Cycling City Survey Results

[dellzeqq]

I'm sure you're right about York Cycling Campaign, and srw may be right in calling me a cynic (although three years on the CTC council, and time on TfL cycling bodies with other cycling organisations have given my cynicism something to feed on) - but the survey does have a range of options that are congenial to the world of cycling politics. I take your point about York Council, though, but, then again, given that York is a pretty easy place to get around on a bike, and given the number of cyclists, the responses do look a bit like convenient excuses.

 

[Danny]

I'm sure you're right about York Cycling Campaign, and srw may be right in calling me a cynic (although three years on the CTC council, and time on TfL cycling bodies with other cycling organisations have given my cynicism something to feed on) - but the survey does have a range of options that are congenial to the world of cycling politics. I take your point about York Council, though, but, then again, given that York is a pretty easy place to get around on a bike, and given the number of cyclists, the responses do look a bit like convenient excuses.

Convenient excuses for what?

Despite the number of cyclists in York and the relatively good facilities we already have, this survey bears out the findings of earlier surveys in York which have found that large number of people are put off from cycling because they do not feel that it is safe.

Also the survey offered far more options than the ones I've highlighted - I just picked out the ones that elicited the highest responses.

 

[marinyork]

Weather puts me off - 22%

this demonstrates a lot about surveys, excuses and laziness.

 

[dellzeqq]

well, that's more or less my view - but then I'm still reeling from the charge of cynicism, so maybe I've got it wrong. My view in general is that once cycling, particularly commuting, has become a demonstrably normal thing, people will either try it or not. They'll stick with it (a different thing) on the basis of their experience, and that is clearly about road conditions, fitness, the quality of their bikes, arrangements at work, and that kind of stuff.

 

[jonesy]

...

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.

Absolutely. These sort of surveys are very dubious and usually based on the flawed assumption that everyone makes informed and objective decisions about every journey they make, when in fact travel is largely determined by habit. The reasons a non-cyclists gives for not cycling, especially when given a list of prompts to chose from, are likely to have little to do with the real reason why they don't cycle. So even if you believe what they tell you, and spend lots of money on the things they've said they want, they probably still wont' cycle!

This sort of thing crops up in travel plan surveys a lot, which is why I've always tried to steer clear of asking people leading questions about their reasons for their travel choice.


Lots of non-cyclists think cyclists need more off-road cycle paths, because they imagine that is what they'd want if they cycled, but they don't cycle, so they don't know what it is really like, nor do they know how utterly useless so many of the 'off-road' (i.e. on pavement) cycle paths actually are. Indeed, many cyclists might think they'd like more off-road paths, because they've seen Sustrans leaflets showing the Bristol to Bath path, or indeed some of the admittedly nice routes around York, but haven't grasped that you usually can't build that sort of thing on a busy city street, so the choice is either riding on the road or the pavement...

Dellzeqq quite rightly says we should look at what actually works. Sustrans type routes are great where there is room to do them well, but can't provide a comprenseive network across a whole city. In London, there has been a massive increase in cycling achieved almost entirely on-road, using a combination of traffic restraint, shared use of bus lanes (thanks for letting the motorbikes in Boris...), improved junction design, better parking provision etc. Likewise, Oxford achieved a large increase in cycling in the late 1970s and 80s, again almost entirely on-road, initially with virtually no cycle-specific infrastructure at all, and largely driven by traffic restraint.

 

[Danny]

While a higher proportion of journeys are made in York by cycle than in most other parts of the country, still only a minority of people cycle regularly. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to try to find out what would induce them to cycle more often.

The fact that so many people feel it is unsafe to cycle on the roads, may or may not be a rational response, but I personally don't think it is very helpful to disparage them for voicing their fears. If we want more people to cycle this is an issue we need to tackle head on.

I don't believe the purpose of the survey was to try and justify having more off-road cycle routes, even though these were the most popular option. Instead the Council was looking for justification for its policy of putting in more cycle priority measures on main roads in York - some of which are proving hugely controversial locally.

Given that few local authorities - including York - are prepared to take the political risk of reducing traffic through congestion charging, priority measures for cyclists seem to be the next best option.

 

[summerdays]

Non-cyclists do think off-road paths are best, and as you say frequently change their mind after cycling for a bit. The point is that the off-road path may have got them on the bike in the first place. Its certainly how Mr Summerdays first decided to try commuting by bike.

Is there any definitive list of what does work to encourage new cyclists?

They only seemed to ask on-line what would encourage people to cycle in Bristol. I've only just found the results of the survey on-line now (reminded by this thread to go looking):

http://www.askbristol.net/theme.php?id=12

(And I even recognise one of my comments made it into the summary - yeah!!!)

 

[palinurus]

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

Lightweights.

 

[Amanda P]

Those aren't reasons.

They are excuses.

 

[Landslide]

I wonder how many people would pick an option along the lines of:
"Cyclists don't pay road tax and therefore have no right to use the road"

If one were dealing with a council (populated by anything other than 100% neanderthals) one might be able to use such a (I suspect sizeable) response from non-cyclists in a positive manner...

 

[Danny]

Those aren't reasons.

They are excuses.

If we want to increase cycling, I do not think it is very helpful to dismiss the reasons people give for not currently cycling as excuses.

 

[marinyork]

I think York council would be much better off focusing on bikeability and the lack of bridges in the city. It's not even like there isn't evidence it worked, the millenium bridge triggered a massive increase in cyclists and pedestrians going from A to B.

 

[Danny]

I think York council would be much better off focusing on bikeability and the lack of bridges in the city. It's not even like there isn't evidence it worked, the millenium bridge triggered a massive increase in cyclists and pedestrians going from A to B.

The Millenium bridge is successful because it connects up a whole series of on and off road cycle routes.

But it cost over a million pounds so it is going to be difficult for the Council to fund other similar bridges.

 

[marinyork]

The millenium bridge cost over £4 million if I remember, not too disimilar to the amounts of money being funneled towards York. Joining up cycle routes has little to do with it. Had there been no cycle route it would still have been successful because it filled a large gap in possible routes. You can't really have routes without infrastructure.

There are gaps in the network and it's not just the Ouse, it's the Foss and the railway lines too. I think there's a lot of scope still there to work with route wise to encourage cycling in the area. Depends what one means by a cycling city, it's all peanuts compared to the constant calls for the dualling of the Northern Ring Road .

 

[srw]

Likewise, Oxford achieved a large increase in cycling in the late 1970s and 80s, again almost entirely on-road, initially with virtually no cycle-specific infrastructure at all, and largely driven by traffic restraint.

I'm guessing a bit here, but I suspect Oxford's experience is more down to an increase in the student population, in particular the student population forced to live out of college. The 1970s and 1980s saw several new colleges, an increase in the popularity of post-graduate learning, an opening up of colleges to both sexes as well as a general increase in the numbers of places, not to mention a general liberalisation of colleges' attitudes to their students.

Certainly by 1988, the overwhelming majority of Oxford's cyclists were students - who have never been the biggest drivers. Real traffic restraint didn't start until the 1990s.