Recent blog on Cycling in the City praises Hackney as Census 2011 shows it to have highest proportion of residents cycling to work (15.4%). Same blog lambasts Westminster in particular as it has low proportion cycling to work (5.3%). This is perhaps a trifle unfair. The Census also shows that (a) Westminster has the highest proportion walking to work (21.5%) of all London Boroughs and (b) more people go to work by car in Hackney than Westminster. If we take all active travel, walking and cycling, then Hackney is still best (28%) but Westminster is a close 3rd at 27%.
So in comparing boroughs, need to take account of a lot of factors that affect cycling, not just Local Authority transport policy. Hackney is right to celebrate its high levels of cycling. But in a borough like Westminster where there are lots of local jobs, you are not going to get the same levels of cycle commuting whatever the transport policy. For the record the figures for Southwark are 7.7% cycling to work, 13% walking, making us 7th out of 33 for active travel to work. For more on who cycles where in London see my article in London Cyclist, Feb/Mar 2013 NICE public health guidance Issued: November 2012 PH41
Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking and cycling as forms of travel or recreation Not surprisingly says cycling and walking are the best ways to get people more active and to improve their health. NICE stress the need to put cycling and walking in all policies. Policies under a range of heading should include cycling and walking. Relevant policies and plans include those on:
As the BBC put it: “...people should shun their cars if a trip could be done in 15 or 20 minutes on foot or bike.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20499005 Specific policies for promoting cycling that were suggested include:
In the new public health structure, cycling should be part of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy for every local authority and should be funded by the new Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). Funds should also be available to promote cycling from other budgets as appropriate, for example for some infrastructure improvement from the transport budget or for recreational cycling from sports and recreation budgets. What is lacking from the NICE report? Very little quantitation. No clear targets – maybe this is not what NICE feels its role is. But also, little imagination. Depends overmuch on published research in an area (cycling promotion) where very little research exists. So we have led walks given as a suggested activity backed up by several studies. But led cycle rides are ignored as no one has ever done a proper study. Finally, extremely unclear on who is responsible for planning and funding cycle promotion. Says CCGs should fund – but this would only be directly health related. Mentions multiple sources of funding for different aspects as appropriate. Which really means no one will be responsible. Cycling “champions” are mentioned, but their powers and budgets are not mentioned. They are undoubtedly a good idea but need to have the resources to make a difference. However, these guidelines could be really useful. But it will depend on us pressing and campaigning to get some of the structure proposed by NICE in place and resourced. Links: NICE Walking and Cycling Overview. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/walking-and-cycling#content=close NICE PH41Walking and Cycling Guidance. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13975/61629/61629.pdf This is the main conclusion from a new analysis by Jenny Mindell, Deborah Leslie and Malcolm Wardlow.
For short trips where cycling or walking might be used, there is little difference between these 2 modes on average in numbers of fatalities or hospital admissions. The difference from previous analyses is because off-highway cycling numbers are excluded and all on highway pedestrian incidents are included (only those directly involving motorised vehicles have previously been included; tripping over uneven pavement and similar causes of injuries have been left out previously). But the average conceals an interesting gender difference. Pedestrian casualties are much less for women than men (until you reach your 70s). So cycling compared with walking is relatively safer for males, but more dangerous for females. On a per time basis, cycling is a bit more dangerous than walking because average speeds are 3 times greater. So journeys last less time for the same number of incidents, hence the rate per time is higher. For 17-20 year olds males, cycling is safer than driving as casualty rates when driving are very high for young males. The authors stress that for everyone except the elderly, risks of cycling (and walking) are not high. You could cycle for 40 years doing 1 hour every day and only have a 1 in 150 chance of being killed. They also looked at comparable data from the Netherlands. Our cycling injury rates are 4 times higher (but driving rates are similar). So still plenty of room for improvement. As in many previous studies, Mindell and colleagues stress that the health gains from the physical activity involved in cycling greatly outweigh the small risks of becoming a traffic casualty. Full paper is published in the December 2012 issue of the open access journal PLOS One, Vol 7, Issue 12. At a recent junction review meeting someone referred to a "London Right" turn. This turns out to be a "Copenhagen Left", except the mirror image as we ride on the other side of the road. You make a right turn at a light controlled junction as follows. Continue straight, keeping to the left, and stop in front of the stationary traffic in the road joining from the left. When the lights change, you go straight across. You have made a London right! There may be road markings to indicate a "refuge" in front of the stop line. An example here and a video here. What do people think of this manoeuvre? Does anyone know an example in the UK where this is marked on the road?
Idea for the Healthy Ride next Saturday, from Michael and David. Down to Greenwich and through the foot tunnel to Island Gardens. Along the North bank westwards to Tower Bridge. Return via Tower Bridge and the South bank. 10.3 miles - so about the usual length of run. Proposed route : http://g.co/maps/tqgpq
|
AuthorI run short "healthy rides" for Southwark Cyclists. Have a background in exercise science. Archives
March 2021
Categories |