British Cycling has today launched a new four-year plan, described as the governing body’s “most ambitious strategy to date”, which aims to reinforce Britain’s position as a “world-leading cycling nation” and deliver an “unprecedented contribution to society, health, and the economy”.
However, despite its ambition to tackle cycling’s socio-economic inequalities and encourage more people to ride bikes, British Cycling’s new plan – and its focus on sport and fleeting, limited references to infrastructure and cycling for transport – have been criticised by road safety expert Dr Robert Davis, who says the strategy fails to address the biggest barrier to growing cycling in the UK: the perception that it’s dangerous.
Announced on Tuesday morning, British Cycling says it has developed a “purpose-centred strategy to ensure cycling is a thriving sport and a vehicle for societal change”.
The plan aims to support and grow the sport by making cycling more diverse and inclusive, to lead on the world stage by “winning well”, and to use cycling as a catalyst for positive social change and tackle inequalities.
According to new research undertaken for the governing body, these inequalities present one of the most significant barriers in terms of access to cycling in the UK.
This research found that while 97 per cent of children from the highest socio-economic backgrounds can ride a bike, this figure drops to 89 per cent of children from the lowest socio-economic backgrounds, equating to roughly 350,000 children from low-income families.
Meanwhile, two-thirds of children who cannot ride a bike want to learn, but 41 per cent cite their lack of access to a bike as the biggest barrier, while children from disadvantaged backgrounds are also a third less likely to participate in cycling than those from wealthier households, compared to football and athletics.
“Cycling has the power to transform lives, yet too many people face stubborn barriers to getting on a bike,” British Cycling’s CEO Jon Dutton said in a statement announcing the new strategy.
“Whether for transport, leisure, or sport, everyone should have the opportunity to ride, regardless of their background or circumstances.
“Right now, our research shows that hundreds of thousands of children who want to ride simply don’t have access – we must change that as part of our wider commitment to breaking down barriers for all. This is about more than sport. It’s about tackling the UK’s health, wealth, and social inequalities head-on, ensuring that cycling is a force for good in every community.”
In order to tackle these inequalities head-on, British Cycling says it will deliver “tangible” benefits for communities across the UK through a combination of investment, partnerships, and on-the-ground programmes.
These include the creation of a “flagship social impact programme” designed to “break down barriers and create meaningful cycling opportunities”, as well as the launch of a new access-focused charitable foundation, the BC Foundation, to be managed by Ed Clancy.
The governing body also aims to modernise the sport, expand its City Academies and Hubs initiative in urban areas, and partner with government, local authorities, and industry to improve cycling infrastructure, stage major events, and increase community engagement.
“Through our planned charitable arm, social impact programme, and participation initiatives, we will strive to deliver a generational shift in access to cycling,” Dutton added.
“We are ready to drive this change, and we call on partners from across sport, government, and business to join us in making it happen.”
Meanwhile, British Cycling’s chair Frank Slevin said this “bold and brave strategy” would “build on the significant progress we have made in the recent past”.
“We look forward to supporting and most importantly delivering against our ambition which will see more people experience the joy of cycling and have an unprecedented impact on communities across the country,” Slevin said.
However, while British Cycling says its strategy also aims to increase active travel uptake, noting that only 43 per cent of short journeys are made by cycling or walking, the plan’s failure to properly address the main factors preventing people from riding bikes has been criticised by road safety campaigner Dr Robert Davis.
Speaking to road.cc, Davis, the chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, noted that despite the governing body’s lofty aims, its strategy appeared to focus primarily on cycling as a sport, with limited references to cycling for leisure or transport.
“The principal deterrent to uptake of cycling is the perception of cycling as being hazardous,” Davis told road.cc.
“Addressing this means tackling the danger presented to actual and potential cyclists: by highway engineering which reduces danger from motor traffic, adequate roads policing and deterrent sentencing, and calling out anti-cycling prejudice as the dangerous bigotry it is. It is regrettable that these measures are not mentioned in the report.”
According to research carried out by Cycling Scotland last year, over two thirds of people in Scotland consider not feeling safe on the roads the biggest barrier to making more cycle journeys. Meanwhile, 62 per cent said that they support re-allocating road space for cycling in their area, and 37 per cent said they would cycle more often if they were more confident.
“While I’m personally a big fan (and for many years a participant) of the many forms of cycle racing, the key to getting more people – especially from deprived backgrounds or from groups with protected characteristics – cycling is to properly support it as a form of transport,” Davis continued.
“It needs to be seen as a form of natural everyday activity which does not require special clothing or expensive equipment. Where this happens in Europe (especially the Netherlands and Denmark) and you have far more people cycling, you also have a healthier cycle sport scene than in the UK.
“The small-scale initiatives referred to may have some local minor impact but will not affect the experience of cycling for the vast majority of people in the UK.
“The changes required – such as good quality Bikeability training for children and adults, highway infrastructure as specified by Active Travel England, roads policing, and right down to schemes to provide roadworthy bikes and equipment for people on low incomes, and the provision of secure and convenient cycle parking – require investment from central and local government, which is small compared to the rest of the funding for transport schemes in general.”
Despite Davis’ reservations, the strategy has gained the support of sports minister Stephanie Peacock, who says encouraging more people to cycle is essential to improving the nation’s physical and mental health.
“We know that increasing physical activity is one of the most powerful ways to reduce NHS pressures, enhance wellbeing and support our overall health mission,” she said.
“British Cycling’s commitment to making cycling more accessible, particularly for children and disadvantaged communities, will help us towards a healthier and more active Britain.
“Breaking down barriers and encouraging more people to ride can help tackle some of the challenges we face, be it reducing childhood obesity to improving the nation’s mental health. As we deliver our Plan for Change, the government is supportive of this vision, and we look forward to working with British Cycling to make it a reality.”
38 thoughts on “British Cycling unveils “bold” four-year strategy to get people riding bikes – but road safety expert blasts failure to “tackle danger for cyclists””
A bit of a waste of time when
A bit of a waste of time when most people cannot or will not pay to watch cycling on TNT. How are these young cyclists going to be inspired?
Um…. quite easily because
Um…. quite easily because there is much much more to being inspired than watching a load of highly paid professionals on telly in the TdF.
This doesnt even have a tenuous link to the TNT price rise debacle.
There are a large number of
There are a large number of people who cycle, who’ve never watched any pro racing on TV…….and couldn’t give two hoots about it.
I rode everywhere as a kid, and I’d never watched pro racing on TV……
This argument is a bit ‘off’ and irrelevant……
Velophaart_95 wrote:
In my case, the reverse is true. I got into watching pro racing as a result of starting to cycle a lot rather than the other way round.
Most of those people aren’t
Most of those people aren’t cycling as sport, though, which is the relevant outcome for BC’s purposes.
Not that No Reply’s argument that you can’t get in to the sport without having watched it on TV is necessarily true, but pointing to a lot of people ‘riding everywhere’ without watching the pros isn’t really a valid counterargument.
Quote:
Some people really need to get out more. Tories used this for years to bang the superiority drum and to a degree it’s worked, racist have never felt more empowered. ‘World beating’ really is one of the most pathetic, embarrassing and insulting epithets that england throws around under the banner of Britain.
Ah just what we need, another
Ah just what we need, another management speak word salad set of powerpoint slides as a strategy, thats bound to get people, or sorry as the strategy terms us, customers, riding their bikes, or products
and is this also the same organisation who in the only the last few months have refused to broadcast the National cyclocross championships, refused to broadcast National track cycling championships, refused to send a full team of competing riders to Cyclocross worlds, refused to send a full team of competing riders to the European road championships, who have made little to no headway in implementing their own task force recommendations for road and circuit racing.
how does that match up with supporting and growing the sport or leading on the world stage ?
If this government were truly
If this government were truly interested in change, and joined up government between
Department of Transport,
Department of Health,
Department of Culture Media and Sport,
They would change road users attitude and behaviour by changing mainstream and social media output by using the existing Equality legislation to make cyclists a protected characteristic.
That would just be the start by preventing anti-cycling bingo in the media and giving the supporters a fair chance to persuade the road users that their lives are better with more cycling.
Reduced Traffic Congestion! Because cycling can help alleviate traffic congestion and make driving easier and more efficient for everyone:
Fewer Cars on the Road: When more people choose to cycle instead of driving, there are fewer cars on the road. This directly reduces the volume of traffic, making it easier and faster for those who need to drive to get to their destinations.
Efficient Use of Road Space: Bicycles take up much less space on the road compared to cars. This means that even if the number of cyclists on the road increases significantly, the overall space required is minimal compared to the space used by cars. As a result, roads become less congested.
Improved Flow of Traffic: Cyclists often travel at a more consistent speed and can use bike lanes, reducing the stop-and-go nature of car traffic. This consistent movement helps in maintaining a smoother flow of traffic for all road users, including drivers.
And finally, in a virtuous cycle….
Encourages Efficient Public Transport: A decrease in road congestion can also benefit public transport systems. Buses can run more smoothly and on schedule, making public transport a more attractive option for commuters and further reducing the number of cars on the road.
I got their email last night.
I got their email last night. Read it. No idea what it said. The gist of it appeared to be providing the exciting spectacle of elite racing and getting more people cycling in the community. Great. Ignoring exactly what their purpose should be – supporting and growing cycle sport at all levels. Not one word on amateur racing.
As far as I’m concerned they can continue to leave the utility and leisure cycling to CyclingUK as long as they look at the domestic racing scene. If they’re going do neither I’m not sure what they do with my membership each year.
While safety concerns are the
While safety concerns are the deterrent for many people, I was unable to cycle to work because of a lack of secure cycle storage and showers at work. These were presumably seen as a drain on profits and space.
So clearly, there needs to be incentives for business to invest in these facilities, to encourage cycling to work.
Businesses will no doubt have
Agree on the parking. But … businesses will no doubt identify where all the money (in fact subsidy) is going (mass motoring) and what is seen as normal, nay, prestigious (driving) and proceed accordingly.
Nice to promote providing facilities at work, better to push for cycle facilities to make it easier to cycle there in the first place. So more than the national 1% or so might.
One of my recent employers
One of my recent employers was enlightened in these matters. There were showers and bike parking. They promoted a good work /life balance culture. Out of hours emailing was discouraged. And suprise / suprise, staff retention and physical health was excellent . (But they were a French company, not British).
Many UK companies are not interested in encouraging staff to partake in sport/ physical activity because it is all time they could spend at work. In one of my other recent jobs, I was the only member of the management team who had a sporting interest. There was a long hours culture. Most members were overweight and only interested in watching football on telly, or going to the pub after work. Many were single / divorced. There were a lot of cases of flu /COVID, bad backs etc. I left after 14 months.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
That sounds like a very good life choice! But yes – there’s a fair bit of “if we only work 14 hour days our competitors will work 15 and eat us for breakfast and we won’t have to worry about work/life balance”.
I think alot of that is down
I think alot of that is down to whether the people in the company who can make those decisions that benefit cycling for employees, even at a local level as alot of this stuff gets delegated down, are simply pro-car or pro-bicycle.
With the resultant outcomes based on which side of the fence they sit.
Dear British Cycling, Why
Dear British Cycling, Why dont you f-off back to suckling on the teat of the oil industry and ruining the UK racing scene and leave this sort of stuff to Cycling UK?
Having had the great pleasure
Having had the great pleasure of briefly working in the same office as Dr Davis, I’d trust his judgment over an organisation sponsored by Shell. Just stick to competition BC, and leave the society stuff to CUK.
BTW, who designed that “We exist to bring the joy of cycling to everyone” poster? A work experience trainee? If that’s the quality of the materials they will be using, their campaign is doomed to failure before it starts.
I currently see it as near
I currently see it as near impossible. Also, the state of our roads makes the traditional narrow wheeled road bike a no go for the majority.
There is simply far too much trafffic on our roads and zero legisation to reduce it. Even places like the IOW, Jersey, Guernset, Orkney and the Isle of Man , ideal places for a tourism boosted change, are doing exactly zero.Getting rid of cars as a norm is the oniy solution. Those ‘starter’ places could be tourist meccas without their big cars. New mandatory sub 250kg quadricycle laws are needed for a push to slower reducelttraffic. We are rushing towards disaster.
I’m confused – I thought that
I’m confused – I thought that BC just oversees racing?
Doesn’t CUK (formerly CTC) deal with more general matters for those people who don’t race?
It’s like expecting the FIA to talk about zebra crossings and traffic lights…
brooksby wrote:
Errrm – they do…
https://www.fiafoundation.org/
https://www.fia.com/fia-action-road-safety
Having them say they do isn’t
Having them say they do isn’t the same as them actually doing anything significant. Rather like BC in fact.
Former FIA president Jean
Former FIA president Jean Todt was awarded the IOC order, their highest award, for being the brainchild of the FIA led #3500 global road safety campaign (3500 being the estimated number of people who are killed on the roads each day) and he is also a UN special envoy on road safety as a result.
They do more stuff than you might think.
Tbf the FIA does have a road
Tbf the FIA does have a road safety commission charity style setup too, they occasionally rope in the sports competitors to promote usually as a punishment for on track rule breaking.
But literally I think Max Mosley, when FIA president, was instrumental in getting the Euro NCAP ratings thing setup and adopted.
Whether BC should be doing similar, no they should concentrate more on governance of the sport and making that the best it can be, which at the moment it clearly isn’t.
stonojnr wrote:
Didn’t know that, thanks.
I wonder whether he also pushed for regulation of sex work… 😉
stonojnr wrote:
It’s bullshit, a token effort akin to sportswashing.
Motorsport exists purely to sell cars (and fuel and many other things), and the faster and more exciting they appear to the buyer the better. That’s why F1 exists, sportscar racing, rallying… it all glamourises speed and danger and powerful vehicles to sell road-going vehicles in a country where the speed limit is 60mph in many places and you share the road with hundreds or thousands of other vehicles and humans.
As a young lad I watched F1. Living in an area where the RAC and Welsh rally visiting regularly, I was sucked into wanting to do the same. Now I feel sad and guilty about my resultant behaviour behind the wheel – and angry that the marketing people continue to exploit speed to this day.
As for the BC move, it just smacks of desperation. I wish they’d decide to do one thing properly and leave the meat of the campaigning to CUK… or even, dare I say it, support the other org in its efforts (which would surely be a more effective use of resources).
Road Safety is the problem,
Road Safety is the problem, quoting from the article :-
“road safety expert Dr Robert Davis, who says the strategy fails to address the biggest barrier to growing cycling in the UK: the perception that it’s dangerous”
It’s not a perception. If you do the same journey on a bicycle and in a car (commute / shopping etc) you are 24 times more likely to get killed on the bike.
A bit of a tangled web here.
A bit of a tangled web here. It may be safer driving * but people who cycle more and drive less can enjoy much better health (inc. just “feeling better”). And travelling on streets and roads in the UK is very safe compared with most other places.
Perception around what is “safe” is complex. The perception is important – it’s just that can be addressed in quite different ways. I agree that “just fix the perception” efforts which simply use arguments, statistics or merely state it’s safe (“I do so you can too” – essentially “it’s all in your head!”) have essentially done nothing to change numbers of people cycling.
That may be because of other factors (which people may roll into their “not safe” responses). Most people don’t find it pleasant cycling with lots of motor traffic or much faster / larger vehicles. Also cycling is in many cases deliberately made less convenient (“cyclists dismount” etc.) and certainly less social than it could be. (Look how convenient e.g. this trip is).
Overall – driving is simply the default for most. And people who have a car will tend to use it.
* Not sure where that 24 times figure comes from? Plus I imagine there are some significant variation depending on who / where / when.
chrisonabike wrote:
Brake has it as 15 times – 30 deaths per billion km for cyclists vs 2 deaths per billion km for car drivers.
Worth pointing out that cyclists have a lower all-cause mortality risk than non-active commuters (i.e. less likely to die overall) – Health benefits of pedestrian and cyclist commuting: evidence from the Scottish Longitudinal Study
I’ve seen inveased rates
I’ve seen increased rates ranging from 15 – 24 – 40 depending on the Source, Year and type of Incident Killed – KSI – All injuries
No doubt about it though, the figures give credence to the perception.
The problem is the stats for
The problem is the stats for cycling don’t include the near misses which create the reality of the perceived danger.
I had two at the weekend that will never be recorded officially so stats wise they don’t exist and to all intents and purposes it was safe to cycle, didn’t feel like it though
Equally I’ve had two lorries try to drive into my car on the road this week,also not recorded in stats, but those events do more often end as crashes, which would be recorded.
stonojnr wrote:
There is some truth to that – certainly “subjective safety” is really what matters. Since most people never cycle anyway they don’t even get to experience things like near misses in reality.
So what are the blockers? “I already have my routine and normally access to a car” – so why change? It would be hard enough doing something new and different if that activity were made convenient – but for cycling it isn’t. Then “I feel I wouldn’t want to ride on the roads” (look at all the cars and noisy big trucks!) Plus “I don’t want to be a weirdo – I hardly see anyone cycling and there’s nobody I know I can do it with” (plus of course UK reality is we actively discourage cyclists from doing so normally and socially!)
But … it is statistically safe – those numbers are what they are. Albeit in the UK we have achieved this safety at the cost of convenience for vulnerable road users. We have literally driven people off the roads! And in many cases added features “to protect them” e.g. barriers, long footbridges, dank and dark underpasses – so they are even less likely to choose not to drive.
of course UK reality is we
of course UK reality is we actively discourage cyclists from doing so normally and socially
Along with the willing contribution from The Filth to the attempt to drive cyclists off the roads. The RHS of that manhole cover is 159 cms from the kerb and the total width of the manhole is 47 cms. The lane measures 366 cms from kerb to centre of white line and the police Peugeot 308, 180 cms wide including deployed side mirrors, remained within the left lane throughout. So the total road space allotted to me by the police was about 160 cms- dimwits often equate that to the ‘clearance’- which was actually about 50 cms when we appreciate (unlike the police) that the cyclist himself is not just an infinitely narrow sliver on the midline of the bike, which we know is 1/3 of the amount noted in the Highway Code. I’ve reported it, and it’s gone to upRide, but we all know OpSnap Lancs will doubly ignore this one. I’m also reporting it to Lancashire’s equally bent other video portal who will at best write back and tell me to report it to OpSnap, even though I’ve told them that’s already been done. Welcome to the land of the hopelessly inept, incurably bent police- they don’t need crap AI when they already have crap I
Cycloid wrote:
But the risk of death while cycling is the same as for walking for distance travelled. All depends on how you measure or perceive risk.
eburtthebike wrote:
It definitely does depend on, as you say, how you measure/perceive risk; with that particular metric, I always feel that the time spent on the activity is more relevant, given that the average cyclist will travel roughly five times farther for a given time span than a pedestrian. If I spend five hours cycling around London, my risk of being killed during that time is far higher than it would be if I spent those five hours walking around London, even though my risk of death per kilometre travelled would be about the same.
What’s relevant probably
What’s relevant probably depends on the individual’s use case.
If you’re considering whether to change your commute from a walk to a cycle, then you’re likely to be travelling similar distances in shorter times, so the per distance metric is more relevant.
If you’re thinking of cycling for recreation/exercise, then you’re likely to be spending a similar time and travelling greater distance, so the per time metric is more relevant.
You are, of course, both
You are, of course, both right! I worry intellectually about the risk of being converted to pulp by a driver who will almost certainly get away with it much more than when I cycled from N. Northumberland down to the South to start at college in 1970- when the roads were more dangerous for cyclists I think, despite less traffic. However, I’m not perpetually in actual fear- largely because I’ve been lucky so far. I’ll change my outlook if I’m caught by the big one and survive it, that’s for sure. I’m very conscious of ‘death roads’ such as the A585 and A586 around Blackpool, and conscious of conditions which appear to give an unquestioned (by the police/ legal process) excuse for killing a cyclist such as ‘sun was in my eyes’ and such unexpected weather as rain/ dark.
Need to educate people how to
Need to educate people how to use gears. So often, someone gets on a bike for first time and ends up grinding big gear, or pushing it uphill and ending up with sore knees
The Terrible Tourists wrote:
I mean, maybe, but that seems pretty low down the list of priority action in terms of getting more people cycling and reducing the socio-economic inequality in cycling.
Doesn’t stop the Dutch: I
Doesn’t stop the Dutch: I believe they mostly still use single-gear bikes (their public hire bikes do). And they may only have hills in the north but they have both bridges with steep inclines and strong headwinds (hence the windmills), which you never get to the top of…