You are a minority...

Cleat Eastwood

and you know nottin'....well at least nottin worth listening to according to a report on how to encourage a more 'active and sustainable travel'

A miilion pound report says

'Sustainable and active travel is relatively uncommon in British towns and increased cycling and walking could significantly reduce congestion, improve the local environment including air quality, reduce transport-related greenhouse gas emissions and improve personal health.'

But to encourage such activity….

'Our message for policy makers is, do not base policies about walking and cycling on the views and experiences of existing committed cyclists and pedestrians. These are a minority who have, against all the odds, successfully negotiated a hostile urban environment to incorporate walking and cycling into their everyday routines'


'a hostile urban environment!!!' so at least we know they went to stoke.

rick_chasey

I've been saying that for years.

tarquin_foxglove

Makes sense.

We are cycling despite the traffic, poor or non-existent infrastructure. So if you want mass cycling you have to address the majority's fears, needs & wants not hope for a mass 'road to Damascus' like conversion to the one true way.

rick_chasey

Post it in the commuting section.

See how they respond

tarquin_foxglove

At work we've just done a survey for our Green Travel Plan. 20% of staff (well 20% of the 55% that responded) said they would cycle if they had access to safe cycle paths from home to work, less than 5% citied improved access to showers, 1 person wanted a bike hire scheme, no one said training.

griffsters

So it sounds like a lot of people dont want to ride on the roads as they are nervous about drivers. Yet i'd imagine that most of them drive in to work...does this make them scared of themselves

-spider-

Griffsters wrote:

So it sounds like a lot of people dont want to ride on the roads as they are nervous about drivers. Yet i'd imagine that most of them drive in to work...does this make them scared of themselves

Possibly some people are scared that others may drive like they do.

Ehm.....?

BigG67

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Makes sense.

We are cycling despite the traffic, poor or non-existent infrastructure. So if you want mass cycling you have to address the majority's fears, needs & wants not hope for a mass 'road to Damascus' like conversion to the one true way.

Indeed, it is more important to work out why other's don't ride than why the converted do esp. when the don'ts are the vast majority.

Mr Will

People don't cycle because they are scared.

We shouldn't look down on them because of this, it is understandable when all the messages being given out about cycling are "lights! helmet! highviz! cycle-path! training! DANGER!".

The fact is that cycling is not the massively dangerous activity it is perceived to be. This is something the minority realise, but is the message we need to share, along with the freedom and benefits that go with cycling.

ooermissus

Mr Will wrote:

People don't cycle because they are scared.

When I don't cycle, it is most often because there is no way of securing my bike without carrying half a ton of locks and chains.

Or it's too far!

pauldavid

Most people don't cycle or walk anywhere because they are too sodding lazy and it's easier to get in the car and be transported with little effort.

You can offer as much training and encouragement as you like it won't help get people out of cars and using other forms of transport.

Only my opinion, sorry rant over :oops:

desweller

Mr Will wrote:

We shouldn't look down on them because of this, it is understandable when all the messages being given out about cycling are "lights! helmet! highviz! cycle-path! training! DANGER!".

That's not the reason that people perceive cycling as being dangerous. People perceive it as being dangerous because

a) You don't have a big metal box around you for protection
b) It's a much more visceral experience than driving
c) Cyclists are hard to spot
d) Rearward visibility is poor and it's difficult to ascertain what's behind you whilst following the road
e) You're on two wheels so you can fall off (ever seen a car fall off its wheels?) or slide off easily
f) The speed differential between bikes and cars is often very high

I've never encountered anyone who said they didn't like the idea of cycling because of the media message.

CiB

Mr Will wrote:

People don't cycle because they are scared.

We shouldn't look down on them because of this, it is understandable when all the messages being given out about cycling are "lights! helmet! highviz! cycle-path! training! DANGER!".

The fact is that cycling is not the massively dangerous activity it is perceived to be. This is something the minority realise, but is the message we need to share, along with the freedom and benefits that go with cycling.

This. Make this chap the new Minister Of Transport.

I cycle along quiet country roads and busy A roads. It doesn't occur to me to worry that I might be knocked off on my current routes; it's never happened yet in 5 years of doing it and the danger doesn't exist. I might as well be scared of a tiger leaping out of a hedge and attacking me.

Perceived danger is the problem. What we need to do is to keep pushing the message, that it's not risky, dangerous or life-threatening to share road space with other road users. It's not an easy task though - even after nigh on 5 years of doing this commute I'm still referred to as mad for doing it, by people in this building. Shame.

tx14

There will be much more cyclists on the road in a few years. Simple they can't keep up with fuel costs.

jgsi

tx14 wrote:

There will be much more cyclists on the road in a few years. Simple they can't keep up with fuel costs.

mmm. I think vast majority of British would rather sell a kidney (or 2) rather than give up the car.

ju5t1n

how much can you get for a kidney?

APIII

I don't think danger, pervceived or real is the problem. Most people, including myself, just can't be ar5ed to cycle to work. Commuting is a pretty joyless experience whatever method you use.

ex-pat scot

CiB wrote:

Mr Will wrote:

People don't cycle because they are scared.

We shouldn't look down on them because of this, it is understandable when all the messages being given out about cycling are "lights! helmet! highviz! cycle-path! training! DANGER!".

The fact is that cycling is not the massively dangerous activity it is perceived to be. This is something the minority realise, but is the message we need to share, along with the freedom and benefits that go with cycling.

This. Make this chap the new Minister Of Transport.

I cycle along quiet country roads and busy A roads. It doesn't occur to me to worry that I might be knocked off on my current routes; it's never happened yet in 5 years of doing it and the danger doesn't exist. I might as well be scared of a tiger leaping out of a hedge and attacking me.

Perceived danger is the problem. What we need to do is to keep pushing the message, that it's not risky, dangerous or life-threatening to share road space with other road users. It's not an easy task though - even after nigh on 5 years of doing this commute I'm still referred to as mad for doing it, by people in this building. Shame.

Escellent.

I'm still referred to as mad by all and sundry- including family

bompington

CiB wrote:

I cycle along quiet country roads and busy A roads. It doesn't occur to me to worry that I might be knocked off on my current routes; it's never happened yet in 5 years of doing it and the danger doesn't exist. I might as well be scared of a tiger leaping out of a hedge and attacking me.

Perceived danger is the problem. What we need to do is to keep pushing the message, that it's not risky, dangerous or life-threatening to share road space with other road users. It's not an easy task though - even after nigh on 5 years of doing this commute I'm still referred to as mad for doing it, by people in this building. Shame.

You're right that the dangers are overstated. But it wasn't a tiger that drove into the cycle lane to wipe me out, or a perception driving the white van that pulled out in front of me leaving me no option but to head butt the side of said van at 20mph.
Educating drivers might be more use than educating potential cyclists.

Anonymous

"Commuting is a pretty joyless experience whatever method you use."

Not true at all.
I honestly leap out of bed with anticipation of getting on my bike. Perhaps the feeling will eventually wane and I was lucky to start commuting by bike in June, but I love every minute of it. And it certainly doesn't come from any self righteous tree hugging save the planet and health reasons. Its just damn good fun, and a way to inject some (fierce) competition into your day.
I hate the days when I can't commute

"I might as well be scared of a tiger leaping out of a hedge and attacking me."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14229381
(see image 2)

shouldbeinbed

I have lights high viz etc as much because I am out and about at all hours and lets be honest you don't hear people going up to builders in pubs saying, you must be mad, your job is terrifying, you wear a high viz vest, hard hat and steel toe cap boots.

lots of things that are generally safe have 'specialist' equipment but not all have the erroneous perception of extreme danger that cyling has, so I don't buy the 'kit makes it look dangerous' argument.

I thinkk it is far more the perception (and occasional) reality of poor driving attitude and standards that makes cycling appear dangerous. Driver education and more draconian enforcement of driving 'misdemeanours' allied with a positive proactive think bicycle media campaign would be a start in addressing the problem.

Never thought of myself as some sort of mad max urban survivor before, I'm just a bloke on a bike.

tarquin_foxglove

Just had a quick search
Construction workers have a rate of fatal injury of 0.6 per 100,000

Child cyclists have a rate of fatal injury of 0.16 per 100,000 and all cyclists are 0.2.

So perhaps people should be going up to builders saying 'you must be mad'.

shouldbeinbed wrote:

lots of things that are generally safe have 'specialist' equipment but not all have the erroneous perception of extreme danger that cyling has, so I don't buy the 'kit makes it look dangerous' argument."

The only other form of daily transport that has such blatant safety equipment is motorbikes and their fatality rate is 0.8

GiantMike

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Just had a quick search
Construction workers have a rate of fatal injury of 0.6 per 100,000

Wrong! According to your sources....

Construction workers have a fatal accident rate of 2.4 per 100,000

Farmers have a fatal accident rate of 8 per 100,000

tarquin_foxglove

GiantMike wrote:

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Just had a quick search
Construction workers have a rate of fatal injury of 0.6 per 100,000

Wrong! According to your sources....

Construction workers have a fatal accident rate of 2.4 per 100,000

Farmers have a fatal accident rate of 8 per 100,000

That's terrible, they must be mad.

shouldbeinbed

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

The only other form of daily transport that has such blatant safety equipment is motorbikes

Cars also have mandatory safety provision that the users must use at threat of prosecution, they are far more blatantly safety focussed than cycles

Seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, roll protection, anti lock brakes, even parking sensors are about preventing or mitigating the damage caused by accidents..... going back a bit, introducing less rigid steering columns, rear view mirrors stuck to the glass not anchored into the frame of the vehicle etc to stop people being impaled on their machines when they stopped suddenly.
Cars are regularly sold on their euroncap (?sp) safety rating but people don't consider them nearly as dangerous. why? Its not about numbers of 0.x per 100,000, its about perception as I said and it is perception that needs to be changed if we want to get more people willingly cycling.

I don't honestly think it will change voluntarily in any great number as the misperception is well entrenched. It will take decades of Dutch like positive promotion (through well planned and implemented infrastructure that does not inconvenience the cyclist just as much as 'think bike' type campaign or any number of 'its safer than stabbing yourself in the face with a fork' statistics) but short & mid term it is going to need strict enforcement of motoring offences to inconvenience motorists and forcibly improve driving standards, draconian costs imposing on motorists (me & family) to stop the car being ubiquitous and anti drink driving style campaigns to make bad driving / Clarksonesque cycle prejudice as socally unacceptable as 'one for the road' became. I really can't see the political will to do this or vote winning potential in any of that until the oil runs out.

My own prejudice: Flying is safe, I know this but I do not fly, its purely irrational but I cannot reconcile tons of metal a mile up in the air. I've bangd on for years abut getting on a plane and just hopping from Manchester to Glasgow or Dublin or something to break the hoodoo but always find an excuse not to. Go figure! This is the problem cycling has amongst non or occasional cyclists and no amount of logic or gentle coaxing will solve it.

Cleat Eastwood

shouldbeinbed wrote:

its about perception as I said and it is perception that needs to be changed if we want to get more people willingly cycling.

Aye, agree.

I think its about classifications too. Cycling is seen to belong to the realm of teenage joy, a place where you first experience freedom on the road. The car is somehow seen as a rites of passage to adulthood. Which is kinda ironic given that some drivers seem to revert to infancy when behind the wheel.

Whats odd is why our country seems so bike unfriendly as compared to say france, where, according to the reports of the Paris-Brest-Paris ride in the sportive section locals were out at 3am cheering on riders. Peut etre un jour...

CrackFox

pauldavid wrote:

Most people don't cycle or walk anywhere because they are too sodding lazy and it's easier to get in the car and be transported with little effort.

Yes, I agree. Every so often some bright spark comes up with a new and revolutionary method of personal urban transport, e.g the Sinclair C5, the Segway. Inventions like this don't offer any real advantages over cycling - they're often slower, have no greater capacity for carrying stuff and offer little or no protection. The sole 'advantage' seems to be that they require little or no physical effort to propel them. The rationale that underpins this equates effort with unpleasantness and luxury with idleness. I don't see how gentle coaxing will ever overcome this attitude, not without big financial carrots and even bigger financial sticks.

Daz555

DesWeller wrote:

Mr Will wrote:

We shouldn't look down on them because of this, it is understandable when all the messages being given out about cycling are "lights! helmet! highviz! cycle-path! training! DANGER!".

That's not the reason that people perceive cycling as being dangerous. People perceive it as being dangerous because

a) You don't have a big metal box around you for protection
b) It's a much more visceral experience than driving
c) Cyclists are hard to spot
d) Rearward visibility is poor and it's difficult to ascertain what's behind you whilst following the road
e) You're on two wheels so you can fall off (ever seen a car fall off its wheels?) or slide off easily
f) The speed differential between bikes and cars is often very high

I've never encountered anyone who said they didn't like the idea of cycling because of the media message.

And yet despite your list all being true, cycling is still an incredibly safe activity. So why don't people get the message? So many of my non cycling friends find it extremely odd that I cycle to work in traffic (too risky).

Blimey they'll all have heart attacks when they see the child trailer I've just bought to ferry my son to school! :shock:

bagpusscp

Rant mode :oops:
The power of adds on TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2GpJDtiSfg
How do you sell some poor sod wet through as fun :?:
notice how car adds rarely show a traffic jam.
Hence all adds must be positive.
Raleighs old add always come to mind."one free person with every Raleigh"
No large scale uk cycle industry.Hence no sexy adds for the modern age.
Rant over.
How About "Jam buster" ride a ........ and keep the pedal to the metal.
ok it needs more work.

OffTheBackAdam

Daz555 wrote:

[Blimey they'll all have heart attacks when they see the child trailer I've just bought to ferry my son to school! :shock:

Christ, I'm surprised that social services haven't taken your nipper into care! The horrendous risks you're taking with its life!