The Mobility Needs of a Changing Population The Mobility Needs of a Changing Population How can Motorcycling Address This? How does the policy environment play a part? Craig Carey-Clinch

This presentation discusses: Changing social patterns The evolution of transport policies How motorcycling fits into this If motorcycles ‘fits’ the evolving ideology Developing the fit: Challenges and Opportunities BTW: Who the heck is Craig Carey-Clinch? 22 years in motorcycle public policy (riders groups and industry) UK Motorcycle Industry representative to ACEM Chair of ACEM Integrated Transport Policy Committee Policy Advisor to UK public and private sector MD of RPA Ltd, -- a motorcycle world focussed public policy consultancy Overland motorcycle traveller: Europe, Africa and the Americas

What’s wrong with this picture?

Living / Working – The 21 st Century Overview Dynamic society Work/Life Patterns Flexible working ‘Dis-integration’ of communities and social Networks Need for transport to reflect more diverse requirements But: ‘compartmentalisation’ of transport choice Policy which seeks to constrain choice, not create it? – Transport needs to fit with society, not society asked to fit with transport The challenge is how to preserve transport choice, while protecting the environment and ensuring safety

Policy towards transport is evolving... Developed Countries:- transport contributing to society’s goals – Mobility – Inclusion – Environment – Health Increasing need for vehicle use to ‘fit’ with integrated goals Transport and vehicle use as an end in itself seems increasingly frowned upon in many countries

A new arena for policies Developing Countries – High proportions of PTW users – Road safety: lack of consistent policies – Co2 reduction, while creating better social mobility? – Infrastructure needs for all road users – Two versus four wheels Danger of Lost Opportunities for society if ‘developed Country’ policies ‘imprinted’ badly

Sustainable Transport? Key Themes of a 21 st Century Transport Policy Support Economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks Reduce Co2 and tackle climate change To contribute to better safety and security, reducing the risk of death or injury from transport promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health To promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens To improve quality of life for transport users

International Examples Canada : – A transportation system in Canada that is recognized worldwide as safe and secure, efficient and environmentally responsible (Transport Canada) EU goals: – offer a high level of mobility to people and businesses – protect the environment, ensure energy security, promote minimum labour standards for the sector and protect the passenger and the citizen – innovate by increasing the efficiency and sustainability of the growing transport sector. – connect internationally, projecting the Union’s policies

International Examples United States – Serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future (US DoT) Australia – Australia requires a safe, secure, efficient, reliable and integrated national Transport system that supports and enhances our nation's economic development and social and environmental well-being (Australian Transport Council)

What about PTWs? The ‘Accelerators’ Some administrations say they recognise mobility potential Support social inclusion elements BUT : The ‘Brakes’ Safety stats unsustainable Poor image of speed and risk taking Environmental credentials ‘uncertain’ Administrations struggle to justify promoting PTWS when there is so much concern about safety and questions about environmental credentials Or do they simply choose not to think more creatively about these issues?

How are PTWs missing out? Largely overlooked in evolving transport debate – Some ‘warm words’, little real action Denied Government incentives in many countries Poor recognition that PTWs are a key component in the transport/mobility ‘Toolkit’ Policy ‘levers’ used to suppress use, often in the name of safety

Passenger Transport ‘Ideology’? Collective and Manageable Desirable Bus Train Bicycle Walking Sometimes Problematical, but advantages clear Often Problematical for ideology, but won’t go away Aircraft Ferries Smaller Cars Large Cars Many PTWs Problematical, unwelcome, discouraged Core Policy Recognised as Necessary Included only in terms of problems to be solved Small PTWs (some cities) Favouratist: Biased towards ‘Method’ rather than ‘Purpose’

Can PTWs ‘Fit’? PTWs as part of core transport policy. – Is this possible in the current policy environment? (apparent) policy objectives.  Congestion (Yes)  Environment(Yes, but work needed to establish credentials [Euro IV])  Journey Times (Yes )  Flexibility (Yes )  Choice (Yes)  Safety(No)  Inequality(Yes, but yet to be fully recognised)  Social inclusion(Yes, but yet to be fully recognised)

Challenges PTW Policy for mobility and Society – ‘Minority’ thinking? – A Need to engage on several levels – Highlighting the social/mobility potential of current and future products – Environmental potential of current PTWs needs to be properly recognised – Plus future potential encouraged – Administrations require a shift in thinking – PTWs problems – PTW Opportunities – Can realising opportunities also help solve problems?

What is Required? OECD Fundamental – PTW must have a place in transport policy and infrastructure policy/management & shall be considered by default Sustainable transport policies – Move from ideological to management based approach – PTWs as part of overall transport ‘toolkit’ Multimodality – PTW use as part of broader networks Accessibility versus road safety – Devising policies which addresses both issues International engagement Recognition of leisure/touring contribution to the economy Objective: Establish PTWs as an active component to address aspects of society’s changing dynamics

Fully ‘Integrated’ Based Approach Collective Mobility Bus Train Bicycle Walking Individual Citizen Transport Development work needed, but users not denied choice Aircraft Ferries Other Cars Other PTWs Practical PTW usage Other ‘green’ personal transport Responds to needs of dynamic, mobile and flexible society A Mobile Society for Citizens, Business and Goods

Alternative Fuels / Electric? Are there opportunities? – Image: potential to improve image of motorcycling as transport – Can assist low carbon goals – Low numbers currently sold, but large annual percentage increases. – Social agenda – Wheels to Work etc Cautionary note: The potential will take some years to realise in a fully practical way Environmental potential for PTWs already exists - most ‘traditional’ bikes sold already have much lower Co2 than most cars Car average approx 150g/km PTW average approx 110g/km Travel Surveys:- some current products fit well with urban commuter journey patterns (UK average journey = 8km)

Thank You!