Beauty and the Bike

[jonesy]

...
Jonesy sorry got my % who never cycle and less than 5 miles figures mixed up. You have to admit that is still a massive number of twunts clogging up the roads. ...

Well these little details matter a great deal, as understanding what sort of trips people make and how long they are is fundamental if we are going to implement the right measures to get them to change their travel behaviour. If we look at the National Travel Survey:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/mainresults/nts2008/

Table 3.5 tells us that about 55% of car journeys are under 5 miles, 22% are under 2 miles. So yes, there's a lot of potential for modal shift (though bear in mind that this refers to the proportion of trips, not total mileage,which is skewed towards the longer trips). However, if you look at the figures for cycling, 86% of trips are under 5 miles, 49% under 2 miles, 19% under 1 mile. Clearly there's a long tail of people who cycle longer distances, but for most people, most cycle trips are short, especially utility trips, and this is as true of countries where there is a high level of cycle use as it is in the UK. Now this really ought to tell us a lot about the sort of trips we should be focusing on, i.e. short ones, so why on Earth has so much effort gone into creating routes that only serve much longer distances, either because they are remote from settlements or are simply indirect?

See also table 3.7 which reports average trip times- they are pretty well identical for cars and cycling at just over 20 minutes. I rather doubt this is a coincidence- people are cycling for those journeys that are time competitive with driving. The key to getting people to cycle instead of driving is therefore to make it advantageous in terms of time. You get that in places like Oxford, Cambridge and increasingly London where congestion and difficulty parking make cycling time competitive for commuting journeys. So if you want to encourage more people to cycle then you have to make sure you are improving the time competitiveness over driving, i.e focus on the direct routes and only do things that make it easier to make progress. You don't get that from routes and infrastructure that are indirect, discontinuous or simply slow because they are shared with large numbers of pedestrians, but that is what you'll get if you demand segregation above all else.

Edit- this also affects the Oxford vs Milton Keynes comparison we were discussing earlier. Oxford is much more compact, so journey lengths are much shorter and cycling hence time competitive with driving for a greater proportion of journeys. No matter how good you make the off -road network in Milton Keynes, cycling will not compete with driving for a large perctenage of trips when journeys are longer and driving so convenient.

 

[Norm]

Part of the problem, surely, is the need to be seen to be 'doing something'?

Wouldn't it be nice if the "something" which they did was to enforce the current regulations.

 

[MacB]

Well these little details matter a great deal, as understanding what sort of trips people make and how long they are is fundamental if we are going to implement the right measures to get them to change their travel behaviour. If we look at the National Travel Survey:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/mainresults/nts2008/

Table 3.5 tells us that about 55% of car journeys are under 5 miles, 22% are under 2 miles. So yes, there's a lot of potential for modal shift (though bear in mind that this refers to the proportion of trips, not total mileage,which is skewed towards the longer trips). However, if you look at the figures for cycling, 86% of trips are under 5 miles, 49% under 2 miles, 19% under 1 mile. Clearly there's a long tail of people who cycle longer distances, but for most people, most cycle trips are short, especially utility trips, and this is as true of countries where there is a high level of cycle use as it is in the UK. Now this really ought to tell us a lot about the sort of trips we should be focusing on, i.e. short ones, so why on Earth has so much effort gone into creating routes that only serve much longer distances, either because they are remote from settlements or are simply indirect?

See also table 3.7 which reports average trip times- they are pretty well identical for cars and cycling at just over 20 minutes. I rather doubt this is a coincidence- people are cycling for those journeys that are time competitive with driving. The key to getting people to cycle instead of driving is therefore to make it advantageous in terms of time. You get that in places like Oxford, Cambridge and increasingly London where congestion and difficulty parking make cycling time competitive for commuting journeys. So if you want to encourage more people to cycle then you have to make sure you are improving the time competitiveness over driving, i.e focus on the direct routes and only do things that make it easier to make progress. You don't get that from routes and infrastructure that are indirect, discontinuous or simply slow because they are shared with large numbers of pedestrians, but that is what you'll get if you demand segregation above all else.

Would also add that, even where cycling is attractive time wise, the theft risk for bikes, in public spaces, is very off putting. There are times when I think, shops, 3 locks, can I be bothered? Even with 3 different locks I'm reluctant to leave a bike anywhere too long, and some places not at all. What should be a liberating experience can become quite tense and traumatic.

 

[dellzeqq]

MacB hits a nail on the head. Safe bike storage at work and at home is one of the big keys to the increase in cycling. TfL does some work in relation to the former, and has issued guidance on the latter (small contribution from yrs truly) but there is a tremendous way to go. Failure to produce a Workplace Travel Plan should preclude companies from public sector contracts. Failure to produce a Residential Travel Plan which is backed up by design should lead to a refusal by the planning committee. WTPs and RTPs are not rocket science - you can steal somebody else's and adapt it (actually, going by the consistency of the product you could steal any Transport Assessment and adapt it to any development proposal, but that's another story) - it's a question of will.

I joined a practice whose brochure went big on sustainability. No place to park the bike in the office.

 

[jonesy]

MacB hits a nail on the head. Safe bike storage at work and at home is one of the big keys to the increase in cycling. TfL does some work in relation to the former, and has issued guidance on the latter (small contribution from yrs truly) but there is a tremendous way to go. Failure to produce a Workplace Travel Plan should preclude companies from public sector contracts. Failure to produce a Residential Travel Plan which is backed up by design should lead to a refusal by the planning committee. WTPs and RTPs are not rocket science - you can steal somebody else's and adapt it (actually, going by the consistency of the product you could steal any Transport Assessment and adapt it to any development proposal, but that's another story) - it's a question of will.

I joined a practice whose brochure went big on sustainability. No place to park the bike in the office.

I agree, there are other factors necessary to get more people to cycle. However, journey time competitiveness is a fundamental requirement. Secure parking, like better surfaced routes, increased safety or attractiveness etc will not attract significant numbers of new cyclists unless cycling is competitive in terms of journey time (for utility cycling).

NB- this doesn't mean it has to be faster, or even the same, as there are other benefits that motivate people to cycle, but I wonder if there are many people here who cycle for utility journeys when they could make the same journeys significantly more quickly by other mode?

NB2- How 'journey time' is perceived is a bit more complex than simply total travel time, people make allowances for things like time spent waiting at bus stops, the liklihood of delay, time spent in interchange, the risk of missed connections etc, this is represented as 'generalised time' in transport modelling.

 

[MacB]

I agree, there are other factors necessary to get more people to cycle. However, journey time competitiveness is a fundamental requirement. Secure parking, like better surfaced routes, increased safety or attractiveness etc will not attract significant numbers of new cyclists unless cycling is competitive in terms of journey time (for utility cycling).

NB- this doesn't mean it has to be faster, or even the same, as there are other benefits that motivate people to cycle, but I wonder if there are many people here who cycle for utility journeys when they could make the same journeys significantly more quickly by other mode?

NB2- How 'journey time' is perceived is a bit more complex than simply total travel time, people make allowances for things like time spent waiting at bus stops, the liklihood of delay, time spent in interchange, the risk of missed connections etc, this is represented as 'generalised time' in transport modelling.

I'd also be curious to know how many people have been deterred, or stopped in their tracks, by bike theft. If you look online for info on bikes you can't miss the amount of info around security. I read this and thought I'd begun properly by buying different locks etc. I lost my first bike, first day, at the train station, along with my shiny new locks(£80 worth of lock, I might as well have burnt the money). Through my own error it was uninsured, I'd made the mistake of assuming it was covered like my golf stuff is. Hadn't realised that coverage was only for stuff locked in boot of car or in garage. Even if insured I'd still have had the hassle and a period without a bike.

Still reported it to police etc but no CCTV and no expectation of recovery. Advice from transport police was never leave a bike at a station. Advice from general police was don't leave a bike anywhere but, if you have to, use 3 different locks and a really rubbish bike. So then I look into locks and find depressing footage showing how long a £100's worth of locks holds out against thieves. Then you find that, even if you manage to transport a ton of locks and make your bike unnatractive to steal, they still might take bits off it or sabotage the bike in some way.

Now, in my instance, this made me bloody minded and determined to continue cycling. I can easily see how these things could make someone revert to using a car or give up on the idea without ever buying a bike.

I truly believe in utility cycling, one of the reasons that I stick to using flat pedals is to keep it a less specialised habit. It doesn't matter how shiny and convenient they make cycling facilities. The further cycling is from a 'hop on and go' scenario the less attractive it becomes for utlity uses.

 

[Norm]

I'd also be curious to know how many people have been deterred, or stopped in their tracks, by bike theft. If you look online for info on bikes you can't miss the amount of info around security. I read this and thought I'd begun properly by buying different locks etc. I lost my first bike, first day, at the train station, along with my shiny new locks

I swear, we are twins!

Although it took 5 days for mine to be nicked and it was from Eton High Street rather than the station. Strangely, my son was gutted that they took mine and left his. "What's wrong with my bike..." etc

Cycled into Windsor last Saturday and, because it had the lights fitted, I took the MTB. It's only when I got into town that I remembered what a load of faff it is, take off the seat pack and the tool bottle, take off the lights and the computer, get the lock out, find something solid to lock it to etc. It took longer to lock than I was in the shop.

Worse still, I got out, reversed the process, turned the lights on and was just about to head off when my phone rang. The wife saying "Can you pop into Marks and get some stuff for us"

Once more from the top....

 

[theclaud]

I swear, we are twins!

Have you got funny handlebars too?

 

[jonesy]

Theft is a serious problem. There have been research projects looking at the deteterence effect and showing that a lot of people stop cycling after their bikes are stolen. I'm not familiar with the work in this area, but for example, see:
http://www.bikeoff.org/design_resource/ABT_problem_why_prevent.shtml

http://www.designagainstcrime.com/index.php?q=node/65

 

[Norm]

Have you got funny handlebars too?

No, it's these trousers, they hang funny.
*baddum tish*

 

[MacB]

No, it's these trousers, they hang funny.
*baddum tish*

ignore her, she's only posting out of envy, snazzy handlebars, in the possession of others, does that to some people

 

[MacB]

Theft is a serious problem. There have been research projects looking at the deteterence effect and showing that a lot of people stop cycling after their bikes are stolen. I'm not familiar with the work in this area, but for example, see:
http://www.bikeoff.org/design_resource/ABT_problem_why_prevent.shtml

http://www.designagainstcrime.com/index.php?q=node/65

interesting links, in that first one they indicate that theft is the No2 deterrent to cycling after road safety. They also found that, of those that experience cycle theft, 17% stop cycling and 66% cycle less. That's an 83% negative impact from theft and that doesn't count the people that just never bother in the frist place, due to fear of theft.

I'd imagined the issue was big but not as big as that.

 

[jonesy]

interesting links, in that first one they indicate that theft is the No2 deterrent to cycling after road safety. They also found that, of those that experience cycle theft, 17% stop cycling and 66% cycle less. That's an 83% negative impact from theft and that doesn't count the people that just never bother in the frist place, due to fear of theft.

I'd imagined the issue was big but not as big as that.

You've alway got to be careful in how you interpret the reasons people give for not doing something that they don't currently do, and which are hard to quantify anyway, like 'safety', but the figures for those who stop cycling after a theft are indeed an indication that this is a serious problem.

 

[MacB]

You've alway got to be careful in how you interpret the reasons people give for not doing something that they don't currently do, and which are hard to quantify anyway, like 'safety', but the figures for those who stop cycling after a theft are indeed an indication that this is a serious problem.

Agreed, I don't trust the I don't cycle because stats. Since my first experience I seem to have aquired an interest in cycle parking and security. I can't help looking over the bikes and facilities every time I'm at a station, shops etc(I'll probably end up getting questioned). Stations are amazing, nearly every bike I've seen is a clear indication that the owner has followed the 'ride a heap of rubbish' advice. I've seen a lot that I just wouldn't take on to a road. I get the impression that they've opted for this plus cheap, lightweight, lock rather than carrying multiple heavy locks. Then there's the folks that have followed the 'disguise' route. Is it just me or does a bike covered in sticky tape, or stickers, scream please steal me?

 

[jonesy]

Agreed, I don't trust the I don't cycle because stats.

Sadly you see a lot of surveys like that in transport, the sort that begin "why don't you cycle?" followed by a list that goes "cycling is dangerous", "too hilly", "too wet", "bike thieves" etc" and then "What would encourage you to cycle?", followed by something like "Safe cycleways" (invariably undefined), "showers", "lockers","free breakfasts", etc etc. And so prompted people dutifully tick all the boxes, and you draw all sorts of conclusions on what will get them to cycle, potentially spend money on 'safe cycle paths' etc, and still no-one cycles because you didn't actually get to the real reason why people weren't cycling in the first place...

The same applies to other modes. I once saw some response to a staff travel plan survey, in which half the respondents from one particular village drove, and ticked the box that said they did this because there was 'no public transport'; the other half all travelled by bus..

Since my first experience I seem to have aquired an interest in cycle parking and security. I can't help looking over the bikes and facilities every time I'm at a station, shops etc(I'll probably end up getting questioned). Stations are amazing, nearly every bike I've seen is a clear indication that the owner has followed the 'ride a heap of rubbish' advice. I've seen a lot that I just wouldn't take on to a road. I get the impression that they've opted for this plus cheap, lightweight, lock rather than carrying multiple heavy locks. Then there's the folks that have followed the 'disguise' route. Is it just me or does a bike covered in sticky tape, or stickers, scream please steal me?

I'm not convinced tht everyone riding a heap of rubbish is doing so as a deliberate strategy, not in Oxford at least!