Getting ̶1̶0̶0̶,̶0̶0̶0̶ 50,000 people back on their bikes.

[gaz]

Just before Christmas, Paul Tuohy gave us a winter update in which he stated "All I have to do is ask those nice people in the Department of Transport to give us £1m and we’ll show them how we can get 100,000 people back on their bikes!"

CTC are already involved in schemes to encourage grass routes cycling. There's one near me (although I'm a bit sketchy on what the CTC connection is) and I went along a couple of times last year to experience it.

The rides were both around the four or five mile mark, at around a 5-6mph pace. Everyone on them was smiling throughout. It’s been fantastic to hear the qualified ride leaders talking about how they’ve helped people to progress, they lead longer rides too.

If CTC are really planning to get 100,000 people back on their bikes I feel that it will take a lot more schemes like this to achieve it. It's also going to take a lot of Volunteers who in turn are going to need support. I can readily imagine CTC approaching existing member groups for their help but that might not be enough on its own.

Perhaps CTC can outsustrans Sustrans, certainly seems to me that they're planning to give it a go.

Edit - Target adjusted .

[Si]

I think that you have to be clear between "we'll show you how to get 100,000 people back on bikes" and "we'll get 100,000 people back on bikes".

We've had £4m (give or take) and it doesn't go very far at all when you are trying to put on free Bikeability classes, free led rides, free hire bikes, free maintenance classes, build infrastructure, do promotions, work with businesses, go into schools, etc etc.

Of course, if you could get all of the MGs involved in promoting real grass roots cycling and getting to those who normally are barred from cycling, then a lot could be done. However, the main reason for the existence of MGs is so that people who already cycle can ride together, not to turn non-cyclists into cyclists, thus it would take quite an effort to get them on board....I refer back to my previous comments on where I think MGs ought to go!

[millimole]

It's all very well getting these people out on their bikes, because they have functioning bikes.
What about the untapped number of bikes left to die in sheds because of a simple repair left undone.
To get these bikes on the road it might have been better using the money to support members (sorry, supporters) to link with the owners and to do simple, safe repairs to get these bikes back on the roads.

[gaz]

Whilst the detail of the plan has probably been drawn up it certainly hasn't been announced, nor does it appear to have secured the funding required to make it happen, at least not yet.

Puncture repair classes and other basic maintenance may well be part of it, time will tell.

[Mick F]

100,000 people BACK on their bikes?
Were these 100,000 people cyclists before, and now suddenly stopped cycling?

I think he should have said 100,000 more cyclists.

[Psamathe]

100,000 people BACK on their bikes?
Were these 100,000 people cyclists before, and now suddenly stopped cycling?

I think he should have said 100,000 more cyclists.

But £1,000,000 for 100,000 cyclists =£10 per person. If they didn't already have bikes (i.e. they were previously cyclists) and had to go and buy them they the cycle shops/manufacturers would be rushing o give him his £1m (as all 100,000 would be going out buying bikes).

I wonder how £10 per person would work (given that not everybody will succumb to his charm so that £10 needs to be spent on several people per successful convert).

(overlooking any decimal point errors I'm prone to making !)

Personally I think this is just noise and I suspect it will quietly fade away. I hope I'm wrong because 100,000 more on bikes for £1m would be fantastic. But without being told how ... sounds like a new guy trying to make out he's a superstar. And in my opinion, so far all he has done is make the CTC a weaker and less effective organisation,

Or, if one responds to what he actually said, I would suggest that if he knows how to get 100,000 people on to get back on their bikes he should just tell DfT rather than charge them £1m for the knowledge. It would be better for cycling and is somewhat OTT for consultancy for something he claims to know how to do !!

Ian

[beardy]

How about a ten pound reduction on CTC membership, money directly to the cyclists and cut out all the third parties taking their cut.

[CJ]

I'm sure it's very good for the 100,000 and gives a nice warm glow to all involved. But out of a population of 70 million? That's a totally insignificant seventh of a percentage point that makes no visible difference to the proportion of people on bikes in this country.

Training people to cope with the danger and inconvenience of cycling, although useful at the individual level, is not the answer. Rather than trying to make new cyclists one at a time, we need to put all of our effort into demanding changes to the law and the infrastructure that make cycling safer and more convenient for the whole population at once, or at least for all the people living in an area.

[Si]

To be fair, any single solution: training, changes to the law, better infrastructure, etc isn't going to solve the problem. What one needs is a holistic approach that uses a combination of these and many other things. Alas, such an approach will cost a bit more than £1m.

As to getting 100,000 on bikes - yes, spread around the country it won't be that noticeable. However, if it could be done in one area then it would stand out, and it would show other areas that uit was possible and that they could follow suit. But that's not to say that having 100,000 new cyclists across the country isn't a good thing!

[PH]

Training people to cope with the danger and inconvenience of cycling, although useful at the individual level, is not the answer. Rather than trying to make new cyclists one at a time, we need to put all of our effort into demanding changes to the law and the infrastructure that make cycling safer and more convenient for the whole population at once, or at least for all the people living in an area.

Training people to understand the difference between the perceived danger and inconvenience and the reality is very much a good thing and IMO very much part of the answer.

[Mick F]

Sorry.
Pedantic head on, and repeating myself ..........

100,000 people back on their bikes?

Does he mean 100,000 more people on bikes, or 100,000 people BACK on their bikes?

There is a big difference IMHO.

[Psamathe]

Sorry.
Pedantic head on, and repeating myself .......... :oops:

100,000 people back on their bikes?

Does he mean 100,000 more people on bikes, or 100,000 people BACK on their bikes?

There is a big difference IMHO.

There are quite a few "unclear" issues about what he said. For example, will he get 100,000 people cycling or will he just show DfT how to get those 100,000 riding.

Which is why it sounds more like "Hey, I'm the new superstar and listen to me tell you how good I am". And things like that leave me singularly unimpressed. A good person running things would have been far clearer about exactly what (s)he was saying rather than leaving such ambiguities and uncertainty.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

... Perhaps CTC can outsustrans Sustrans, certainly seems to me that they're planning to give it a go.

The linked article had me reading the tea leaves. Your mention of the "S" word drew my attention to another: supporters. (I see millimole has already latched on to this.)

[axel_knutt]

What does he mean "on their bikes"? Are we talking about getting people to commute on a bike instead of the car, or are we talking about putting the bikes on the back of the 4x4 and taking them down to the local Beeching Memorial Path on a Sunday afternoon?

Are we talking about what people say they will do, or what they actually do?

[bikerwaser]

I've often wondered why cyclists don't get the same treatment as car drivers when it comes to buying bikes.
Ok, there is the cycle to work scheme which is great but car drivers benefited from the "car scrappage scheme" regardless of their work status and car sales went up by 26% in the first year alone.
They also rolled out a scheme to help people buy an electric car.

The initial cost for the Car scappage scheme was £300 million (who knows what the final total cost is) and the Electric car incentive scheme has cost over £600 million so far. Both the electric car scheme and the Car Scrappage Scheme do nothing for congestion, in fact they make it worse.
And both schemes are bad for the environment and public health as they still keep people using their cars.

So why not, instead, have a similar scheme for bikes. I'm not saying scrap lot of lovely old bikes but help people buy new ones. Scrap VAT on all new bikes would be a start but i think it should go a lot further and reduce the price of bikes considerably. Also look at reducing servicing costs to get old bikes repaired.

Also getting the people with lower income active and mobile is beneficial on many levels.

If a scheme was started to encourage people to buy bikes surely we would increase in the number of bikes out there.

?


Bikerwaser