 2017, mainly after the Alliston case. (Apologies if I have misreported any of these cases: do let us know if details are wrong.)

Let’s proceed through the seven steps, bearing in mind what parity with the relatively rare cases where cyclists are responsible for hurting (and even more rarely for killing) other road users would actually mean.

 

1. Before collisions occur.

2017 saw a report from the RAC Foundation which highlighted the number of motoring offences picked up by cameras. Ostensibly a protest against the loss of traffic police officers and the associated lack of enforcement of serious traffic offences , it was actually a complaint against the use of cameras for minor offences, “punished” by fines. (In fact, traffic offences have always had a very small chance of resulting in arrest). The report was greeted with front page outrage by the Daily Mail:

which complained about the “relatively minor offences such as speeding and red light offending…”(my emphasis). In fact, the number of speed camera based fines for speeding was about 1 million. As illustrated in the previous post on this subject, the proportion of drivers who regularly break the laws on speed mean that several million (the precise amount depends on what kind of vehicle driver, which speed limits etc.) drivers are regularly breaking the law in this area.

In other words, this report might note that the chances of being caught for speeding are actually very low – probably about one in 15 regular speeders may get a fine in a year. Instead, its spokesman, Steve Gooding (formerly a senior official in the government’s Department for Transport) stated: . “If thousands of drivers a day are getting tickets this is a clear indication of a system that is failing.” The answer might be – for an organisation concerned with responsible driving – that there should be more enforcement, with the realistic chance of being caught with a deterrent penalty likely to stop the offence in the first place. For example, in November we were told that half of all speed cameras in the UK are switched off .

Instead, it appears to take the opposite view. This approach is further illustrated by a look at the research interests of the report’s author  : “…a special focus on crimes of the law abiding …In particular I am interested in how ostensibly law abiding citizens react to being labelled a problem by the justice system..” (my emphasis). The oxymoron is of central importance to this matter: for the author of a report by a well-funded organisation with charitable status which “…advocates policy in the interest of the responsible motorist”, the people committing crimes when driving are still “law abiding”.

We come back to this issue at the end of this post. Plainly the fact that much – but not all – of the driving public doesn’t consider driver crime to be “real crime” is important. Although one might expect a charity claiming to speak for “the responsible motorist” to more apparently and vigorously oppose such an attitude.

Another issue is driving while uninsured. I argue that third party insurance is in fact insuring the driver against their responsibilities – but I won’t bother to continue that line of argument here. Suffice it to say that about 1 million cars are uninsured . According to this report

last year, only 15% will be caught.

 

2. When collisions have happened and no injury is reported

The vast majority of collisions do not involve injury, so there is no duty to report to the police, although the police can investigate what has happened. After all, despite the reporting of incidents in the media as if no driver was involved (“A car turned over/hit a house” etc.) in almost all cases somebody will have done something they should not have. I have discussed before at length how something as visibly law breaking as driving into a shop can be described by a police officer as “not thought to be suspicious”.

Porsche driven across footway into Caffe Nero: “not thought to be suspicious”

 

A – hopefully – more typical response arrives in my Twitter feed yesterday. In this case
a professional minibus driver who falls asleep and crashes into a car does get arrested and is “punished” by being given a Graduated Fixed Penalty Notice (a fine) although there is no indication if this has warranted the 3 penalty points that might be given under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

3. When collisions have happened and injury occurs

In these cases the police are required to investigate. However, this may not happen. Consider these examples (remember these are just some of the cases reported in the media in the last year):

This incident, (the first one in the story here ) where a cyclist was hit by a bus in Hackney where the driver was clearly in the wrong – overtaking on wrong side of the road straight into cyclist. There was no arrest at the time in July, nor mention of it in TfL’s Q3 Bus Safety Data for 2017.

Hackney bus/cycle collision

We read of how a cyclist who had been crushed under the wheels of a HGV but that the police did not investigate because she “only” suffered a broken leg.  Her lawyers stated “At the time, the police [at the scene] were incorrectly informed that the accident was not life threatening or life changing so failed to pass the case onto the collision investigation team and are therefore unable to prosecute the driver.

In the case of third party reporting, even where there is additional violence as in this case in Essex which attracted a lot of attention recently, there may be no charges.

Of course, it must be remembered that making an arrest immediately is not necessarily the best cause of action for the police – although in this recent case  of a car driven into a restaurant with two pedestrians injured it is difficult to see why an arrest was not made.

 

4. When charges are made after a collision

Very often, charges are made after a collision where somebody has been hurt or killed. However, there is concern that there may be too high a tendency for them to be made for the less serious offence of “careless driving” rather than “dangerous driving”. The justification often given for this is that juries are less likely to convict for the more serious offence. Indeed, that does in fact happen:

In this case a lorry driver blind in one eye, and going blind in the other, has seven seconds to see a couple crossing the road despite exceeding the speed limit by 7 mph, drives into them and kills them. As the judge said “you were not paying proper attention and you should have been”. However, the jury acquits him of causing death by dangerous driving, and he is sentenced for the lesser offence of causing death by careless driving.

In this case the Crown Prosecution Service believed that because the driver drove across a junction, where he collided with a cyclist and killed him, without reducing his speed despite seeing numerous ‘Give Way’ signs along the road, his driving was dangerous. (The driver initially told police he had slowed down from 25 mph to 15 mph. However, as a driver who had passed his test 3 months previously he had a speed monitoring device on board which recorded his speed as 37 mph). The jury did not agree and he was convicted of the lesser offence of causing death through careless driving.

In this case the van driver caused permanent life changing injuries after driving through a red light – don’t forget the Daily Mail calling this a “relatively minor offence”, and was also convicted of the lesser offence of causing death through careless driving.

5. Reaching any type of Guilty verdict

The unwillingness of a jury to acquit drivers is a central feature of lenience towards bad driving. In this case even something as apparently wrong as driving into a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing gets a Not Guilty verdict.


She told police she had “no idea” how the incident happened.

For this reason some campaigners will often argue for driving offences to be specified as being “Careless” (or “Causing Death through Careless”) Driving” so that they can be tried by a Magistrate who – again, hopefully – may be less prejudiced than a jury composed of people sympathetic to bad driving.

 

6. After a Guilty verdict: suspended sentences

In 4 we show how a Guilty verdict often only results under the less serious of the two main categories of offence (“Careless” and “Dangerous”). Let’s see what kind of “punishment” may result.

Here are five cases resulting in suspended sentences, that is to say there is no custodial sentence despite someone being killed by bad driving:
One being a hit and run ;  One with the driver taking his eyes off the road to adjust his car radio : a driver who “didn’t see” a cyclist despite his light being visible 200 metres away ; one just “careless”  or seriously injuring them.

I want to give a special mention to elderly drivers given suspended sentences after killing people. I have posted on how the “road safety” industry, or at least this part of it , seems to have taken a soft view on this issue. Here we have cases of people who are obviously unable to drive properly and who therefore should not have driving licences. When they get suspended sentences after killing people, one does wonder if this is not a particularly gruesome example of the social tolerance of bad driving. After all, if they should not have been driving in the first place, what is the point of saying they have been “punished” when all that happens is a loss of licence?

Three cases are here, here and here.

 

7. After a Guilty verdict: endorsements and bans

My view is that the principal response by the courts to driving which endangers others should not be prison: this should be reserved for the most serious cases only. A deterrent (providing it is not for people who are incapable of driving properly, as in the cases of the elderly killer drivers mentioned above) can exist with the loss of licence. Let’s have a quick look at what happens with the use of endorsing licences.

Here is a case of a driver with a bald tyre failing to stop after knocking down and killing somebody: there are 10 points given so she can carry on driving. In this case a driver using her telephone (it was on loud speaker, and as she was not actually holding it that is not considered so serious) gets 5 penalty points and a £90 fine after hitting and killing a child crossing the road.

But surely these endorsements add up and lead to bans? Well, not really. Drivers have to be caught and have their licences endorsed over a limited period of time, and as we have seen, the chances of getting caught for driving offences are small. (Also, even where cases are severe enough to result in a prison sentence, it is noteworthy that the driving ban may be for a short period of time )

Statistics published this year showed that 10,000 drivers are still on the road with 12 or more points on their licences, due to a loophole in the law. Magistrates are allowed to be lenient with motorists if a driving ban would cause them to lose a job.

So what are the chances of actually being banned? Our friends in RoadPeace have a good briefing sheet here for 2016. This shows that only 15% of “punishments” involving a driving licence were bans. Only 11% of driving offences resulted in a ban. Of these bans, over two thirds were the mandatory bans for drink or drug driving offences. (Less than 1% of drivers convicted of using their mobile phone were banned, despite the evidence showing the risk to be at least comparable to drink driving.)

That means just one third of the 64,409 drivers banned at court were banned for other offences. There are approximately 45 million driving licence holders with about 37 million registered vehicles in use. Being conservative and allowing for the licence holders who don’t drive frequently, we can use a number of about 38 million drivers. In 2016 that means 0.17% of regular drivers were banned, and about 0.06% of regular drivers banned for offences other than those involving drink or drugs.

If almost all drivers behaved impeccably, that would be fine. But as the post shows, rule and law breaking which endangers others is commonplace.

 

8. “Undue hardship”.

But it gets worse. Banned drivers have the right, after two thirds of a ban is served, to plead “undue hardship” because of the loss of licence. This is illustrated neatly by the case of the Alan Duffuss,  who has been convicted of bad driving in three separate incidents where people have been killed.

In 1980, he lost control of his Jaguar XJS at an estimated speed of 100 mph, with the car flying 70 feet and his passenger dying after it hit a wall. In 1983, less than three months after he got his licence back, while on a powerful 863cc motorbike he ploughed into the back of a car, killing one of the passengers. Duffus was driving a powerful BMW Z4 in January 2008 when he 
encountered Grant Whyte, 22, who was in a modified Vauxhall Corsa. Witnesses told how the two cars sped along the road bumper to bumper, with Whyte just behind Duffus. It was alleged that they raced each other for three miles, tailgating one another and swerving repeatedly on to the wrong side of the road, after which Whyte swerved off the road 
and hit and killed a pedestrian walking home from work. Duffus and Whyte were charged with causing death by dangerous driving, but Duffus denied racing or having anything to do with the fatal collision. The jury cleared him of racing and of blame for the death, and he got a 10-year ban for dangerous driving.

The reason for mentioning this individual is that in 2017 he successfully applied for the last three years of the latest ban to be removed on the grounds of “undue hardship”, namely that inconvenience had been caused to his family by the ban (he had to be driven to work by his wife).

 

Punishment…

I haven’t, to be fair covered the fact that in many of the above cases the court has ordered community service to be undertaken, or given fines. There are other possible responses as well: in the case of the driving captured in the video here an afternoon of driver awareness was specified as appropriate.

There are, of course, some cases where offenders get sent to prison (although not necessarily with long term driving bans), normally for the more serious offences and where the consequences have been severe. My suggestion is that these act as lightning conductors diverting attention from the majority of types of rule and law breaking behaviour which endanger others. Indeed the focus on driving impaired by alcohol or drugs can be seen as implying that driving unimpaired is essentially benign.

Given the lenience I have described, matters such as having a journey curtailed or being required to attend a court may themselves count as a form of “punishment”. Indeed, unlike other law breaking resulting in the death and/or injury of others, a key element of what constitutes punishment is the actual or alleged suffering of the offender. This is a persistent theme apparent from the proceedings of court cases, particularly where someone has died.

It is normal – do check through court reports for this – for not only the offender’s representatives but judges and magistrates to refer to this actual or alleged suffering. It is evidenced by the offender having to attend counselling, treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Depression or undergo other psychiatric care. Stock phrases include “Whatever the sentence, s/he will have the sentence of having to live with this for the rest of his/her life”. (This is for younger offenders: for older ones “as a (grand)parent s/he fully understands the loss of X”). Today I read of a doctor who crashed her car when drunk twice in three months : “..she has already punished herself enough.”

 

…or not?

The point of this post is to show that driver rule and law breaking is not only commonplace, but unlikely to result in any kind of real punishment, except when the worst types of bad driving result in serious injury or death – and it is quite usual for it not to happen even then. As explained previously (at some length), the purpose of describing this state of affairs is not to excuse the relatively lower level of danger that an errant bicyclist or pedestrian poses compared to that of an errant motorised road user. Or indeed even the far, far lower danger that errant cyclists or pedestrians pose to others compared to errant drivers.

It is simply to show the scale of road danger and where it comes from – and that this society treats it with impunity. This happens to such an extent that the author of the RAC Foundation report described above appears to imply that law breaking by motorists is not actual or real law breaking. It means that discussion of cyclist rule and law breaking, as a key topic for the forthcoming Cycle Safety Review, cannot occur in a meaningful way unless the massively greater problem of motor danger is put on the agenda alongside it in an equitable way.

One way of looking at it is an analysis of 9 years of mortality statistics:

Indeed, this period could allow for a positive opportunity to have a civilised discussion about danger on the road. We don’t think that road danger should only be addressed by enforcement and sentencing (although stigmatising endangering behaviour is important and a key part of our work supporting traffic policing based on the principles of Harm Reduction.)

Various kinds of engineering and other measures should be used to reduce danger on the road. But we won’t even be able to set the agenda for this unless we understand what the problem is.
A century of the activities of the “road safety” industry and the massive power of the mainstream driver and motor industry lobby has left us with normalised rule and law breaking – but not all drivers are necessarily content with this state of affairs. We need to take this opportunity to express what a civilised approach to road danger would actually look like.


Categories: Views

Join our Bikeable City Masterclass in May 2018

Cycling Embassy of Denmark - 10 January, 2018 - 09:40

Do you need knowledge and concrete tools on how to promote cycling or improve conditions for cyclists in your country or city? Now you have the possibility to learn from leading Danish experts at our Bikeable City Masterclass in Copenhagen, May 14-18 2018. We invite urban planners, NGO’s and decision makers to experience the Danish cycle culture. You ...

The post Join our Bikeable City Masterclass in May 2018 appeared first on Cycling Embassy of Denmark.

Categories: News

Smart road toont fietsopstelvak alleen als het nodig is

Fietsberaad - 10 January, 2018 - 00:00

In Londen is een opvallende ‘responsive’ zebra in gebruik genomen. De zebra maakt onderscheid tussen auto’s, voetgangers en fietsers.

Categories: News

Lights that switch on just for you

BicycleDutch - 8 January, 2018 - 23:01
When the cycle route from ’s-Hertogenbosch to Vlijmen was upgraded in 2012, the designers faced an interesting challenge: a main cycle route needs lighting at night to make it socially … Continue reading →
Categories: Views

Copenhagen Bike Hub

Copenhagenize - 8 January, 2018 - 12:08

by Stephanie Patterson

Copenhagenize Design Company’s time at our very cool co-working space on Paper Island/Papirøen is sadly coming to an end – the island's old industrial buildings are being demolished to make way for a new residential development. We’ll miss the creative vibe in our office - and on the island - that we have experienced daily for over four years. Paper Island was a freestyle creative hub that captured the imagination of Copenhageners and visitors alike.



Instead of resigning ourselves to tristesse, or to merely search for new offices, we decided to finally dust off an old Copenhagenize idea. Luckily, some ideas get better with age. Back in 2008, Copenhagenize Design Co. CEO Mikael Colville-Andersen envisioned that "Danish bicycle culture needs a physical home. A place where ideas can be fostered and discussed. A launch pad and showcase for Danish bicycle innovation". The idea led to the establishment of the Bicycle Innovation Lab, the first cultural center for cycling complete with a bicycle library and events.

With the impending need for new offices, the idea has surfaced once again and this time a strong tailwind is pushing it along. Enter: CPH Bike Hub. With the growing global interest in reestablishing the bicycle as a feasible transport form in cities, Danish bicycle planning, social cycling innovation and product design - among other aspects of the cycling community - can benefit from gathering under one roof.

We are thrilled that the idea is now in development and moving towards becoming a reality. A long list of colleagues have gotten on board this exciting cargo bike ride.

The idea for the CPH Bike Hub is not just sharing office space with colleagues. It also includes creating a destination for visitors. With all the delegations that come to Copenhagen to learn about bicycle planning, we have plans to develop a conference space to host them. Not just the delegations that Copenhagenize hosts, but also the City of Copenhagen and the Danish Cyclists Federation will benefit from having dedicated space to host visitors. Plans also include an exhibition space, a café/bar and meeting rooms.

We have seen the emergence of similar bike hubs in places like Barcelona with BiciClot  and the Netherlands with the Dutch Bicycle Centre and we hope that the CPH Bike Hub will contribute to this growing trend.

At time of writing, we are working hard with colleagues to establish the foundations of the CPH Bike Hub, secure financing and gather as many likeminded companies, organisations and individuals as possible. The list of colleagues continues to grow and includes the following:

· CYCLING WITHOUT AGE - Worldwide cycling non-profit for the elderly
· COPENHAGEN CYCLES - Global distributor of innovative bike trishaws
· LEADERLAB - Nordic sustainability business accelerators
· VELORBIS - Leading Danish bicycle brand
· MATE - Rapidly growing local E-Bike brand
· CYKELKOKKEN - Innovative and well-known Copenhagen cycling chef
· COH & CO - Sustainable materials bicycle producers
· SCANDINAVIAN SIDE CAR - Cutting-edge Danish cargo bikes solutions
· HOE360 CONSULTING - Danish green mobility consultancy

Morten Kabell – the former environmental and technical mayor of Copenhagen joined Copenhagenize Design Company in early January 2017 as COO and he is spearheading the work to establish CPH Bike Hub together with our colleagues. The timeline is still under development, but we are looking forward to letting the world know about the launch when the time comes.

Stay tuned. We're excited. Copenhagenize the planet. And have a lovely day.
Categories: Views

Scholieren steken sneller over dankzij warmtesensor

Fietsberaad - 8 January, 2018 - 00:00

In Rotterdam is een tweede kruispunt met een warmtesensor uitgerust.  Grote groepen scholieren op de fiets steken sneller het Kreekhuizenplein over.

Categories: News

Recordaantal ritten met de OV-fiets in 2017

Fietsberaad - 5 January, 2018 - 13:00

Afgelopen jaar zijn er 3,2 miljoen ritten gemaakt met de OV-fiets. Dat is een stijging van zo’n 33%. Ook steeg het aantal abonnementhouders van 200.000 naar 500.000. 

Categories: News

App weet wanneer verkeerslicht op groen gaat en geeft snelheidsadvies

Fietsberaad - 5 January, 2018 - 00:00

Apps voor de smartphone die verkeerslichten aansturen kennen we inmiddels. De nieuwste variant gaat nog een stap verder en helpt alle verkeersdeelnemers met een snelheidsadvies op maat, ook aan de fietser.

Categories: News

Pages

Subscribe to Cycling Embassy of Great Britain aggregator