Cycling campaigners have issued a fresh call for more space to be given to cyclists on Britain’s roads after more than half of the respondents to a survey commissioned by the BBC said that it is too dangerous to ride on the roads where they live.
The poll of 3,012 adults, carried out by ComRes, is published ahead of Saturday’s start of the Tour de France in Leeds, but only one in five of those surveyed, 20 per cent, agreed that the prospect of the event coming to Britain had encouraged them to cycle more.
While 52 per cent said that their local roads were too dangerous for cyclists, only a third, 34 per cent, were of the opinion that the streets where they live are well designed for bike riders. Meanwhile, 55 per cent believe that employers are not doing enough to encourage and facilitate cycling to work.
Chris Boardman, policy advisor to British Cycling which has today unveiled its vision of how the Headrow in Leeds could look if annual spend on cycling were raised to £10 a head, told the BBC: "It's clear … people don't feel safe when riding their bikes on our roads.
"In order to rectify this we need a clear commitment from government and local authorities to prioritise the safety and needs of cyclists in all future transport schemes."
A spokesman for the Department for Transport insisted however that the government had "doubled funding for cycling to £374m to help deliver safer junctions."
That funding relates to England and is spread over several years and as a result is well below the minimum £10 per head recommended in last year’s Get Britain Cycling report from the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group.
According to British Cycling, current annual per capita spend on cycling in the UK is £2, compared to £24 in the Netherlands.
Martin Lucas-Smith of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, the largest such group outside London, said that residents of many parts of the UK “felt unsafe to cycle."
He also said that "things like narrow cycle lanes" and "badly maintained roads" contributed to safety fears among riders.
"We'd like to see proper allocation of space on these roads which can almost always be achieved simply by a bit of redesign, so people can cycle safely and easily," he added.
In April this year, research from the University of the West of England found that perception of the danger posed by traffic was the main barrier to getting more people on bikes.
Meanwhile, last week a survey published by retailer Halfords found that 40 per cent of respondents agreed that a dedicated cycle lane on every road would encourage them to cycle more often.
The Halfords survey also found that 19 per cent of people said they would ride a bike more often if there were better facilities at their workplace, such as showers.
Responding to the BBC’s findings on that issue, Claire Francis, head of policy at the sustainable transport charity Sustrans, said: "Employers who encourage cycling can increase their profitability and have employees who take fewer sick days but without decent facilities and support, many businesses miss out on these benefits.
"Cycle parking and showers in an office should be as common as a printer and a coffee machine.
"But we also need the government to deliver better infrastructure and slower speeds on our roads, so that people feel safe to leave home on their bike," she added.
73 thoughts on “Half of Britons say local roads too dangerous for cycling in BBC poll”
Have we had any results from
Have we had any results from the report into how many members of the public look for excuses to take “easy” options yet?
“the danger posed by
“the danger posed by traffic”
Exactly, the roads are fine, it’s the nutters who drive motor vehicles who are the problem.
It’s not really the roads and
It’s not really the roads and junctions that are at fault, it’s dangerous driving.
Cycle lanes on every road is pie in the sky and wouldn’t be needed if drivers were more considerate. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be built but they should not be a prerequisite for travel.
Showers at work aren’t really necessary for most people, that says more about the answers people give to these kinds of surveys.
Simon E wrote:Showers at work
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
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.
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
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.
“34 per cent, were of the
“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…
rich22222 wrote:”34 per cent,
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
I suppose they would be well fairly designed if no motorised vehicles were allowed on them.
How do you change the way of
How do you change the way of thinking of an angry nation? Hard – yes. Impossible – maybe.
Quote:A spokesman for the
Which is a pretty pathetic amount, when you consider how much road schemes seem to cost and how readily the powers that be will spend that money on them.
As an example, the ‘M4 Junction 19-20 and M5 Junction 15-17: Smart Motorway scheme’ – allowing cars to use the hard shoulder when its congested during rush hour (which for that section of road is every weekday evening, weekday morning, and all weekend from April to September) – cost £86 million. For one road scheme strtetching for about six miles and which involved just new signage and resurfacing the hard shoulder.
So £374 million really isn’t going to do a lot (unless the powers that be have found a good supplier for blue paint…).
There is a newly re-designed
There is a newly re-designed junction near I live and they could not of made it any more dangerous for cyclists, the road planners just don’t give a shit, cyclists are the lowest of priorities.
There are huge (and growing)
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.
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.
In my view the survey actually underestimates the scale of the problem. If the question was changed to ask if the respondent themselves would personally be confident about cycling on the roads then even fewer would agree. Most people I know would not be confident at all about cycling on roads and generally believe that ‘roads are for motor vehicles’ and that cyclists get in the way of motorists’ supposed entitlement to progress at the speed limit.
I’ve just been visiting an old buddy who now lives in Maryland, USA. Before I went I asked him if he had a bike available for me to borrow so that I could get some exercise whilst there. He had but strongly warned me against it because, in his view, the local motorists would not know how to safely negotiate around cyclists. It turned out that the roads were generally superb with many cycle lanes and the locals amongst the most courteous drivers that I have ever encountered.
It’s all about the public’s perception and I have no idea how that can be addressed.
Joeinpoole wrote:There are
Rubbish, unfortunately. There are so few deaths for cyclists because the people who actually cycle on the roads are not a cross-section of the population. Get the same proportion of children and old people who cycle around in the Netherlands on the roads in the UK, and watch the carnage. Get a pensioner on a trike riding down the road and see what happens then. The roads are objectively not safe for a large proportion of the population.
Bikebikebike wrote:Rubbish,
Agreed!!
This happy picture is of eight year olds cycling to school on their own in Assen.
How many eight year old kids in the UK have that opportunity?
(Pic from aviewfromthecyclepath.com)
Joeinpoole wrote:For example
That seems, to my mind, to be a little bit of bad science, surely you need to compare;
The levels of car ownership from 20/30 years ago.
The numbers of people walking 20/30 years ago.
The numbers of people who used public transport* 20/30 years ago.
The waistlines of people 20/30 years ago.
The level of air quality and related diseases 20/30 years ago.
Joeinpoole wrote:There are
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.
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.
I have to differ with some
I have to differ with some commenters – there are issues with the roads and of course with drivers.
I ride on both London streets and country roads, and both could be improved immensely at little cost.
In London the different authorities need to get joined up in their thinking. Many times when I need to get somewhere east/west or north/south, I run out of a sensible route and into some “vehicle proof” one-way system or get dumped into a mess like Holborn, Victoria or Vauxhall. There needs to be an overall plan on how cycling routes connect, not many local ones.
In the country, some lanes are in bad shape, and depending again on the authority, holes may be patched (if large enough to swallow a car and hence incur liability) or (more likely) ignored. It is obvious that (for example) broken surfaces that are dangerous on a bicycle are ignored while a larger pothole in the centre of the road has been fixed.
On some roads, the lanes have been artificially narrowed (using built-out kerbs and islands) at rural junctions.This creates a “pinch point” on purpose – the idea being that drivers will slow down as they approach the restriction. The problem is that many don’t. So you have a cyclist, travelling at 12 mph, being forced out into a lane with large trucks coming up behind at speed (or Audis at 80 mph). There is no need to create such a danger – leave a narrow opening for a cycle to the side.
In towns and cities I continue to see artificial “chicanes” built to restrict traffic speed. Most do not allow for a cycle lane and also force cycles out into the oncoming traffic – bu many drivers do not understand that a cycle is a vehicle and refuse to wait or give way. I frequently have oncoming drivers try and force me off the road when I have priority. I guess the idea is cycles don’t count or aren’t worth being late on the school run for.
Again, many of these situations can be made safer for cyclists at no extra cost if some thinking is done in advance.
Blimey – I wouldn’t cycle to
Blimey – I wouldn’t cycle to work if there wasn’t a shower here, think my colleagues would get fed up pretty quickly if I just sat at my desk, stinking..but agreed, secure parking for me is as important, if not more so.
I’m one of about 4 fairly regular cycle commuters in my office out of nearly 100 people. most just wouldn’t entertain the idea. Perhaps because roads are quite busy, with little cycling infrastructure, or perhaps they’re just of a motoring mindset. But it’s not dangerous, it’s only perceived as being dangerous.
This is in spite of there being good facilities here for cyclists and C2W scheme. So I think it’s perception of danger, rather than danger itself that is stopping people, this mindset plus the culture of the motor vehicle would take a lot to change..
700c wrote:Blimey – I
Unfortunately it is dangerous. Cycling where a lorry can legally drive within a few feet (e.g. you’re in a cycle lane and they are in the lane next to you) is simply not safe. Would you be happy with children in your family cycling along next to a lorry?
I’m living in a five-person flatshare where everyone cycles most days, and everyone has been knocked off their bike by a car. This is two nervous female cyclists and three confident male cyclists. I realise that this is anecdote rather than evidence, but it’s evidence to me that it’s not safe.
Bikebikebike
Of course roads are dangerous. You can have two vehicles, of massively different sizes, approaching each other at at combined speed of 120mph (quite possibly even faster) on a narrow country road and they will pass with a gap of less than 3′ between them. There’s no barrier separating them and only seat belts, airbags and crumple zones to protect the occupants in the event of a collision. Yet somehow we accept that and appear to cope with it. Presumably you would even subject your family to that danger without giving it a second thought?
Cycling on the road is similar. There *are* risks but, statistically speaking, serious incidents are thankfully fairly rare and therefore the risk is acceptable … although we would prefer the infrastructure to minimise it further.
I agree with the 19% that
I agree with the 19% that showers, lockers and dry rooms are essential for commuters. Its ok if you cycle at 5mph and live in some Danish/Dutch dream that the UK could be like it one day but if you are cycling to lose weight or like to push yourself then getting sweaty in summer is one of those things and a shower at work is a massive bonus.
People use to say to me use wet wipes, yeah great you feel really fresh after standing nude in the work toilets with a pack of baby wipes, someone walks in and its P45 time thanks Mr Oddball and usually the employer who doesnt provide showers doesnt provide lockers so you end up in winter with a bag of soaking clothes and slipping into wet lycra after a hard day is not nice.
Leodis wrote:People use to
Use a cubicle you weirdo!
GrahamSt wrote:Leodis
I just rub myself vigorously against my boss’s coat.
Simmo72 wrote:GrahamSt
I just rub myself vigorously against my boss’s coat.— Leodis
Do you wait for him to take it off?
bikebot wrote:Simmo72
I just rub myself vigorously against my boss’s coat.— GrahamSt
Do you wait for him to take it off?— Leodis
Where would the fun be in that? Cycling to work is supposed to be ‘invigorating’, after all.
bikebot wrote:Simmo72
I just rub myself vigorously against my boss’s coat.— GrahamSt
Do you wait for him to take it off?— Leodis
Did he say it was a “he”…?
Our parents and grandparents
Our parents and grandparents got along fien without a shower.
I see lots of excuses genuine and invented.
The roads are dangerous, unseen hazards, aggressive and thoughtless drivers (and door passengers!) – i have commuted in London for 40 years – I know.
Cycling to work takes some planning simple tips are:
1, Keep a lock At work dont ride around with it -saes alot of weight
2. Keep your clothes at work just swap in and oput shirts/blouses etc when you need them- I see so many folks with huge backpacks where they take their enture wardrobe to work everday,
3. Squaddie wash In the gents/ladies a scrub under the offending armpits is the most you need unless seriously you have done 100 miles/
4. Deoderant!
Broomie
broomie wrote:Cycling to work
Can only echo this comment myself. I only travel a few miles each way, but still use a hill on the way in for a bit of interval training, and there’s absolutely no need for me to shower when I get to work.
I simply shower before I leave, then when I get to work I nip in a cubicle and have a rub down with a few baby wipes and a squirt of deodorant and, most importantly, a complete change of clothes, and job done. All-in it’s about 5 minutes, and I can honestly say I don’t feel any less “fresh” than had I just got straight out the shower. No complaints yet as to my personal hygiene either, even on the warmest of summer days…
Work shoes, trousers, ties etc are all kept at work, and I just roll up a freshly-ironed shirt every morning and it goes in my bag, to emerge unscathed at the other end (ok, “non-iron” shirts help with this). A world away from that creased-shirt look you get when you’ve been sat in the same position in a car seat for an hour.
Ok, I acknowledge that things might not be so simple if the journey was 30/40/50 miles, but how many people would ever commute that sort of distance on a bike?!
And I think that’s part of the problem. Not so much that employers don’t have the facilities for cyclists, rather that people choose to live too bloody far from where they work as to make cycling viable. A quick straw poll in my office shows the average distance amongst a dozen or so of us to be over 25 miles, and that includes the 3 or 4 of us who live within 5 miles and do cycle.
I don’t want to say that nobody should be allowed to work outside of a 10 mile radius of their home postcode or some such nonsense, but equally, all the while it is considered socially acceptable to do a 100 mile round commute every day, you won’t be getting those people on bikes for utility purposes.
parksey wrote:broomie
Can only echo this comment myself. I only travel a few miles each way, but still use a hill on the way in for a bit of interval training, and there’s absolutely no need for me to shower when I get to work.
I simply shower before I leave, then when I get to work I nip in a cubicle and have a rub down with a few baby wipes and a squirt of deodorant and, most importantly, a complete change of clothes, and job done. All-in it’s about 5 minutes, and I can honestly say I don’t feel any less “fresh” than had I just got straight out the shower. No complaints yet as to my personal hygiene either, even on the warmest of summer days…
Work shoes, trousers, ties etc are all kept at work, and I just roll up a freshly-ironed shirt every morning and it goes in my bag, to emerge unscathed at the other end (ok, “non-iron” shirts help with this). A world away from that creased-shirt look you get when you’ve been sat in the same position in a car seat for an hour.
Ok, I acknowledge that things might not be so simple if the journey was 30/40/50 miles, but how many people would ever commute that sort of distance on a bike?!
And I think that’s part of the problem. Not so much that employers don’t have the facilities for cyclists, rather that people choose to live too bloody far from where they work as to make cycling viable. A quick straw poll in my office shows the average distance amongst a dozen or so of us to be over 25 miles, and that includes the 3 or 4 of us who live within 5 miles and do cycle.
I don’t want to say that nobody should be allowed to work outside of a 10 mile radius of their home postcode or some such nonsense, but equally, all the while it is considered socially acceptable to do a 100 mile round commute every day, you won’t be getting those people on bikes for utility purposes.— broomie
I know what you mean, but ultimately, the ability to earn a living and pay the bills has to come way higher up the list than my preference of transport. I consider my current 16-mile round trip to be a rare luxury. I hated my 120 mile round trip years ago. Hated it. But the job market was poor. I certainly couldn’t afford to turn it down.
parksey wrote:broomie
Can only echo this comment myself. I only travel a few miles each way, but still use a hill on the way in for a bit of interval training, and there’s absolutely no need for me to shower when I get to work.
I simply shower before I leave, then when I get to work I nip in a cubicle and have a rub down with a few baby wipes and a squirt of deodorant and, most importantly, a complete change of clothes, and job done. All-in it’s about 5 minutes, and I can honestly say I don’t feel any less “fresh” than had I just got straight out the shower. No complaints yet as to my personal hygiene either, even on the warmest of summer days…
Work shoes, trousers, ties etc are all kept at work, and I just roll up a freshly-ironed shirt every morning and it goes in my bag, to emerge unscathed at the other end (ok, “non-iron” shirts help with this). A world away from that creased-shirt look you get when you’ve been sat in the same position in a car seat for an hour.
Ok, I acknowledge that things might not be so simple if the journey was 30/40/50 miles, but how many people would ever commute that sort of distance on a bike?!
And I think that’s part of the problem. Not so much that employers don’t have the facilities for cyclists, rather that people choose to live too bloody far from where they work as to make cycling viable. A quick straw poll in my office shows the average distance amongst a dozen or so of us to be over 25 miles, and that includes the 3 or 4 of us who live within 5 miles and do cycle.
I don’t want to say that nobody should be allowed to work outside of a 10 mile radius of their home postcode or some such nonsense, but equally, all the while it is considered socially acceptable to do a 100 mile round commute every day, you won’t be getting those people on bikes for utility purposes.— broomie
I ride 40 miles each day. Just because you only ride a couple of miles, doesn’t mean others share your lethargy.
Airzound wrote:I ride 40
Hang on a minute. I know you can be a bit provocative at times on here, particularly when it comes to the whole infrastructure/safety debate, but that comment is harsh.
It’s got precisely nothing to do with my lethargy, I have simply chosen to live close to where I work and therefore don’t need to commute miles on the bike every day.
Besides, my comment did nothing to ridicule those that do, it simply raised the point that, in a survey about encouraging utility cycling, many simply live too far from their place of work to make their commute viable on a bike.
No infrastructure improvements or showers at work are going to do anything to change that.
Leodis wrote:I agree with the
Errrr ………. you take a clean and dry set of kit with you in the morning for your ride home. What’s hard about this? Why do some cyclists feel that they are entitled to have a shower after their ride into work and resent their employer for not indulging them? Get real. It’s your chosen method of transport to work so deal with it. Use baby wipes which I hasten to add are far quicker than showering and a fraction of the cost. I certainly don’t expect my employer or resent it that there are no showers on site.
The question of showers is a
The question of showers is a distinguishing point between ‘types’ of cyclist. If you’re happy bimbling along without breaking a sweat, then a lack of showers is fine. If, like me, you see an 8-mile journey with 5-10kgs of stuff and a fair amount of stopping and starting as an opportunity for strength/interval training, then you really do.
As an aside, I would only feel safe bimbling along on a shopping bike or whatever if I could use dedicated infrastructure. On the roads as they currently are, I feel like fitness and speed are essential. It’s not how it should be, and is certainly not inclusive, but that’s my current perception.
I’d be curious to know how
I’d be curious to know how many Dutch commuters shower when they reach their destination. I would hazard a guess it would be such a small number as to be immeasurable.
You wouldn’t need one either if you weren’t trying to run with the traffic from one set of red lights to the next.
If we want to know what gets people cycling en masse we need only look at what the Dutch have done. They moved from a car-centric culture in the ’60s and ’70s – which was indistinguishable from ours – and built a proper cycle infrastructure. It took time but the longest journey starts with one step; we need to take that step and stop talking about it.
In the meanwhile we also need a massive educational drive (pun not intended) to teach motorists that people on bikes are legitimate road users and do not have to get out of the way for ‘superior’ cars. The ignorance and sense of entitlement of the average driver is truly shocking. This could be addressed now for relatively little cost.
poor planning – ie 130 in
poor planning – ie 130 in Hampshire has been narrowed in places to single lane. did they use this to get a bit of blue paint out and make part of the closed lane a bike facility. No. Cocks.
Does anyone else thing part of the problem is cars are now much wider than they used to be. Fiat punto overtaking – no issue, BMW X5 however……that’s whats causes the tailback, lots of people driving excessively large cars
Quote:Does anyone else thing
I agree. Wide cars, and drivers who don’t always judge the width of their vehicle/ the closeness of their pass well. Also, it is more intimidating being overtaken by a big 4×4 or a huge tractor, and ideally you’d like them to leave more space than a smaller vehicle, but they leave less.
The related, main problem is drivers who are not prepared to wait until it is safe to pass if the road is narrow and there is oncoming traffic or a blind bend. And people are more impatient at certain times, particularly going to and from work. I experienced lots of stupid passes on country roads yesterday around 6-7pm.
No shower at work? Use
No shower at work? Use Muc-off dry shower, surprisingly effective.
And then, if your workplace has more than one or two people cycling more than 10km a day, complain about the lack of showers! The Dutch don’t need them for two simple reasons, their commutes are usually short and they don’t have any hills.
Oh, and can I propose we
Oh, and can I propose we invoke a new version of Godwin’s Law on here that, whenever there is an article about cycling infrastructure, the sodding Netherlands gets mentioned…?
parksey wrote:Oh, and can I
Is it really such a bad idea to refer to the most successful example for ideas and inspiration?
You learn to fly by studying birds, not bricks.
Someone should collect all
Someone should collect all these negative polls and shove them where monkeys shove their nuts, I’m 76 and enjoyed donkeys years of cycling, and still do. There is more danger in car orientated mode of transport, cycling is a healthy pastime, a healthy sport, push the positive and stuff the negative.
RE showers and cycle
RE showers and cycle commuting – I must be doing it wrong then as after just ten – twelve miles on the way in (depending on the route I choose), I have quite a sweat on!
It’s probably do-able without a shower and just an ‘armpit scrub’ but definitely not ideal..
to the people who suggest there’s no need to shower unless you’re doing 100 miles… Well, perhaps your route is pan flat and full of traffic lights? Mine is practically a hilly time trial. Ok it perhaps doesn’t need to be quite so fast but taking time over the journey kind of defeats the object as a viable alternative to driving..
700c wrote:RE showers and
You’re not the only one 😉
My commute is about seven miles; it’s hills all the way up out of the village and about halfway, then downhill again. So three miles of pretty steep hills. There are other routes, which aren’t as hilly, but they are up to ten miles and they have their own problems (Bristol City Council – why did you resurface the Pill Path with loose gravel???)
I stopped using a messenger bag because I sweated too much, started using a pannier.
And no showers at the office – I’m a wet wipes and spray deodorant kind of guy…
I think people get confused
I think people get confused about showers, if your riding for transport which is the aim, showers aren’t really an issue, if your riding 15-20miles and using it to get fit, as training then it is an issue.
To be fair I am in the later group and welcome showers but they aren’t a solution. Get the infrastructure in place so that “roads” are safe to ride. I don’t mind riding at 20+ in traffic but bimbling along at 5-10 can be terrifying! cars do treat you differently!
I also believe offices should
I also believe offices should have showers for everyone who uses the Northern Line in the summer.
Love how this entire thread
Love how this entire thread has degenerated into a debate about showers and personal hygiene!
Back to the original point – I have cycled thousands of miles over the last decade on rural roads and inner London streets. Rarely have I personally felt in grave danger but I can also see that we hardy cyclists are in many ways an eccentric minority, engaged in what is statistically often an ‘extreme’ sport. Funny how sports like rock climbing and kite surfing are marketed as ‘extreme’ activities and yet statistically cycling on the public road is probably more perilous.
Put my mum or my sister on a bike on some of those roads and they would completely brick themselves. So until such a time as ‘civilians’ can feel safe on our roads, I won’t consider the UK to be a great place for cycling…
Yennings wrote:Love how this
The poll asked two questions, the headline has focused on the danger but the other one was “Employers don’t do enough to encourage and facilitate cycling to work.”
We also did the safety argument to death just the other day… and probably every week for something near to forever.
1. It’s not roads but drivers
1. It’s not roads but drivers that are dangerous, BUT a lot of the time the road environment is designed to smooth and speed up traffic flow.
2. Cycling on the roads is usually not dangerous, but quite safe, but at certain times scary as hell. A subtle nuance, but it’s there.
3. The most interesting result was that 2/3rds think roads are not designed well enough for cycling safety, and that could be taken as a positive sign to start making better infra. Why didn’t BBC headline that?
4. You don’t need a shower at work. I manage just fine with wipes & a change & that’s 17 miles each way. Fresher at my desk than if I had driven. It’s an excuse by people who also complain it’s too hilly/cold/wet/hot/drop kids off/pick up shopping.
There is a lot more that can be done to join up cycle routes, and close down a lot more roads so that only vehicles that need access drive up.
Larger employers and larger shops can do a lot more with prioritised parking, safe routes though & bypassing large car parks, and surveying and publishing safe networks to get to the workplace, with help from Sustrans etc
I know the showers thing has
I know the showers thing has been done to death now but for what it’s worth it made a big difference to me when I used to commute on the bike (5 miles followed by 40 mins on a train followed by 1 mile).
In honesty I don’t think I would have even entertained using the bike if showers weren’t available. Maybe the 40 mins festering on the train makes a difference and I’m generally inclined to riding fast (or at least trying hard) so I’m always sweaty. Maybe wet wipes and deo would have been enough but I don’t think I would have considered trying and I imagine many people would feel the same.
When comparing the UK to countries where utility cycling is more popular we should consider the length of the commute. We always talk about the Dutch but from visiting Holland I certainly don’t get the impression that the guys and gals turning up at the office in smart dress on traditional town bikes have just completed a 15-20 commute. In the UK many regular cycle commuters cover these sort of distances. In the UK you would be very lucky to live within 5 miles of your place of work, which I would consider a resonable distance to cycle in office clothes.
Matt eaton wrote:When
Average UK commute: 9.3 miles. While is doable by bike, but you won’t get mass cycling under those conditions.
BUT 43% have a commute under 5km. 58% of men and 70% of women travel less than 6.2 miles.
And that’s before you consider bike + train and other multi-mode options.
So there’s nothing lucky about it. We could have mass cycle commuting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10724224/Workers-commuting-further-than-ever-before.html
Cycling on UK roads is
Cycling on UK roads is dangerous – 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.
Airzound wrote:Cycling on UK
Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.
I’ve had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there’s always been enough ‘tells’ to make me back off and avoid them.
It’s a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which “the helmet saved their lives”. In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I’d been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.
The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There’s about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist’s own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.
Joeinpoole wrote:From what I
Really?
Joeinpoole wrote:Airzound
So you’d be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren’t safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It’s almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can’t be acceptable for a child.
Bikebikebike wrote:Joeinpoole
So you’d be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren’t safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It’s almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can’t be acceptable for a child.— Airzound
I go riding with my kids on London roads. It depends where you ride and at what time. I’ve been cycling in London for over 20 years.
I don’t like the idea of tempting fate, but I’ve never been knocked off my bike by a car and believe me, I’ve racked up a lot of miles commuting up to 20 miles/day at rush hour along some of the busiest stretches of road in London. I’ve had close calls but that’s it. I was doored once and that hurt my hand, but I didn’t hit the deck.
The only time I’ve ever been knocked off my bike during my commute has been by a Danish couple who looked the wrong way before stepping off the kerb. I hauled on the brakes and while we all ended up hitting the deck, no-one was hurt.
When I’ve crashed my bike this has been when I’ve been racing/training on a track or messing about on my 20″ BMX at the local skatepark.
Things are not as bad in London for cyclists as they were in the late 1980s when I first started pedalling my way round the city. For most of the 1990s I was clocking about 100miles/week commuting at peak periods right through the city 10miles from south to north in the morning and then 10 miles from north to south back again in the evening.
OldRidgeback
So you’d be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren’t safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It’s almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can’t be acceptable for a child.— Joeinpoole
I go riding with my kids on London roads. It depends where you ride and at what time.— Airzound
Well I’d like to cycle where I want to go, at the time I want to go there. It’s not really acceptable to have no-go areas and prohibited times if the bike is going to be a practical method of transport.
Bikebikebike
So you’d be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren’t safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It’s almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can’t be acceptable for a child.— Bikebikebike
I go riding with my kids on London roads. It depends where you ride and at what time.— Joeinpoole
Well I’d like to cycle where I want to go, at the time I want to go there. It’s not really acceptable to have no-go areas and prohibited times if the bike is going to be a practical method of transport.— Airzound
Read my comment about how much commuting I’ve done in London at peak periods. That’s 25 years of city riding with one dooring that resulted in a bruised hand but no actual spill and only one incident where I hit the deck, caused by a Danish couple who didn’t look properly before stepping out.
I’m not saying I haven’t had close calls at times and I’ve certainly seen some very poor driving. But I ride with my kids in London, which was your original comment.
The fatality rate now is a fraction of what it was in the bad old days of the late 70s.
OldRidgeback wrote:The
It’s has dropped significantly but can’t really be considered a huge drop given that over the same period the number of fatalities for all road users was doing this:
I wonder how much of the
I wonder how much of the reduction in deaths is related to the change in attitudes to drink-driving over that period.
Bikebikebike wrote:Joeinpoole
So you’d be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren’t safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It’s almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can’t be acceptable for a child.— Airzound
When I was a child (in the 1960s/70s) the normal practice was that kids below 11 were ‘allowed’ to ride on the pavement __ you generally wouldn’t have had 8-year olds riding on the road without the close supervision of an adult but that would have depended on where and when. Once the kid was big enough to handle a bike with 26″ wheels or more, if I remember correctly, then they graduated to the road. Is that still the case today?
Joeinpoole wrote:The fact
Not sure where you get the 10-15M cyclists estimate from, but the risk is better measured as a Casualty Rate (e.g. the risk of serious injury per mile on the road).
2012 figures were 118 cyclists killed, 3222 seriously injured.
The total road miles cycled was estimated as 3.11 billion.
So (118 + 3222) / 3.11 gives a Casualty Rate of:
1074 cyclists killed or seriously injured per billion vehicle miles.
To put that in context, 801 car users were killed and 8232 seriously injured.
Total miles driven was estimated at 240 billion.
So (801 + 8232) / 240 gives a Casualty Rate of:
38 car occupants killed or seriously injured per billion vehicle miles.
People feel that cycling is risky compared to taking the car. The accident stats show that this is unfortunately very true. 🙁
On the plus side, regular cycling has enormous health benefits so despite the occasional accidents it remains massively beneficial to overall public health and some would say, quality of life. 🙂
(Figures from RRCGB Annual Report 2012, Tables RAS30065 & RAS30067)
The news does like to report that, yes.
But research suggests that cyclists are to blame for 20% motor vehicle vs cyclist collisions. Drivers were at fault in 68%.
And yes, some of those cyclists may have been “inexperienced” – but having roads that are only suitable for “experienced” cyclists is indicative of the problem!
Joeinpoole wrote:Airzound
I have reported over 20 drivers just in the last 2-3 years, I was cycling in a safe manner, taking the lane when necessary etc. In nearly all cases I wasn’t wearing a helmet.
It’s only a couple of week since I was knocked off my bike, thankfully I wasn’t hurt. It most certainly wasn’t my fault and the statistic I have read is that 80% of cases where a cyclist is injured – the driver is at fault. Cyclists should be able to make mistakes without getting maimed, if drivers follow the rules, this can happen.
There may only be 100 deaths per year, it’s the many thousands of serious injuries that worries me, and the fact that every other person that cycles a lot seems to have been knocked off their bike often resulting in serious injuries – I think that a lot of these injuries aren’t being categorised properly.
Keep plugging away Mr
Keep plugging away Mr Boardman.
I think a lot of the comments
I think a lot of the comments here kind of prove my earlier point (and one that others have also made), that perception of danger is often different to reality, but it’s this that’s stopping people cycling (or perhaps stopping them allowing their children from cycling..)
That’s not to say more needs to be done to improve road safety -or that these people are wrong not to cycle (I would never advocate it if you genuinely didn’t feel safe – if you feel that way then probably you aren’t safe..)
But so many people who haven’t tried it just assume it’s dangerous, when it may not be.
There’s safety in numbers, to an extent, as many commentators have said. And if more people tried it, then it would go some way to normalising cycling.
Then perhaps showers at work would be more widespread! (I still wouldn’t just use a wetwipe though!).
Oh and on that point, if you’ve got, for example, a rural 10 mile commute surely you’d want to go fairly quickly for it to be a viable alternative to driving? Hence ideally why you’d have a shower after, IMO!
I suspect it is a multitude
I suspect it is a multitude of factors, mostly massive improvements in car safety and much tighter traffic laws.
Here’s a different graph that I annotated with a few of the major changes:
True, but I was really
True, but I was really thinking that if drivers’ attitudes towards drink driving can be changed so dramatically can their attitudes towards cyclists be changed as well? Trouble is, that may also take a long time.
GrahamSt wrote:I suspect it
I believe the most significant factor is actually improved road engineering. Accident black spots have been identified and the issue has been engineered out with changes to the roads or junctions.
That’s why motorways are much safer to travel on, per mile driven, than any other road for example __ because they’ve been *designed* to allow traffic to flow at high speeds. The standards for motorway construction have also been massively improved in recent decades too with much more stringent limits on the radius of bends (for visibility) and gradients of climbs.
That’s also why your graph doesn’t show any significant step-changes from the various changes in laws regarding safety features. The truth is that individually they didn’t make much difference. What has made the difference has been the gradual improvement in road engineering and hundreds of improvements in the design of cars. Cars nowadays are much easier to drive than they were even 30 years ago. Brakes are better, handling is better, wider tyres, etc, etc.
Improvements in road safety are essentially down to what Brailsford would describe as ‘marginal gains’. Thousands of tiny changes that collectively add up to measurably increased performance.
GrahamSt wrote:I suspect it
I could be missing something blindingly obvious here but how has the biggest spike in road traffic accidents happened in the middle of World War 2?
It’s harder to see during a
It’s harder to see during a blackout. Must have been a lot of black market petrol going around though. 😉
As I understand it, it is an
As I understand it, it is an offence for any cyclist to ride on the pavement, regardless of their age, but ACPO encourages police discretion:
So in reality a child cyclist wouldn’t be collared unless they were making a nuisance of themselves or putting other people in danger.
(a child under ten is below the age of criminal responsibility, so can’t be charged anyway)
It is definitely more
It is definitely more dangerous these days riding the bike on the road.
And that is due to peoples lack of care when they get in their metal boxes with wheels.
Even some professional drivers like bus or taxi drivers seem to not care for the safety of cyclists out on the road.
That said those cyclists riding through red lights aren’t exactly doing us any favours. They should be fined, just like people years ago would be fined if they were caught riding a push bike on the pavement.
We seem to have a lot of cycle paths going on to the pavement these days (I live in Brighton) , I for one think this hasn’t helped the rights of cyclist putting cycle paths on pavements. Cyclist should use the road, pavements are for pedestrians. The powers that be should be taking the cycling routes off pavements and putting them back on roads. All motor vehicle traffic in built up areas should be reduced to 20mph and in some cases 10mph .
The bicycle in built up places should be regarded as the most important to cater for, over motor vehicles.
Radical ideas of mine but they make more sense than what’s happening at the moment.
There are only a couple of
There are only a couple of data points that far back so the swings are much more pronounced.
I’d speculate that with more granularity it would show a fairly smooth rise up to the early forties as more and more people got access to cars, followed by a pretty sharp drop as the war progressed due to factors like the number of young men overseas, people selling cars to buy rations, and curfews on driving at night etc. (But I’m just guessing really)
The evidence is all there though – if we want to reduce road casualties further all we need is another World War.
Who’s with me?
GrahamSt wrote:There are only
That makes more sense, I focussed on the top point of the graph, rather than the large drop after.