How your Strava workouts are leading to better bike lanes for all

"They aren't just giving it out to planning authorities"  .... and this is a rewrite of a press release from Strava... cheap marketing 

Very much doubt the usefulness of this data though it does fulfil the desire of traffic management professionals to be able to claim that a decision is based on data - but this type of data has to be treated with extreme caution - was recently looking at local state (Aus not Portland) road authorities reasoning behind not wanting to install a controlled crossing on an urban highway - the crossing would link paths through local parks that connect shops, a large sports centre and 2 local schools - a survey reported little pedestrian or cyclist activity at the site and few accidents, well what a surprise - the road is too dangerous to consider crossing - any foot traffic crosses 500m away at traffic lights and cyclists like me who are happy to ride to the sports centre use the unpleasant main road to avoid trying to cross 4 lanes of traffic travelling at or a few km'hr above the 60km/hr  limit  and presumably kids get driven to the schools and sports centre because there is no safe alternative

...the strava data and other traffic survey data tells you what people are doing not what they would like to do

The data that riders are submitting, when tagging their ride as a commute, is anonymised then sold by Strava. They aren't just giving it out to planning authorities.

I am sure the planners are aware that rides logged in strava are not representative of all bike rides.

On a recent trip to the Netherlands, one thing I was struck by was not just the quality of the bike lanes, but by the fact that they are used by sportives and "serious" bike riders on the weekends, such is their size, extent, extensiveness and quality. Monday to friday they are full of commuters and general bike traffic, but at the weekend old ladies pootling to the shops happily mix with club riders travelling at 20mph, simply because they are wide enough, and well enough designed, to cope with both.

I agree with escalinci 

And in the uk they will then build a shared cycle way which most people who use strava  wont use.

I've been riding in to work for around six years now. I used Strava to record my commutes for just over a year. Although I still use Strava for longer rides, or the spurious commute KOM when I'm feeling frisky, I stopped  logging regularly on my commutes quite a while ago as I just lost interest in turning both the GPS and then Strava on. So the same route which could really do with a cycle path cycled consistently five days a week for nearly six years. But it's only me and how do I know the planners in my area use Strava? Would they lay down a network  just for my benefit? I don't think so.

I would like to see a well planned, one that gives priority to cyclists, cycle network laid separately from the road. There are sections where there is just a white line painted on the road indicating a cycle path which residents like to park over or goes straight over metal drain covers and then just finishes at some random point. Cycle paths have to be a genuine alternative to the road. If I'm averaging 19mph on my way in it's likely any new cycle path, which if I am forced to use, will slow me down. Traffic from side roads is always given priority over the cyclist, there will be furniture of some sort located in the middle of the path, drops down kerbs, debris from traffic due to the unsheltered nature of the path. Strava logging speed data can also useful to councils. I bet they don't take that into account when planning their cycle paths and if they do it's likely to put speed limit signs up or some other counter measure.

I have to say that in all that time I very rarely encounter problems with car drivers which I think demonstrates that the general populace are able to share the roads with slower vehicles even in the midst of an early morning rush or a quick afternoon getaway.

This probably works well for cities with an established bike subculture, making conditions better for those pockets where people currently cycle. But, as the headline says, would it provide the best bike lanes 'for all'? Here's who I think benefits most from a quality cycling network -

1. The poor, who gain a fast, extremely cheap way of getting around to access opportunities and amenities.
2. Young children, who gain independence and are set up for a healthy lifestyle (1/3 kids are overweight in UK, who knows in Oregon?)
3. The elderly, who also benefit from daily excercise and losing their driving license is no longer associated with becoming house-bound.

These people are either not very likely to be using a ride-tracking app, or just not cycling at all. Catering for fit young-ish people who inherently value cycling for cultural reasons has a hard limit in how much benefit it can bring.

Sometimes a leap in the dark must be made, looking at areas that might be completely blank on Strava's records, but could hook up a school, a less trendy neighbourhood or shopping area. There's proof that practically everybody cycles if the possibility is obvious in other cities, but it might feel like building a road to nowhere for a few years.