National Travel Survey and cycling policy in London

[Earl Aelfheah]

So to summarise the comments on this thread: cycling is definitely declining in London. If it is increasing it’s obviously because it’s impossible to drive without getting a fine nowadays… But motorists don’t regularly break the rules. And although there are 30,000 serious injuries and deaths each year caused by motor vehicles, a lot we think, may actually be caused by cyclists (which makes sense if you consider, you know.. physics).

All data we’re ignoring.

Seems about right 😂

Edited December 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Earl, let's be logical. If a cyclist is injured as a result say of jumping a red light then statistics say its a Road Traffic Accident regardless who is in the wrong and as a result, the vehicle hitting the cyclist may cause death or injury. In circumstances lile this it is still chalked up as a vehicle injured or killed, yet the fault potentially lays with the cyclist. 

So looking at the black and stark figure of 30,000 deaths and injuries glosses over the cause and fault. 

Not saying its always the cyclist but I am saying blame where blame falls when you examime a single number like that. 

It's got to be that everyone, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists take care on the road to reduce the stark death and injury number. 

[Rockets]

Wow, a claim of a 20% increase in cycling since 2019....some way off Will Norman's ten-fold increase - it's a one fifth of a one-fold increase....clearly still some way to go...

Interesting that TFL is stating that journey distances are getting shorter...could this be the Deliveroo effect and/or the hire bike effect where people are choosing hire bikes over walking for short distances...I was amazed to read that Deliveroo have 15,000 cycle delivery riders in London and it makes you wonder how much of the increase is down to the growth in cycle delivery companies....it might go some way to explain why other analysis and research into cycling numbers and trends suggest that numbers are declining and below pre-pandemic levels.

Meanwhile something is going on and all is not as rosy as some would like to claim.....https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/uks-leading-cycling-event-the-cycle-show-reportedly-axed-for-2024-as-industry-struggles-to-negotiate-current-challenges-created-by-overstocking-and-lack-of-demand

[Earl Aelfheah]

....aaaaaand here it comes. "There is a decrease"; "Oh there is 'only' a 20% increase" (in the context of all others modes being down). What's your point Rocks? What do you think TFL should be doing to encourage more people to cycle? Or do you think they simply shouldn't be trying to increase cycling?  

10 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Earl, let's be logical. If a cyclist is injured as a result say of jumping a red light then statistics say its a Road Traffic Accident regardless who is in the wrong and as a result, the vehicle hitting the cyclist may cause death or injury. In circumstances lile this it is still chalked up as a vehicle injured or killed, yet the fault potentially lays with the cyclist. 

So looking at the black and stark figure of 30,000 deaths and injuries glosses over the cause and fault. 

Not saying its always the cyclist but I am saying blame where blame falls when you examime a single number like that. 

It's got to be that everyone, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists take care on the road to reduce the stark death and injury number. 

The stats suggest that most road collisions are the fault of driver error. If you really think logically, you will realise that most of those 30,000 serious injuries and deaths are not the result of poor cycling. Most don't even involve a bicycle (around 26,000 odd). 

In 2011, British police officers attended 118,404 road traffic collisions (figures from the Department of Transport). In 42% of these crashes, the most frequently reported factor was that the driver ‘failed to look properly’. The second most commonly listed factor for 21% of the crashes was the driver ‘failing to judge the other person’s path or speed’. The third most common contributing factor was the driver being actually ‘careless, reckless or in a hurry’ and this accounted for 16% of the crashes. Other reasons were: loss of control, poor manoeuvre or turn, a pedestrian didn’t look properly, slippery road surfaces due to weather conditions, sudden braking, driving too fast for the road conditions or following another vehicle too closely. All of these ‘driver errors’ are ones that could be avoided.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Nigello]

11 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So to summarise the comments on this thread: cycling is definitely declining in London. If it is increasing it’s obviously because it’s impossible to drive without getting a fine nowadays… But motorists don’t regularly break the rules. And although there are 30,000 serious injuries and deaths each year caused by motor vehicles, a lot we think, may actually be caused by cyclists (which makes sense if you consider, you know.. physics).

All data we’re ignoring.

Seems about right 😂

Such facetiousness takes away from the validity of some of the things you say. 
Everyone is capable of acting more safely, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and drivers. Everyone should do so. I’m mainly a pedestrian and want to see improvements for me (and wheelers) but that doesn’t stop me from facing facts and acknowledging that those who cross roads away from crossings, wear dark clothes at night/early morning, power-march while screen-staring etc. shouldn’t be pulled up on such behaviour. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

At absolutely no point have I said that people shouldn't act more safely. But all of those things that I have summarised (obviously slightly paraphrased for comic effect) come from comments that have been made by others.

The whole thread started with a claim that cycling in London was falling. The comment "blink in a car and you end up with a fine" was shortly followed by claims that it is not those in motor vehicles who break the rules (the two things seem somewhat at odds), and the question posed (apparently seriously) "how many of these [30,000] deaths and injured were caused by cyclists not adhering to the rules" followed that.

It's weird you think that the above comments are not facetious (especially the last one), but my pointing out how they are are highly dubious and at odds with all available data, in a slightly wry way, is.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, my point is, and this has consistently been my point since this all began, that encouraging cycling is a good thing but it is not the only thing you can do to reduce car use. That way too much focus, money and resources was placed on cycling by the Mayor, TFL, councils etc without ever truly understanding whether they could deliver the numbers needed to make the investment worth it.

 

Given the money invested and disruption to other, more popular, travel modes can you honestly say that a 20% increase in what was a small number anyway has been worth it? 

 

And be careful taking yourself into a safety black hole because do you release that cycling injuries are actually increasing at a higher rate than the number of cyclists and that many are concerned that some of the cycling infrastructure installed is badly designed and actually making safety worse rather than better?

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The whole thread started with a claim that cycling in London was falling.

It is, according to some reports. It isn't according to TFL's report - a quick reminder that TFL is responsible for the rollout and funding of a lot of the cycle infrastructure in London - just saying 😉

2 hours ago, Nigello said:

Such facetiousness takes away from the validity of some of the things you say. 

Absolutely spot on and often the pro-cycle community alienates themselves by just this sort of behaviour, seemingly unable to take a balanced and pragmatic path.

[Earl Aelfheah]

With respect Rocks I don't your point has been 'that encouraging cycling is a good thing but it is not the only thing you can do to reduce car use'. If it were, this would be a short thread as there is absolutely no one who would disagree. You tried to claim that cycling was falling in London. 

I think that there has been a massive increase in cycling and it continues to grow. That's a good thing and yes, I believe the money invested in it is worthwhile. It's a fraction of what is invested in the tube and the bus networks and yet constitutes around a third or a quarter of the journeys respectively. 

I take the safety of those travelling by foot and bicycle very seriously. It's exactly why I don't appreciate silly attempts by some to draw equivalence between the risk posed by those on a bicycle and those in a car, van or HGV. It's obvious nonsense and demonstrably so.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

Whilst this thread is essentially another one with issues about cyclists and cycling policy Earl raises one of my big issues, poor driving standards.  Virtually all drivers need further training but few get it, most being due to caught misbehaving and having to go on a speed awareness course.  Cyclist and pedestrian road skills can of course also be improved but neither kill due to poor road skills anywhere near as poor drivers.  

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I think that there has been a massive increase in cycling and it continues to grow.

I think you are wrong and I think there is more evidence to back my summation than yours I am afraid.

[Earl Aelfheah]

To be clear, I am referring to London, (when the bit you've quoted is not shorn of the context of the previous sentence this is already clear). There has objectively been a massive increase in the number of people cycling in London over the last couple of decades and it continues to rise. There isn't evidence to the contrary.

Are you again disputing TFL data? It would be good for you to explain why?

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, I suggest you take time to re-read the whole thread again.....

[Earl Aelfheah]

So just to be clear, you do not believe there has been an increase in cycling in London in recent years, and you don't believe the latest Tfl report? 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

I think there has been an increase in cycling over the last 20 years in London (but it still only accounts for a low single figure % of daily transport usage in London), that Covid provided another big boost that was seized on by the pro-cycle lobby as proof that the cycling revolution was here (and to secured huge amounts of funding for cycling) and yet that Covid growth has all but evaporated and London is functioning less efficiently as a city as cycle infrastructure is causing huge disruption to buses etc and the numbers of new cyclists are nowhere near the number needed to justify/mitigate the disruption.

Anything above that you disagree with?

Edited December 7, 2023 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

I mean, I disagree with all of that (except for the COVID boost) and it's not what the data shows. I believe the money invested in cycling is worthwhile. It's a fraction of what is invested in the tube and the bus networks and yet constitutes around a third or a quarter of the journeys respectively. But good to be clear about your position. So I assume from what you have said that you are advocating the removal of existing cycle infrastructure?

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

Hi Earl, as I posted before before government  agree a programme their analysts need to show that there is a good return on investment.  Supporting active travel does exactly that in terms of the environment, health, reducing congestion etc.  I've posted this before so shame that I need to repeat myself.  ATB

Edited December 7, 2023 by malumbu

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I mean, I disagree with all of that (except for the COVID boost) and it's not what the data shows.

But Earl, the data shows exactly that - you may not want to believe it but that's what it very much shows.

 

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So I assume from what you have said that you are advocating the removal of existing cycle infrastructure?

Nope not at all. But there needs to be a reset of priorities. What they have done thus far is not working and is not attracting enough people to cycling - they cannot keep following the same flawed policy. They have built it but they are not coming and I am not sure they have ever stopped to understand why.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You say “cycle infrastructure is causing huge disruption to buses etc and the numbers of new cyclists are nowhere near the number needed to justify/mitigate the disruption.”. Without any evidence that this is the case (in fact I’m the face of evidence that says it is not. But you don’t want to remove this ‘failed infrastructure’? So what do you want exactly? 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Without any evidence that this is the case

Ahem...I refer my honourable friend to a very public spat between our local councillors and TFL about the root cause of bus delays along Croxted Road and Herne Hill as just one example.....

[Rockets]

Interesting editorial piece in Cycling Weekly: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/what-happened-to-the-golden-age-for-cycling-in-the-uk

[malumbu]

Article is about Government enabling cycling, which would be a good thing.  Sadly Sunak doesn't like active travel and public transport and wants to win votes by appealing to hard line motorists.  His days are numbered.

If you look at Johnson's manifesto he had failed on most pledges the most spectacular being delivering the benefits of Brexit.  He also failed on free cycle training for all children.

Barriers to increased cycling include larger cars and poor driving standards.

[Spartacus]

Interesting take mal 

Maybe the reduction in spending to 50% by the government on active travel is a sensible reaction to the expected boom not happening. 

After all when money is short, why waste it on schemes that aren't being used as much as expected, thereby cutting your cloth accordingly and redirecting the money where its needed more. 

You can build so much cycling inferstructure but as they say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. 

Whilst more active travel is an admirable goal, if people don't want to go that route and with the weather in this country, then its hard to see it expanding much more than it has already. 

[Rockets]

This is the chart that the DFT published last week that triggered the Cycling Weekly article. Clearly, nationally, something isn't working and I wonder if the approach taken needs a complete rethink and overhaul as if this is the result of a £2bn investment then clearly it is not delivering any ROI - but isn't a 2% or so increase what has been seen in the City of London (per Carlton Reid's "More bikes than cars in the city now" article) so maybe this is consistent in cities too and 2% increase is all that anywhere has seen? 

Edited May 3 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

The £2bn set aside nationally for cycling and walking is for a 5 year period. It's about 1.5% of the total transport budget and I'd be surprised if it covers much more than maintenance. Outside the capital very, very little has been done to improve cycling infrastructure, which is probably why increases in active travel have been modest.

The article you've linked to suggests that London should be used as a model for other cities, as improvements here have led to big increases in cycling (a 20% increase since 2019).

Cycling in London now accounts for the equivalent of around a third of all tube journeys, or a quarter of bus journeys respectively.

Edited May 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, I think the 20% increase you refer to is cycling stages rather than trips and is explained in the TFL report here (which is fascinating when you look at the detail...and there is a lot of detail):

 

The relatively higher growth in stages compared to trips suggests that the increase in cycling as part of multi-modal trips (for example, to access public transport or combined with other modes) has increased more than cycling for cycle-all-the-way trips.

 

When looking at cycling trips the growth is more aligned to that of the national picture (a small % increase since pre-pandemic) and the report explains:

 

Cycling made up 4.5 per cent of trips in London on an average day in 2022, up from 3.6 per cent in 2019.

 

I wonder how food delivery cyclists are captured and also given the majority of hire bike journeys are less than one mile is that a stage or a trip?

 

Another interesting chart is the analysis of cycling trips - I was surprised by the drops in many of these.