Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Half of Britons say local roads too dangerous for cycling in BBC poll

Campaigners call for more space — and money — for cycling

Cycling campaigners have issued a fresh call for more space to be given to cyclists on Britain’s roads after more than half of the respondents to a survey commissioned by the BBC said that it is too dangerous to ride on the roads where they live.

The poll of 3,012 adults, carried out by ComRes, is published ahead of Saturday’s start of the Tour de France in Leeds, but only one in five of those surveyed, 20 per cent, agreed that the prospect of the event coming to Britain had encouraged them to cycle more.

While 52 per cent said that their local roads were too dangerous for cyclists, only a third, 34 per cent, were of the opinion that the streets where they live are well designed for bike riders. Meanwhile, 55 per cent believe that employers are not doing enough to encourage and facilitate cycling to work.

Chris Boardman, policy advisor to British Cycling which has today unveiled its vision of how the Headrow in Leeds could look if annual spend on cycling were raised to £10 a head, told the BBC: "It's clear … people don't feel safe when riding their bikes on our roads.

"In order to rectify this we need a clear commitment from government and local authorities to prioritise the safety and needs of cyclists in all future transport schemes."

A spokesman for the Department for Transport insisted however that the government had "doubled funding for cycling to £374m to help deliver safer junctions."

That funding relates to England and is spread over several years and as a result is well below the minimum £10 per head recommended in last year’s Get Britain Cycling report from the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group.

According to British Cycling, current annual per capita spend on cycling in the UK is £2, compared to £24 in the Netherlands.

Martin Lucas-Smith of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, the largest such group outside London, said that residents of many parts of the UK “felt unsafe to cycle."

He also said that "things like narrow cycle lanes" and "badly maintained roads" contributed to safety fears among riders.

"We'd like to see proper allocation of space on these roads which can almost always be achieved simply by a bit of redesign, so people can cycle safely and easily," he added.

In April this year, research from the University of the West of England found that perception of the danger posed by traffic was the main barrier to getting more people on bikes.

Meanwhile, last week a survey published by retailer Halfords found that 40 per cent of respondents agreed that a dedicated cycle lane on every road would encourage them to cycle more often.

The Halfords survey also found that 19 per cent of people said they would ride a bike more often if there were better facilities at their workplace, such as showers.

Responding to the BBC’s findings on that issue, Claire Francis, head of policy at the sustainable transport charity Sustrans, said: "Employers who encourage cycling can increase their profitability and have employees who take fewer sick days but without decent facilities and support, many businesses miss out on these benefits.

"Cycle parking and showers in an office should be as common as a printer and a coffee machine.

"But we also need the government to deliver better infrastructure and slower speeds on our roads, so that people feel safe to leave home on their bike," she 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

73 comments

Avatar
GrahamSt | 10 years ago
0 likes

There are only a couple of data points that far back so the swings are much more pronounced.

I'd speculate that with more granularity it would show a fairly smooth rise up to the early forties as more and more people got access to cars, followed by a pretty sharp drop as the war progressed due to factors like the number of young men overseas, people selling cars to buy rations, and curfews on driving at night etc. (But I'm just guessing really)

The evidence is all there though - if we want to reduce road casualties further all we need is another World War.

Who's with me?

Avatar
farrell replied to GrahamSt | 10 years ago
0 likes
GrahamSt wrote:

There are only a couple of data points that far back so the swings are much more pronounced.

I'd speculate that with more granularity it would show a fairly smooth rise up to the early forties as more and more people got access to cars, followed by a pretty sharp drop as the war progressed due to factors like the number of young men overseas, people selling cars to buy rations, and curfews on driving at night etc. (But I'm just guessing really)

The evidence is all there though - if we want to reduce road casualties further all we need is another World War.

Who's with me?

That makes more sense, I focussed on the top point of the graph, rather than the large drop after.

Avatar
Rupert | 10 years ago
0 likes

It is definitely more dangerous these days riding the bike on the road.
And that is due to peoples lack of care when they get in their metal boxes with wheels.

Even some professional drivers like bus or taxi drivers seem to not care for the safety of cyclists out on the road.

That said those cyclists riding through red lights aren't exactly doing us any favours. They should be fined, just like people years ago would be fined if they were caught riding a push bike on the pavement.

We seem to have a lot of cycle paths going on to the pavement these days (I live in Brighton) , I for one think this hasn't helped the rights of cyclist putting cycle paths on pavements. Cyclist should use the road, pavements are for pedestrians. The powers that be should be taking the cycling routes off pavements and putting them back on roads. All motor vehicle traffic in built up areas should be reduced to 20mph and in some cases 10mph .

The bicycle in built up places should be regarded as the most important to cater for, over motor vehicles.

Radical ideas of mine but they make more sense than what's happening at the moment.

Avatar
GrahamSt | 10 years ago
0 likes

As I understand it, it is an offence for any cyclist to ride on the pavement, regardless of their age, but ACPO encourages police discretion:

ACPO wrote:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.

Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

So in reality a child cyclist wouldn't be collared unless they were making a nuisance of themselves or putting other people in danger.

(a child under ten is below the age of criminal responsibility, so can't be charged anyway)

Avatar
GrahamSt | 10 years ago
0 likes

I suspect it is a multitude of factors, mostly massive improvements in car safety and much tighter traffic laws.

Here's a different graph that I annotated with a few of the major changes:

Avatar
Beatnik69 replied to GrahamSt | 10 years ago
0 likes

True, but I was really thinking that if drivers' attitudes towards drink driving can be changed so dramatically can their attitudes towards cyclists be changed as well? Trouble is, that may also take a long time.

Avatar
Joeinpoole replied to GrahamSt | 10 years ago
0 likes
GrahamSt wrote:

I suspect it is a multitude of factors, mostly massive improvements in car safety and much tighter traffic laws.

Here's a different graph that I annotated with a few of the major changes:

I believe the most significant factor is actually improved road engineering. Accident black spots have been identified and the issue has been engineered out with changes to the roads or junctions.

That's why motorways are much safer to travel on, per mile driven, than any other road for example __ because they've been *designed* to allow traffic to flow at high speeds. The standards for motorway construction have also been massively improved in recent decades too with much more stringent limits on the radius of bends (for visibility) and gradients of climbs.

That's also why your graph doesn't show any significant step-changes from the various changes in laws regarding safety features. The truth is that individually they didn't make much difference. What has made the difference has been the gradual improvement in road engineering and hundreds of improvements in the design of cars. Cars nowadays are much easier to drive than they were even 30 years ago. Brakes are better, handling is better, wider tyres, etc, etc.

Improvements in road safety are essentially down to what Brailsford would describe as 'marginal gains'. Thousands of tiny changes that collectively add up to measurably increased performance.

Avatar
farrell replied to GrahamSt | 10 years ago
0 likes
GrahamSt wrote:

I suspect it is a multitude of factors, mostly massive improvements in car safety and much tighter traffic laws.

Here's a different graph that I annotated with a few of the major changes:

I could be missing something blindingly obvious here but how has the biggest spike in road traffic accidents happened in the middle of World War 2?

Avatar
Beatnik69 replied to farrell | 10 years ago
0 likes

It's harder to see during a blackout. Must have been a lot of black market petrol going around though.  3

Avatar
700c | 10 years ago
0 likes

I think a lot of the comments here kind of prove my earlier point (and one that others have also made), that perception of danger is often different to reality, but it's this that's stopping people cycling (or perhaps stopping them allowing their children from cycling..)

That's not to say more needs to be done to improve road safety -or that these people are wrong not to cycle (I would never advocate it if you genuinely didn't feel safe - if you feel that way then probably you aren't safe..)

But so many people who haven't tried it just assume it's dangerous, when it may not be.

There's safety in numbers, to an extent, as many commentators have said. And if more people tried it, then it would go some way to normalising cycling.

Then perhaps showers at work would be more widespread! (I still wouldn't just use a wetwipe though!).

Oh and on that point, if you've got, for example, a rural 10 mile commute surely you'd want to go fairly quickly for it to be a viable alternative to driving? Hence ideally why you'd have a shower after, IMO!

Avatar
kitsunegari | 10 years ago
0 likes

Keep plugging away Mr Boardman.

Avatar
Airzound | 10 years ago
0 likes

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Avatar
Joeinpoole replied to Airzound | 10 years ago
0 likes
Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

Avatar
farrell replied to Joeinpoole | 10 years ago
0 likes
Joeinpoole wrote:

From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

Really?

Avatar
Bikebikebike replied to Joeinpoole | 10 years ago
0 likes
Joeinpoole wrote:
Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

So you'd be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren't safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It's almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can't be acceptable for a child.

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to Bikebikebike | 10 years ago
0 likes
Bikebikebike wrote:
Joeinpoole wrote:
Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

So you'd be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren't safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It's almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can't be acceptable for a child.

I go riding with my kids on London roads. It depends where you ride and at what time. I've been cycling in London for over 20 years.

I don't like the idea of tempting fate, but I've never been knocked off my bike by a car and believe me, I've racked up a lot of miles commuting up to 20 miles/day at rush hour along some of the busiest stretches of road in London. I've had close calls but that's it. I was doored once and that hurt my hand, but I didn't hit the deck.

The only time I've ever been knocked off my bike during my commute has been by a Danish couple who looked the wrong way before stepping off the kerb. I hauled on the brakes and while we all ended up hitting the deck, no-one was hurt.

When I've crashed my bike this has been when I've been racing/training on a track or messing about on my 20" BMX at the local skatepark.

Things are not as bad in London for cyclists as they were in the late 1980s when I first started pedalling my way round the city. For most of the 1990s I was clocking about 100miles/week commuting at peak periods right through the city 10miles from south to north in the morning and then 10 miles from north to south back again in the evening.

Avatar
Bikebikebike replied to OldRidgeback | 10 years ago
0 likes
OldRidgeback wrote:
Bikebikebike wrote:
Joeinpoole wrote:
Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

So you'd be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren't safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It's almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can't be acceptable for a child.

I go riding with my kids on London roads. It depends where you ride and at what time.

Well I'd like to cycle where I want to go, at the time I want to go there. It's not really acceptable to have no-go areas and prohibited times if the bike is going to be a practical method of transport.

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to Bikebikebike | 10 years ago
0 likes
Bikebikebike wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:
Bikebikebike wrote:
Joeinpoole wrote:
Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

So you'd be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren't safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It's almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can't be acceptable for a child.

I go riding with my kids on London roads. It depends where you ride and at what time.

Well I'd like to cycle where I want to go, at the time I want to go there. It's not really acceptable to have no-go areas and prohibited times if the bike is going to be a practical method of transport.

Read my comment about how much commuting I've done in London at peak periods. That's 25 years of city riding with one dooring that resulted in a bruised hand but no actual spill and only one incident where I hit the deck, caused by a Danish couple who didn't look properly before stepping out.

I'm not saying I haven't had close calls at times and I've certainly seen some very poor driving. But I ride with my kids in London, which was your original comment.

The fatality rate now is a fraction of what it was in the bad old days of the late 70s.

Avatar
GrahamSt replied to OldRidgeback | 10 years ago
0 likes
OldRidgeback wrote:

The fatality rate now is a fraction of what it was in the bad old days of the late 70s.

It's has dropped significantly but can't really be considered a huge drop given that over the same period the number of fatalities for all road users was doing this:

Avatar
Beatnik69 replied to GrahamSt | 10 years ago
0 likes

I wonder how much of the reduction in deaths is related to the change in attitudes to drink-driving over that period.

Avatar
Joeinpoole replied to Bikebikebike | 10 years ago
0 likes
Bikebikebike wrote:
Joeinpoole wrote:
Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

So you'd be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren't safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It's almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can't be acceptable for a child.

When I was a child (in the 1960s/70s) the normal practice was that kids below 11 were 'allowed' to ride on the pavement __ you generally wouldn't have had 8-year olds riding on the road without the close supervision of an adult but that would have depended on where and when. Once the kid was big enough to handle a bike with 26" wheels or more, if I remember correctly, then they graduated to the road. Is that still the case today?

Avatar
GrahamSt replied to Joeinpoole | 10 years ago
0 likes
Joeinpoole wrote:

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists?

Not sure where you get the 10-15M cyclists estimate from, but the risk is better measured as a Casualty Rate (e.g. the risk of serious injury per mile on the road).

2012 figures were 118 cyclists killed, 3222 seriously injured.
The total road miles cycled was estimated as 3.11 billion.
So (118 + 3222) / 3.11 gives a Casualty Rate of:

1074 cyclists killed or seriously injured per billion vehicle miles.

To put that in context, 801 car users were killed and 8232 seriously injured.
Total miles driven was estimated at 240 billion.
So (801 + 8232) / 240 gives a Casualty Rate of:

38 car occupants killed or seriously injured per billion vehicle miles.

People feel that cycling is risky compared to taking the car. The accident stats show that this is unfortunately very true.  2

On the plus side, regular cycling has enormous health benefits so despite the occasional accidents it remains massively beneficial to overall public health and some would say, quality of life.  1

(Figures from RRCGB Annual Report 2012, Tables RAS30065 & RAS30067)

Joeinpoole wrote:

From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

The news does like to report that, yes.

But research suggests that cyclists are to blame for 20% motor vehicle vs cyclist collisions. Drivers were at fault in 68%.

And yes, some of those cyclists may have been "inexperienced" - but having roads that are only suitable for "experienced" cyclists is indicative of the problem!

Avatar
kie7077 replied to Joeinpoole | 10 years ago
0 likes
Joeinpoole wrote:
Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

I have reported over 20 drivers just in the last 2-3 years, I was cycling in a safe manner, taking the lane when necessary etc. In nearly all cases I wasn't wearing a helmet.

It's only a couple of week since I was knocked off my bike, thankfully I wasn't hurt. It most certainly wasn't my fault and the statistic I have read is that 80% of cases where a cyclist is injured - the driver is at fault. Cyclists should be able to make mistakes without getting maimed, if drivers follow the rules, this can happen.

There may only be 100 deaths per year, it's the many thousands of serious injuries that worries me, and the fact that every other person that cycles a lot seems to have been knocked off their bike often resulting in serious injuries - I think that a lot of these injuries aren't being categorised properly.

Avatar
Matt eaton | 10 years ago
0 likes

I know the showers thing has been done to death now but for what it's worth it made a big difference to me when I used to commute on the bike (5 miles followed by 40 mins on a train followed by 1 mile).

In honesty I don't think I would have even entertained using the bike if showers weren't available. Maybe the 40 mins festering on the train makes a difference and I'm generally inclined to riding fast (or at least trying hard) so I'm always sweaty. Maybe wet wipes and deo would have been enough but I don't think I would have considered trying and I imagine many people would feel the same.

When comparing the UK to countries where utility cycling is more popular we should consider the length of the commute. We always talk about the Dutch but from visiting Holland I certainly don't get the impression that the guys and gals turning up at the office in smart dress on traditional town bikes have just completed a 15-20 commute. In the UK many regular cycle commuters cover these sort of distances. In the UK you would be very lucky to live within 5 miles of your place of work, which I would consider a resonable distance to cycle in office clothes.

Avatar
HKCambridge replied to Matt eaton | 10 years ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:

When comparing the UK to countries where utility cycling is more popular we should consider the length of the commute. We always talk about the Dutch but from visiting Holland I certainly don't get the impression that the guys and gals turning up at the office in smart dress on traditional town bikes have just completed a 15-20 commute. In the UK many regular cycle commuters cover these sort of distances. In the UK you would be very lucky to live within 5 miles of your place of work, which I would consider a resonable distance to cycle in office clothes.

Average UK commute: 9.3 miles. While is doable by bike, but you won't get mass cycling under those conditions.

BUT 43% have a commute under 5km. 58% of men and 70% of women travel less than 6.2 miles.

And that's before you consider bike + train and other multi-mode options.

So there's nothing lucky about it. We could have mass cycle commuting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10724224/...

Avatar
gazza_d | 10 years ago
0 likes

1. It's not roads but drivers that are dangerous, BUT a lot of the time the road environment is designed to smooth and speed up traffic flow.

2. Cycling on the roads is usually not dangerous, but quite safe, but at certain times scary as hell. A subtle nuance, but it's there.

3. The most interesting result was that 2/3rds think roads are not designed well enough for cycling safety, and that could be taken as a positive sign to start making better infra. Why didn't BBC headline that?

4. You don't need a shower at work. I manage just fine with wipes & a change & that's 17 miles each way. Fresher at my desk than if I had driven. It's an excuse by people who also complain it's too hilly/cold/wet/hot/drop kids off/pick up shopping.

There is a lot more that can be done to join up cycle routes, and close down a lot more roads so that only vehicles that need access drive up.

Larger employers and larger shops can do a lot more with prioritised parking, safe routes though & bypassing large car parks, and surveying and publishing safe networks to get to the workplace, with help from Sustrans etc

Avatar
Yennings | 10 years ago
0 likes

Love how this entire thread has degenerated into a debate about showers and personal hygiene!

Back to the original point - I have cycled thousands of miles over the last decade on rural roads and inner London streets. Rarely have I personally felt in grave danger but I can also see that we hardy cyclists are in many ways an eccentric minority, engaged in what is statistically often an 'extreme' sport. Funny how sports like rock climbing and kite surfing are marketed as 'extreme' activities and yet statistically cycling on the public road is probably more perilous.

Put my mum or my sister on a bike on some of those roads and they would completely brick themselves. So until such a time as 'civilians' can feel safe on our roads, I won't consider the UK to be a great place for cycling...

Avatar
bikebot replied to Yennings | 10 years ago
0 likes
Yennings wrote:

Love how this entire thread has degenerated into a debate about showers and personal hygiene!

The poll asked two questions, the headline has focused on the danger but the other one was "Employers don't do enough to encourage and facilitate cycling to work."

We also did the safety argument to death just the other day... and probably every week for something near to forever.

Avatar
bikebot | 10 years ago
0 likes

I also believe offices should have showers for everyone who uses the Northern Line in the summer.

Avatar
mrmo | 10 years ago
0 likes

I think people get confused about showers, if your riding for transport which is the aim, showers aren't really an issue, if your riding 15-20miles and using it to get fit, as training then it is an issue.

To be fair I am in the later group and welcome showers but they aren't a solution. Get the infrastructure in place so that "roads" are safe to ride. I don't mind riding at 20+ in traffic but bimbling along at 5-10 can be terrifying! cars do treat you differently!

Pages

Latest Comments