Half of Britons say local roads too dangerous for cycling in BBC poll

Joeinpoole wrote:

There are huge (and growing) misconceptions by the public as to how dangerous the roads are and how safe cycling generally is. For example most people wrongly believe that the roads today are much more dangerous than they were say 20 or 30 years ago when in fact 4-5x more people were killed on the roads back then.

Couple of confounding factors here. Cars are a lot safer now than they used to be: fewer people die in cars because of improved safety features.

Also, fewer people walk and cycle. If there are fewer of the most vulnerable users around, fewer people will die.

Not saying that there isn't a trend, but would need more info to draw conclusions.

Quote:

It's all about the public's perception and I have no idea how that can be addressed.

You can't. I know the stats, I know the KSIs for walking v cycling, and cycling still feels like the more dangerous thing. You cannot put people on an unprotected piece of metal amongst motor vehicles and then tell them it's safe, because regardless of statistical safety.

Subjective safety is not something that can be wished away. People can, and already have, voted with their feet on what they are comfortable doing.

rich22222 wrote:

"34 per cent, were of the opinion that the streets where they live are well designed for bike riders"
I doubt these people understood the question...

Well, they may have actually been asked whether they thought a tarmacced road was better designed for bike riders than a mud track, or some such nonsense.

brooksby wrote:

rich22222 wrote:

"34 per cent, were of the opinion that the streets where they live are well designed for bike riders"
I doubt these people understood the question...

Well, they may have actually been asked whether they thought a tarmacced road was better designed for bike riders than a mud track, or some such nonsense.

I suppose they would be well fairly designed if no motorised vehicles were allowed on them.

Simon E wrote:

Showers at work aren't really necessary for most people, that says more about the answers people give to these kinds of surveys.

Well, only 19 per cent of respondents agreed that showers would make a difference. Not a majority, then, and therefore a point that Sustrans doesn't need to bang on about, especially when you consider that in countries such as the Netherlands, where the cycling modal share is so much higher, showers are not regarded as essential at the journey end point.

As a bike owner what was more important for me at work was secure bike parking, preferably under cover. When my company moved from a premises with bike parking to one without, I switched to public transport. For two whole days, before giving up once I discovered the 5-mile journey in central London that took just 30 minutes by bike could take between 60 and 90 minutes by bus. I bought a Brompton, which stows neatly under my desk.

For many people, the lack of secure parking could make the difference between continuing to cycle to work and giving up once their bike is nicked or damaged. My Brompton was an extravagance that not everyone would consider, but I can keep it secure and it has paid for itself many times over since I bought it.

What would be even better from employers is to offer some kind of incentive for staff to actually use their bike, rather than simply to buy one. Perhaps in the form of a rebate for distance travelled, which would underline their green credentials and also enable them to make savings on car leasing, taxis, and the cost of parking places.

Joeinpoole wrote:

Most folk would be astonished if you told them that 6x more people were killed on stairs each year than were killed cycling. But that's the truth.

That's purely because most folk have absolutely no idea about statistics.

If you naively compare absolute numbers like that then roughly 8x more people were killed in cars each year than were killed cycling.

That doesn't mean bikes are safer than cars or stairs.

congokid wrote:

..only 19 per cent of respondents agreed that showers would make a difference. Not a majority, then, and therefore a point that Sustrans doesn't need to bang on about..

Showers at work are about more than just having somewhere to freshen up or clean off the mud on wet days. They are a clear signal that management approve of and actively encourage cycling to work. Same as providing proper bike parking or offering the Cycle To Work scheme.

congokid wrote:

As a bike owner what was more important for me at work was secure bike parking, preferably under cover. When my company moved from a premises with bike parking to one without, ...

This is true. At present, there is a spare room in the basement where me and a handful of others in the building who cycle in, can leave our bikes. Secure, behind a digilocked door down to the basement (bars on the windows, that sort of thing).

Except my office are moving to new premises next year, and my boss still doesn't seem to see my pleading to make sure there is secure bike parking as a serious issue! It really is - I do not want to have to leave my bike locked up outside all day every day.

Weird, isn't it, that car parking is seen as vitally important for offices but bike parking (if any) is a spare room in the basement, between the boiler room and the cleaner's cupboard.