In a rather interesting speech, from an urban mobility point of view, the Secretary for Transport & Housing, Prof Anthony Cheung, has described Hong Kong’s transport policy as “Public Transportation Plus”, which he explains as “public transport complemented by walkability and cycling-friendly measures”. He was talking to an international conference on walking and liveable communities but even so, is this a change? a real thing?

(It’s worth reading in full)

Prof Cheung begins by wondering “whether we have become too dependent on mechanised transport to the extent of creating all kinds of social problems, including human interface, perhaps. And there are problems associated with road congestion and carbon emissions.”

So he’s identified the problem. Not a bad start for the guy supposedly in charge of our transport policy.

After presenting the Government’s “railway as backbone” policy and (justifiably) trumpeting the high modal share (90%) of public transport, Prof Cheung adds rather too much about the constraints the government works under, in a tone of “we’re trying but it’s re-eally too hard to expect real change”.

His mobility solutions focus initially much on walkability, defining it in positive terms but not breaking new ground.

He seemingly endorses a statement that one can walk three kilometres – three MTR stops – through Central, at walkway level above the roads, which isn’t true, is it? (I don’t walk much; cycling is so much easier.) And there’s the obligatory reference to the Mid-levels escalator. (He says that “Some densely populated districts in Hong Kong are .. situated in hilly places”. But I can’t think of any, other than Mid-levels. Echoes of the “HK is too mountainous for cycling” meme.) He talks glowingly about pedestrianised streets but then hints at the fact that some are being withdrawn (allegedly after someone complained).

Selected other interesting admissions, claims and policy positions:

  • Rush-hour speed on some main roads is only 10 km/h
  • Building more roads brings more traffic, and more environmental problems [True, of course]
  • Government policy is to “discourage the use of private cars” [I’m not sure I’ve seen evidence of that, unless you count ‘affordable public transport’]
  • Hong Kong was rated “the most walkable” city of China (by NRDC) [not all agree]
  • Hong Kong is always rainy and hot [oh yeah, right]
  • “In the past, cycling was only considered to be something for leisure. But nowadays, we regard it as a form of short-distance green commuting.” [still with caveats, and not quite the first time it’s been said, but still good to hear.]
  • still discouraging cycling in the urban areas “for safety reasons” and apparently not challenging that situation
  • we need a mindset change in the community .. as much as .. among policymakers ..to move away from an unduly vehicular-based or biased mobility perspective. [Well, yes.., but does that mean you’re waiting for the public to change first? What happened to leadership?]

Now for the part that, arguably, talks up cycling.

Prof Cheung says “We also need diversity in our mobility system to cater for different travel needs.  Hence, we promote walking and cycling as a mode of short-distance commuting through the provision of pedestrian walkways and cycle tracks.” Not quite committing to a six percent bike mode share by 2020 [as New York has] but at least he flew to Vienna to talk about cycling in Hong Kong.

He goes on to say that motorists, pedestrians and cyclists compete for road space (and always will). Taking that positively, I see an endorsement of our right to use even busy roads. Of course that’s always been true, but many in HK don’t get it. On the other hand, it suggests no interest in pushing back against the ‘competition’ of (some) aggressive people in a ton of armoured motor vehicle against others, more vulnerable, who are making a net positive contribution to society.

Another quote: “we seek to improve our public transport system complemented with suitable walkability and cycling measures”. Yeah, well, ‘suitable’ is another weasel word, but he said ‘cycling’. Several times.

Notably, he defined the New Territories Cycle Track Network as “so that the public can cycle for both commuting and leisure”, which is new – it’s always been described as for leisure and recreation. What’s left of it, and if it ever gets built.

Overall, there are warm and quite strong generalities about cycling and especially walking, though without any new specifics. This Secretary for Transport and Housing is reportedly more favourable to cycling than the Transport Department under him and this speech includes some pleasantly surprising facts and statements. Given the paucity of good news coming out of this government, I’m prepare to see a glass that’s, if not half-full, then at least providing a few refreshing sips.


The speech is available here.

MTRC’s recent strict enforcement of baggage dimension rules, under which students with cellos and other larger musical instruments have been kicked off trains (SCMP, Ming Pao, Sun), and the resulting public backlash have made some people ask about the situation for passengers with bikes.

Most of us know that since 2011 (as well as until 2003), bikes have been accepted on all MTR services.  Passengers with bikes have widely shown responsibility, such as by not trying to get on a really crowded train.

But this arrangement has never quite been the bold step forward for Hong Kong and the MTR that it should have been.

Here’s what Hong Kong Cycling Alliance submitted to MTRC’s review:

Bicycle Carriage on MTRC Services

Alongside recent concerns over passengers bringing musical instruments on to MTR services, occasional reference has been made to MTRC’s acceptance of bicycles on all services, as announced by your Mr Cheung Sing-chau, at the 16 December 2011 meeting of Government departments with cycling organisations, under the auspices of Transport Department.

Firstly, and importantly, I reiterate the consistent position of Hong Kong Cycling Alliance (HKCAll) that the step taken by MTRC was very welcome and deserving of praise and publicity, as forward-looking, environmentally responsible and aligned with the global trend towards integration of bicycle use with public transport, under policies that increasingly promote transportational and leisure cycling.

We note that, in the nearly four years since the policy was introduced:

It has proven popular with bicycle owners and smooth in operation, subject to our further comment below

It has been uncontroversial with the general public, indeed, support has been widely expressed, over that time and in public comments recently

There are however two areas in which we believe the present arrangements regarding carriage of bicycles could be improved:

Keeping bikes whole

The directive to frontline staff to request the disengagement of one wheel of a bicycle creates needless risk and inconvenience. Furthermore it does not match practice among local train service operators elsewhere.

Even when wheel removal is possible, by taking away the stability and braking system of the bike, rendering it into several large parts, and exposing potentially sharp points in a public space, this requirement turns a safely controllable object into an unwieldy and potentially dangerous inconvenience for all concerned. It also introduces the possibly fatal risk that brakes may not be reset properly.

Moreover the restriction prevents the use of MTR services by most ordinary people, with non-specialised bikes, who are unable to comply.

The lack of a clear rationale for these requests to remove a wheel causes confusion among passengers and MTR staff. Staff often cite By-law 4A but this was surely superseded by the December 2011 announcement. Partial references to dimensions regulations cannot apply, as regular-size bicycles are clearly an exception. Concerns about safety and convenience are best met by keeping the bike whole and manoeuvrable. Fears that passengers with bikes are somehow more irresponsible than everyone else, and might mount their bikes, are unfounded and such an action would anyway be covered by existing regulations.

We urge the withdrawal of the expectation that a passenger with a bicycle disengage one of its wheels.

Broader publicity

The lack of public information about the acceptance of bikes for travel on MTR services leaves many ordinary bike users unaware of, or uncertain about, the arrangements in place, especially affecting those who are not members of clubs and associations that share such information.

Suitable promotion of this availability would not only clarify matters for everyone, but also draw appreciation of MTRC’s welcome responsible policy and environmental credentials.

HKCAll would be delighted to provide further input on these matters, or to meet with MTRC to discuss implementing such improvements, as well as other cycling issues related to MTR services.

Thank you for your attention.

On the day that acceptance of review submissions closed, MTRC announced that it would introduce a system whereby some instruments, such as cellos, could be registered for carriage, off-peak.  Mention was made of possible later consideration of sports equipment (pool cues?  hockey sticks?) but no reference to bikes.  That leaves many questions unanswered, for other musicians, as well as anyone carrying sports gear, and, perhaps, anyone with a bike. (HKFP, SCMP, Sun)






Questionnaire on Cycling in Hong Kong

Hi! We are a bike InnoTeam from the Jockey Club CarbonCare Open Innovation Lab (JCCOIL) formed by Hong Kong Cycling Alliance (HKCAll), 3+1 Cycling Group and cycling enthusiasts.

Bike has the merit of hop-and-ride, high manoeuvrability, environmental friendly, use less road space, and more. There is a trend for countries and cities like the Netherlands, Germany and New York to replace public transport by cycling.


We hope to collect views and opinions from you all who residents in Hong Kong on cycling in urban area. Meanwhile, we would like to call for attention from public on this topic. This questionnaire will take you about 3 minutes to complete, we will use such data collected for our analysis on cyclists views and opinions.





English version


Ride of Silence 2015

April 21st, 2015 | Posted by Nick Andrew in general cycling - (0 Comments)

RoS2015_Poster-1F_Web (1)All cyclists are invited to ride together to remember and support all those who died or were injured while cycling in Hong Kong in 2014, and to quietly make the statement that “we are here” and deserve respect and consideration. This is one of hundreds of such rides around the world at the same time, annually on the third Wednesday in May.
This year 2015 is our 10th Ride of Silence in Hong Kong.

Route: TST Clock Tower (Starting point) > eastbound Salisbury Road > northbound Nathan Road > westbound Lai Chi Kok Road > northbound Wong Chuk St > westbound Yu Chau St > southbound Yen Chow St > eastbound Lai Chi Kok Road > southbound Nathan Road > TST Clock Tower (Finishing point)

Police will inspect bikes for lights (front and back) and brakes, and probably reflectors and bells. Please be prepared.
Reminder: please let’s ride quietly or in silence as we remember others
Bad Weather: We’ll continue under Amber or Red rainstorm warning signal. Event will be postponed to another date if Black rainstorm warning signal is in force or in prospect.

路線:尖沙咀鐘樓(起點) > 梳士巴利道東行 > 彌敦道北行 > 荔枝角道西行 > 黃竹街北行 > 汝洲街西行 > 欽州街南行 > 荔枝角道東行 > 彌敦道南行 > 尖沙咀鐘樓(終點)


More information 更多資訊:http://hkcyclingalliance.org/

Global website 全球網站

For details of the hundreds of other Ride of Silence events around the globe, and the worldwide message that we are carrying, visit http://www.rideofsilence.org/ .

如要知道更多世界各地「沉默的騎行」的詳情及活動要表達的訊息,請前往全球「沉默的騎行」網站 http://www.rideofsilence.org/ 。

The United States government is pressing city and local officials to develop and improve cycling practice and infrastructure, leveraging a trend that has seen US cities hurrying to catch up Europe and the rest of the world, after a slow start.

This stance, initiated in 2010 with support for the development of fully integrated active transportation networks, urges that cycling and walking “should be considered equally important as other transportation modes” and recognises the benefits of more people taking up active mobility.

A new Federal initiative – which the Hong Kong Transport Department could usefully study – focuses on the safety of people who walk or bike, under this transformative ‘Complete Streets‘ approach.

Mayors’ Challenge for Safer People and Safer Streets (January 2015)



香港交通諮詢委員會也於12月30日向運輸及房屋局提交了《香港道路交通擠塞研究報告》http://www.thb.gov.hk/tc/boards/transport/land/Full-Chi_C_cover.pdf(下簡稱《報告》),《報告》的第三章是有關現時處理道路交通擠塞的措施,其中3.4.5段:「有些人提倡以單車替代機動交通工具。儘管騎單車有環保效益,但本港市區道路普遍擠迫和繁忙,加上上落客貨活動頻繁,實在難以在不影響交通或道路使用者安全的情況下,在市區騰出合適地方興建單車徑。在行車道上騎踏單車的人士,亦會較容易因交通意外而受傷。2013年間,便有超過1 000宗涉及單車在行車道上發生的交通意外。因此,政府一般不鼓勵市民在市區以單車作為交通工具。相對於市區,交通流量密度較低的新市鎮或新發展區,較有條件讓單車作短途代步。就此,政府一直致力在新市鎮及新發展區締造「單車友善環境」,通過發展新的單車徑網絡和改善現有單車徑及單車停泊設施等,讓市民可以單車作短途代步或康樂用途。


《報告》另一處有提及單車的地方,是:「4.6.13 泊車轉乘設施亦可提供予單車使用者,鼓勵他們接駁公共交通。工作小組知悉政府一直在新市鎮及新發展區的公共運輸交滙處和港鐵站附近提供單車泊位。小組建議政府在可行的情況下繼續加強這方面的工作。」這也是政府的老生常談,但卻是做得很少,其實不單在新市鎮及新發展區單車泊位不足,巿區跟本連合法單車泊位也是極之罕有或者欠奉。


最後,可能有人以為單車在馬路上會阻礙汽車,甚至使塞車情況惡化,香港單車同盟曾經有一篇文章單車阻慢交通嗎?Are bicycles slowing down traffic?)作出了分析,也值得大家參考。




Martin Turner 正講解踩單車的知識↓
































京都有好幾家出租單車的公司,我用的這家叫Kyoto Eco Trip,能說一口流利英語的員工Ayako非常細心協助我們及講解在京都踩單車要注意的事情。背後的是電力輔助單車,在京都也見到不少人使用↓















































































































































































































































What Japanese can, Hong Kongers cannot!








































































⇑用單車載小孩子;在香港會被檢控!「在道路上騎單車或三輪車的人,不得運載─(a) 任何其他人」第374G章51條第(3)款

















































































































































⇑把單車合法泊在街上收費停泊處不怕被政府充公,政府只會針對非法泊車個別行動,不會影響其他合法停泊的單車;相片中紙條的意思是: 「(不當地停泊單車)已經對其他客戶造成滋擾,請正確地停泊單車」;在香港即使泊在合法單車位也有可能在政府的清理行動中被充公!