Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

People in cities want segregated space for cycling

Even at the expense of room for cars, cycling is deemed a good thing

Four out of five people want protected cycleways in cities, to improve safety even at the expense of other traffic.

The biggest assessment to date of the UK’s cities found that 78 per cent say they would like segregated infrastructure, and 69 per cent think more cycling would make their city a better place to live and work.

Bike Life, produced by the charity Sustrans, found that out of 7,700 people surveyed, most think that more space for cycling and walking or buses, as opposed to more space for cars, is the best way to keep their city moving, improve people’s health or air quality.   

Sixty four per cent of the respondents would cycle more if on-road cycle routes physically separated from traffic and pedestrians were available.

Even people who said they never ride a bike still overwhelmingly support the provision of segregated bike routes (74%); for those cycling frequently this figure rose to 87%.   

Currently, a total of just 19 miles of cycle lanes on roads, physically separated from traffic and pedestrians exist in six of the seven cities investigated: Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Greater Manchester and Newcastle (excluding Birmingham where no data is available). 

Only six per cent of the residents surveyed usually travel to and from work by bicycle and just 30% think cycling safety in their city is good.

Three-quarters (75 per cent) support more investment in cycling.   

Bike Life also found that people cycling in the seven cities take up to 111,564 cars off roads each day. If these cars were lined up, this would equate to a 333 mile tailback – a distance greater than from Cardiff to Newcastle.   

Xavier Brice, CEO for Sustrans said: “Bike Life shows that most people living in the seven cities say cycling is a good thing and are far more supportive of bold and ambitious plans for cycling than decision-makers often think. They want dedicated space for people on bicycles even when this means taking space away from cars.   

“From Mexico City to Manchester, mayors around the world are waking up to the fact that their cities need to be designed around people, not motor vehicles and that investing in cycling is key to keeping their city moving, and improving health and economic vitality.   

“At a time of falling funding for cycling in the UK – outside of London and Scotland – we call on governments at all levels to work together to meet people’s needs by investing in segregated routes that make cycling across our cities attractive, safe and convenient.”   

Bike Life reports every two years on infrastructure, travel habits, satisfaction and the impact of cycling in seven cities: Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Greater Manchester and Newcastle. This includes an independent survey with a representative sample of 1,100 residents aged 16+ in each city on issues such as cycle safety, bike ownership and what people would like investment in cycling to be spent on.   

Chris Boardman, British Cycling Policy adviser and now Greater Manchester's first Cycling and Walking Commissioner, said: “Evidence has shown us time and again that the world’s happiest and healthiest cities all have high cycling rates in common. It’s no coincidence, cycling really is the silver bullet.   
“More people using bikes instead of cars would address so many of the problems our urban centres face – health, congestion, air quality, social inclusion…you name it, more cycling will have a positive impact on it.   

“Greater Manchester is determined to become one of the most attractive city regions in the world and, in pursing that aim, it’s great to see through Bike Life the vast majority of our residents want us to prioritise making cycling a safe and attractive thing for them to do.”   

 

Add new comment

9 comments

Avatar
burtthebike | 6 years ago
1 like

The government announced that it would be spending £1.7bn on links between suburbs and city centres as part of the budget, today.  I wonder how much of that will go on cycling?

Avatar
kitsunegari | 6 years ago
0 likes

The major thing that worries me about separate infrastructure is the complaceny I can see it breeding in both motorists and cyclists when the latter is forced to rejoin the normal highways.

It isn't possible to separate 100% of infrastructure, and with the relative lack of attention I experience from motorists on a daily basis, if interacting with other types of road users becomes less frequent, it's only going to get worse when a situation does arise.

Avatar
jacknorell replied to kitsunegari | 6 years ago
2 likes
kitsunegari wrote:

The major thing that worries me about separate infrastructure is the complaceny I can see it breeding in both motorists and cyclists when the latter is forced to rejoin the normal highways.

It isn't possible to separate 100% of infrastructure, and with the relative lack of attention I experience from motorists on a daily basis, if interacting with other types of road users becomes less frequent, it's only going to get worse when a situation does arise.

That's not what happens though.

Cyclist's self-preservation doesn't get turned off that easily, and definitely not from the pitiful amount of infrastructure we're likely to see in the UK for the next decade

Avatar
Leodis | 6 years ago
0 likes

Judging by LCC recent attempt, thanks but no thanks.

 

Avatar
duc888 | 6 years ago
1 like

That's 4 out of 5 Muppet cyclists that want segregated bike infrastructure. The rest of us want to be able to make good progress and get round the Muppets and not get stuck in a 3 foot wide 10 mph queue.  1

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to duc888 | 6 years ago
3 likes
duc888 wrote:

That's 4 out of 5 Muppet cyclists that want segregated bike infrastructure. The rest of us want to be able to make good progress and get round the Muppets and not get stuck in a 3 foot wide 10 mph queue.  1

In built up city areas where traffic is stationary most of the time I would imagine that few would want to be negotiating around that stationary traffic at speeds much greater than 10mph for fear of being right/left hooked or doored. If this is true then why is going around the same speed in an enviroment that removes those dangerous factors only the ideals of muppets? 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to duc888 | 6 years ago
3 likes
duc888 wrote:

That's 4 out of 5 Muppet cyclists that want segregated bike infrastructure. The rest of us want to be able to make good progress and get round the Muppets and not get stuck in a 3 foot wide 10 mph queue.  1

 

The 'rest of us' don't care what you want though!  You are, and always will be, a tiny minority of the population.

 

  I'm sure you can find some other means of tweaking the nose of fear and demonstrating your technical prowess to yourselves.  The 'rest of us' just want to be able to get from one place to another place without needing to take an advanced degree in 'how not to become dead'.

Avatar
Username replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 6 years ago
4 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The 'rest of us' don't care what you want though!  You are, and always will be, a tiny minority of the population.

 

  I'm sure you can find some other means of tweaking the nose of fear and demonstrating your technical prowess to yourselves.  The 'rest of us' just want to be able to get from one place to another place without needing to take an advanced degree in 'how not to become dead'.

 

More to the point, the rest of us, people who have registered on this cycling web site, who are mostly experienced confident cyclists, who like me for example have no hesitation using Euston Road because it's the fastest East/West corridor, we want protected cycleways for our nearest and dearest; not for us.

I want my daughter to be able cycle to school. I want my partner to be able to cycle to work. I want to be able to go on family cycles without spending hours on Google Maps trying to work out the least bad route.

Avatar
emishi55 | 6 years ago
2 likes

Welcome news, but in London foot dragging has allowed the pro-rat running, motorphile groups to waste the time of local groups and prevent measures from going ahead despite having already received overwhelming support through consultation.

In Camden, a public inquiry has recently come to an end (deemd necessary due to a simple technicality - a simple human error at point of delivery) - wasting an obscene amount of money, time and energy squanderng the resources of Camden Council along with the local branch of LCC whereas movement could have been well underway on the next stages and link routes by now.

(So thanks to a local hotellier, Bloomsbury Residents Action Group and the LTDA for that -

all of whom trot out their tired agendas and misinformation at the expense of those who would welcome the option of a breathing space and welcome respite to thousands of cyclists from the surrounding mayhem and foul air, noise and grind of Euston Road and surrounding roads.   

Tomorrow evening at Camden Town Hall, Judd Street, (7pm Monday 19 November 2017) another scheme is being defended - again by CCC - against a group of objectors to the long awaited link route (stepped tracks on either side of the road) on Delancey-Pratt Street. Another east-west  route, and currently a two lane one way race track, this one would connect Regents Park with Royal College Street and had been ready to go in having had a small sticking point resolved after some time.  

A group of objectors are presenting their "creates more congestion b/s" (since they can hardly come out and say they want to keeo their rat-run to the West End...and too bad for any kids that need to ride to school).

They will likely have supporters for their grotesque and objectionable objections.

Supoorters of the scheme are also welcome to attend.

 

Andrew Gilligan warned against wasting time when the new London mayoral administatrion took over. Perhaps if the Labour mayor had had a genuine interest in doing what he said he would do (at election time) for cycling, there might have been a different alignment of policies with both City Hall and the local boroughs, but....more water under the bridge....opportunities galore missed. 

Oxygen is taken from residents breathing the sh*te from motors and instead given to these local swivel-eyed NIMBY groups that ensure their modern day open sewage streams remain in place. Contaminants and bio-hazards; they spew their filth; all the available evidence tells us what we already know again and again.

 

Democracy is ceratinly failing big time just now.

 

(But come along Monday evening if you can get there anyway).

 

  

 

 

 

 

Latest Comments