- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cycling Fallacies.png‘Cycling Fallacies’ website launches
The campaign group The Cycling Embassy Of Great Britain has launched a new website aiming to be a ‘one stop shop’ to support campaigners for active travel and better towns and cities across the country.
Cycling Fallacies lists many of the arguments commonly given for not providing high quality, safe space for cycling, and debunks each one in plain and simple language - with links for further reading, and supporting images.
Chair of the Cycling Embassy Mark Treasure said: “We get regular enquiries about all sorts of well-known myths, misinterpretations and misunderstandings - not paying road tax, not being Dutch, and so on. We looked at the ‘Your Logical Fallacy Is’ site and really liked it, so thought a cycling equivalent would be a great idea.
“We hope the clear explanations of why such claims are mistaken will make this new website a great resource for people who come up against the same arguments time after time. We also hope it will enable people to engage in positive debates about cycling as a mode of transport for the future.”
New Cycling Chair Katja Leyendecker said “This tool will really free up our time for the important stuff! It's so vital for campaigners to keep a good focus, be able to deal with distractions quickly and accurately, and debunk time-wasting spurious claims effectively. The Cycling Fallacies website will enable us to spend more of our volunteering time on positively campaigning for change."
Common cycling fallacies include the complaint: “Our roads are too narrow to build cycle lanes on.”
The site answers:
It is true that some roads may be too narrow to accommodate cycling infrastructure, alongside other uses like parking and multiple lanes for motor traffic.
However, it may well be the case that cycling infrastructure is a more beneficial and productive use of road space than parking bays on both sides of the road, or multiple lanes of motor traffic. A road can be made one-way for motor traffic, for instance, or one of two rows of parking on both sides of a road could be changed.
Alternatively, the amount of motor traffic using these roads can be reduced (and their speed lowered) so it is safe and attractive to cycle on them. Or these roads could exclude motor traffic altogether.
In short, in practical terms, there isn't any road - narrow or wide - that can't be made safe and attractive for cycling.
Another is that: “Cycling facilities cost a lot of money and are a poor return on investment”.
The site says however:
Good cycling infrastructure does cost money, but it is incorrect to say it is a large amount in the scope of overall transport spending, or that it is a poor return on investment. Cycling infrastructure has been shown to pay back to society more than it costs - a 2014 Department for Transport report cited returns of between 2:1 and 35:1.
Other countries demonstrate returns of 10 times or higher, and Transport for London reports ratios of 20:1 for cycling investment. Whilst many of the UK figures are for 'general' investment in cycling (i.e. training, etc.) the higher cost of cycling infrastructure is still justified because of the additional numbers drawn to cycling by the provision of safe places to cycle. The Netherlands spends €500m per year on cycling infrastructure, which generates €31bn in health benefits alone - a 60:1 return on investment.
The site is also calling for suggestions for additional fallacies, links to add to existing fallacies, or corrections. Click here to get in touch.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 25 min 15 sec ago
What's that? A mobile home for squirrels?
- PRSboy 39 min 15 sec ago
The advertising in Strava is in the feed, usually disguised as some low-grade challenge sponsored by Whoever. Every time one of your 'friends'...
- Backladder 57 min 55 sec ago
While original sash windows are nice they make it very hard to keep the house warm, we eventually went for upvc double glazed sash window...
- wtjs 1 hour 16 min ago
The UK's 'Active Travel' checklist seems to be:...
- Andrewbanshee 2 hours 21 min ago
As you said the pedals will be hidden anyway. My shoes, 3 pairs of them, have reflective strips on the heel and my winter trousers do too on the...
- Steve K 2 hours 22 min ago
Other drivers only care about disabled people when it gives them a way to object to cycling infrastructure.
- mark1a 10 hours 25 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- chrisonabike 15 hours 51 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
Add new comment
102 comments
Then you are the enemy of mass cycling
i want my young daughters to grow up in a nation where anyone can cycle safely away from fast cars
A 'right' to cycle in unsafe conditions no right at all
"There is no evedence that seperate facilities are safer that I've ever seen, on the other hand loads of studies showing they are more dangerous. Seperate facilities aren't about safety, they are about the perception of safety.
Here is an extract from one:
A very common perception about cycling on off-road facilities is the relative safety of these routes compared with their on-road counterparts. New cyclists in particular have a strong fear of collisions with motor traffic, so the prospect of an off-road cycleway can be very attractive. However, the first thing to note is that by far most cycle crashes do NOT involve motor vehicles on the road. People fall off or hit objects for various reasons, and they also have many crashes on paths with pedestrians, dogs, and even other cyclists. In a recent New Zealand study (Munster et al 2001), it was estimated from hospital data that four times as many cyclists are injured from cycle-only crashes on the road or footpath than those involved in a motor vehicle collision (note that this doesn’t include off-road mountain-biking track accidents either). When looking specifically at children, Safekids (2003) concurred, with 90% of NZ hospitalisations for bicycle-related injuries to children during 1997-2001 not involving a motor vehicle. Similar findings have been found overseas (Moritz 1998, Carlin et al 1995). It is also worth observing that many crashes with motor vehicles will not be reduced by pathway riding. Cyclists will typically still have to cross side roads and driveways, where most conflicts occur. As Forester (2001) points out, a key assumption for advocating off-road paths is that same-direction motor traffic is the greatest danger to cyclists (e.g. being hit from behind). For American data, he showed that these types of crashes made up only 1% of all cycle crashes (on & off-road) - hardly a panacea for cycle safety. "
is all I have to say. I'm not concerned about falling over. I don't believe you honestly thought anyone was. I and others are concerned about 2 tonnes of metal hitting me, something that common sense rightly tells me won't be helped much by helmets, hi-vis or an honour pledge to give 3 feet.
Note: I am the more representative person in the UK.
Good news: so long as your hobby is the exclusive preserve of lycra-clad freaks you'll be able to moan about lack of respect from motorists all you want. You will. Never. Get Any.
Then remove the fast cars. They're the ones that don't belong on urban roads, not the cyclists.
And that is indeed the solution.
Point spectacularly missed: make the road safer for vulnerable users, not confirm its use only for motons.
Totally agree, roads were not "invented" for cars.
Clearly biased towards a seperate infrastructure agenda.
APF
There is a growing case for separate infrastructure: less chance of being rear-ended by a bus, for a start.
(That said, I use the roads that I pay for when they're more convenient, or the cycle paths when *they're* more convenient).
It's saddening that some people would rather cycling remained an exclusive minority activity for the fit and brave rather than face any compromise to their own speed for the wider benefit. It seems like the same impatience and 'me-first' attitude that manifests itself in driver aggression towards cyclists 'slowing them down'.
I don't think there's a debate that most of the cycle infra in the UK is pretty shoddy but if it's actually OK or even good then its worth using but there a definitely some riders who are always too pro for the bike lane. Case in point, there's a 2Km stretch of dual carriageway near my home. It has kerb separated lanes on both sides of the rtoad, about 3m wide and well surfaced but there are plenty of riders who will still ride on the road, presumably just because they are Serious Cyclists.
OMG. The infrastructure debate is turning into the h****t debate before our very eyes...!
It would be saddening if there really were any people who would "rather cycling remained an exclusive minority activity for the fit and brave rather than face any compromise to their own speed for the wider benefit", but I have seen literally no evidence of that on this thread, nor among *any* of the many cyclists I know. Could that, perhaps, be a total strawman argument, do you think?
Maybe, just maybe, there are some cyclists who refuse to use kerb-spearated lanes because they are "Serious Cyclists" - or maybe they don't use them because they're, you know, human beings who tend to choose to ride where it suits them most? Maybe they feel like they're cycling fast enough that they would be a danger to children or inexperienced cyclists that are using the facility? Maybe the road goes where they want to go? What happens to the cycle path at either end of the 2km stretch (that's not very long, really, is it)? Does it flow smootly into the next stretch or does it end at a lowest-priority-give-way-to-absolutely-everything junction? If the latter, perhaps that is why some folk choose not to use it - I wouldn't, even though I'm pretty sure I'm not a Serious Cyclist.
Cyling isnt Safe
I would agree with that one...on balance it isnt safe at all
Pages