A majority of British adults think the Government should invest more in cycling, according to a new survey.
The YouGov poll of 2,025 adults across Great Britain also found that over a quarter (27%) would think more positively of an electoral candidate who campaigned for cycling.
Almost a third (31%) of respondents would be more likely to travel by bike if more cycle lanes were separated from traffic on busy roads and over a third (36%) said they don’t cycle more because it is too dangerous.
That latter finding echoes many previous surveys which identify fear of road danger as the reason people choose not to cycle.
Active travel charity, Sustrans, which commissioned the survey, says that it's evidence cycling could be an electoral issue, and that the Infrastructure Bill currently making its way through Parliament must be amended to include cycling.
Claire Francis, head of campaigns at Sustrans said: “Being able to get about by bike has become a serious issue for the British voter; candidates looking for success in the coming general election would do right to recognise this.
“Despite these new figures, the Infrastructure Bill, which the government hopes to make law by March, is set to deliver the biggest shake up to the roads network in a generation, yet has no strategy for cycling.”
“We must change the Infrastructure Bill’s narrow focus on motor traffic and invest in cycling to extend travel choice, to ease congestion, improve our health and our environment.”
“The cross-party amendment being proposed for this bill would provide a great opportunity to guarantee long term funding and ensure much safer cycling for everyone, whilst securing support from voters.”
YouGov also surveyed 959 adults from nine English cities*. Over half (54%) of those surveyed supported increased spending on safe cycling routes in their area, even if it meant less would be spent on things that benefit other road users.
Nearly half of people surveyed (46%) in some of the largest English cities also said they would think more positively of an electoral candidate who campaigned for cycling.
Almost half (47%) of those living in the major cities surveyed said they would cycle more if cycle lanes were separated from traffic on busy roads – 44% said they don’t cycle more because “it’s too dangerous”.
*London, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Nottingham, Bristol, Leeds and Sheffield
18 thoughts on “Majority thinks Government should invest more in cycling, survey finds”
“Almost a third (31%) of
“Almost a third (31%) of respondents would be more likely to travel by bike if more cycle lanes were separated from traffic on busy roads”
What this means in unclear. I couldn’t find the survey for details on Sustrans’ website.
If the Cycle lanes (on-road) are going to be like the ones I normally encounter, they will inevitably be dangerously substandard and incredibly badly designed, (separated only by a painted-line and too narrow, and will encourage dangerous close-passing by motor-vehicles). It is normal for cycle lanes to be provided without thought as to their use and consequently cause additional danger to cyclists, otherwise, why would cycle lanes be routed through door-zones or around the outside of roundabouts? (Danger of being doored etc. Danger of left-hook from leaving traffic & right-hook from entering traffic)
It isn’t unusual for cycle lanes to be especially dangerous at pinch-points. Often by forcing motor-vehicles to cross the path of the cyclist, or force them to come dangerously close.
Cycle lanes are often provided where they aren’t needed, but where they might be useful, i.e. junctions, they are normally absent.
Such cycle lanes are WORSE than no cycle lane. In addition, cycle-lanes give those motorists who hate cyclists, every possible justification and excuse they could ever wish for to harass, bully and intimidate cyclists.
There is sufficient evidence to support this view, although all one has to do is cycle along one, or cycle outside it as recommended by Cyclecraft and wait for the hooting, shouting and ranting.
——-
‘In the UK, there is no legal obligation on cyclists to use cycle lanes and you should only do so where it is safe and to your advantage. As far as you can, ignore the presence of a cycle lane in determining the best position to ride on the road,….’
p 91, From Cyclecraft, the manual for Bikeability by John Franklin ISBN 978-0-11-703740-3
Google Scholar search for ‘cycle lanes’ in title http://tinyurl.com/k3t8xhp
The Effect of Cycle Lanes on Cyclists’ Road Space – Pete Owens – October 2005
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf
The effect of cycle lanes on the proximity between motor traffic and cycle traffic.
John Parkin Ciaran Meyers 2009
University of Bolton, j.parkin@bolton.ac.uk
DO ON CARRIAGEWAY CYCLE LANES PROVIDE SAFER MANOEUVRING SPACE FOR CYCLE TRAFFIC?
Ciaran Meyers, University of Leeds Institute for Transport Studies
Dr John Parkin, Reader in Transport Engineering and Planning, University of Bolton
http://www2.uwe.ac.uk/faculties/FET/Research/cts/cycling-society/Meyers-Parkin.PDF
@Recumbenteer, I think the
@Recumbenteer, I think the one thing that pretty much everyone can agree on (whether for or against dedicated cycle infrastructure) is that poor quality facilities for cycling “are WORSE than no cycle lane”, as you put it.
The error is to then assume that all cycle facilities are bad, or that we should give up on the idea because we can’t do it. Of course there are plenty of examples – mainly in the Netherlands but in other European countries too – of well implemented infrastructure which is hugely popular, and where the cyclists who stop to think about it are very proud of their transport options, their comprehensive network of dedicated cycleways, safe junctions, fancy floating roundabouts, etc.
It’s also clear that a complete lack of facilities prioritising cycling has all but killed off cycling as a mode of transport in the UK, and no amount of training or requests to “play nicely” will change that.
You might be interested in these audit tools, which assess cycle routes on Safety, Coherence, Directness, Comfort and Attractiveness. A route which fails to score adequately should not be described as a designated cycle route.
Riding the Adelaide cycle
Riding the Adelaide cycle Lanes is like riding a bronco at the Rodeo !
Frequently finding ” Ground up glass ” strewn on the ” Cycle Lane ” , quite obviously put there , to force Cyclists to ride into the traffic ? Manslaughter charges would be the way to go when the culprits are discovered !
WHY do we have to wait for a casualty , before something is done ?
Surely that’s the point. The
Surely that’s the point. The current very poor standard of infrastructure in UK does nothing to attract and enable new cycle users. What these people need is a standard of infrastructure at least on a par with standard Dutch design suitable for the 8 to 80 age range before they would even consider buying a bicycle let alone consider riding one.
Which is why the pressure must be maintained to shake all administrations out of their lethargy and indifference because at the present rate of progress nothing meaningful will happen for a very long time indeed.
As usual the emphasis and
As usual the emphasis and priorities are entirely wrong to start with.
…”respondents would be more likely to travel by bike if more [b]cycle lanes were separated from traffic[/b] ”
Bicycles ARE traffic and this artificial distinction only serves to further the perception of cycling as ‘different’ or ‘other than normal’.
The idea of people as the default road user rather than motor vehicles and the fact that motor vehicles use the roads under licence rather than by right need to be re-established in the mind of the general public.
If there is to be any separation in the interests of safety then it should be the main source of danger, motor vehicles, which is separated from the rest of the traffic.
For the sake of my sanity can
For the sake of my sanity can you all stop bloomin whingeing, moaning and complaining please.
While I have nothing against
While I have nothing against better infrastructure, I genuinely don’t see this as the solution to get more people cycling.
The reality is, unless you literally have a cycle lane from your front door to your workplace you will end up having to share the road with cars at some point.
My journey to work uses 50% Sustrans path, and 50% rural road. No segregated cycle path is feasible on this section of road, not do I expect one. (What I would like though, is a decent road surface without huge swathes of rutting and potholes.)
If your excuse for not cycling is fear of traffic, then I suggest expanding cycle training schemes for adults and better education amongst motorists would actually be a far more cost-effective solution.
@JeevesBath, I think it’s a
@JeevesBath, I think it’s a misrepresentation to suggest “better infrastructure” has to mean door to door segregated cycleways.
The Dutch model is to have dedicated cycle facilities where motorised traffic is either fast (above 20mph) OR busy – specifically over 2000 PCUs per day. In other areas, such as residential streets, cycling is made accessible by appropriately calming motorised traffic – speed limits, blocking through routes (to stop rat-running), etc. Often a road will be designated a fietsstraat (cycle-street) where signs make it clear that cars are guests rather than the main priority. This makes these areas more liveable for everyone, not just cyclists.
There’s no reason we can’t work towards a similar model especially in urban areas.
Admittedly on rural roads it’s harder to slow motorised traffic or find an alternative route for cycling, but even here it’s a matter of priorities. Maybe your 50% on road could be accommodated by an unravelled alternative?
Again, if your solution is more cycle training and driver education I would ask you to look at areas where riding a bike has been made genuinely popular and cycling is widely considered a viable mode of transport for everyone from kids to grannies.
pmanc wrote:@JeevesBath, I
Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest it has to be door-to-door but my point was that huge areas of the country will never have a segregated network. If this is someone’s justification for not cycling, it will be a very long and costly solution.
When I first started commuting to work, I also had concerns about traffic (still do) but with experience I gained confidence and now know how to deal with it. Giving people the skills to deal with traffic when they encounter it is much quicker and cheaper to implement than infrastructure projects which tend by their nature to be very localised.
JeevesBath wrote:
When I
I think we’re probably in the same boat regarding traffic concerns then! I’m sure we all encounter close calls more regularly than we’d like, but for me personally cycling is just so convenient (and still fun on a good day) that I’m not prepared to give it up yet.
But unlike us the vast majority aren’t prepared to tolerate that level of perceived risk and unease, even if you promise them confidence will come. Riding on a decent well-surfaced car-free (and pedestrian-free) cycleway is something nearly everyone enjoys. Riding in busy traffic? Not so much, and it only takes a couple of nasty patches to ruin an otherwise pleasant route.
I hear stories about people coming to training, thanking the instructor, and then toddling home along the pavement. I can understand that. Someone was knocked off their bike and killed very close to my work the other day, and it makes you think. Certainly training is easier to do than infrastructure change and re-evaluating our transport priorities, but I’m not convinced training can work to really convince most people, any more than helmets and bright jackets. These are all examples of voleospeed’s “personal solutions to social problems“.
pmanc wrote:@JeevesBath, I
Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest it has to be door-to-door but my point was that huge areas of the country will never have a segregated network. If this is someone’s justification for not cycling, it will be a very long and costly solution.
When I first started commuting to work, I also had concerns about traffic (still do) but with experience I gained confidence and now know how to deal with it. Giving people the skills to deal with traffic when they encounter it is much quicker and cheaper to implement than infrastructure projects which tend by their nature to be very localised.
Yes, Yes Yes.
A vast amount
Yes, Yes Yes.
A vast amount is being spent on new and “upgraded” roads which have almost no provision whatsoever for walking and cycling. Most of these roads are becoming de-facto motorways.
the difference in speed & mass, along with the attitudes of a lot of drivers means that most just will not risk cycling.
If the UK is ever to crawl out of the inactivity hole, not to mention pollution and congestion, then it urgently needs to refocus investment away from motor traffic to walking and cycling.
This won’t be about building a cycle path along every housing estate road, or every rural country lane, or even about making things better for the 2% nationally that ride bikes regularly for transport (sportive riding in a national park once a month is not transport)
This is about providing links for people to get about their everyday business. Going to work, school or the shops.
I’d wager that most of the naysayers on this thread are recreational riders who happily jump in the car for most of those journeys.
Yes, any infra needs to be high quality and fit for purpose which isn’t strips of paint or 1 metre shared paths, so the cycling community needs to be vigilant
There are broadly three
There are broadly three groups as I see it,
Those that will cycle regardless
Those that would like to but are dissuaded
Those that will never cycle.
First group is easy, and in some ways are a problem because they accept the status quo.
The second group will need help, and this means real infrastructure not just painted lines!
The third group, can be made to use bikes by making cars so unattractive there is no alternative.
If you ever want to get people out of cars you are going to have to convince the second group that cycling is safe, hi-viz and helmets don’t help they just reinforce the idea that cycling is risky, provide dedicated cycle routes, ensure clear priorities in urban areas, hand the roads back to people and not pander to car drivers.
I think that the government
I think that the government need to be more forceful with local authorities. Plenty of money is allocated for “sustainable transport” but most ends up as a road scheme designed around cars with a stretch of cyclelane painted onto a wide, straight peice of road. You have to wonder if any of these engineers have ever cycled, especially round my neck of the woods where most of the new cycle lanes are simply white lines down the middle of pavements – but on only one side of the road mind.
Well could be worse, could be
Well could be worse, could be UKIP and this mad idea to make cyclists use the pavements
https://twitter.com/AtosMiraclesfb/status/557881442823602177/photo/1
Top comment pmanc. Saved me
Top comment pmanc. Saved me the bother of writing something almost identical. 🙂
I think the only way to convince those that doubt the efficacy of the Dutch model is to plead that they go out there and experience it for themselves. Even better do what I did and go on a Study Tour with David Hembrow or similar. http://www.hembrow.eu/studytour/
I’ve done two, and had a couple of cycling holidays out there in the past 18 months and now know that there is nothing that the Dutch have done that cannot be done in the UK. We are exactly the same people, have exactly the same types of town/city/suburb/countryside – even hills (in the Limburg province.)
In the Netherlands I’ve mixed with cars in towns, followed urban routes “unravelled” from car routes, ridden between cities alongside main roads, ridden alongside motorways, ridden on the same cycle paths that the Rabobank Tour de France team trained on… The list goes on.
It’s nothing to do with “different cultures” it’s all to do with design. When people say that the British aren’t interested in cycling Hembrow notes that UK had a 30% cycling modal share in the late 1940s and today’s total Dutch cycle mileage equates to that done in the UK in 1962. So no-one can say it can’t be done here because of “culture”, they’re wrong, because it has been done, so it can be done again. It just needs the right conditions. As Marc van Woudenberg (Amsterdamize) puts it: “cultures are man made, they don’t just happen.”
Edit: And this popped up in my Facebook timeline today. Relevant, I think: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/01/20/designs-from-dutch-burbs-should-unite-vehicular-cyclists-and-bike-lane-fans/
Help, the thread’s been
Help, the thread’s been captured by vehicular cyclists!!
If we are to create safe and
If we are to create safe and user friendly, joined up cycling networks, safe for an 8 year Old, then we need to make space on the roads. 6.8 million parking spaces in London take up an astonishing 78.5 km sq , based on he minimum parking space. Parked cars, lining our streets are blocking space that could be used for cycle lanes. If we do not address this issue it is always going to be a poor ‘bit of paint on road ‘ situation. But most people say oh no! I need my car for this or my family member, my friend needs it for that.
We are locked into a cultural stalemate. If 69% of people in some boroughs can do without cars then that reasoning does not stand up and the minority of elitist car drivers are dominating the public highway against the majority.