# Cycling City Survey Results



## Danny (26 Apr 2009)

York Council has just published the results of a survey it carried out to find out why people don't cycle and what needs to be done to get them cycling more. 9,290 households responded to the survey - a 10% response rate which is pretty good for such surveys.

The main reasons people gave for not cycling were:
Too dangerous - 43%
Too much traffic - 38%
I'm too old - 36%
Health reasons - 21 %
Weather puts me off - 22%​When asked what would encourage people to cycle more the main answers were:
More dedicated cycle tracks away from the road - 75% *
Improved safety for cyclists at dangerous junctions - 50%
Provide more cycle lands on the roads - 33%
More traffic priority measures for cyclists - 22%​The full survey results provide a lot more detail than this, but unfortunately they are yet not up on the Council website. However I thought they might be useful for people campaigning for better facilities in other parts of the country.


* If Wafflycat is lurking somewhere, hopefully this result will bring her out of retirement


----------



## MacB (26 Apr 2009)

I experienced some local cycle routes with the kids this morning, they can only have been designed to discourage cycling. Narrow, poor, lots of chicanes requiring dismounting and the inevitable petering to nothing in the middle of nowhere. We covered 1 mile through an estate and would definitely have been quicker walking.

I would be very wary about acting on the results of a survey based on the views of non-cyclists. My own views have changed drastically since taking up cycel commuting and longish social rides. My previous views were well intentioned but very poorly informed.


----------



## Bollo (26 Apr 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> cycel commuting



You commute on one of these!?  You see where fixies end up? Do you? I warned you!


----------



## Danny (26 Apr 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> I would be very wary about acting on the results of a survey based on the views of non-cyclists. My own views have changed drastically since taking up cycel commuting and longish social rides. My previous views were well intentioned but very poorly informed.



Actually I over-simplified the survey results, which were separated out to show the difference between the views of:


People who have never cycled
Lapsed cyclists
Regular cyclists
Almost identical numbers of cyclists and non-cyclists wanted more off road cycle facilities. This is probably a reflection of the fact that York already has some very good, and well used, off road cycle routes.

However, in confirmation of you comments about how people's view change once they start cycling, significantly more cyclists than non-cyclists wanted improved safety for cyclists who use roads.


----------



## MacB (26 Apr 2009)

Bollo said:


> You commute on one of these!?  You see where fixies end up? Do you? I warned you!



I was having a nice evening, then.....................


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Apr 2009)

The great thing about these surveys is that they studiously ignore what works. And the range of options will only be those that are ideologically convenient for the cycling organisations.

My faith in surveys evaporated when the TfL Greenways group surveyed people who might use the Wandle Way (an off-road path) but didn't survey the hundreds, nay thousands of cyclists pouring down Garratt Lane, which runs parallel. They'd rather find the half-dozen people who say 'I'd cycle on the Wandle Way if you throw away £1.3 million on shoot signposting and dopey bridges' than ask 1000 people why they enjoy cycling to work on the road that the cycling organisations believe they should be avoiding. Lo! and behold! They spent the £1.3 million. The use of the Wandle Way changed not one iota.

Cycling politics is a swamp in which the cycling organisations whore themselves for grants, and measure their success by government expenditure, and their slice of that government expenditure.


----------



## snorri (27 Apr 2009)

It seems to me we have to increase the number of cyclists in order to make our voices heard in the corridors of power. These duff facilities are encouraging new cyclists who will eventually realise the limitations and dangers of these facilities and join the ranks of the regulars calling for a better recognition of what cycling has to offer as a mode of transport.


----------



## Bollo (27 Apr 2009)

I've no objection to cycle facilities and I've seen how good facilities can work in places like Denmark and the Netherlands. But for schemes to be effective, king car has to be tamed and there's no appetite in this country for that yet. This country's travel/work/leisure/retail infrastructure is so geared towards car use now that we've also got further to rewind to make decent cycle facilities viable.

Also, those survey results don't include the hidden options of 'I'm too lazy' or its more attractive younger sister - 'driving is more convenient'.


----------



## summerdays (27 Apr 2009)

It is interesting the difference of opinion over what would makes cycling safer for cyclists and non cyclists. And I like the fact that the survey recognised there was a difference. I would be interested in the full version if it becomes available on the internet in the future.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Apr 2009)

Bollo said:


> I've no objection to cycle facilities and I've seen how good facilities can work in places like Denmark and the Netherlands. But for schemes to be effective, king car has to be tamed and there's no appetite in this country for that yet. This country's travel/work/leisure/retail infrastructure is so geared towards car use now that we've also got further to rewind to make decent cycle facilities viable.
> 
> Also, those survey results don't include the hidden options of 'I'm too lazy' or its more attractive younger sister - 'driving is more convenient'.


absolutely bang on the money. And here we have the near perfect example of why surveys are not so clever. You ask motorists if there is too much congestion/street parking/vehicle noise. Most will say yes. You ask them whether, knowing this, they will cut down on their driving, or get rid of the car.............


----------



## srw (27 Apr 2009)

Danny said:


> 9,290 households responded to the survey - a 10% response rate which is pretty good for such surveys.



What was the survey method? Was it a "send-out-and-hope" survey, or was a professional survey organisation employed? Were the results adjusted to normalise for the difference between respondents and population?

I fear I know the answer to those questions, in which case I fear Dell's cycnicism is justified. But I live in hope - especially since 9,290 responses is enough to make a decent fist of standardising, in the hand of someone who knows what they're doing.*


*I wouldn't have the foggiest idea where to start.


----------



## Davidc (27 Apr 2009)

Bollo said:


> I've no objection to cycle facilities and I've seen how good facilities can work in places like Denmark and the Netherlands. But for schemes to be effective, king car has to be tamed and there's no appetite in this country for that yet. This country's travel/work/leisure/retail infrastructure is so geared towards car use now that we've also got further to rewind to make decent cycle facilities viable.
> 
> Also, those survey results don't include the hidden options of 'I'm too lazy' or its more attractive younger sister - 'driving is more convenient'.



I've seen some of the facilities in the Netherlands, and used them. The chances of the UK catching up anytime soon is, realistically, nil. Same goes for integrated and efficient public transport.

Only one thing will turn the tide against the total domination of the car - and that's the price of oil escalating when demand starts to rise again.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Apr 2009)

Davidc said:


> Only one thing will turn the tide against the total domination of the car - and that's the price of oil escalating when demand starts to rise again.


You'll doubtless laugh, but I'm genuinely more hopeful than that. One day London will have a Mayor with a brain again, and when that happens I really do believe we will go forward to the promised land...had Ken been re-elected then he'd have used that four years to really rein in the car - and not just in the centre of town.


----------



## Danny (27 Apr 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> The great thing about these surveys is that they studiously ignore what works. And the range of options will only be those that are ideologically convenient for the cycling organisations....
> 
> Cycling politics is a swamp in which the cycling organisations whore themselves for grants, and measure their success by government expenditure, and their slice of that government expenditure.


I don't believe this is true in York. There are already some very good and well used off-road cycle routes, which are genuinely popular. They are also often a quicker way of getting around than trying to negotiate your way through traffic jams on York's narrow roads.

York Council also has a good track record of modifying junctions and busy roads to give cyclists priority. This inevitably attracts the ire of many motorists (and Tory councillors) so I think the Council is genuinely looking for ammunition to support a further expansion of pro-cycling measures.

Cycling organisations in York are actually quite week in terms of political clout. However the York Cycling Campaign is fairly sensible and able to exert a positive influence on the development of the Council's cycling strategy.


----------



## Danny (27 Apr 2009)

srw said:


> What was the survey method? Was it a "send-out-and-hope" survey, or was a professional survey organisation employed? Were the results adjusted to normalise for the difference between respondents and population?


The survey was sent to every household, and IIRC available on the Council website.

The results were compiled and analysed by a professional research organisation.

Do not believe that there was enough data collected to tell how representative the respondents were of the population as a whole. However as the survey was tied in with a larger survey about budget setting priorities for this year the chances are that the respondents were reasonably representative of the population.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Apr 2009)

I'm sure you're right about York Cycling Campaign, and srw may be right in calling me a cynic (although three years on the CTC council, and time on TfL cycling bodies with other cycling organisations have given my cynicism something to feed on) - but the survey does have a range of options that are congenial to the world of cycling politics. I take your point about York Council, though, but, then again, given that York is a pretty easy place to get around on a bike, and given the number of cyclists, the responses do look a bit like convenient excuses.


----------



## Danny (27 Apr 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm sure you're right about York Cycling Campaign, and srw may be right in calling me a cynic (although three years on the CTC council, and time on TfL cycling bodies with other cycling organisations have given my cynicism something to feed on) - but the survey does have a range of options that are congenial to the world of cycling politics. I take your point about York Council, though, but, then again, given that York is a pretty easy place to get around on a bike, and given the number of cyclists, the responses do look a bit like convenient excuses.


Convenient excuses for what?

Despite the number of cyclists in York and the relatively good facilities we already have, this survey bears out the findings of earlier surveys in York which have found that large number of people are put off from cycling because they do not feel that it is safe.

Also the survey offered far more options than the ones I've highlighted - I just picked out the ones that elicited the highest responses.


----------



## marinyork (27 Apr 2009)

> Weather puts me off - 22%



 this demonstrates a lot about surveys, excuses and laziness.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Apr 2009)

well, that's more or less my view - but then I'm still reeling from the charge of cynicism, so maybe I've got it wrong. My view in general is that once cycling, particularly commuting, has become a demonstrably normal thing, people will either try it or not. They'll stick with it (a different thing) on the basis of their experience, and that is clearly about road conditions, fitness, the quality of their bikes, arrangements at work, and that kind of stuff.


----------



## jonesy (28 Apr 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> ...
> 
> I would be very wary about acting on the results of a survey based on the views of non-cyclists. My own views have changed drastically since taking up cycel commuting and longish social rides. My previous views were well intentioned but very poorly informed.



Absolutely. These sort of surveys are very dubious and usually based on the flawed assumption that everyone makes informed and objective decisions about every journey they make, when in fact travel is largely determined by habit. The reasons a non-cyclists gives for not cycling, especially when given a list of prompts to chose from, are likely to have little to do with the real reason why they don't cycle. So even if you believe what they tell you, and spend lots of money on the things they've said they want, they probably still wont' cycle! 

This sort of thing crops up in travel plan surveys a lot, which is why I've always tried to steer clear of asking people leading questions about their reasons for their travel choice.


Lots of non-cyclists _think_ cyclists need more off-road cycle paths, because they imagine that is what they'd want if they cycled, but they don't cycle, so they don't know what it is really like, nor do they know how utterly useless so many of the 'off-road' (i.e. on pavement) cycle paths actually are. Indeed, many cyclists might think they'd like more off-road paths, because they've seen Sustrans leaflets showing the Bristol to Bath path, or indeed some of the admittedly nice routes around York, but haven't grasped that you usually can't build that sort of thing on a busy city street, so the choice is either riding on the road or the pavement...

Dellzeqq quite rightly says we should look at what actually works. Sustrans type routes are great where there is room to do them well, but can't provide a comprenseive network across a whole city. In London, there has been a massive increase in cycling achieved almost entirely on-road, using a combination of traffic restraint, shared use of bus lanes (thanks for letting the motorbikes in Boris...), improved junction design, better parking provision etc. Likewise, Oxford achieved a large increase in cycling in the late 1970s and 80s, again almost entirely on-road, initially with virtually no cycle-specific infrastructure at all, and largely driven by traffic restraint.


----------



## Danny (29 Apr 2009)

While a higher proportion of journeys are made in York by cycle than in most other parts of the country, still only a minority of people cycle regularly. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to try to find out what would induce them to cycle more often.

The fact that so many people feel it is unsafe to cycle on the roads, may or may not be a rational response, but I personally don't think it is very helpful to disparage them for voicing their fears. If we want more people to cycle this is an issue we need to tackle head on.

I don't believe the purpose of the survey was to try and justify having more off-road cycle routes, even though these were the most popular option. Instead the Council was looking for justification for its policy of putting in more cycle priority measures on main roads in York - some of which are proving hugely controversial locally. 

Given that few local authorities - including York - are prepared to take the political risk of reducing traffic through congestion charging, priority measures for cyclists seem to be the next best option.


----------



## summerdays (29 Apr 2009)

Non-cyclists do think off-road paths are best, and as you say frequently change their mind after cycling for a bit. The point is that the off-road path may have got them on the bike in the first place. Its certainly how Mr Summerdays first decided to try commuting by bike. 

Is there any definitive list of what does work to encourage new cyclists?

They only seemed to ask on-line what would encourage people to cycle in Bristol. I've only just found the results of the survey on-line now (reminded by this thread to go looking):

http://www.askbristol.net/theme.php?id=12

(And I even recognise one of my comments made it into the summary - yeah!!!)


----------



## palinurus (29 Apr 2009)

_Too dangerous - 43%
Too much traffic - 38%
I'm too old - 36%
Health reasons - 21 %
Weather puts me off - 22%_

Lightweights.


----------



## Amanda P (29 Apr 2009)

Those aren't reasons. 

They are excuses.


----------



## Landslide (29 Apr 2009)

I wonder how many people would pick an option along the lines of:
"Cyclists don't pay road tax and therefore have no right to use the road"

If one were dealing with a council (populated by anything other than 100% neanderthals) one might be able to use such a (I suspect sizeable) response from non-cyclists in a positive manner...


----------



## Danny (29 Apr 2009)

Uncle Phil said:


> Those aren't reasons.
> 
> They are excuses.


If we want to increase cycling, I do not think it is very helpful to dismiss the reasons people give for not currently cycling as excuses.


----------



## marinyork (29 Apr 2009)

I think York council would be much better off focusing on bikeability and the lack of bridges in the city. It's not even like there isn't evidence it worked, the millenium bridge triggered a massive increase in cyclists and pedestrians going from A to B.


----------



## Danny (29 Apr 2009)

marinyork said:


> I think York council would be much better off focusing on bikeability and the lack of bridges in the city. It's not even like there isn't evidence it worked, the millenium bridge triggered a massive increase in cyclists and pedestrians going from A to B.


The Millenium bridge is successful because it connects up a whole series of on and off road cycle routes. 

But it cost over a million pounds so it is going to be difficult for the Council to fund other similar bridges.


----------



## marinyork (29 Apr 2009)

The millenium bridge cost over £4 million if I remember, not too disimilar to the amounts of money being funneled towards York. Joining up cycle routes has little to do with it. Had there been no cycle route it would still have been successful because it filled a large gap in possible routes. You can't really have routes without infrastructure.

There are gaps in the network and it's not just the Ouse, it's the Foss and the railway lines too. I think there's a lot of scope still there to work with route wise to encourage cycling in the area. Depends what one means by a cycling city, it's all peanuts compared to the constant calls for the dualling of the Northern Ring Road .


----------



## srw (30 Apr 2009)

jonesy said:


> Likewise, Oxford achieved a large increase in cycling in the late 1970s and 80s, again almost entirely on-road, initially with virtually no cycle-specific infrastructure at all, and largely driven by traffic restraint.



I'm guessing a bit here, but I suspect Oxford's experience is more down to an increase in the student population, in particular the student population forced to live out of college. The 1970s and 1980s saw several new colleges, an increase in the popularity of post-graduate learning, an opening up of colleges to both sexes as well as a general increase in the numbers of places, not to mention a general liberalisation of colleges' attitudes to their students.

Certainly by 1988, the overwhelming majority of Oxford's cyclists were students - who have never been the biggest drivers. Real traffic restraint didn't start until the 1990s.


----------



## Amanda P (30 Apr 2009)

palinurus said:


> _Too dangerous - 43%
> Too much traffic - 38%
> I'm too old - 36%
> Health reasons - 21 %
> Weather puts me off - 22%_



They _are _ excuses, though.

I'm (semi-humourously) attempting to draw a distinction between valid reasons, and excuses. 

When someone gives a reason for something, you can argue the point, and you may change that person's mind. 

When you get an excuse, it's the other way around: they have already decided what they are or aren't going to do, and the excuse is a post-hoc justification for it. You can argue with someone who makes an excuse until you're blue in the face, but you are unlikely to change their mind.

Clearly those "reasons" are excuses. If they were valid reasons, no-one would cycle. We are living proof that they are, in fact, excuses, since many of us are old, or have health problems, get wet regularly and so on, but we cycle nevertheless.

Perhaps I can be more helpful by suggesting that the excuses aren't going to go away any time soon. We can't change the weather, we can't easily reduce traffic, or make it less dangerous.

What we _*can*_ do is try to alter people's *perception* of these things. The reality is, of course, that we cope with the traffic (and anyway, there'd be less of it if some of those drivers were riding bikes); we don't mind the weather, and so on.

I think one of the best ways to alter these perceptions is to simply keep on visibly riding a bike. Every time a driver seems someone riding a bike, that driver is a tiny bit less likely to percieve cycling as something only cranks, hoody-wearing louts, sandal-wearing tree-huggers or lycra-clad enthusiasts do.


----------



## Danny (30 Apr 2009)

Don't want to get into a major semantic debate on the difference between an excuse and a reason, but I still think many people feel they have perfectly valid reasons for not cycling - even if we view them as excuses - and there are things we can do to address them.

For example I know a number of people who like cycling, but are genuinely terrified of going out in heavy traffic, and as the survey indicates there are many more people in this situation. The Council is actually trying to address this by organising cycle training for adults so people can build up the confidence to cycle on the roads.

Similarly many very unfit people find the prospect of cycling even a few miles totally daunting. In response the local Sustrans group has been organising beginners rides that just cover a couple of miles at a leisurely pace to get people going.


----------



## MacB (30 Apr 2009)

Danny, wouldn't some effort be better directed at re-education people on the realities of cycling. I know schemes exist for schools etc but maybe expanding on those. Lots of schools run Mums and Dads days, maybe they could do some in a cycling orientated manner. A good impetus for cycling is a young child nagging you.


----------



## Danny (30 Apr 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> Danny, wouldn't some effort be better directed at re-education people on the realities of cycling. I know schemes exist for schools etc but maybe expanding on those. Lots of schools run Mums and Dads days, maybe they could do some in a cycling orientated manner. A good impetus for cycling is a young child nagging you.


It depends on what you mean by "re-educating". I don't think adults views on cycling are going to be changed by quoting statistics at them, but they will be changed by some of the practical measures I described in the previous post.

York also has a big programme of cycle education in both primary and secondary schools - indeed some PE slots at my son's school are now taken up with long cycle rides.


----------



## summerdays (30 Apr 2009)

Danny said:


> York also has a big programme of cycle education in both primary and secondary schools - indeed some PE slots at my son's school are now taken up with long cycle rides.



I like that idea .... is it just in his school or across the area?


----------



## Danny (30 Apr 2009)

I believe it is across the whole city.


----------



## theclaud (30 Apr 2009)

jonesy said:


> Absolutely. These sort of surveys are very dubious and usually based on the flawed assumption that everyone makes informed and objective decisions about every journey they make, when in fact travel is largely determined by habit. The reasons a non-cyclists gives for not cycling, especially when given a list of prompts to chose from, are likely to have little to do with the real reason why they don't cycle. So even if you believe what they tell you, and spend lots of money on the things they've said they want, they probably still wont' cycle!



Quite right Jonesy. I've just come back from a meeting with the council (with my local cycling campaign group hat on), and we were discussing the feedback from one of these surveys. Badly designed doesn't even begin to describe it, but even worse was their inability to make sense of the very limited information it did provide. Example - a large group of schoolchildren were asked what might stop them from cycling. One of the options offered was "too expensive". 0% plumped for that option. When asked what would get them cycling more, about 60% of the same sample apparently went for "cheaper bikes". No-one at the council seemed to find that odd.


----------



## Danny (30 Apr 2009)

theclaud said:


> One of the options offered was "too expensive". 0% plumped for that option. When asked what would get them cycling more, about 60% of the same sample apparently went for "cheaper bikes". No-one at the council seemed to find that odd.


I obviously haven't seen the detail of your local survery, but in principle this is not at all odd. Many surveys ask the same question from a number of different angles because researchers know that this is likely to produce different answers. It is only by comparing the different answers that you actually get a balanced picture of what people think.

The fact that the responses may be contradict each other is just evidence of the fact that many people manage to hold several contradictory opinions at the same time.


----------



## jonesy (30 Apr 2009)

Danny said:


> Don't want to get into a major semantic debate on the difference between an excuse and a reason, * but I still think many people feel they have perfectly valid reasons for not cycling - even if we view them as excuses -* and there are things we can do to address them.
> 
> ....



I agree. It is essential that we understand why people make the choices they do about travel if we want to influence those choices. And I'd further agree with a point you imply elsewhere, in that simply challenging the reasons for those choices, telling them they are wrong, isn't going to persuade many people to change them. And I'd also accept that well designed market research can help to give a better understanding of people's travel behaviour.

However, that doesn't mean that simply asking people what will make them change their travel choices will work, when they may not have tried or even considered the alternative that you are asking them hypothetical and/or leading questions about. 

Nor is it justifiable to ask questions that could imply that things like a comprehensive off-road cycle network is even being considered, when this is clearly not a practicable or affordable option on most city centre roads. Apart from anything else, this helps foster the increasingly widely held viewpoint that off-road provision is what is really needed, with the risk that more practicable options are then considered to be inferior compromises.

If you want to know what is most likely to get more people cycling, you don't need a survey of non-cyclists, you need to look at what has worked elsewhere, and what the research and guidance says. The examples of Oxford and London, with growth in cycle use being achieved without a significant off-road network; and places like Milton Keynes and Bracknell, with comprehensive off-road networks and low levels of cycling, show that off-road provision is neither necessary nor sufficient to get more people cycling. I'd bet money that a survey in Milton Keynes would tell you that cycling in the traffic is dangerous and you need off-road paths, but they still aren't cycling!


----------



## summerdays (1 May 2009)

What what did work in Oxford and London ... I thought someone earlier in this thread was saying it was the number of students/not enough accommodation for Oxford, and hasn't the 7/7 bombings been credited with some of the rise in London?

I know the theory is that the more you get cycling the more safe it becomes, and that I have had an affect on some others encouraging them to cycle. But not enough to make a significant difference.

I happened to check my mail yesterday and found that there is now a new on-line consultation in Bristol:


> Active Travel
> Active Bristol is a programme of work being led by Bristol PCT working with the Bristol Partnership including Bristol City Council. It aims to support people to include more physical activity into their everyday lives through travel and leisure e.g. walking, cycling, gardening and play.


http://www.askbristol.com/theme.php?id=22

Looking at the few responses so far and bits in the local paper, people just assume you have to be fit and/or mad to cycle in Bristol.


----------



## theclaud (1 May 2009)

Danny said:


> I obviously haven't seen the detail of your local survery, but in principle this is not at all odd. Many surveys ask the same question from a number of different angles because researchers know that this is likely to produce different answers. It is only by comparing the different answers that you actually get a balanced picture of what people think.
> 
> The fact that the responses may be contradict each other is just evidence of the fact that many people manage to hold several contradictory opinions at the same time.



Fair point, but it still means that it's difficult to interpret usefully. I got the impression from the schools answers that each school had answered individual questions by conferring in a group, so that the reasons given between schools varied immensely, but almost everyone in the same school gave the same reason. To give you a flavour of the quality of the survey, the opening question (How often do you cycle?) included the following options: 1) Daily 2) More than daily, but less than weekly. We established at the meeting that "more than daily" was understood to mean "less than daily". Orwell-tastic.


----------



## MacB (1 May 2009)

Danny, I very much like the idea of cycling being part of a school curriculum, I hadn't realised that existed. That's the sort of encouragement that seems more likely to get people on their bikes.

My youngest was really excited last night, he should get his bike permit for cycling to school today, he's 8. All last week he's had to cycle at lunchtimes, school bike, to demonstrate his proficiency. This permit really matters to him, I wish he was that focused on his school work


----------



## summerdays (1 May 2009)

They have to get a permit!!! my youngest learnt to cycle just before he started school and has cycled almost every single day since... I was involved in the Safe Routes to school team at school and we had a bike shed put in. Before no-one cycled, when we were getting it put in, the school originally wanted to only have those who had done their bikeability able to cycle to school (year 6 summer time only at that time). As it was funded by a grant we were able to make sure all could use it. 

Now it has one or two bikes every single day in winter, more some days and can be completely packed out in summertime - with 20 stands, 2 bikes to each stand. And they have applied for another grant to extend the shed.

I suppose restricting bike use may make it something to aspire to?


----------



## marinyork (1 May 2009)

Trying to restrict good schemes is nosey parkerism gone mad. The teachers should be ashamed of themselves.


----------

