The rollercoaster of cycling popularity

[matticus]

Less cars on the roads would be nice, maybe then we wouldn't need to be laying more concrete for cycling infrastructure. Wishing and having though are not the same things. Being realistic and working with what is there is really mostly the only option we have. Rowing about semantics on a thread such as this is just words.

Fewer, please.

 

[blackrat]

Or we can try and change it: Dutch transport policy began when people in Amsterdam demanded it: it grew from there.

Have you seen the people of Britain?

 

[Webbo2]

Have you seen the people of Britain?

Yes they tend to be slimmer versions of Americans.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Have you seen the people of Britain?

As I left 25 years ago, I probably shouldn't comment...

Germany is getting more aware of the advantages of cycling: we now have good quality cycleways on all the main rivers in Baden-Württemberg, financed by the state (as in Federal State) who have realised that it increases cycling and channels local tourists, and tourists from outside the state, who bring money.
As an added bonus it makes it possible to ride from the outlying villages to work barely touching a road, and never a busy road.
Only problem is that it's now getting crowded...

 

[blackrat]

As I left 25 years ago, I probably shouldn't comment...

View attachment 804889

Germany is getting more aware of the advantages of cycling: we now have good quality cycleways on all the main rivers in Baden-Württemberg, financed by the state (as in Federal State) who have realised that it increases cycling and channels local tourists, and tourists from outside the state, who bring money.
As an added bonus it makes it possible to ride from the outlying villages to work barely touching a road, and never a busy road.
Only problem is that it's now getting crowded...

Maybe Britain is too crowded to take up more land for cycleways when the priority is more roads for more cars.

 

[Webbo2]

Maybe Britain is too crowded to take up more land for cycleways when the priority is more roads for more cars.

The Netherlands has greater population density than the UK according to google. So has Monaco and that seems to attract a fair few cyclists of a certain ilk.

 

[blackrat]

The Netherlands has greater population density than the UK according to google. So has Monaco and that seems to attract a fair few cyclists of a certain ilk.

Which begs the question, why so few cyclists in the UK? The answer is, lack of interest among the UK population. Unfortunately, this will very likely never change.

 

[Webbo2]

Which begs the question, why so few cyclists in the UK? The answer is, lack of interest among the UK population. Unfortunately, this will very likely never change.

Because a lot of the UK land is the Cairngorms, Yorkshire dale, Peak District and the Welsh mountains. Not ideal terrain for riding to the shops.🤣🤣🤣

 

[Andy in Germany]

Which begs the question, why so few cyclists in the UK? The answer is, lack of interest among the UK population. Unfortunately, this will very likely never change.

Judging by the data from the last 50 years, lack of infrastructure: cities and regions that build even halfway decent cycleways tend to experience an increase in cycle journeys.

Being the only European country that doesn't have assumed liability doesn't help: if I crash into a pedestrian while cycling in Germany, I'm assumed to be at fault. If a car crashes into me, the driver is assumed to be at fault. This means the weaker party in an accident will be supported by the law unless evidence to the contrary exists, but the UK, almost uniquely in Europe, doesn't have this law.

However, another factor is the style of development. The UK went for a US style development with suburban subdivisions, which means everything is spread out and encourages car use. Many European towns and cities are built in a more compact manner which lends itself to cycling instead of driving.

But really, cycleways are what make a difference.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Maybe Britain is too crowded to take up more land for cycleways when the priority is more roads for more cars.

No: Tübingen manages this, and it's a medieval city, same with Freiburg and Munich. The UK isn't especially crowded, in fact population density only a little higher than in Germany.

The problem is partly the US-Style suburban development that takes up vast amounts of space, combined with the way the country is so centralised in the south and east. German towns are more compact, and people are generally more spread out: we still have issues with sprawl, but it's less pronounced than in the UK.

 

[presta]

I've saved a copy of this thread for the next time I see a motorist who thinks cyclists are all idiots who can't see the benefits of cars or the problems with bikes.

Aero drag doesn't really become significant until you are going faster than 25 km/h or thereabouts, which people taking their first steps in cycling won't be to begin with, and in most cases won't ever be.

By far the biggest waster of energy commuting is stop-start riding, you do that in spades in busy towns with rush hour traffic.

if the right environment is there people will use it

But Stevenage: built for bikes, yet no more people cycle because it's still to easy to use cars. For all Netherlands cycle paths the Dutch only drive 10% less than us.

the cycling industry as a whole has been pushing it as a leisure activity

I think a lot of cycling leisure amounts to just using the car to take the bike to the local park.

Cycling is as cheap or expensive as you want it to be

Even when you have all you need, there's a lot less friction shopping on foot than by bike.

For utility cycling to take off - it needs to be the easiest choice of getting from A to B, with no major blockers. Cycling has major advantages over driving, public transport etc in most city centre sub 5 mile journeys so then it becomes about removing blockers. Cycle lanes tackle the safety blocker, hire schemes tackle the storage aspect and once you get past a certain point in terms of usage word of mouth kicks in and usage explodes.

Cycling will always be lumbered with getting cold/wet/sweaty/breathless, and lack of luggage space, that's why I don't think it'll make much difference unless cars are made more difficult.

I don't know why people think cycling should be way more popular than it is. The cons for cycling outweigh the pros immensely imo.

This is why I think that people should be prized out of their cars, and then left to decide for themselves which alternative to use, rather than be told they ought to cycle. Make cars a lot less cheap and convenient.

it does annoy me when I see articles showing how much you would save in swapping to a bike
and include the basic costs for a car rather than just the costs for commuting

This. The marginal costs for the extra mile are quite reasonable for a car, but too many costings count fixed costs as variable ones. I once saw a figure calculated that way, and on that basis my relatively high mileage would have been costing me more than I earned.

Fuel is not particularly expensive for many people.

Motoring itself is not particularly expensive:

I don't think driving is much fun either.
Those that drive to work are forever complaining of traffic, road works, parking, cyclist, potholes, costs of car repairs.

By the time I got my first car I'd spent years counting off the days until I could have one, so once I passed my test I gleefully got in the car and sat in the traffic jams happy as a pig in sh!t.

The UK cycle industry has been selling people the wrong bikes for decades. And I'm as guilty as the next former bike shop employee. When I started the default was either a 'racer' or a 'tourer' (because tourers can do anything). Then mountain bikes appeared on the scene and we sold everyone a mountain bike (because mountain bikes can do anything - if you fit slick tyres). The issue is that 99% of bike industry people, from bike shop workers upwards, are cycling enthusiasts and we wanted to sell the kind of bikes that WE were excited about, not what actually met our customers needs. I feel ashamed of myself actually. We were blinded by out own biases. What most of them needed was a simple, upright, robust, inexpensive 7/8/9 speed with luggage options and mudguards. What we convinced them they needed was complex, racy, fragile, expensive 21/24/27 speeds with knobbly tyres. In doing so I believe we put utility cycling back a couple of decades.

But that's the case with salesmen in general, they're there to sell what they've got, not necessarily what the customer wants or needs.

I am always puzzled by the "you NEED this type of bike to do this type of journey"

I recall a conversation with a cyclist at Cynwyd YHA, saying that I fancied trying a bit of cycle touring, but I don't have a touring bike, and he said "why do you need a touring bike, you can get off and push if the gears on your racing bike aren't low enough". So I dusted off the old bike in the garage and gave it a whizz.

It would help greatly if cycling wasn't portrayed as dangerous as well.

There's a catch-22 here. On the one hand we don't want people put off by the idea that cycling is dangerous, and on the other we spend a lot of time complaining about dangerous drivers.

 

[Andy in Germany]

But Stevenage: built for bikes, yet no more people cycle because it's still to easy to use cars. For all Netherlands cycle paths the Dutch only drive 10% less than us.

I'm not sure how anyone could work that out, given the difference in shape, size and demographics between the UK and NL. Either way, the modal shift is where it counts, in towns and cities where cars cause most localised damage.

Motoring itself is not particularly expensive:

View attachment 804890

From The Royal Automobile Club, that well known neutral source of information. I'm sure they included all the incidental costs in that 9.1%.

Even with that source, you're looking at a policy issue, not an economic one. That graph is less an argument for using a car than it is for road pricing and organising the UK's public transport better.

As an example, today I caught the train to work, and tomorrow I'll catch a train to Tübingen, change train to Stuttgart, catch a tram in Stuttgart and a bus to my family, and all this is covered by my "Deutschland Ticket".