Velo-city: ECF Sells Out to Big Helmet?!?

Part One of a Two-Part Series on Velo-city Global in Vancouver. For Part Two click here.

Fear comes for Free! Sean van Waes, the Flemish "Head Helmeteer" at Velo-city sponsor Lazer Helmets (of Belgium), used his evil lazer rays to fry the analytical parts of people's brains at ECF (and perhaps the Velo-city organizing committee). 

This just in: Norco Bicycles plans to "outfit every registered delegate [at Velo-city Global in Vancouver] with a new Lazer cycling helmet". Norco and Lazer are "Gold Sponsors" of the conference, which starts in two weeks. Vancouver is in British Columbia, which has an all-ages mandatory helmet law.

From the helmets page of the European Cyclists' Federation (ECF): "ECF are [sic] not against individuals choosing to wear helmets, however we are against mandatory helmet laws and shock-horror helmet promotions. We do this via support to our members, and also by becoming active members in a wide range of trans-national forums."

ECF is pro-choice on helmets, but promotes the idea - which I agree with - that helmets make cycling look more dangerous than it is, and that pushing helmets is a distraction from much more effective methods for making cycling safe. However, there is nothing in the hosting agreement for Velo-city in Vancouver - and presumably in the agreement for the next Velo-city events in Vienna (2013) and Adelaide (2014) -  to prevent helmet companies from sponsoring the event.

The Board of ECF. I have questions for them.

So let's consider "shock-horror helmet promotions"...

From the press release above: "In the spirit of the Velo-city 2012 program theme, 'Essential Elements - Increasing Cycling and Safety,' Norco's contribution will allow delegates to rest assured while exploring Vancouver on their complimentary conference bicycles. Norco and Lazer have delegates covered - literally."

"Essential"? "Rest assured"? "Covered"? Hmm... strong and manipulative but not quite "horror". But consider some examples from Lazer's testimonials page: 

"I am confident the helmet saved my life, or at least saved me from having extreme brain damage."

"I was hit by a car going 55 mph while I was riding my bicycle. story made short I went to the hospital and suffered a concussion and severe lacerations and road burn. I was wearing a Lazer 02 helmet at the time, and it saved my life."

"You saved my brother's life."

Yes, Lazer put a helmet on Vincent van Gogh. He is from Zundert, about 35km from Mr. van Waes's hometown of Antwerp, Belgium. But Zundert is in the Netherlands. Lazer put a helmet on a Dutchman. In an advertisement. No Dutch artist wearing normal clothes on a city bike has ever worn a helmet.

Are we at the level of "shock-horror" yet? Well, let's see some of the other Velo-city sponsors:

• Momentum magazine, one of the two "Media Sponsors", has in its June 2012  digital edition, adverts from three of the major helmet manufacturers (including Lazer), and in another in a seemingly endless series of helmet-buying guides, the introduction says a "helmets [...] can be invaluable additions to your everyday repertoire." The Lazer stuff is much worse, but still,  this is not language that the ECF should be associated with.  The magazine has dozens of helmeted and an equal number of unhelmeted heads, so the imagery is not that big a problem (though they've done worse in the past).
• "Contributing Sponsor" The Canadian Automobile Association, or CAA, has a bike safety page on its national website. This includes an explanation of "Why it is Important" (to wear a helmet), but this uses the repeatedly discredited and unproven magic 85% figure about helmet efficacy. They also imply that cycling is as dangerous as lacrosse or hockey, and not just that...

Sigh.

Do we have aggregate "shock-horror" yet? Maybe not, but please consider the following...

A few weeks ago I learnt that Velo-city organizers were trying to find a pro-helmet person for a debate planned for the conference. As far as I know they did not find anyone. None of the politicians in the all-ages mandatory helmet British Columbia, none of the sponsors... apparently not even the helmet company is willing to defend their product.

But they are distributing at least 1,000 free helmets (this is the figure repeatedly mentioned as the number of delegates for the conference). What is the purpose of this? Nearly everyone who is attending this conference has a helmet if they want one (i.e. it is not an issue of financing as many will be spending upwards of 2,000 CAD for registration, accommodation and transport.). Should people have extra helmets? Should they give a helmet to a friend (are they sure they will get the right size?). I am not sure of the financial arrangements (it sort of sounds like Norco is buying these helmets from Lazer at cost, so perhaps at least 25,000 to 35,000 CAD for this.)

Lazer and Norco are probably thinking that some people will not bring their own helmets (and of course many delegates do not own helmets). They know that there is that mandatory helmet law, and probably many are wondering if it will be enforced. (I started a Facebook Page in order to promote a protest...).

I won't be going, and I also wonder what will happen. Will many simply decline the free helmet? Is that enough of a statement? (What is the ignition temperature of a helmet?) I don't think so, and to get back to my main point, I think that ECF as the owner of the Velo-city Series has been painfully sloppy about this whole issue, and I do think that all the examples I give do add up to "shock-horror". 

On the other hand, via email some time back I mentioned to a current ECF board member that it was clear to me that part of the reason Vancouver was selected was due to a desire to disrupt the helmet law in B.C.. He did not deny this... he did not say anything. I would like to be optimistic but given the way everything has been handled I am not sure I should be.

The operator and supplier of the new bike share system in Vancouver was just announced. Vancouver won’t pursue a helmet law exemption. As nearly everyone reading this knows, the bike share system in Melbourne, Australia - run by Alta Bike Share - has been a disaster due to mandatory helmet laws there.

*****

"My masters, Fear, Greed and Opportunism, bid thee welcome."

*****

For previous entries on the topic of helmets, see here.

Slow Transition to "Slow Factory"

The transition from Green Idea Factory to Slow Factory has taken some time...  in part because my main activities and even the core from which they originate always seems to be in flux. So, coming up with a new name/moniker/brand is difficult.

Case in point is the new logo, above - and yes, the transition was also slowed because I did not have an alternative to the Green Idea Factory logo.

I am preserving "Factory", which has in part a musical origin: Factory Records, home of Joy Division and New Order, and that is based in part on Andy Warhol's Factory, in a way the first home of the Velvet Underground. And in relation to this what's really cool or slightly humorous - just found this out - is that my paternal grandmother is from the closest town just down the hill from the village where the Warholas lived in Eastern Slovakia. 

Miková to Medzilaborce, about 14km (a nice bike ride...)

The first version of the new Slow Factory logo was the same except it had all the numbers up to 100 (This was never a real speedometer... just something stylized I found on the web and am using legally). It is ambiguous in regards to miles or kilometres.

The needle was in the same place, too, but I did not consider this to be an infographic or any kind of instruction, or to be absolutely literal about what informs my work.

But the needle is at about what could be 12mph, which is a nice pace for city cycling.

I sent this first version to my informal advisory board (located in Bogota, Brussels and San Francisco) and they suggested three similar things: 

1 - "You should put a limit near the 20-30 mark and the rest have it somehow erased or blurred, non?" (from Bogota, where they use km/h*);

2 - "Confused: why isn't the top speed a low number?" (San Francisco);

3 - "Meaning, you can go up to 100 when you want to?" (Brussels).

*I started with the metric system when I lived in Prague, where "km/h" means "kilometrů za hodinu" (kilometres per hour).

I explained my intentions in general but also specifically:

"Mein Gott! Everyone wants this to be an info graphic! It's just a logo. Lots of good things go faster than 12mph!

There is a simplistic obsession with 20mph/30km/h speed limits, also in Germany. On neighbourhood streets it is still too fast. They are not respected here in many places, both from the design and user angles. So I don't want the logo to just be about that."

.... and also to at least double 100(km/h) as 200 is the normal top speed of trains inside Switzerland. Going above this speed might seem logical for long distances - or be competitive with flying - but all it does is induce more mobility. It also requires much more expensive trains and infrastructure. 

The real speed solution which is reasonable for the majority of people is... elusive. But also in the city what's most important is not having to slow down.  Having to then speed up increase noise and tailpipe emissions (motorized vehicles) or exertion (cycling). Walking is all about stopping and starting but it's nice to not have to stop at all (in much of Manhattan above Houston you can easily figure out how long it takes to get somewhere if you know your walking speed, because the grid in consistent).

So... maybe I want a logo - or infographic - which promotes the idea of traffic signals creating a kind of universal green wave on arterial streets, where pedestrians walk at 4mph and cyclists at three times that pace (12mph), taxis and carshare at 24mph and trams (or buses) somehow never have to stop at crossroads (only to pick up and drop off people)...

But - again - perhaps I don't have to be so literal and the second version of the new logo at the top already says that, more or less, in both km/h and mph.

Bike Future (Dot) Org?

"A Unified Bicycling Movement [?]

Leadership teams representing the Alliance for Biking & Walking, Bikes Belong, and the League of American Bicyclists agreed in principle on February 14, 2012, to support the unification of all three organizations to more effectively advance bicycling in the United States.

The consensus goal is to speed progress in creating a bicycle-friendly America, where bicycling is a viable transportation- and recreation choice for everyone and more people bike more often. This proposed unification would combine the significant resources of the three groups into one effective, powerful organization with a clear, integrated structure and a single voice..."

To see/take the full survey above, and the full introduction, see this link.

When "two heads are better than one" gets misinterpreted as "increasing the size of your head by 100% makes you safe".

From Momentum Magazine no. 55

See also these related entries on helmets on this blog and please "Like" No Mandatory Helmets at Velo-city Global 2012 in Vancouver on Facebook.

Wow, mom seems to be proud of this.

***

Also, can someone please provide a good link about how extreme mass, surface area and leverage etc. with helmets causes neck injuries and other problems?

***

All things in balance, I suppose... this issue has a great helmet-free photo inside, which the first place winner in the Biking category in the Alliance for Biking & Walking's photo contest: 

What the mayor doesn't always tell you about bike modal share - UITP and ECF go for higher modal shares, separately

Part Four of this Series, which started with a feature in Cycling Mobility no. 4.  For Part One - which gives an overview - click here.  For Part Two -  about immigrant-focused cycle training - click here. For Part Three - about "Pure" and "Real" bike modal shares, click here.

Alain Flausch became the new Secretary General of UITP on 1 January. During the ten years he was the head of STIB/MVIB (the PT operator in Brussels) ridership increased by about 100%.

In May 2009 at its Velo-city conference in Brussels, the European Cyclists' Federation (ECF), presented the “Charter of Brussels”. Signatories – local authorities – of the Charter would, among other targets, pledge to increase cycling modal share to at least 15% by 2020, and beyond that if that figure was already achieved.

In June 2009 the International Union of Public Transport (UITP) initiated its “PTx2” strategy which aims to double public transport (PT) share worldwide by 2025. Rather than have individual signatories of a pledge, which with UITP – much larger than ECF but still its European-level counterpart – would be public transport operators or local authority members, it is focused instead on recognizing the efforts of its members in increase their share of local mobility.

In their documents for their individual initiatives, ECF and UITP – the latter has a very extensive explanation of how, for example, how “keeping the share of walking and cycling at a stable level would allow us to decouple the growth of mobility in urban areas from the growth of its societal and environmental costs” - recognize that, respectively, PT and cycling are complementary transport modes. However, the ECF policy person with whom I spoke had never heard of PTx2 and it was not clear to me if their counterpart at UITP had heard of the Charter. This was revealed to me when I asked if increasing cycling at the expense of public transport or vice-versa was still a success. Both spokespeople answered in the negative, but only in the general sense: These strategies were created independently and my sense was that these people had never met anyone in an official capacity from the other org. (Their current offices in Brussels are 15-20min. or so apart by bike or PT).

When asked if a better goal than individual organization targets might be to instead commit reduce private urban automobile transport by 50% - a round number, perhaps a marketable one – by the most appropriate means, both spokespeople seemed to agree; the ECF spokesperson also appreciated my suggestion that they should work together in a more concrete way.

At the very end of discussions with both spokespeople I received a press release about the new Cycling Industry Club initiative of ECF aimed at uniting the bicycle manufacturing industry and non-profit organizations, similar to Bikes Belong in the USA. The press release spoke of a goal of “tripling the number of cyclists in Europe by 2020”. I was then put in the awkward position of telling the spokesperson at ECF about something they had never heard of initiated by a colleague of theirs, and despite a specific request by press time (in autumn 2011) it was not explained to me how this fit into the Charter of Brussels or if it, in fact, made it partially obsolete.

It is perhaps obvious that easy to remember figures and terms such as “15%”, “doubling” and “tripling” are, indeed, for marketing purposes, but it seems clear that a common goal from public transport and cycling plus walking or telecommuting actors would make more sense -- this would be best achieved by more joint strategizing and activities of the involved organizations.

As it has been a few months since I did these interviews I am happy to amend this article in order to reflect any changes related to the discussion. 

First Bike Corral in NYC!

Just uploaded to Streetfilms, a short piece on the first "bike corral" - NYC DOT calls them "Street Racks" - in NYC (Brooklyn). This is definitely a step in the right direction. Better for small shops and all street users... bonus points for not  improving things for cyclists at the expense of pedestrians.

Questions!

* Is this intended to be overnight, i.e. instead of carrying a bike upstairs in a walk-up apt., or just short-term parking?

* Even with a good lock - no, the best lock - do people feel their bike is safe at a rack like this all day long - i.e. if it is parking at a subway station - and even overnight, e.g. if they go out after work and have a spontaneous "sleepover" in Manhattan? 

* Does it fit cargo bikes, without inconveniencing/disrespecting users of normal bikes?

* The block association supported it, does the CB (Community Board) have to approve it?

* How is cleaning handled? (Normally a street cleaning truck comes by...)

* Will it remain free of snow in the winter?

* Any ADA issues? Is there sensory info on the sidewalk which lets people know it - and not a parked car - is in this location?

The bike parking seems necessary in any case, but the initial impetus seems to have been a bad marriage of two too-fast streets. Neighbourhood streets like this one, even if they have a sort of semi-arterial use, are narrow and encourage perpendicular movement: The NYC speed limit of 30mph is simply too fast for this location (I would bet the vehicles that flipped over as we can see in the video were going faster...). This street definitely needs a 20mph limit. The bikelane seems kind of marginal in relation to anti-dooring properties, and I am assuming that a NYC-style 20mph street - as is being experimented with in at least one other part of the city - will have no soft(paint) demarcation of space.

This is a good solution, and it would be great to know more about how it fits into the overall strategy for parking AND traffic calming/safety. Not sure if speed-issues were discussed but left out of the edit, but I've noticed that before, e.g. in discussion about bike lanes in San Francisco on Streetsblog SF. 

The parklets and this parking were mentioned by Ms Harris-Hernandez as being innovative, but not sure they are as they have been done already in Portland and San Francisco. But that does not matter! Copying or replicating existing best practice is great on its own!

I have inquired with Transportation Alternatives about parking secure enough for overnight use and expensive cargo bikes, and hope NYC DOT gets something going in that direction. The solutions already exist -- they just need to be introduced, discussed, approved, purchased and bolted down to the street.

What the mayor doesn't always tell you about bike modal share - Pure & Real Bike Modal Shares

Part Three of this Series. Please first read Part One - originally published in slightly different form in Cycling Mobility issue no. 4 - which gives an overview and the context for the focus for this entry - click here. For Part Two, focused on cycle training of immigrants to the Netherlands, click here. For Part Four, about how UITP and the ECF are aiming to improve modal share, click here.

 Don't take it out on pedestrians, or blame the cyclists who have to use it. A street in the Moravian town of Uherské Hradiště personifies the "Hey, Get Outta My Way!" Malus. Photo: www.cyklostrategie.cz

Since bike mode share percentages do not tell the whole story about who, how and where people are cycling, I propose the concept of:

Pure Bike Modal Share 

It means that:

1 - All citizens – between the ages of 8 and 80 (inclusive), without regards to gender, gender-preference, national, religious, political, cultural or ethnic self-identification, able to use some form of a human-powered (motor-assist) wheeled vehicle generally understood to be a bicycle or variant thereof, and within the municipal boundaries – cycle at exactly the same rate...so a 50% rate of cycling as a primary means of travel is exactly that and impurities are subject to the Who is Not Cycling Malus, and;

2 – All cycling is done within the law and according to custom agreed by 2/3 of municipal subjects and transgressions are subject to the Anti-Solidarity Malus, and;

3 – All cycling is done on infrastructure which was not previously used by pedestrians or not unreasonably taken from exclusive pedestrian use and violations are subject to the "Hey, Get Outta My Way" Malus.


Here is how it works:
+ Measure bike share in the simplest way, i.e. only gross counting, e.g. with bike counters in major cycling corridors. The result is the base bike modal share.
+ As much as possible, record who is cycling (see 1, above), how they are cycling (2) and where they are cycling (3).
- Subtract the second from the first, separately for each three catergories. The results are the bike modal share subtotals.
/ Average the combination of all three. The result is the 

Real Bike Modal Share.

Real bike modal share in its worse form should – to be fair – never be worse than half the official rate.

Here is an example methodology for point no. 2:

“Anti-solidarity malus points” (“Douchebag demerits” in American English/for the US environment) are recorded for illegal activities/behaviour going against custom and awarded to the mayor or city council, whichever is more appropriate, and it is with these awards that they must adjust e.g. results of primitive modal share rates recorded nearly blind e.g. only at the district or citywide level.

This anti-solidarity malus can be recorded roughly, for example by counting cyclists at any time of day and then subtracting one from the total based on any observed violation of law and custom. It can also be recorded more precisely, but noting the specific violations – some – e.g. riding without lights at night and scaring pedestrians will receive more malus points than others, e.g. riding on the pavement (sidewalk) on the way from the street to a front door or bike parking for a distance longer than provided by the closest open street-pavement transition point.

Citing or fining these cyclists is the job of law enforcement and is separate from malus counting. The point of the malus counting is to punish the local government and to keep them honest.


***

In the coming days I will continue the series to further detail my arguments in Part One. Please join, follow or otherwise watch this space.... and have a safe and truly representative holiday!

What the mayor doesn't always tell you about bike modal share - Immigrant-focused cycle training?

Part Two of this Series. For Part One - which gives an overview and the context for the focus on training people of immigrant-background - click here.  For Part Three - about "Pure and Real" bike modal shares, click here.

Cultural and societal empowerment via bike. "L" is for learner... and laughter: Meryem Mouncif, from Morocco, apparently enjoys a cycle-training course given by the Centrum Buitenlandse Vrouwen (Centre for Foreign Women) in Tilburg, the Netherlands.

“Unfortunately there are not really municipalities or politicians that want to 'go' for this topic. It has not been so in the past, and not now either,” says Angela van der Kloof, a sustainable mobility consultant working at Mobycon in the Netherlands.

The vast majority of training happens informally, like in many other places – well, where parents bother - typically where parents teach their kids. Children receive traffic theory classes in their schools starting from age 6, and many take an on-street test by age 10 or 11.

Angela continues: “Formal cycle training in NL has focused on women who were not born in the Netherlands. In the 1970s, women - mostly from the Mediterranean-area - were able to join their husbands who had emigrated for work. They had instruction in language, sewing, knitting and handicrafts, and then started to ask for cycling instruction. The formal training began in the 1980s, organised at first in a grassroots way by volunteers.”

These days there is cycle training for children and also elders who have cycled their whole life and might need to be advised on things such as the advantage of lowering a seat, or – for men – using a low-step over bike, or a side mirror if they are unable to comfortably turn their head.

“After about 30 years of small scale or grass roots cycle training initiatives, hardly any municipality takes it seriously,”, says Angela. “Sometimes there is a sentence in a cycling policy document, but these years it has become more popular to either ignore specific needs of immigrants or other less powerful target groups, or ridicule them.”

She continues: “There are some exceptions. In my hometown of Tilburg [a city of just over 200,000 persons in the southern Dutch province of Noord Brabant] people who were not born in the Netherlands have been incorporated into the cycleplan as a specific target group. As a member of the Tilburg Fietsforum, which is an NGO that advises the municipality on cycling issues, I contributed to this cycleplan.

“So in Tilburg it has been pretty well arranged for quite a lot of years now. At the same time, last year the city council asked themselves how effective cycletraining and swimming lessons were for the integration and emancipation process of immigrant women. Another consultancy did a study and they found that the courses were very effective. So there was no basis to stop the subsidy. But each time, in every city, the people need to fight for it.

“What I mean is, that local politicians tend to look at the personal benefits for the participants of the courses only. And not look at the societal benefits in the short and long term: more health, less pollution, congestion. They just do not see why the municipality should bother and subsidize this or stimulate it otherwise.”

In 2008 and 2009 Angela was involved in supporting the setting up of a central cycle training point in Amsterdam. The project has since been stopped and the policymakers and politicians decided to focus on cycle training for children in general, not for specific target groups.

“The official version for the halt of the programme is that it is hard to reach women with educational programs and it is more easy to reach the children through the schools, said Angela, “The reality is that there are waiting lists for the adult cycle training (some men have also expressed their need for cycle training) and schools are overwhelmed with educational programs and topics. Practical cycle training is often not a priority at schools and it is not easy to organise. It is not a good idea to train children in schools and not train the parents. Cycle training only makes sense if you have the possibility to cycle outside the school and children need their parents or other experienced cyclists to guide them in traffic. It is impossible to organise and finance enough on-road training for children in schools. It is much more efficient, effective and empowering to train the parents to cycle and give them tools to train their children themselves. The basic rules in traffic are being taught at school and of course they should keep on doing this!”

So has the focus on non-Netherlands born people increased their levels of cycling compared to other transport means closer to the Dutch average?

“Well, on a national level we have some information on how much these groups are cycling,” concludes Angela, “but, in regards to a balancing of mode share, very, very little research has been done on the topic and I think all of it is qualitative.”

Angela van der Kloof

Further resources and links:

• Bicycle training for adults in the Netherlands. Good practices and methods (PDF)
• Landelijk Steunpunt Fiet (Dutch National Cycle Training Expertise Centre) 
• Fietsvriendinnen (Cycling Girlfriends)
• Mothers Learn to Cycle (Germany)

***

In the coming days I will continue the series to further detail my arguments in Part One. For Part Three click here. Please join, follow or otherwise watch this space.... and have a safe and truly representative holiday!

What the mayor doesn't always tell you about bike modal share

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 19^th 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!