Bikes for people not interested in cycling

[nickyboy]

The reasons you give for switching to other means of transport apply universally. It just seems like not al countries ditched the bike to the same extent as the UK.
There's still rain, and dark winter days in NL. Less hills, certainly, but a lot of wind in places.

Is utility cycling as prevalent in other countries? Purely using my own eyes not as prevalent in places in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, but probably on a par with Denmark. Having said that, there is still a lot of utility cycling.
I was very surprised with the level of utility cycling in Switzerland. And they're not short of hills!

One thing to remember is that E-bikes are also quite common here. There are a few local commuters I see regularly on powerful (registered) E-bikes.

There is definitely infrastructure and cycling is very high on the consciousness level. For example, for roadworks etc. diversions are clear and easy to follow for bikes. Sometimes easier than for cars. For infrastructure, though, there has to be demand.

I suspect you're right about cycling infrastructure.

What is interesting is the two countries you mention as having the most utility cycling are by far the flattest countries in Europe. Can't be a coincidence surely? Perhaps it's as simple as that. Cycling by non-cyclists (ie people who just ride their bike to get from A to B) is heavily dependent on how hilly it is where they live?

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Yes, NL has a high degree of utility cycling, but these are usually very short trips. Faced with a commute over 5km and the Dutch will pile into their cars. And they absolutely love cars - higher private ownership rates than the UK. Not entirely surprising given the poor train service.

This is the thing; for really short journeys cycling has door to door convenience and can genuinely save time as well as money. A 3 mile ride is 15-20 minutes. Using a car for that distance really saves no time, and if you take it easy, you aren't going to arrive dripping with sweat and looking bedraggled, which is a major barrier to bike riding any significant distance. You've got to find your keys, get the car out, possibly lock your garage and shut your front gate (if not parked on street) behind you. Then you've got to get to your destination, park your car somewhere close, and possibly have to walk some distance to your final destination. The faffing around at either end of a car trip is the same, regardless of the distance, so the longer the journey is the more it favours using the car.
The general population is NOT going to suddenly decide to ride 10 mile car trips by bike instead, no matter how much hardcore cyclists on here think they should. It just ain't going to happen. Two or three miles each way is realistic, if it's just one person point A to point B, not needing to lug much stuff with them. Even achieving that is a challenge, because I'm sure we all know some right lazy b'stards who won't even walk half a mile to get their morning paper and a pint of milk despite having the same number of legs as the rest of us. If we really want cycling to increase it's all the sub-mile car drivers, bus riders, and minicab users that need to be persuaded to ride.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

I suspect you're right about cycling infrastructure.

What is interesting is the two countries you mention as having the most utility cycling are by far the flattest countries in Europe. Can't be a coincidence surely? Perhaps it's as simple as that. Cycling by non-cyclists (ie people who just ride their bike to get from A to B) is heavily dependent on how hilly it is where they live?

I don't want to keep harping on about this, but utility cycling was far more prevalent in the UK before. And the hills are not new. Gears and now E-bikes help significantly with hills. I'm thinking hills are an excuse, not a reason.

By the way, Limburg in NL is pretty hilly. Still lots of bikes down there.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN54oOMVrXQ

 

[HobbesOnTour]

The general population is NOT going to suddenly decide to ride 10 mile car trips by bike instead, no matter how much hardcore cyclists on here think they should. It just ain't going to happen. Two or three miles each way is realistic, if it's just one person point A to point B, not needing to lug much stuff with them. Even achieving that is a challenge, because I'm sure we all know some right lazy b'stards who won't even walk half a mile to get their morning paper and a pint of milk despite having the same number of legs as the rest of us. If we really want cycling to increase it's all the sub-mile car drivers, bus riders, and minicab users that need to be persuaded to ride.

The thing is, I think it's more to do with attitude than anything else.
I got rid of my car 2 years ago and while my 40 odd km commute is considered a bit strange at work, it is one of the best parts of my day. I have rented a van once when moving furniture. I either use a train, bus or bike, sometimes a combination.
If someone suggested that to me 4 years ago, I'd have laughed at them. I never thought I'd ride a bike in winter. I never thought I'd do my shopping on a bike. I never thought I could do without a car. But here I am, saying it's not a problem.
But..... I think the alternatives (bus and train) are excellent, if not always the most convenient.

Sure, not many people are going to swap a 10 mile journey in a car for one on a bike.
But someone who can cycle 1 mile, can soon cycle 2 and so on. Of course there's a limit. But the more people get used to a bike the more they realise they can do - so long as the bike is up to it.
Which brings me back to the start of the thread.... bikes for people not interested in cycling. They should be simple, strong and be able to be used in all kinds of scenarios.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Sure, not many people are going to swap a 10 mile journey in a car for one on a bike.
But someone who can cycle 1 mile, can soon cycle 2 and so on. Of course there's a limit. But the more people get used to a bike the more they realise they can do - so long as the bike is up to it.
Which brings me back to the start of the thread.... bikes for people not interested in cycling. They should be simple, strong and be able to be used in all kinds of scenarios.

Everyone on this site rides a bike because they like cycling. It is easy to forget that most people just don't have any desire or interest in it. It's not about the bike, there are loads of reasonably priced machines of decent quality out there, but most people don't give a fig and would never ride one.

 

[User169]

But..... I think the alternatives (bus and train) are excellent, if not always the most convenient.

Dunno about buses, but the Dutch train system is dire. Making a scheduled connection is the exception rather than the rule.

I'm speaking here some one who spent 2,5 years commuting between Delft and Amsterdam, 2 years between Delft and Utrecht and now between Delft and Belgium.

And it's going to get worse as network approaches peak capacity.

Costs are reasonable though, I'll give it that.

 

[tyred]

A large part of it is to do with attitude in many ways.

We have been sold the idea that car ownership is the badge of success and therefore people aspire to owning one and then for many to own a better one. When I was a boy, we put posters of Ferraris and Porsches on our bedroom walls - not a poster of a Ford Escort 1.3 Popular Plus or a Rover 213. I well remember the ridicule of Eastern Bloc cars, yet they did the same job of taking people from A to B and plenty of Western products were just as badly built in those days. It really is about image. For many the car is a status symbol; park a BMW 740i in your drive way and it announces to the world that you've done well for yourself in the eyes of many. For such people, the bicycle is associated with poverty and they wouldn't lower themselves to travel by one.

In 1906, Henry Ford sold the idea of freedom with his Model T and in 1906 rural America he may very well have been right as basically nobody else had cars but today far too many exist and in many ways they restrict our freedom but for many, they believe car ownership gives them freedom.

Nowadays an entire generation have grown up with Mummy and Daddy driving them the most ridiculous short journeys whereas kids growing up in times past just walked or cycled for the most part. My ex has 3 teenage daughters and so much of her time was given towards driving them stupidly short distances around town - journeys that a fit, healthy teenager ought to have been able to complete faster on foot most of the time due to traffic congestion. I used to have to bite my tongue as my views on her doing this may not have been popular...

People perceive that cycling is dangerous and I can perfectly understand this. It's not helped in the country the so called Road Safety Authority trying to encapsulate everyone in helmets and hi-vis. There is also the question of cycle paths which actually put cyclists in more danger than they would otherwise be. I do see hope though, the efforts to educate young drivers at driving test level seem to work. The dangerous overtakes I get are usually from middle-aged people. Young drivers seem to give lots of room and hang back until there is nothing coming.

People think that cycling is difficult, and if you are unfit then it will be, not helped by the fact that many try cycling on a bike that doesn't fit or isn't adjusted to fit them properly, don't know to inflate tyres, oil chains etc so through lack of knowledge make cycling more difficult than it needs to be. You don't need an expensive bike - just one which fits, works as it should and has sensible gear ratio(s).

 

[Blue Hills]

Everyone on this site rides a bike because they like cycling.

I got into cycling after I wrote off a car - and like Hobbes found the idea, suggested to me, that I could shop by bike bizarre. But I took to it immediately and found it liberating.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Everyone on this site rides a bike because they like cycling. It is easy to forget that most people just don't have any desire or interest in it. It's not about the bike, there are loads of reasonably priced machines of decent quality out there, but most people don't give a fig and would never ride one.

Back in the days of mass cycling by the industrial working classes, and low private car ownership, I'm not convinced that every cycle commuter was a cycling enthusiast then either. Some undoubtedly were, but I suggest the majority just viewed it as an affordable way to get to work. The majority of modern day car commuters aren't petrolheads either, but the fact that the interior of cars are warm and dry whereas riding bikes can be cold and wet, is a massive plus point to even the most unenthusiastic car owner.

We have been sold the idea that car ownership is the badge of success and therefore people aspire to owning one and then for many to own a better one............….. It really is about image. For many the car is a status symbol; park a BMW 740i in your drive way and it announces to the world that you've done well for yourself in the eyes of many. For such people, the bicycle is associated with poverty and they wouldn't lower themselves to travel by one.

A car IS a badge of success, like it or not. Once upon a time owning a washing machine, or a TV set, or having central heating was also a mark of "success" In the modern world the yardstick is material comfort or lifestyle convenience. Owning a car gives you the choice of not getting soaked on your journey, not having to tolerate antisocial hooligans on public transport, and not relying on the attentiveness of other road users to ensure your safety. Car owners can of course also choose to cycle, but the point is they have the option of riding when they feel like it and driving when they don't. Those who cant afford a car, or can't drive, don't have that choice - and one major measure of "success" in life is the ability to choose things yourself, not have somebody else's choices imposed on you.

In 1906, Henry Ford sold the idea of freedom with his Model T and in 1906 rural America he may very well have been right as basically nobody else had cars but today far too many exist and in many ways they restrict our freedom but for many, they believe car ownership gives them freedom.

Nowadays an entire generation have grown up with Mummy and Daddy driving them the most ridiculous short journeys.

Compared to using horses, early motor vehicle ownership must have been like night and day. Where it has gone wrong is car ownership combined with laziness and the desire to avoid anything requiring physical effort.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Everyone on this site rides a bike because they like cycling

I first started cycling for transport, then I started liking it for the convenience, later liking it for the social aspect.
For me, like for @HobbesOnTour and for others that posted up thread, using a bike instead of a car was an odd, impossible idea.
I hate driving, have a license but never actually owned a car because no way I would spend money on something I hate.
Before starting cycling (I was challenged to do it, really ) the thought of a flat 5 mile commute to work never entered my mind.
Truly, to this day, I don't know why it never occurred to me I could cycle instead of taking 2 buses.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Seen this?

Ditch cars to meet climate change targets, say MPs https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49425402

 

[tyred]

Compared to using horses, early motor vehicle ownership must have been like night and day. Where it has gone wrong is car ownership combined with laziness and the desire to avoid anything requiring physical effort.

The car has become a victim of it's own success and refinement and improvements of the design have led to the modern convenience and overuse of the things. A Ford Model T just couldn't be used in the way that you can use a Ford Mondeo today - too temperamental, too demanding in terms of maintenance. If you were to try and use one for the sort of mileage most people do today you'd almost need to employ a full-time mechanic.

As someone who likes and enjoys tinkering with things, a Model T or other early car appeals as a hobby if I had the space and the funds to keep it but I would not like to have it as my only car. If cars hadn't become so reliable and user-friendly I doubt they'd ever have become as successful and as over-used as we now see today. I can leave my Peugeot sitting for weeks at a time if I don't need it and then step into it and expect it to start and drive to the other end of the country without issue if I needed to.

You mention horses - as someone from an agricultural background with an interest in farm machinery and it's history, early tractors weren't much use either in the great scheme of things but they very rapidly took over from horses for the simple reason that a tractor doesn't eat anything when it's not being used whereas horses need to graze, hay and oats for winter - a large part of an arable farm was given up to feeding the horses used to work it. Tractors were a worthwhile investment as over time they reduced overheads. I'm sure a largely similar thing happened in the haulage industry for the same reasons which led to lorries we see today.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

We mustn't forget that many towns since the 80's councils have also made planning decisions to favour households getting in cars to do things they could do on foot or bike previous. One example being the out of or edge of town retail estates.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

Everyone on this site rides a bike because they like cycling. It is easy to forget that most people just don't have any desire or interest in it. It's not about the bike, there are loads of reasonably priced machines of decent quality out there, but most people don't give a fig and would never ride one.

I understand that. Most of us like cycling and a lot are quite well educated on the ins and outs of bike design, components, materials and loads of other subjects related to cycling.

Then, when a newbie comes along after being prompted to think about cycling, a lot of the advice is from people who like cycling to people who like cycling, when, in fact, the newbie doesn't know if they'll like cycling. They haven't tried it yet! That's not a criticism - it's just a fact.

I'm running out of ways to say the issue is with attitude. And I believe that attitude can and should be changed.

You say "most people don't give a fig and would never ride one".
I agree 100%.
The real question is why? And is there anything the people on here can do to change that.


Imagine a scenario where someone posts along the lines of....
Hi. I'm Couldn'tGiveAFig, I'm new here. Haven't cycled in 20 years but want to lose some weight, get fit, maybe cycle to work few times a week and do a few rambles along the canal at weekends. My budget is 500-

Instead of a discussion about components, the first reply was something like
Go down to your local bike co-op. Talk to Jim (or Jane!), they'll help you pick out a bike for 100 quid that will do what you want it to do and he'll make sure that it's in a good, roadworthy condition.
Don't forget to sign up for the beginner's guide to bike maintenance to look after the fiddly little things.
Learn all you can on your co-op bike, then when you want to spend your 500 come back and we'll help you get the best bike for you at that price.
Oh! Don't forget to donate your Co-op bike bike for the next person.

Couldn'tGiveAFig's friends, relatives will see and some may be convinced to give it a shot too.

When the obstacles identified on this thread can be overcome more people will get on a bike. At the end of the day, more people cycling is a win win, whether everybody doing it enjoys it or not.

 

[MichaelW2]

For a year or so my flattish, dryish Fine City had a dockless bike scheme. The bikes were well equipped utility models with 3 speed hub gears, hub brakes, dynamo lighting, a front basket or rack, mudguards, solid tyres. They were popular with many young "non cyclists" including teenage girls.