Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London (opens in new tab)

The newer style of cargo bikes can for many families replace a car. Have two kids seated in the trunk of the bike and drop them off at kindergarten, then continue biking to work and pick them up on the way home.

Those are a bit on the pricier side, though. Still cheap compared to a car, but people often look at them as something "extravagant" or "in addition" to a car. But they can be a replacement for most car use, and then just rent a car for other more seldom occasions.

And to avoid the initial big purchase, not even sure if it's something for you, there's a startup where I live ( https://whee.no/ ) where you also can rent the bike on a monthly basis. Really recommended to see if it suits your lifestyle.

Lastly, I also think this kind of easier movement will change how people live. You can no longer expect to move out of the city and still get a short way to everything by using your car, making life miserable for everyone else (noise, danger, pollution, too much asphalt). So I think we will see a shift in where people settle, where they will no longer base their lives around owning multiple cars.

Even on a city free of private cars, you’d still share the road with pedestrians, other cyclists, and public transportation.

And even if you really don’t hurt someone else, it’s terribly hard on a bus driver if they kill someone, even when it wasn’t their fault (my wife saw this first hand when someone committed suicide by throwing themselves under a bus).

So no, if you drink, just walk, take public transportation, or get someone else to take you home, but don’t ride a bike.

(edit: typos)

I bike year-round in Warsaw, Poland, even though most people consider winter to be "off-season". Don't really understand why — they do go skiing after all, so cold must not be the problem? The only days I don't bike is when it's raining heavily or when it's really slippery (lots of snow, freshly frozen sleet, etc).

There are days when I don't ride a bike, and on these days I can really tell the difference: I feel much worse.

I found that what I miss when switching to a car is the sense of freedom: on a bike, you can stop pretty much anywhere, while in a car you need to follow the road in the traffic and are generally stuck. No way to stop quickly, take a phone call, or admire the pretty passers-by.

Also, switching to an E-bike was a great idea: it doesn't take away the exercise (as most people tend to think), it just makes biking more pleasant and extends the max distance I can go. And in summertime I can set the assist to max and not worry about arriving all sweaty.

If you live in a city, I'd highly recommend getting a city E-bike. Not a mountain bike. A city bike with proper mudguards, upright posture, and a large basket in front. Don't be that guy in lycra pants on a mountain bike, with a backpack on his (sweaty) back, taking the full additional weight of the backpack on the narrow seat, and with a mud stripe on his back. Enjoy life!

As the Dutch like to say: there is no such thing as bad cycling weather, only bad cycling clothes.

I would strongly recommond a pair of water/wind proof trousers to go over your regular trousers, if you don't already have some. This has lead to a much more pleasant riding experience, especially in winter. They aren't very practical on a regular bike as they make you uncomfortably hot, but on an e-bike, it's much less of a worry.

One morning I overtook a colleague on an e-bike (max 45km/h) with my motorcycle. A few streets later I overtook him again, since he took a shortcut that I was not allowed to take.

A bit later I overtook him again, since I had a red light and he again took a shortcut.

We arrived at the same time at work. Impressive!

We live with 1 child and no car and it's been working fine thus far. You have to be careful about where you live and work though, but I'd say the added quality of life of living car-free (in a car-free city) is all worth it.

And yet, here we have California (especially LA) with the best cycling weather but barely any safe cycling routes. LA is laughably bad with tons of "bike routes" that are just the rightmost car lane shared with bicycles.

But car commute is still faster. I can get from home to work in ~35 minutes at lower traffic (say 10AM, blessed be flexible work hours) and in MAX hour in more of a rush traffic. Best time by bicycle is around 1h10m. I do park at work building so that's 5-10 minutes of looking for parking saved there. Technically I can get there by 50 min if I get with bike to metro but that's pretty much possible only on off hours.

It's definitely pretty nice way to keep in shape, now with more remote work I just use the time saved to do some cycling. Did it pretty much "from when it stopped snowing to when it started", 20km a day (I went via metro in the morning, came back cycling, just didn't wanted to do all the mess with arriving sweaty and having shower at work every day), including few in pouring rain at near-zero 0C which was.. experience and I have now learned to stop shivering by force of will alone.

Thought I'd get less fat but it didn't work, tho I did get more healthy overall. Diet is the key in the end.

> - somewhat dangerous when the infrastructure is lacking.

Yeah I try to not share any road with cars as much as I could. For 10 years I don't think I had a day where I didn't saw some car doing something sketchy or just driver not paying attention. Not that cyclists were holy here just... much less potential for damage.

> - you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;

please just don't

Bakfiets[1][2] FTW!! I lived with my two young (under 10) children in Amsterdam for one year without car relying 90% on Bakfiets and occasional Uber rides. After a brief period of teething issues it worked out perfect, even in winters/rains. I used the non-e-bike version as I didn't want to splurge on Urbanarrow about which I kept hearing raving reviews.

[1] https://www.bakfiets.com

[2] https://urbanarrow.com

I've had many bikes stolen and everyone I know who rides has at least one bike stolen.

I've never had anything stolen from my car and no issues with car theft, and I don't know anyone who has had their car stolen.

I've met two people in my life who have had items stolen from their car, and in both cases they left their car unlocked.

A pedestrian I know was seriously injured (brain damage, years of therapy) by a cyclist who was going the wrong way down a one-way street.

To be fair, the cyclist wasn't drunk, ... so maybe the drinking bit is completely irrelevant. Carry on then.

I'd add to your list: No stress of driving in traffic. Imagine your ride home is pleasant personal time and exercise in the fresh air, not cars honking in a standstill in traffic. You feel better after riding.

I've had bike shops apologize for a $20 charge. :D They are thinking in a different context; I'm comparing that to my alternative, a car and its repair bills.

> significantly faster if parking is taken into account for most trips. The bike is faster for any < 10 km / 7 mi trip;

I don't think many people realize it: It's far more practical and efficient to ride. When you start doing it, driving (those distances) becomes frustrating and tedious, an odd choice given one that's faster, cheaper, and much better in all the other ways you listed.

At an easy pace, a bicycle goes ~16 km/hr (10 mi/hr). Especially in a dense city, think what's within 5-10 miles of you. Imagine very little traffic and then parking for free, without looking for a spot, within probably 20m of the door (depending on the city and bike parking rules).

> about €300/month in additional disposable income

And how about the cost of the bicycle? $250-600 for a good one, used or new. I own several for different purposes, guests, etc. That would be pretty expensive if it was a car.

And if it's stolen or damaged, buy another.

> Cons:

Also, not an option for those without the coordination to ride safely or durability to fall safely. Everyone falls. Elderly people can easily break bones.

For the latter, perhaps see "The Car-Replacement Bicycle (the bakfiets)":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA

> - weather might make the ride unpleasant;

I live in Toronto, Canada, and in the Before Times I cycled everday between ~April and December, rain or shine. The simplest solution is to just always have bad weather gear: it's like and doesn't take up much volume. Having it in a pannier means you always have it and don't have to think about it. The simplest solution for rain is a poncho, though I went with jackets and rain pants.

I found the threat of rain is more of an obstacle that actual rain. If your commute is <40 minutes, odds are pretty good it won't actually rain during your ride. It's the possibility of it that tends discourage people, in which case some gear works to counter it.

That said, if you ride >80% of the time when the weather isn't too bad that's still a good improvement over not riding at all.

While significantly less of a hassle than car maintenance, if you are riding a bike daily, you do now need to consider bike maintenance. And theft remains an issue in many cities for bikes as well.

Please don't take that attitude ...

I have a work colleague who basically had an ankle tendon sliced by just such a person.

The very likely outcome now is that they will never walk or run normally ever again.

You are concerned about car theft but not about e-bike theft. How come? Stealing e-bike is so much easier.

I can only speak for Austria and Germany, two countries that have the Pendlerpauschale, a tax rebate for those with a long commute and motorists far too much from this, it's even worse in Austria where high-income earner profit more from this than lower-income earners. Would that be dropped people would finally move closer to work (or work closer to them) and a lot of traffic into the city I live could be avoided (which would possibly lead to city residents using their car more often...)

> - significantly faster if parking is taken into account for most trips.

Fun fact about this: If a city reduces free/cheap over-ground parking and builds a few more parking houses, traffic can increase because straight driving to a parking house makes parking easier because they stop bothering looking for the few remaining overground parking spots.

>- might be impossible depending on >work or children; > >- weather might make the ride >unpleasant; > >- somewhat dangerous when the >infrastructure is lacking.

None of those things are so bad once you get used to them, except perhaps the 3rd.

I've used a bike for commuting for years.

Since having kids I now have a seat on the back and one on the front to drop them to childcare.

The city I live in rains a lot! And it is quite hilly, and this is a normal bike, not an ebike.

But I still prefer it much more than driving, I just have the waterproof gear at hand.

The infrastructure and weather was a lot better for cycling in the city I just moved from, but I think even without good cycling lanes etc, if you are vigilant, signal well, and be assertive when needed it can still be fine.

The public (media) conversation has largely focused on whether people give up cars entirely, but at least in America, the norm is for most families to have two cars, if not more. Walking that back to one car would meaningfully reduce the design constraints on medium-density housing — you can build a neighborhood of small houses with only street parking, for example, which is basically impossible when people need two cars — and therefore it would also reduce housing costs in urban neighborhoods.

Ebikes could significantly help with that even if they don't lead to the car-free future envisioned by some techno-urbanists. For example, your girlfriend has a car.

Wow. After a family member of mine being injured by a cyclist crashing into them, reading something like this is quite infuriating.

If you drink, don't drive, even if it's a bicycle.

I live in a place with fantastic bike-ability, but don't shop because of theft concerns.

Is that different in London?

You may, especially that ebikes are hella fast. Dont ride after alcohol.

In my country you would lose car license if they caught you driving a bike while drunk

The amount of expensive add-ons I see on the bikers and their bikes suggest to me it's good business. Helmets, clothing, and electronic add-ons are likely adding around £1,000 per annum to the cost of ownership.

Bikes prices are a bit silly though. Expensive bikes (those in the £3,000 range) are ~25% of the price of a new Dacia Sandero.

Bike theft is rampant in London, so the insurance premiums are high, too. It can cost £300 per year.

Cons? Not all offices are equipped with showers.

I'm glad you're in a city you don't have to worry about theft, but this is one of my biggest issues with bike ownership. You basically need to get a shitty bike to not worry about it being stolen or hope there's something adequate to firmly lock it to at the destination in my city.

Then I look at NYC and it's $5k to rent a 1 bedroom and everything as soon as you walk out the door is 30-50% more expensive than most other cities.

No one is saving money not having a car in NYC when everything else is so much more expensive.

It's interesting you mention that. When I took up cycling to work in Manchester, I started struggling to fall fully asleep because I'd have short pseudo-dreams about the POV of cycling on wet, dark, busy roads & jerk awake, scared that I was falling asleep at the handlebars.

You definitely can still kill someone.

In at least some countries an 'e-bike', depending of exactly which type it is, may be motor vehicle that falls into the exact same laws as drink driving a car. If not it may still be illegal to ride a bike on the road while drunk.

I'll note that getting rid of a lot of cars would be nice for safety and pollution reasons, but many proponents underestimate how difficult the kid situation becomes, especially after having more than one. People tend to move their families to the suburbs for a reason.

This sounds unlikely for the average cycling commuter if parking alone is making the difference- cyclists (as motorcyclists) need to change (at each side) and shower etc; I think that is often forgotten in these calculations.

It actually depends, but chances are better.

> do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft;

Isn't bicycle theft wider than car theft in Europe? Bycicle is easier to steal and easier to sell to black market resellers.

How do you protect your bike? Isn't it more likely to get your bike wheels stolen than to get your car stolen?

Also, 10eur for just one lunch?? 8D

a dog it's even worse in this regard. I don't think any taxi will refuse a child.

You might however end up at the hospital doing that, or worse.

You might kill yourself though.

I was at my local bar here in Ontario and a gang of older fellows (boomer/Gen X) roll up on electric stand-up scooters.

Some drunk zoomers started laughing and giving them shit and flexing their trucks but they just ignored them, had their 3-4 beers and said they were going to <fancy uptown bar> which would have been at least 45 minutes to walk.

(other than yourself)

> do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft;

Not sure where bicycle theft is not a thing, I've not encountered this, even in Vienna, one of the safest cities in the world. You still need to lock your bicycle safely.

> you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;

In London I see plenty of irresponsible cyclists badly harming pedestrians.

> amazing when the weather is great;

Or you end up drenched in sweat wherever you go. Personally I hate cycling for that reason as a way of commute in the city.

Other reasons why I hate cycling and cyclists:

- Uneven roads, pot holes, getting splashed by cars who drive through puddles

- Inflexibility. You go somewhere, meet someone or your group of friends now spontaneously decide to move on to a different place and you'll be the loner who has to split from the group and meet them later again or you have to abandon your bicycle and get back the next day to pick it up. Sod that.

- Helmets. I can't stand helmet hair. Also how fucking annoying is it to have to carry your helmet everywhere even after parking your bicycle.

- Dirty clothes. You always end up with muddy splashes on your trousers. If you cycle then better not wear nice shoes or light trousers, which again limits where/when you can effectively use a bicycle as a way of commute.

- Male genitalia. Cyclists completely kill off their male reproductive parts. If you cycle your whole life for daily commuting to places then you'll certainly end up with fertility issues and probably require assistance to get erected in older age. No thank you lol.

Cycling is hugely overrated and I can't find anything nice about it to be honest. I rather have cities be transformed into amazing public transport systems so that I can go to places without a stupid castration apparatus.

Just an example of what a weird anomalous zone it is: the King (or Queen) of England is not legally allowed to enter without explicit permission from the mayor — not the mayor of London, the Lord Mayor of this square mile. It's like if Wall Street could tell the President of the US to take a hike.

https://trashfuturepodcast.podbean.com/e/unlocked-britainolo...

If you consider levying a $20-30/day tax to every driver,[1] plus another $12/day if your car is too old,[2] plus $200-600/year to park on public roads,[3] causing people to stop driving as remarkable, then sure.

Edit: why the downvotes?

[1]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10279911/Sadiq-Khan... [2]https://www.carthrottle.com/post/youll-now-be-charged-extra-... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty

One of the big problems London has is that each borough decides how much to invest in cycling infrastructure, and a commute is only as good as its worst section. My commute from northern Camden to the City is a pleasure, a commute from west London through Kensington will be more of a pain.

IMO TfL should force the creation of good grade-separate cycle lanes in all of the major streets in London, just like they force standardised bus stops. Currently one single borough is screwing over a quarter of the city.

Also worth noting they broke up all other forms of transport i.e cars, buses, vans, etc. So it's more like cyclists make up 25% of road traffic against powered vehicles in a very small area of London, at particular times of day.

I do 40+ miles a day on road across London and would be really surprised if these figures hold up in general.

I thought that maybe the metric they were using ("the single largest vehicular mode counted during peak times on City streets”) meant they were measuring how many vehicles of a certain type were passing by. And since in gridlock bicycles travel faster than cars, you'd have more bicycles passing by than cars.

TfL had the good fortune and opportunity to repurpose two lanes of Upper Thames St. and Victoria Embankment (one single road) into cycle lanes, and also Southwark Bridge.

Without that last part, there's pretty much no other major 'through' routes that could be made safe for cyclists in the City. If there aren't any protected bike no one uses them. The vast majority of journeys into the City are along that new cycle 'superhighway'.

During one of the lockdowns in 2020 when almost all the hotels were closed I was staying near Blackfriars and traveling to the West End on my brompton. It was great, there was barely any traffic on the roads - very few buses, taxis, vans or lorries. It was only about 2 miles, but it was the most relaxed commute I've had in years.

Tried it again recently, not a nice thing at all, mainly because of the buses.

North Americans especially might be surprised at how aggressively they are removing motor vehicles from the district (Down over 50% since 1999). New developments are very pedestrian and cycle friendly- eg my large workplace build five—odd years ago had 500+ bike spaces, desks for 5,000 and a single digit number of car parking spaces (for VVIPs and disabled staff only) - they are also converting many streets back to vehicle-free open spaces. This is all quite popular and mostly uncontroversial.

I've marked them in the map, roughly: https://i.imgur.com/GieyqDm.png

It’s decisions all the way down. The question is „What is the outcome we want and what‘s the road to get there.“

Cars are the recent addition, and they are being restricted because they were causing issues. The alternative is bulldozing the city for some highways, which does not really sound very natural to me.

Oil is the most subsidised industry in America. Oil is more expensive pretty much everywhere but Saudi Arabia where you can get it by kicking about the sand.

Despite all the restrictions London has placed, it is still the most gridlocked city in the planet, with the lowest traffic movement. London has too many people, and too many cars despite its incredible public transport options.

On of the main reasons is that it is not a very tall city, low density means sprawl, means lots of cars. Replace a lot of the Zone 1 2 floor flats with a garden for a 10 story multi family house and suddenly car useage would plummet.

Cars killed those services. Nothing about that was "natural." Cars need to be contained to uses where they are strictly needed in order for such services to come back.

With work-at-home as a new norm there is much less need for commuting. With delivery there is much less need to drive from store to store on shopping trips. The American "geography of nowhere" is a blight to be eradicated.

UK sales tax IS 20 for almost all goods! Why is this a reason? Can't think what other "regulations" there are in their characteristics other than emmissions?

If you don't, you get the tragedy of the commons.

The more that pedestrians and cyclists dominate, the faster the shift from ugly, dirty roads to a pleasant human centred urban environment.

* Indifference from the Police most of the time * Extreme vitriol from motorists who seem to literally believe that all harm is caused by cyclists * Illogical city planning where cyclists are constantly being moved from safe spaces directly into busy traffic.

We have a sick motor-centric society in the UK and along with the rest of climate problems that are ignored/underplayed, I don't know how long until we can say that we are a cycle-friendly country.

It is still good news. People need to find better modes of transportation for both the environment and for society. It is just that the title doesn't mean what it suggests.

I live in Cambridge and have lost count of the number of times I've had to contend with cyclists blowing through pedestrian crossings on a red light (or zebra crossings at any time) when I'm trying to walk over them, or cycling the wrong way down a one-way street - or on the wrong side of the road - or had to dodge people cycling on the pavement.

When driving I've nearly hit several cyclists. Examples include: one leapt off of the pavement out of nowhere in front of me, one blew through a red light at traffic lights with a restricted view, and one was cycling the wrong way around a roundabout. The first two of these aren't one-off scenarios. Fortunately on all occasions I was paying attention so managed to take evasive action. Similar incidents have occurred when I've been on my motorcyle, most of which have been near misses, but on one especially ridiculous occasion a cyclist ran into the back of me at a set of traffic lights.

What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware). It needs to become socially unacceptable to cycle without due care and attention to the safety of others (the same way drink-driving has become, not just legislated against, but enforced against and socially unacceptable). However, unfortunately, it's not at the moment so I'm not sure that safety - particularly for pedestrians or, indeed, cyclists - is a given.

Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety.

Overall bike design makes more difference. Dutch bike >> MTB with comfort fittings > regular MTB > racing bike. By "comfort fittings" I mean things like chain guards and mudguards and a suitable saddle.

These days quite a lot will be e-bikes too.

[0] https://www.brompton.com

I'm more curious as to the makeup of electric-assisted vs human-powered.

Ebikes have also shaken up the drivetrain landscape a bit. Motors can be in the middle of the bike, and those bikes are often being paired with internally geared hubs in the rear. Mid-drive bikes can incorporate a gearbox in the motor, and are built with nothing but a belt drive and a single cog on the rear wheel.

I love pedaling, but I'd have to be blind to not see how ebikes have widened cycling's userbase in my area, and I'm very curious if that's the case everywhere.

Their invention is closer to 150 years ago than 50.

Here is a free one month trial.

You can try other apps as well but waking up app was the one I found best.

https://dynamic.wakingup.com/shareOpenAccess/SCB2E2075

Everyone deserves better biking infrastructure, cyclists and car drivers alike (more bikes => less cars => less traffic => happier drivers and happier cyclists).

In the US, where there is effectively no bicycle infrastructure. In the Netherlands it seems to be about 1.18x (or 1.1x if you include trucks) [0].

[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/523310/netherlands-numbe...

On the other hand, no one is taught how to safely ride a bike after they figure out how to pedal one the first dozen feet, unlike cars where you have to pass exams or have classes. I hardly see anyone taking a lane when biking. I hardly see anyone with lights. I hardly see any signalling. I see a lot of people riding against the flow of traffic even. I see people riding without helmets. I even see people who are clearly intoxicated on something or another swerving over a 5 lane road. If these people sorts of bikers I see anecdotally are any way representative to your average bike rider, then I'm surprised the number is only 3x higher.

Yep, so all those complaining that nothing is being done or can be done about climate change are wrong. There are tools, they just need to be used.

> Aren't we hearing that actual residents really don't like these "15 minute" cities?

We're also hearing that Zuckerberg is a lizard and the Earth is flat, so fucking what? London is a major metropolis, rather dense, and with very relaxed and mixed zoning (you can have a 13th century "Church of X Girls School" next to a Tesco store in a glass skyscraper. It already does everything a "15th minute city" is about, apart from being "15 minutes big" - commute times are usually bigger, and somewhat concentrated to City and Canary Wharf, but there's work, leisure, shopping, housing to be found all around. Idiots who rage against a concept they couldn't begin to comprehend because toilet paper quality "journalists" make money that way aren't concerned residents of London, they have nothing to do with the city, and their opinion is best ignored.

Second, how else are cities meant to do this? The fundamental problem is that there is a huge and rising level of driving demand[1], and limited supply. There is a scarcity of road space in London and you can't really add more. Basic economics tells you that you can manage that scarcity through some combination of prices, queues, and lotteries. Throughout most of the 20th century, we defaulted to queues, in the form of traffic jams. You can use the road at zero cost, but you'll have to wait a long time. But that became increasingly untenable as car ownership rose -- the number of cars in Britain has doubled over the last few decades. And traffic jams are themselves unpleasant: they're noisy, ugly, emit pollution, etc. So now cities are using prices too, in the form of congestion charges, taxes, and so on. That's not some punitive "stick" done for its own sake, it's just a tool used to cope with an inescapable economic reality. When you have more cars and the same amount of road, you need to deter an increasing fraction of those cars from using those roads. The "carrot" is providing alternate, more space-efficient ways to get around: bike infrastructure, public transport.

[1] "driving demand" is itself a weaselly, meaningless phrase, because "demand" only makes sense in reference to a specific price level. motorists have been conditioned by a century of car-friendly policy to expect to drive and park for free, but there's no real justification for that. just because the roads are publicly owned doesn't give them the right to use them for free, any more than state-owned railways should have free fares.

Not the nicest bike by a long shot, but it gets daily use.

Free bike.

But I usually bike in areas with shared infrastructure with cars. I wonder if I would be less worried about ice if slipping and falling wouldn’t mean I will potentially get driven over by a car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

Should work just fine IF there is biking infrastructure.

You plow the bike roads just like you do with car roads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_business_district

Also please keep in mind that The Telegraph is not a neutral actor with regards to Khan. They recently blamed him for the national strikes, which was totally non sensical.