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

[Penfolds11]

I can tell you that just "persuading people that cycling is safe" will not, and cannot, ever work. While cycling is an activity that is seen to require helmets, high visibility clothing, and specialist training (even for adults) there is no way you can persuade ordinary people that it's a safe every-day mode of transport.

I agree entirely with you.

Yet isn't it ironic that occupants of cars have to wear a seat-belt to protect themselves in the event of an accident yet don't feel in danger when they get into a car. One would think that anyone would start to wonder what it is they are getting into if they have to be strapped in to protect themselves. My view (with no evidence to back this up! ) is that society is conditioned to believe that cars are safe and bicycles are not, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary that may exist.

[CJ]

One would think that anyone would start to wonder what it is they are getting into if they have to be strapped in to protect themselves.

Not at all: the message is clearly that you will be perfectly safe so long as you remain inside the car. So you're strapped in, because outside, bad things happen!

[PaulB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18954012

The benefits of cycling for our health are featured on the BBC News site. There is passing mention of British Cycling and the now defunct Cycling England but no mention of CTC. Who 'out there' even knows about CTC?

[admin]

Admin, what persuades you to cycle?

Because I have cycled for local transport for all my adult life, and because we only have one car, so I have to cycle to take the children to and from school. I also cycle because it's environmentally responsible, efficient, clean, and provides regular exercise. I consciously suppress the anxiety of cycling amongst motor vehicles, as I've learnt to do as a regular cyclist.

A simple question, if you believe it's so dangerous why do it?

That's a question I often ask myself. Should we buy a second car, and stop running the gauntlet of motor traffic twice a day?

We keep cycling based on the statistics that say that being seriously injured or killed while cycling is very unlikely. But the reality of everyday experiences sometimes makes it hard to believe the statistics (e.g. when a white van comes so close you really think it's going to hit you).

And if you're persuaded why would you think it impossible to persuade others?

I started cycling in my teens, in Scotland, where there was almost no motor traffic. I was hooked on the pleasure, freedom, and general fun of cycling, and have cycled ever since. As far as touring in the French Alps and Colorado Rockies, as well as in northen France and extensively in West Sussex. I also gained my Audax Super Randonneur badge when I was younger and still single. I'm a cyclist.

Because of the reality of cycling is scary, if not downright frightening. And because cycling apparently needs protective equipment (helmet, high-vis, specialist clothing) and training (even for adults) according to almost everyone you talk to, including existing cyclists and cyclist organisations. The vast majority of the population are not keen cyclists.

A comparison: sky diving is statistically very safe, and you're very unlikely to be injured or killed jumping out of a plane with a parachute on. But, like cycling, if something does go wrong, there is the very very slight possibility that you could be killed through no fault or failing of your own. Persuading people to cycle for local transport is a similar thing to presuading people to go sky-diving. Their natural instincts, and combined wisdom of society, is that cycling is a dangerous activity. A few keen cyclists telling people that "cycling is safe, really" isn't ever going to change that (especially when many cyclists say "you must wear a helmet and high-viz, and ideally get some training too").

Remember, cycling isn't scary or dangerous, it's the motor traffic that's scary and dangerous. Where we have cycleways that are traffic free, ordinary people are quite happy to ride bicycles for transport and even for pleasure. Where motor traffic is becoming tamed, such as in inner London, the risks of being run over also appear lessened, and again ordinary people (who wouldn't consider themsleves to be "cyclists") are taking to their bicycles for local transport in their thousands.

And, of course, there are som enlightened countries closer to me here on the South Coast than Scotland is, where the ubiquitous cycleways mean that almost the entire population ride bicycles for transport on a regular basis. These are not "cyclists", but ordinary people who are happy to ride bicycles when the danger from motor vehicles is almost entirely removed. A side-effect is that cyclists also benefit, from Safety in Numbers, to having decent cycle-specific infrastructure like bridges, to the general understading of the population that cycling is safe and cycling is a Good Thing.

[admin]

Yet isn't it ironic that occupants of cars have to wear a seat-belt to protect themselves in the event of an accident yet don't feel in danger when they get into a car.

Most people only wear seatbelts out of habit, because it is now a legal requirement. There needed to be a strong campaign to get people to wear seatbelts and laws to require them to, otherwise people just wouldn't bother. People don't think they'll ever be involved in a crash (I've been in two, but most people haven't been in a car crash. Car crashes are things that happen to other people.).

Modern cars insulate their occupants almost completely from the outside world, even to the point that you don't know how fast you're going unless you check the speedometer. In an old Mini you almost don't need a speedometer, as you're much less insulated from the outside world, and you have a much stronger feeling of how fast you're going!

My view (with no evidence to back this up! ) is that society is conditioned to believe that cars are safe and bicycles are not, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary that may exist.

Yes, certainly. Look at car adverts, which often stress the safety features of cars. Look at how the car industry has pushed hard to get cycle helmets accepted as being necessary while doing nothing to promote car helmets (which would arguably be more effective in saving head injuries). The motor industry really needs to keep people thinking that if they're in a car they're safe, and if they're walking or on a bicycle they're unsafe.

[SA_SA_SA]

EDIT I always think cyclists abandoning a cycle for a motorvehicle due to being intimidated off by motorvehicles should choose a distinctive non-car/van vehicle that drivers cannot intimidate easily but with properties that cause said drivers to feel that they have gained nothing by displacing the cyclist into said vehicle:
eg, a small tractor, a milk float etc.

That way intimidating cyclists will backfire.

[vioforla]

eg, a small tractor, a milk float etc.

car helmets (which would arguably be more effective in saving head injuries).

I'm sure I've seen some modelling using the WHO's public health intervention tool, though sadly I can't find the figures. The impact of compulsory car helmets would be a significant positive effect on public health. This would be partly through mitigating head injuries in crashes, but the majority of the benefit comes from a decrease in motoring. As motoring began to appear risky and in need of inconvenient safety equipment, there would be to mode shift to walking, cycling and public transport, with consequent improvements in healthy life expentancy for everyone.

[Ron]

Re the thread title, one would have hoped the encouragement would be a UK nationwide campaign, but the article in todays CTC mag from the CEO throws doubt on this.
The article title Better Together borrows the name used in the recent Scottish referendum by the group arguing in favour of the Union, but the content of the article is far from inclusive.
A glance at the website of the organization Get Britain Cycling included in the article heading, clearly shows this to be an organization working only for English cycling, there is no reference to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland or the administrations governing transport in these countries.
We are told CTC will be "campaigning for MPs to Get Britain Cycling", but MPs only influence government spending on cycling within England, what about the rest of us?
Reference to "influencing government" is not reassuring, there is more than one government within the UK. CTC must make up its mind, does it wish to represent only cycling in England or all of the UK?
The failure to mention campaigning in relation to getting more people on their bikes must be a matter for concern, I believe it is only by changes in road design, infrastructure and changes in law to protect cyclists that we can hope for any great increase in cycling in the UK.

[CJ]

I believe it is only by changes in road design, infrastructure and changes in law to protect cyclists that we can hope for any great increase in cycling in the UK.

Me too!

[Si]

Problem is that changes in law don't do diddley unless they are enforced. The only way that you can get them enforced is by getting political buy-in.

As already said - not one or two things by themselves is going to do it....you need to attack the problem from many angles.

[Ron]

Problem is that changes in law don't do diddley unless they are enforced. The only way that you can get them enforced is by getting political buy-in.
As already said - not one or two things by themselves is going to do it....you need to attack the problem from many angles.

Precisely, but the present CTC emphasis from the CEO appears to be boosting MGs and not campaigning for law change or enforcement.

[gaz]

My own observation from the Chief Exec's article in cycle is that the first step towards achieving this ambitious goal has clearly already been met. We now want to "...help get 50,000 people back onto their bikes...".

I take it that we've got the first 50,000 back onto their bikes already which is fantastic news and seems to have taken very little time or effort .

Or was the first step towards achieving our ambitions to reduce the target by 50% .

Hopefully somewhere in the plan is more of this, which I definitely put in the outsustransing Sustrans category .

[gaz]

It looks like CTC got the £1million funding. Broadly speaking CTC will be using it to help people get their abandoned bikes out of the back of the shed/garage and back on the road. Here's the plan.

[mjr]

So it does nothing for the roughly third of potential riders (near me, at least) who have no access to a bike and focuses on people rich enough to have unused assets?

Also seems limited to places with existing bike recycling centres, which I don't think there are near me. Anyone know if there are any plans to change the insurances to enable CTC member/affiliated groups to provide mechanical services more easily?

[Si]

Anyone know if there are any plans to change the insurances to enable CTC member/affiliated groups to provide mechanical services more easily?

I was redirected to Butterworths when I asked recently. Approx £340pa. Not great for a volunteer run community group.

At the moment all that you can do is advise on mechanical issues, but not spanner them.