Better office facilities would get more people cycling into work, study finds

Ebike !

I do ride flat out and need the locker / shower / drying cabinet at work and it will be something I would query prospective employers on a job interview. However I actually appreciate the shower / drying cabinet when it is pissing down or winter months more then the summer ones. 

Exactly this. If all these nations with high uptake of cycling can manage without showers etc. Why can't the U.K.?  My only desire would be secure cycle parking and that would something that would fall in the councils remit. Even people living further afield wouldn't need facilities if our public transport was better set up. My great uncle was a journo. He would cycle 2/3 miles to the train station. Chuck the bike into the guards van then collect and cycle the last couple of miles to work. He then had his bike to cycle to various places to make reports round town or further afield if using the train as well. 
 

Edit.  Several of my work colleagues who cycle live closer than me and they all wear regular clothes when cycling in. I also note that respondents were confident and happy with using the roads which makes me feel that they're regular leisure or utility cyclists at the very least rather than newbies. Every study that asks non or  occasional cyclists about roads always churns out a +70% result that the roads are dangerous. 

I'm working from home at the moment but my firm's office is 17 miles away, just a bit further than I'd like to ride. That said, I commuted for years by bicycle when I worked in offices up to 10 miles away. But even with colleagues who live much closer at hand they usually find some kind of excuse when I point out it'd cost them a lot less money if the cycled rather than driving, and that it wouldn't actually take any longer either.

Ive known colleagues who lived within walking distances of their place of work, and could have used reasonably ok traffic free cycle routes to cycle on, who would still drive to work, then drive to a gym to get exercise, and moan about the traffic at the same time.

and their office had most of the facilities this survey recommends, but you could never convince them to swap, there was always another reason/excuse that got in the way.

fair enough Im not going to force people to ride a bike if they dont want to, but alot of people create alot barriers to cycling that are very difficult to break down, as it becomes an ingrained habit to simply drive everywhere.

Awavey wrote:

Ive known colleagues who lived within walking distances of their place of work, and could have used reasonably ok traffic free cycle routes to cycle on, who would still drive to work, then drive to a gym to get exercise, and moan about the traffic at the same time.

and their office had most of the facilities this survey recommends, but you could never convince them to swap, there was always another reason/excuse that got in the way.

fair enough Im not going to force people to ride a bike if they dont want to, but alot of people create alot barriers to cycling that are very difficult to break down, as it becomes an ingrained habit to simply drive everywhere.

Yep, the single biggest barrier to cycling (or walking for that matter) is the perceived convenience of driving. I know people who will take a 3 minute drive, in preference to a 2 minute walk.

The lesson is... the people designing active travel infrastucture shouldn't worry about any potential inconvenience it causes to motorists. Chances are, the inconvenience isn't going to be so great that they drive less, but if it is, then that is a win.

Where I live, the normal critique is you can't cycle up north hill. Of course you can walk up it in a shorter time than it oftens takes to queue on the parallel dual carriageway but I guess some love traffic jams.

Your bike setup/luggage makes a big difference too. Rucksack or bag is a lot sweatier than saddlebag/panniers.

carlosdsanchez wrote:

you don't have to get all lycrad up and ride flat out.

true but

carlosdsanchez wrote:

If you ride at 8-10mph

You will be passed by significantly more drivers, and those drivers will be more frustrated by their perception of being held up, so you will suffer significantly more intimidating passes. I tried cycling in on my mountain bike dressed casually and riding slower, as the extra few minutes was not important. It was such an unpleasant experience I went back to lycra and road bike.

Then drivers wonder why all cyclists are 'lycra louts' it's because they have intimidated everyone else off of the roads.

wycombewheeler wrote:

carlosdsanchez wrote:

you don't have to get all lycrad up and ride flat out.

true but

carlosdsanchez wrote:

If you ride at 8-10mph

You will be passed by significantly more drivers, and those drivers will be more frustrated by their perception of being held up, so you will suffer significantly more intimidating passes. I tried cycling in on my mountain bike dressed casually and riding slower, as the extra few minutes was not important. It was such an unpleasant experience I went back to lycra and road bike.

Then drivers wonder why all cyclists are 'lycra louts' it's because they have intimidated everyone else off of the roads.

I've seen with my own eyes normally dressed utility cyclists get bullied and intimidated by idiots in their metal boxes because of a tiny hold up between pulling away from some lights and reaching the next traffic jam 50 foot away. It's why segregated lanes are needed. These lanes are also fantastic for long distance lycra cyclists like myself as I don't want a stressed out commute either

Sriracha wrote:

"The study of 1,5000 people, ..." So is that 15,000 or 1,500 people?

1 and a half people, to a high degree of precision...

Whichever it is, finding 79% who claim  they are confident road cyclists in such a small panel is amazing.

You can offer as many showers, storage facilities and drying rooms as you like, but without joined up, comprehensive cycling infrastructure, commuting rates will continue to be in single figures for decades to come.