- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
20 mph sign (CC BY-ND 2.0 licensed by Tony Hall:Flickr)People most likely to commute by bike where traffic speed below 20mph – but presence of lorries on roads makes no difference, says study
A new study of almost 35,000 commutes in Surrey has revealed that people are most likely to cycle to work when traffic speeds on the routes that take them there are below 20mph.
A research team at the University of Surrey found that while roads that were busier with motor traffic acted as a deterrent to cycling, speed of vehicles put potential riders – and women in particular – off to a greater degree.
The study has been published in the International Journal of Sustainable Transportation under the title, What aspects of traffic intensity most influence cycling mode choice? A study of commuting in Surrey, UK.
The university said that the study “analysed traffic data for all roads and cycle routes in Surrey to look at how different vehicle speeds, volumes, the proportion of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), and the amount of cycling infrastructure along the shortest route to work corresponded with the proportion of commuters choosing to cycle.
“It also considered distance, hilliness and the effect of traffic crossing the route at junctions. In total it examined nearly 35,000 routes to work for 172,000 commuters living in Surrey and who lived between two and five kilometres from work – a distance that should be cyclable for many.”
In terms of the effect of infrastructure, researchers said that while the presence of cycle paths encouraged more cycling, just how effective they were in doing that was due to traffic conditions in the area.
Routes that crossed busy roads were found to act as a disincentive to cycling, with people less likely to ride bikes to work where their route took them across heavily trafficked roads with high vehicle speeds.
But in what was described as a surprising finding, the proportion of lorries on roads and at junctions did not affect people’s preparedness to cycle.
Researchers say that the findings provide evidence to local authorities considering introducing lower speed limits in urban areas, or planning cycling infrastructure.
They also point out that continuing to support active travel and the additional interest there has been in it since the first lockdown last year will be particularly important going forward as the UK aims to meet its emissions target – and say that their research can help planners identify where cycling infrastructure should be, and what form it should take.
Dr Susan Hughes of the University of Surrey said: “Cutting speeds may be unpopular with drivers, but our research shows it does encourage people onto their bikes.
“It’s a change which, if implemented strategically, may encourage more people to cycle, with the added benefit on people’s health from reduced carbon emissions. Hence, there are opportunities to make towns more attractive to cyclists.”
Lead author, Dr Nick Grudgings, added: “Our findings can help local authorities make the best decisions about where to invest in cycling infrastructure.
“More cycling doesn’t just mean towns and cities are reducing their CO2 emissions, it also means commuters are keeping active and reducing their risk of heart disease, depression and premature mortality.”
During Road Safety Week last month, in a blog on the website of the road safety charity Brake, Rod King of the campaign 20’s Plenty For Us pointed out that the United Nations (UN) has called for a 20mph default speed limit in urban areas across the globe.
https://www.brake.org.uk/how-we-help/raising-awareness/our-current-proje...
The UN said: “In densely populated urban areas, there is strong evidence that even the best road and vehicle design features are unable to adequately guarantee the safety of all road users when speeds are above the known safe level of 30 km/h.
“For this reason, in urban areas where there is a typical, predictable mix of road users (cars, cyclists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians), a maximum speed limit of 30 km/h (20 mph) should be established, unless strong evidence exists to support higher limits.”
King said: “This really does bring out the fact that evidence supports the adoption of 20mph limits and sets a global standard of the speed limit where there is a mix of road users. Furthermore, the best thing about a default 20mph limit is that it is affordable, effective and can be rolled out without a huge call on engineering or technical resources.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 7 min 44 sec ago
Quite a few do take on some water, but in any case you have to factor into that the fact that the world's best marathon runners are only on course...
- eburtthebike 22 min 51 sec ago
Me! Me miss! I've got a suggestion! 20mph speed limit, and if that doesn't work, ban cars. It's cars that are the danger Dawn, so that's what...
- slc 1 hour 51 min ago
Some locals (apart from road.cc regulars) like the scheme. Admittedly in the Beaufort Rd section where the carrot (end of what was pretty...
- S.E. 15 hours 55 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 16 hours 20 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 15 hours 27 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 16 hours 31 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 17 hours 32 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 17 hours 57 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
Add new comment
16 comments
So people don't like having to interact with motor vehicles and that is enhanced where the speed differential is high? It's not startling news but at least someone has gone done the work and got the numbers so fair enough. I don't know if they measured volumes but I suspect traffic reduction might also make things more pleasant. It's normally a criteria in whether / what kind of provision for bikes there is.
Interesting about the lorries though. Anecdata but from being out with less regular cyclists if there are lorries / buses coming past on the same side of the road, that's normally where we end up getting off and pushing / going on to a side street. (I'm not taking people out to scare them, honest...).
I've not seen exactly how they assessed things so that may be a factor. Or maybe people's "subjective safety" judgements are reasonable but not acute. The PACTS data has vans / LGV the most deadly (per billion miles travelled) to vulnerable road users (not just bikes) by far, followed by HGVs. (Buses slightly below cars). Again these figures merit thought because by this measure bicycles are more slightly more deadly than cars (so... we better not try to get people out of cars and onto bikes, right?
Even pedestrian figures are not at zero. Where and when this is happening is important.)
I work with lorry drivers - I deliver SUD (Safer Urban Driving) as part of their regular CPD. Part of their course involves going for a bike ride with them. And, yes, some parrot the obligatory 'why are cyclists always in the way' etc, but once that is done with I can see they are aware of their responsibilities as professional drivers and take their responsibilities seriously. They do a very difficult job. So I'm not surprised with the findings of this survey as lorry drivers are the only drivers on the road who are required, albeit for a short time - but reguarly - to go out and ride a cycle on the road. Therefore they have empathy with people on cycles and they look out for them.
Nice work Lukas. I've noticed that although some lorry drivers leave a lot to be desired, there are many that are really good around cyclists - maybe they're the ones who have been out with you....
The drivers you teach may well gain that empathy side, but I've encountered enough who made me genuinely fear for my life & I was about to be crushed, when they overtook, to know that it's not universal.
I did a bike maintenance course with a company that also did the above courses. It was winter and had started snowing for the time they had to go out on the bike ride. One of the more sedantary lorry drivers also had something break on his bike when he was out.
I have had at least one year where the drivers CPC included vulnerable road users. Not once have we ever been required to go out on a bicycle. Unfortunately that one year had no effect on the attitudes of any of the drivers I've worked with. 🙄🤦♀️
I have worked with haulage companies where the SUD is 'token' and involves no riding. Now I only deliver for companies that insist their drivers cycle. I could be wrong, but I think the 'token' stuff is no longer permissible and in order for the drivers to pass their SUD they must cycle (unless medical reasons etc) Attutudes have changed a lot - in my experience. It used to be incredibly negative, to the point where a lot of cycle instructors I knew stopping as they couldn't stand the abuse and negativity. Now that it has become part of the driver's routine they are more accepting of it and prepared to join in. And to learn.
SUD training is a requirement for certain standards but not compulsory across the board. It counts towards the drivers cpc but so do showing a few slides and videos displaying blind spots and talking about vulnerable road users. ADR training also counts towards drivers cpc but not everyone does that either. I've done Smith system training which I found really interesting and having to narrate whilst driving is a lot harder than people think. I would have thoroughly enjoyed going out on bikes as part of a days cpc and also seeing the reactions of other drivers. The drivers cpc needs a serious revamp with more practical training as well as sitting in a classroom. I also believe that car drivers need more practical training around HGV's because they take ridiculous risks, some out of ignorance but a lot out of sheer stupidity. Unfortunately the government's plans to make it easier for people to drive HGV's will do little for the safety of other road users. 🤦♀️
The difficult bit is for Councils not to think that shiny, new 20mph signs on their own will result in motor vehicles travelling at 20mph or less!
You clearly have no idea how expensive those signs are! Now just imagine the cost of trying to put in infrastructure to cue those lower speeds - like road narrowing and making the road winding. Next you'll expect us to simultaneously make more footway / cycling space while at the same time using the parked cars themselves to accomplish the road-narrowing, by staggering the parking bays and / or putting them at an angle or something...
https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2019/03/19/i-want-my-street-to-be-like-this/
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/woonerf_concept_collarte.pdf
ILMB's comment contained multiple negatives I lost track of what the point was.
Nevertheless, as you say, the signs are expensive. Not that expensive, as a unit cost (generally, sign costs vary, depending on the quality of the reflectorisation, size, amount of text, etc). Add the cost of the pole unless it's using existing infrastructure such as a kerbside lamp post, team to install, it all adds up.
But the real cost is the democratic and bureaucratic process to:
(Indicative: process varies between authorities)
The cost in terms of allocated resource and specific costs adds up and is considerable.
The knee-jerk reaction is to ask why. The answer is that that is the cost of a transparent, accountable democratic process. Time and time again, the officers' joke is the person is the person who turns up to a consultation event and says, "I knew nothing about this!" (begging the question of how they happened to be there). It's not a great joke, but it passes for fun in the absence of comparable pay.
Some people know nothing of the work, consideration and costs that actually go into making apaprently modest changes and improvements. And if you want to know what happens when you don't have that level of accountability, kindly address your concerns to the Office of the First Lord of the Admiralty... but not this Friday, please, as they're having
the office Christmas partyan important business meeting.Do you mean that the difficult bit is making councils understand that if they use shiny new signs on their own (ie. with no enforcement) then that will have no effect on the speed at which motor vehicles are driven?
I wonder if it is higher speed of vehicles making people feel less safe, or if there is also a factor of - higher vehicle speeds mean they would save more time by choosing to drive.
Speed limits make little difference in urban areas (in more ways than one). More relevant to average journey time is congestiontraffic lights and roundabouts
yes, what was I thinking. It's obvious because it's quicker to cycle on my commute than drive (well actually about the same now, but in the before times it was quicker)
I did wonder quite what you meant here. I think you meant "maximum speed reached makes little difference overall journey time in urban areas" - which is something I totally understand and agree with. Whilst maximum speed don't make much difference to total journey time (and can actually increase journey times) - high speed can make lots of difference, driving faster can:
* increase the amount of time spent sitting stationary in traffic
* increase frustration and stress
* increase fuel consumption, pollution and vehicle maintenance costs
* increase the chance of being stuck behind a bus that unexpectedly stops at a bus stop (because you don't have enough time to stop in a position which would allow you to see around the bus and pass it safely)
* increase the chance of being involved in a collision
* reduce the chance of calm, relaxing, happy and uneventful journey
However, speed limits, especially 20mph limits make very little difference in urban areas - until one motorist decides to obey it. I think the days of motorists being permitted to choose to exceed the speed limit are numbered - at some point speeding will no longer be a option, but I'm sure it will take a lot longer than it needs to.
One final point, I am very much in favour of 20mph limits in urban areas - but equally, actually more so, outside of urban areas where the speed limits are often much higher on roads that are less safe than urban roads (or only safer, because the chances of meeting another road user are lower). I think it is a disgrace that we allow motorists to drive on narrow roads at 60mph, on a roads where there is not even a footpath, often where it is the only route out of a village.