Boom or bust? Sustrans laments "bitterly disappointing" cycling stats but British Cycling claimed boom on stats from same source

Sustrans has described as “bitterly disappointing” statistics. Well perhaps if Sustrans infrastructure wasn't so bitterly dissappointing, more people might cycle. As a group that supposedly represents cyclists, Sustrans is a joke.

The way in which raw data is interpreted is subject to statistical techniques employed. ONS at first glance may seem to be reliable, but when scaling up samples to large numbers and stating trends, a measure as crude as "nearest number" is essentially going to produce inaccurate results. Going to two decimal places on a sample and then scaling will be far more accurate, so this may appear to indicate that Sport England's figures are actually more valid, whilst those from ONS (unless the sample is huge, which is unlikely) may not be entirely based on completely reliable source data in the first place. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) always applies when considering statistics and any conclusions which may be drawn. Sustrans comments, as noted, appear to be more than a little silly, the use of language is clearly intended to promote their cause, which is fine, but a more skilful use of words would be helpful.

The way these statistics have been gathered, and then interpreted, seems to indicate that they don't mean much at all. 'Bitterly disappointing' is a bit of a strong reaction. A more realistic reaction to these statistics might be 'so what?', since we don't really know much at all about the increase in cycling. Especially if we are discussing all kinds of cycling. Who was asked, when, exactly how were the questions phrased and how might they have been misunderstood, or people not bothered to answer accurately, what were the exclusions etc etc etc, all have a bearing on what kinds of results are received. I wouldn't trust any figures like this without a close examination of the design of the surveys.

Thanks for this piece as its a good balanced view on the statistics and spin.

My personal observations are that (outside of central London) utility cycling hasn't really increased at all though there is a huge increase in recreational road cycling by mamils at the weekend. Also more informal looking groups which I'd put down to the rise in charity rides/challenges. Worryingly I'd say this gives all of the pain (see disrupted sportives) with none of the gain (ie reduced car usage, better facilities etc).

Sorry, to clarify - perhaps 30-40% of the cyclists we saw in Yorkshire were female, we never see that many on our usual rides which start in South Mcr and take in Derbyshire etc.

I'd say Manchester is pretty suited to cycling as the centre is relatively flat, bar a few bumps for old railway lines etc.

Mind you, when MCC decide put in a cycle route that means you have to turn right across two lanes of traffic turning left in order to cross a mixed use path (Pavement with a bike scribbled on it) at a tight pinch point to then traverse over tram lines that are slippery as hell in the wet (yeah, in Manchester, who'da thunk it?) i think its not the geography that's the issue...

My own observations would suggest that there has been an increase, even just over the last 12 months or so.

Regarding the Sustrans statement of the "postcode lottery" of facilities/infrstructure etc, on a recent group ride in Yorkshire, there was a startling number of female cyclists compared to the small numbers we see around Manchester/Cheshire. Don't know why?

Hmmm did any of their data collection/statistics take account of the weather??? It hardly encourages new cyclists let alone us old ones!! "lies, dam lies & statistics". I suspect the trend is still on the way up but no real data to substanciate this other than the number of cyclists I saw out on Sunday!

What is it with bike hire schemes in cities and towns that are plainly unsuited? Talk of this in Manchester too, I just don't see the value (other than it's a bit sexier for a press launch than cutting the ribbon on a newly-painted strip of tarmac).

Sorry, a bit off topic there. But still, infrastructure is what we need to get people onto bikes. Proper demarcation/segregation and sort out the black spot junctions - leave the white elephants on the drawing board.

Well said Gazza D. As reported before Liverpool Council are trumpeting the installation of 1,000 hire bikes. They cost £2.5M but are fully funded so a nice easy press score for the Mayor Joe Anderson. We are all looking forward to his press launch as he makes Eric Pickles look like a whippet and may never have ridden a bike.

Meanwhile as cycle commuters brave the dual carriageway route in from North Liverpool the council is allowing Peel Holdings to carve up the whole water front with no real plans to include a cycle route connecting the north of the city to the centre.

It makes me weep.

That Chris Boardman is involved with trumpeting the useless bike hire scheme with so far no discussion on his part in cycle infrastructure and proper commuting in the city is also pretty poor. Not that they'd listen to him either...

The reason riding bikes hasn't increased and I don't believe it has except in select areas, is purely because riding bikes is not seen as safe or convenient for many.

From my perspective this is due to:

The unrelentingly hostile road conditions and attitudes of some drivers.

The lack of obvious, convenient and direct, and joined up cycle routes, and the unsuitability of a lot of them for kids trailer bikes, shopping trailers, tandems, trikes etc.

The media portrayal of cycling and cyclists as law breaking outlaws.

The complete apathy and obliviousness that a majority of councils and major companies and organisations have towards cycling and cyclists.

I imagine the increase is not statistically significant when rigorously tested. e.g. a 1% change in cycling figures isn't large enough to confirm that cycling has increased as it is below the threshold of what could be expected by random variation.

If you can't tell it apart from a random variation you can't really say cycling has increased.

If orgs can't agree whether it's good or not it would suggest that there isn't a clear or obvious trend.

You have repeated four paragraphs.

I would trust the ONS take on the figures. They probably don't believe that the survey results are accurate to four significant figures (two decimal places). You interview a sample of people, and then scale up that number to the whole population.

I would say that the survey results show that the rate of cycling hasn't changed much.