That's not a 1500% drop. 2 is 6.8% of 29, so it's an 93.2% drop. It's impossible to have a drop of over 100%, cos 100% is the total. If no one at all was cycling it would be 100% drop in modal share. Any larger drop means you've invented some sort of 'negative cycling'.SwiftyDoesIt wrote: ↑12 Jan 2024, 11:35am1949 29% modal share to 2% modal shareBmblbzzz wrote: ↑11 Jan 2024, 9:40amI'm trying to get my head around the arithmetic of >100% drop in share. Can you explain it please?SwiftyDoesIt wrote: ↑10 Jan 2024, 8:29pm *curtailed bike travel to the tune of a 1500% drop in cycling modal share since 1949 and a four fold drop in in cycling miles (pop adjusted) since then.
1949 14.7Billion miles cycled with the then population of 48.8Million to approx 4bn cycling miles with current 68 million.
Not seeing how that's so difficult to get your head around tbh?
But never mind the mathematics. We probably all agree that governments since at least the 1950s have pushed more and more motoring and ever greater facilities for drivers, to the detriment of cycling, walking, public transport and (IMO) society in general.
What I'd like to know about is:
What do you mean by "bigger agendas"? What are these agendas? Whose agendas are they and how are they being carried out?And when you have the country set up for motoring (US is even worse of course) by having shops miles away, primar schools shut down and spread far and wide, build housing estates with nothing but a Tesco/Sains 'convenience' store and no dentists/GP etc then this means people are tied to their cars and will pay more to use it because riding a bike is simply not a viable option for the vast majority (whether you see/accept it different or not). Pollution and 15 minute cities are a part of the smoke and mirrors to bigger agendas.