Part One of this Series. For Part Two - going beyond what was published in Cycling Mobility - focused on cycle training of immigrants to the Netherlands, click here.
Intro: For the fourth (and sadly, final) issue of Cycling Mobility, which has just hit the street, I wrote a long blog-style article which was edited down considerably into an opinion piece. This follows immediately below, though the version in the magazine is somewhat longer. It was originally titled by the editors as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which I objected to as it had both nothing to do with gays and lesbians serving in the U.S. military -- and as some kind of word play it also did not describe accurately what this whole thing is about...
The whole thing starts with the opinion - part I - and follows with four parts originally intended to be sidebars/boxouts with the original text. In part I have added some clarifications or emphasized certain things [in brackets] based on the original text. - Todd Edelman, Slow Factory.
Reality...
As
I walked in Copenhagen one night in December 2009, I joked with my
companions that portraying it as a leading cycling city was so
important to the mayor that he would pay cyclists to ride around so
there were always bicycles on the streets [or even show a live CCTV video with computer-generated cyclists added].
Neither
Copenhagen nor Amsterdam need to exaggerate how many people cycle
there, or the percentage of cyclists as part of overall traffic.
These figures are in hundreds of blogs every month and increasingly
in mainstream media.
...or illusion? Frame grabs from "Protektor"(Czech Republic, 2009)
But
as more people get on bikes in any given city, is it enough to simply
publicise cycling’s share of journeys? I would argue that it isn’t.
Instead, it is increasingly important to analyse how these figures
are arrived at and what they tell us about cycling. It is more than a
simple percentage: publicising cycling’s modal share should reflect
design conditions, participants [e.g. ethnicity, ethnic origin, income level, gender...] and cyclist behaviour.
There
are great infrastructure designs — the best are usually found in
the Netherlands — and there is a lot of rubbish, and that includes
high-density areas where cyclists are added to pedestrian space. Such
shared use is normally the result of weakness; politicians are
reluctant to take space from cars (either travelling or parked) due
to pressure from motorists and the motoring lobby.
I moved to Berlin
in 2008, and my own street is a great example of how cyclists and
pedestrians have been marginalised. Urbanstaße, in the district of
Kreuzberg, was planned in the late 19th
century. In its early configuration, a tram ran along the centre of
the street and wide outside lanes were shared by horse-drawn
vehicles, cyclists and a few motor vehicles. Not many cars were
parked on the street.
Until roughly mid-20th century: Facade – garden – footway (sidewalk) – trees/planter –
multi-use street lane – double-tracked, centre-running trams
[streetcars] – multi-use street lane – trees/planter – footway
– garden – facade
Today: Facade – footway – bike path – trees/planter – car
storage – motor-vehicle lane – motor-vehicle lane – narrow
centre divider – motor-vehicle lane – motor-vehicle lane – car
storage – trees/planter- bike path – footway – facade
By
the early 1960s the layout had changed, and it is still like this
today. Cyclists are now in the former pedestrian space and the
pedestrians are in the former garden area. The pedestrian and bike
areas are at the same level, so cyclists who need more space (for
instance to pass each other) ride in the pedestrian space. In recent
years cycling has increased significantly and this has put riders
perilously close to facades and doorways. Many riders go the wrong
way, and it seems most are unaware they are breaking the law. If
challenged, they say that “others do it” as a way of justifying
their own actions.
This
is the worst of Berlin’s cycling mobility — it is at the expense
of pedestrians and other cyclists. The best way to describe it is
“cycle-colonisation”. In terms of infrastructure, the current
situation is a layout created over time and without much thought
towards anything but improving the flow of motor traffic. It
encourages and facilitates bad cycling behaviour. Bike trips in such
locations are low in quality and dangerous — or often simply
annoying for pedestrians. Such
car-friendly/people-ignorant street designs have led to an explosion
in the number of bike salmon, the term coined by NYC Bike Snob to
describe people who ride illegally against traffic. As the cycling
renaissance gathers pace, it is important to remember that one-way
streets created for cars, such as the main routes in Berlin on either
side of wide and fast streets, will suffer from an increasing number
of wrong-way cyclists.
Some examples of how authorities see who is actually cycling - From top to bottom: Berlin results strongly hints at ethnic origin and income level (e.g. central districts are wealthier); Bogota chart is nearly explicit about income level (e.g. Zona Chapinero is the Colombian capital's most exclusive district); Netherlands info is quite specific about ethnicity of both parents ("Autochtoten" means both or only parent born in NL). All three ignore gender (though other research from these authorities does not).
So
who is cycling and who isn’t?
Cycling
accounts for about 15% of journeys in Berlin, but that varies
considerably by district, and is often dependent on residents’
income or ethnic or national background.
Let's
look at two districts. Broadly speaking, Mitte is gentrified with
middle- and upper-class people of European origin. Neukölln is more
varied and is home to a high number of people of Turkish descent,
among others. It is middle- to working-class, except in the south,
outside the S-bahn ring road.
Neukölln
has a 12% cycling modal share, but just who is cycling? Is it men,
women or children, the better-off, those on average incomes or the
poor? In the northern part of this district, there are a
high number of bike-happy newcomers from Europe and Canada/USA who
probably make up a sizeable proportion of the 12%.
We
need to know what lies behind the figures. Is it Neukölln’s
terrible cycling infrastructure, or the social status that some
residents attach to car ownership? All of this needs to be taken into
account when quantifying bike use.
Dr. Jekyll? ...
Who is
paying the penalty?
I
spent weeks looking for a flat in Berlin before I moved here. It was
wonderful and initially liberating to be in a city with a fair number
of cyclists. I was generally on a bike myself — but that meant I
missed something significant. It was only when I was settled into my
new home and brought my old and frail dogs from Prague that I started
walking a lot.
Once
on two feet rather than two wheels, I began to notice cyclists riding
without lights, not using a bell, going too fast or going the wrong
way. My impression is that Berlin is worse for this than other north
European cities. Even when I was walking the dogs in the right place
on the footway, I felt that we were threatened by cyclists. Walking
Prague with its low number of bikes felt safer than doing so in
cycle-happy Berlin.
We’re
probably all familiar with poor behaviour by cyclists, but these
people were misbehaving for four reasons, all of which which feed on
the other:
Bad infrastructure — as described
Antisocial behaviour — some cyclists and pedestrians
react badly because they are at the bottom of the pile due to poor
street design. It is also a reflection of Berlin itself: people here
respond in different ways to the freedoms they enjoy when compared
with the social disciplines expected elsewhere.
Sharp sticks but soft carrots — cyclists who
misbehave can be fined, but enforcement is patchy. Most of the time
these riders are ignored by the police, and other street users
rarely speak out. There is no encouragement to behave better.
Lack of training — few Germans over the age of 50
have had any cycle training in school. Likewise, many immigrants
have little experience of cycling in cities.
The
four points combine to affect other street users, including other
cyclists. In my view such poor quality cycling should not be counted
or represented in in any publicised figure for cycling’s modal
share.
... and Mr. Hyde? Grabs from a promotion video for "Neber der Spur. Das Fahrradhasserbuch" ("Off the Track. The Cycle Hater's Book", published in Germany in early 2011) , which suggests that normal, peaceful people become aggressive when they get on a bike.
So what
about your city? Most
people will not know how many people ride bikes. It probably only
matters to politicians at election time. On a personal level, what
counts is that you and your friends can cycle.
Any
number for modal share is, therefore, abstract. Not all cities count
cyclists in the same way, even if they use the same mechanism.
Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin, Waco — they are not on a racetrack
in adjoining lanes.
The
numbers are bandied about by mayors and city councils and their
representatives. They use it for marketing. And experts pass the
figures on.
Please
don’t get me wrong — Berlin does have a few great examples of
cycling infrastructure and education. Any hope of building on that
is, however, dashed by the public’s collective reaction to bad
cycling, usually expressed in the media. This backlash is too much
for politicians to address within a term or even three.
But then
why should cyclists expect
more? Germany is addicted to the car, though some deny it. Nearly
every cyclist stopped by police can point to a nearby driver doing
something worse [if just because of physics]. Our politicians need to work with city dwellers to
end the domination of the car and car culture. We have to remember
that many of today's drivers are tomorrow’s well-behaved cyclists,
and work out a way to manage that change. This is not some romantic
ideal, but a realistic view forged in the heat of the debate over the
energy shortages to come.
We
need to be equipped to face the new reality — which will be with us
not too many years hence. To prepare for this there needs to be
significant investment in infrastructure and education, starting
immediately.
Berlin, summer 2011 - Sign reads "Fight the Aggressive Cyclists. Consideration Takes Priority on All Our Paths" Photo by Steffen Zahn.
*****
For Part Two in this series, click here.
In the coming days I will upload the intended boxouts/sidebars which further detail my arguments herein. Please join, follow or otherwise watch this space.... and have a safe and truly representative holiday!