Transport Minister draws flak after cycling inquiry

oldstrath wrote:

Young? Cheers, but I'm not sure 57 counts as young. 

Fit? Well, depends on your point of view.

Male? Well yes I am, but at least half the bikes have a female rider.

Far? Not convinced that my 12 miles each way counts as far - my father would have seen that as a bit of a warm-up.

As for braving the road - the only bit of my journey where I ever get serious hassle is the section where I "should be on" the dysfunctional facility. And yes, the bike is indeed for me a viable alternative to the car, for almost all my journeys, and I feel fairly normal. 

You're not normal, though. It's not normal to cycle 12 miles to work. That's fine, my 11 miles are quite abnormal as well. For most people, though, 12 miles is utterly unthinkable.

But the goal is not to get people commuting 12 miles by bike. It's to try to persuade those commuting 5 miles or less, which is a lot of people, to go by bike.

userfriendly wrote:

That's exactly the core of the problem with active travel in Britain. Cycling is seen as a sport, not as a mode of transport. A hobby for the indulgent middle class, not a viable alternative to the motor car for some journeys for normal people.

And people like you and me, we're not helping, we're reinforcing the stereotype if we only look at our needs and not at the needs of others. Others who are too scared, and - in their mind, because they only have us to look at - too unfit.

I don't think that's the core of the problem. No one looks at me and says, there's fifteen stone of fit lycra-warrior. I bike-commute as slow as possible, often besuited in my finest attire, as I live close enough that walking is my default choice when I don't have meetings to get to. And I never take the road bike. I don't think that makes me a "better" bike commuter.

Hesitation towards infrastructure may be a problem. I do hate it when drivers scream at me use the substandard and dangerous bike infrastructure a the one road where I refuse to use the pathetic excuse for a bike lane. And I'd definitely hate to be legally required to do so. But the vast majority of fit road cyclists do not fear bike infrastructure anywhere near how much they fear bad driving. It's a worry, but it's not the main worry. Maybe it would be better if we were all in on bike paths uber alles, but most of those who worry about some of them still support proper segregated bike paths overwhelmingly. 

So I really don't think a huge issue. Look at the Giro top three right now. All of them come from relatively cycling friendly countries. But the kicker is that two of those weren't quite as cycling friendly until recently. The idea that sport cycling has a negative effect on transport cycling may not be all that clear. What's more, I think the drivers who associate cycling with sporting triumph are exactly the sort of people who we need on our side. Even the Jason Wells of the world would likely give Sir Bradley his three feet. Would it be better if it didn't matter who was cycling, sure. But change means convincing those who weren't already on your side. Who may not think the arguments you find reasonable as compelling as you do and some you find ridiculous quite important.

And on showers: there used to be three people who bike-commuted in my office. When summer really hit, one man with a long commute (I think the fixie was also an issue, but whatever) just gave it up for good. The other man started to cycle between his cycles (moto and push). And the woman started to periodically take the bus. I think proper showers would have kept at least two of them cycling, maybe all three. 

Is showers the biggest issue facing bike commuting, of course not. But again, I do think every bit helps. Just like every additional cyclists helps. I do think even us young-ish males, even those who chose to wear lycra, help make cycling a more acceptable way to get around. YMMV, as ever.

oldstrath wrote:

I know you believe that campaigning for 'proper infrastructure' would fix the issues - having cycled in Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands I sympathise with this view, but my experienced reality in this country is that campaigns for segregated facilities are simply seen as validating the provision of rubbish, whatever the intent of the campaigners.

Agreed.  It's amazing what comes out of long-running cycling organizations' efforts to provide "something like the Netherlands".  I can honestly say that I have never seen a decent "segregated facility". 

The provision of what can only be described as dangerous crap and the resulting pressure on me from drivers to use it puts me off cycling sometimes.

balmybaldwin wrote:

I think he's right, but not just about women. The problem is showering and wash facilities when you arrive at work. My office is great with 6 (3 female, 3 male) showers and decent changing facilities and secure bike locking. we probably have 60/40 men to women cycling to work, approximately the same ratio as the population of the office. I couldn't cycle to work if these facilities weren't here.

Personally, I wouldn't even ride to the shops without a change of clothes and a place to shower... 

Via the wonderful new cyclingfallacies.com - "half of all commuters in England travel less than 3 miles to work".  That's where we fail first, and demographics come into play. Women on average have shorter commutes than men and are also the ones least likely to cycle when the environment is dangerous.

balmybaldwin wrote:

I think he's right, but not just about women. The problem is showering and wash facilities when you arrive at work. My office is great with 6 (3 female, 3 male) showers and decent changing facilities and secure bike locking. we probably have 60/40 men to women cycling to work, approximately the same ratio as the population of the office. I couldn't cycle to work if these facilities weren't here.

While showers are a bonus the reality of it is they are not necessary as most people live within 2/3 miles of their work place and this kind of distance doesn't require a shower. It's a distance that can be covered in 10/15 minutes without breaking a sweat. In many ways we do cycling as a mode of transport a great disservice by creating an image of wearing Lycra and all the other accoutrements and arrive at the office dripping with sweat happily content that we've managed a personal best on Strava. It is something that really does put folk off. I'll freely admit I wear Lycra for my commute, the only reason being is that I'll cycle 30 miles home as I finish at 1pm.  This is my choice. If I was to cycle the normal 5 miles home I would be in regular clothes.  Same applies to socialising/shopping  I wear regular clothes and don't demand shower facilities when using my bike. 

People are interested in cycling to work. A good number of my colleagues would cycle, but the attitudes of motorists put them off as well as the poor infrastructure.  I tell them that they don't need special kit or helmets or drop bars to get to work. All they need is a reliable bike. And they're sorted.  it doesn't need to be carbon, electronic shifting bike which many of the bike chains will try and sell you on the CTW scheme. It just needs to be a bike. I usually point folk in the direction of the local bike recycling centre to get them started for less than a hundred quid. 

There is no need for showers and changing facilities in the workplace for vast majority of employees. The only requirement I would have is secure storage facilities.