INTRODUCTION
The number of cyclists on roads and also on pavements is increasing, but there is virtually no infrastructure to support or accommodate cyclists, and also there are some outdated legal issues regarding cycling on road/pavement.
Singapore is a relatively quite a flat island that is very suitable for cycling, except for the hot weather. Most roads and pavements are very nicely built, and is suitable for cycling.
After implementing the interchange system, the public bus transportation becomes very time consuming/wasting.
The "poor" impression that most Singaporeans get when they know I cycle doesn't seem to exist in most foreigners I met. I believe the increase of cyclists is because of the increasing number of foreigners here who unleashed the above advantageous features here for cycling, and the inconvenient interchange system.
PROBLEMS
(1) It is illegal to cycle on pavements, but most cyclists, and also many motorists find it dangerous for cyclists to be on roads.
(2) It is much safer to cycle on pavements, but this is at the expense of higher risks to the pedestrians.
(3) There are many motorists who are angry with cyclists on roads because they don't know that it is perfectly legal.
(4) Regardless of the knowledge that pedestrians are the rightful users of pavements ... , most pedestrians are too giving way to cyclists, and most cyclists expect that to happen.
"SOLUTIONS"
Traffic police has been quiet all the while. May be they lack of expertise on this.
LTA keeps repeating the point that there are lack of land to make lane for cyclists.
Pedestrians have been accusing rackless cyclists who always almost knock on to them on pavements, and strongly stressed that cyclists must not be on the pavements.
A 1-year study is being carried out in Tampines is completing in 2 months time to look at the feasibility of allowing cyclists on pavements, but some people like Today's Ravi Veloo are not happy with the study and the "intended" conclusion.
MY VIEWS
I have been using bicycle as my main mode of transport for over a decade, since 1996. I am lucky to live in Toa Payoh, which is at the centre and make it relatively feasible for me to cycle to virtually everywhere in Singapore, and even to Johor Bahru.
Although I find it very convenient, cheap, quite healthy, similar time as taking public transport, etc., I cannot deny the huge risk and danger to cycle on the road. Thus, I have never encouraged anyone to cycle on road, but only to share my experiences if someone is considering to do so. My main advice is: it is better that you have drove a car before because then you understand the drivers better, and also appreciate how dangerous it is for a cyclist to be on the road.
Then, why didn't I cycle on pavements. Frankly, being illegal wasn't the reason. Firstly and ironically, it was safety issue. Roads are designed for the wheel while pavements are for legs. A small hole, gap, protruding roots, steps on pavements make them dangerous even for cycling slowly. Secondly, as mentioned, the times taken to travel on pavements could be more than twice that on roads. Thirdly, and only when I had come to know of it, is because it is illegal. However, I question this as the related laws were set in 1955, while many things have changed.
(1) The pavements most people are talking now mainly refer to those in HDB estates, which were only built in the 60's and 70's. I suspect the pavements refered to by the laws are those we may still find in some places of Chinatown. Thus, the reason then might have disappeared decades ago.
(2) The requirements to have a head light, but optional for a tail light reflects that bicycles were among the faster moving objects on roads. However, my experience is that head light are quite redundant 99% of the time, while tail light is a must for me, and if without it, I'll cycle on pavement. Thus, the safeness of cycling on road then is gone long long time ago.
(3) There was probably one type of cyclists, and bicycle, those old style made-in-china bicycle of 28" wheels, but there are various types of cyclists, and bicycles now with price ranging from less than S$50 to more than S$5000. Thus, to have a simple set of yes/no rules to apply to different classes of cyclists and different types of pavements is impractical.
I suggest, briefly, ideas similar to the brilliant idea to allow left-turn on red at certain traffic junctions, have a set and range of rules catering to different types of pavements. Initially, there were some protests and signs put up accusing left-turn on red as a very dangerous rule for pedestrians. As people got use to it, now it seems to be a safe and working rule.
Coincidently, although vehicle can turn left on red, but pedestrians are still given the right to cross the road first. I feel this is the right way, and has to be made clear to all cyclists and pedestrians: when cyclists are cycling on pavements, pedestrians have the full right to use the pavement and absolutely no requirement to give way to the cyclists, and cyclists should never expect any pedestrians to give way, but to slow or stop and wait no matter how not-giving way the pedestrians want to be.
I always find the many sudden way-giving acts of pedestrians dangerous to them, and for cyclists to expect pedestrians to give way is dangerous to all.
Also, when trying to outreach to educate cyclists, need to target not only
(a) the hobbyists, who are on high end bicycles and are typically more matured and safety precautious,
but also other groups such as
(b) the regulars, subdivided into those intra-town cyclists, who cycle within their town from home to interchange/MRT stations/markets/etc,
and
(c) the regulars, inter-town cyclists, who like me, cycle up to an hour all the way from home to workplace/school/etc.
(d) the holiday-cyclists, who are mainly inexperienced teenagers and school kids, and I suspect these are the main "reckless cyclists," who like to speed, cycle on one wheel, jump up and down curbs, etc.
(e) cyclists of different nationalities, who need to be integrated into our society at all levels and aspects.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Cycling in Singapore
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Cost of transportation is rising
Introduction
In my small island nation Singapore, the transport cost is rising year after year.
Certificate of Entitlement (COE) to own a vehicle tries to limit the number of vehicle in the country. COE targets correctly on one of the cause, the number of vehicles on road. However, for this to work require slowing down the success of a goal of the government, which is the growth in wealth of the people ... but how could growth in wealth be slowed down? .
Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) of using certain common roads initially to limit the number of vehicles in congested areas such as the central business district (CBD), but now it is to limit the amount of traffic on these roads. Theses roads were mainly some major expressways, but now it also include roads in residential town, such as Lorong 6 Toa Payoh.
Public transportation fares have been a strictly increasing curve, always ignoring any drop in petrol prices or any other running costs.
Taxi fares continues to increase even after the increase of taxis operators and number of taxis on the road.
Problems
The number of vehicles in the country is still increasing at maximum rate set by the authority. CBD is still congested. Major expressways have daily traffic jams. Having ERP on Lorong 6 Toa Payoh will not reduce but just spread the traffic volume into Marymount road, Thomson road and Upper Serangoon roads. MRT is getting more cramp day after day. Taxis still run around yet hard to fetch at some location during some periods.
Solutions
None yet.
My views
First of all, is it a problem? Yes, the cost is rising, but how high is it when compared to other cities. We shouldn't compare to the old Singapore. I am not talking the time when policemen ware khaki shorts, but even just 5 to 10 years ago. We should compare to other cities at the similar developed level as here.
Secondly, how should this problem be solved? The overall way is to improve the traffic situation, so that it is cheaper to own a car, if one choose to, and it is worth it to take public transport, which is encouraged by the authorities. Has anyone look into the need for travel?
I suggest moving from the mentality of Gun (鲧) to that of Yu (禹), as in the story of Yu the Great Conquered the Flood (大禹治水). The former tried blocking while the latter used channeling. ERP is not the ultimate solution. It can temporarily reduce, or redistribute the traffic volume. However, eventually the traffic jam will return. Nevertheless, ERP is a good way to get revenue for the government, just as damps help to gather energy from the ever flowing water.
The recent announcement of 2 new Thomson and Eastern Region lines is a channeling way. Probably the ERP is needed to gather enough revenue (or problems) to support building these new MRT lines :) Further searches led me to this image, but I not sure how true it is. Anyway, that's a good direction to head towards.
Other than the dimension of space, there is the dimension of time. The concept of peak hours need to be re-considered. How can the unused traffic capacity during non-peak hours be better utilized to help shoulder the burden during peak hours? I believe many office hour jobs can be rescheduled slightly to avoid the peak hours.
Next, also considering the need to travel. This, I think is a more causal factor than the number of vehicles. The rise in transport cost might actually reduce the want to travel. However, that's bad as it make people feel poorer and less happy, just like what the COE have been doing. Imagine how demoralizing it is to reduce the number of family outing trips due to cost. How about the need to travel? On the other hand, wouldn't it be nice to reduce the number of days that need to travel to work? Or at least, travel at a non-peak time.
