Header

香港「沉默的騎行」Ride of Silence Hong Kong 2017

Ride of Silence 2017

Ride of Silence 2017

All cyclists are invited to ride together to remember 14 people who died and support around 2000 who were injured while cycling in Hong Kong in 2016, and to quietly make the statement that “we are here” and deserve respect and consideration on the road. This is one of hundreds of such rides around the world at the same time, annually on the third Wednesday in May.

邀請所有騎單車人仕一同踏單車去紀念2016年在香港14位死亡及約2000位受傷的單車使用者,以沉默騎行的方式宣告「我們存在」及應受到尊重及在規劃中應被考慮。這是世界各地數以百計同樣的集體單車騎行活動之一,於每年五月第三個星期三舉行。
本年2017年是香港第十二屆沉默的騎行。

Time: Wed 17th May @ 19:15
時間:5月17日@ 19:15

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)

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)
(https://www.google.com.hk/maps/ms?msid=205028531437179213159.0004dc0e8558e0d5fb974&msa=0)


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.

請檢查單車裝備是否合法:包括法例要求的燈(前面和後面)和剎車,並反光體和鈴鐺。警方將作檢查,請做好準備。
提示:請安靜及沉默地騎行去記念死傷者

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.
惡劣天氣安排:大雨、黃雨、紅雨活動照常;而如果有或會有黑雨、八號或以上風球,活動會改期。

Much as we may enjoy being with friends, the Ride of Silence is not a carnival. Please dress and behave to show respect to those who died last year, and support for those who were injured. If not silent, please keep your voice low (and please no music on the ride).
儘管我們可能享受與朋友一起,但沉默的騎行不是嘉年華。請以能向死傷者表示尊重及支持的衣著和行為出席。如果有必要說話,請保持你的聲音低沉(並請不要播放音樂)。

Organised by 更多資訊:http://hkcyclingalliance.org/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/122876654393209/

Facebook event page 面書活動頁:
https://www.facebook.com/events/255778414869845/

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/

單車泊在街上隨時會被政府充公

對很多想使用單車的巿民來說,現時其中一個最大的阻礙是沒有安全的泊車方案,因為單車泊在街上隨時會被政府充公。

即使單車泊在有「P」字的合法泊車位置,政府也會不時張貼通告,並且臨時取消合法泊車位,並在突然人為地變成被「違泊」的單車上貼出告示飭令「官地佔用人」於限期前停止佔用該土地,限期到了就會來強行破壞單車鎖並偷走單車;而被接管的單車則成為政府財產,將不會發還,會暫存於地政處的倉庫,再交予政府物流服務署進行拍賣。

錯誤應用的法例

現時地政署是引用法例第28章6(1)條《土地(雜項條文)條例》不合法佔用未批租土地來充公單車:

「(1) 除第(2A)款另有規定外,如有並非根據許可證、撥地契據或撥地備忘錄而佔用未批租土地的情況出現,則當局可安排張貼通知,飭令在通知內指明的日期前停止佔用該土地,通知可張貼在下列一處或多處地方─ (由1979年第56號第3條修訂)

(a) 該土地上或附近;或

(b) 該土地上的任何財產或構築物上。」

這法例其實是用來處理佔用官地的僭建物等的情況,不是處理車輛的交通條例,是錯誤應用法例。

泊單車其實有法例免責辯護

而處理違例停泊車輛根本是有專為此制訂的的法例:第374C章 -《道路交通(泊車)規例》:

而第374C章第4條(5)已指明泊單車有以下免責辯護:

「但在有關違反第(4)(a)款規定的檢控程序中,如能證明停泊該車輛並無導致危險及實際阻礙,或相當無可能導致危險及實際阻礙,即為免責辯護。」

即是說,單車如泊在行人路、行人道、中央分道帶、路旁、路肩或交通安全島上,如無導致危險及實際阻礙,法例已經表明是「免責」的。

濫法充公單車:不公平、不環保、不公義

可見政府有法不依,濫用不相關的不合法佔用未批租土地法例來充公單車。再者,地政署充公私人財產(合法泊好的單車),其實已違反基本法第一百零五條所規定須保障私有財產,知法犯法,實屬可恥!

汽車長時間違泊,汽車會被拖往汽車扣留中心,司機只要承擔拖車費用及罰款,總可取回汽車。可是單車被引用《土地(雜項條文)條例》而充公後,單車車主是完全沒有任何途徑取回單車,單車會當作廢鐵被送到單車墳場,等待於物流服務署拍賣會中以數十輛或百多輛一批當廢鐵出售,不單是對巿民不公平,更是把原本極有價值的東西變成垃圾,極不環保。

參考外國處理廢棄的單車的方法,可以針對明顯是已被遺棄的廢車(例如生鏽嚴重及車輪無氣等)來發出個別警告及處理,不用官僚地全部好車壞車用車閒車一律充公,做法擾民及不公平。

政府理應有責任創造單車友善環境,但卻往往反其道而行,巿區合法泊單車位是少得等於無,在巿區泊單車在路邊的巿民,在法理上雖有第374C章第4條(5) 路邊泊單車免責辯護,卻常受到地政署濫用法例充公單車的滋擾而投訴無門,公義何在!

被「違泊」的單車,被貼上了告示。

被「違泊」的單車,被貼上了告示。

單車墳場,photo credit : Slow-Mo Classic 慢騎主義

單車墳場,photo credit : Slow-Mo Classic 慢騎主義 

 

地政署告示

地政署告示

第374C章 -《道路交通(泊車)規例》

4條:
(1) 除第(6)款另有規定外,任何人不得在設有街道照明系統,而燈與燈之間相距不超過200米的街道上停泊車輛,惟停泊在泊車處則不在此限︰
但如在任何就違反本款而提出的法律程序中,經證明並獲法庭或裁判官信納該道路上設有街道照明系統,除非相反證明成立,否則該街道照明系統的街燈須推定為燈與燈之間相距不超過200米。
(2) 署長可按照附表1第6、7、8、9、10、11及12號圖形豎立或放置交通標誌或設置道路標記,以限制將任何道路作泊車之用。
(3) 除第(6)款另有規定外,任何人不得─
  (a) 在任何道路上停泊車輛而違反按照第(2)款規定所豎立或放置的交通標誌或道路標記;
  (b) 停泊車輛而造成阻礙。
(4) 除第(6)款另有規定外,任何人不得停泊車輛─
  (a) 在行人路、行人道、中央分道帶、路旁、路肩或交通安全島上;
  (b) 以致阻礙車輛出入毗連車路的處所;或
  (c) 以致阻礙從車路到消防龍頭的通道。
(5) 任何人違反第(1)、(3)或(4)款,即屬犯罪,可處罰款$2000︰
但在有關違反第(4)(a)款規定的檢控程序中,如能證明停泊該車輛並無導致危險及實際阻礙,或相當無可能導致危險及實際阻礙,即為免責辯護。
(6) 第(1)、(3)及(4)款不適用於汽車。

wheel_off_MTR

wheel_off_MTR

反對《香港鐵路附例》檢討加入拆除車轆的要求

立法會交通事務委員會鐵路事宜小組委員會將於2017年4月28日討論《香港鐵路附例》及《香港鐵路(西北鐵路)》附例的檢討,當中包括有關單車的條文,港鐵建議在附例將有關禁止攜帶單車的條文剔除,但會列明禁止騎單車,我們支持這一修訂,因為這是以前鐵路建在地面,人們可以輕易進入路軌範圍那個九廣鐵路時代遺留下來的法律,針對汽車等交通工具或牛羊等蓄牧進入或橫越路軌而設,明顯這法例已經過時,是時候去修改了。
但另一方面,立法會文件立法會CB(4)890/16-17(07)號文件)卻說:「現時,附例第4A條列明任何人不得將單車帶過鐵路處所。有意見指港鐵應放寬附例,允許乘客攜帶單車乘搭港鐵。有鑒於港鐵是一個使用率非常高的鐵路系統,港鐵公司希望在回應這些訴求的同時,避免影響其他乘客。現時,乘客可以攜帶一輛摺合或拆除一個車輪的單車乘搭港鐵。此安排已經施行了一段時間,行之有效。港鐵公司希望以此安排為基礎,就攜帶單車制定明確的指引及規定,因此建議從附例第4A條中剔除禁止攜帶單車的字眼,並同時將攜帶單車的指引及規定清楚列載於根據附例所制訂的「運載條件」當中。同時,港鐵公司建議在附例中增加禁止騎單車的條文,以確保乘客安全。」
意思即是說,要把拆除一個車輪的單車才可以乘搭港鐵這一無理的要求寫入「運載條件」當中,這是十分的不合情理,我們表示反對。

不應拆轆的原因:

1拆轆後需要照顧多一件行李,帶來不便。
2拆轆比不拆除轆危險,車轆可能脫手而掉進路軌或掉落樓梯。
3拆轆後前叉可能會刺到其他人。
4拆轆過程不方便及浪費時間及阻礙他人
5拆轆後單車的制動也失效,影響對單車的控制,只有後轆的單車也難以操縱
6有些單車的車轆不能輕易拆卸
7拆轆後前叉容易受損
8完整的單車只是一件有轆的行李,可以安全及方便地上港鐵,為什麼要拆轆?

拆轆的唯一原因

1滿足港鐵的不合理要求

 

為什麼要讓完整的單車無障礙上鐵路?

1這是對所有人最安全的安排
2這是最方便及對所有人影響最少的做法
3這是國際普遍的做法(香港這要拆轆的要求是世上罕見的)
4鼓勵及推動環保交通是公共交通運輸營運者對城巿的責任,不是對少數單車運動愛好者的恩澤
5拆轆只會為自己及他人帶來不便,對減少佔用車箱空間也沒有幫助

 

為防止在月台踩單車,就要所有人拆轆?不是歧視是什麼?

有人說港鐵是為了防止在月台踩單車而要單友拆轆;其實港鐵如果真的是為防止在月台踩單車,只要針對在月台踩的人立法執法就行了,不應假設所有人都是不可信任的,都一定會在月台踩的,港鐵當所有單車人士都是不懂事的頑童嗎?這不是歧視是什麼?按港鐵這邏輯,因為曾有人在月台大便,是否要所有人入閘前必先去洗手間清一清才可入閘;曾有人在月台跑步就要所有人綁起雙腳?不過港鐵在不同場合不同時間都曾提出不同要拆轆的理由,曾經提出過的理由包括是為了要乎合鐵路附例中對行李的尺碼長度不得超過130厘米的規定,也有說是為要防止人在月台踩單車的理由等,可見港鐵根本是為「要你拆」而隨便找一個理由(藉口?),真正目的是「不鼓勵」單車入閘。
而現有檢討建議會包括禁止騎單車的條文,已足以解決安全問題,無須要求拆轆來防止在月台踩單車。

港鐵車箱擠迫,拆轆佔用更少地方?

一架完整的單車,比一個無前轆的單車加一個車轆,哪一個佔用更少地方?我用一輛700c車輪的單車作實際量度,比較拆轆前及拆轆後之佔用車箱地面面積,結果竟然是一樣!(請參下圖)而拆轆只能減短單車的長度最多大約34cm(視乎車輪大小),但是卻使單車跛了腳,並且多了一個車輪要照顧!拆轆後單車的制動也會失效,影響對單車的控制,更不方便。拆轆後的單車也可能不能用單車腳架站立起來,更難處理。完整的單車在安全及方便等各方面都完勝拆轆後之跛腳單車,所以說拆轆後能減少對其他乘客之影響其實並無理據,而且適得其反。
解決單車進入擠迫車箱影響其他乘客的方法,可以考慮在車箱內劃出單車專用區並設單車架,也可以教育巿民互相禮讓,車箱太擠迫就不要強行進入等更合情理的方法。

*香港鐵路條例(第556B章)第4A條現有條文是這樣:「除藉由港鐵公司或代表港鐵公司根據本條所發布的告示外,任何人不得在任何時間通過鐵路處所或其任何部分,亦不得企圖在任何時間將任何汽車、單車、電單車或其他類似的運輸工具,或任何手推車、獨輪、雙輪或多輪推車或類似的運輸工具,或任何東西(包括動物)帶過、傳過、駛過或引領其橫過鐵路處所或其任何部分;任何人連同任何運輸工具、動物或其他東西穿過任何閘、門、圍鏈或欄障後,須盡快將其關上或重新拴緊。」

相關文章:

主動拆前輪爭取單車無障礙政策?Actively giving in to wheel removal requirement?

zxc%e7%ac%ac1%e5%a4%a90554

上星期本會應邀派出代表出席由拜客廣州主辦的「第二屆中國自行車生態大會」,而作為其中一位嘉賓講者,我卻是抱持著去觀摩學習的心態前往。
大會2016年11月19及20日一連兩日在深圳舉行,標榜著「自行車交通的一切都在這裏!」。而內容果然十分豐富,嘉賓講者都很有份量並來自中國各地,也有台灣及國外的嘉賓講員,大會主要是探討如何在中國推行「單車友好」。
今年的其中一個較突出的主題就是公共單車/共享單車;中國作為世界上其中最早引入公共單車系統 (杭州早在2008年開始引入,比巴黎只遲了一年,而且發展相當成熟)及擁有最多公共單車系統的國家,在公共單車的建設上可以說是非常先進及有經驗,所以當討論到公共單車的議題時,可以有很多的實質的材料。當大家都一窩蜂地用智能手機去找摩拜(Mobike)及滴滴(Ofo)時,看來「無樁」的共享單車成為中國單車發展的一個新力軍,究竟「有樁」的公共單車還是「無樁」的共享單車哪樣更加適合中國的城市呢?而「有樁」的公共單車及「無樁」的共享單車的比較也就成了一個有趣的話題。

討論之餘,我在深圳的街頭就同時看到了三款的公共單車/共享單車,有傳統的「有樁」公共單車Funbike 以及新興的摩拜(Mobike)及滴滴(Ofo)單車。看來,和世界許多地方一樣,看來公共單車在中國的發展正帶來更多人回歸用單車代步。
希望有一日香港也能有公共單車讓市民可以使用作交通工具,而不只是好像西九的Smartbike一樣被限制於消閒康樂繞圈之用。低碳騎行者(Eco-Riders HK)前的調查發現,處理自己單車的不方便及沒有地方泊車是阻礙很多人用單車代步的主因之一,而共享單車正好能解決這方面的問題;正如世界各地一樣,如果香港也有共享單車,市民自然就會去使用。只要配合城巿中單車徑/單車行車線的網絡建設,單車作為城市交通系統的一部分是指日可待。

 

摩拜單車(Mobike)

摩拜單車(Mobike)

Ofo 滴滴

Ofo 滴滴

公共單車(Funbikes)

公共單車(Funbikes)

HKCAll response 00

單車團體過去多次要求開放巿區禁止單車的關鍵路段,而今日在運輸署與單車團體的會議上,討論了由顧問公司(Atkins)做的有關BPZ(Bike Prohibition Zone)的「檢討」(現有單車限制區檢討Review of Existing Bicycle Prohibition Zones)(下稱「檢討」),而香港單車同盟的專業工程師做了十分詳盡及有力的回應,指出整個Atkins研究的方法及錯誤引用的圖表資料,充滿了誤導。例如引用的澳洲指引(Austroad Guide)其中一個圖表,原本是關於設計單車徑時,上斜坡度及長度對踩單車的「舒適度」的影響,和「安全」及「禁止」單車完全無關,但「檢討」卻是誤用來作為禁止單車的根據。又例如以高車速及車流作為單車「不適合與一般車輛混合」的理據,但其實真相是圖表原本是表示應該如何選擇最適當的單車基建,(是否適合建單車徑?還是單車行車線道?還是和汽車共用同一路面?)如果車速高及車流大,最好就是為巿民提供單車徑,和禁止單車剛好是相反的意思,但這「檢討」卻說成是禁止單車的理據,與其說這是誤導,甚至也可以說是「失實」。

而如果「檢討」真正落實,香港所有現時禁止單車的路段將會繼續被禁止,這將無助推動單車友善城巿,反而是以錯誤的方法為禁止單車捏造出看似合理的根據。

另外,「檢討」會咨詢其他所謂持分者例如區議會及汽車、的士等團體對單車限制區檢討的意見,這也是多此一舉及只會製造問題。由幾時開始,單車限制要咨詢汽車團體?又是否考慮設立小巴禁區、的士禁區時也要咨詢單車團體?

香港單車同盟建議在考慮單車在馬路的使用時,應該仿傚各國的單車友善做法,明確肯定現時單車的路權,香港所有道路也應允許騎單車(除高速公路,並根據適用的法律和法規指定的隧道),而如果在某些位置需要禁止單車行駛,必需要提出給公眾每個禁止的合理理由。

橋樑和地下通道是重要的交通連接,本身並沒有必然的危險性。在大多數情況及默認情況下,應該開放給所有交通。而任何的約束也應該考慮到單車的正常駛用。
參考:「現有單車限制區檢討Review of Existing Bicycle Prohibition Zones」
詳細回應:Cycling is Permitted Feedback on Atkins Study by HKCAll

We rode this evening’s 11th Hong Kong Ride of Silence in fine weather, the usual route from TST clock tower to Cheung Sha Wan and back, about 14 km.  A total of 950 riders, young and old, commuters, leisure riders and sportspeople, remembering ten people who died on our roads while cycling, and 468 seriously injured (that’s nearly one in five of all seriously injured on our roads)

At a simple ceremony at the start, a minute’s silence was held while riders kneeled beside their bikes, heads bowed.  A bell was struck ten times, once for each who passed, while the Hong Kong Adventure Corps played The Last Post.

The focus of our ride this year was the lack of consideration for people who ride bikes in the design and management of our built infrastructure.  Morevoer, when urban space is designed to be safe for people on bikes, it makes a safer and nicer city for everyone.

District Councillor Paul Zimmerman drew attention to the poor design of the cycle tracks planned for Kai Tak Development, which won’t reach to the residential areas or the MTR stations, because they are being planned without consideration of how people will use them to get around, only as a “leisure facility”.

Also joining the ride were Legislative Councillors: Hon. Dennis KWOK Wing Hang (郭榮鏗), Hon. KWOK Ka Ki (郭家麒), Hon. Frederick Fung Kin-kee (馮檢基) and Hon. Gary FAN Kwok Wai (范國威), all of whom addressed the group during the ceremony.

Daniel YM Chan - Dennis Kwok and the crowd at the start - 2276Daniel YM Chan - group at start - 2268 Daniel YM Chan - Ka Leung addresses crowd - 2278 Daniel YM Chan - Setting off 2472 Kneeling at start, by Daniel YM Chan 2331

Ride of Silence 2016

May 12th, 2016 | Posted by hkcall in general cycling - (0 Comments)

ROS2016
All cyclists are invited to ride together to remember 10 people who died and support around 2500 who were injured while cycling in Hong Kong in 2015, and to quietly make the statement that “we are here” and deserve respect and consideration on the road. This is one of hundreds of such rides around the world at the same time, annually on the third Wednesday in May.
邀請所有騎單車人仕一同踏單車去紀念2015年在香港死亡或受傷的單車使用者,以沉默騎行的方式宣告「我們存在」及應受到尊重及在規劃中應被考慮。這是世界各地數以百計同樣的集體單車騎行活動之一,於每年五月第三個星期三舉行。
本年2016年是香港第十一屆沉默的騎行。

Time: Wed 18th May @ 19:15

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)
(https://www.google.com.hk/maps/ms?msid=205028531437179213159.0004dc0e8558e0d5fb974&msa=0)

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.

時間:5月18日@ 19:15

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)
https://www.google.com.hk/maps/ms?msid=205028531437179213159.0004dc0e8558e0d5fb974&msa=0

請檢查單車裝備是否合法:包括法例要求的燈(前面和後面)和剎車,並反光體和鈴鐺。警方將作檢查,請做好準備。
提示:請安靜及沉默地騎行去記念死傷者
惡劣天氣安排:大雨、黃雨、紅雨活動照常;而如果有或會有黑雨、八號或以上風球,活動會改期。

Much as we may enjoy being with friends, the Ride of Silence is not a carnival. Please dress and behave to show respect to those who died last year, and support for those who were injured. If not silent, please keep your voice low (and please no music on the ride).
儘管我們可能享受與朋友一起,但沉默的騎行不是嘉年華。請以能向死傷者表示尊重及支持的衣著和行為出席。如果有必要說話,請保持你的聲音低沉(並請不要播放音樂)。

Organised by 更多資訊:http://hkcyclingalliance.org/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/122876654393209/

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/

12637234_10153401621830963_1862783110_o

青衣南橋(葵青路)踩單車相片由慢騎主義提供

2016年1月30日(六)的 「Critical Mass Ride 單車臨界量騎行」路線是直接經青衣南橋(葵青路)騎車由九龍往返 「青衣」,而慢騎主義也參加了活動,並且在其面書頁上貼出了相片及感想,引起了網民熱烈的討論,而明報也有報導這件事。
網民的討論有贊成有反對、有支持也有好言相勸,惡意的也不少,而綜合對青衣南橋踩單車引發的討論,當中留言不乏對巿區踩單車的誤解,現嘗試簡單回應其中一些謬誤以拋磚引玉:

1. 以為青衣南橋(葵青路)是高速公路,踩單車是犯法

回應:其實青衣南橋(葵青路)不是高速公路也完全合法。這只是一條橋,而且是絕對合法給單車使用的,也是單車踩出入青衣至九龍的唯一合法路線,所以也是合理地使用的。據知「單車臨界量騎行」也有向有關方面查證青衣南橋(葵青路)踩單車是否合法,出發前已得到警方電郵回應肯定踩單車路線是合法。

2. 以為即使合法,馬路上跟本就不應該踩單車,因為好危險

回應:其實只要道路使用者互相尊重,大家都守規則,單車在公路/馬路上行駛不是特別危險的。日日都有好多人踩青公、界限街、彌敦道、英皇道,其實好安全, 造成危險的不是道路(路面有坑洞另計),是道路使用者本身,尤其是駕駛態度不好的人。青衣橋同一方向有二至三條行車線,單車在慢線,其他汽車在二或三線, 各有各行各自的行車線,只要司機都守法安全超車,有什麼危險?其實比設計差勁的單車徑更加安全。
各位可以看一看在馬路上和汽車一樣佔用行車線踩單車的這段影片https://youtu.be/GUqZ8pR0od0)自己判斷一下是否真如想像中非常危險?又是否如許多人想當然的以為單車會阻礙交通?
我的觀察是:
1.踩單車行大馬路比好多人想像中安全;
2.單車佔用行車線一點也不會阻礙交通;
3.踩單車其實好快捷。(單車平均速度約25km/h,片段中土瓜灣去觀塘只需不足16分鐘。)

3. 以為在馬路踩單車是為了自我娛樂的自私玩命行為

回應:其實城巿中有很多很多人是以單車作代步工具,不是玩具(當然踩單車返工比逼地鐵有趣得多),也不是休憩運動(當然踩單車返工是很好的運動),也有不 少人是為了環保而選擇踩單車而不用汽車;單車的功能廣大,不可把所有踩單車的人定型為某一種類自我娛樂的人。有些人以為自己汽車又快又硬,不顧其他道路使 用者而開快車的人,是否自私?有些人以為有錢買電油,日日一個人無實際需要而駕駛高污染高碳排放的汽車發出高噪音,浪費能源,污染環境,佔用寶貴城巿空 間,這又是否自私?踩單車代步其實可以好偉大,是愛護這個地球的實際行動。

4. 以為在馬路踩單車會阻慢交通

回應:單車只不過是一輛極速有限的車輛(其實單車一點也不慢,巿區汽車平均車速20多公里,部分主要道路(如德輔道西)在平日早上繁忙時間的行車速度約為每小時10公里甚至更慢,單車其實比汽車更快),塞車的元凶是汽車太多,完全和單車無關,這個另外有文章:
請看「單車阻慢交通嗎?
及:「單車 v 跑步 v私家車」點對點全港首試實驗

5. 以為汽車有交車輛牌照費、有買保險,單車無,所以不應用馬路

回應:汽車的牌照費不是路權費,是按照車輛汽缸容量而訂定的,相信是按照對環境的破壞而收的費用,單車汽缸容量等於零,更有助保護環境,收什麼費呢?反而 要補貼放棄駕駛而以單車代步人仕就對了。第三者保險是為使用車輛時的疏忽而引致第三者傷亡或財物損毀所須承擔法律上之賠償責任,很明顯,因為汽車可以是殺 人工具,隨時能引致其他人傷亡,所以要為第三者買保險,預備汽車撞傷人撞死人時可以有得賠,因為隨時能引致其他人傷亡,所以要學車考牌才可以駕駛(香港每 年交通意外死大約超過100人,傷20000人都是被有牌的司機所殺傷的,證明有牌不等於安全,態度更重要),以單車對其他人的安全性,以單車對環境的好 處,在世界各地踩單車也不用第三者保險及執照,更不用牌費可以說是理所當然。
想起外國人有句說話”You own a car, not the road.”
回應了這麼多,大家看到問題(problems)了嗎?問題是太多汽車,問題是汽車主導的思想,問題是部分駕駛者的駕駛態度。
單車在馬路上不單止不是問題,而且是解決問題的方法(solution),全世界都以單車為城巿問題的解決方法之一,香港人還在討論呢D?

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)