最近在中國大陸的報章也有討論香港的單車政策，我們在此也作出幾點回應。以下是南方都巿報的文章，接著是我的簡單回應。2012-10-29南方都市報 公共交通發達，何須追求“單車城市” 作者:黎媛(深圳，前駐港記者) 摘要：近日，有港媒報導，近年倫敦、紐約等大城市正致力打造“單車城市”，而踩單車在香港也日趨流行，只是香港市區道路設計並不鼓勵單車行駛，但是，既然倫敦等城市可以做到，香港為什麼要對“單車城市”絕對地說不呢？ 發現香港 近日，有港媒報導，近年倫敦、紐約等大城市正致力打造“單車城市”，而踩單車在香港也日趨流行，只是香港市區道路設計並不鼓勵單車行駛，但是，既然倫敦等城市可以做到，香港為什麼要對“單車城市”絕對地說不呢？ 單車確是低碳、環保的出行方式，騎單車又能強身健體，但是“有些風你不必跟”。香港完全沒有必要成為所謂的“單車城市”，因為香港的公共交通已較成熟，它的最大亮點就是“無縫接駁”。 ……(請按這連結閱讀這文章：http://gcontent.oeeee.com/d/68/d68a18275455ae3e/Blog/b08/06dc06.html)
6.即使公共交通發達，香港的汽車還是太多：「按政府的2009交通統計年報 12，2009年全香港的登記和註冊車輛分別有642270和584070架，而其中私人轎車（Private Car）則為429754和 393812架，佔全港車輛67%之多，而公共運輸車輛（巴士、小巴、非專營巴士）則只有19739和19585架，只佔全港車輛約3.3%。所以，換句話說，私人轎車使用者，在市區土地中佔一至兩成的「道路」用地的使用分額，比沒擁有私人轎車的大眾市民，實在高出很多。」（趙智勳，無法使用單車的城市；文化研究@嶺南 第二十三期 2011年3月）
7.為大量汽車建大量道路浪費巿區珍貴土地：「香港佔地1108平方公里，農地、魚塘、林地、灌叢、劣地、水塘、墳場等按常理較少人使用或低度開發的土地佔了735平方公里，市區用地（概括的有住宅、商業、工業、機構/休憩、道路、鐵路、機場用地）則佔了約211平方公里。但是，單就市區用地中「道路」一項，就已經佔了42平方公里，差不多是兩成市區土地，比起「私人住宅」和「公屋」用地的總和（41平方公里）還稍稍多一點。」（趙智勳，無法使用單車的城市；文化研究@嶺南 第二十三期 2011年3月）
There’s a great new post on the Bikeyface blog, copied here for your enjoyment:
I bike pretty much everywhere in the city these days. But I also have a driver’s license and 16 years of driving experience. And occasionally I still drive. Like the other day I ended up driving across town to run an errand. Now, if you live anywhere near a city, you know that the driving experience is not exactly as advertised:
It’s a little bit more like this:
Which is not a good advertisement for cars. But this is exactly what I found myself driving in.
After my errand, I decided I wanted to stay out. I was hungry and there are great restaurants downtown. And some shops too. (I know, because I discovered them all by bike.) But in a car, I realized that I couldn’tcasually go to any of them. I was trapped…
…and had to pass them by. It was like I was carrying the weight of the car rather than it carrying me. And I was tired. So I went straight home instead. Cars are useful, but driving in a city is kind of like trying to thread a needle while wearing a boxing glove.
From the NPR website comes an article about cycling infrastructure that we can dream of here in Hong Kong.
Every day, one-third of the people of Copenhagen ride their bikes to work or school. Collectively, they cycle more than 750,000 miles daily, enough to make it to the moon and back. And city officials want even more people to commute, and over longer distances.
So a network of 26 new bike routes, dubbed “the cycling superhighway,” is being built to link the surrounding suburbs to Copenhagen.
Lars Gaardhoj, an official with the Copenhagen capital region, says the routes will be straight and direct.
“It will be very fast for people who use their bike,” he says. “This is new because traditionally cycle paths have been placed where there is space for them and the cars didn’t run. So now the bike is going to challenge the car.”
The first highway, to the busy suburb of Albertslund some 10 miles outside the city, was completed in April.
To test it, I got a rental bike and went out for a ride.
No Place For Slowpokes
One of the first things you learn about these bike lanes is that you have to move in fast. This is not leisurely biking — this is serious stuff in Copenhagen.
It’s a parallel world of transportation: You’ve got the cars on the roads and the people on their bikes. There are thousands and thousands of people on their bikes here in this city.
As commuters pour into Copenhaghen on the new highway, I stop biker Cona Endelgo at a red light. Endelgo says he used to drive his car to work, but biking is better.
“It gives you more exercise and motion, and it’s more free, and it’s quicker. When I pass the harbor, I wave to the cars,” he says.
Each mile of bike highway will cost about $1 million. The project is to be financed by the city of Copenhagen and 21 local governments. And in a country where both right- and left-leaning politicians regularly ride bikes to work, it has bilateral support.
Addressing The Needs Of Bikers
Several innovations are being tested, like “green wave” technology, which times traffic lights to suit bikers. If you maintain a certain pace, you can ride all the way through into the city without stopping. There are also footrests with bars to lean on at traffic lights, and a bike pump every mile in case you have a flat.
Outside the city, the pace is slower and people talk to each other as they ride. Jacob Messen, 33, is on his way to a water park with his kids. He says support for the project runs deep.
“Bicycles are a very essential element in most people’s lives in Denmark,” he says. “We have them as small infants and all the way up through the ages.”
He’s not kidding. Another rider, 83-year-old Soulva Jensen, is using the highway to visit her daughter in a neighboring town.
“The trains are too much trouble at the moment, so I thought it was easier to take the bike,” she says.
Once the highway network is completed, an estimated 15,000 additional people will switch from driving to biking. And that, say officials, will have a direct impact on the environment, public health and finances. The bike highway alone is expected to save Copenhagen’s health care system some $60 million a year.
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.
The following is reproduced from a great article on the European Cyclists’ Federation website.
Many cyclists already know they are faster than cars, particularly in peak hour traffic. Yet even cyclists may be surprised at how much time bicycles can save in any city when all time costs are considered. Dr. Paul Tranter, who has written a chapter in the upcoming “City Cycling” book, tells us why.
You may already know it, but in most cities throughout the world, cycling is a “faster” mode of transportation than the car. But for those that still aren’t convinced, it’s time to learn about “effective speed”.
“Effective speed is calculated using the standard formula: speed equals distance divided by time. Time here includes not only the time spent moving; it also includes the time devoted to enabling the movement to occur,” explains Dr. Paul Tranter, a geography Professor at the University of New South Wales, and an author from the upcoming City Cycling book.
“For car drivers, a significant (and usually ignored) time cost is the time spent at work to earn the money to pay for all the expenses associated with the mode of transport.”
And he’s right. All too often, car drivers rarely consider the total time devoted to their machines. If you’re not convinced, here’s a little anecdote that Tranter tells to make to change your mind:
Imagine that you live in a village in the 1800s and that your job each day is to collect water from a nearby stream. This task takes you an hour each day. To “save time,” you construct a machine consisting of a system of pulleys, cables, levers, and springs to collect the water for you. With this machine, simply by pulling a lever, you can send your bucket to the stream and have it returned full of water. You appear to have saved yourself an hour each day. However, to get the machine to work, you must spend an hour each day winding up the spring that powers the machine. Should you consider this time in any decision about the effectiveness of the machine?
“Many motorists—and city governments—seem to ignore this time spent earning money to pay for the transportation costs, that is, the time spent winding up the spring,” explains Tranter.
We shouldn’t forget this concept of effective speed is nothing new. Ivan Ilich, in his 1974 book “Energy and Equity” outlined it perfectly:
“The typical American male devotes more than 1,600 hours a year to his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He spends four of his sixteen waking hours on the road or gathering his resources for it. … The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: less than five miles per hour.”
How fast is your city?
Tranter, in the upcoming “City Cycling” book, has gone to the trouble to finding just how fast cars really by crunching data on income and travel times. The results almost beggar belief.
Effective speeds for car speeds varied from 18.3 km/h in Canberra, Australia, to a mere 3 km/h in Nairobi. When the external costs are taken into account, the effective speeds for car drivers range from a high of 15.9 km/h (Canberra) to a low of 2.2 km/h (Nairobi).
“We then used these estimates to calculate how slow cyclists could cycle and still be effectively faster than a car. When both direct and indirect costs are considered, cyclists in Canberra would need to average only 18.3 km/h to be faster than a car driver. In New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, and Hamburg, cyclists would not need to travel faster than 13 km/h to be faster than a car,” says Tranter, before adding:
“To be effectively faster than the number-one-selling car in Australia, a cyclist in Canberra would need to cycle at only 12.7 km/h. In all other Australian cities, the cyclists could travel slower than this, and still be faster than the top-selling car.”
So what does this mean for governments?
If city governments wish to invest wisely in transportation, they need to understand that increasing the average trip speeds of private motor vehicles doesn’t actually save time. This argument applies to any city in the world.
“Those cities that invest most effectively in cycling infrastructure will find that their cities become the fastest cities in the world,” says Tranter.
Thankfully, when we’re on a bicycle we don’t always have to rush. Taking it slowly is part of the fun. But we can still feel smug as cars go past knowing who’s really the fasted.
If the Government were to treat the roads in the same way as they treat the cycle paths, what problems would drivers experience that cyclists see?
We don’t have the same number of cycle lanes/paths as in the UK, so in some ways it would be nice to have these problems to deal with, but it does clearly show that cycle lanes and paths need to be well designed to be useful to cyclists.
This is extracted from a post on the London Cycling Campaign blog
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.