Barriers to cycling

Post Reply
sirmy
Posts: 608
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:53am

Barriers to cycling

Post by sirmy »

Wonder if this will change any minds?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/social/climatechangetransportchoices/pdf/interimreport.pdf (P 116 and on ) (the index says p 112 but doesn't count the cover etc)
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by thirdcrank »

I've just had a quick skeg and I can't see it changing my opinion, which is that the Ministry of Transport, in all its incarnations, has been the biggest and most resolute barrier to cycling since the invention of the bicycle. :evil: It's my impression - open to correction - that the tables are very largely excuses by people who would not cycle to work under any circumstances and researching them is a waste of time.

I'd pay a lot more attention if they identified a survey population of people who were truly keen to cycle to work or at least give it a go, and better still, people who had given it a go and having shelled out for a bike had given up.

IMO It would throw up a lot more of the: it's too far (people commuting 10+ miles each way); my employer is (at best) unco-operative (at worst) downright obstructive; my partner thinks it's too dangerous; I have a company car and my job involves a lot of travel using that car; I couldn't stand the hassle, especially the aggro of every kind from so many drivers.

(If I've not read this properly in my haste to eat my tea which is now ready, I'm sorry.)
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by mattheus »

Spot on thirdcrank!

You would think it wasn't rocket science to realise this, but ... :roll:
sirmy
Posts: 608
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:53am

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by sirmy »

I'd pay a lot more attention if they identified a survey population of people who were truly keen to cycle to work or at least give it a go, and better still, people who had given it a go and having shelled out for a bike had given up.


But that wouldn't represent the population as a whole and would lead to easy refutation of it's findings
snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by snibgo »

The entire report is quite interesting but I found nothing surprising. It seems to be aimed at informing policy on how to get people to travel in a more environmentally-friendly manner.

- People say they care about the environment but this is actually a very low priority on transport decisions.

- 60% of people who drove to work said nothing would encourage them to cycle instead. Some tables EXCLUDE these people.

- People who could cycle but don't mostly say this is because they are worried about safety or want dedicated cycle paths.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by mattheus »

thirdcrank wrote:I'd pay a lot more attention if they identified a survey population of people who had given it a go and having shelled out for a bike had given up.

IMO It would throw up a lot more of the: it's too far (people commuting 10+ miles each way); my employer is (at best) unco-operative (at worst) downright obstructive; my partner thinks it's too dangerous; I have a company car and my job involves a lot of travel using that car; I couldn't stand the hassle, especially the aggro of every kind from so many drivers.


The reason I like this is that it should filter out a whole load of self-interest bias.

Would increasing fuel-tax get me on my bike? Hell no ( I don't want any more fuel tax!)
Would more traffic cops get me on my bike? Hell no ( I don't want a speeding fine!)
Would more infrastructure get me on my bike? Absolutely (that should get lots of cyclists out of my way).
snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by snibgo »

I agree, mattheus.

When someone who could commute by bike but doesn't, in the context of a climate change survey, is asked why not, they naturally tend to blame factors outside themselves. Only 5% said they were too old or not fit enough.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by thirdcrank »

sirmy wrote:
I'd pay a lot more attention if they identified a survey population of people who were truly keen to cycle to work or at least give it a go, and better still, people who had given it a go and having shelled out for a bike had given up.


But that wouldn't represent the population as a whole and would lead to easy refutation of it's findings


The point I'm making is that asking the great majority of the population who would not cycle to work at any price is pointless since the answers are irrelevant to any sort of progress. OTOH, discovering the real barriers to cycling among the people who might realistically be expected to cycle if those barriers were removed isa significant first step in removing the barriers. Let's imagine that this was not some sort of wooly-jumper survey commissioned by a government who would spray public money at anything so lomg as they did not have to take any action. Lets imagine, say, Tesco looking to increase sales of petfood. Does anybody seriously think they would be interested in a survey where the majority of the sample were people who neither owned pets nor had the slightest intention of buying them?

Incidentally I'm not saying there is no value in knowing that say 95% of the working population would not cycle to work at any price. Just that discovering the barriers to cycling to work is only going to be possible among those who report a barrier which is capable of being removed. It's equally pointless, of course, asking the dyed-in-the-wool cycle commuters since they can only make a well-informed deduction (as I like to think I did above.) Probably the group whose replies would have to be treated with the most circumspection in order to get to the heart of the problem would be regular cyclists who never ride to work and would never dream of doing so, where I fancy there would be many respondents who would explain that they never had a problem with being bullied by drivers etc.
snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by snibgo »

thirdcrank wrote:... Just that discovering the barriers to cycling to work is only going to be possible among those who report a barrier which is capable of being removed. ...

Yes, and then those barriers should be removed, and we then measure any changes in behaviour.

A survey of attitudes may be interesting (and I think this one is), but mustn't be taken literally, and mustn't be the sole feeder to policy-making.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by thirdcrank »

I suppose part of what I'm saying is that it's notoriously difficult to discover how people would act from what they say they would do.* In the CTC context, the Council is convinced, for example that because members say they rate the 'free' mag highly, that they really would prefer that to saving the cover price on their subs and buying the mag separately. I'm not so sure.

The only way to find out how many people would bike to work if they really had absolutely no alternative would be socially unacceptable.

* I was once preparing for a shift changeover at 0600 on a Sunday morning in Dewsbury when the air raid sirens all sounded. After the initial shock, I suggested to my counterpart on the other shift that we should check for messages - the infamous 4 minute warning - on the relevant dedicated phone. It was just transmitting the 'banshee wail' which meant something along the lines of "bend down, grip your head between your knees and kiss your BTM goodbye." After a couple of minutes it all just stopped, leaving only the sound of every phone in the building ringing with 999 callers wanting to know what was happening. We never knew what caused the alarm to sound. The point of this trip down memory lane is that within the police station at least, nobody did what they always claimed they would do. :wink:
snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by snibgo »

At school in the mid 1970's, not in Dewsbury, we set up a club in a dusty room that had contained various junk. We discovered a button on the wall labelled "Air Raid". After some weeks, curiosity got the better of us and we pressed it. Nothing happened.

Next day, one of the masters (aka "teachers"; it was a posh school) told us never, ever to press that button again.

He wouldn't tell us what the button did, or how he knew we had pressed it.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by thirdcrank »

Perhaps he went through his personal 4 minute warning plan and was then embarrassed, though in many senses relieved, to discover that it was just a false alarm? :wink:
fatboy
Posts: 3477
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 1:32pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by fatboy »

I am an occasional cycle commuter but since the distance is 30 miles each way I combine it with the train. The key thing that stopped me was when the rail fare went up from £6.10 to £7.20 overnight. This meant that instead of saving a quid or two in petrol every time I cycled it was around break-even. Given that it involved a fair bit of hanging around on cold platforms etc this put me right off. Prior to the fare rise I was doing the commute twice a week and almost instantly this dropped to next to never! Now there were a few other things at play here (company went into administration and people were kicked off site with no warning and I didn't think I could get my 20 years of clutter on my bike and my wife broke her ankle) but the cost was a key one; the tight-wad in me lead my thinking but once that had gone there was little to encourage me to do it. Come spring and summer I would like to get back into it.
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
Edwards
Posts: 5982
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by Edwards »

This is one activity in this country that could be made different. A person just starting to cycle says they want to do so on a cycle path away from cars, they do not like riding on the road.
The CTC and some experienced cyclists tell them they are wrong and unsafe. Then quote stats to show the road is safe.

So they ride on the foot way. CTC and some experienced cyclists tell them this is wrong and unsafe. Then quote stats to show the road is safe.

Then the CTC and some experienced cyclists claim if the roads were safer people would not cycle on the footway or cycle paths.

Then they are confused why people say they do not want to cycle.

Then it is said about the Netherlands and their wonderful cycle path system.

Then the CTC and some experienced cyclists start arguing between them selves about cycle paths and vehicular cycling on the roads, meanwhile forgetting the original point about getting new people to cycle.

Thus leaving the person new to cycling even more confused.



This cycle then continues for many years, and a few do start to ride of their own choose.

The CTC and some experienced then tell them they are doing it all wrong, in the wrong place, with the wrong type of bike.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar
ozzage
Posts: 44
Joined: 29 Sep 2010, 11:31pm

Re: Barriers to cycling

Post by ozzage »

The important bits for me are:

The findings suggested that safety concerns, notably ‘too much traffic’, were a key
barrier to cycling to work. More generally, six in ten (60%) of those who could cycle
agreed that ‘it’s too dangerous for me to cycle on the roads’. Around half (52%) of
respondents who could cycle agreed they would cycle (more) if there were more
dedicated cycle paths


No surprise to many, but others will refute the claims.

For every three respondents who had tried cycling to work, two had
reverted back to using their car


Getting people started isn't the end of it. People are often actually discouraged from cycling once they realise the reality of it.

The likelihood of cycling to work varied by
commuting distance: living three miles from the workplace appeared to be the
distance at which the proportion cycling to work reduced considerably.


Personally, I attribute this to the approx distance at which I can't be buttocked taking quiet, indirect back streets, because it takes too long. To go further I need to be on the main road, which most people aren't willing to do because frankly it's often horrible and feels bloody dangerous.

More evidence pointing to what we're doing wrong, but of course it'll be explained away as simply being excuses from lazy people (conveniently ignoring the 2/3 who were apparently keen but gave up once they actually tried it)
Post Reply