Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Survey: Seven in 10 back moves to encourage cycling and walking

An identical proportion also claim they need a car to support their lifestyle though

Seven in 10 respondents to a new survey back moves to encourage cycling and walking and reduce the use of motor vehicles – but an identical percentage, 71 per cent, also claim that their current lifestyle means they need a car.

The high level of agreement with the two statements means that many respondents to the survey, from Ipsos MORI, will be included in both – and the likelihood is that for at least some of those, reducing motor traffic is seen as desirable but only if it affects other people, not themselves.

The survey of a representative sample of 2,240 people aged 16+ in the UK was carried out in February by market research firm Ipsos.

It also found that 44% say of respondents said that they would like to cycle more than they currently do – but at the same time, 47 per cent agreed with the statement, “I’m not the kind of person who rides a bicycle.”

> 8 out of 10 people support measures to reduce motor traffic according to Government survey

Younger people were more likely to state that they would like to cycle than those in older age groups, at 58 per cent of people aged 25-34 versus 32 per cent of those aged 55-plus.

There was also a difference by gender, with 50 per cent of men wanting to cycle more versus 39 per cent of women. Meanwhile, levels of agreement with the statement were similar between people living in urban and rural areas.

In common with similar surveys in the past, the perception that it is “too dangerous to cycle on the roads” emerged as the number-one barrier to getting people in the survey, 64 per cent of people agreeing with the statement, including 26 per cent who strongly agreed with it.

Women, at 71 per cent, were more likely to agree with the statement than men, at 57 per cent, were.

Most respondents, 55 per cent, agreed that there is too much traffic congestion where they live, and there is more support than opposition to schemes that charge people to use roads in towns and cities (as already exist in for example Durham and London), at 45 per cent versus 33 per cent.

The difference between the two is much narrower than it was when the question was last posed by Ipsos in November 2020, when the respective totals were 62 per cent and 21 per cent.

Finally, more people support low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) than those who oppose them, with 42 per cent in favour of interventions such as planters and bollards to restrict rat-running traffic while 33 per cent are opposed to them.

> Backers of London LTNs outnumber opponents by three to one

Commenting on the findings, Christian Easdown, associate director for public affairs at Ipsos in the UK said: “Superficially, there is considerable appetite among many people to adopt more sustainable travel behaviours such as walking, cycling or using public transport over driving a car.

“But there are significant barriers to this happening in practice – for example, most people think our roads aren’t safe for cyclists.

“The public say they want to see more encouragement to cycle and back the adoption of electric vehicles but are cooler on the imposition of restrictions and charges for car use even if this reduces congestion and improves the environment.

It remains to be seen if the ‘cost of living’ crisis and sensitivities about interventions being ‘anti-car’ make a difference to public opinion too,” he added.

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.

Add new comment

21 comments

Avatar
srchar | 1 year ago
1 like

Quote:

Survey: Seven in 10 back moves to encourage cycling and walking

An identical proportion also claim they need a car to support their lifestyle though

Why should those positions be mutually exclusive? I need a car, but wish I didn't have to use it quite so much.

Quote:

the likelihood is that for at least some of those, reducing motor traffic is seen as desirable but only if it affects other people, not themselves

I think that's a fairly odd conclusion to jump to. When I lived in central London and had no kids, owning a car was a choice, and I didn't. Now I have kids and no longer live in central London, I need a car. I wish there was sufficient infrastructure to use it less, and use the cargo bike more.

Of course people aren't keen on being charged more to use their car. Who wants to pay more for anything? People want carrots, not sticks.

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to srchar | 1 year ago
0 likes

Of course.  They're not mutually exclusive at all, as demonstrated by, among many other things, the 80% or whatever of cyclists who have a driving licence.  Nor are they necessarily indicative of a desire for measures to affect other people only.  People may still perceive (rightly or wrongly) that they need a car for certain tasks and yet wish to substitute the bicycle for other journeys.

Avatar
Adam Sutton | 1 year ago
3 likes

Cycling is great but I still think the biggest barrier to reducing car use is the cost/reliability/regularity of public transport. It feels often like people in London just don't get how different it can be just a few miles out. I am in North Kent close to Dartford and our transport links are woeful and expensive, particularly if you need to get anywhere other than London. I cycle a lot more, but a car is still ultimarely a neccessity. 

Cycling infrastructure is also depressingly bad, I have started to cycle most of the way to work, but am taking my bike on the train for the first ten miles. Its a long journey still leaving 20 miles to cycle, but mainly taking the train part way is because frankly cycling the first 10 miles would be a death wish if you take the direct route, and the safest route would take you well out of the way and add significant time.

The cost factor too. I was pretty shocked when checking prices to get from Ebbsfleet to Stratford on HS1 as we need to go there next Saturday. For the two of us off peak would cost £39.80! I really don't want to drive, and think we can go via Woolwich/DLR cheaper, but it is any wonder people drive when the cost of petrol and parking at Westfield is cheaper than the train?!

Avatar
paulnettles replied to Adam Sutton | 1 year ago
4 likes

I used to cycle to work. Ten miles each way. If I wanted to get public transport it required three miles of walking each way or getting two buses. It took longer, and the buses were infrequent so if I was held up at work I could be waiting more than an hour for the next (last) bus home. Unfortunately, they've put a series of enormous warehouses, the associated infrasturcture (basically a new dual carriageway) and a massive three-lane roundabout on my most direct route, so cycling is a much less viable option these days. On the rare occasions I'm in the office I tend to drive, which upsets me but not enough to make me face rush-hour armageddon on the A5

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to paulnettles | 1 year ago
2 likes

Sounds very similar to here. 

My other half works 15 miles away into Kent. They tried public transport and it just doesn't work, the trains are too infrequent and at the other end the buses don't go anywhere near where needed. By car the journey is about 40 minutes, that doubles and then some if you use public transport. There's also no decent cycle infrastructure that way, just busy roads.

We have also similarly had a lot of industrial development locally, including an Amazon warehouse along the route I would need to cycle if tried cycling from home rather than catch the train the first part. It's annoying as the dual carriageway could easily have a proper cycle lane added, but instead if you are brave/stupid enough to try it you're cycling in the gutter with HGVs doing 60mph.

Avatar
nordog | 1 year ago
1 like

Do we really need cars and local work vans that are capable of 95plus mph in our towns and cities, we in the UK have an excellent rail system for fast short and long-distance travel these days, lots of taxis that could clean powered to transport commuters and even they can now work from home most weeks like London, they would not get wet or cold, even the coved bus stops can be dry and warm unlike 25 years ago.  

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to nordog | 1 year ago
3 likes

nordog wrote:

we in the UK have an excellent rail system for fast short and long-distance travel these days

We really don't, see my comment it is expensive and unreliable for many. If I use the train to go to my local town it is a journey of 5 miles, 3 stops and 10 minutes. The cost is £4.90 return, assuming it is working (far too often it is a bus replacement at weekends)

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to nordog | 1 year ago
4 likes

nordog wrote:

we in the UK have an excellent rail system for fast short and long-distance travel these days,

Which fantasy UK is that then?

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
0 likes

I tried the Elizabeth line last week. On the second attempt, after boarding the train at Abbey Wood there was an announcement. Train had a fault, please wait for the next one.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Adam Sutton | 1 year ago
0 likes

I agree - the UK could be much better.  I've had plenty of poor (or woeful) public transport experiences.  And it's very patchy.  Some of this really is in the psychology though.  We always see things from where we are: I have x things which I have to do in my life and none can fail or it's a disaster.  True right now - but not an eternal truth.

I had a boss once who said that he'd organised his life so he was never further than 30 minutes (mostly by car in his case) from work.  He claimed to have even shifted jobs / moved / taken a pay cut.  In his view it just wasn't worth the waste of life on travel.

It's always a compromise.  I did take on a 2 hour commute for a while - I knew I wasn't doing that forever, it wasn't every day, part was on the train (not too busy) and part was by bike.  Over a period of about 2 years I think trains were cancelled half a dozen times.  Irritating but the boss could cope with that (and sometimes I just missed something in the evening).  If they hadn't - well, I'd have had to find another job, closer maybe...

Expense?  Often that too and I''m sure far too much of my current wage would be swallowed if it had to cover a London travel card. (My choice - I don't live or work there).  However you're describing under 50p a mile for a shortish journey, fairly quick.  That doesn't sound so bad - especially compared with a taxi.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
0 likes

I do a lot of work with our Oslo team and have been out there a number of times. Their transport is far better than ours. Consider too that in general Norway is far more expensive than the UK, however an annual ticket for all Zones in Oslo is the equivalent of £1,678.95. An annual ticket from my station is now £4280. OK, so I am outside of London, so lets take that back and do a season ticket that covers just London zones 1-6 and we still have a cost of £2812.00.

Yes it is always a compromise, but take those costs and add it to an area where there is no reliable local public transport and a car is pretty much a necissity, unless you want to spend all day going out of the way changing between buses that are liable to not turn up to get to where you need to go. I can't get to my parents in the evening if I want to by bus, the last one home is before 7:30PM and not direct from here.

So yes, you might say that £4.90 isn't much, but when the service is unreliable and you end up having to own a car anyway you might as well drive. A couple of weekends back I wanted to cycle out further afield, on Sundays the trains are one every half an hour to where I was going. I checked before I left home and the train was on time. I left home and cycled 10 mins to the station and bought a ticket, train is still showing good. I got to the platform and a couple of minutes later.... cancelled and I am stood around for 30 minutes.

Compromise is one thing, but if you are finding you need to factor in rubbish like this and travel way ahead of when you should to make sure you get to something important, is it anyone wonder people drive? As I say, I cycle a lot these days, but there is not a chance I will give up the car. 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Adam Sutton | 1 year ago
0 likes

Agree about Norway - times back I had a job were we worked with folks over there (in several locations) and even up north, in the country (Norway has a lot of north) the public transport sounded better than where I was in the UK - in a biggish city.

The compromise for them?  Norway saved and invested their oil / gas money.  We spent ours.  Their tax rate used to be pretty stiff and many things were "expensive" there (haven't looked for time).  There may be more "community" to places - but that cuts both ways of course!

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to nordog | 1 year ago
2 likes

Beg to differ.

85 mile round trip to London for two £54.90.

Cambridge to Fort William, 5 adults. £1,400! I only checked for a giggle. I do realise that if you can plan ahead you can get cheaper, but if you are the spontaneous type and travel more than 1 up then public transport is generally prohibitively expensive. Plus whatever train I do use / intend to use, at least 50% suffer some sort of delay or cancellation.

Avatar
srchar replied to nordog | 1 year ago
0 likes

nordog wrote:

we in the UK have an excellent rail system for fast short and long-distance travel these days

lol

I cycled from London to Dunwich a few weeks ago, camped overnight, then headed up to the north Norfolk coast. I then tried to take the train home. The 130-mile journey should have taken 4.5 hours (already woeful), however all trains from Cambridge into London were cancelled.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
3 likes

I had cause to ruminate on this today.  Offspring Unit 1 left their PE kit at home this morning so my planned quick gravel bash turned into a kit delivery.   

Its 5 miles across Reading.  Even taking bike friendly routes the last 2 miles to the school I had to aggressively mix with traffic, and those 2 miles have at least 3 schools and a university campus in them. no

I was kitted up on best bike in full kit with lights and camera's a-gogo.  Pottering around on a step-through I would have struggled.

Needs some really good traffic modelling and understanding of beginning and destination to link up the existing paths.

Gave the school bus a good 15 min headstart and still beat it tho  3

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
1 like

Reading has some terrible roads at rush hour and out. The Wokingham road "cycle lane" up to three tuns is terrible - door zone and fast passed by traffic, or get aggressively beeped. 

Avatar
jh2727 replied to nosferatu1001 | 1 year ago
2 likes

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Reading has some terrible roads at rush hour and out. The Wokingham road "cycle lane" up to three tuns is terrible - door zone and fast passed by traffic, or get aggressively beeped. 

There needs to be criminal charges brought against Reading Borough Council (RBC) for the section of Wokingham Road from St. Peter's Road to the Three Tuns.

RBC originally painted an advisory cycle lane right in the door zone (presumably with 0 consultation), Reading Cycle Campaign (RCC) contacted them and told them how dangerous it was, so they painted over the white lines with black (because removing the white lines would require resurfacing) - to give them their due, they did this very quickly (after a few weeks, IIRC). After a few years the black paint started to fade and the white started to show again - leaving cyclists with the choice of riding in the murder strip or getting abuse from motorists. Then the road was resurfaced... and the murder strip was painted back on. The only difference being, they left gap between of about 12 inches between the edge of the parking bays and the start of the cycle lane - so if you ride right on the far edge of the cycle lane you are perhaps just about out of the door zone (if people park fully within the bay) but then most passing cars would* pass within about 3 inches of your handlebars so they can remain in their lane.

* I say "would" because I've never actually tested it. The few times that I've ridden this way, I've  always taken the cycle lane as a guide as to exactly where not to ride.

Avatar
jh2727 replied to Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
0 likes

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I had cause to ruminate on this today.  Offspring Unit 1 left their PE kit at home this morning so my planned quick gravel bash turned into a kit delivery.   

Its 5 miles across Reading.  Even taking bike friendly routes the last 2 miles to the school I had to aggressively mix with traffic, and those 2 miles have at least 3 schools and a university campus in them. no

I was kitted up on best bike in full kit with lights and camera's a-gogo.  Pottering around on a step-through I would have struggled.

Needs some really good traffic modelling and understanding of beginning and destination to link up the existing paths.

Gave the school bus a good 15 min headstart and still beat it tho  3

Cycle infrastructure only works if it is:
 A. High quality (i.e. at the least minumum required to make it not completely pointless), and
 B. A comprehensive network.

I can't think of anywhere in Reading that meets point A - areas of Wokingham that have been built in the past 50 or so years might fit the bill (more by accident than by design).

For point B, that's not going to happen without creating LTN and reworking lots of roads and junctions.

However, we already have a comprehensive network that is mostly high quality - it is called roads.  Are they 8-80? I can drive safely sharing the road with an 8/80 year cyclist, there is no reason any other driver could not.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to jh2727 | 1 year ago
0 likes

jh2727 wrote:

However, we already have a comprehensive network that is mostly high quality - it is called roads.  Are they 8-80? I can drive safely sharing the road with an 8/80 year cyclist, there is no reason any other driver could not.

You're quite right of course - and as always we should point out statistically UK roads are (globally) very safe, but:
a) it just isn't pleasant for most people to share roads with cars - unless you've really really tamed the cars (also here).   Plus the cars take up lots of space (parked or moving)
b) Most people are good drivers - until they aren't.  That's also why people don't enjoy cycling with cars.  Although overall it's probably mostly their "gut feeling".  It's a bit like bears - mostly they avoid humans but just occasionally they kill you - and there may be little you can do about that.  Most people accordingly are most comfortable when bears are at a distance, or when separated from them by a barrier.

Avatar
marmotte27 | 1 year ago
2 likes

Show's it's a systemic problem. Which needs systemic solutions. I.e. political vision, courage and leadership.

Should be easy...

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to marmotte27 | 1 year ago
1 like

A systems-view of transport safety [1] [2]?  Maybe with all agencies involved in the design, construction, operation, maintenance, operator training and policing all working together?

Not invented here.  Here in the UK we have freedom!  Rights and responsibilities!  Not the nanny state and pettifogging bureaucracy.

Latest Comments