Two-thirds of adults in England think cycling is dangerous!

[Solocle]

2019 General Election surveys: Con - Lab - LD - SNP - PC - Green - BxP (all %)
Kantar's last poll: 44 - 32 - 13 - 4 - 0 - 3 - 3
Deltapoll: 45 - 35 - 10 - 4 - 0 - 3 - 4
Ipsos MORI: 44 - 33 - 12 - na - na - 3 - 2
Survation: 45 - 34 - 9 - 4 - 1 - 3 - 3
Actual result: 45 - 33 - 12 - 4 - 1 - 3 - 2

I'd say that was pretty close to the surveys.

So, unfortunately, over the last page, @Drago has failed to correctly summarise the accuracy of general election surveys!

But, I thought Labour won the 2017 General Election?? Weren't they claiming that it was a victory?

"Others" with 1.6% missing.

Which means the figures given aren't correct

That's just rounding that's responsible.
51.4%, 24.3%, 24.3%
(24.3% + 24.3% = 48.6%)

51 + 24 + 24 = 99%

 

[classic33]

But, I thought Labour won the 2017 General Election?? Weren't they claiming that it was a victory?

That's just rounding that's responsible.
51.4%, 24.3%, 24.3%
(24.3% + 24.3% = 48.6%)

51 + 24 + 24 = 99%

Just pointing out that the illustration used to demonstrate that someone else is/was wrong is also wrong.

Also not the complete picture(result), which in surveys is misleading. Almost as though it's been cherry picked to suit.

 

[classic33]

They want protection.

segregation and protection are not the same. Doing the first doesn't guarantee the second. It also "proves" that cycling must be dangerous, because it's cyclist demanding it.

That's easy: build roads that the pothole-causing heavy vehicles are not allowed to use.

Are more roads really the answer?
Don't more roads lead to more traffic.

Indeed, but it's not happened in 100 years, so why think it will happen now? The imperfect possible of infrastructure improvement is better than that perfect impossible.

How about we actually catch them early, so to speak. When they(drivers) are having lessons and taking their test. Reinforcing it via their pocket if they can't remember to do so.

 

[BoldonLad]

How about we actually catch them early, so to speak. When they(drivers) are having lessons and taking their test. Reinforcing it via their pocket if they can't remember to do so.

IMHO, driving lessons and test, should include a few hours cycling on the roads.

 

[mjr]

Just pointing out that the illustration used to demonstrate that someone else is/was wrong is also wrong.

Except it wasn't. The result was within the stated survey variances.

Also not the complete picture(result), which in surveys is misleading. Almost as though it's been cherry picked to suit.

The claim was "over the last decade election surveys have failed to correctly predict the result of any general election" so it's valid to start with the most recent and work back until a correctly-predicted election is found, which just happened to be the first one I checked. Feel free to start with 2010 and work forwards if you like doing more work, but the claim is already shown to be incorrect.

 

[mjr]

segregation and protection are not the same. Doing the first doesn't guarantee the second.

I agree. I think no-one made either of those claims, so I'm not sure why you argued against them.

It also "proves" that cycling must be dangerous, because it's cyclist demanding it.

Rather, it suggests that motoring must be dangerous because cyclists don't want to be among it.

Are more roads really the answer?
Don't more roads lead to more traffic.

I'm comfortable with the idea of more cycle traffic, but closing existing roads to motorists is also fine. If that's not possible, limiting their access, numbers and/or speeds are also good moves.

How about we actually catch them early, so to speak. When they(drivers) are having lessons and taking their test. Reinforcing it via their pocket if they can't remember to do so.

Like others, I'd love to see a cycling qualification or medical exemption as a requirement of a provisional driving licence, and I agree there should be more driving licence conditions enforcement in general, not only during lessons and testing, but neither of those are arguments against improving road designs or allocations as ways to improve how cycling feels.

 

[slowmotion]

Leaving aside lobbying by organisations who claim to represent cyclists, is there any reliable data about the percentage of cyclists who actually want more segregation?

 

[mjr]

Leaving aside lobbying by organisations who claim to represent cyclists, is there any reliable data about the percentage of cyclists who actually want more segregation?

Not exactly and not even from cycling lobby organisations. I think there are such big flaws in that question that it wouldn't be worth asking: for example, "segregation" is a very loaded term and asking only cyclists would be questionable because you don't improve bridge design by asking only the few who swim or walk tightropes across a wild river: you need to ask those who would, at least.

The closest useful current independent data is probably Mintel's Cycling survey reports which last time it was reported (2018) said "69% of those who currently cycle or would consider cycling agree with the statement ‘I’d cycle more often/start cycling if the roads were made safer (eg more protected cycle lanes)’." (yeah, I know that statement isn't great...)

An update on that might be included in the 2020 report, but most of the news coverage is about Covid's effects on cycling and I'm not spending £1500-1995 to buy the full report.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter how we improve roads, as long as they're improved, but it will probably sometimes mean creating cycleways alongside quasimotorways, whether taken from the carriageway or not.

 

[Alex H]

Wow. Seriously? 2694 responses represent the views of 66 million people. Incredible.

Not seriously - the end of the pdf says

National Travel Survey

The National Travel Survey (NTS) is administered by the Department for Transport (DfT) and is a household survey designed to provide a rich source of data on personal travel. In 2019, the sample size was around 6,000 households and 14,000 individuals.

Active Lives Survey

The Active Lives Survey (ALS) is a push-to-web survey administered by Sport England and is used to derive official estimates of participation in sport and physical activity. The ALS had a sample size of around 182 thousand adults in England in mid-November 2018 to mid-November 2019, thus enabling analysis at local authority level.

2694 does not appear anywhere in that document

 

[classic33]

Except it wasn't. The result was within the stated survey variances.

But the final(actual) result, the piece you put in, is wrong and incomplete/not a true representation of the full facts. Cherry picked to suit.

The claim was "over the last decade election surveys have failed to correctly predict the result of any general election" so it's valid to start with the most recent and work back until a correctly-predicted election is found, which just happened to be the first one I checked. Feel free to start with 2010 and work forwards if you like doing more work, but the claim is already shown to be incorrect.

I queried the cherry picked figures used, to illustrate how not giving the answers in full, skews the final outcome. Whereby bits that are felt to be irrelevant/counter productive are left out. Happens more than you might think in surveys.

 

[Son Of Anarchy]

The Guardian!? I didn't know anyone cared what they published?

 

[mjr]

The Guardian!? I didn't know anyone cared what they published?

It's based on a gov.uk survey, so I'm sure it's reported elsewhere if you'd like it with more rants about garotting cyclists with piano wire...

 

[mjr]

2694 does not appear anywhere in that document

No, it appears on the source material for the news report, which is NTAS not NTS or ALS, at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-attitudes-study-wave-3

 

[mjr]

But the final(actual) result, the piece you put in, is wrong and incomplete/not a true representation of the full facts. Cherry picked to suit.

The result was correct, but I'll grant you it's incomplete, as that's inevitable with surveys of that resolution. I'm not sure whether the higher-resolution surveys (I think YouGov did some 100,000+ sample size ones, for example) predicted the fine detail correctly.

I queried the cherry picked figures used, to illustrate how not giving the answers in full, skews the final outcome. Whereby bits that are felt to be irrelevant/counter productive are left out. Happens more than you might think in surveys.

Whether the 1.6% "other" are relevant or productive depends on what you think the result of an election is. Some even say that the 33% (or whatever) Labour vote was basically irrelevant in our system.

But attitudes to cycling and travel aren't elections and broad-brush information is probably good enough to act upon: do the correct actions differ whether it's 66% or 68% of adults who don't feel safe cycling in England?

 

[davidphilips]

Cycling in my view is as dangerous as eating an egg?