Header
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?

Share This :

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)

 

Share This :

Protected Intersections For Bicyclists from Nick Falbo on Vimeo.

 

Protected bike lanes are the latest approach US cities are taking to help their residents get around by bike. But these protected lanes lose their buffer separation at intersections, reducing the comfort and safety for people riding. What the protected bike lane needs is the protected intersection. This proposal for the George Mason University 2014 Cameron Rian Hays Outside the Box Competition presents a vision for a safe, clear intersection design that improves conditions for all users. Proper design of refuge islands, crossing position and signal timing can create a safe intersection that people of all ages and abilities would feel safe in.

Learn more online at ProtectedIntersection.com

Share This :

馬路上踩單車的第三種模式

taking the lane

taking the lane

 

 

 

馬路上踩單車的三種模式

在馬路上騎行大致可分類為三種模式:「行人模式」(pedestrian style),「靠邊模式」(hugging-the-kerb style),「車輛模式」(vehicular style);第一種模式「行人模式」就是不行馬路,即使行馬路也無視交通規則;第二種「靠邊模式」就是在馬路踩但卻儘量貼近馬路邊,基本上避開成為路上車流的一部分,讓出行車線給其他車輛。

建議用「車輛模式」

在大部分情況下,建議以第三種方式騎單車,即車輛模式(vehicular style, 也可稱為bicycle driving, vehicular cycling),簡單來說是把單車作為和其他車輛一樣的方式行駛並跟隨道路上共通的法則及語言;

原因一. 這是較安全的做法;因為和其他道路使用者用同一套道路規則及道路語言,大家知道如何配合;另外,路邊的危險也較多,例如溝渠,突然打開的車門,忽然有行人踏出馬路等…避開路邊能減少這類危險。

原因二. 這是完全配合法例的做法;如果單車人仕沒有充分行駛路權,例如縮在馬路邊行駛,萬一有汽車巴士等埋站上落客或者在同一行車線超越時發生意外,法庭及警方未必會同情主動讓出行車線路權的單車人仕,單車人仕自然吃虧。

近來運輸署的宣傳片(例如李慧詩那個「騎單車 安全才是第一」http://youtu.be/xPoWHkAg0Lo)也說單車和其他車輛有同等路權,而按多方車友的經驗,現時警方交通部也不會就單車佔用慢線有任何質疑。而道路安全議會也已經於2012年3月出版的刊物更新了騎單車的建議,並且已經上載於運輸署網頁:(http://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_4552/web_221201433_leaflet_a.pdf)「在狹窄的行車(線)道(相信這包括香港大部分的行車(線)道,因為香港大部分的行車(線)道也是狹窄得不足夠讓單車及其他車輛安全並排行駛的)或轉彎時,宜駛在行車(線)道的中央以策安全

車輛模式(vehicular style)的其中一個具體實施,就是在行車線的中間行駛佔用行車線,原因之一是要讓其他車輛清楚看到單車,原因之二是鼓勵其他較快的車輛使用另一行車線超越單車,以保持安全距離,可以看這影片「在行車線的哪一處踏單車才安全?(2分鐘版)」(http://youtu.be/w3RXZm7539A)就會清楚。

法庭會同意單車駛在行車線中間嗎?

如果被其他汽車危及安全,是絕對應該交由警方跟進。不要自我以為忍氣吞聲或者放人一馬就無事,今次自己無受傷,下次可能是另一位車友的生命受害,為道路安全一定要盡公民責任交警方跟進。

在此讓大家參考以下的案例:

後鏡頭http://youtu.be/IRRrRH6q-Sk及前鏡頭http://youtu.be/SHGsjRTlNlI

片段中的巴士司機已經被定罪不小心駕駛,被扣分並罰款。原因是他入侵了單車的行車線,判決書中定罪原因是:「被告轉線時未有足夠安全考慮給單車使用者,單車使用者作為一個道路使用者,當時在左一線有使用的優先權,事件中可以看到切線太急,而導致單車使用者感覺人身安全受到威脅,被迫收慢及扭軚,所以裁定不小心駕駛罪名成立。

留意判詞中肯定了騎單車人士作為一個道路使用者,在所佔用的行車線有使用的優先權,所以鼓勵大家車友為大家安全要佔用行車線。

佔用行車線會阻慢交通?

可能有單車友及其他人士認為單車佔用行車線會阻慢交通,其實在大部分情形下,反而是其他汽車擠塞阻慢了單車!而真正阻礙交通的是其他車輛、工程、欠佳的道路設計及交通燈(有關這方面的討論請看:http://hkcyclingalliance.org/are-bicycles-slowing-down-traffic),當然,如果真的是有長長車龍跟在後面,還是互相禮讓,安全情形下停靠在一邊先讓後車經過為佳。

所以結論是:不要因為怕在行車道中央騎單車而恆常貼近路邊行駛,反而危害自己及其他人的安全。

Share This :

The Road Safety Council recently changed its guidance regarding where cyclists should be in the roadspace. It now tells cyclists to be in the middle of any narrow lane (ie. when another vehicle cannot safely be alongside within the lane) or when you are approaching a turn.

On Hong Kong’s confined streets, this has many benefits: it makes you much more visible to drivers, gives you some space on your left when vehicles come too close, and ensures that drivers think before they overtake you rather than believing they can “just squeeze past” when you are nearer the kerb.

I saw this post on the fantastic bikeyface blog today and thought it was very appropriate:

************************

Whenever a person first discovers I bike, they reply with a story. And it’s always the same story.

“I was driving down [insert any road name] when all of the sudden I saw a cyclist in the MIDDLE OF THE ROAD!”  Inevitably it always ends with them saying they “just tapped on their horn” or “squeezed by” or “yelled out to the cyclist.” 

And many many times I’ve been the cyclist in one of these stories – the one sharing the road with a driver that isn’t aware of the basic road rules regarding bikes.

What’s worse is that sometimes reasonable people panic at the sight of a bicycle in the lane… and then all that reason flies out the window.

Middle of the Road

So I wanted to explain it to those who have never biked in the city:

Middle of the Road

And there’s more. Bikes are small, but they still need space. Cars should give cyclists the same amount of space when passing as another vehicle, at least 3 ft. However, not all roads allow for that, particularly in Boston:

Middle of the Road

So don’t panic when you see a bike in your lane. Just treat it like another vehicle. If you can pass safely, that’s fine. If not, most likely you won’t be slowed down much if at all. In the city, I find that car traffic slows me down much more than the other way around.

Share This :

Are cyclists killing themselves on the roads, or is it time for the Hong Kong Government and the police to realise that the majority of cyclists killed each year are cycling on the roads, and are killed by vehicles.

The Hong Kong Police are about to start one of their biannual safe cycling campaigns, giving the police a chance to tell cyclists how to behave whilst letting drivers of vehicles who are the real dangers on the roads for cyclists, continue to put cyclists lives at risk.

Does anyone really believe that cyclists need telling how to behave around drivers?

Anyone who cycles on the roads here already knows the rules and how to ride safely without needing the police to tell them how to do it. The best way to bring down the numbers of cyclists killed in Hong Kong each year is to start proper driver education, showing drivers how to behave around cyclists.

Here is the press release:

Safe cycling campaign to launch in Hong Kong

Police will hold a citywide safe cycling campaign from September 19 to 25, taking stringent enforcement action on cyclists disobeying road rules.

Between January and August, there were 1,639 traffic accidents involving bicycles, resulting in 1,540 cyclist casualties. The figures are up 11% and 10% on last year. Six cyclists died in traffic accidents in the first eight months of this year, a decrease of four when compared with the same period last year.

Common cycling offences include carrying another person, carrying an animal or article which obstructs the cyclist’s view, riding a bicycle on the footpath, and riding without illuminated lights.

Share This :

HKCAll has surveyed candidates in Sunday’s (9 Sept) elections for the Legislative Council for their views on cycling.

The results show that many strongly support the substantive development of cycling for Hong Kong.  Some are better informed than others, but this is an important time for progress in many areas, with important decisions being made about key development projects, such as West Kowloon, Kai Tak and Northern District, as well as the sluggish development of the New Territories Cycling Network.  Moreover, we believe that now is the time to address the yawning policy void that the government has with regards to cycling.

It is vital that the new Legco is able to press our government to implement the visionary policies we need if Hong Kong is to properly serve the increasing number of cyclists of all stripes, and more importantly to justify its ‘world city’ label with planning and administration that integrates cycling, to ease traffic congestion, facilitate personal mobility, improve the quality of our environment (air pollution, noise pollution, excessive concrete and roads) and raise health and wellness levels for our whole population.

See what the candidates had to say.

 

 

 

Share This :

This is reproduced from the excellent Transportation Alternatives website

A few years ago, the New York Times published a five-sentence brief about a man who “intentionally ran over five people” with an SUV after a fight in North Bellmore, Long Island. The driver, the Times reported, “fled the scene of the accident.” The police later located the vehicle that “they believed was involved in the accident.” One of the victims was in critical condition.

Ho hum. News briefs about the previous day’s car crashes are as routine as box scores and the weather forecast. Yet, in this case, the Times’ (and, presumably, the Nassau County cops’) choice of one particular word stood out: If a man intentionally ran over five people, how could that possibly be considered an accident? If, instead of car keys, the man had picked up a gun and shot five people, would the press and police have called that an “accident” too? No. They’d have called it “attempted homicide.” Yet, for some reason when the weapon is a car, when the violence on our streets is done with a motor vehicle, it’s always just an “accident.”

So, is it any surprise that the NYPD’s “Accident” Investigation Squad so frequently declares “no criminality suspected” after a motor vehicle is used to kill a pedestrian or cyclist on New York City streets? After all, they don’t call themselves the Motor Vehicle Manslaughter Squad. They don’t think of themselves as homicide detectives, or cars as weapons, or drivers as killers. The word “accident” implies no fault. It’s what we call it when a toddler makes a small mess. “Don’t cry over spilled milk,” we say. The assumption is built into the name of the NYPD bureaucracy itself: Death by motor vehicle is an “accident” before the investigators even get to what may very well be the scene of a crime. The Accident Investigation Squad is there to clean up and keep the traffic moving.

Though it may sometimes seem otherwise, New York City drivers don’t wake up in the morning intending to harm pedestrians and cyclists. Most crashes are unintentional and “accident” is not an inaccurate word to describe them. But the fact remains: Driver negligence is the number one cause of crashes, and it’s no big surprise—or accident—when negligent driving hurts and kills people on crowded city streets. In fact, our legal system has a word for this type of unintentional killing: “Manslaughter.” Lots of work needs to be done and lots of things need to change to fix the way the NYPD deals with pedestrians and cyclists who have been injured and killed by negligent drivers. But if it’s true that small changes in language can have a big impact on public policy, then the easiest change is simply this: Stop calling car crashes “accidents.”

Share This :

Who hears more of the traffic buzz – a driver using his in-car music system or a bike rider using an iPod and earphones?  Cyclists are often criticised for listening to music as they ride.  It turns out that they likely hear much more of the road environment than a car driver does, even when that driver has no music playing.

It does depend on what kind of earphones you use, and of course the music volume.

But a driver who has the stereo playing certainly hears less of what’s going on than any cyclist listening to music.  (And of course, not mentioned in this research, is that the driver also sees less, because of his vehicle blind spots.)

RideOn, “Australia’s most widely-read bike magazine”, did the research.

 

 

 

 

 

Share This :

運輸署剛剛發佈了新一段「單車安全」短片。此14分鐘短片將在各學校及警署、車輛牌照事務處等政府場地巡迴播放。

網上版本共分為6段:裝備、騎單車基本技巧、實戰篇–單車徑上、實戰篇–馬路上、駕駛者須知、行人須知。

訴說本同盟會對影片意見之前,何不由你來評論?

Chinese version

The Transport Department has just released a new ‘Cycling Safety’ video.  It’s 14 minutes long and will be shown in schools and at government offices open to the public, such as vehicle licensing centres and police stations.

This online version is split into six sections: Equipment, Basic Skills, Riding on Cycle Tracks, Riding on the Road, For Motorists and For Pedestrians.

Rather than telling you what we think of it, immediately, why not take a look and tell us your view?

English version

Share This :