Shopping by Bike - volunteers required

gavinjw

Hi all,

I work for CTC on an EU funded project called CycleLogistics; I am currently looking for about 500 volunteers to take part in a Shop by Bike trial (see http://blog.wiggle.com/2013/05/28/shopping-by-bike/). In short, you'd be required to shop by bike at least once a week for about 4 weeks. In return, I will offer a £10 Wiggle voucher, and you'd also be providing a valuable contribution to the CycleLogistics project. If interested, please email me at the address in the Wiggle blog link (not sure I can post my email address here so I won't!)

I ran a trial last year and the results are here http://www.ctc.org.uk/case-study/shopping-bike-results

Cheers
Gav

team47b

can you volunteer if you have been shopping by bike every week for the last 7 years, would I have to go twice a week for 4 weeks to qualify?

mr_ribble

I think most of them on here shop for bikes, as opposed to go shopping on a bike..

If the survey doesn't work out you can always blame wiggle ..

gavinjw

Mr_Ribble wrote:

I think most of them on here shop for bikes, as opposed to go shopping on a bike..

If the survey doesn't work out you can always blame wiggle ..

And there lies the reason for doing this piece of work! We want to convert people from being cyclists who just move themselves around, to cyclists who move stuff other than themselves around by bike. No blame will be apportioned to Wiggle, they very kindly offered to put a call out for volunteers for me,and thus far it's proving quite succesful.

I'd be happy to have you on board Mr Ribble should you wish

mr_ribble

gavinjw wrote:

Mr_Ribble wrote:

I think most of them on here shop for bikes, as opposed to go shopping on a bike..

If the survey doesn't work out you can always blame wiggle ..

And there lies the reason for doing this piece of work! We want to convert people from being cyclists who just move themselves around, to cyclists who move stuff other than themselves around by bike. No blame will be apportioned to Wiggle, they very kindly offered to put a call out for volunteers for me,and thus far it's proving quite succesful.

I'd be happy to have you on board Mr Ribble should you wish

Unfortunately I don't go shopping on my bicycle so I dont fit your target audience. I have only ever gone shopping by bike once, and that was to buy a pair of denim hotpants....

roger_merriman

I'm one of those who shop by bike and have done for many years.

In terms of stuff it's not the weight but the shape that matters with a courier bag at least.

Problem with paniers and load bikes is that is all they do.

gavinjw

Mr_Ribble wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

Mr_Ribble wrote:

I think most of them on here shop for bikes, as opposed to go shopping on a bike..

If the survey doesn't work out you can always blame wiggle ..

And there lies the reason for doing this piece of work! We want to convert people from being cyclists who just move themselves around, to cyclists who move stuff other than themselves around by bike. No blame will be apportioned to Wiggle, they very kindly offered to put a call out for volunteers for me,and thus far it's proving quite succesful.

I'd be happy to have you on board Mr Ribble should you wish

Unfortunately I don't go shopping on my bicycle so I dont fit your target audience. I have only ever gone shopping by bike once, and that was to buy a pair of denim hotpants....

You sound like you would fit my target audience; I'm ideally looking for people who don't shop by bike, denim hotpants optional

spasypaddy

i cycle to work, then walk to tesco at lunch, then cycle home with my shopping. do i count?

gavinjw

roger merriman wrote:

I'm one of those who shop by bike and have done for many years.

In terms of stuff it's not the weight but the shape that matters with a courier bag at least.

Problem with paniers and load bikes is that is all they do.

Not strictly true about load bikes, but I take your point. There are many light touring bikes out there that are suitable for sportive and audax riding, just make sure you take the rack and mudguards off if you don't want to get sneered at!

gavinjw

spasypaddy wrote:

i cycle to work, then walk to tesco at lunch, then cycle home with my shopping. do i count?

Take a look at the link in my original post, there are instructions there as to how to register your interest. But in short, yes, you can volunteer if you wish :-)

roger_merriman

gavinjw wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

I'm one of those who shop by bike and have done for many years.

In terms of stuff it's not the weight but the shape that matters with a courier bag at least.

Problem with paniers and load bikes is that is all they do.

Not strictly true about load bikes, but I take your point. There are many light touring bikes out there that are suitable for sportive and audax riding, just make sure you take the rack and mudguards off if you don't want to get sneered at!

Not a huge advantage in a tourer over a single bag on your back in terms of load carrying, it will still be easer to get stuff delivered or pick up in the car, leaving the bike for odds and sods where a rucksack/courier bag is ample.

Clearly load carrying bikes can carry but equally their size and weight limit their use.

gavinjw

roger merriman wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

I'm one of those who shop by bike and have done for many years.

In terms of stuff it's not the weight but the shape that matters with a courier bag at least.

Problem with paniers and load bikes is that is all they do.

Not strictly true about load bikes, but I take your point. There are many light touring bikes out there that are suitable for sportive and audax riding, just make sure you take the rack and mudguards off if you don't want to get sneered at!

Not a huge advantage in a tourer over a single bag on your back in terms of load carrying, it will still be easer to get stuff delivered or pick up in the car, leaving the bike for odds and sods where a rucksack/courier bag is ample.

Clearly load carrying bikes can carry but equally their size and weight limit their use.

It's not all about convenience though is it? It's about making our urban space a more inviting place to be for more vulnerable road users, and currently, most towns and cities are clogged up with people making uneccessary journeys by car. The average Briton currently makes more journeys of less than a mile by car than by bike - by a factor of 10. I find that a little worrying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm under no illusions. Not everyone is going to shop on foot or by bike, but if some trips were converted, it would have a postive impact on urban space.

daviesee

My main objection is the fear that my bike may not be outside the supermarket when I return.

That and the case of beer.

Southgate

I am unconvinced about the practicalities of shopping by bike for anything other than small items. If my shopping doesn't fit in my rucksack, I will take the bus or call a cab. I don't do enough shopping to justify buying a trailer or some other awkward contraption, and the missus already has enough complaints about my bikes littering the house without me providing her with a good excuse to chuck the whole lot into the back yard.

Not owning a car or a bike trailer limits my already small appetite for large items of consumerist junk, which is a good thing I think. I did buy a lawnmower from Tesco.com yesterday, but they are going to deliver it to my door for a fiver. Other than that it's just the occasional big food shop, but again it's only a fiver for the cab home.

Unless I'm a completely atypical cyclist, I have a feeling you may be looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

greg66_tri_v2.0

gavinjw wrote:

We want to convert people from being cyclists who just move themselves around, to cyclists who move stuff other than themselves around by bike.

What sort of stuff?

gavinjw wrote:

currently, most towns and cities are clogged up with people making uneccessary journeys by car. The average Briton currently makes more journeys of less than a mile by car than by bike - by a factor of 10.

I think you need to think a bit about what is an "unnecessary" car journey.

Once you've done that, reflect on this point: a person has a choice between making a journey in a car or on a bike. Why should their choice be fettered?

Would you also encourage people to buy only the most basic of cars, in that a larger or thirstier or more powerful car is for the most part unnecessary? This type of approach always rankles with me. It always comes down to the same basic proposition. Group A doesn't like what Group B does, so decides to force Group B to think and act in a particular way.

gavinjw

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

We want to convert people from being cyclists who just move themselves around, to cyclists who move stuff other than themselves around by bike.

What sort of stuff?

gavinjw wrote:

currently, most towns and cities are clogged up with people making uneccessary journeys by car. The average Briton currently makes more journeys of less than a mile by car than by bike - by a factor of 10.

I think you need to think a bit about what is an "unnecessary" car journey.

Once you've done that, reflect on this point: a person has a choice between making a journey in a car or on a bike. Why should their choice be fettered?

Would you also encourage people to buy only the most basic of cars, in that a larger or thirstier or more powerful car is for the most part unnecessary? This type of approach always rankles with me. It always comes down to the same basic proposition. Group A doesn't like what Group B does, so decides to force Group B to think and act in a particular way.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything! I'm simply working on a project that aims to reduce CO2 emissions and save fuel consumed in the field of urban logistics. Take a look around our towns and cities - do you think there are too many motor vehicles on the road? Not enough motor vehicles? Would urban space be a nicer place to be if noise and pollution were reduced? In my opinion, I would say a car journey of less than a mile is probably uneccessary, and yes, I do also think large, resource consuming vehicles are for the main part also uneccessary. It's all well and good being pro-choice, but when those choices impinge on the well being of others (and actually kill people) then I question whether that is right

Headhuunter

I'd like to take part but I already do all my shopping by bike. I cycle down to Lewisham market and Sainsbury's/Tesco with 2 panniers and a rucksack and leave with up to 30kg of stuff... One day I'll probably destroy my Campag wheels as me and the shopping combined is pretty much 110kg...

I haven't got a car so I do all my shopping by bike, I've transported all sorts of gardening equipment, plants, pet bedding etc etc by bike...

I agree that more people should shop by bike or on foot, too many people drive less than a mile down the road for a loaf of bread, a pint of milk and a pack of fags, it's ridiculous. It clogs up the roads with unnecessary traffic whilst fat people get no exercise. In terms of doing the full weekly shop on a bike, I can see that this would appeal to a limited audience!

Southgate

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I think you need to think a bit about what is an "unnecessary" car journey.

Once you've done that, reflect on this point: a person has a choice between making a journey in a car or on a bike. Why should their choice be fettered?

Would you also encourage people to buy only the most basic of cars, in that a larger or thirstier or more powerful car is for the most part unnecessary? This type of approach always rankles with me. It always comes down to the same basic proposition. Group A doesn't like what Group B does, so decides to force Group B to think and act in a particular way.

Well, if Group B are doing something which negatively impacts on Groups A, C, D, E, F etc (in this case damaging the environment, congesting the roads, killing and injuring people, and burdening our NHS with obesity-related diseases) then it's reasonable that they be asked to modify their behavior, or be compelled to do so through taxation and legislation.

At its most basic, an unnecessary car journey is a trip of a mile or less to the local shop to buy a pint of milk. Unless they are registered disabled or incapacitated, why the heck is anyone using a ton of motorised metal for such a short journey?

Design the roads and the taxation system so that driving to the local shop is as difficult and expensive as possible, and make walking or biking it as simple, safe and pleasant as possible. It would lead to better, more socially integrated neighbourhoods, and happier drivers too!

tgotb

I shop by internet, get everything delivered to work, and then take home on the bike. In the case of large items (normally rims) I ride home with a wheel bag slung over my shoulder. I have yet to come up with a convenient way of carrying an entire frameset...

gavinjw

Southgate wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I think you need to think a bit about what is an "unnecessary" car journey.

Once you've done that, reflect on this point: a person has a choice between making a journey in a car or on a bike. Why should their choice be fettered?

Would you also encourage people to buy only the most basic of cars, in that a larger or thirstier or more powerful car is for the most part unnecessary? This type of approach always rankles with me. It always comes down to the same basic proposition. Group A doesn't like what Group B does, so decides to force Group B to think and act in a particular way.

Well, if Group B are doing something which negatively impacts on Groups A, C, D, E, F etc (in this case damaging the environment, congesting the roads, killing and injuring people, and burdening our NHS with obesity-related diseases) then it's reasonable that they be asked to modify their behavior, or be compelled to do so through taxation and legislation.

At its most basic, an unnecessary car journey is a trip of a mile or less to the local shop to buy a pint of milk. Unless they are registered disabled or incapacitated, why the heck is anyone using a ton of motorised metal for such a short journey?

Design the roads and the taxation system so that driving to the local shop is as difficult and expensive as possible, and make walking or biking it as simple, safe and pleasant as possible. It would lead to better, more socially integrated neighbourhoods, and happier drivers too!

Currently, less than 1% of shopping trips are by bike. Even if you stripped out people who live miles away from the shops, and for whom shopping by bike would be very impractical, the potential for shift is pretty large. And I agree, this would lead to happier drivers and safer neighbourhoods. Surely this is a win/win?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Ooookay. Nutters are out today.

gavinjw wrote:

In my opinion, I would say a car journey of less than a mile is probably uneccessary, and yes, I do also think large, resource consuming vehicles are for the main part also uneccessary. It's all well and good being pro-choice, but when those choices impinge on the well being of others (and actually kill people) then I question whether that is right

I drove less than a mile to buy our last television. Unnecessary*?

A large, resource consuming vehicle (a) impinges on the well being of others; (b) kills people. These are both, frankly, lunatic claims beloved of eco-nutjobs.

*Please learn how to spell this word, if you are going to use it so much.

Southgate wrote:

Well, if Group B are doing something which negatively impacts on Groups A, C, D, E, F etc (in this case damaging the environment, congesting the roads, killing and injuring people, and burdening our NHS with obesity-related diseases) then it's reasonable that they be asked to modify their behavior, or be compelled to do so through taxation and legislation.

Well, Group B isn't, in this instance, otherwise the Government would have made short car journeys illegal or fiscally punitive. However, they haven't and won't (because they're not eco-nutjobs), so we can safely conclude that this is a misconceived argument.

Southgate wrote:

Design the roads and the taxation system so that driving to the local shop is as difficult and expensive as possible

Once again, I find myself questioning why every adult in this country is allowed to vote.

greg66_tri_v2.0

gavinjw wrote:

Currently, less than 1% of shopping trips are by bike.

Do you really not think that that might just be because for something close to 99% pf shopping trips, a bike is not a practical option? Just possibly?

Answer me this. In your published report, how many of your 76 or so participants had families? And of the 29 who signed up and then didn't participate, how many had families?

gavinjw

You are George Osbourne and I claim my £5

You decide whether that journey is unnecessary (is my spelling ok?)

Large vehicles kill people- fact (just short of 1,800 last year). Large vehicles seriously injure people (about 25,000 last year). Bikes and pedestrians tend not to do this. Ergo, vehicles impinge on the well being of others.

gavinjw

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

Currently, less than 1% of shopping trips are by bike.

Do you really not think that that might just be because for something close to 99% pf shopping trips, a bike is not a practical option? Just possibly?

Answer me this. In your published report, how many of your 76 or so participants had families? And of the 29 who signed up and then didn't participate, how many had families?

Er, not really to do with practicality. In Denmark, policies favour more vulnerable road users, as a consequnce modal share is about a quarter, ditto Netherlands. Both these countries have obesity levels considerably lower than the UKs. Coincidence, maybe, but probbly not

greg66_tri_v2.0

If large vehicles are so dangerous, why not campaign to ban them completely? Seems to me you're not aiming at your real target with this "reduce short journeys to the shops" idea.

Southgate

Surely this is a win/win?

Without doubt! I live about half a mile from the local shops and there's even a short cut through a very nice park, yet almost 100% of my neighbours, even on the sunniest day, will drive there to buy less than half a bag of shopping. It's completely crazy, and the only way to stop it is to make short local journeys by car the least attractive option.

There is no getting around the fact that roads and what we use them for is a matter of social policy. People do not make choices in the abstract or in a vacuum, which is something the free market libertarians don't factor in. For example, if you increased VED to, say, £10,000 a year, London's roads would be nearly empty of cars and many / most people would take up cycling instead. Everyone would still have a choice in theory, but their choice would be heavily influenced by the financial possibilities and consequences. Conversely, if you design and build roads for cars not bikes and reduce fuel tax, car traffic will increase.

greg66_tri_v2.0

gavinjw wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

Currently, less than 1% of shopping trips are by bike.

Do you really not think that that might just be because for something close to 99% pf shopping trips, a bike is not a practical option? Just possibly?

Answer me this. In your published report, how many of your 76 or so participants had families? And of the 29 who signed up and then didn't participate, how many had families?

Er, not really to do with practicality. In Denmark, policies favour more vulnerable road users, as a consequnce modal share is about a quarter, ditto Netherlands. Both these countries have obesity levels considerably lower than the UKs. Coincidence, maybe, but probbly not

Which came first: the volume of bike use, or the protective policies. I guess the former. I think it's a bit of a stretch to link obesity levels to short distance cycling with no evidence, no?

Anyway, what are the answers to the questions about family members in the participating sample?

Headhuunter

Southgate wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I think you need to think a bit about what is an "unnecessary" car journey.

Once you've done that, reflect on this point: a person has a choice between making a journey in a car or on a bike. Why should their choice be fettered?

Would you also encourage people to buy only the most basic of cars, in that a larger or thirstier or more powerful car is for the most part unnecessary? This type of approach always rankles with me. It always comes down to the same basic proposition. Group A doesn't like what Group B does, so decides to force Group B to think and act in a particular way.

Well, if Group B are doing something which negatively impacts on Groups A, C, D, E, F etc (in this case damaging the environment, congesting the roads, killing and injuring people, and burdening our NHS with obesity-related diseases) then it's reasonable that they be asked to modify their behavior, or be compelled to do so through taxation and legislation.

At its most basic, an unnecessary car journey is a trip of a mile or less to the local shop to buy a pint of milk. Unless they are registered disabled or incapacitated, why the heck is anyone using a ton of motorised metal for such a short journey?

Design the roads and the taxation system so that driving to the local shop is as difficult and expensive as possible, and make walking or biking it as simple, safe and pleasant as possible. It would lead to better, more socially integrated neighbourhoods, and happier drivers too!

Absolutely agree with this. People jump in their cars with little or no concern re how it actually affects everyone else. London regularly fails to meet EU limitations on ariborne pollutants, is congested, road surfaces are damaged etc by too many people just jumping in their cars to travel 2 miles down the road at an average speed of 12mph. I agree that it should be as expensive and as difficult as possible to do these silly little journeys by car. Of course no one is claiming that with society and world economics set up as they currently are that we could do away with the car altogether but there is faaaar too much brainless driving without consideration of alternative

greg66_tri_v2.0

Southgate wrote:

For example, if you increased VED to, say, £10,000 a year, London's roads would be nearly empty of cars

Would you do that for taxis and minicabs, as well? Do you think the volume of commercial delivery vehicles and buses might just edge upwards?

And from where do you replace the tax take on petrol, new car sales, VAT on servicing, etc...?

Headhuunter

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

Currently, less than 1% of shopping trips are by bike.

Do you really not think that that might just be because for something close to 99% pf shopping trips, a bike is not a practical option? Just possibly?

Answer me this. In your published report, how many of your 76 or so participants had families? And of the 29 who signed up and then didn't participate, how many had families?

Er, not really to do with practicality. In Denmark, policies favour more vulnerable road users, as a consequnce modal share is about a quarter, ditto Netherlands. Both these countries have obesity levels considerably lower than the UKs. Coincidence, maybe, but probbly not

Which came first: the volume of bike use, or the protective policies. I guess the former. I think it's a bit of a stretch to link obesity levels to short distance cycling with no evidence, no?

Anyway, what are the answers to the questions about family members in the participating sample?

Plenty of medical experts seem to agree that even a short amount of walking up to around 30 mins per day can significantly help improve health so although I haven't got any stats to quote, the link is pretty clear - exercise reduces coronary illness, improves mood and if people choose to walk or cycle rather than drive, there are clear cut broader benefits to society as a whole....

Headhuunter

Southgate wrote:

Surely this is a win/win?

Without doubt! I live about half a mile from the local shops and there's even a short cut through a very nice park, yet almost 100% of my neighbours, even on the sunniest day, will drive there to buy less than half a bag of shopping. It's completely crazy, and the only way to stop it is to make short local journeys by car the least attractive option.

There is no getting around the fact that roads and what we use them for is a matter of social policy. People do not make choices in the abstract or in a vacuum, which is something the free market libertarians don't factor in. For example, if you increased VED to, say, £10,000 a year, London's roads would be nearly empty of cars and many / most people would take up cycling instead. Everyone would still have a choice in theory, but their choice would be heavily influenced by the financial possibilities and consequences. Conversely, if you design and build roads for cars not bikes and reduce fuel tax, car traffic will increase.

Absolutely....