Plymouth ranked Britain's most cycle friendly city... Cambridge comes 60th

I find Glasgow to be the most dangerous place to cycle in, how did it reach number 5 or is its danger level ?

and have you SEEN the hills in Plymouth?

You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong Virgin Money.

Bike theft is an indicator that (1) there are lots of bikes to steal and (2) that there is a buoyant market for stolen bikes - which itself indicates a growing or helathy cycling population. I'm not at all saying that bike theft is a 'good thing' or that theft makes a town or city 'cycling friendly', but please Mr Tones, use your loaf.

And we don't hyphenate Kingston upon Thames either.

Jon, Kingston upon Thames

The methodology which places Dudley and St Helens among Britain's top 10 cycling towns is based on the same flaw which led road safety Minister Mike Penning to claim recently that cycle safety is far better in Britain than the Netherlands, as we have fewer cyclist casualties per head of population.

When CTC wrote to Ministers arguing that this was statistical nonsense (and contrary to how they had agreed to measure cycle safety following our Safety in Numbers campaign), we explained how you could similarly show that towns like Cambridge (with high cycle use, a lot of cyclist casualties for its population size, but a very low casualty rate per cyclist) are far worse for cycling than those with very few cyclists, few cyclist casualties but dreadful cyclist casualty rates. Places like Dudley and St Helens!

It's laughable- Swindon is 38th & its only me and about five other cyclists who dare commute here - the cycle lanes are invariably those utterly useless 'shared with pedestrians' type - often mysteriously running out and go nowhere at the most dangerous junctions - very good local bike shops though...

Obvious isn't it? It's the same person that did the surveys for the IAMs http://road.cc/tags/red-lights

News just in. Virgin Money have declared Venice the most car friendly city in Europe.

What??????

This is ridiculous and now the council will latch on to it and not invest anymore. I cycle a lot around Plymouth and also in Exeter. I'd rather ride in Exeter anytime. Plymouth seems to specialise in cycle lanes that run out at the most needed times or take the most circuitous route.

However,as Plymouth has a smaller population, and hence quieter roads, it may be percieved as safer. The ignorance remains though. My wife is regularly sworn at by people who insist she should use the cycle lane (often at the point where there isn't one).

As a regular commuter and cycling campaigner in Plymouth, I was very bemused to read this article. Plymouth is the most UN-friendly cycling city I have come across (and I cycled for 7 years in London, much nicer in my opinion). It is (very) slowly improving but has a long way to go to get anywhere close to cities like Cambridge, Exeter, Bristol, even London etc.

This report is a fabulous example of how one should never trust statistics without looking at how they have been compiled. Virgin Money (who should really know better, I also won't be trusting them with my portfolio if this is their level of numeracy) have taken the most simplistic of measures e.g. number of cycle thefts, deaths and serious injuries per 1000 of the GENERAL POPULATION, without taking into account the number of cyclists in the city. Of course a city like Plymouth is going to do well when so few people cycle. Thefts, injuries etc are bound to be lower per 1000 of the general population. In fact, using their methodology in the extreme, the most cycle friendly town would be one where no one cycled as there would be no accidents involving cyclists, no deaths and no thefts. The figures would look far different (and be more representative) if cycling participation levels had been taken into account.

What amazes me is that all the news channels and newspapers, including Plymouth Herald, the Independent, Sky News, Yahoo etc have just re-gurgitated this dross without looking critically at the report and thinking about whether the statistics have been compiled in a reliable and valid way. All these journalists should be ashamed of themselves, what happened to critical thinking? NEVER BELIEVE STATISTICS without looking at where they have come from!”

The problem with this sort of report is that it will be used by councils and decision makers in towns and cities like Plymouth to say "see things aren't so bad. Our work for cyclists is done, our city has done well" when in reality, Plymouth is really scary to cycle in which makes our work as cycling campaigners much harder to try and get the lot of cyclists in our city improved

Well there's bugger all in Huddersfield so God only knows how they arrived at that one. Wonder if we can get access to the data so we can go and find the facilities they are referencing, they're too well hidden for me to spot!

In fairness to Plymouth there are fairly decent cycle routes and shared bus lanes that get you most of the way to the town centre.
Not many cyclists seem to commute though.

Amazed that Birmingham isn't bottom. What an utterly appalling city for cyclists.

Plymouth? Bike friendly? That's the funniest thing I've read today.

Why am I not surprised to read again that apparently Scotland only has two towns or cities. Does this mean that anywhere else in Scotland is worse?

From the IAM school of public relations.

I think they are following rule number 1 - "There is no such thing as bad publicity"

I think in future we need to careful about whether simply to ignore crap like this - don't give them the saisfaction.

I saw that as well. Glasgow: the land of the wheel breaking pothole, that makes London seem like bliss...

Sorry? Glasgow is the UK's fifth most 'cycle-friendly' city???

F***wits

Maybe it's actually quite acurate, London is 56th!

Well, it's a joke, but the high number of bike thefts in Cambridge isn't. My family have had 4 stolen in the last couple of years and now keep all of them indoors, even though it's a nuisnace with a narrow hallway and having to move them in and out all the time. Never had to do this before in about 35 years of living here.

A lot of other aspects of cycling in Cambridge could be improved as well. Can't compare to other cities as I've only lived in London in England.

What a joke - in Kingston upon Hull we have 12% of commutes by cycle, 135 20mph zones and countless off road tracks and cycle lanes and yet we do not even get a mention.

Lancaster, one of the former Cycling Demonstration Cities, not even rated?

As someone whom goes to uni in Plymouth and rides there almost every day, I'm guessing that the list is actually in reverse order and they just haven't told anyone.

Surprised by Cambridge's mid-ranking for number of bike shops as well. Were they just looking at branches of Halfords or something? It would seem likely that the place with the most cycle journeys also has the most demand for cycle shops, and I've never felt short of choice for a place to get gear or repairs.

Really flawed methodology at play here. St Helens, which I know fairly well from family connections, is *not* a cycle-friendly town, yet it gets fourth place on this chart.

Given this ignorance of very basic statistical principles, it doesn't fill you with great confidence about Virgin Money's general numeracy or intelligence. I certainly won't be trusting them with my investment portfolio.

(N.B. I don't actually have and investment portfolio, but even so.)

"Virgin Money Cyclone researchers rated towns and cities on a range of criteria including bike thefts; accidents; serious injuries and deaths for cyclists; the availability of cycle routes and the availability of specialist bicycle repair centres.

The project allocated points for towns and cities based on their ranking, which were weighted to reflect the population in order to produce the top 60 cities and towns."

So if a town has a cycle path but no one has bike so non are stolen and there's no accidents then it would come out on top!