- 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
London cyclists at Hyde Park Corner (copyright Britishcycling.org_.uk).jpgSunday Times claims “victory” for drivers as number of people cycling on English roads drops (updated with survey details)
The Sunday Times has claimed that new figures revealing that the number of people riding bikes on England’s roads has dropped represents a “victory” for motorists “in their long-running battle with cyclists.”
The assertion is made in the opening paragraph of an article citing Sport England’s latest annual Active Lives survey that highlights a shift in the pattern of where people cycle for leisure or sport, with a rise in indoor cycling thanks to the growth of platforms such as Zwift.
Opening his article, Sunday Times social affairs editor Nicholas Hellen wrote: “Motorists have scored a victory in their long-running battle with cyclists, as official figures reveal a 355,000 drop in the number of regular leisure and commuter riders on the roads in 12 months.”
The piece – which is behind a paywall, but can be read for free upon registration, which allows readers to access two articles a week – goes on to say that “Deterred by potholes, accidents and abuse from motorists, enthusiasts are retreating indoors, preferring to avoid the tensions of public roads by switching to virtual rides.”
We’ll be taking a closer look at the data from the Active Lives survey, and its implications, in a separate article here on road.cc.
But what jumps out from the Sunday Times article is the inflammatory and divisive language used, and in particular the premise that motorists and cyclists are two entirely distinct sets of people.
It’s something often claimed by some sections of the media – see, for example, the title of the 2012 BBC programme, The War On Britian’s Roads – but one that does not stand up to closer scrutiny.
Consumer research consistently shows that regular cyclists are more likely than the general population to hold a driving licence, and to live in a multiple car-owning household. Many motorists cycle.
The Sunday Times article naturally references Lord Winston and his campaign against cyclists and – we suppose for balance – the broadcaster and cycle commuter, Jeremy Vine (who retweeted this article on Monday morning to his 6933,000 followers on Twitter).
Our Near Miss of the Day series amply demonstrates that many motorists have a reckless disregard for the safety of people on two wheels with whom they share the road and, at times, the intimidation is clearly intentional.
But to imply that two tribes exist and are at war with each other at one and the same time ignores that many people will choose the mode of transport most suited to the particular journey they are undertaking, and pours fuel on the fire of a conflict that is largely media-driven, and casts someone on a bike in the role of “the other” – as research from Australia recently found.
And that risks causing some motorists to view cyclists as the “enemy” – as any number of social media posts attest.
The fact is that most of us – whether on a bike, or behind the wheel of a car – simply want to get from A to B safely and without drama.
Riding a bike among motor traffic on any road in the UK will expose the cyclist to poor driving that underlines how vulnerable you can feel against two tonnes of metal, without the protection of seatbelts or airbags.
Attempts to create what can be best described as a Phoney War, rather than looking at how we can remove conflict between motor vehicles and vulnerable road users, whether on bike or foot, are at best deeply unhelpful – and at worst, by fostering that “us and them” mentality – potentially life-threatening.
And of course, that’s without mentioning the positive benefits of cycling on public health, easing congestion, and reducing toxic emissions that cause death through air pollution and helping combat climate change.
Active Lives survey
We reported earlier this month on the findings of the latest Active Lives survey, complete by 179,747 people between November 2017 and November 2018.
> National survey reveals decline in cycling for leisure, sport and travel
The survey found that the number of people cycling for travel dropped by 98,000 to 3.1 million people, while the number of people cycling for leisure or sport was down by 257,000 to 6.1 million. It also found that there had been a “spike” in the number of people cycling indoors.
It's worth noting the methodology employed, however. Participation in an activity is defined as undertaking it on at least two occasions in the 28 days prior to completing the survey.
As a result, it's impossible to ascertain whether the fall in cycling is found more among regular than occasional riders or vice versa. or whether it is common across both groups.
Roger Geffen, policy director at Cycling UK, called on the government to increase its investment to encourage more people onto bikes, saying: “We know cycling has grown significantly in cities such as London, Manchester and Leicester that have been willing to invest in quality cycling infrastructure and restraining the growth of road traffic.
“Unfortunately though, these commitments have not remotely been matched by central government. Hence it is hardly surprising that overall cycle use in England is, if anything, declining.
“If the government wants to meet its ambition to double cycling trips between 2013 and 2025, it needs to drastically rebalance its transport spending plans, to support clean and healthy travel. It has a great opportunity to do so this summer, when it begins a three-year spending review.
“We will be campaigning alongside our walking and cycling alliance partners both inside and outside Westminster to make sure this happens.”
His appeal for more money for cycling infrastructure was echoed by British Cycling policy manager Nick Chamberlin, who said: “Our insight tells us that perceptions of safety and access to pleasant, traffic-free spaces to ride remain the biggest deterrents preventing more people from cycling.
“While cycling remains statistically safe, traffic speed, close passing or potholes can often make riding a bike in Britain intimidating and unpleasant, especially for those who are trying it for the first time.
“The impact of this is clear in the numbers of people still making short, cyclable journeys by car – with all of the associated consequences for congestion, air quality and physical activity.
“While efforts are now being made to improve roads for people on bikes at city level, most notably in London and Manchester and more recently in Sheffield and Birmingham, national government in Westminster needs to redouble its efforts and investment to achieve significant and sustained change nationally,” he added.
Please note: This story was updated at 12.50pm on Monday 22 April 2019 to add details of the Active Lives survey.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 20 min 47 sec ago
I think the former is a fair summary. What's available guides buyers' choices BUT the common choices are reflected by the market here **....
- DogOfOB 1 hour 9 min ago
To be sure, race organizers and racers review races in detail and most often, where there have been accidents or deaths, there have been prior...
- Dadams7378 1 hour 15 min ago
I'm not sure I agree they are 'promoting' this. It is a review, so unless you're suggesting the reviewer is biased towards Fizik, then it isn't a...
- PenLaw 1 hour 17 min ago
It emphasises that British Cycling concentrates on pure sport cycling, not leisure cycling....
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 17 min ago
Yes, that's a fair enough way of looking at it. I suppose it's in some ways the same as the Blitz in World War II, by any objective measure the...
- markmulder 6 hours 18 min ago
The form over function customer base is growing in cycling, and company is apparently exploiting that to the fullest.
- David9694 6 hours 25 min ago
Hours of gridlock on A2 in Canterbury after men assaulted...
- Bungle_52 6 hours 28 min ago
Looks like you may get your wish. https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/motoring/should-older-drivers...
- David9694 6 hours 41 min ago
Man charged after lorry crashes onto railway line...
- Quiddle 7 hours 15 min ago
The first part of this article scrapes the bottom of the barrel. Councillor Hunt makes a reasonable case with no evidence of any 'fuming'. Why go...
Add new comment
37 comments
“Unfortunately though, these commitments have not remotely been matched by central government." Roger Geffen, CUK.
Glad to see the English understatement is alive and well despite being banned by the EU.
The Sunday Times has been a militant anti-cycling newspaper for years, or should I say that a few people who own the newspaper are miltant anti-cyclists who use the newspaper as a weapon to attack all cyclists - the reason why is beyond my understanding.
What's all this about "cycling indoors"? Only pussies and try-hards cycle indoors.
All hail the edgelord. Cutting stuff.
Right back at ya.
I can only assume the author has either misunderstood or deliberately decided to misrepresent. It's possible, and I confirm that as cyclists we are not immune from this affliction or seeing things that don't exist and then going off on a rant about it. I don't see any apologies forthcoming from this muppet either.
Noam Chomsky once said 'violence works'.
And Legs once said, 'Fear needs to change sides'.
Well, I wasn't really talking about taking on the government. The quote is from Hegemony or Survival, I believe.
And I disagree that no one can compete with the Government in violence. It all depends on what you want to gain from the violence.
Actually my favourite quote about violence is from Asimov:
Shit happens.
Actually my favourite quote about violence is from Asimov:
[/quote]
No. The last refuge of the incompetent is Tooting, as anyone who survives CS7 in the evening will attest. Strictly speaking, it's the last refuge of the terminally bewildered and incompetent. If the latter don't run you over, the former will step out in front of you. Particularly on Thursdays.
When was the survey done? If it was based on a particular month that was recent and therefore Winter, the results would be erroneous.
A victory for drivers?
So they'll have even more cars in front of them in the queue yes?
Longer journeys?
Less parking spaces when they get there?
More pollution?
Fantastic victory that.....
Victory for drivers?
Then it's a defeat for common sense, a defeat for our children, our national health service! and just about anything else I can think of.
I'd like to sit in front of these journalists ( which is a misdescription) and ask them if they think that by wageing this phoney war on cyclists, do they love their children? Because they sure don't by writing this garbage.
The protesters in London just an indication of the public feeling toward climate change.
Couple of Guardian cyclist-bashing articles. The writers pretend to support cycling but the agenda seems very different. Love the bit about how drivers generally follow rules but cyclists don't.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/26/ok-maybe-cyclists-...
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/05/worst-thing-about-c...
So what has changed between when the Times thought that 'Cities safe for cycling' was a good and worthy cause and now, when cyclists are 'the Enemy'?
Did they change editors, was there pressure from the owners, or is society and their readership less tolerant of cyclists so they're just following the money?
If "victory" is measured by how many fewer journeys one particular group of road users has made due to the actions of another group, then Extinction Rebellion win hands down and they have not needed to intimidate or kill anyone in the process.
Don't make the mistake of regarding any Sunday paper as a newspaper. A few news stories to lend credibility to what is essentially just endless pages of lifestyle puff pieces and columns.
Road.cc should focus its efforts on searching out proper newsworthy stories rather than repeating dross such as this.
I agree entirely. In particular I have a long-standing dislike of the Observer. It's both fraudulent in it's political stance (a right-wing paper pretending to be otherwise) and also bizarrely badly-written. It has the columnists with the worst prose-style of any in the national press.
It's pretty much how I tell that it's Sunday, when I lose track. I'll be reading the Guardian web site and think 'Hmmm, the articles are particularly crap today...oh, yeah, that means it's a work-day tomorrow'.
However on Linkedin, Nicholas Hellen describes himself as Sunday Times Assistant Editor, Social Affairs Editor and (excuse the capitals) CYCLING COLUMNIST. Would you Adam and Eve it?
I don't know what to do with myself. I'm a cyclist, a driver and motorcyclist.
Who am I battling against? The pedestrian? Yeah, that'll do, I can run them over using any of those above.
I expect this kind of thing from the Scum or Daily Hate, but the Times? I know it’s as right wing as the Daily Hail, but it made some pretence of journalistic integrity. Not any more.
Actually the broadsheet equivalent of The Mail is most definitely The Telegraph. Total lack of balance, particularly in its editorials on Brexit. The Times is probably slightly right of centre and firmly supported remain. Totally agree that this article was out of order but someone on here referenced a number of anti-cycling Guardian articles on here a while ago too, so unfortunately it's not just a right wing obsession.
Wasn't the Sunday Times a newspaper once upon a time? Early 80s or so?
Don't read the article please you just give them ad. revenue and clicks meaning their ad space is worth more.
They have been toxic and dishing out fake news from 1980s at least. Huge bias across education, climate and plenty else and lots of written assassinations. At least the Daily Mail doesn't pretend to be in the quality press category as the ST do.
One could argue that your response to this article is fueling the fire even more, there are drivers who want cyclsits off the road, this is an absolute fact and one "could" attribute their actions to these figures, we cannot hide from the fact there are drivers who hate cyclists and if that means it is a war or the likes then call it such, being honest and open about a situation is the only way it can be fixed, I don't know the reasons, I don't know how much truth there is in this article, but if the figures and reasons are correct, then so is this article.
I agree that there is some level of war going on, but it isn't between drivers and cyclists. I am a driver and a cyclist - I expect that most people reading this are drivers and cyclists, and there are literally millions of drivers who have absolutely no problem with cyclists. So there is no war between drivers and cyclists. The closest we have to war is between drivers who hate cyclists, and cyclists (and that isn't a proper war, because most cyclists aren't going to attack someone driving a car even if they could be identified as a driver who hates cyclists, so it is almost entirely one-sided). The average car driver has absolutely no involvement in that war, but if they thought about it would realise that the best option for them is for the drivers who hate cyclists to be gone, because then there would be more cyclists, less traffic, less pollution, greater general health, faster commute times etc.
The huge problem with saying that there is a war between drivers and cyclists is that it sends a message to all of the drivers who have no problem with cyclists that they are at war with them. If you are just walking along minding your own business and people start telling you that there is a war between people with blue eyes and people with brown eyes then you will immediately figure out what colour eyes you have, identify with the other people with eyes that colour as "us", start viewing the people with the other colour as "them", and interpreting things that you otherwise wouldn't have even noticed as acts of aggression, because now you are looking for aggression from "them". Eventually you will see so many of these little things that you interpret as acts of aggression that you will decide you have to get on the front foot, and you start attacking "them" yourself. Suddenly, just because a few people ran around talking about a made up war between people with brown eyes and people with blue, there's an actual war.
It's a bit different between cyclists and drivers, because the vast majority of cyclists are also drivers, so they can see straight away that drivers are not "them" so they don't get sucked in. For the drivers though a lot of them haven't ridden a bike since they were a kid, so they get fooled into seeing cyclists as "them", get worried and start looking for signs of aggression or attack, naturally start seeing it because when they are looking for it they will interpret everything as being it, and then they naturally decide to get on the front foot and attack "them" (cyclists) first. So by talking about a made up war that one side can see is clearly rubbish you've suddenly got millions of drivers, who otherwise would have no problem with cyclists, suddenly carrying out attacks on the roads. If we can keep the discussion about "People who demand exclusive use of the roads versus people mature enough to share" then everyone is much better off.
Isn't the Daily Fail one of the most visited websites on the world ? The Times might be around for a while yet.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/kitten-block/
Hopefully helps reduce the number of accidental clicks to that toilet paper. Works for the Express too, so I'm not sure how bad the snow will be next winter.
Pages