- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
London cyclist in traffic (picture copyright Simon MacMichael).PNGGovernment survey finds six in ten people believe it is too dangerous to cycle in Britain
Six in ten people believe that cycling on Britain’s roads is too dangerous, according to a new government survey.
The question was put to respondents to the 2019 National Travel Attitudes Study, with 61 per cent expressing agreement, identical to the findings of a previous survey in 2011.
Eight years ago, 23 per cent of people participating in the survey disagreed with the view that cycling is not too dangerous, but that has now fallen to 19 per cent among the 1,384 people taking part in the latest poll.
Meanwhile, despite the government saying that it wants people to switch from cars to bikes for shorter journeys, the willingness to do that has declined – down from 44 per cent in 2006 to 36 per cent now.
And while our Near Miss of the Day feature shows plenty of examples of drivers overtaking cyclists too closely (we also receive many other submissions that don’t get published), 95 per of people quizzed said motorists “should leave enough space for cyclists on the roads.”
Two per cent of respondents – who might be well-advised to re-read the Highway Code – disagreed with that statement.
We suspect many road.cc readers would be surprised with that near-universal level of support for giving adequate room to bike riders, given the experience of riding on the roads here.
Likewise, the responses when it came to using mobile phones at the wheel don’t seem to reflect reality.
Four per cent of respondents believe it is safe to use an application on a mobile whilst driving, and 6 per cent that it is safe to talk on a hand-held mobile phone when behind the wheel. Less than 0.5 per cent believed it was safe to send a text message while driving.
You don’t have to spend too long at the roadside watching motorists in any British city to wonder about the truthfulness of those figures.
Indeed, an RAC survey in 2017 found that one in four drivers – equivalent to 9 million people – admitted using their phone while driving.
The National Travel Attitudes Study found that despite using a handheld mobile phone at any time when in a vehicle being illegal, one in four respondents said they believed it was safe to do so in stationery traffic.
And although harsher penalties were introduced in 2017 for using a mobile phone while driving – an offence now subject to a £200 fine and six penalty points – 75 per cent of people said the law is not being properly enforced, although that is down from 81 per cent in 2006.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Another_MAMIL 5 sec ago
I also liked Polartec NeoShell and was disappointed it was discontinued. Polartec RPM looks similar, but it's unclear how NeoShell and RPM compare....
- pockstone 11 min 18 sec ago
"Due to the increasing speed of bicycles..., we have to expect that such accidents will happen more often.”...
- mdavidford 1 hour 37 min ago
Seems probably even more appropriate than what I originally intended.
- slc 2 hours 49 min ago
Credit to the author for attending the opposition meetings and trying to understand their concerns, but I agree with hp. There has been significant...
- RoubaixCube 3 hours 50 min ago
I like how youre using a Mojito X to advertise an Mojito 3
- Basemetal 4 hours 11 min ago
The PU dip on the palm and fingers is over the knitted nylon so not chilly in use, and the material is thick enough to provide some cushioning. It...
- Geoff H 4 hours 25 min ago
“jumped-up, arrogant” cyclists motorists causing “carnage” and posing a risk to pedestrians everyone else. Fixed it ..........
- chrisonabike 4 hours 36 min ago
Given that - at least in UK- we have a mostly flip-flop political system and parties in power eventually run out of credit with the electorate -...
- OldRidgeback 5 hours 38 min ago
If he'd been able to get hold of one of the rarer five speeds, it would've had a better choice of ratios. You can see it's got proper brakes, a big...
- David9694 5 hours 48 min ago
But whAT aboUT thE disable d? (Foreground left - pretty faded)
Add new comment
20 comments
Just takes one "dangerous" junction, roundabout or stretch of road to put people off using a bicycle or even walking. This is where well designed infrastructure can help rather than the current situation where the cycle segregation (narrow margin of gutter denoted by some faded paint) often just disappears when things get tricky.
Cycling might not *be* as dangerous as most people think, but if it doesn't *feel* safe then they won't attempt it.
"Subjective safety", it's called.
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search?q=subjective+safety
There's some real bellends doing the school run that probably think its too dangerous for their kids to cycle as they do 35 in the 20. It's pretty much I've dropped my kids off so sod yours.
It is dangerous, because of the prevalence and priority of cars and the lack of incentive to change driving behaviours and pathetic criminal system which seems to have a view that driving a car is a right not a privilege.
The first thing we should campaign for is an automatic life ban from driving when you get to twelve points. That'd make people think.
Driving home yesterday and I spot yet another close pass by a car in front, twice, same car with half a mile, I strongly suspect that that driver gave zero thought about the cyclists he passed within a foot. And why should he, the law wasn't around and even if he was spotted by a cop, he'd be given a talk and sent on his way or at worse a small fine. Behaviours won't change with the same laws. A youngish man driving a white convertible merc, full of dumb and arrogance.
Those that feel it is too dangerous to cycle are probably those who make it too dangerous to cycle.
Hmmm, seems a bit too simplistic. Plenty of people in this country don't drive, including children whose parents will decide on their behalf whether it's safe to cycle. As a parent with 2 children who are skilled cyclists I still have a deep fear of them riding on busy roads.
IME the vast majority of drivers are considerate but it's the perception of danger rather than the statistical odds that matter - both to those of us who cycle as well as, more importantly, those who don't but would like to.
It would be good to find out where the perception stems from - is it from negative experiences (as a ped or cyclist) or the long term pro-car anti-cyclist propoganda by the mainstream media, including the BBC? [recent example, ]
I think the cycle industry is as much to blame as anyone as it has been pushing cycling as rad, edgy and dangerous for as long as I have been riding (30+ years).
The MSM have supported this with consistently negative reporting of cycling, and associated with that publicity, everyone has a story of a friend of a friend who had a family member who once...etc.
No one stops to consider that the fact these anacdotes are worthy of sharing, is a testiment to the rarity of their occurance, instead focuses on the, if it happened once, it must happen everyday angle.
Like helmet debates... no online discussion is without a few people reciting how they have had their lives saved on multiple occasions by a helmet. Again no one looks at it objectively and says, potentially life changing / ending accidents are extremely rare, so for someone to have survived multiple events, suggests;
- the person in question has a dangerously low level of riding ability
- the accidents recited are unlikely to be as serious as described
- non-helmet wearers have an unnatural ability to avoid accidents / are immortal
- non-helmet wearers are all dead so can't comment
The brutal truth is that cycling isn't dangerous. However, like many things... for instance most cars are powered by repeated, controlled explosions, or indeed everytime you get in a car, you are sitting on top of a tank of explosive material... there are elements in and around cycling, that if it goes wrong, can have serious repurcussions.
Te reality is that it rarely goes wrong.
And there's the crux of it.
Incidents are rare in the wider scheme of things, but when things do go wrong, they are often serious. Ergo, the perception is one of danger.
but I dont think its that, if something goes wrong in a car at 70mph...it usually doesnt end well,but people happily get in cars every day,drive at those speeds, surrounded by other vehicles going just as quickly
I think if you cycle regularly, you detune alot of the stuff around how the roads really are for cycling on, you have to, to be able to cope with it.
but for a novice cyclist finding they are quite literally often brushing shoulders with trucks,vans,buses, that theres a group of people who drive who will actually deliberately use their car as a means to intimidate you at best, and at worst (seen the latest Jeremy Vine dashcam tweet?) will just drive into you, why wouldnt you feel the roads are dangerous.
when I cycle to work, sometimes I really dread the ride because I know Ill probably be close passed more than once, sometimes aggressively,sometimes not, someone will probably try a stupid overtake at some point through a pinch point, I might be subject to personal abuse just for being on the road at all and not using some poxy rubbish cycle lane, and every so often there will be a heart in the mouth Im less than an inch from ending up in hospital.
when I drive to work, not alot of note really happens.
The point is that you have to do quite a lot of mental work to cope with the risks. If you do that work then the danger is ameliorated and hence "it isn't dangerous", but it makes the whole business more tiring and unpleasant. And it has little to do with the media or the cycling industry or even the helmet industry - people can work that out for themselves by looking at the roads as they walk next to them or drive on them, or will find it out if they attempt cycling. Then they decide it's less mental work to walk, drive or take the bus.
It won't be long before another report comes out that says "it has been scientifically proven that cycling to work will make you healthier, live longer and reduce your chances of getting cancer"...
it'll go in one ear and out the other for most people.
Clocked another report the other day that said there had been an above average 'spike' in people getting lifestyle related bowel cancer under 50. Report on limiting driving in some way and everyone's up in arms.
"six in ten people believe it is too dangerous to cycle in Britain"
In other words, the vast majority of people believe that it's not too dangerous to cycle in Britain. That should have been the headline.
Hm ... Maybe my maths is a bit off, but six out of ten believing it is too dangerous leaves four out of ten who believe it is not too dangerous, which is way short of a vast majority.
Am I missing something?
Yup. Bre***. Apparently even 52% counts as a "vast majority" nowadays, as any fule kno
(Proper maths is too much like believing in experts, nowadays...).
Well the survey actually states that 61% agreed that cycling is too dangerous, but only 19% disagreed, so three times as many.
Not sure what the other 20% of respondents said. Probably saw the word 'cycling' and their heads exploded with rage.
I wonder how many respondents were pondering their own pisspoor driving abilities when they concluded that it's too dangerous to cycle?
Its a terrible shame though, I used to get so much pleasure from my commute to work and even today any excuse is welcome for a ride to the shops etc, people are really missing out.
Eh? Why would driving a van-load of pencils magically make you safer?
It's the rubbers on the ends - rather than crashing, you just bounce.
When I routinely witness local people drive the 500 yards or so to local shops for a scratchcard or pint of milk I can't help but feel that lethargy and the default choice of the car are also huge factors.
They will queue all day in a car because they are sat in comfort doing it. Walking or cycling is moderate effort.
I honestly think large numbers of people don't give a fuck about their own well being or the environment.
Being dangerous is just an excuse for many.
The public perception of the risks of cycling is a product of our utterly biased main stream media, full of stories of cyclists being killed by motorists, whilst never mentioning that it is as safe per mile as walking, or helmet saved my life stories, which merely reinforce the perception of danger. Neither does the msm mention the overwhelming benefits; health, weight, pollution, congestion, climate change, danger, but they heavily feature things which won't make much, if any difference e.g. electric cars.
Trying to get them to mention those things is extraordinarily difficult, especially the BBC which is committed to balance and informing the public, but is blatantly biased and wilfully refuses to inform. I don't know what the answer is, I've been trying for thirty years with extremely limited success, so does anyone have any good ideas?