中文版 (Chinese version):“「電動輔助單車」不可踩馬路”

What is an “electric assisted bicycle”? What is the difference between these and ordinary bicycles?

Electric-assisted bicycles, as the name suggests, are bicycles that are mainly human-powered and supplemented by electricity. The way to move forward is to pedal with both feet. When the speed reaches 25 kph or above, the electric motor will cut out. Above 25 kph, such machines are entirely dependent on human power.

This offers the following advantages:

1. Better strength when going uphill, which helps to overcome gradients.

2. The same human energy output can support longer distances.

3. Saves effort, helps overcome the weight of freight, and helps Hong Kong commuters avoid the problem of arriving sweaty at their workplace.

4. Allows people of lower physical strength, or with slight disabilities or injuries to use bicycles.

In terms of driving speed, university research[1] shows the speed of ordinary people using electric-assisted bicycles is similar to that of ordinary bicycles, and some researchers [2] have found that using electric-assisted bicycles can also achieve the same amount of exercise as using ordinary bicycles.

What is the difference between “electric-assisted bicycle” and “electric bicycle”?

“Electric-assisted bicycle” refers to a bicycle (or tricycle) equipped with an auxiliary electric motor that operates only in support of human pedal power. It will only provide motor assistance when the user is pedalling. When a certain speed (generally 25 kph) is reached, the motor assistance stops.

“Electric bicycles” on the other hand refer to fully electric-powered bicycles, which do not necessarily have pedals (and are controlled by a throttle, like a motorbike). The speed and horsepower are often higher than for electric-assisted bicycles. In the laws of various countries, there are usually different regulations for “electric-assisted bicycles” and “electric bicycles”.

In Hong Kong, more and more people use electric scooters and electric-assisted bicycles, and the public and the Legislative Council are increasingly calling for the development and regulation of this area. It is hoped that Hong Kong can catch up with the world.

Recent developments in Hong Kong include the Government’s briefing on the results of the review on the use of electric mobility devices in Hong Kong, at the meeting of the Legislative Council Committee on Transport held on 19 June 2020, and the introduction of a regulatory system.

The Transport Department (TD) is currently planning to amend legislation to allow electric mobility devices (such as electric scooters, electric-assisted bicycles, etc.) to be used on the cycling track (only), and is seeking communication with the industry. On 14 October 2020, Hong Kong Cycling Alliance attended a meeting to exchange views between TD and invited cycling groups.

The discussion paper submitted by the TD to the Legislative Council and organizations mentioned that “electric mobility devices” will be divided into three categories:

(i) PMD, or Personal Mobility Device: common examples are electric scooters, two-wheeled electric scooters and electric unicycles; electric bicycles that do not need to be pedalled but are powered at high speed will also be classified as a PMD.

(ii) PAPC, Power Assisted Pedal Cycles: electric-assisted bicycles or tricycles equipped with an auxiliary electric motor and driven only in assisted pedalling mode to support pedalling force. Provide power but when reaching a certain speed, such as 25 kph, power assistance will stop.

(iii) “Electric personal mobility aids” PMA, Motorised Personal Mobility Aids (common examples are electric wheelchairs).

The Hong Kong Cycling Alliance has long striven to promote a welcoming environment for cycling in Hong Kong. Among the various “electric mobility devices” mentioned above, the Alliance is particularly concerned about the regulatory plan for electric-assisted bicycles.

This paper will not discuss “electric bicycles”, “electric scooters” or “electric wheelchairs”, the speed and horsepower of which may be greater than for electric-assisted bicycles..

Regulatory recommendations and discussion of the Transport Department

TD stated in the “Administration’s paper on review of the use of electric mobility devices in Hong Kong” (LegCo Document No. CB(4)698/19-20(02), hereinafter referred to as the “Paper”), that the government had reviewed the practices and regulations of 12 jurisdictions/cities, namely:

  1. Shanghai;
  2. Singapore;
  3. Tokyo;
  4. Seoul;
  5. Queensland (state), Australia;
  6. Victoria (state). Australia;
  7. the United Kingdom
  8. Germany;
  9. France;
  10. Barcelona;
  11. Washington DC; and
  12. New York State;

and used this review as a reference to formulate Hong Kong’s regulatory approach.

Regarding the circumstances in which the use of electric-assisted bicycles on the carriageway is permitted, the paper states:

“All jurisdictions/cities studied allow the use of electric assisted bicycles on the carriageway (if there is a dedicated bicycle lane on the carriageway, the electric assisted bicycle must use a dedicated bicycle lane)” (Paper page 3).

Since all 12 regions/cities allow the use of electric assisted bicycles on the carriageway, it is strange that TD recommends that electric-assisted bicycles should not be allowed on the carriageway.

TD’s reasoning, echoing its long-held opposition to cycling in the urban areas, is “We have carefully considered the local road conditions. The current road infrastructure design is centred on automobiles, and there is no dedicated cycle line. In fact, even in a non-central commercial area, Hong Kong is crowded with people and vehicles. Many roadside activities are also very frequent, so we recommend…electric assisted bicycles should not be allowed to be used on the carriageway.” (Paper, page 4).

Looking at many foreign examples, the usual practice is to basically treat “electric-assisted bicycles” (that is, they provide motive assistance only when pedalled, with motor assistance cutting out at around 25 kph) as a regular bicycles, because as long as the electric power is limited to a certain low level in terms of technical specifications, the actual performance of this “electric assisted bicycle” is very close to that of a normal bicycle [1], so it is suitable to be classified as a general bicycle.

This concept is applied in the European Union, the United Kingdom, North America, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, and even China, and other advanced cycling countries. It is also feasible in the practical experience of various countries.

Ask the Transport Department why can electric assisted bicycle not use the road?

So why is TD still choosing to go against the trend of the world’s advanced laws and regulations, insisting to exclude electric-assisted bicycles from the roads and only recommend pedalling on the bicycle track?

The rationale given by TD is still the old-fashioned argument, that is, “there is no bicycle lane on the road”, “there are more people and more cars in the city”, etc.

And this so-called “reason” has been said for more than 20 years, right?

During this period, cities such as London and New York, which once had these same attitudes of “there is no bicycle lane on the road” and “there are many people and many cars”, have turned into bicycle-friendly cities!

In 2020, Hong Kong is still discussing how to prohibit electric-assisted bicycles from appearing on roads in the city!

The question in front of us is why ordinary bicycles can travel on the road, but 25kph electric-assisted bicycles can’t?

In the exchange meeting between TD and the cycling group, one of the reasons given by the TD was that electric assisted bicycles were not safe on the road. Then why is it that electric-assisted bicycles are less safe on the road than ordinary bicycles? Is it safer to ride on the cycling track only? If safety is a consideration, in theory, electric-assisted bicycles on the road should be safer than ordinary bicycles, because they should be safer if the speeds on the same road are similar to traffic (the average speed of traffic in Hong Kong is about 20 kph)

We think the authorities only need to refer to the European Union to regulate the technical specifications of electric-assisted bicycles, and treat electric-assisted bicycles as ordinary bicycles. It is the most reasonable approach to allow electric-assisted bicycles to use roads and cycle tracks.

On the contrary, the government has inspected 12 countries/regions/cities in the world and found that all of them have unanimously approved the use of electric assisted bicycles on the roads, yet our government still restricts the use of electric-assisted bicycles on the road.

To limit their use to cycling tracks, the authorities must provide very strong justifications to prove that electric-assisted bicycles are less suitable for use on the road than ordinary bicycles. Does the Transport Department have such a rationale? Otherwise, banning the use of electric bicycles on the road appears illogical and contrary to common sense. It only continues the unreasonable policies of TD which are blindly unfriendly to bicycles.

The following table: Regulations on the use of electric assisted bicycles on roads, cycle tracks and footpaths in various jurisdictions.
(In all locations, a driving licence is not required to ride an electric assisted bicycle on a road or a bicycle track.)

City/countryOn the roadOn the bicycle trackOn the pavement
ShanghaiYes (if there are no special lanes, keep to the right of the road)YesNo
TokyoYesYesYes (under 13 years old or over 70, speed limit 10 kph
SeoulYesYesYes (from 2018), children, elderly and disabled
QueenslandYesYesYes (pedestrian priority)
VictoriaYesYesYes (people under 13 or disabled)
UKYesYesNo
GermanyYesYesYes (under 10 years old)
FranceYesYesYes (under 8 years old)
BarcelonaYesYesNo
Washington DCYesYesYes (except for city centre)
New York StateYesYesNo
TaiwanYesYesNo
Regulations on the use of electric-assisted bicycles on roads, cycle tracks and footpaths in various jurisdictions.

[1] A comparative health and safety analysis of electric-assist and regular bicycles in an on-campus bicycle sharing system. regular bicycles in an on-campus bicycle sharing system.

https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2445/

[2] Physical activity of electric bicycle users compared to conventional bicycle users and non-cyclists: Insights based on health and transport data from an online survey in seven European cities

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259019821930017X

什麼是「電動輔助單車」?與普通單車有什麼分別?

電動輔助單車故名思義是以人力為主,電力為輔的單車,前進的方式終歸是靠雙腳踩踏,當速度達到每小時25公里或以上時,電動輔助就會被切斷,每小時25公里之上就要完全靠腿力的輸出。電動輔助的最大用處不在於高速,而在於每小時25公里以下時的輔助:

1. 上斜時更好力,有助於克服斜坡;

2. 同一出力可踩更持久更長距離,有助於克服長途旅程;

3. 省力,有助於克服貨運負重及減輕勞動,有利於香港夏季通勤減少出汗後要上班的問題;

4. 讓體力稍為遜色人士及腳患康復者也能使用單車。

行車速度上,外國有大學研究[1]指出一般人使用電動輔助單車在行車速度上和普通單車近似,也有研究[2]指出使用電動輔助單車代步也能達至於好像使用普通單車一樣的運動量,有益健康。

「電動輔助單車」和「電動單車」有什麼分別?

「電動輔助單車」指裝設一個輔助電動馬達及只以輔助腳踏模式驅動以減輕腳踏用力的電動輔助單車(或三輪車)。只會在使用者踏腳踏時提供機動輔助,當達至某一速度(一般為每小時25公里)便會中斷機動輔助的單車。「電動單車」指全電力驅動的,不一定有踏板,通常速度及馬力可以比「電動輔助單車」更高。在各國的法律上通常對「電動輔助單車」及「電動單車」兩者有不同的規管。

在香港,電動滑板車及電動輔助單車等在香港越來越多人使用,而巿民及立法會對推動這方面的發展及規管上的呼聲也越來越大,盼望香港能追上世界的發展。香港最近期的發展包括政府當局於2020年6月19日舉行的立法會交通事務委員會會議上簡介了有關在香港使用電動可移動工具的檢討結果,以及引入規管制度的建議。運輸署當局現正就計劃修訂法例以容許電動可移動工具(如電動滑板車,電動輔助單車等)於單車徑上使用與業畀交流,香港單車同盟也應邀出席了2020年10月14日運輸署與單車團體的交流會議。

運輸署提交給立法會及團體的討論文件上提到會把「電動可移動工具」分為三大類:

(i) 「電動個人移動工具」PMD, Motorised Personal Mobility Device(常見例子有電動滑板車、兩輪電動踏板車和電動單輪車);不用踩踏而有動力高速前進的電動單車也會被歸類於此為「電動個人移動工具」;

以及

(ii) 「電動輔助單車」PAPC, Power Assisted Pedal Cycles(裝設一個輔助電動馬達及只以輔助腳踏模式驅動以減輕腳踏用力的電動輔助單車或三輪車。只會在使用者踏腳踏時提供機動輔助,當達至某一速度例如每小時25公里便會中斷機動輔助。);

(iii) 「電動個人移動輔助工具」 PMA, Motorised Personal Mobility Aids(常見例子為電動輪椅)

香港單車同盟一向注意推動香港的單車友善,在以上各種「電動可移動工具」之中本同盟特別關注到「電動輔助單車」的規管計劃;在此暫不討論速度及馬力有可能更大的「電動單車」、「電動滑板車」與「電動輪椅」。

運輸署的規管建議及討論

運輸署在提交立法會的「政府當局就檢討電動可移動工具在香港的使用提供的文件」(立法會CB(4)698/19-20(02)號文件,下稱「文件」)中表示曾檢視了12個司法管轄區/城市的做法和規管方式,包括 (1)上海、(2)新加坡、(3)東京、(4)首爾、(5)澳洲的昆士蘭州和(6)維多利亞州、(7)英國、(8)德國、(9)法國、(10)巴塞羅那,以及(11)美國首都華盛頓和(12)紐約州,並以此為參考製定香港的規管方式。

而就准許在行車道上使用電動輔助單車的情況,「文件」中表示:

「所有研究的司法管轄區/城市都准許在行車道上使用電動輔助單車(如行車道上已設有專用單車線,電動輔助單車均需要使用專用單車線)」(「文件」第3頁)

雖然所有十二個地區/城市都准許在行車道上使用電動輔助單車,但是很奇怪地輸署卻建議電動輔助單車不應獲准在行車道上使用

運輸署的理由是「我們已仔細考慮過本地的道路情況。現時的道路基建設計以汽車為中心,並無任何專設的單車線;而實際上,香港即使在非商業中心區,人多車多,路旁活動亦十分頻繁,因此我們建議…電動輔助單車不應獲准在行車道上使用。」(「文件」第4頁)

觀乎眾多國外的例子,慣例做法是基本上把「電動輔助單車」(就是只會在踩踏時提供機動輔助,當達至某一速度例如每小時25公里便會中斷機動輔助的那種)當作一般的單車去處理,因為只要在技術規格上把電動力限制在某一個低水平,這種「電動輔助單車」實際表現和一般單車很接近[1],所以很適合歸類為一般的單車去管理;這個方向理念在歐盟、英國、北美、澳洲、日本、台灣以至中國這些單車先進國家也是如出一轍,在各國的實踐經驗上也很可行。

問運輸署「電動輔助單車」為何不可踩馬路?

那為什麼運輸署仍然選擇逆世界先進法規之風而行,硬要把電動輔助單車排除於一般單車可以使用之路面(馬路)之外而只建議可於單車徑踩踏呢?運輸署所給的理據仍然是那套老掉牙的論述,就是「馬路並無單車線」巿區「人多車多」等,而這所謂「理由」已經講了超過廿年吧?這期間那些曾經也是「馬路並無單車線」及巿區「人多車多」的城巿如倫敦、紐約等都已變身為單車友善城巿了!2020年香港仍然在討論如何禁止電動輔助單車在巿區馬路出現!面前的問題是為什麼一般單車可以踩馬路,每小時25公里的電動輔助單車反而不可以?運輸署與單車團體的交流會議上,運輸署所給的其中一個理由是電動輔助單車在馬路上不安全。那為什麼電動輔助單車在馬路上為什麼比普通單車更不安全?而只可以在單車徑踩踏就更安全?如果安全是考慮,理論上在馬路上電動輔助單車應該比普通單車更加安全,因為同一路面上車速相近的話是理應更為安全(巿區平均車速大約每小時廿多公里)。 我們認為當局只要參考例如歐盟把電動輔助單車做好技術規格的規管,並把電動輔助單車當作為普通單車一樣的處理,容許電動輔助單車便用馬路及單車徑,這是最合情合理的做法。
相反,如果檢視了全世界12個(連同台灣共13個)國家/地區/城巿而發現全部都一致准許在馬路上使用電動輔助單車,卻仍然反其正道而把電動輔助單車限制只可以在單車徑上使用,當局就必須要提出非常強的理據,去證明電動輔助單車比普通單車更不適合在馬路使用,運輸署有這樣的理據嗎?否則禁止電動輔助單車使用馬路可能只是不合邏輯及違反常識的做法,只是延續了運輸署一向盲目地對單車不友善的不合理政策。

下表:各地電動輔助單車在馬路、單車徑及行人路的使用法規
(無論在馬路、單車徑踩電動輔助單車,各地都不用領取駕駛執照)

國家/地區踩馬路踩單車徑踩行人路
上海可以,馬路上如無非機動車道時靠行車線的右側行駛可以不可以
新加坡16歲或以上可以可以,限速25公里/時不可以
東京可以可以13歲以下70歲以上及殘障者可以,限速10公里/時
首爾可以可以(2018年起)兒童長者及殘障者可以
昆士蘭州可以可以可以,行人優先
維多利亞州可以可以13歲以下或殘障者可以
英國可以可以不可
德國可以可以10或歲以下可以
法國可以可以8歲以下可以
巴塞羅那可以可以不可
華盛頓DC可以可以可以(巿中心除外)
紐約州可以可以不可
台灣可以可以不可
國家/地區踩馬路踩單車徑踩行人路
各地電動輔助單車在馬路、單車徑及行人路的使用法規

[1] A comparative health and safety analysis of electric-assist and regular bicycles in an on-campus bicycle sharing system. regular bicycles in an on-campus bicycle sharing system.

https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2445/

[2] Physical activity of electric bicycle users compared to conventional bicycle users and non-cyclists: Insights based on health and transport data from an online survey in seven European cities

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259019821930017X

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。

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

 

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

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?

馬路上踩單車的第三種模式

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:https://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。

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.

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.

 

 

 

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.”

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

Another new study out again finds that mandatory helmet use has a negative impact on public health. We are lucky that common sense has won on this subject, but I hope that other countries around the world will be able to question again their own mandatory helmet laws and fully understand the consequences.

This article seeks to answer the question whether mandatory bicycle helmet laws deliver a net societal health benefit. The question is addressed using a simple model. The model recognizes a single health benefit—reduced head injuries—and a single health cost—increased morbidity due to foregone exercise from reduced cycling. Using estimates suggested in the literature on the effectiveness of helmets, the health benefits of cycling, head injury rates, and reductions in cycling leads to the following conclusions. In jurisdictions where cycling is safe, a helmet law is likely to have a large unintended negative health impact. In jurisdictions where cycling is relatively unsafe, helmets will do little to make it safer and a helmet law, under relatively extreme assumptions, may make a small positive contribution to net societal health. The model serves to focus the mandatory bicycle helmet law debate on overall health.