Sensationalising is what the media do. Relatively minor incidents can be blown out of proportion, a small upward trend in crime can lead to hysteria about how we're not safe to go out on our streets. Sensible advice from the government gets labelled as the 'nanny state' dictating how we should live. This is common amongst tabloids - it's how they sell papers. Now online content is a source of revenue, similar tactics are used to generate visitors to a site. 'Opinion' pages are full of outlandish views we probably shouldn't believe, but we get sucked in anyway. Cyclists are a favourite target - they are already contentious - many cyclists are ready and willing to vehemently defend both their own actions - and any of their 2 wheeled brethren - from attack. The tactic is often to state how cyclists break the law - don't stop at red lights, cycle the wrong way, on pavements & how they all have a reckless disregard for the safety of themselves and others. Such articles find a publisher on almost a weekly basis. What I didn't expect though, was for the BBC to get involved in poking the hornet's nest.
It's clear from the title that 'The War on Britain's Roads' isn't going to be a rational look at what needs to be done to improve the safety and harmony of all road users. I did expect at least for this to feature in the concluding minutes. It does not, short of a taxi drivers wry comments that the best thing for all of us is if no one drives and no one cycles.
A lot of the footage is from helmet cameras - such footage is increasingly found on YouTube, of drivers who pass too closely to cyclists, who get out and get aggressive. The programme treats this as though it means cyclists are getting militant, or that they feel the need to have camera's as protection & the abundance of them is indicative of an increase in poor driver behaviour. Nonsense, it's indicative of an increase in cyclists & a decrease in the cost of such technology.
We see a video from CycleGaz where a taxi driver cuts in too close & Gaz slaps it to make the driver aware, leading to the driver getting out and angrily confronting him. Rather than focusing on whether the original manoeuvre was safe, what a safe distance to leave is or what cyclists and motorists can do to avoid such close calls, the programme chose to show the confrontation and analysis of this. Such incidents are rare - whereas the close misses happen all the time.
The programme continues in essence, as we have seen - looking at confrontation, from cyclists getting punched in the head, to police having to intervene in a grievance. There is a large amount of discussion around a cyclist who was unfortunately killed, and her mother's campaign for greater safety on the roads, especially concrete mixer lorries and other HGVs. This part is rare though - the programme's aim doesn't appear to have been to resolve anything, but to provoke a reaction from both the cyclists and the motorists featured.
Towards the end, this is exemplified by the showing of what I am led to believe was a commercially funded race of cycle couriers across London. Of course everyone condemned their risky behaviour, but what did showing this achieve - it's not typical, just as boy racers having drag races along dual carriageways are not typical of drivers. It's easy to show the obviously bad and get universal condemnation of it - what the show didn't do was explain what behaviours were seen by drivers as acceptable, yet felt dangerous to cyclists, or the behaviours cyclists engage in which they may not be aware unnecessarily antagonise drivers.
In sensationalising the issue & picking extreme examples, the BBC may have been successful in portraying a 'war' on the roads, but it was unsuccessful in showing the truth: The vast majority of interactions between drivers and cyclists occur without note - giving way to each other, overtaking safely, obeying the law. I would say that 90% of the cycle journeys I take pass without incident, and only 1-2% feature dangerous or reckless behaviour towards me rather than simple misunderstanding. It's what we can do to fix that which falls in the gap which concerns me - the drivers who don't know they are overtaking dangerously close, the cyclists who act as though they don't need to obey the law. If we can change the cultural norms that disregard safety on the roads, that is where the most lives will be saved. If cycling can be adequately protected, if drivers don't feel the need to overtake cyclists at any half-opportunity, if cycle infrastructure can be created that meets the needs of cyclists, we will get somewhere, not focusing on individual, isolated acts of aggression. 'The War on Britain's Roads' has been greatly exaggerated - it's mostly just blustering and hot air.
Monday 10 December 2012
Wednesday 28 November 2012
'Walking and cycling should become the norm for short journeys '
A report recently published by NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) has hit headlines across the UK. Why? Because it recommends that cycling and walking are better options for short journeys than driving. ( http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13975/61629/61629.pdf ) This point, which a couple of decades ago would just have been seen as common sense, today somehow provokes debate. It's controversial to suggest that cars aren't the best way to get around! So why is walking and cycling short journeys better?
The report handily outlines the benefits to local authorities & government in a way that will appeal to them. It will enable them to better achieve their goals (or targets, if you will). These goals range from improving public health and obesity - which is what NICE focuses on - to reducing traffic congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. All good things. It also hints that big measures need to be taken to ensure that walking and cycling is increased, by suggesting other guidance on how to improve the environment to encourage physical activity (from Jan. 2008 - http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11917/38983/38983.pdf ) and that the impetus needs to come from central government. It is necessary, the report argues for "national actions to support walking and cycling, such as fiscal measures and other policy interventions to alter the balance between active and motorised travel in terms of cost and convenience." NICE recognises that it can't do it alone, hopefully the relevant people will pick up the baton so politely held out to them.
What are the health benefits of cycling & walking, then? According to the report, these activities can:
Promote mental wellbeing.
All of which, we can surely be in favour of. However, a national paper (I'll leave it up to the reader to deduce which one) has claimed that this is simply the 'nanny state' and focuses on a small part of the report which suggests that increased parking charges might provide an incentive to avoid driving. In our car-centric culture, anything which points out the downsides of driving is seen as an attack, as part of the 'war on the motorist.' This report is nothing of the sort. In fact it clearly shows, that by encouraging people who are able, to make their journeys on foot or two wheels, we will all benefit - not least, other motorists, who are perhaps making journeys for which their cars are a necessity. Reduced congestion benefits everyone, and freeing our streets from being clogged up by cars does too. Additional benefits, highlighted by the report of increased levels of walking and cycling include.
The report handily outlines the benefits to local authorities & government in a way that will appeal to them. It will enable them to better achieve their goals (or targets, if you will). These goals range from improving public health and obesity - which is what NICE focuses on - to reducing traffic congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. All good things. It also hints that big measures need to be taken to ensure that walking and cycling is increased, by suggesting other guidance on how to improve the environment to encourage physical activity (from Jan. 2008 - http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11917/38983/38983.pdf ) and that the impetus needs to come from central government. It is necessary, the report argues for "national actions to support walking and cycling, such as fiscal measures and other policy interventions to alter the balance between active and motorised travel in terms of cost and convenience." NICE recognises that it can't do it alone, hopefully the relevant people will pick up the baton so politely held out to them.
What are the health benefits of cycling & walking, then? According to the report, these activities can:
Reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, obesity and type 2 diabetes.
Keep the musculoskeletal system healthy.
Promote mental wellbeing.
All of which, we can surely be in favour of. However, a national paper (I'll leave it up to the reader to deduce which one) has claimed that this is simply the 'nanny state' and focuses on a small part of the report which suggests that increased parking charges might provide an incentive to avoid driving. In our car-centric culture, anything which points out the downsides of driving is seen as an attack, as part of the 'war on the motorist.' This report is nothing of the sort. In fact it clearly shows, that by encouraging people who are able, to make their journeys on foot or two wheels, we will all benefit - not least, other motorists, who are perhaps making journeys for which their cars are a necessity. Reduced congestion benefits everyone, and freeing our streets from being clogged up by cars does too. Additional benefits, highlighted by the report of increased levels of walking and cycling include.
Reduced car travel, leading to reductions in air pollution, carbon dioxide emissions and congestion.
Reduced road danger and noise.
Increased numbers of people of all ages who are out on the streets, making public spaces seem more welcoming and providing opportunities for social interaction.
Provide an opportunity for everyone, including people with an impairment, to participate in and enjoy the outdoor environment.
If that's not enough, the economy is likely to benefit too. The reduced cost to the NHS of obesity and hopefully reduce car crashes (a fatal car crash is estimated to cost around £1 million). Congestion alone costs the economy nearly £11 billion a year, so reducing this gives a clear benefit. As for the argument that town centre shops will wither and die from reduced car access, car users have been shown to spend just £56 per week in town centres, compared to a whopping £93 per week for walkers and £70 per week for bus users. ( http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/customer-research/town-centre-study-2011-report.pdf ) Another report suggests that walkers and cyclists are the two highest-spending groups in town centres ( http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/cycling-revolution-end-of-year_review.pdf ). So getting more people cycling and walking, or allowing cyclists and walkers easier access will surely improve the fortunes of our beloved high streets.
Some of the many benefits of switching mode of transport from driving have been very nicely outlined in the report. I'm hopeful that this will make some people reconsider their mode of transport next time they're about to hop in the car to pick up some milk from the shops, but the big change in our culture can only be made if local authorities and central government take this report and invest in facilities that favour bikes and pedestrians as much (or more) than cars. That's what I hope for and I will be writing to my local council and my MP to urge them to take note.
Monday 26 November 2012
Why is the car seen as king?
Every day in the media, on twitter, on the roads and with people I meet, the perception of travel is clear: The Car is King! In fact, aside from aeroplanes, the mainstream view seems to be that all other forms of transport are completely inferior. It's an astonishing view, but it is so prevalent that it impacts on politics, town planning, even company policies & professional perceptions. I notice the difference if I ask how to get to a meeting by public transport compared to if I ask where I can park my car. But why is this?
In the UK, learning to drive and buying your first car is seen as a rite of passage. Once you turn 17, you're definitely in the minority if you're not at least getting driving lessons. Fair enough. Driving is a useful life skill, and like many such skills, it's good to learn it young, to have it there for when you need it. However, a lot of emphasis is put on actually driving as well. You may have been independent for several years previously, getting the train or bus around to see your mates, but somehow you're expected to drive everywhere once you pass your test. It's seen as completely normal to spend all your spare cash on buying & running a motor. No-one thinks you're insane for spending several grand a year just to go to the same places you went to before, but now in a car. college, mate's house, shopping, work (that extra job you had to get to afford the car), but people do see you as a bit weird for continuing to cycle to college even after you have the car, despite it being the best option. This view seems to continue, unchanged, throughout adult life.
It's seen as strange to cycle to town on a Saturday afternoon to do your shopping. You get pitying looks from passers-by as you adjust your heavily laden panniers ready for your journey home. It doesn't matter that you'll be cycling freely along, home in no time whilst they're stuck in traffic for another half an hour, having parted with £7.50 just for the privilege of parking their car for a few hours. The thought won't even occur to them that perhaps there is a better way, one that would allow them a bit of extra cash to spend at the shops & one that would allow them more free time. For some reason sitting in traffic, whilst an inevitability in many towns, is seen as a sensible choice. People moan about it, but they accept it, as though it's better to be sat going nowhere in a car than to already be home, cracking open that first beer and settling down to watch final score.
Companies up and down the country will unquestioningly reward drivers - they will pay them full expenses - 45p per mile driven, on a journey of any distance. Few companies I have encountered seem to care that there may be a cheaper option for them than every employee driving to their meetings. It won't be suggested for one second that maybe they should get the train instead, as it will save some money, these are tough times after all. Yet get the train and you're expected to be willing to get a cheaper ticket, even if it means taking the longer route, getting home later to your family. First class? Some chance! Even if it's cheaper than driving, a first class rail ticket is still somehow seen as an extravagance.
Commuters are expected to drive in most towns across the country. In London and a few other large cities, public transport is seen as an acceptable way to get to work (and even, dare I say it, cycling), but the reality in most towns & workplaces is that workers are expected to drive. Job adverts frequently highlight, among the benefits on offer, 'free parking!'. It's rare to see one that advertises 'great public transport links'. Indeed, many town-centre businesses seem willing to spend good money on expensive land just so their employees can drive right to the office door. Out of town business parks may be forgiven for expecting workers to arrive by car, but these are often served by a shuttle bus at least from the nearest transport hub. Do any have specific cycle parking? Rarely.
So when all these cars are going about their business, often at the same time of day, our town centres become congested, students going to school, workers commuting, shoppers driving into town. The end result of this is that the car loses any benefit it may have had for most people. Ok, so some may be disabled, or have a bootload of heavy shopping, or several young children, but look at most cars stuck in traffic and you'll see time and again just one person in the car, often between 20-50 years old & most likely with nothing in the boot but a spare pair of shoes. It's situations like this where the bike comes into it's own. Journey times can be far quicker by bike across town centres, over the relatively short commutes that most people will do, of under 5 miles, even in normal traffic conditions, at rush hour, it's a no-brainer. Bikes do still get held up by traffic though. A bike lane would be nice, to allow cyclists the smooth journey they deserve without having to 'weave through traffic'. You would think most drivers would switch. It seems to be some sort of prisoner's dilemma though - perhaps if the roads were clear, a car would be quicker - so it's better to be in a car & for everyone else to be on a bike. I don't see this happening any time soon though, so it's time for drivers to realise this and get on their bikes.
The result of all these congested town centres is often the same. Councils seek a solution, at the request of frustrated drivers and residents. They ignore the obvious solution though. The most common need of all these drivers is simply to get themselves from where they were to where they are going. They don't usually need to be in their cars. The obvious solution then, is to make the most efficicent use of the roads, to invest in more buses, more bus lanes, more cycle lanes, to allow each person to take up as little room as possible on the roads, and allow everyone to get through those traffic lights that stop them getting out of town in the quickest time possible.
But that's not what happens. Somehow, the problem is incorrectly identified. Town planners think the issue is not that people need to get somewhere, but that the cars need to get somewhere. So more road space is given over to cars, because the Car is King! It needs to get where it is going! Bus lanes get overlooked, cycle lanes squeezed into non-existance, traffic lights get re-phased, roundabouts get replaced & yet the result is just the same. Nobody is going anywhere. Because the Car is King, we all have to go at the pace the car goes at, no matter how slow this is.
In the UK, learning to drive and buying your first car is seen as a rite of passage. Once you turn 17, you're definitely in the minority if you're not at least getting driving lessons. Fair enough. Driving is a useful life skill, and like many such skills, it's good to learn it young, to have it there for when you need it. However, a lot of emphasis is put on actually driving as well. You may have been independent for several years previously, getting the train or bus around to see your mates, but somehow you're expected to drive everywhere once you pass your test. It's seen as completely normal to spend all your spare cash on buying & running a motor. No-one thinks you're insane for spending several grand a year just to go to the same places you went to before, but now in a car. college, mate's house, shopping, work (that extra job you had to get to afford the car), but people do see you as a bit weird for continuing to cycle to college even after you have the car, despite it being the best option. This view seems to continue, unchanged, throughout adult life.
It's seen as strange to cycle to town on a Saturday afternoon to do your shopping. You get pitying looks from passers-by as you adjust your heavily laden panniers ready for your journey home. It doesn't matter that you'll be cycling freely along, home in no time whilst they're stuck in traffic for another half an hour, having parted with £7.50 just for the privilege of parking their car for a few hours. The thought won't even occur to them that perhaps there is a better way, one that would allow them a bit of extra cash to spend at the shops & one that would allow them more free time. For some reason sitting in traffic, whilst an inevitability in many towns, is seen as a sensible choice. People moan about it, but they accept it, as though it's better to be sat going nowhere in a car than to already be home, cracking open that first beer and settling down to watch final score.
Companies up and down the country will unquestioningly reward drivers - they will pay them full expenses - 45p per mile driven, on a journey of any distance. Few companies I have encountered seem to care that there may be a cheaper option for them than every employee driving to their meetings. It won't be suggested for one second that maybe they should get the train instead, as it will save some money, these are tough times after all. Yet get the train and you're expected to be willing to get a cheaper ticket, even if it means taking the longer route, getting home later to your family. First class? Some chance! Even if it's cheaper than driving, a first class rail ticket is still somehow seen as an extravagance.
Commuters are expected to drive in most towns across the country. In London and a few other large cities, public transport is seen as an acceptable way to get to work (and even, dare I say it, cycling), but the reality in most towns & workplaces is that workers are expected to drive. Job adverts frequently highlight, among the benefits on offer, 'free parking!'. It's rare to see one that advertises 'great public transport links'. Indeed, many town-centre businesses seem willing to spend good money on expensive land just so their employees can drive right to the office door. Out of town business parks may be forgiven for expecting workers to arrive by car, but these are often served by a shuttle bus at least from the nearest transport hub. Do any have specific cycle parking? Rarely.
So when all these cars are going about their business, often at the same time of day, our town centres become congested, students going to school, workers commuting, shoppers driving into town. The end result of this is that the car loses any benefit it may have had for most people. Ok, so some may be disabled, or have a bootload of heavy shopping, or several young children, but look at most cars stuck in traffic and you'll see time and again just one person in the car, often between 20-50 years old & most likely with nothing in the boot but a spare pair of shoes. It's situations like this where the bike comes into it's own. Journey times can be far quicker by bike across town centres, over the relatively short commutes that most people will do, of under 5 miles, even in normal traffic conditions, at rush hour, it's a no-brainer. Bikes do still get held up by traffic though. A bike lane would be nice, to allow cyclists the smooth journey they deserve without having to 'weave through traffic'. You would think most drivers would switch. It seems to be some sort of prisoner's dilemma though - perhaps if the roads were clear, a car would be quicker - so it's better to be in a car & for everyone else to be on a bike. I don't see this happening any time soon though, so it's time for drivers to realise this and get on their bikes.
The result of all these congested town centres is often the same. Councils seek a solution, at the request of frustrated drivers and residents. They ignore the obvious solution though. The most common need of all these drivers is simply to get themselves from where they were to where they are going. They don't usually need to be in their cars. The obvious solution then, is to make the most efficicent use of the roads, to invest in more buses, more bus lanes, more cycle lanes, to allow each person to take up as little room as possible on the roads, and allow everyone to get through those traffic lights that stop them getting out of town in the quickest time possible.
But that's not what happens. Somehow, the problem is incorrectly identified. Town planners think the issue is not that people need to get somewhere, but that the cars need to get somewhere. So more road space is given over to cars, because the Car is King! It needs to get where it is going! Bus lanes get overlooked, cycle lanes squeezed into non-existance, traffic lights get re-phased, roundabouts get replaced & yet the result is just the same. Nobody is going anywhere. Because the Car is King, we all have to go at the pace the car goes at, no matter how slow this is.
Friday 23 November 2012
Cycle Safety - From a Driver's Viewpoint
The main reason I set up my twitter account (@asecretcyclist) and this blog, was to discuss & highlight cycle safety issues. Since joining twitter, I've discovered that there's a lot more to cycle safety than government policy on road layouts and cycle infrastructure. It's about tackling negative attitudes towards cycling as well. Whenever I see drivers (I assume, non-cycling drivers) mentioning cyclists and road safety together, the argument seems to fall one of two ways. Either; the roads aren't safe enough for cyclists to be allowed on them; or cyclists aren't safe enough to be allowed on the roads. I will attempt to address both of these below.
It's interesting to note that there were 25 fatalities per billion km cycled in 2008 - the most recent year this graph represents. That's just one per 40 million km. This shows cycling to be relatively safe. A guardian blog, also from September ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/sep/28/road-deaths-great-britain-data ), shows that driving a car is by far the safest mode of transport, with 1 death per 320 million km driven (note the guardian article measures in miles). This doesn't, of course take into account the deaths caused by inactivity due to choosing a cars as transport, but perhaps that's for another post. What is interesting to note, is that motorcycles are by far the most at risk group - with a fatality even 10.1 million km travelled - yet there is not a call for them to be taken off the roads for their own safety.
I've no doubt that some drivers are genuinely concerned that roads are not safe enough for cyclists. This may even be the reason they drive, rather than cycle. I know for a fact that a large number of drivers would cycle if they felt the roads were safer (35% of commuters and 46% of short journeys overall!) ( http://www.brake.org.uk/latest-news/commuters-call-for-safer-streets-for-cycling-to-enable-more-to-get-on-their-bikes.htm ). However, to cite cyclist safety as a reason for cyclists to not be allowed on the road is disingenuous. If someone is genuinely concerned for the safety of a group, they would support measures to improve their safety, rather than seeking to remove the issue. Cycling is overwhelmingly safe (an average cycle commute of 8.7 miles a day would require over 19000 years to rack up the miles per fatality in the UK), but the safety can be improved. One way to do this is for motorists to get on board with the cycle safety campaign. Yes, sometimes separate cycle paths are the answer, sometimes it's on road cycle lanes, sometimes reduced speed limits. Next time a driver tells you it's not safe on the roads for a cyclist. Tell them it IS safe, but if they really care, they'll lend their support to make it even safer.
I've genuinely heard that last one as a reason cyclists shouldn't be allowed to cycle on the road. Because they illegally cycle on the pavement. The logic here baffles me completely. I'll try to show that cyclists aren't a danger in this part.
Firstly, I'll make a point which seems to elude most motorists. A cyclist, weighing perhaps 15 stone including their bike, is not a threat to a person cocooned in a 1.5 tonne metal box, no matter how dangerous their behaviour. This should mean that all concerns about cyclist behaviour should come down to the impact on the safety of cyclists themselves (as discussed above), which any cyclist will always put the utmost importance on in their decision-making, but somehow they are seen as a threat to the safety of people in cars.
Do all cyclists run red lights? According to the IAM 57% do ( http://www.iam.org.uk/component/content/article?id=1054 ). Well actually, looking at the study more closely, only 14% do this regularly or sometimes. The survey on drivers found 31.8% run red lights, though the breakdown isn't available. Whilst this study is disputed in it's veracity, it still shows that red-light jumping by cyclists is hardly an epidemic. 14% do it on a regular basis. It's not good, but it's not a reason to ban all cyclists from the road, and you can bet most of those cyclists are just going early, to get ahead of the traffic, rather than barrelling through at full pelt. Compared to the 278 motorists running red lights every minute in the UK ( http://www.cheapcarinsurance.co.uk/2011/08/20/uk-drivers-running-278-red-lights-every-sixty-seconds/ ) it's not exactly a major cause for concern. The solution here would be to ensure red-light jumpers on all modes of transport are adequately caught and punished. The fact that almost a quarter of drivers have been caught speeding ( http://www.metro.co.uk/news/69200-7-million-drivers-caught-speeding ) and 46% of cars break 30mph speed limits ( http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/the-need-for-less-speed-number-of-drivers-speeding-falls-8068933.html ) indicates that to find law-breakers, perhaps motorists need to look within their own group.
Cyclists are sometimes accused of not signalling where they are going. Whilst I've heard this claim numerous times, I haven't been able to uncover any studies to support the claim. I have discovered that a survey in 2011 found 33% of drivers don't indicate when turning ( http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1656.html ). In my experience, this is even worse when on a bike - drivers simply don't see you, or don't feel they need to indicate their actions to you. Again, I feel that signalling is in a cyclist's best interest - if they feel they are in danger if they don't indicate, then they will indicate.
The argument that cyclists are dangerous because they weave in and out of traffic stems from a misconception. Firstly, it's only possible at low speeds - a cyclist doesn't have the power to weave tightly at speeds of over about 5mph, which isn't going to cause a danger to anyone. Most 'weaving' occurs through stationary traffic, and is actually filtering, with the occasional need to switch lanes due to a differently positioned motor vehicle. It's argued that such filtering is undertaking and is illegal. This is incorrect. The highway code states that motorists must look out for cyclists (and motorcyclists) doing this and makes no comment on the legality of the manoeuvre (where something is illegal, the Highway Code will clearly state this). ( https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/motorcyclists-and-cyclists-211-to-213 )
Cyclists do not cycle in a straight line. This does not make them dangerous. No road user maintains a perfectly straight line. They will often move in their lane to avoid potholes, parked cars, or debris. Cyclists have more obstacles they will try to avoid for their safety, such as drain covers in the rain and will therefore need to occasionally make slight movements in order to avoid these. They are also more vulnerable to the elements, and therefore may be moved by wind. Rarely are the variations in course so severe as to cause a cyclist to move more than a foot or so. This is not a problem if a driver is overtaking in the manner described by the highway code:
If a driver is not overtaking, then there is no problem at all. It's clear here, then, that variations in a cyclist's line of travel are only an issue when another road user is not acting correctly.
This is also linked to the view that cyclists 'ride in the middle of the road'. This is known as primary position, and is usually only take up when there are parked cars (to avoid the likelihood of doors swinging open) or when it isn't safe for a car to overtake, to prevent an attempt. A cyclist will generally be in secondary position, about 2-3ft from the kerb and will check before moving into primary. This policy is correct, and recommended by bikeability training ( http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cycletraining/article/ct20110110-cycletraining-Bitesize-Bikeability--Part-4--On-Road-Positioning-0 ). The issue generally here then, is not that cyclists are dangerous, but rather that motorists don't understand the actions of other road users, which is somewhat worrying.
The final safety concern I'll discuss is around cyclist's safety clothing & accessories: Lights, Hi-Vis & Helmets. Somehow helmets are seen as something which makes a cyclist unsafe. It's their own concern - personally I always wear a helmet on the road because I don't trust others not to knock me off, but it has no bearing on how safely I cycle & realistically won't be much use in protecting me in a high-speed collision, or at saving anything other than the top of my head in a low-speed one. Lights are mandatory at night & any cyclist without them can expect to be fined. Hi-vis is not mandatory. Perhaps it does make someone that bit more visible - but if a driver cannot spot a cyclist with lights & reflectors at night, or just cycling along in the day, the issue is probably more of the driver's observation skills & hi-Vis wouldn't be likely to help anyway. None of this makes a cyclist more or less dangerous on the road - it may help to prevent them from being hit, but as I've pointed out before, if a cyclist gets hit by a car, the driver isn't likely to get injured at all.
This visualisation neatly sums up the relative dangers of cycles and cars to pedestrians: ( http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/8560350665bf11e0b026000255111976/comments/8564596065bf11e0b026000255111976 )
The department for transport has also done research into collisions involving cyclists and other vehicles, and found cyclists solely to blame in just 7% of cases. ( http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases ).
The facts don't lie - cyclists on the road rarely cause deaths of others - approximately 2 per year - far fewer than are caused by cars ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607 ). To suggest that cyclists are dangerous is merely an excuse to get them off the road by those who view them as an inconvenience. Arguments that cyclists should have insurance, registration & have to pass tests are also flawed. Mandatory car insurance is indicative of the risk of high-cost accidents, registration is necessary to monitor insurance & due to the ability to flee the scene of an accident, and tests are necessary for motorists to ensure they are properly training to drive vehicles which are easily capable of killing. The fact that law-breaking among motorists (speeding, red-light jumping, not indicating, illegal parking) is as prevalent as it is, suggests training and testing does not eliminate these behaviours and would be an expensive an useless folly to apply to cyclists.
Driver concern for cycle safety as an argument for removing bikes from the road is either misplaced - a genuine concern, but targeting the wrong solution - or just plain wrong - attributing dangers to cyclists which are greatly exaggerated. Either way, the argument needs to be refuted, gently, and cyclists need to work with drivers to create safer roads for everyone.
'The roads aren't safe enough for cyclists'
Often an argument against allowing cyclists on the road, dressed up as concern for their safety - is this accurate? Well, on the face of it, cyclists are in danger on the UK's roads. The Times has a running total of cyclists killed in 2012, which has recently passed the 2011 total and stands at 110 to date.( http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3313260.ece ) This endeavour may seem a little morbid, but it is raising awareness of the dangers faced by cyclists and lending credence to the campaign for safer roads for all. The increase on 2011 deaths may not be due to roads getting more dangerous, but simply a side effect of increased numbers of cyclists on the roads. A blog from September ( http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/ ) - albeit not containing the most up-to-date stats - shows that over the past decade there has been an increase in the number of kilometres cycled, but a marked decrease in the number of fatalities per kilometre cycled. In fact, per kilometre travelled, cycling is safer than walking: It's interesting to note that there were 25 fatalities per billion km cycled in 2008 - the most recent year this graph represents. That's just one per 40 million km. This shows cycling to be relatively safe. A guardian blog, also from September ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/sep/28/road-deaths-great-britain-data ), shows that driving a car is by far the safest mode of transport, with 1 death per 320 million km driven (note the guardian article measures in miles). This doesn't, of course take into account the deaths caused by inactivity due to choosing a cars as transport, but perhaps that's for another post. What is interesting to note, is that motorcycles are by far the most at risk group - with a fatality even 10.1 million km travelled - yet there is not a call for them to be taken off the roads for their own safety.
I've no doubt that some drivers are genuinely concerned that roads are not safe enough for cyclists. This may even be the reason they drive, rather than cycle. I know for a fact that a large number of drivers would cycle if they felt the roads were safer (35% of commuters and 46% of short journeys overall!) ( http://www.brake.org.uk/latest-news/commuters-call-for-safer-streets-for-cycling-to-enable-more-to-get-on-their-bikes.htm ). However, to cite cyclist safety as a reason for cyclists to not be allowed on the road is disingenuous. If someone is genuinely concerned for the safety of a group, they would support measures to improve their safety, rather than seeking to remove the issue. Cycling is overwhelmingly safe (an average cycle commute of 8.7 miles a day would require over 19000 years to rack up the miles per fatality in the UK), but the safety can be improved. One way to do this is for motorists to get on board with the cycle safety campaign. Yes, sometimes separate cycle paths are the answer, sometimes it's on road cycle lanes, sometimes reduced speed limits. Next time a driver tells you it's not safe on the roads for a cyclist. Tell them it IS safe, but if they really care, they'll lend their support to make it even safer.
'Cyclists aren't safe enough to be allowed on the roads'
This argument is usually backed up by an unsubstantiated claim that all cyclists run red lights, don't signal where they're going, weave in and out of traffic, don't cycle in a straight line, cycle the wrong way in one-way systems, don't wear Hi-Vis or helmets, don't have lights, cycle in the middle of the road or cycle on the pavement.I've genuinely heard that last one as a reason cyclists shouldn't be allowed to cycle on the road. Because they illegally cycle on the pavement. The logic here baffles me completely. I'll try to show that cyclists aren't a danger in this part.
Firstly, I'll make a point which seems to elude most motorists. A cyclist, weighing perhaps 15 stone including their bike, is not a threat to a person cocooned in a 1.5 tonne metal box, no matter how dangerous their behaviour. This should mean that all concerns about cyclist behaviour should come down to the impact on the safety of cyclists themselves (as discussed above), which any cyclist will always put the utmost importance on in their decision-making, but somehow they are seen as a threat to the safety of people in cars.
Do all cyclists run red lights? According to the IAM 57% do ( http://www.iam.org.uk/component/content/article?id=1054 ). Well actually, looking at the study more closely, only 14% do this regularly or sometimes. The survey on drivers found 31.8% run red lights, though the breakdown isn't available. Whilst this study is disputed in it's veracity, it still shows that red-light jumping by cyclists is hardly an epidemic. 14% do it on a regular basis. It's not good, but it's not a reason to ban all cyclists from the road, and you can bet most of those cyclists are just going early, to get ahead of the traffic, rather than barrelling through at full pelt. Compared to the 278 motorists running red lights every minute in the UK ( http://www.cheapcarinsurance.co.uk/2011/08/20/uk-drivers-running-278-red-lights-every-sixty-seconds/ ) it's not exactly a major cause for concern. The solution here would be to ensure red-light jumpers on all modes of transport are adequately caught and punished. The fact that almost a quarter of drivers have been caught speeding ( http://www.metro.co.uk/news/69200-7-million-drivers-caught-speeding ) and 46% of cars break 30mph speed limits ( http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/the-need-for-less-speed-number-of-drivers-speeding-falls-8068933.html ) indicates that to find law-breakers, perhaps motorists need to look within their own group.
Cyclists are sometimes accused of not signalling where they are going. Whilst I've heard this claim numerous times, I haven't been able to uncover any studies to support the claim. I have discovered that a survey in 2011 found 33% of drivers don't indicate when turning ( http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1656.html ). In my experience, this is even worse when on a bike - drivers simply don't see you, or don't feel they need to indicate their actions to you. Again, I feel that signalling is in a cyclist's best interest - if they feel they are in danger if they don't indicate, then they will indicate.
The argument that cyclists are dangerous because they weave in and out of traffic stems from a misconception. Firstly, it's only possible at low speeds - a cyclist doesn't have the power to weave tightly at speeds of over about 5mph, which isn't going to cause a danger to anyone. Most 'weaving' occurs through stationary traffic, and is actually filtering, with the occasional need to switch lanes due to a differently positioned motor vehicle. It's argued that such filtering is undertaking and is illegal. This is incorrect. The highway code states that motorists must look out for cyclists (and motorcyclists) doing this and makes no comment on the legality of the manoeuvre (where something is illegal, the Highway Code will clearly state this). ( https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/motorcyclists-and-cyclists-211-to-213 )
Cyclists do not cycle in a straight line. This does not make them dangerous. No road user maintains a perfectly straight line. They will often move in their lane to avoid potholes, parked cars, or debris. Cyclists have more obstacles they will try to avoid for their safety, such as drain covers in the rain and will therefore need to occasionally make slight movements in order to avoid these. They are also more vulnerable to the elements, and therefore may be moved by wind. Rarely are the variations in course so severe as to cause a cyclist to move more than a foot or so. This is not a problem if a driver is overtaking in the manner described by the highway code:
If a driver is not overtaking, then there is no problem at all. It's clear here, then, that variations in a cyclist's line of travel are only an issue when another road user is not acting correctly.
This is also linked to the view that cyclists 'ride in the middle of the road'. This is known as primary position, and is usually only take up when there are parked cars (to avoid the likelihood of doors swinging open) or when it isn't safe for a car to overtake, to prevent an attempt. A cyclist will generally be in secondary position, about 2-3ft from the kerb and will check before moving into primary. This policy is correct, and recommended by bikeability training ( http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cycletraining/article/ct20110110-cycletraining-Bitesize-Bikeability--Part-4--On-Road-Positioning-0 ). The issue generally here then, is not that cyclists are dangerous, but rather that motorists don't understand the actions of other road users, which is somewhat worrying.
The final safety concern I'll discuss is around cyclist's safety clothing & accessories: Lights, Hi-Vis & Helmets. Somehow helmets are seen as something which makes a cyclist unsafe. It's their own concern - personally I always wear a helmet on the road because I don't trust others not to knock me off, but it has no bearing on how safely I cycle & realistically won't be much use in protecting me in a high-speed collision, or at saving anything other than the top of my head in a low-speed one. Lights are mandatory at night & any cyclist without them can expect to be fined. Hi-vis is not mandatory. Perhaps it does make someone that bit more visible - but if a driver cannot spot a cyclist with lights & reflectors at night, or just cycling along in the day, the issue is probably more of the driver's observation skills & hi-Vis wouldn't be likely to help anyway. None of this makes a cyclist more or less dangerous on the road - it may help to prevent them from being hit, but as I've pointed out before, if a cyclist gets hit by a car, the driver isn't likely to get injured at all.
This visualisation neatly sums up the relative dangers of cycles and cars to pedestrians: ( http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/8560350665bf11e0b026000255111976/comments/8564596065bf11e0b026000255111976 )
The department for transport has also done research into collisions involving cyclists and other vehicles, and found cyclists solely to blame in just 7% of cases. ( http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases ).
The facts don't lie - cyclists on the road rarely cause deaths of others - approximately 2 per year - far fewer than are caused by cars ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607 ). To suggest that cyclists are dangerous is merely an excuse to get them off the road by those who view them as an inconvenience. Arguments that cyclists should have insurance, registration & have to pass tests are also flawed. Mandatory car insurance is indicative of the risk of high-cost accidents, registration is necessary to monitor insurance & due to the ability to flee the scene of an accident, and tests are necessary for motorists to ensure they are properly training to drive vehicles which are easily capable of killing. The fact that law-breaking among motorists (speeding, red-light jumping, not indicating, illegal parking) is as prevalent as it is, suggests training and testing does not eliminate these behaviours and would be an expensive an useless folly to apply to cyclists.
Driver concern for cycle safety as an argument for removing bikes from the road is either misplaced - a genuine concern, but targeting the wrong solution - or just plain wrong - attributing dangers to cyclists which are greatly exaggerated. Either way, the argument needs to be refuted, gently, and cyclists need to work with drivers to create safer roads for everyone.
Wednesday 21 November 2012
Why do people hate cyclists?
I regularly come across people on twitter proclaiming their hatred for cyclists, how they should all get off the roads, or off the pavements, or how it should be legal to run them over. I don't fully understand such blind rage directed at a specific group of people. It seems to me as rational as any other form of bigotry, be it racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything else.
One thing that is clear though, is that the feeling is prevalent not only online, but in the real world too. I might not be told that I am hated, but the yells of 'F**K OFF', 'GET OFF THE ROAD', or 'GET A CAR' make it clear that people do hold these views and aren't ashamed of them. But why? There are several theories and it makes sense that the reasons are different for each person. Some of the key ones are as follows:
Drivers may be jealous of cyclists, because they feel the cyclists are paying nothing for their journey, whereas they are paying lots of money for their own. They may be jealous that they have to sit in traffic while a cyclist can whizz past with no such problems. They may be jealous of cyclists getting their exercise in, while they're stuck in a car. They may be jealous that cyclists so easily are able to get away with bending the rules they have to follow (avoiding red lights by hopping onto the pavement, skipping to the front of a traffic jam). Whatever the reason for jealousy, it can often be expressed through trying to belittle cyclists, claiming that somehow they are in the wrong, because how can they possibly have an advantage. It's only human nature, but perhaps these people should try cycling. They'll either benefit from the advantages themselves, or they'll find out the disadvantages (getting wet, cold, or abused by drivers) and go back to the hollow comfort of their cars, slightly less resentful.
I'm sure there are many more reasons that cyclists are hated, or seen as an annoyance, but the above are the most common which I have encountered. I've tried as best I can to explain why people feel the way they do about cyclists, but I've hopefully highlighted that the reasons are mainly due to misunderstandings and generalisations. I'm sure that some of the people who proclaim their hate for cyclists are generally nice people, but the culture in the UK allows them to vent their feelings at having been wronged (or perceived to have been wronged) at all cyclists indiscriminately, rather than the individuals who annoyed them so. Some parts of the UK media encourage anti-cyclist sentiments, perhaps as a means of being controversial, to up readership, perhaps because they genuinely feel that cyclists are all bad people. This irresponsible journalism is dangerous & dehumanises cyclists, feeding the hatred and ill-treatment of them on our roads.
The truth though, is that cyclists are just people who happen to be on bikes.
One thing that is clear though, is that the feeling is prevalent not only online, but in the real world too. I might not be told that I am hated, but the yells of 'F**K OFF', 'GET OFF THE ROAD', or 'GET A CAR' make it clear that people do hold these views and aren't ashamed of them. But why? There are several theories and it makes sense that the reasons are different for each person. Some of the key ones are as follows:
'Cyclists don't pay road tax'
This is indisputably true, since road tax was abolished in 1937. However, the gist of the argument is that cyclists aren't paying their fair share, that motorists have to shoulder the burden unfairly, and that to then be held up by cyclists on the road is an insult. I can sort of sympathise with this. Nobody likes a free rider. However, the 'road tax' itself, VED is an emissions payment. There are cars out there which pay £0 due to their emissions. Were bicycles to have a tax disc, they too would be paying £0. In fact, someone else would have to pay for their tax disc because of this. Drivers also have to pay insurance, and a hefty sum of tax on their fuel, which adds to the feeling that they have paid, so they should get their way. However, mandatory insurance merely reflects the potential to cause massive, expensive accidents. Cyclists cannot do this, so they don't have to have insurance. The fact that many do is ignored by people who subscribe to this view. The high taxes on fuel reflect the cost to the environment of using petrol and diesel. Ok, they might be higher in the UK than other countries, but drivers know this every time they fill up. They choose to pay this. Just because cyclists are avoiding this cost, doesn't mean they aren't paying their way. The final part of this argument is about the costs of maintaining the road. Some would have you believe that cyclists don't contribute at all to the costs of maintenance or road building. Since this is paid by both council tax and central government funds, everyone pays based on their income and the size of their house, not based on how much they use the roads. Any additional income from fuel tax doesn't go directly to the roads (indeed, it probably doesn't even cover the cost to the taxpayer of accidents caused by cars), but if it did, it would only be fair, since a 1.5 tonne, 4 wheeled car causes a damn sight more wear and tear than a 15 stone bloke on a bike.Jealousy
This may be the underlying cause behind a lot of anti-cyclist sentiment. It can outwardly look like hatred, but boils down to an envy of what cyclists are able to do. It encompasses a lot of other reasons too.Drivers may be jealous of cyclists, because they feel the cyclists are paying nothing for their journey, whereas they are paying lots of money for their own. They may be jealous that they have to sit in traffic while a cyclist can whizz past with no such problems. They may be jealous of cyclists getting their exercise in, while they're stuck in a car. They may be jealous that cyclists so easily are able to get away with bending the rules they have to follow (avoiding red lights by hopping onto the pavement, skipping to the front of a traffic jam). Whatever the reason for jealousy, it can often be expressed through trying to belittle cyclists, claiming that somehow they are in the wrong, because how can they possibly have an advantage. It's only human nature, but perhaps these people should try cycling. They'll either benefit from the advantages themselves, or they'll find out the disadvantages (getting wet, cold, or abused by drivers) and go back to the hollow comfort of their cars, slightly less resentful.
'They all break the law'
This view is incredibly common. Obviously it's absurd to suggest that all cyclists break the law, but it's understandable that pavement-cycling and red-light jumping by cyclists gets noticed more than a cyclist simply cycling along peacefully. This view is used to argue against cyclist infrastructure, and it seems to hold sway with some of our elected officials. Everyone gets punished because some break the rules. You don't see all drivers getting refused road maintenance because people speed, or car parking not approved because some drivers park illegally. In fact, HGVs are set to get their speed limit on single carriageways increased precisely because so many of them speed. This does provide a clue as to a simple way of reducing the number of cyclists breaking the law: change the law. If cycling on pavements were legal, it would reduce the amount of law-breaking by cyclists. If they were allowed a head-start at traffic lights, the number of red-light jumpers would drop. This may seem a strange solution, but it just might work. Of course, if safe, segregated cycle infrastructure were created, the number of cyclists on pavements and roads would drastically fall and the issue of unsafe interactions between different methods of getting about would be relatively minor.A bad personal experience
It's common to hold a grudge. If you went to a restaurant & ended up with food poisoning, you'd never go back. You'd even tell people to avoid that restaurant. In the same way, if people get knocked over, or nearly hit a cyclist due to the cyclist's poor behaviour, they will be annoyed with them & perhaps shout at them. However, some people will apply the same treatment to all cyclists because of one bad experience. This is grossly unfair - you wouldn't tell people not to go to any restaurants just because one had given you food poisoning.'They never use the cycle lanes'
This is a tiresome argument, but again it is understandable when you consider the lack of knowledge it is based on. Drivers will often assume a cycle lane is adequate, when it might not be for myriad reasons (which I won't go into here). Think about the number of drivers who pass exactly on the other side of the line for the cycle lane. They assume they are leaving a safe distance because they are doing what the lane tells them too, so this must be right. The same applies to off road cycle path. It is assumed a cycle path must be suitable if it's there. There's no thought it might be unsafe, inconvenient, or just go the wrong way. These drivers seem to put their faith in the very town planners they probably curse for replacing that roundabout with traffic lights, or who put in that infuriating one-way system. If they can't get it right for cars, it's a fair assumption they can't get it right for bikes either!'They're all arrogant / selfish / rude'
This view is one all too often perpetuated by the media, who give cyclists the 'lycra lout' tag. It's as illogical as thinking that all cyclists break the law because a few have been seen doing so. I'm not denying that there are arrogant, selfish and rude cyclists, but there are no more than there are drivers, it's just they're the ones who get noticed. A bold cyclist, who wishes to point out to drivers when they have put them at risk is not necessarily an arrogant person, but simply someone who has been angered, or who wishes to inform what is safe in the absence of such information being provided to drivers by the government.I'm sure there are many more reasons that cyclists are hated, or seen as an annoyance, but the above are the most common which I have encountered. I've tried as best I can to explain why people feel the way they do about cyclists, but I've hopefully highlighted that the reasons are mainly due to misunderstandings and generalisations. I'm sure that some of the people who proclaim their hate for cyclists are generally nice people, but the culture in the UK allows them to vent their feelings at having been wronged (or perceived to have been wronged) at all cyclists indiscriminately, rather than the individuals who annoyed them so. Some parts of the UK media encourage anti-cyclist sentiments, perhaps as a means of being controversial, to up readership, perhaps because they genuinely feel that cyclists are all bad people. This irresponsible journalism is dangerous & dehumanises cyclists, feeding the hatred and ill-treatment of them on our roads.
The truth though, is that cyclists are just people who happen to be on bikes.
The label 'cyclist'
I have labelled myself a cyclist. I do not necessarily see myself as one, any more than someone who travels by car sees themself as a driver, or someone who travels by train sees themself as a passenger.
I cycle predominantly for other purposes than cycling itself(with the occasional summer cycle ride for pleasure). I am many things. I am a worker, I am a shopper, I am a customer, I am a friend. Above all, I am a person. The fact that I am on a bike does not mean that I am any different to anyone else, nor does it mean that I am the same as anyone else.
I refuse to be held accountable for the actions, or inactions of any other individual who also happens to use a bike. I do this in the same way that when I am driving, I am not accountable for the actions of anyone else who is using a car. The difference is, people don't accuse me of illegal activity when I'm driving legally just because they've seen others acting illegally, whereas this happens all the time when I'm cycling.
Just because I am on a bike, doesn't mean that I jump red lights, that I cycle on pavements or that I go the wrong way down one-way streets. Just because I am in a car doesn't mean I park illegally, use my phone whilst driving, or break the speed limit.
I am therefore reluctant to label myself as something which enables others to blame me for the actions of people I have no association with, but 'A Secret Person Who Happens to Ride a Bike' seemed a bit wordy.
I cycle predominantly for other purposes than cycling itself(with the occasional summer cycle ride for pleasure). I am many things. I am a worker, I am a shopper, I am a customer, I am a friend. Above all, I am a person. The fact that I am on a bike does not mean that I am any different to anyone else, nor does it mean that I am the same as anyone else.
I refuse to be held accountable for the actions, or inactions of any other individual who also happens to use a bike. I do this in the same way that when I am driving, I am not accountable for the actions of anyone else who is using a car. The difference is, people don't accuse me of illegal activity when I'm driving legally just because they've seen others acting illegally, whereas this happens all the time when I'm cycling.
Just because I am on a bike, doesn't mean that I jump red lights, that I cycle on pavements or that I go the wrong way down one-way streets. Just because I am in a car doesn't mean I park illegally, use my phone whilst driving, or break the speed limit.
I am therefore reluctant to label myself as something which enables others to blame me for the actions of people I have no association with, but 'A Secret Person Who Happens to Ride a Bike' seemed a bit wordy.
Introduction
This blog is intended as a means to document my experiences cycling on the roads of the UK. I have had bad experiences, but these are far outweighed by the good experiences, the benefits to my own health, wealth & happiness I get from cycling. I want to encourage more people to cycle, to prevent it from being seen as something done only by the very young, by those who can't afford cars, or by environmental activists.
Cycling is a very safe mode of transport. It is also very often quicker than driving in towns and cities, more convenient than public transport and can cost next to nothing. However, cycling could be safer. It could be more convenient. It could be less intimidating and it could be more widespread.
The culture in the UK is very car-centric, often at the detriment of our health, our wallets and our time. I don't think for a second that cars are a bad thing. They give us huge amounts of freedom, enable us to take long journeys easily, reach places we wouldn't be able to get to by other means. Like all good things, they should be enjoyed in moderation. Often people don't even consider other options in their most common journey; commuting. The average distance commuted in the UK is 8.5 miles. Now for many, this is an unreasonable distance to cycle. However, around 50% of all workers commute less than 5km (3.2 miles). This is an easy cycle commute, but many people simply do not see it as an option. This could be due to many reasons; perceived risk of cycling, ease of car-commuting or lack of facilities at work end. However, I believe the main reason is simply the culture. People are expected to drive. Driving is somehow seen as a symbol of success, of maturity, of wealth. If this culture can be changed, cycling could really take off.
Cycling is a very safe mode of transport. It is also very often quicker than driving in towns and cities, more convenient than public transport and can cost next to nothing. However, cycling could be safer. It could be more convenient. It could be less intimidating and it could be more widespread.
The culture in the UK is very car-centric, often at the detriment of our health, our wallets and our time. I don't think for a second that cars are a bad thing. They give us huge amounts of freedom, enable us to take long journeys easily, reach places we wouldn't be able to get to by other means. Like all good things, they should be enjoyed in moderation. Often people don't even consider other options in their most common journey; commuting. The average distance commuted in the UK is 8.5 miles. Now for many, this is an unreasonable distance to cycle. However, around 50% of all workers commute less than 5km (3.2 miles). This is an easy cycle commute, but many people simply do not see it as an option. This could be due to many reasons; perceived risk of cycling, ease of car-commuting or lack of facilities at work end. However, I believe the main reason is simply the culture. People are expected to drive. Driving is somehow seen as a symbol of success, of maturity, of wealth. If this culture can be changed, cycling could really take off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)