Cycle usage rising according to DfT stats – but motor vehicle traffic hits all-time high

This thread is a good example of how even people normally OK with numbers tend to become innumerate if they have strong pre-existing beliefs they want confirmed (something that has been demonstrated experimentally before).

Most obviously there is the absurdity of taking figures relating to a national picture where there are no 'cycle super highways' and using them to claim that segregation doesn't work.

In reality of course the figures are more supportive of the opposite claim, as the one place in the country where the number of cyclists has risen is also the one place where segregated infrastructure has been put in (though I wouldn't claim that to be conclusive proof the other way, as there are probably other things special about London).
Generally the feeble nature of the supposed 'cycling boom', especially outside London, just emphasises the hopelessness of trying to get more people cycling via 'training' and 'safety equipment'.

But there's also the failure of anyone to notice that the population has risen during the time period concerned. Motor traffic, in terms of milage, has risen, according to the linked report, by 4% since 2006. And cycle traffic by 23% (from a dismally low starting point, mind). But the UK population has risen by 6% over that same period.

(It's reminiscent of the claims that almost every government makes, every year, about 'more people in work than ever before', while not mentioning that's mainly because there are more people in the country than ever before).

I really look forward to the day when people stop thinking in terms of 'increasing the number of cyclists' and instead start thinking about how to drastically reduce the number of vehicles on the roads.

The headline for this story says it all ... 'motor vehicle traffic at an all time high'.

I'm sure it's a long way off, but I'm sure a big chunk of the solution lays with switching to driverless cars. If all cars were driverless and electric, they would become part of the infrastructure itself and integrated directly into traffic management systems. Remove the driver's ego and everyone benefits. Cyclists would be far better protected through collision-detection technology and dense traffic routed more efficiently. Going to take a long, long time befire drivers are convinced they need to let go of the steering wheel though.

In a London context I am not surprised that those already willing to cycle are cycling further. Once you start riding to work (pocketing over a grand in tube fares each year) it's not a massive leap to ride to the shops, the football, etc. At which point the savings on not running a car will pay for a hell of a lot of taxis and still leave you better off.

Once you leave London I am not sure that the sums are so positive. Maybe it's enough to spare the need for second car, but its outside my experience. 

As regards infrastructure, my only serious bike accident was when a stoned driver drove thru' me at a red light. Had there been a segregated lane I would not have been 'sharing' that space, so I am all in favour.

So up from 2015 but then 2015 saw a drop of 10% from 2014 so the 2016 figure is same as 2014 which was 3.5Billion http://road.cc/content/news/190673-cycle-traffic-down-and-motor-traffic-..., in the meantime cycling injuries have gone up considerably.

Modal share of cycling as a % of ALL miles travelled both urban and rural in the netherlands is 27%, almost the same as we had in the UK in 1949. when you consider how much less the population was back then it just shows you how far cycling has declined from its heyday.

unless we have drastic change to restrict motorvehicle use and improve safety on roads modal share of cycling will not change other than a few percentage points.