Andy Burnham urges residents to not chuck hire bikes in canals

ike2112 wrote:

When they talk about bikes being dumped in canal, stolen etc - is this off the bike racks themselves?

I think the Mobikes were a 'leave anywhere' type scheme, so there was no need to take them off a rack - they could just be swiped from wherever the last user left them.

mdavidford wrote:

road.cc wrote:

£17m rental scheme bikes

I know bike prices have been going up a lot recently, but I think they've been had there.

At 11k per bike they might all be Pinarellos!

Or

more likely, that 17 million is the total cost over a few years for infrastructure/maintenance/running the scheme and so on.

Good luck Manchester, Santander bikes have been a big hit in London 

It is ironic. One of the known big obstacles to more bicycles being used on short utility journeys is the well founded fear of having having the expensive bicycle stolen or damaged.

So how is providing more-expensive bicycles at greater risk of theft and vandalism supposed to address the problem? It seems bonkers to throw bicycles at the problem before tackling the issue of theft and vandalism that existing cyclist face.

Garage at Large wrote:

These bike schemes are a profligate waste of public money, as they've been proven time and time again to be wide open to theft and vandalism.

£17 million is a disgrace, but let's face it - it's is what we've come to expect when the public sector get involved in procurement.

The long term issue with cycling, far more than "personal safety" which is the oft-cited excuse of people too lazy to go for a bike ride, is bike thefts. Until there is a joined-up scheme of bike registration nationwide and the police take it seriously, it will continue to be a huge barrier to utility cycling.

"what we've come to expect when the public sector get involved in procurement" - ah, you mean like all our Covid tests / PPE which were supplied cheaply and efficiently by a few private firms?

Hang on though - you're saying the reason we don't have mass cycling is bike theft?  I'm confused, only recently you were saying cyclists were the barrier to cycling (and driving), filling the roads and offending everyone with their entitled attitudes and misogynistic taunts?  It's truly unfair because as you've observed they are both fat and slow and over the hill but somehow also terribly energetic when it comes to getting out rather than the lazy majority who aren't cycling.

Or could it be that most people don't actually care what the current tiny number of cyclists are doing? Could it be that they aren't cycling because it doesn't seem to be a social activity because their friends aren't doing it?  Because it doesn't feel safe? That quite rightly people want convenient cycling with direct routes (not shared with lots of speedy motor vehicles) and secure places to store their bikes next to their destination, not round the back in an unlit alley smelling of liquid boredom? Because it is in practice not encouraged by our lords and masters because they don't actually spend much cash on it. And it's not supported by our culture, being sneered at when it's considered at all?

You're like the rest of us - a outlier to the mainstream. Having the police nab some bike thieves would be great but it ain't going to change our cycling rates. Because most bikes in the UK are barely being ridden outside of occasional recreation.

Garage at Large wrote:

Fat people are generally lazy as a rule

I would pay good money to see you saying that in front of my old rugby front row teammates. I feel sorry for you Nigel, you spew hate against so many different types of people, you've clearly got some very serious issues that need addressing as soon as possible. 

Garage at Large wrote:

There's quite a lot of incorrect conclusions reached there Chris. Let me unpack them for you:

chrisonatrike wrote:

"what we've come to expect when the public sector get involved in procurement" - ah, you mean like all our Covid tests / PPE which were supplied cheaply and efficiently by a few private firms?

Well that's a case in point isn't it: the public sector (i.e. the Department of Health) procured a load of overpriced stuff. Although to be fair it was a rational judgement at the time, as there wasn't enough inventory in the Covid crisis and there had to be a rushed job which wasn't open to the normal level of scrutiny.

Let me return the favour:

Garage at Large wrote:

the public sector (i.e. the Department of Health) procured a load of overpriced stuff

It would be our current government who actually initiated the circumvention of the processes at the Department of Health and (like Jo Churchill) had to admit that er... they hadn't followed procedures (their "8 stage process"). Coincidentally this happened most with companies run by their pals (one Ayanda Capital was put into the "VIP lane" and it just so happened that its representative was an adviser to Liz Truss).  Even more strangely that led to them paying vastly over the odds for stuff, some of which didn't even work. This would be the same government which has also happily let the situation persist where such companies can quietly hide the money away from scrutiny and indeed tax.

It looks less like "we didn't have time for full scrutiny" and more like "a profligate waste of public money" wouldn't you say? Maybe "what we've come to expect when the government interfere in procurement"?

Garage at Large wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Hang on though - you're saying the reason we don't have mass cycling is bike theft?

No, I'm saying it's the main reason for discouraging utility cycling. Clearly bike theft doesn't affect things such as leisure cycling.

Hmm, OK, let's look at the Netherlands, there are tons of bikes there so that'll show up the issues! Far more people cycling there than the UK and most are "utility cycling" (I feel duty bound to inform you some are actually enjoying it, cycling next to their friends and talking together and indeed some are not even making a "journey" at all but are just going about for pleasure).  How can that be as they don't even tend to use particularly great locks? So presumably they must have super cops in The Netherlands? Or are those people constantly losing their bikes and buying another stolen one? Or are they just such Communists there that the proletariat have actually given up theft as counterrevolutionary? Or maybe their bikes are all rubbish and no self-respecting thief would tarry long in the place?

Back to the UK - are you saying that thousands would be down to Lidl on their 50 quid bike-shaped-objects but for the fact they're terrified of losing them? Or maybe they all did but all the bikes were stolen that evening (and went where?) so that's why I don't see mass cycle usage?

It's also odd because I see quite a few bicycles stored on the balconies of the flats around me, and yet I almost never see those bicycles in use - indeed they don't move from one month to the next. Maybe they're just frightened of thieves as you say?

Or could there be another reason why they're not cycling?

I think we could do better on cycle theft, same as with actually penalising illegal and dangerous driving more often. What that won't do is increase our cycling modal share above the few percent we have currently. It won't bring all those men, women, children and the old back onto bicycles!

Garage at Large wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

 I'm confused, only recently you were saying cyclists were the barrier to cycling (and driving), filling the roads and offending everyone with their entitled attitudes and misogynistic taunts?  It's truly unfair because as you've observed they are both fat and slow and over the hill but somehow also terribly energetic when it comes to getting out rather than the lazy majority who aren't cycling.

Some cyclists' poor attitudes increase conflict (and therefore decrease safety) on the roads and put others off cycling, that is correct.

On your other point about obesity, I haven't made any sweeping generalisations about cyclists generally in terms of their fitness (or lack of), and I do believe that obesity and lack of fitness is also a barrier to cycling.

I have noted that fat cyclists (as well as those with the poorest attitudes) tend to ride in large groups together.

[...]

Fat people are generally lazy as a rule, but it doesn't follow that all fat people are lazy or that slimmer people are more active - it would be prejudicial to assume that is the case.

Hmm... what you seem to be doing there is exactly what you say you're not.

" it would be prejudicial to assume that is the case." So why bring it up at all then?

Garage at Large wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Or could it be that most people don't actually care what the current tiny number of cyclists are doing? Could it be that they aren't cycling because it doesn't seem to be a social activity because their friends aren't doing it?  Because it doesn't feel safe? That quite rightly people want convenient cycling with direct routes (not shared with lots of speedy motor vehicles) and secure places to store their bikes next to their destination, not round the back in an unlit alley smelling of liquid boredom? Because it is in practice not encouraged by our lords and masters because they don't actually spend much cash on it. And it's not supported by our culture, being sneered at when it's considered at all?

I'm not boiling why people choose not to cycle into a single reason, all I'm saying is that "danger" is overstated and easily chosen by people who simply don't want to ride a bike. If you removed the dangers and built the best infrastructure in the world, many people would simply move on to the next best excuses on the list, which would be "weather" and "theft" or similar.

"all I'm saying is that "danger" is overstated" - it is indeed a fact that cycling - even in the UK - is a very safe activity. However people need to feel it is safe and see it is convenient.

"If you removed the dangers and built the best infrastructure in the world, many people would simply move on to the next best excuses on the list, which would be "weather" and "theft" or similar."

Fortunately chance has given us some "natural experiments" we can look to. We have a couple of places where thay have indeed built excellent infrastructure, which have similar weather to the UK or much colder or hotter. And it turns out that they cycle rather more. We can also look at Bern, in Switzerland - rather hilly actually. Still looking pretty good for modal share.

Our problem is our politicians campaigned for and subsidised motorised traffic for decades and they still do. Most people in the UK quite sensibly stopped cycling. We are all so focussed on the car and motorised transport that even we "avid cyclists" still naturally assume that the car comes first / should be able to go everywhere and park anywhere - and ignore the needs of those who can't own / drive vehicles. Plenty of people do want to ride bikes (see first lockdown) but they aren't going to do so when it doesn't feel safe, convenient or even "normal".

Garage at Large wrote:

These bike schemes are a profligate waste of public money, as they've been proven time and time again to be wide open to theft and vandalism.

£17 million is a disgrace, but let's face it - it's is what we've come to expect when the public sector get involved in procurement.

The long term issue with cycling, far more than "personal safety" which is the oft-cited excuse of people too lazy to go for a bike ride, is bike thefts. Until there is a joined-up scheme of bike registration nationwide and the police take it seriously, it will continue to be a huge barrier to utility cycling.

17 million is peanuts compared to just about every road/driver specific infrastructure scheme ever completed or currently planned.

And the private sector is provably less efficient in sooooooooooo many industries - yet still get massive tax payer subsidy despite the Cayman Island tax scams used by all involved.

You're on the wrong side of history here.

Hang on Nige, I'm sure you have said before that children shouldn't cycle on the roads as they didn't have enough training

Seventyone wrote:

Hang on Nige, I'm sure you have said before that children shouldn't cycle on the roads as they didn't have enough training

He says he's polite and courteous, he doesn't say he's consistent!

Honestly, he would be better ignored. I just don't read his posts.

When I see 20 comments I'm interested to read them, but then I see what it is and I scroll right to the end.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Honestly, he would be better ignored. I just don't read his posts.

When I see 20 comments I'm interested to read them, but then I see what it is and I scroll right to the end.

You're right, I should stop using his bait as a hook to hang my own obsessions on and leave it to Nasal Forage!

chrisonatrike wrote:

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Honestly, he would be better ignored. I just don't read his posts.

When I see 20 comments I'm interested to read them, but then I see what it is and I scroll right to the end.

You're right, I should stop using his bait as a hook to hang my own obsessions on and leave it to Nasal Forage!

I'm trying to tell myself that it's just mediocre satire and move on.

It wasn't that pointless and illogical comment from you Nigel, it was quite a while ago when you said anyone who lacked skills should not be on the road.

You lost me at 'any competent parent' an extremely demanding, lifelong career choice which requires no qualifications, whatsoever....