The NYT on Kampong Buangkok

Wow. I never would have thought they’d consider it to be of international interest. They even took the same shot of the HDB flats looming at the end of a footpath leading out of the kampong.

Sustainable Seafood in Singapore

So, apparently there isn’t a sustainable seafood guide for Singapore yet. But the WWF has sustainable seafood guides for Hong Kong and Indonesia. Between those two, I imagine a large variety of seafood consumed in Singapore is covered. As a signatory of CITES, Singapore requires CITES permits for the import of certain endangered species, but their list of marine species for which such permits are required does not include most of the species being consumed that are overfished.

How We Drive

I just discovered that there is a companion blog for Tom Vanderbilt’s recent book, Traffic. Reading through the rather fascinating archives now. Some of the more interesting things I’ve learned from the blog (I haven’t read the book, but I’ve just placed a hold on it at the library — should have it in my hands soon!):

• The misallocation of New York City’s public space, demonstrated nicely by this graphic:
  
• A characteristic that I’ve noticed about motor traffic in Singapore approaching filters into expressways:
  

  I’ve noticed in Manhattan that some of the worst places to navigate on foot are near any of the bridge or tunnel entrances — either vehicles are still used to being in less pedestrian heavy environments, or their proximity to “escaping from New York” leads to a kind of animalistic imperative in which the only consideration becomes getting that many inches closer to the tunnel — woe to the person who has to cross on foot in one of these situations.

• On “Bikeism”. I think most cyclists in cycling-unfriendly cities have encountered this attitude.
• Some comparisons with smoking that give one some hope that driving in public spaces will go the way of smoking in public spaces:
• On bad philosophies of road design.
• Danes waiting at traffic lights — more interesting than it sounds!
• Link I found there: a tree in the middle of the road in Connecticut, which they left in the middle of the road rather than cut down. What struck me was the writer’s closing sentence: “In a world with little tolerance for eccentricity, it is hard to imagine that decision being made today.” Too right. This reminded me so much of the controversy over the chopping down of an Angsana tree on Braddell Road — there is no tolerance for eccentricity in Singapore’s public policy.

More ‘Look out for cyclists’ videos from TFL

I’ve blogged before on how impressed I am by Transport for London’s pro-bike publicity. It turns out they even pay attention to blogs — I received an e-mail from a TFL representative informing of three new ‘look out for cyclists’ videos, all using change-blindness cleverly. Here they are.

Here We Go Again

This is fast becoming a series. In the latest ST article on cycling, we see the land-scarce excuse again:

Moreover, bicycle lanes in land-scarce Singapore is [sic] not cost-effective. It is physically not feasible to set aside dedicated road space for bicycles.

This goes against the standard wisdom of transport researchers. Bicycles are more space-efficient than cars; they take up less space per person transported. If you think that space efficiency is a reason to promote public motorized transport over private motorized transport, then you should also see it as a reason to promote bicycles over private motorized transport. This is what should be said:

Moreover, car lanes in land-scarce Singapore are not cost-effective. It is physically not feasible to set aside dedicated road space for cars.

Paul Barter makes the same point, and many others, in his draft paper on bicycles in Singapore.

Another canard from the ST article that I’m a little tired of putting down:

One argument offered by government officials is that Singapore’s hot and humid climate is not conducive to cycling.

Let me alter the quote again to show up its weakness:

One argument offered by government officials is that Amsterdam/Portland/Chicago/Copenhagen’s cold, wet and windy climate is not conducive to cycling.

Once again, I invite anyone who’s actually commuted by bike regularly in winter in places with climates similar to the abovementioned cities to make the claim made by our supposed government officials. You do not know what it’s like to cycle in a biting cold winter wind and freezing rain until you have actually done so. What makes it worse is that most people who make such statements haven’t even cycled regularly in Singapore themselves. It’s like someone who’s never climbed a mountain or done long-distance skiing proclaiming that climbing Everest is harder than going to the South Pole.

Safety in Numbers

This should surprise no one who’s cycled in cities where cycling on the streets is prevalent:

It seems paradoxical but the more people ride bicycles on our city streets, the less likely they are to be injured in traffic accidents, say injury experts who will speak at a forthcoming cycling safety seminar in Sydney.

Local and international research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer injury and death – and what’s true for cyclists is also true for pedestrians. And it’s not simply because there are fewer cars on the roads, but because motorists seem to change their behaviour and drive more safely when they see more cyclists and pedestrians around.

Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn’t increase equally with the number of people walking or bicycling. For example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle.

“It’s a virtuous cycle,” says Dr Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from UNSW who address the seminar on September 5. “The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. And the safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle.”

Experts say the effect is independent of improvements in cycling-friendly laws such as lower speed limits and better infrastructure, such as bike paths. Research has revealed the safety-in-numbers impact for cyclists in Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, 14 European countries and 68 Californian cities.

Emphasis mine.

Prejudices Against Cycling

I have been reading a fantastic handbook on cycling[pdf] by the European Commission written for city/town planners. It includes results from a study in the Netherlands conducted on drivers who were forced to use a bicycle when their car was being repaired. The following graphic shows the drivers’ thoughts on various aspects of cycling after their cycling stints:

It’s never as bad as you think.

EU Obesity Rates versus Walking Rates

After reading this post at GNXP on obesity rates, I plotted obesity rates (2005) versus walking rates (2000) for 15 EU nations. The negative correlation is not surprising, but what is odd is that the three outliers for obesity (UK, Greece and Luxembourg) seem to form a linear regression by themselves, and the other nations cluster at a much lower level of obesity, with also a clear linear regression amongst themselves. [Update: Replaced original graphic with labelled graph. The cluster of three countries with overlapping labels consists of Spain, Germany and Ireland.]

I wanted to plot similar statistics for more countries, specifically to find out why Canada has much lower obesity rates than other English-speaking countries (UK, US, NZ, Australia). But I couldn’t find more statistics on walking.