The number of cycling trips made per person in England dropped slightly in 2024, with campaigners raising renewed concerns over the low participation of women and children in cycling, as well as a lack of sustained central government funding to build cycling networks — trends they claimed could pose a risk to future progress in active travel.
New figures released by the Department for Transport (DfT) show that the average number of cycle journeys per person in the year ending June 2024 fell to 15, down from 16 the previous year and continuing a return to pre-pandemic levels after a surge in 2020. The figure matches trip levels seen in 2019 and 2021 through 2023.
Despite the fall in trip frequency, the total distance cycled per person rose by 9 per cent over the same period, suggesting that while fewer rides were made, individual journeys may have been longer.
By contrast, the average number of walking trips per person rose to 267, up from 261 the previous year, while car journeys climbed from 346 in 2023 to 364 — still below the pre-pandemic high of 380 recorded in 2019.
The DfT noted that overall trips across all transport modes remained below 2019 levels. However, transport experts and cycling advocates have raised questions regarding the flatlining of bike trips, asking whether enough is being done to make cycling an accessible, attractive choice for the wider population.
Sarah McMonagle, director of external affairs at recently rebranded active travel charity Cycling UK, said: “That’s why we often see a patchwork of cycle routes rather than a holistic network. If we’re serious about providing healthier, more sustainable travel options, then we need to invest in safe, accessible cycle networks.”
According to McMonagle, councils are struggling to deliver well-connected cycling infrastructure due to a lack of consistent central government support. Active Travel England, the body set up to fund and oversee walking and cycling schemes, saw its budget slashed in 2023, a move that has slowed the rollout of planned local projects.
While former Prime Minister Boris Johnson set a target for half of all journeys in towns and cities to be cycled or walked by 2030, former Olympic champion and Active Travel England commissioner Chris Boardman told MPs earlier this year that hitting that goal now looks “extremely hard” under current funding levels.
“We still have a massive pipeline of schemes with local authorities. They still have their network plans. We have just slowed right down on the delivery without the commitment to deliver it — the commitment in consistency and the funding itself,” Boardman said.
In February, the government announced £300m for up to 300 miles of new cycling and walking routes over two years, saying the investment would help more people “cycle, wheel and walk anywhere.” But for many in the sector, the bigger problem is the type of infrastructure being built – and who it is built for.
Recently, Cycling UK has pointed to a gender gap in cycling in the country, with research conducted by the charity revealing 90 per cent of women are afraid to cycle in towns and cities, with fears around close passes, threatening driver behaviour, and the lack of well-lit, segregated cycle lanes all cited as major deterrents.
“Many women, including myself, need to overcome barriers to cycling that simply don’t affect men in the same way,” McMonagle said. “It’s important we build safe cycle routes designed with the experiences of women in mind – while also calling out bad behaviour on our roads.”
Cycling UK’s campaign ‘My ride. Our right.’ has called for 10 per cent of all transport budgets across the UK to be dedicated to active travel, with a focus on safe, segregated infrastructure. Without that, the charity warns, millions of women and girls could be left behind.
That concern was echoed in Sustrans’ first-ever Children’s Walking and Cycling Index, which found that only 17 per cent of girls cycle at least five times a week, compared to 28 per cent of boys. Fewer girls also see themselves as “someone who often cycles”, and a significant proportion report feeling self-conscious, unsafe, or limited by clothing and bike design.
Rachel Toms, Director of Urbanism and UK Programmes at Sustrans, said: “Children want to cycle and expect our leaders to tackle the barriers stopping them. We’re asking policymakers to invest in more traffic-free and quiet cycle paths so that more children, especially girls, feel safe to get on their bike and enjoy the benefits of cycling.”
Despite the high demand among children for safer infrastructure, including lower speed limits and car-free streets near schools, car use still dominates travel to school. The report found that 54 per cent of children are driven at least five times a week, while only 14 per cent of trips are made by bike.
The pattern is also reinforced by market trends. According to the Bicycle Association, bike sales fell by 2 per cent in 2023, with children’s bikes seeing a particularly sharp drop.
“The continued decline in kids’ cycling participation and kids’ bike sales is particularly concerning, given these are our cyclists of the future,” said Simon Irons, the association’s data and insights director.
A separate survey by bike subscription service Swapfiets found that 90 per cent of people are scared of urban cycling in the UK. Women were particularly affected – 90 per cent of female respondents described cycling in cities as “terrifying,” compared to just 40 per cent of men.
Swapfiets UK country manager Rory MacPhee called the results “a wake-up call,” and warned that fear, coupled with budget cuts, threatens both public health and the UK’s climate goals.
“Improving cycling infrastructure and offering better education are essential if we’re going to break down the barriers stopping people from choosing sustainable transport,” he said. “Prioritising these investments will not only address our climate goals but also improve public health and create more liveable cities for everyone.”
19 thoughts on “People used bikes less frequently in 2024 than previous year, with fewer women and children cycling along with lack of funding described as “concerning” by campaigners”
If anything, it’s probably
If anything, it’s probably down to bike theft and abuse by other drivers as well as road safety. The current hate the cyclists mentality is not helping at all, especially women and girls. Bike theft is also a real problem in our cities; I double lock my bike wherever I go. If cycling numbers are going to increase then these problems need to be tackled.
The drop from 16 to 15 might
The drop from 16 to 15 journeys might really be very little depending on rounding.
I’m not sure that the cry for
I’m not sure that the cry for increasing numbers of cycle infrastucture projects is the silver bullet so beloved by many. I know we have always had to endure the, “Toot, Toot, get out of my way you (expletive deleted) proles,” attitude of Mr Toad wannabes; however education could still be a more productive way to spend wafer thin budgets.
Who can still remember the parking exploits of Reginald Molehusband, the safest parker in town? A memorable piece who’s advice I still employ to this day, now that I also drive.
It’s a huge long shot, I know, to try to convince motorminds that there are others allowed to use the roads but this constant building of cycling infra is ultimately self defeating. Just consider how many of these routes have had to be barricaded to prevent moto encroachment, thus rendering them impassable to wheelchair/trike access. Is an adult, sharing attitude too much to hope for among our driving colleagues? I certainly hope not!
I must admit that I’d rather see loads of road courtesy, educational clips on the TV to replace those awful ‘hurry up and die’ adverts; you know, the ones extolling you to remember us……(Select your charidee)……in your will. Or even the ads which extol the virtues of their particular tasteful cremation service……
……”Come and observe Robert Browning, watch Elizabeth Fry, see James Cook!
Spangly Shiny wrote:
It seems to simple in theory – human behaviour is the problem, just retrain the humans, right?
But … for generations we have had licenced drivers who all* take a driving test. We have had road safety education campaigns for decades. Aside from drink driving and seatbelts (both framed in terms of self interest) I’m not sure that’s done much?
What kind of education are you thinking of? How much will it cost and what do you think it will deliver?
This doesn’t look self-defeating to me… I agree that bollards *in* the cycle path are not great, and if the cycle path (or UK cycle lane, more likely…) is narrow having them at the side can make it unpleasant. (The solution would be more space …)
Of course, gaps between them can be made wide enough to permit both wheelchairs and trikes and still exclude everything wider than a bubble-car.
I believe in NL they have found it possible to remove many bollards. Sometimes that’s because motor traffic has been entirely removed, or through-traffic has. In some places they seem to have found that having needed them for years drivers *have* been re-educated. Perhaps by practice and perhaps by social norms changing? I have no idea what if any ad campaigns they have?
* Actually a surprising number of people driving don’t have a licence or full licence or are currently banned…
chrisonabike wrote:
As I’m pretty sure I’ve already mentioned here a few times, we know how to fix the problem of road user behavior. The model has been demonstrated successfully. Japan’s roads are among the world’s worst — due to factors outside their control like topography and density — and they’ve built almost no infrastructure dedicated to specific vehicle types. And yet, their roads are the world’s safest for pedestrians and cyclists. How? Because they enforce their laws, and specifically because they jail people who assault cyclists or pedestrians with vehicles. All of them. None of the SMIDSY business that infects many other countries. Drivers are held responsible for not assaulting other road users, and the punishment for failure is prison.
This works. And we’ve seen similar effect with drunk driving laws in many countries.
There is no actual reason why this model is not used by other countries, except that it is very inconvenient to drivers.
Construction-based strategies are, almost by-definition, self-defeating because they reinforce the notions — widely held among drivers — that roads are their exclusive domain, and that they are welcome to do as they please on those roads.
In the NL, they have also found it possible to suffer a massive rate of cyclist fatalities ( 280 annually is the current average ) from their tiny population. Once again we observe that construction-based strategies — even when implemented with dedication for a century — simply do not work to save cyclist lives.
If you get time away from
If you get time away from answering questions on frame design / construction and comfort, I suggest some research on cycling in Japan (more here, rules and realities here, other links below).
I think you may find it’s a bit more complicated than you’ve presented. For one you’ll find lots of people cycling on … separate infra (the pavements)! You’ll see most people not cycling very far at all (like you point out for NL). For much the same reasons e.g. in many places local amenities are very local. And in Japan they’re frequently within the warren of very narrow streets that characterises residential development there (genuinely narrow – much more than the UK’s “but our streets are too narrow”).
They use things like bollards to create protected infra (for walking) there also. Though surely they should be able to trust those drivers because police, you’d think? And they also have the same issues as everyone else where car traffic is not restricted, and they use some of the same techniques for reducing through-traffic as in e.g. NL also.
Japan is pretty good for walking (away from their main roads, that is). It seems reasonable for (very slow) cycling within the narrow streets. (Where frequently the space is everyone together e.g. cycling / walking / driving in the same space – I’m personally not a fan of doding pedestrians but maybe opinions vary?).
However their bigger roads don’t look at all pleasant (and apparently they are “going in the wrong direction” in terms of providing for driving in some places) so it’s not surprising to see that people cycle on the pavements. Which doesn’t make for convenient cycling or pleasant walking IMHO (though the Japanese seem to just get on with it). That’s where in e.g. NL you would normally find high-quality separate cycle infra – so it is pleasant and convenient to both walk and cycle. (And often more convenient for cyclists than cycling on the road would be as e.g. you get a “free right turn” in NL at traffic lights – no stopping at all).
So if we want it “to work” like Japan we only have to move all our buildings really close together, and not expect people to make longer journeys by bike. Which the mass of the population probably won’t anyway – but that wouldn’t work as well in much of the UK as we have more areas where we’ve e.g. centralised our shops and some people would need to cycle a lot further than in the Japanese (or Dutch) case – and share the busy larger roads.
Oh – and possibly *radically* change our culture from a more individualistic one to a very strongly pro-group one.
Doesn’t sound like it’s a recipe that’s very likely to be followed in the UK, never mind the US.
For clarity – I’ve never been
For clarity – I’ve never been myself. I’ve been near … and wouldn’t mind importing a few of their customs (and foods! Just not nattō or tsukudani though I’ll eat some things in the “bug” culinary family). And it would be to our advantage in the UK to have more use of kei cars and trucks rather than our bigger vehicles. Perhaps even the “if you don’t have a place to store your car you can’t have one” rule…
The Japanese are conditioned
The Japanese are conditioned from birth to prioritise the needs and well-being of the group over their individual desires. A huge difference to say, the UK, where the dominant attitude is “me, me, me…”. The average UK prisoner wouldn’t last a day in a Japanese prison either, where the inmates have zero rights and become just numbers. They literally can’t talk without permission from a guard and if they disobey the are severly punished. Their police use what in our reality would be considered torture to extract confession to secure a conviction too. They shit bricks there at the mere thought of a contact with the police or the justice system. That collective thinking with rather severe punishment for trying to rebel and no wonder they largely obey the law and behave themselves. Trying to transplant their ways into our societies with our soft touch approach to everything would only work if we entirely replaced our populations with the Japanese one.
whosatthewheel wrote:
While it’s debateable exactly how much “social norms” and “likelihood of detection and punishment” influence driver behaviour (recall the latter is almost always “after the fact”) … it strikes me that the infra and zoning patterns also play a significant role in Japan (as they do everywhere) e.g. very narrow streets, more local amenities – leading to streets being dominated by people walking and naturally limiting driving speeds / motor traffic volumes etc.
In one sense – Japanese streets are not going to be transplanted here – we’re not going to move all our buildings closer together. However – we could start to emulate that effect – by removing through traffic in residential / shopping areas and by significantly narrowing streets to reduce driver speed (and limiting parking).
That is in fact what you see in e.g. NL 30kph zones (e.g. see here from this article).
It is also seems possible to slow the trend of “shopping and amenity centralisation”. Having – like Japan – more small local shops which people *can* access easily by walking or cycling. Again – this is the case in some European urban areas.
I take your point regarding
I take your point regarding human behaviour being the core problem however, merely hiving off cycle infra to separate areas does nothing to counteract that behaviour. All it does is to displace the problem by alleviating the symptom (move the cyclists away – end of conflict). It fails to address the underlying problems of narrow streets (they’re not big enough for bike lanes) and the narrow mindedness of some drivers (roads were built for cars, now get off). Despite your very cogent comments I still believe that enhanced integration could well provide a better outcome for road harmony.
A good start was made by the introduction in the HC of the heirarchical pyramid of road users. Reinforcing that message need not be such an expensive and onerous task, what with the proliferation of streaming TV channels that appear to be crying out for advertising revenue.
I have no illusions that this is ever going to be a quick fix, or that everyone is going to come on-board, certainly not all at once, or even quickly; big motor has been entrenched for too long for that to happen: but if a few enlightened souls manage to appreciate the situation, and possibly promulgate a message of integration, surely there can be hope?
Spangly Shiny wrote:
I hope I was merely pointing out that our efforts to “fix our roads” by changing human behaviour may have some limits. And that while “people driving badly” is the “essential point” changing their behaviour directly (how?) may in fact be far more difficult than it appears.
But again – how do you expect “that behaviour” to change and why is that going to work now? We’ve apparently been trying to make “better drivers” since goodness knows when. Most likely they are better on average than e.g. the 1970s (half a century ago…) – probably more are trained, they’re (a bit) less likely to be drunk…
But I’m not convinced there is a linear trajectory of improving driver skill (or even “safer cars”), nor better outcomes from that. I suspect we may have started hitting “diminishing returns” some time back (e.g. see “better driving would make cycling safer“).
Why? “Mass motoring” you see. To the extent that we want to allow most adult humans to have the power of a motor vehicle (at any time of the day, in any weather, in any emotional state, with distractions like food or children or animals or phones in the vehicle…) we will have crashes because humans are (en mass) predictably fallible. Even the more highly trained / regulated (“professional drivers”) make terrible errors a certain percentage of the time (though that is probably a bit smaller than average drivers, true).
And this is leaving aside the wildly unstable, those deliberately using cars as weapons, young fools …
(And I really don’t think a promise that drivers will drive safely or “the police will throw the book at them” will lead to many more cycling on the roads. Not with current levels of motor traffic and speed disparities. Otherwise … people would already – statistically “our roads are very safe”).
Spangly Shiny wrote:
Well that is effectively where we are right now in the UK. In practice most cyclists have been removed from the roads!
But the objection is “they’re not cyclists though! People in the UK just won’t / don’t want to / are too lazy” etc. We can certainly say “they don’t now”. However surveys consistently show suppressed demand for cycling. I am often skeptical of these – the proof is in the doing! But looking at other places (not just NL) where they have changed so there is more support for people cycling – people cycle! (Even in London!) Making many times the average UK number of journeys.
(There is another side to this, which is people will continute to drive where it is convenient. Or won’t cycle if they can drive. And driving has for many years been made the most convenient way to travel. Addressing that e.g. making some driven journeys / parking less convenient is both required and possibly the hardest and most contentious part of changing our transport system).
This is where we are actually more in agreement. I would first note though: “*streets* … not big enough for bike lanes” – that is actually a *choice*! But in fact *streets* are where “integration” makes sense (and “separate” cycle infra not needed). And in fact … that is exactly where people *do* walk and cycle! In Japan, in NL, even in the UK to some extent.
The UK has a problem in that many of our “streets” have become de-facto “roads” – traffic volumes and speeds are too high and people become impatient if they can’t go as fast as they think they should. And our “residential areas” are too permeable for driving and so these can become through routes. That requires deliberate “infra” changes to counteract. For example NL has done this largely through making “LTN”s which aren’t through routes for driving but allow better walking and cycling access. And making streets one way, controlling parking, then lowering speed limits [1] [2] [3] [4].
*This* is the kind of “integration” which is likely to be acceptable to people. (People in e.g. India / Thailand / China may currently tolerate their current road environments – but the numbers show they’re far less safe than e.g. Western Europe).
The other missing piece is that people don’t just want to cycle around their local streets – they also want to access e.g. public transport hubs, medical facilities, the urban centres. Currently this is where the “roads” run. And very often in the UK they a) have a high volume of motor traffic b) have higher speeds (30mph or greater). People simply do not enjoy mixing with such traffic on bikes (and absolutely not on foot). Many of the UK’s roads are in fact not “too narrow” for cycle infra – we have simply allocated as much space as possible for motor traffic (parking, extra lanes, wider lanes).
That is where the “separate cycle infra” is key. It’s unlikely we’ll be able to get support for drastically reducing motor traffic volumes on “arterial” roads any time soon – unlike what we might be able to do with “local streets”. How to do this? See comparisons between UK, Copenhagen and NL designs here.
Of course – that’s just one part of the puzzle. We need to fix junctions, arrange secure cycle parking – and embrace “unbundling” e.g. think in terms of separate *networks* for different modes, even though at points they may intersect / share a “route”.
And ultimately reduce some of the “demand for driving” through it being less convenient and and offering alternatives such as much improved public transport (and eventually – on a generational timescale – more local amenties).
I saw a post on local
I saw a post on local Facebook group yesterday how the supermarket car park was gridlocked, was taking 30mins to get out.
It’s a supermarket that’s actually well served by buses, and has segregated cycling paths from neighbouring estates as well as paths to walk.
Yet I can pretty much guarantee at least 25% of those cars were driven less than 2 miles to get there.
It’s an attitude problem as much as a facilities problem
If by “attitude” you mean
If by “attitude” you mean “people do what they are used to” and “people do what is easiest – including what is *socially* expected”…
… then yeah, it’s an attitude problem.
OTOH given that you say perhaps 75% of those cars came from over 2 miles away and it’s a supermarket (so offering greater range and availability over more local shops, if there are any…), perhaps that’s currently a bridge too far for many – they’re merely being sensible and “normal”.
Particularly as (with the odd “trapped in the car park” incident aside) we have made it *very easy and convenient* to drive and park.
I don’t know how frequent and convenient the buses are nor what separate cycling infra there is there (noting that in the UK this is currently rarely convenient and hardly ever “inviting”).
Are the alternatives *nicer and easier than driving* (for a 2+ mile journey)? Because currently where driving is convenient people in the UK will drive (default / we already have the car / taxi not too expensive).
I’ve a local option closer,
I’ve a local option closer, but I quite often cycle to Craigleith retail park for the shopping. It’s slightly uphill and 2 miles – so a four mile round trip.
…BUT I have a completely traffic free direct paved route I can use (quiet and green space also). (Shared use – but wide enough and usually not busy so it “works” while it’s not a popular choice…) Apart from needing to cross a road / navigate the car park at the end (which could be made easier – and both of those surfaces are treacherous in rain or snow because so trashed by buses / truck deliveries).
There’s a (tiny) amount of cycle parking provided – which I usually ignore as I can lock to rails closer to the entry (yeah – but I’m not in anyone’s way).
And there are buses – a couple of routes, each about every 20 – 30 minutes.
However … if you’re not on that (linear) route (or one other), cycling there from the same disance away would probably be quite uninviting. The complex is surrounded by busy roads. (And this is one of Edinburgh’s corners where active travel is best-provided for (converted railway lines).
Look at the car parking space provided, though… (Major roads in red, off-road shared-use paths green, dotted line “quiet street” – but very hilly. Yellow – cycle parking).
How do we expect people will arrive here? Get what we pay for, I’d say…
stonojnr wrote:
I do agree that “cultural norms” are always important – but at least sometimes these are in line with what is “easiest” for individuals. That may apply to shopping!
Here’s an interesting comparision – shopping in NL versus Australia (just some vox-pops). Everyone had travelled under 5km.
Of course – one Austrialian said “yeah, we’re lazy” – but in fact there were a lot of differences which suggest other reasons (and I think people are “lazy” everywhere).
– Already on / in vehicle / use of default transport. People in NL were often already on their bike e.g. commuting, or doing other errands. In Australia, the same applied to their car.
– Social activity / taking children / social safety. An Australian woman said they had to drive because they had their child with them / it was getting dark.
– Possibly different shopping patterns / more local shops? People in Australia were perhaps doing larger amounts of shopping – although definitely not all of them!
– Public transport / multi-modal provision – One of the Dutch mentioned also using public transport then getting their bike. I’d guess public transport is better in NL than the Australian location but more importantly combining cycling with public transport is made very convenient in NL. That is rare, or it’s much less well provided for, elsewhere.
There’s a bit of me that
There’s a bit of me that thinks you could probably correlate cycling journeys directly with the weather, especially spring, summer and autumn. I don’t like cycling when it’s blowing a gale or pissing down, regardless of cycling infrastructure, it’s why god invented turbo trainers. Don’t suppose I’m that much of a outlier…
It was a bit wet last year…
It was a bit wet last year…
StevenCrook wrote:
I think getting people on to bikes does indeed correlate with the weather which is why cycling initiatives should start in the spring and new cycling infra should be completed by then as well. However once we get used to cycling it doesn’t seem to matter. I started commuting by bike when the car park at work was closed. Once I stopped thinking that I should drive when the weather wasn’t brilliant I actually started enjoying the ride even in awful weather and in fact the last two years before I retired I cycled every day, even in the snow, although I did come off a couple of times.
I play badminton once a week now and usually get a lift down. When my lift doesn’t materialise I cycle. The driver once asked me why I didn’t just use my car and I was astonished to realise that it hadn’t even crossed my mind.