Rural Post Offices

Not really relevant to the world of stibasa, but talk of the effects of closure of rural post offices provokes thoughts about the role of physical outlets for goods and services.

As readers will gather, I do as much as possible on line, but I do have some sympathy for those who can't or don't want to do this.

I'm also strongly in favour of basic bank accounts - with no overdraft facility (if the customer doesn't want it) and strong capabilities for checking the account balance.

One use of POs is for paying utility bills. Well I'm sorry, but what's wrong with writing a cheque, or filling in a form with card details and posting it back? If necessary, a freepost envelope can be provided by the utility company.

The same applies to TV licences and "car tax". Moreover, these are only renewed once a year and the former is free to over 75s so no money need change hands.

Another use cited is getting cash, but where is this cash to be spent? In the PO where it was just got?

One website I read had a contribution form someone who was concerned about not being able to send parcels. S/he didn't say how many parcels s/he sent, nor how often, nor where s/he bought the things that were in the parcels.

Some people are at least bold enough to say that the PO provides an informal social network. At least this has some merit a village with no public building whatsoever would be a grim dormitory.

What we seem to be getting at is that people want interactions face to face with other people, but they want a pretext for doing it: They don't want to interact with other people for its own sake. Once we decide that we must have places for communities to interact face to face, we start to build the argument the other way round. If people are going to this place, they may as well do practical things while they're there. And the range of goods and services needs to be maximised to make the place a going concern.

She Cycles - the online magazine for women cyclists

http://www.shecycles.com/

Campaign for Real Recycling

"The Campaign for Real Recycling wants central government and local authorities to act urgently to improve the quality of materials collected for recycling in the UK. "

http://www.realrecycling.org.uk/

Social lending

"social lending ... is to introduce people who need money to people who want to lend some - cutting out the middlemen like banks and mortgage companies. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6623267.stm

What's mine is yours - clothes swapping

http://www.whatsmineisyours.com/

Use this site to swap out your unwanted clothes.

Read it swap it

http://www.readitswapit.co.uk/Questions.aspx?Section=Introduction

When you've finished reading a book, set up a swap with this site - all users pay is P&P

Freecycle

http://www.freecycle.org/

Similar to free to collect (see below). Get rid of unwanted stuff / get free stuff.

Free to collect - internet "tip or skip scavenging"

http://www.free2collect.co.uk/

Freecycle is the more well known version of this. You register and then offer stuff free to collect as the name suggests.

Book Crossing (internet book swapping)

http://www.bookcrossing.com/

Site for registering books that you've read, before leaving them somewhere (suitably labelled) for someone else to read and pass on. The books' journeys can be traced if readers record info on line (each book is given a unique number to identify it).

Biodiesel Filling Stations

http://www.biodieselfillingstations.co.uk/

Not much in the Barking area - nearest I spotted was N18 (Upper Edmonton), but there's the possibility of mail order.

Biodiesel seems fine if it's re-using oil from cooking, but growing crops for biodiesel may displace trees that can absorb carbon and therefore worsen the problem it is trying to solve. Also, biomass crops may displace food crops.

Bike / motor bike repair shop, Upton Lane

Someone told me there is an old-fashioned bike/motorbike repair shop in Upton Lane, Forest Gate.

It COULD be (from www.yell.co.uk)


Etty & Tyler
83, Upton Lane, London, E7 9PB
Tel: 020 8472 5797

Biceberg - underground automated cycle parking

http://www.biceberg.es/ingles/

This is the kind of hi tech cycle parking we need at main line stations and high density housing developments.

Dagenham Heathway Upgrade

It's good to read in the Barking & Dagenham Post today (page 11) that work will start soon on doing up the Heathway. Everyone knows it needs it.

The changes are based, I belive, on work done by Living Streets, who recommend improving conditions for walking, cycling and public transport; Heathway has suffered from being designed too much around cars.

I would like to think that our audit of the road back in 2003 for the London Cycle Network (the so-called CRIM) would have been taken into account, but somehow I doubt it: Never mind, the Living Streets report was excellent and if half their recommendations are carried out it will be a massive improvement.

Barking Festival - Saturday 26 May 2007

The Barking & Dagenham Post describes the Barking Festival as "defunct" today, but - contrary to rumours the evening light classical concert in the Abbey Grounds is on (at 7.30). It wouldn't take much to brand everything that's on as part of the Barking Festival - and that will encourage other individuals, firms and organisations to join in.

Just because the council is not doing so much it doesn't mean it can't co-ordinate or lead - but even if it doesn't, why can't we still have the Festival?

Barking Town Centre French Day Friday 1 Jun 2007

Hi
Could you please let me know if you would be available for an hour or two (or more) in Barking Town Centre, helping to promote cycling and the LCC.
No experience is necessary - just being positive about cycling and the LCC and writing down contact details and questions that you can't answer.
We may have a stall and/or a sandwich board so that someone can walk around and attract more attention.

Colin.Newman@stibasa.org.uk

Local Cyclists' Right to Ride Representative
for www.ctc.org.uk in Barking & Dagenham, and
Leader of LCC www.lcc.org.uk B&D branch. www.stibasa.org.uk
Voice (home): Skype/MSN Messenger/020 7871 0489
Mobile: +44 7761 577255
Work: 020 8489 2548

Congestion on no 5 Bus Route

According to the Barking & Dagenham Post (16 May 2007) TfL have decided that "there is not a significant problem" on this route.

GLA Member John Biggs (whose constituency includes B&D) has asked people to contact him if they have changed to driving instead of using the No 5, because of the overcrowding.

It may be that people have also switched to less convenient and/or slower public transport routes, too. John Biggs doesn't ask about this, according to the Post article, but I'd suggest you let him know.

http://www.bdpost.co.uk

John Biggs
GLA
City Hall
The Queen's Walk
London SE1 2AA

Telephone: 020 7983 4350
Email: john.biggs@london.gov.uk

New Highway Code

Two things to do about the highly problematic new Highway Code:

1) Sign the petition - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

2) Ask your MP to sign the Early Day Motion:

EDM 1433: "That the alterations in the provisions of the Highway Code proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for Transport, dated 28th March 2007, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be not made."

Ministers, such as Barking MP Margaret Hodge, do not sign EDMs, but she still needs to be told her consituents' views.

Details of the campaign are here: http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/latest/latest.html#hcedm

Fastticket = Quick ticket = ??

Throughout stibasa I refer to Fastticket, because these are the machines I have direct experience of at c2c stations, Euston and Victoria. However there are machines around badged with other brands, including Quickticket which I saw at stations served by Southwest trains.

I assume these are the same thing, in essence, but have not been able to test this.

Fastticket machines and The trainline

Twice now I have ordered tickets on the internet from The Trainline and all I have had to to collect them at Barking is press one (on screen) button and put my bank card in the slot. The tickets are printed without me having to enter the code that The Trainline supplied. Also, it seems that the payment is taken when the ticket is printed and not when it is ordered.

Drive Safe, Cycle Safe

This is a brief code of practice for cyclists and motorists, attempting to explain to each other how each other tick.

I think it's quite good

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/drs/cyclingandmotorcycling/drivesafecyclesafe

Everyday Cycling

http://www.everydaycycling.com/

"Everyday Cycling started life three years ago [sic] as an idea in the mind of British Cycling’s Ian Drake, who saw the need for a bright, vibrant online cycling community where you could find out everything you needed to know about leisure cycling; places to ride, leisure events, charity rides, what to ride, advice on kit. Moreover, Ian foresaw a virtual place where leisure cyclists could meet, chat and interact – a website that would at the same time stimulate and record activity. Thus, the Everyday Cycling concept was born."

I think this site is mis-named - who goes leisure cycling every day? Even so, it looks good and may be useful.

Vibrant Hometown

http://vibranthometown.com/

This is a US site about collaborative, people centred town planning. In particular, follow the link to Curitiba to read about that fascinatingly planned and run Brazilian City. But there's a lot of interesting stuff here.

CO2 based CPZ charges

Barking & Dagenham Council is considering tiered CPZ parking charges based on the CO2 emission rating of cars, following the lead from a few other London councils. The Barking & Dagenham Post (25 April) quoted interviews with two people - one in favour of protecting the planet whilst not being against "gas-guzzlers" as such and another vehemently against, on two grounds, one of which was that "it's a free country" and the council shouldn't tell people what car to drive. Not a terribly convincing argument as it ignores the council's role in trying to protect the planet.

Halfords Dagenham

The article about Police on Bikes referred to below mentions Halfords in Ripple Road, Dagenham. Presumably they mean the one in Merrielands Retail Park (Merrielands Crescent). The Halfords website www.halfords.co.uk suggests that the Dagenham branch doesn't have a bike department. I'll check. Perhaps they were just ordered for collection there, or it was a special presentation being a community initiative.

Police on bikes

The Police on bikes revolution continues apace. The Barking & Dagenham Post of 25 April had two items:

The first says how members of the London Riverside Business Improvement District have donated £4000 for the Rainham & Wennington Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) to buy seven mountain bikes - and the Rainham shopkeepers association chipped in £900. [I assume this is in the Barking & Dagenham Post as Dagenham will soon be part of a parliamentary constituency with parts of LB Havering].

The Reede Road Tenants and Residents' Association bought four new £300 maountain bikes from Dagenham Halfords for the Alibon & Eastbrook SNT. The Sergeant in charge is quoted as saying "we were desperate for more bikes".

www.stibasa.org.uk has several articles along similar lines, written since the police cottoned on how effective bikes can be in their work.

Climate Challenge website

http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/

"Climate change is one of the biggest challenges we face today. The first step towards tackling the problem is to make sure everyone understands exactly what the challenge is and the difference they could make.

That's why talking about climate change is so important. We need to educate, excite and inspire others so that we can start working together to tackle climate change. The information on this site can help you understand, and tell the climate change story.

This website is part of the Climate Change Communication Initiative led by Defra, in partnership with the Environment Agency, the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust, the UK Climate Impacts Programme, the Department for Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry."

youtube videos about bike lanes / bike boulevards

Not written by Colin, please note!

-----Original Message-----
From: lcc-issues@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lcc-issues@yahoogroups.com] Sent: 26 April 2007 11:03
To: lcc-issues@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lcc-issues]
Dear xxxxx
xxxxx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There currently are two interesting videos on youtube about
> bike lanes.
>
> One is about "bike boulevards" in Berkeley, CA:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX8wkI7CwpU

> The other one is about folks demanding segregated cycle
> lanes in NYC:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONS2ptAR4mo


These clips are an excellent find! The first seems to offer a real solution to the way in which the LCN+ can be delivered and indeed expanded as the programme comes to an end--to produce a dense network of core routes with the rest of the street network modified (more subtly)
to 'feed' it.

With Brent Cyclists' approval, I will be putting forward proposals based on the clip in this year's funding bid to TfL (now called the Local Implementation Plan Annual Progress Report--LIP APR).

By the look of what the clip shows, whole routes can be completed for a minimal budget and the key feature of them is motor traffic volume and speed reduction through the installation of mode and directional filters and carefully designed facilities where needed. And we should not simply assume that the network should be confined to quieter streets--main roads can equally be transformed into 'bicycling boulevards' too, albeit with a more rigorous approach to design and more investment.

As a transport planner, I have to justify bids that I make to Transport for London. The bids are based (unfortunately) on assuming that cyclists only ever use defined routes--the idea that a cyclist might diverge from the set route is, in some engineers' minds, rather alien. But since the
defined network exists, it does at least offer a key opportunity for improving their public realm (I've long thought of them as opportunities to create exemplary corridors for public realm enhancement).

However much can be done through permeability enhancements. Across Brent there are gated road closures that don't admit cycles (and where they once did, residents' complaints about motorcycles have resulted in further obstruction). We've undertaken a study of these road closures with a view to converting them to mode filters--in order to give cyclists and pedestrians together advantages over motor traffic. Each costs between £2k and £5k depending on the workload. We've also installed new mode filters: one experimental closure is very significant in traffic terms and will give a very substantial benefit to pedestrians and cyclists over motors.

> [the second clip is] awful. All the old nonsense about segregation. Practically no mention of any of the problems created by that "solution" (doors, peds, hard to pass other cyclists, and traffic turning at intersections). Note that when you watch the traffic shown, the two things creating conflict most frequently are parked cars and turning vehicles. Both are more of a problem with segregated cycle lanes than without. The turning traffic is potentially the most lethal, but doesn't get mentioned. <

Yes, but the case for segregation is compelling in too many minds. Many would view this clip and--even with your commentary--see all of the conflicts of the old system (brought about by a lack of enforcement) washed away by the gleaming new cycle tracks and see the result they
want to see, i.e. lots of happy cyclists.

I've recently visited Holland and toured Amsterdam, Utrecht and Delft. I have to admit that despite my views on segregation I actually rather enjoyed using the facilities provided--and I don't think that the system should be dismissed as a whole for ideological reasons. Looking at the system from the point of view of other tourists to the area I can actually understand why it is so superficially attractive. The simple fact is that (and you can argue the toss about an existing cycling culture) the careful design of facilities appears both popular and practical.

Notwithstanding, on my arrival back in the UK, my head filled with ideas about how we can transform our street network for cycling, I found myself suddenly really enjoying the freedom of sharing the streets again and only wanting minimal interventions in a few places.

One thing that struck me on my visit was just how much you have to concentrate when cycling in Holland. The facilities don't often make cycling a relaxing experience. Quite often they are confusing--to the extent that, thinking I had right of way across one street, I came closer to my end than I have ever come in London, and in another case I found myself accidentally riding the wrong way along a one way street with no space for me and the approaching juggernaut which emerged from under the railway bridge! Not only that, but to make a left turn at a signalised junction, you have to travel two sides of a triangle, the third side being the more logical progression we are used to in the UK--this actually undermines cyclist priority. Oh, and where you are expected to use the third side there's invariably a car stopped in the ASL--familiar?

I think that there are things we can learn in the UK from what happens in Holland and the US. The bicycle boulevard idea, for people like us who are not friends of segregation is attractive. A few carefully designed facilities would also be helpful if they mean increased permeability and real advantages over motor traffic--I can think of a few possibilities along the Marylebone / Euston Road. I think that we (and this includes me) need to open our minds a little to the
possibility that *some* facilities _are_ actually better than none at all, in addition to the idea that an improved public realm will do much on its own to encourage both walking and cycling.

And what of my favourite Dutch facility? Well, as you might imagine I saw plenty of provision of varying quality but impressive adherence to an obvious code. But the one that sticks in my mind most of all is the long 'B' style road between Utrecht and Amsterdam that has a wide kerb
'cycle lane' (actually never marked as a cycle lane; more of a hard shoulder) that forced drivers into the centre of the road to face each other head on. Should they wish to pass they have to move over to the right (the left in the UK), taking care not to wipe out any cyclists in the process. There are so many cyclists using this road that motorists would not be wise to drive without care and attention. And, importantly, there is no centre line.

Fundamentally though, in our campaigning we actually have to consider how we can best serve the needs of people with children, disabled cyclists and those who are quite simply frightened of the motor traffic. It's all very well for us experienced cyclists to specify 'share the
road' when we are confident doing so--but how do our ideas fit the needs
other people?

Jumping red lights is safer?

Please note that this item was not written by Colin!


On 04/24/07 20:14>

Tonight's Evening Standard tells us that "Male cyclists who jump red
> lights 'are safer'." Below is the full text of the article, lifted
> from
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393622-details/Male+cyclists+who+jump+red+lights+%27are+safer%27/article.do

What should LCC's response be? Silence, agreement, a call for better training targeted at women, a campaign to promote awareness of the dangers of being caught on the blind-side of a driver turning left?

Our first response should be to help people understand the stats, and not draw unwarranted conclusions.

(I'm sorry if the below is a bit verbose and many of you know all this, but the misconceptions about this are so prevalent that I feel compelled to elaborate).

Let me explain:

Quoting the "thisislondon.co.uk" article (but this has appeared all over the media): According to the study, 86 per cent of women cyclists killed in London between 1999 and 2004 were in collision with a lorry. This compares with 47 per cent for men.

Fine. Now read this very carefully. All it says is that (a) women cyclists *who get killed* get killed more often by a lorry (86 percent) than male cyclists *who get killed* get killed by a lorry (47 percent), and (b) women cyclists *who get killed* get killed much more often by a lorry than by another vehicle (86 vs 14 percent) and men cyclists *who get killed* get killed about equally often by a lorry as by another vehicle (47 vs 53).

The first question here should be: So what? (you can't imagine how often when people throw
around statistics this should be the first question). Why should we care? I'm a female cyclist, and if one day a vehicle kills me, I don't give two hoots whether it's a
lorry or a car than has run me down. Dead is dead.

Of course, people take the above stats to mean something completely different, namely:
"Women cyclists are more likely to be killed by lorries than men".

This is *cannot* be concluded at all from the above stats, so to make this statement without any additional data is wrong.

Equally wrong is the other conclusion made by many headlines:

-- Male cyclists ... 'are safer' (thisislondon.co.uk)
-- Women cyclists 'risk death' [implied: more than men
cylcists] ... (times online)

Why are they wrong?

(1) "Women are more likely to be run over by a lorry than men"

We need more data to make that statement.

Why? It could be that men and women are equally likely to be killed by a lorry, but that male cyclists are more likely to be killed by other types of vehicles than women. This could lead to
the same 86 vs 47 percent discrepancy that is so widely cited.

Let's have a look:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/chinese-whispers-female-cyclists-killed-by-hgvlgvs-in-london-1999-2004
cites TfL: "from 1999 - May 2004:
87 deaths of cyclists of which 21 were female, 66 male Of those 21 females an astonishing 18 (85%) were killed by HGV drivers. Another 28 of the males (around 50%) were also killed by
HGVs."

So, many more dead men than women, and more dead men killed by lorries (28) than women killed by lorries (21). Of course, to conclude anything from that alone is wrong again, because we need to know the proportion of male vs female cyclists in traffic, and see if the above ratio differs from that.

The Independent had the best article about the issue that I've read, available here:
http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article2413395.ece

This says about the male:female cyclist ratio that "[w]hile it was about 73:27 at the start of the decade, statistics from TfL show that it had moved to about 60:40 by 2005."

So compare the numbers (m:f):
Killed by lorry: 28:21 = 1.3
Proportion of cyclists: between 70:30 = 2.3 and 60:40 = 1.5

So it _does_ seem that women are _slightly_ more likely to be killed by a lorry than men, but this difference is small (1.3 vs anything between 1.5-2.3), maybe not even statistically significant, if you compare 1.3 to 1.5. The statistics about male vs female cyclist proportion is probably not very accurate, and the numbers of killed cyclists are (fortunately!) quite small for statistical standards, both of which mean that the difference could well be by chance. In any case, the difference is much smaller than the almost twofold diffence suggested by the "86 vs 47" comparison.

(2) "Men are safer cyclists":

(m:f): Killed: 66:21 = 3.14
Proportion of cyclists: between 70:30 = 2.3 and 60:40 = 1.5

So men are really more likely to be killed than women. Again, the difference is not huge, and the sample size is small, so this is not too meaningful, but the difference here is greater and the sample size is greater than for the "killed by lorry" data, so if you believe from the data above that women are more likely to be killed by a lorry you should definitely believe that men are more likely to be killed in the first place.

So whatever you want to do as a woman, you do not want to unequivocally "ride like a man", as the velorution blog had in its title.

*** Conclusions ***
Of course, taken together, the data above do say something we should care about. Here's what I would say we can conclude from them, and what LCC should do about it:

(1) Lorries are dangerous. They are overrepresented as a cause of cyclist death _both_ for women _and_ for men (since they make up nowhere near even 50 percent of the traffic).
This is no secret. LCC already do stress this point, and we should continue to stress this point. Fitting extra mirrors and pushing cyclist training are the way to go, as is the rethinking of ASLs and especially lefthand feeder lanes. Also, emphasize that the classic left hook with lorries
would most likely not diminish with the presence of segregated cycle lanes, on the contrary. Emphasize that this means that cycle training and driver education are much more
helpful than putting in cycle lanes, segregated or not.

(2) The safety record for men and women cyclists is quite similar, but it is slightly better for women. So if anything, men should ride more like women, but I would not say the data warrant making that recommendation. Besides, there are many differences between the riding styles of men and women, and we need extra information about which aspects of each style are worthy to emulate (we have some such information, and cycle training incorporates the insights, but it is not in the data above).

(3) While the overall safety record of men and women is similar, there could to be a slight difference in what types of vehicles kill them. This difference is nowhere near as big as 2:1, which is how many people read the 84:47 numbers. Under the assumption that this difference is real at all, it would make sense to target advice that prevents cyclist-lorry collisions more heavily at women *and* to target advice to prevent other types of collisions more heavily at men. Note the *and*. However, we don't know whether the difference is real, and since it is very likely that the difference isn't real, we should not waste valuable resources on ensuring that men and women are targeted differently.

(4) We cannot conclude that jumping red lights makes you safer. Even the basic assumption doesn't hold (men safer than women). Jumping red lights might conceivably get you out of the path of the bus into the path of a different vehicle crossing at speed. I am not arguing that it does, but the data would match this pattern. However, one good thing about the media bollocks in my view is that it spreads the notion that at least some red light jumping cyclists are
motivated by safety concerns rather than by aggressiveness. This is another point LCC might want to underline.

Cut price home insulation

Mayor Ken Livingstone and British Gas are offering you the chance to make big savings on insulating your home. So it will now cost you as little as £250 for cavity wall and £274 for loft insulation.

Once you have insulated your property there is a £100 cashback for paying households. Everyone who lives in London can take up this offer - regardless of which company supplies your energy.

If you are in receipt of benefits you may be entitled to FREE insulation.

To find-out more about this offer visit www.london.gov.uk/insulate or call 0845 070 5059 quoting WEB GLA.
Terms and conditions apply.

Bickerton for free

Someone in Brondesbury is giving away a Bickerton and another old bike surplus to requirements. He wants them to go to a good home, not for re-sale. Contact Tim T.Dawson@crd.co.uk