Let's kick off Thursday with a good old social media discussion, live blog regular Bob From Accounts urging new Transport Secretary Louise Haigh to build more cycle lanes to increase safety and get more people on their bikes. The signs look good on that front, Haigh this week suggesting the Labour government would invest "unprecedented levels of funding" in cycling.
Bob From Accounts also addressed a commonly heard line... "cycling isn't a practical daily travel choice for most people", something you've probably read before online, or in certain newspapers. To which, he pointed out: "In 2022, 26 per cent of car trips in the UK were under one mile, and 71 per cent under five miles. Five miles by bike is approximately 30 minutes. Given a choice, many people would cycle if it was safer. More cycle lanes please."
"And for the usual excuses and quips about 'It's too cold', 'It's too wet'. We have a solution: coats."
Well, it works for the Netherlands and they get their fair share of rain... let's get some reaction because, as you probably guessed, this got quite a few people all riled up and tapping away furiously at their keyboards. To many of those people, no, nobody is saying that everyone in the world should be forced onto bikes... but hey, wouldn't the roads be much nicer for those who actually do need to drive if a decent chunk of the motor traffic was now using cycle lanes, walking or using public transport?
One reply asked: "How do I get a week's worth of shopping on a bike? What about two kids as well? One being a toddler?"
Bob From Accounts had an answer for that...
Another road.cc favourite, retired traffic cop Mark Hodson, who pioneered close pass operations during his career commented: "My shift once had 10 of its 12 officers cycling to work, the daily total commutes varied between 22 miles and 56 miles, with some extending rides to incorporate training routines, it's a case of making it work and providing the correct facilities so those that [people] 'could' give it a go."
Accepting that his experience was certainly at the extreme end of the spectrum and included several who would cycle for sport or leisure on top of commutes, Mark added: "Not everyone can or wants to, but if you enable those who can and want to you benefit all of society. Even if they just replace 25 per cent of their usual journeys by other means it's a hugely impactive for them and their communities.
Other reaction to the discussion included:
"Cargo bikes are an increasingly viable alternative for a second car that's mostly doing school runs etc."
"We have fantastic cycling routes where I live... currently massively overgrown. We need proper investment to make it work in the future."
"I used to leave my house 7am every day to catch the bus to work arrived 7.50 am. By bike 7.10am to arrive for 7.30 time for a cuppa and a chat before work. The ride home takes five to 10 mins longer... I lived on top of a hill."
Add new comment
59 comments
Cycling in the Netherlands has an incredible 28% modal share, are they all masochists? I haven't ridden there as much as I'd like but when I have I've found it far from "hellish" and many orders of magnitude better than the UK.
Probably it's already unhelpful if the conversation is "defend that!" - as Chris Boardman has noted. (Here's his much more positive video on the benefits, now from quite a few years back).
If you do need mythbusting, a good first stop would be:
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/
Another take would be David Hembrow's "list of myths and excuses" (he's a former UK cycle campaigner who became Dutch).
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses...
No, it's not.
Yup. Ignorance trumps knowledge. Always.
As much as I enjoyed cycling in Copenhagen and the Netherlands, in a way these are bad examples because people always reference the lack of hills, and compare this (inaccurately) to many UK cities.
It is much better to point out that places like Oslo and Zurich have much higher cycling modal shares than the average UK city, yet are pretty hilly and have much harsher winters. Because they have proper cycling infrastructures.
Yes! "But the UK has hills" (but... not like Switzerland). "But it's cold and rainy and even still sometimes snowy in the UK" (and it was and perhaps still is in NL, and it's certainly cold and snowy in Oulu, Finland...)
Even within the UK (for those who will always say "yeah but that's irrelevant, it's not here) - while very few places have substantial cycling modal share and most places have "essentially none" - there are wide variations. The biggest (still Cambridge I believe, almost 5 times national average - per stats at Cycling UK) is mostly to do with demographics / history (the university). But we can probably note some differences have more to do with infra and local (authority) attitudes.
The Netherlands has hills. The south of the Netherlands is hilly. As are parts of Belgium. I mean... just watch the Amstel Gold race. Is the Cauberg not a hill? The Keutenberg? The Bemelerberg? Etc.
Cycling is still popular there.
I've cycled in the Appenines in Italy, and cycled past old women carrying shopping on bicycles. Uphill.
it really is a shame that cycling is frowned upon here in the uk , it's a great way to help the environment without a lot of effort . I commute myself on bike as only live a mile from work and cycle for pleasure as well .
Thefts and motorists intolerance often life endangering actions are the main reason most won't take it up .
Even though it would help with the environment, reducing carbon emissions, help reduce heath issues , ease up congestion in towns and cities.
I've used trailers to take the kids to school and nursery, do a weeks shopping etc .
We now have e-bikes and trikes for those who need extra help to get around on a cycle.
"Thefts and motorists intolerance often life endangering actions are the main reason most won't take it up ."
And having the worst road surfaces in Europe, if not the world, probably doesn't help.
Some of them are not great, but I'm pretty sure British roads are a
verypretty long way from "the worst road surfaces in Europe, if not the world ".What's remarkable about our roads is the coarseness of the chippings used and the fact that they often feel as though the weren't compacted with a roller but by people trampling on them. I haven't come across anything comparable anywhere else.
Has anyone here fallen off on a freshly chipped road? It looks like they would cut you to ribbons.
My personal hate is "surface dressing" where they rely upon passing motor traffic to press it all down, and you end up with drifts of gravel up against the kerb.
It seems to be down to the quality of the work, one of our local roads was surface dressed just before our club road race, I was dreading the race but the surface was great and still is 3 years later and there was no excess gravel lying around. Other roads done at a similar time were as you describe and are now breaking up again.
Yes and yes, it does. I stacked it because of the drifts of gravel brooksby highlights, and a really nice, wingmirror into right elbow close pass. I also hate surface dressing because often they don't even pretend to fill the holes underneath, so it makes them even harder to see.
Chipseal (with large chippings)! Argh!
We're not unique, but it's pretty unpleasant!
It's many reasons (including "but we already have a car right there").
Social pressures certainly play a factor.
A network of sufficiently safe, efficient and attractive routes for social cycling (and secure places to park / store bikes) would seem to be necessary, if not sufficient.
Road surfaces? Cycle and indeed injury-threatening surfaces aren't good (or the pavee of e.g. Edinburgh...) but I suspect that's not the initial barrier to cycling for most.
More clear thinking from Louise Haigh. I'm looking forward to seeing the results.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v8d4lvjryo
You can listen to Laura Laker's whole interview with her on this podcast (free, but some ads at the start).
It's all very confusing. Last week we were told that 6% of the population, given 4 years training, believe they could compete in the Olympics. A feat that this year would have meant cycling 170 miles at above 25mph average. Today we're meant to believe that cycling is impractical for the majority of people in this country. Surely there's a middle ground where the majority could cycle up to 5 miles at 10 -15mph?
We'll have to get fitter! According to figures in 2018:
Now that's about 8mph - but of course that's factoring a lot of people who just don't cycle in the UK e.g. the very young and old. OTOH they've understood that they need to facilitate people maintaining momentum on their bikes - so avoiding traffic lights completely or minimising wait times where they are needed.
I always think in Strava speeds which has auto pause of course. That isn't how most people are going to do a calculation. 8mph seems practical, especially for those on shared use paths which will bring the average down even further.
Agreed. But "speed" is a massive rabbit hole with many (triggering) branches. Frankly - not even people driving agree and there are pretty clear legal limits there...
It's common to see people not comparing like with like. Just one example - with driving average speeds in many urban areas are a lot lower than the speed limit, or the speeds cars can physically go. And that doesn't even mean that people are going slower than the speed limit when they are moving...
Without falling down the hole proper quality cycling infra (which is NOT shared-use paths!) by its nature should facilitate efficient movement. That's because cycling is most effective where people can maintain momentum, and certainly avoid coming to a complete stop *.
That often allows substantially higher speeds by the few who care to go faster.
* Don''t have source to hand but IIRC there's a calculation saying that every time "casual cyclists" have to stop it's equivalent to adding 100m or so to the journey.
I presume it's difficult to make a direct correlation but has there been a comparison between the cost of obesity, diabetes etc, to the Dutch health service vs the NHS?
Actually that - while not easy - is probably one of the easier calculations *.
NL do publish a whole bunch of reports. There is this US study from 2015 looking at that in NL. The UK government sponsored a review back in 2016 economic benefits of cycling which included NHS savings. I've seen something from Denmark like that (note that they set the baseline for health as current status quo I think).
Googling will actually find lots of these.
* But ... a bit reductive. Arguments in the political sphere about transport seem to a) quick to discount at least some of the costs (externalities) of motoring (it's almost "obviously if people are driving that is a benefit / all journeys are important") b) for cycling to reduce to "health benefits" in terms of costs. That's understandable.
BUT I think that's missing out on some of the less easily quantifiable but ultimately more salient benefits. (For a nice overview see here for NL). We're talking about choices about how our communities look, feel and ultimately are organised. For example it's easy to see how mass motorig has paradoxically accelerated social and indeed physical isolation, as jobs and amenities move from local communities and people are able to reach these in places they couldn't afford to live in. (Yes, this has been occurring since the industrial revolution / advent of trains etc.).
It might be summed up in "nicer, more liveable places" (recalling the title of Robert Weetman's blog). Less vehicle noise (this at least is quantifiable in health terms), potentially less need for tarmac covered space (when we reduce motor vehicle use) [1] [2]. More focus on "local" community connection - less physical barriers in terms of busy roads, potentially more resilience. Essentially a more "human" transport system (as long as we recognise the imporance of social cycling). People cycling look like people and you can say "hello". People inside a vehicle ... you're looking at a vehicle and you can't say "hi".
Clinkers...kilometres of clinkers. That's what slows me down over here.
That would be on more recreational routes?
In the city - junctions and traffic lights, that's what (drastically) slows me down. Unless I'm on one of the motor-traffic-free shared paths (I'm very lucky UK-wise), then it's dependant on whether there are many people walking.
Outside the city - me, that's what slows me down (my lack of fitness / hill climbing / absense of fairing on the recumbent).
I don't see it as especially contradictory. It simply highlights that "fitness" is far from the only or even biggest (perceived) barrier to cycling.
Yes, they could compete in the olympics - if cycling was not too impractical, too cold, to dangerous, too lycra, too costly, too warm, too wet... It's not their fault then that they're no gold-medalists, is it?
Pages