Cycling City Survey Results

[Danny]

York Council has just published the results of a survey it carried out to find out why people don't cycle and what needs to be done to get them cycling more. 9,290 households responded to the survey - a 10% response rate which is pretty good for such surveys.

The main reasons people gave for not cycling were:

Too dangerous - 43%
Too much traffic - 38%
I'm too old - 36%
Health reasons - 21 %
Weather puts me off - 22%
​

When asked what would encourage people to cycle more the main answers were:

More dedicated cycle tracks away from the road - 75% *
Improved safety for cyclists at dangerous junctions - 50%
Provide more cycle lands on the roads - 33%
More traffic priority measures for cyclists - 22%
​

The full survey results provide a lot more detail than this, but unfortunately they are yet not up on the Council website. However I thought they might be useful for people campaigning for better facilities in other parts of the country.


* If Wafflycat is lurking somewhere, hopefully this result will bring her out of retirement

 

[MacB]

I experienced some local cycle routes with the kids this morning, they can only have been designed to discourage cycling. Narrow, poor, lots of chicanes requiring dismounting and the inevitable petering to nothing in the middle of nowhere. We covered 1 mile through an estate and would definitely have been quicker walking.

I would be very wary about acting on the results of a survey based on the views of non-cyclists. My own views have changed drastically since taking up cycel commuting and longish social rides. My previous views were well intentioned but very poorly informed.

 

[Bollo]

cycel commuting

You commute on one of these!? You see where fixies end up? Do you? I warned you!

 

[Danny]

I would be very wary about acting on the results of a survey based on the views of non-cyclists. My own views have changed drastically since taking up cycel commuting and longish social rides. My previous views were well intentioned but very poorly informed.

Actually I over-simplified the survey results, which were separated out to show the difference between the views of:

• People who have never cycled
• Lapsed cyclists
• Regular cyclists

Almost identical numbers of cyclists and non-cyclists wanted more off road cycle facilities. This is probably a reflection of the fact that York already has some very good, and well used, off road cycle routes.

However, in confirmation of you comments about how people's view change once they start cycling, significantly more cyclists than non-cyclists wanted improved safety for cyclists who use roads.

 

[MacB]

You commute on one of these!? You see where fixies end up? Do you? I warned you!

I was having a nice evening, then.....................

 

[dellzeqq]

The great thing about these surveys is that they studiously ignore what works. And the range of options will only be those that are ideologically convenient for the cycling organisations.

My faith in surveys evaporated when the TfL Greenways group surveyed people who might use the Wandle Way (an off-road path) but didn't survey the hundreds, nay thousands of cyclists pouring down Garratt Lane, which runs parallel. They'd rather find the half-dozen people who say 'I'd cycle on the Wandle Way if you throw away £1.3 million on shoot signposting and dopey bridges' than ask 1000 people why they enjoy cycling to work on the road that the cycling organisations believe they should be avoiding. Lo! and behold! They spent the £1.3 million. The use of the Wandle Way changed not one iota.

Cycling politics is a swamp in which the cycling organisations whore themselves for grants, and measure their success by government expenditure, and their slice of that government expenditure.

 

[snorri]

It seems to me we have to increase the number of cyclists in order to make our voices heard in the corridors of power. These duff facilities are encouraging new cyclists who will eventually realise the limitations and dangers of these facilities and join the ranks of the regulars calling for a better recognition of what cycling has to offer as a mode of transport.

 

[Bollo]

I've no objection to cycle facilities and I've seen how good facilities can work in places like Denmark and the Netherlands. But for schemes to be effective, king car has to be tamed and there's no appetite in this country for that yet. This country's travel/work/leisure/retail infrastructure is so geared towards car use now that we've also got further to rewind to make decent cycle facilities viable.

Also, those survey results don't include the hidden options of 'I'm too lazy' or its more attractive younger sister - 'driving is more convenient'.

 

[summerdays]

It is interesting the difference of opinion over what would makes cycling safer for cyclists and non cyclists. And I like the fact that the survey recognised there was a difference. I would be interested in the full version if it becomes available on the internet in the future.

 

[dellzeqq]

I've no objection to cycle facilities and I've seen how good facilities can work in places like Denmark and the Netherlands. But for schemes to be effective, king car has to be tamed and there's no appetite in this country for that yet. This country's travel/work/leisure/retail infrastructure is so geared towards car use now that we've also got further to rewind to make decent cycle facilities viable.

Also, those survey results don't include the hidden options of 'I'm too lazy' or its more attractive younger sister - 'driving is more convenient'.

absolutely bang on the money. And here we have the near perfect example of why surveys are not so clever. You ask motorists if there is too much congestion/street parking/vehicle noise. Most will say yes. You ask them whether, knowing this, they will cut down on their driving, or get rid of the car.............

 

[srw]

9,290 households responded to the survey - a 10% response rate which is pretty good for such surveys.

What was the survey method? Was it a "send-out-and-hope" survey, or was a professional survey organisation employed? Were the results adjusted to normalise for the difference between respondents and population?

I fear I know the answer to those questions, in which case I fear Dell's cycnicism is justified. But I live in hope - especially since 9,290 responses is enough to make a decent fist of standardising, in the hand of someone who knows what they're doing.*


*I wouldn't have the foggiest idea where to start.

 

[Davidc]

I've no objection to cycle facilities and I've seen how good facilities can work in places like Denmark and the Netherlands. But for schemes to be effective, king car has to be tamed and there's no appetite in this country for that yet. This country's travel/work/leisure/retail infrastructure is so geared towards car use now that we've also got further to rewind to make decent cycle facilities viable.

Also, those survey results don't include the hidden options of 'I'm too lazy' or its more attractive younger sister - 'driving is more convenient'.

I've seen some of the facilities in the Netherlands, and used them. The chances of the UK catching up anytime soon is, realistically, nil. Same goes for integrated and efficient public transport.

Only one thing will turn the tide against the total domination of the car - and that's the price of oil escalating when demand starts to rise again.

 

[dellzeqq]

Only one thing will turn the tide against the total domination of the car - and that's the price of oil escalating when demand starts to rise again.

You'll doubtless laugh, but I'm genuinely more hopeful than that. One day London will have a Mayor with a brain again, and when that happens I really do believe we will go forward to the promised land...had Ken been re-elected then he'd have used that four years to really rein in the car - and not just in the centre of town.

 

[Danny]

The great thing about these surveys is that they studiously ignore what works. And the range of options will only be those that are ideologically convenient for the cycling organisations....

Cycling politics is a swamp in which the cycling organisations whore themselves for grants, and measure their success by government expenditure, and their slice of that government expenditure.

I don't believe this is true in York. There are already some very good and well used off-road cycle routes, which are genuinely popular. They are also often a quicker way of getting around than trying to negotiate your way through traffic jams on York's narrow roads.

York Council also has a good track record of modifying junctions and busy roads to give cyclists priority. This inevitably attracts the ire of many motorists (and Tory councillors) so I think the Council is genuinely looking for ammunition to support a further expansion of pro-cycling measures.

Cycling organisations in York are actually quite week in terms of political clout. However the York Cycling Campaign is fairly sensible and able to exert a positive influence on the development of the Council's cycling strategy.

 

[Danny]

What was the survey method? Was it a "send-out-and-hope" survey, or was a professional survey organisation employed? Were the results adjusted to normalise for the difference between respondents and population?

The survey was sent to every household, and IIRC available on the Council website.

The results were compiled and analysed by a professional research organisation.

Do not believe that there was enough data collected to tell how representative the respondents were of the population as a whole. However as the survey was tied in with a larger survey about budget setting priorities for this year the chances are that the respondents were reasonably representative of the population.