Cycling Scotland has published its latest research into attitudes towards cycling and concluded that while “most people now recognise the benefits”, road safety “remains the biggest barrier to more people cycling”.
The research, published in The Herald, found that more than two thirds of people in Scotland consider not feeling safe on the roads the biggest barrier to making more cycle journeys, while 37 per cent said they would cycle more if they were more confident.
In terms of making roads safer for cyclists, 62 per cent said that they support re-allocating road space for cycling in their area, measures that could bring widely accepted benefits such as 88 per cent who believe cycling could improve health and wellbeing, a figure that has risen in comparison with 2022.
Denise Hamilton of Cycling Scotland said the survey from autumn 2023 shows that overall “most people now recognise the benefits of cycling, including health and happiness, saving money and it being a lot better for our environment than driving”.
“However, road safety remains the biggest barrier to more people cycling and our new research focusing on people from minority ethnic backgrounds in Scotland shows significantly lower levels of access to bikes and confidence in riding a bike,” she said.
“To make our roads safer, a network of dedicated cycling lanes, separated from traffic, is the biggest priority to enable anyone to cycle — and it’s really encouraging that two thirds of people in Scotland support the reallocation of road space in their local area for cycling.
“We also need to continue to support more people to access bikes and cycle training. We encourage anyone with an interest in everyday cycling to read this research.”
The 2023 figure for bike ownership was 37 per cent, representing a slight decline on 2017 and 2019 when 43 per cent was noted. Men and people from middle class backgrounds are still more likely to have access to a bike in Scotland than women or people from working class backgrounds, while the total proportion of people who would consider cycling has fallen again to 40 per cent, compared with 43 per cent in 2022 and 45 per cent in 2021.
> Scottish Government urged to spend more on public transport and less on cycling
The percentage of people cycling at least once a week remains fairly stable, 10 per cent saying they do in 2023, versus 12 per cent in 2021 and 2022.
When looking at replies from those in an ethnic minority background, Cycling Scotland found that less than one in five people from an ethnic minority background said they have access to an adult bike, a stat that compares with more than a third of the rest of the population.
Likewise, 49 per cent of respondents from an ethnic minority background said they would make more cycle journeys if they were more confident, a number that compares with 37 per cent of the wider population.
46 thoughts on ““Road safety remains the biggest barrier to more people cycling”: Research suggests more than two thirds of Scots think not feeling safe is main barrier to cycling”
It is true, without
It is true, without segretated infra, close to me, I would probably never have started cycling. Surprisingly though, it remains almost empty of commuters, while there are some congestion and parking problems for cars.
Now the biggest turn offs for cycling are hills returning home and poor air quality at a few spots next to cars.
cyclisto wrote:
Necessary, but not sufficient.
This is the “Milton Keynes” / “Stevenage” argument * – “we built it, but they didn’t come”. People may have particular reasons for choosing choose different modes of transport (e.g. journeys of 5 miles and up are far less likely to be walked). However for many journeys people just want to get from A to B. So there is a “transport market” or competition.
You don’t even get into the competition if you don’t meet the “entry requirements”**. But even if you do cycling is competing with driving on convenience (total journey time, pleasantness etc).
So as Carlton Reid pointed out – where driving is easy Brits drive. But further than that – driving is the default because it’s the dominant mode. By the time they’re working adults most people have learned that “journeys are driven” and many already have access to a car. When you’ve got a car sitting outside, most journeys are going to get driven, even ones with some inconvenience. Doing something different takes mental energy / determination.
* In fact at least in the case of Milton Keynes the cycle infra isn’t “the best” – it has several failings and is certainly second class relative to the driving infra. Milton Keynes is primarily designed around driving.
** Convenience – overall it must be convenient to use:
Directness – the infra must go where people want to go, fairly directly
Connectivity – there must be a network of infra
Safety – the infra must be and feel safe (in several ways)
Sociability – humans often travel in groups, side-by-side
Door to door / destinations – the infra must take you as close as possible to destinations (or make multi-modal travel very easy) and if you’ve your own transport there must be a secure place to store it which is convenient to access.
Pleasantness / Appeal / Cleaness / relaxing – of course people don’t favour things which are obviously broken / dirty / smelly / noisy etc.
Cyclists are TRAFFIC (just
Cyclists are TRAFFIC (just not in boxes)!
Stevenage has ‘motorway’ class cycle tracks, but once off them, motorists often behave aggressively towards cyclists, as they don’t care/know that there is no cycle track alternative at that point.
Segregated infrastructure will never be 100%, so driver behaviour needs to be addressed!
I love my bike wrote:
“Separated infrastructure” – the word “segregated” carries some baggage with it
Ooops; indeed.
Ooops; indeed.
I love my bike wrote:
Well I’d be delighted with them, but … are they “motorway” class, though? I haven’t yet been but pictures suggest they’re… OK (by Dutch standards). However unlike e.g. Milton Keyes at least they don’t keep swapping from one side of a road to another.
Do they keep sending cyclists up and down (e.g. to cross under underpasses)? Too much of that and convenience is lost (the ideal is that the cars go up, cyclists stay on the level).
How “socially safe” are they? They look like they’re often essentially “below ground” – below road level, and not overlooked by houses. How’s the lighting? It seems there are lots of underpasses – which (in the older UK form) tend to feel dangerous and generally be unpleasant places.
Is it easy to know where you are? Not everyone is a great navigator – especially without conspicuous landmarks (see “below ground”)?
The council’s cycle strategy suggests they almost grasped what the problem was:
Necessary, but not sufficient (in that last line).
Indeed – it is far from 100% even in The Netherlands. However a) that doesn’t mean there’s a lot of interaction between drivers and cyclists, far from it. b) how do you address that driver behaviour? Ultimately I think it requires that i) people driving either regularly cycle themselves or their relatives do, so they’ve “skin in the game” and ii) cycling being seen as a normal mode of transport (rather than something for sportspeople, children or oddball enthusiasts).
As usual a “chicken and egg” problem!
Maybe Autoroutes would be
Maybe Autoroutes would be better, as they don’t tend to be so conjested, but in Stevenage they’re certainly more deserving than the the previously called cycling Superhighways in London.
(I was implying that motor vehicles need more than motorways, so cyclists need more than city cycleways)
Yes. Although it looks like
Yes. Although it looks like the newest London stuff may be better than Stevenage quality (certainly better than the Superhypeways). Though probably will be excellent in patches but interrupted by poor or problematic bits?
The old Stevenage routes appear to have the coverage required (e.g. there is an actual network). Again not been to see them – do they actually go to the town centre destinations? Or do they e.g. drop you on the edge of a large car park because we want to park our cars right next to the shops / pedestrian area?
It always seems to be “pick one” or “pick two” with cycling! You can have safety OR convenience. Longer-distance / more efficient routes OR ones that go past the shops / into the residential area. (TBF not having the latter would be fine if we didn’t have complete permeability for motor traffic so a “street” is also a “route” from either end…)
As a regular users I’d echo
As a regular users I’d echo what Chris says, they are certainly not motorway class. Unless I’ve missed the UK motorways becoming a confusing network , littered with glass, prone to flooding, constantly diverting up and down and through dark underpasses for the convenience of non users etc.
The truth is that the car
The truth is that the car problems (parking, congestion) aren’t that bad in my area, so yes driving is relatively easy.
But on the other hand, the route is really empty of commuters, with only some children riding at slow speeds being its users that I come across.
I attribute the lack of adult commuters mostly to the domination of the car culture, but even despite that, there should be at least more, given the relatively good infra and the mostly fair weather for riding. Besides the marketing thing, it is also that when you start commuting on bike everything seems difficult at start, but after a while, congestion and parking a car seems boring and difficult.
It will soon be 4months since
It will soon be 4months since l last commuted by bike, which I’ve been doing regularly for best part of 20years, no real single reason for it other than safety on the road.
yeah weather hasn’t been great,bike needed some winter tlc maintenance, but I don’t like to ride to work and have near death experiences, or loads of conflict with drivers just for riding a bike.
And if after 20 years I feel I’ve had about enough of putting myself in danger constantly, how the hell is someone completely new to it ever going to start and continue riding.
Totally understand it, as
Totally understand it, as most of my commuting is to work, that by sheer luck it is mostly comprised by segregated cycling routes and low traffic roads. Without this route, I would probably avoid cycling, as I feel relatively safe there.
@stonojnr I have cycled for
@stonojnr I have cycled for 40+ years and last year on my commute I was almost killed. The sh1t I had to go through to try and get resolution was incredible. I was under no impression that my life was anywhere important to those that could make a difference, but the utter indifference towards my life told me everything I needed to know. Yes, I still commute by bicycle but for the first time I no longer enjoy it.
I knew two riders who got
I knew two riders who got killed last 18months or so, on roads I ride, had couple of very near misses, and I don’t mean nmotd style I get those every ride, I mean ksi style, myself.
It’s just easier to hop in a car instead.
When I hurt my knee, I couldn
When I hurt my knee, I couldn’t cycle for about 18 months and the first few trips back were a nightmare – a real insight into someone starting for the first time.
18 months 😮 The longest I
18 months 😮 The longest I’ve been off the bike is 5weeks after my bowel cancer op. On nurses advice it was to be 6weeks but fortunately I saw the doctor before that and when he said “I should have already been back on the bike”, he didn’t need to tell me twice!
This is the elephant in the
This is the elephant in the room, or second elephant with bike theft.
I’ve sat in in a few highway planning reviews about cycle infra with local councillors and witnessed a level of biased incompetence not witnessed since watching The Office, and I live in Cambridge.
Cambridge has higher cycling rates IN SPITE OF the woeful meddlings of highway officials, not because of them.
The solution is simple. I call it Triple Zero.
Just shift the budgets allocated to drivers across to non-motorised. For example £100,000,000 for local A-road interchange to save 4 mins on journey time compared to £500,000 for a bit of painted and unpoliced cycle route where it’s not needed.
Change this budget allocation with a 000 shift away from motor infra giving £100,000 for drivers, £500,000,000 for city-wide non-motorised infra.
Do this for just 5 years.
The investment will show many-fold societal returns, unlike motor infra which has a very high burden.
In the UK there’s a massive
In the UK there’s a massive gap in the “social” side of this. Lots of great organisations are obviously trying to address this. But there’s something blocking a key part of this: we are used to taking the train, driving, flying, walking etc. in groups and normally “side-by-side”. BY DESIGN our infra (such as it is) does not cater for that, and indeed it’s seen as antisocial by many people if you’re “two abreast” or more on the road.
There’s also the other social dimension. I think people mostly do things that other people do, or that they think will make them look “good” (wealthy, smart, capable, reliable, sexy etc.) to others.
Most people in the UK aren’t cycling. Most people’s role models aren’t cycling. Most people’s parents aren’t cycling. Most people’s friends aren’t cycling.
If I offered someone a lift on my bike (even if the bike could take it) no-one’s going to think that’s normal!
chrisonabike wrote:
This mostly is the problem for me.
On the other hand, according to documentaries, cycling in Netherlands was not that popular in the 70s, and with the proper infra it was improved to today levels. My guess is that flat terrain meant that it was already quite popular back then and with the proper infra it became super popular now.
cyclisto wrote:
I’d mostly agree – only … I think it could happen there because it was still popular. Even with infra AND a strong cycling culture AND dense population centres AND flat country … by the 1970s the numbers cycling were falling (and the road casualties were soaring). However … because they were falling from what was still a high point there still was transport cycling (whereas in the UK we had essentially lost cycling as a mainstream transport mode by then). So there was enough popular support so that – together with some other factors – the politicians were pressured / supported to change direction.
And it’s not quite “it became super popular”. Numbers of trips cycled have gone up since the low point but not to anything like previous levels. It has been much more a case of most of that work stopping the continued decline.
Also – there was an equal or greater percentage of people cycling in the UK earlier in that century. There was even cycle infra being built into the 1930s which is as good or better than much more recent UK stuff. Again “it’s complicated” but I’d say that the UK governments chose to go all in on motor transport some decades earlier than the Dutch, to a greater degree. (And make later choices e.g. favour road over rail transport etc.). So by the time we got to the period which prompted the change in NL effectively “nobody cycled”. Motor transport was literally built in to our way of life (e.g. distances to amenities). We’d let public transport decline or actively removed it. There was also the effect of a “success” in that the number of casualties had declined also. I suspect this was in large part due to “driving vulnerable road users off the road” / suppressing demand for active travel because of all those motor vehicles…
chrisonabike wrote:
I can attest to that. On a recent trip in, I decided to cycle completely around the main shopping centre, looking for the most secure place to lock my bike up. This was the best place IMO. Near to a Costa where people were sitting outside, with a CCTV camera close by and frequent vehicular traffic passing:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TB5vMd9rmUicFkUR8
There is little cycling infrastructure at the main centre, you basically have to ride in the car park.
This is the main area to park your bike (the biggest bike shed). It’s got some odd looking bike rack that sort of secures your front wheel, but it’s a bit out of the way and not as secure IMO.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Zty9ZALbovXwy45h7
Then there’s this horrendous area that on the face of it looks ideal: it’s undercover, it’s got sheffield stands, it’s close to the shops. But I hardly ever see a bike locked up there. It just feels like the sort of place you’d get mugged.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eTbq3WpU3yRcm29GA
Car parking is abundant though and well used. It was quite surprising just how few bicycles were locked up at the shopping centre in comparison to the number of parked cars.
Yes. How about, now, after
Yes. How about, now, after the umpteenth study coming to this same conclusion, actually doing something about it?
Police Scotland do something
Police Scotland do something about road safety? Now that would be a thing. It’d probably end up with cyclists being stopped for not wearing hi viz or helmets I expect.
I was thinking about more
I was thinking about more effective measures like speeds limited by design, significant reductions in motorised traffic, car free areas, bike infrastructure etc., and at the end of all that a police able to really have an impact.
To be honest, the poor state
To be honest, the poor state of many of the roads in Edinburgh limits speed quite effectively. But yes, car-free areas and better cycling infrastructure would be a plus.
OldRidgeback wrote:
FTFY – I find that many of those who noticably speed seem to have a lower appreciation for what it might do to their stolen vehicle / unlicenced scrambler bike…
I find my internal auto-pilot increasingly guides me to the car-free or very low traffic routes. I certainly wouldn’t mind if there were less bomb craters (or worse – slots that grab your wheel) in the roads of course. However I think we should first reduce the width of the roads and (ideally) take up the slack to make “cycle only space” (if only) before we patch up all the potholes. Otherwise we’re just creating a larger area which will need fixing again. Because within a year or so those heavy vehicles plus weather plus utilities works will bring back the holes.
Unfortunately we are such a
Unfortunately we are such a car-centric society that at this point the only way people will change en-masse is if driving is made prohibitively expensive or massively inconvenient. Driving is faster, more comfortable and the average person is fantastically lazy, unfit and often quite overweight.
People aren’t gagging to cycle everywhere and the infrastructure is holding them back. Well, for a small number of people that is true but it would take probably a decade of massive change before we would see widescale change in peoples habits. The constant negative attitude towards cyclists is also hugely damaging.
In one sense, yes – we have
In one sense, yes – we have baked in a lot of car dependency, and it’s been generations now. There’s a strong feedback loop keeping the politicians and the media fighting against the “war on the motorist”.
I think the picture is complex. Think about NL – in fact they used to be near the top of the European cars per capita league fairly recently (apparently they’re now off the pace – but not far off). While driving isn’t super cheap there and the driving test may be a bit harder actually it’s still pretty convenient to drive there – and indeed they still do a LOT of driving by distance.
And yet somehow…
BUT … places have changed (more cycling). Why is that? I think in Seville they genuinely weren’t cycling; then lots of infra was added, and now people do. Same may go for parts of Scandinavia. And even the UK – cycling rates vary considerably by location – why? (Yes, sometimes it’s demographics e.g. Cambridge).
Other things being equal – which they’re not, because humans – we just pick the most suitable / convenient mode. Those other things though are “what does everyone else do” and “will it enhance my status?”
Infra isn’t sufficient – but I think necessary. There may be other “requirements” also – lower traffic volumes (chicken and egg), better public transport (ditto)…
Well – yes. That’s probably about the right time factor – or maybe a generation for the UK?
But – if you don’t seriously start (like most of the UK hasn’t) then you definitely don’t get any change (more than a quarter century since the National Cycling Strategy). And because we’re talking bikes it’s actually possible and reasonable to tackle small areas at a time. Though some measures like speed limit changes / better road crime policing / driver training / active travel funding tend to need some national-level action.
chrisonabike wrote:
The car bias goes back a century to the Planning strategy and laws.
If you plan different zones where people live, work, shop and play then cars are required…
Amen!
Amen!
The number of people citing
The number of people citing road safety as the reason for not cycling far exceeds the number of people who actually would cycle if roads were safer. (they are not THAT dangerous, cyclist life expectancy is above the norm so the health benefits outweigh the safety risk.)
What it comes down to is convenience, driving routes are often more direct, quicker easier and sometimes bike parking is further from the required destination.
Cycle security is likely as big a factor, some people will start down the cycling journey, and the the bike or wheels will be stolen and that will be the end.
Also most people equate the cost of the journey only with the cost of fuel. If a journey costs only 10-15p per mile those 3 mile journeys don’t even register in someones budget. They already have a car, so they will use it. They do not equate the full cost of car ownership / miles driven as the cost per mile because owning a car is just something people do by default.
I spoke to someone the other
I spoke to someone the other week and they do less than a 1000 miles a year (possibly nearer 500). They still put convenience above costs.
Agree with your reasons. I
Agree with your reasons. I think also people genuinely don’t like being around traffic outside of a motor vehicle – even less being in traffic (or they would if they even tried…). It’s not a statistical judgement – people go with their gut feeling.
Plus as you say people just get cars. Then they’re there – so they get used. The cost of having one versus not doesn’t come into the calculation.
I’d agree with your reasons,
I’d agree with your reasons, especially the fear of having one’s bike stolen, or more simply nowhere convenient and suitable to park. However that only manifests once you’ve got over the initial fear of “traffic”.
I often work in schools. It’s never an issue if I drive, “visitor” parking is a given. I tried cycling once. I asked where I could leave the bike – just lean it up against the fence I was told. Er’ no thanks. In the end I tracked down the site manager and found a tool shed full of broken desks and new Apple Computers where I could leave it.
“they are not THAT dangerous”
“they are not THAT dangerous”
That’s objective safety. What people mean when they say safety is subjective safety. Roads shared with motor traffic dont feel safe.
I don’t agree with everything
I don’t agree with everything in your post but your point about the utterly trivial marginal cost of driving is the key thing. Once you’ve shelled out tens of thousands for the car itself, then the other fixed costs of insurance, MoT & VED, you’re basically determined to use the wretched thing as much as possible.
When I had a company car, I used it to drive to work. A 10-minute journey by bike. Fucking madness.
Yet another ‘report’. Ask
Yet another ‘report’. Ask every regular voting cyclist what makes cycling difficult and they’ll say the same things again and again and again.
We don’t need any more reports or surveys. We need councillors, politicians, police, highway planners and Daily Mail wielding gammons to cease being utterly stupid and addicted to car culture. It’s a huge cultural problem similar to the obesogenic issues it partly causes.
People who only drive and do little exercise have short healthspans even if their lifespans are long. This healthcare burden isn’t just financial, ask any family with dementia care.
Cycling isn’t a panacea, but it’s damn close.
polainm wrote:
We need joined up government between
to change attitudes and behaviour to support the Hierarchy of Responsibility and make cycling a protected characteristic so that mainstream media cannot continue it’s othering of cyclists.
More than a cyclist being a worked example that attitude drives behaviour to better safety and inclusion.
Obviously the equality issue already exists in that women are especially disabled from cycling by the road danger and perception of it.
Unfortunately you can easily
Unfortunately you can easily stop being a “cyclist” by not cycling. So unlike the other characteristics I don’t see this happening in any way. (Avoiding any other debate about the rights and wrongs of the concept in general, that’s waaay beyond a cycling forum).
I’m not even sure some specific law to stop people abusing cyclists because cycling is a helpful thing to achieve more cycling. As far as I can see no such thing is in place where there is actual mass cycling.
I know – chicken and egg again. Where everyone cycles few people are going to shout “but cyclists!”
chrisonabike wrote:
It’s my right to identify as a cyclist whenever I want to, which is all the time. It’s not reasonable for protected characteristics to be applied inconsistently. What’s right for one is for all..
The law against discrimination to protected characteristics already exists so only inclusion of cyclists is required. Characteristics are protected due to the evidence of harm, which already exists (KSI).
There’s a perception amongst
There’s a perception amongst non-cyclists that cycling is dangerous, but it’s not born out by reality. I’ve cycled for 50 years, commuted to work by bike for 42 years and the only time I’ve been knocked off by a car was whilst riding a time trial on the A1. people are actually lazy and don’t want to get all sweaty on a bike, but wouldn’t admit that in a survey.
A carrot and stick approach is needed. London has shown the way. Make driving slow, inconvenient and expensive. Build infra for cycling and some people will switch. Stevenage did the second bit but not the first.
Again objective vs subjective
Again objective vs subjective safety:
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html?m=1
Btw, that article is nearly 20 years old…
You’ve been knocked off once
You’ve been knocked off once but how many times have you avoided a collision by anticipating the danger and or taking avoiding action.
It’s the subjective view that puts people off, in many cases born out of experience of inconsiderate, even if not life threatening, driving. My wife who has cycled every where nearly all her life has recently been put off cycling on the road by just such driving to the extent that we used the cycle path for our last jaunt. It was a slower and longer journey but much more enjoyable due to the fact the we could relax and not worry about drivers.
Four recent submission to the police. Two were inconsiderate forcing me to brake and change direction, unspecified action taken. Two were close passes at around 60mph, no further action. I didn’t get knocked off but I was bloody scared.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Quite, I haven’t been knocked off my bike this century but every single day I ride in London I could, were I so inclined and had the time, get multiple drivers fined and pointed for careless/dangerous driving. I think experienced cyclists (including me) who have become accustomed to dangerous driving and also have learned how to anticipate it in a wide variety of different situations forget just how frightening heavy traffic can seem to those just starting out on the roads.
every single day I ride in
every single day I ride in
LondonLancashire I could, were I so inclinedand had the timeand if the b*****d police had not completely abandoned the concept of evidence and were not so hostile to cyclists and in sympathy with law-breaking drivers, get multiple drivers fined and pointed for careless/dangerous drivinghttps://upride.cc/incident/n10hut_bmw_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/dg07tmo_mbvito_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/rx17mxlpn66kna_2lorriestogether_closepass/
Absolutely, only on the roads
Absolutely, only on the roads for an hour today, and I could submit at least 10 close passes, if i thought it would make any difference, 3 of them were within no more than a few inches of hitting me.