90% scared of cycling in UK cities — new research suggests fear of collisions, road rage and theft putting people off

I think the problem is in the last sentence e.g. it would be far less than "not popular" with traditional motorists in the form you've suggested.

As often recently I can only recommend listening to Chris Boardman on the reality and practical ways we can start to change our streets.  He actually doesn't mention cycling very much - quite sensible because most people aren't cycling in the UK and most currently don't consider it.  So just saying "you have to cycle / give up most of your roadspace right now" will just get you a "No" from most people and you'll fail.

The vision of "just remove all the cars" / "just make all the drivers perfect" is a tempting illusion, but just that.  There isn't a "single hop" path to there from here.

There is a way to start changing things though - but it's slower and messier and more complicated AND probably boring to most.  It involves multiple different changes (including addressing public transport and indeed where amenities are).  But it's the only way that has actually worked in practice (in several places, some which started "from nothing") - barring war, revolution (also tends to be bloody) or the fuel running out of course.  It's not just bikes - but unless you fix it for people to use bikes (where they just won't currently) the whole isn't achievable.

Actually, while I can't comment about base jumping - not gonna get me  doing anything relying on equipment that has a potential single point of failure - in my personal experience both diving with sharks & free climbing *feel* a great deal safer than anything involving motorised vehicles in a large city.

the little onion wrote:

The solutions are either:

-build high quality infrastructure,

-build infrastructure that is of high quality

-build infrastructure, and make sure the quality is high.

Out of curiosity, why do you believe this when all evidence is to the contrary?

Infrastructure construction has not yet once, in the history available to us, decreased the fatality rate of cyclists.  Each time it has been attempted, the municipality in question has watched it fail, at the unnecessary cost of time, money, and lives, and then been forced to pivot to the strategies that do work to improve cyclist safety -- specifically, reducing the volume and lawlessness of traffic, particularly motor vehicles.

We can see this most-obviously right now in the Netherlands, which has been investing in cycling infrastructure since approximately WWII, and yet has a shockingly-high rate of cyclist fatalities ( averaging 280 annually, from a quite-small population that cycles very slowly and over very short distances, per their official statistics ).  So, despite all that infrastructure, the Dutch are pivoting to the strategies I just mentioned, and implementing 20kph limits __for cyclists__ , never mind what they're forced to do with motor vehicles.

It profoundly does not matter how much concrete and paint you pour.  Without enforced traffic laws, roads will remain dangerous -- for everyone.  But the catch is, if you can enforce traffic laws, you don't need infrastructure dedicated to specific vehicle types -- which does not work, due largely to intersections, and doesn't scale at all, and is sufficiently environmentally-unfriendly as to undo any benefit resulting from a mode-share change.  So why not skip wasting time, money, lives, concrete, and paint and just enforce existing laws?  We already know this works, since Japan has done it.  Why not try the strategy that works, and skip the ones that we know don't?  It is already quite illegal to kill or injure  pedestrians and cyclists with a vehicle, but those laws remain effectively un-enforced and that is the entire problem.

I'm not sure you are correct. Pavements are specific infrastructure for a specific group. Would you suggest doing away with those? If you have contiguous, safe cycle routes that avoid busy roads then of course people will use them and feel safer doing so. The KSI rate in the Netherlands may be high but how many people, as a percentage of population and journeys, cycle in the Netherlands? Surely more  than the 2% in the UK

Some stats on who cycles in NL, when, how far and some crash and casualty data by eg. cause and age, in English (there's a ton of this available online).

https://english.kimnet.nl/publications/publications/2024/01/10/cycling-f...

Turns out that if you have tons of people cycling there are plenty of "no other vehicle involved" cycle crashes, and if lots of those people cycling are young or quite old those are the people you mostly see in A&E. Who'd have thought it!

chrisonabike wrote:

Turns out that if you have tons of people cycling there are plenty of "no other vehicle involved" cycle crashes

For extremely widely varying definitions of "tons". The number of cyclists in the United States is roughly 13 times the number of Dutch cyclists.

And yet, the Netherlands racks up about 1/3rd of the cycling fatalities that the US sees.

dh700 wrote:

For extremely widely varying definitions of "tons". The number of cyclists in the United States is roughly 13 times the number of Dutch cyclists. And yet, the Netherlands racks up about 1/3rd of the cycling fatalities that the US sees.

Note for those who have missed our American cousin's interpretation of statistics previously: he works off data which includes anyone in the USA who has cycled a bike once in the past 12 months as a cyclist.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Note for those who have missed our American cousin's interpretation of statistics previously: he works off data which includes anyone in the USA who has cycled a bike once in the past 12 months as a cyclist.

Fine -- cut the number to regular cyclists. The rate is still lower than the Netherlands', and by a significant margin. And that's without counting most of the "invisible cyclists" ( cf https://www.bicycling.com/news/a20049826/how-low-income-cyclists-go-unno... )

And, just for the record, what magic prevents occasional cyclists from being killed?

How many regular cyclists are you claiming for the USA? With a data source please: here's mine, 54 million cyclists even if you include people who only take a bike ride once a year. You claim that the USA has "roughly 13 times the number of cyclists than the Netherlands", which would mean about 200 million cyclists in the USA. Do you have the data to match your assertions?

Rendel Harris wrote:

How many regular cyclists are you claiming for the USA? With a data source please: here's mine, 54 million cyclists even if you include people who only take a bike ride once a year.

Fairly sure we've been over this -- you are quoting adult cyclists. There are an additional 80M or so children, and the enormous majority of them bike ( or scooter, these days, but that's an irrelevant distinction from a road safety standpoint).

Rendel Harris wrote:

You claim that the USA has "roughly 13 times the number of cyclists than the Netherlands", which would mean about 200 million cyclists in the USA. Do you have the data to match your assertions?

You are using an erroneously high count -- about 15M -- for the Netherlands. There are barely even that many Dutch. The actual number is around 10M.

Meanwhile, every study done in the US -- from well before the Pandemic bike boom or the advent of most micro mobility sharing systems -- found that around 1 in 3 Americans bikes at least annually.

"Within the preceding 30 days, 21% of the 4170 adult respondents reported riding a bicycle. Of the 863 adult bicycle riders, 5% rode a bicycle every day, 25% rode several times per week, 15% rode once a week, 27% rode a few times per month, and 27% rode once per month."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5189688/

"Nearly three-fourths of those age 16 or older (72.1%) never rode a bicycle or had
not done so during a 30-day period over the summer of 2002."
https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-prod...

So yeah, as a matter of fact, I do have the data.

As an aside, the US scores very poorly for road safety in comparison to other developed nations. It has about 4x the number of road related fatalities/head of population that the UK has and about 3x that of the Netherlands. And some states in the US perform particularly poorly for road deaths and serious injuries. Texas has the worst record for DUI although Florida is bad too and the rule of thumb is that southern states are worse than those in the north. There were more road deaths in NC in 2021 than in the whole of the UK.

OldRidgeback wrote:

As an aside, the US scores very poorly for road safety in comparison to other developed nations. It has about 4x the number of road related fatalities/head of population that the UK has and about 3x that of the Netherlands.

Really Bob Woodward? That's some investigation right there.

Now compare the geography of those countries, and miles-traveled. It turns out that no country in the world has a road system that compares to the US' for a variety of very good reasons. Should US roads be safer than they are? Absolutely -- but that is entirely the fault of our indolent entity that we euphemistically call "law enforcement".

dh700 wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

As an aside, the US scores very poorly for road safety in comparison to other developed nations. It has about 4x the number of road related fatalities/head of population that the UK has and about 3x that of the Netherlands.

Really Bob Woodward? That's some investigation right there. Now compare the geography of those countries, and miles-traveled. It turns out that no country in the world has a road system that compares to the US' for a variety of very good reasons. Should US roads be safer than they are? Absolutely -- but that is entirely the fault of our indolent entity that we euphemistically call "law enforcement".

I'm not sure why you chose to be sarcastic. Yes, I'm a journalist. Yes, my job involves reporting on road safety and I've spoken with a lot of experts in the field over the years. I see a lot of road crash data from the likes of the DfT here in the UK and the FHWA in the US. 

In most developed nations (and most developing nations too), the rate of road fatalities dropped during the COVID 19 pandemic when travel restrictions were imposed. The US bucked this trend, with an increase in road deaths. According to the FHWA, speeding and DUI offences became significantly more common.

The US has a serious problem with road safety and as I pointed out, some states are particularly bad. I travel to the US very regularly (i've been to 27 states, more than most US citizens probably) and have done for years. I often drive there, as well as cycling and motorcycling.

There are solvable road safety problems in the US and other nations have shown the way. France has halved its annual rate of road deaths over the last 10 years by getting tough on speeding and drink driving offences and ensuring that drivers can't wriggle out of charges. Yes, the French could teach the Americans some pretty simple lessons on how to cut road deaths.

Driving education and standards aren't good in many US states and I've heard that directly from US police officers as well as from officials at the FHWA. Only a few states allow police officers to use breath testing equipment to detect DUI for example, despite this having been proven over many decades elsewhere around the world. The same applies to drug testing kits, also proven elsewhere in the world.

Tbf most quoted & published UK cycling stats about trips and miles, use the same metric. So it's consistent.

stonojnr wrote:

Tbf most quoted & published UK cycling stats about trips and miles, use the same metric. So it's consistent.

That's as maybe, the point is that he is claiming that the US has 13 times the cyclists of the Netherlands, which would mean about 200 million minimum; as per the statistics I've illustrated below, only 54 million Americans cycle even once per year.

Rendel Harris wrote:

That's as maybe, the point is that he is claiming that the US has 13 times the cyclists of the Netherlands, which would mean about 200 million minimum; as per the statistics I've illustrated below, only 54 million Americans cycle even once per year.

So you're going to leave this up, even after I corrected you?

Well the "widely varying definitions" aren't mine... Could the US population be larger than that of NL?  Let's have a look - the internet says:

345,426,571 vs. 18,228,742

I reckon that's about 19 times bigger?  So that alone would supply an answer to your query, but wait, there's more!

I'm not sure where you're getting your US cycling stats but another case of comparing apples and oranges most likely.

In NL most people - of all ages = cycle at some point for any journey type (shopping, commuting, going to school, going to leisure activities - and some "just cycling").  In the UK and the US most people don't.

Those that do in the UK tend to be cycling in specific circumstances (food delivery cyclists which is a very recent development and its own somewhat depressing rabbit hole, "sports cyclists" and small amounts of "because we can't afford a car / got banned" and recreation (often "drive to the ride" or at a holiday park)).  The demographic doesn't reflect wider society either (by age, gender etc.)  The exceptions with greater numbers are places which have already reduced motor traffic and ... places with motor-vehicle free cycle infra.

Returning to the original story - on "fear" I think the picture that Chris Boardman put up at one of his recent talks conveys where we should be aiming (and how to actually achieve change - after all why not do something that's been shown in practice to address exactly that concern, in many places [1] [2] [3] [4] ...?).

chrisonabike wrote:

Well the "widely varying definitions" aren't mine... Could the US population be larger than that of NL?  Let's have a look - the internet says:

If you had to look that up, you're probably beyond your depth here.

chrisonabike wrote:

I reckon that's about 19 times bigger?  So that alone would supply an answer to your query, but wait, there's more!

I didn't have a query, I explained the relevant statistics.

chrisonabike wrote:

In NL most people - of all ages = cycle at some point for any journey type (shopping, commuting, going to school, going to leisure activities - and some "just cycling").  In the UK and the US most people don't.

The former is far less true than you think -- a reference to which has already been posted here. Basically, the Dutch ride down the block, but beyond that, they drive. ( Cf https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/best-kept-secret-dutch-biking-dutch-... once again)

And you will find in all those examples you cited, it was not construction that was effective, it was the decimation of traffic and increase in enforcement -- as I previously explained.

Well hello again.  Hope you're still enjoying the ride.  What's got you excited again after all this time?

I thought you also previously explained that you were above personal sniping and only posted on stuff you knew etc?

I'm surprised you're using the US as an example.  You could point to Antarctica - zero cycling fatalities and they needed no infra at all!

Seems as last time you see a triumph of theory over practice (or reality).  Or maybe you actually got to visit some of these places and are here to tell us it's a lie (turned out wrong since the last time e.g. I visited) - all the videos were filmed in a lot in Los Angeles?

You're quite right that reducing the speed and volume of motor traffic definitely helped in NL but "decimation" is an odd word to use - particularly when motor traffic distance driven has increased (at a greater rate than population increase from e.g. 2022-2017).  Some of that is "through traffic" no doubt.  What has been reduced is local traffic.  But how on earth could that happen?  Could those bikes (and of course improvements in public transport and the growth of local amenties - that people don't need to drive to) have had something to do with it?  I wonder why more people chose to ride rather than drive - perhaps it was made easier and more pleasant in some way?

No idea on the policing assertion (I would hope it was a bit better also) but I'm sure you'll have the numbers...?

chrisonabike wrote:

Well hello again.  Hope you're still enjoying the ride.  What's got you excited again after all this time?

I'm wondering if his Mrs ran off with a Dutch cyclist? There must be some explanation for this monomaniacal desire desperately to try to prove the utterly risible assertion that the USA is actually more of a cycling nation than the Netherlands.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I'm wondering if his Mrs ran off with a Dutch cyclist? There must be some explanation for this monomaniacal desire desperately to try to prove the utterly risible assertion that the USA is actually more of a cycling nation than the Netherlands.

If pathetic ad hominem attempts are all you can muster in reply, then I am very obviously correct.

That said, I never claimed anything remotely like the US status as a "cycling nation". I merely explained to y'all that Dutch cyclists die at a rate approximately triple that of the US -- which is not renowned for its cycling infrastructure. No one except Belgium and theoretically France can compare to the Dutch love of cycling -- which is partly why some of the statistics quoted here are, as I explained, made excessively rosy by Dutch officials.

I only talk about the Netherlands because the topic is cycling infrastructure and they've been conducting that failed experiment longer and more vociferously than anyone -- with, by now, predictably terrible results.

dh700 wrote:

If pathetic ad hominem attempts are all you can muster...

also dh700 wrote:

you're probably beyond your depth here [...]  I have to suggest this pool may be a bit deep for you.

also also dh700 wrote:

Really Bob Woodward? That's some investigation right there.

Glass houses, etc.

dh700 wrote:

I only talk about the Netherlands because the topic is cycling infrastructure and they've been conducting that failed experiment longer and more vociferously than anyone -- with, by now, predictably terrible results.

Well, having visited both Holland and USA, I'm pretty sure about where I'd rather be cycling.

But did you go to The Netherlands though?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Holland,_Illinois

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_of_Holland

On a serious note if I went back now I guess I'd be more interested in less sexy stuff like how utilities and highways works are done and coordinated.  Or how local government is measured and held accountable on their responsibilities for safety and environmental criteria.  Or the intricacies of politics, planning and funding.

In all of which I would be well out of my depth!  But these places are probably where the actual (boring, grubby, political) magic happens which ensures that the entire country offers incredible places with real transport choice, Dutch adults and adolescents are more physically active than those in most other EU countries etc.

That's a bit silly.  Never really got to the bottom of it though (I did try previously).

Most people have reasons for why they put energy into something.  I believe it's worth knowing "where they're coming from" though I might still disagree on where they then take that (or how they argue it).  At least you then know the things that it's likely not worth discussing.  As it won't be an argument because they "know" - we all are set up for motivated reasoning.  And on this topic they're defending the truth.  (Even if it involves shifting the goalposts and/or bringing in stuff which just ain't factually true - details).

OTOH internet forum so some people just like "being right" and engaging is just volunteering to be made wrong.

chrisonabike wrote:

Well hello again.  Hope you're still enjoying the ride.  What's got you excited again after all this time?

Twas apparently road.cc's turn to pop up in my feed. There are many dens of disinformation on the Internet, and I'm sure you'll be disappointed to learn that road.cc doesn't get all my attention.

chrisonabike wrote:

Seems as last time you see a triumph of theory over practice (or reality).  Or maybe you actually got to visit some of these places and are here to tell us it's a lie (turned out wrong since the last time e.g. I visited) - all the videos were filmed in a lot in Los Angeles?

No actual idea to what you are attempting to reference. Seems I made a bigger impression on you than vice versa.

If you think videos are an effective means of study compared to data, again I have to suggest this pool may be a bit deep for you.

chrisonabike wrote:

You're quite right that reducing the speed and volume of motor traffic definitely helped in NL but "decimation" is an odd word to use - particularly when motor traffic distance driven has increased (at a greater rate than population increase from e.g. 2022-2017)

Again as previously observed, Dutch cyclists die at an excessively high rate. You appear to be missing that premise, and suggesting that their environment is far safer than it actually is. Which is why, again, around 70% of Dutch cyclists feel road safety is a major problem.

So tell me again how all that construction was so effective.