Cycling UK Forum

PH wrote: ↑1 Jun 2021, 5:35pm

iandusud wrote: ↑1 Jun 2021, 4:53pm No I don't have any data to support any *view*.

Plenty of statistics here
https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics

I've heard people argue the accuracy, sadly they're such small numbers that it would take serious miscounting before it painted a different picture. Page 16 has a breakdown of trips per type, though I don't think it includes distance.

Thank you for pointing me towards that. As I read it it supports my theory that most cycling trips are for leisure rather than travel. I think it's great that people enjoy cycling as a leisure activity for all the benefits that it brings. However I'm certain that many of them could easily be converted to cycling for transport rather than using say a car with the right incentives. I live right next to a greenway and it is very well used by cyclists but I would wager that many of those who use it would be very nervous about cycling on busy roads. They're happy to cycle there because they feel safe. Good infrastructure is needed but also training and education of other road users are key elements if we are to change the car culture.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics#fa ... most-trips?

Shows that 3/week and 5/week (or more) riders are almost all "Travel" (not Leisure).

It's only the 1/month and 1/week that are more Leisure.

So: more Travel trips. QED.

mattheus wrote: ↑2 Jun 2021, 9:40am https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics#fa ... most-trips?

Shows that 3/week and 5/week (or more) riders are almost all "Travel" (not Leisure).

It's only the 1/month and 1/week that are more Leisure.

So: more Travel trips. QED.

Hi Mattheus, oh yes I can see that. However I imagine that the mileage of leisure trips is a lot more than non leisure. For example I commute/shop 5 days per week. Average return journey distance 6 miles. I leisure ride once or twice a week. Average journey distance 45 miles. So probably average around 70 miles per week in leisure riding and 30 miles per week for "travel". I haven't included in those figures holiday touring which will push up the leisure mileage. Of course this is just my usage which is not necessarily typical. I do however suspect that the average "weekend warrior" is clocking up more miles than a lot of cyclists who use their bikes for daily transport. Of course there are those who commute quite big mileages on a daily basis so it's not simple. What is certain is that the more people we can get on bikes the better.

And they probably didn't include Steve Abraham (who was riding about 230miles/day IIRC for a year?) - because he was too busy to answer the survey!

Do you think Steve's numbers should be included??

Here's the quote/fact that kicked this off:
"CJ wrote: ↑1 Jun 2021, 12:32pm
But for most people who use bikes, it's just a way of getting somewhere. So long as it's the best or good-enough compromise of time, convenience, comfort, economy and safety, they cycle.
"

I don't think one Steve's crazy mileages would change this - do you?

mattheus wrote: ↑2 Jun 2021, 2:14pm And they probably didn't include Steve Abraham (who was riding about 230miles/day IIRC for a year?) - because he was too busy to answer the survey!

Do you think Steve's numbers should be included??

Here's the quote/fact that kicked this off:
"CJ wrote: ↑1 Jun 2021, 12:32pm
But for most people who use bikes, it's just a way of getting somewhere. So long as it's the best or good-enough compromise of time, convenience, comfort, economy and safety, they cycle.
"

I don't think one Steve's crazy mileages would change this - do you?

No . I would like to think that CJ's assertion is correct, and I hope it is. It just needs to be encouraged all the more and all the evidence shows that good cycling infrastructure gets more people travelling by bike.

Has anyone mentioned that the government is at least talking about active travel, which means modal shift from cars to cycling and walking, mostly, presumably, for utility reasons more than leisure? So, if CUK/CTC is to be in line with that, it's no good aiming at leisure only?

drossall wrote: ↑2 Jun 2021, 5:47pm Has anyone mentioned that the government is at least talking about active travel, which means modal shift from cars to cycling and walking, mostly, presumably, for utility reasons more than leisure? So, if CUK/CTC is to be in line with that, it's no good aiming at leisure only?

Absolutely. Leisure cycling has boomed in recent years, and that is wonderful, but what we need is a boom in utility cycling where using a bike for local journeys is normalised.

As for the government talking about active travel I fear that it is just that - talk! They still have a program to spend £27bn on building new roads. You might as well call it what it is - a massive subsidy and encouragement to use cars! Still just think of all the road building companies who'll be filling their pockets with all that cash.

utility cycling where using a bike for local journeys is normalised.

Forgive me for mentioning, yet again, this is exactly what was envisaged in the Notional Cycling Strategy. Steering groups steered, working parties worked, and it came to almost nothing at the delivery stage.

thirdcrank wrote: ↑3 Jun 2021, 9:09am

utility cycling where using a bike for local journeys is normalised.

Forgive me for mentioning, yet again, this is exactly what was envisaged in the Notional Cycling Strategy. Steering groups steered, working parties worked, and it came to almost nothing at the delivery stage.

Just don't think about how long ago that was

It was a long time ago, but since then we've had the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Charade claiming to be aiming for similar goals. Depending on time-scales that was a long time ago too (10 years?)

I'll spare you the picture of Ken Clarke (now Baron Clarke of Lenton Boulevard - as if) as a junior transport minister riding a bike to publicise some earlier scheme. Ditto Linda Lander wobbling about like a day-glo blancmange.

Stacks of policies, minimal delivery.

thirdcrank wrote: ↑3 Jun 2021, 10:57am Stacks of policies, minimal delivery.

They do the PR that (they think) will get votes from all groups.

Then spend the money on stuff - like roads - that they themselves actually want. (and often helps line the pockets of business mates)

mattheus wrote: ↑3 Jun 2021, 11:09am

thirdcrank wrote: ↑3 Jun 2021, 10:57am Stacks of policies, minimal delivery.

They do the PR that (they think) will get votes from all groups.

Then spend the money on stuff - like roads - that they themselves actually want. (and often helps line the pockets of business mates)

This sadly is so true and why I don't believe a word they say. It is also why we need aggressive lobbying and some holding to account. I voted for the Green party in our recent council elections in the hope that we could get a Green councillor. Unfortunately there is no chance of the Green party forming a government in the near future. Would the Labour party be any better than the torries at fulfilling any promises with regard to active transport? I would hope so, they certainly couldn't do worse.

There's clearly some change happening though. Even though some councils have ripped out Covid cycling schemes, they'd never even have been put in a few years ago. And pressure is building on the environment. In the end, with enough change of public opinion, politicians follow. To some extent, they also need to lead public opinion before they can get away with implementing such things.

For me, the concern is the illusion that electric vehicles can fix it all. They will help with pollution, but only so far as they use green energy. They will not, prima facie, help with the obesity crisis, overcrowded streets or casualties from traffic accidents. If that is constantly kept in the public eye, cycling schemes of all kinds may have a chance.

Also that, because too many people don't think about the distinction between pedestrianisation and motor-vehicle exclusion, some cycle routes will get cut off without any specific intention to do so.

It is also why we need aggressive lobbying and some holding to account.

While it's faint praise, in this context, cUK are only carrying on where the CTC left off. After the initial euphoria when New Labour swept into government, the CTC just rolled over when Two Jags booted it into the long grass. Pretty much the same with the All Party Charade (and I can't remember whether that was the CTC or cUK - same difference.)

It frustrates me that they seem unable to kick into an open goal. Operation Close Pass is a glaring example.

iandusud wrote: ↑3 Jun 2021, 12:21pm
This sadly is so true and why I don't believe a word they say. It is also why we need aggressive lobbying and some holding to account. I voted for the Green party in our recent council elections in the hope that we could get a Green councillor. Unfortunately there is no chance of the Green party forming a government in the near future. Would the Labour party be any better than the torries at fulfilling any promises with regard to active transport? I would hope so, they certainly couldn't do worse.

IIRC in the last election, the Labour manifesto was the best of the lot, with more money promised for cycling, and a decent plan for infrastructure improvements. The Green party's manifesto sounded like a wish list, but didn't have the clarity or as much money pledged. However, the Greens had some clear successes with local initiatives, and IMO, the Greens are more effective at a local level on cycling issues. There was some discussion of it on the rather lengthy General Election thread a couple of years ago.

TBH, Labour's Green New Deal looks pretty good. Even though there isn't lots in it specific to pedal cycles, there is lots in it that sounds quite good. It's radical compared to the Conservatives, and far more comprehensive that what the Greens have published.