The other night I was invited to a party in London; a classic, 'i'll know 2 people there' but what the hell? It started badly when at the front door i was introduced to someone called Maximillian who does installation art. I didn't know what installation art was either and I still don't.. I think it might have something to do with doing impressions of 'Tim, nice but dim'.
As it turned out the party and it's attendees weren't exactly what i had expected. Still, there was no point complaining so i set out to make the best of it: I went straight to the balcony, rolled a cigarette and smoked it on my own while admiring my bike i had parked outside.
Just as i was racking my brains to come up with some sort of reason for my immediate departure a pretty blonde joined me on the balcony and asked for a light. All of a sudden i needed a second cigarette and my recently made-up internal haemorraging had cured itself.
We got chatting. It was the typical "so how do you know everyone here?" thing. She seemed fun and intelligent though and i was grinning from ear to ear when she pointed out my motorbike (not knowing it was mine) and said what a gorgeous bike it was. I was tempted to follow it up with some sort of quote from the great Ron Burgundy but luckily my brain kicked in just in time.
As it turned out she was a biker herself and then proceeded to tell me she was one of Ken Livingstone's advisors. Obviously i forgot about chatting her up and got to much more important stuff: Motorbikes. I proceeded to barrage her with questions and some of the answers proved quite interesting if slightly dismaying.
Firstly, i asked whether it was likely congestion charging for motorbikes was going to be brought in. Interestingly, she started by saying something that would be repeated as a precedence to every reply she gave to one of my questions: "As a motorcyclist, i'm not permitted to be too 'pro motorbikes' as it is seen as a conflict of interest within the duties of my job".
Let's start with that. One of Ken's advisors happens to have an insight into many of the questions/queries non-bikers would have. She could answer questions ranging from safety issues to the environmental impact compared to other vehicles - and trust me, she knew all the figures and facts. Yet, the one person equipped to advise is not allowed to? Who then, does advise and if they are not familiar with biking, how can they be suitable to advise on the topic? "They're not", came the response.
When did people and organisations stop thinking for themselves and start religiously following their new bible: "Procedural practice"? If something is broke, fix it! You do not stand there and say, "i need to fix it, but i need a screwdriver, but the PP bible said "screwdrivers should only be handled by someone with a degree in screwdrivery who, in actual fact is forbidden to use their skills due to a confliict of interest because they use one in their personal lives' ". This is what we are up against.
So, back to the question. Is congestion charging going to brought in for motorcyclists, the short answer was "maybe". She did say that the argument for congestion charging was surprisingly a lot to do with the perceived safety issues (explained further on) of biking in london but mostly about the extra income it would generate.
The arguments against congestion charging are painfully obvious: motorbikes do not contribute to congestion.
This is obvious to us all, so they then argue that we contribute to emissions, we still take up some space and parking spaces are put aside for us so why should we be exempt? Obviously this is all said under the guise of discouraging motorised vehicles coming into town centres, the nice lady had already admitted the real reason is increased income. Motorbikes would and could be a solution to a problem. The problem here, is that the problem is taxable.
The interesting part came when i asked if there were enough accidents to warrant such an unsafe view of motorbikes. The answer was "no" and more. Basically, when they try to implement the use of motorbikes, it generally comes hand in hand with the implementation of the use of bicycles. They have tried to start schemes with the NHS, the Police and Transport and Government workers to get them on bicycles and motorbikes to reduce emissions and congestion. Each one of these companies has come back and said "no, it's unsafe". Ken's pretty advisor told me that these different companies use this phrase as a 'get out of jail free' card as it means that their staff do not have to get up from the cake table to cycle somewhere (the majority wouldn't have a motorbike licence). They are free to roll out the door into their company car where more cake is waiting on the passenger seat.
This is great for them but the combined effect of all this is that the government has a massively one-sided and uninformed view of motorcycle safety - all coming from government establishments without real good reason, but due to people's combined laziness.
The fustrated advisor went on to tell me that it's pretty much the same reason that motorcyclists are being met with resistance in regard to driving in bus lanes. It's not the government saying bikes are unsafe but the government agencies (who the government obviously listen to); in this case, the bus and taxi companies. This isn't down to laziness this time, it would seem it's a much more perverse reason. Maybe it's a selfish 'what's ours is ours' reason, or maybe it's a jealousy that their privilege would be shared. Both are very human traits and there doesn't seem to be any other explanation for not doing something that seems logically very sensible. She agreed.
The very clever and pretty young lady hadn't given up however and told me she was doing something new to combat this. She has hired a psychologist into her team because apparently they are the only professionals permitted to ask the question "why?". Thanks to this lady, in the not too distant future all these cake loving companies will have to answer "Why are motorbikes unsafe" and back it up with corroborating data.
It seems there's a lot here to be very irate about but that is not the purpose of this article. I've pointed out what we, as bikers are up against to say that:
When i asked why the government didn't just pull rank and do what they want, she answered "because of the strength of the biking community". She told me that the government doesn't understand it, but can't help to recognise the affinity, comraderie and sense of togetherness that the biking community has.
Sometimes it's easy to think 'what's the point?' and not go on a ride-out in protest or in significance of something. But this lady, one of Ken's advisors, basically told me that it's because of all the bikers who have ridden out together that the government can't just do as it pleases and even though it doesn't seem like it sometimes, every one of our aftermarket exhausts HAS been heard.
I got on my bike , enjoyed every second of my ride home and i'll be seeing you all at the next ride out.
