Can 50% of Brits really not afford to buy a bike? Cycling and affordability discussed, plus how to make a new bike computer with Hammerhead

Nobody is doubting that times are hard for some people, the huge rise in food banks, rents (especially London) is evidence enough.

But the point is that 50% of the adult population is not struggling to make ends meet (the survey based on "2,000 people employed across a range of sectors" so presumably all are adults of working age) so perhaps your wife's experience with people who need to use your local food bank is not representative of the whole country.

I don't know what bus tickets cost elsewhere but in Shropshire it won't take long to pay for bike lights with Arriva's prices for tickets into town. And if you ask those 2,000 people how much it costs them to get to work, how much they spend on things like alcohol, fast food, nights out, holidays, lottery tickets and so on, it might put the cost of a bike in perspective.

Aluminium can wrote:

It's more likely that 50% can't do maths and the other 60% can.

But what about the other 25%?

I'm 120% certain it's the former. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

Aluminium can wrote:

It's more likely that 50% can't do maths and the other 60% can.

But what about the other 25%?

Half of them don't know and the other two thirds don't care.

Likelihood doesn't really come into it. Either what you posit is true or it isn't.

It's possible that you're probably correct.

Because their attitudes are different.

Some people don't want to ride a bike; some just want to jump in their car or have a bus stop / railway station nearby.
Some people just want to walk.

Most people are inherently lazy; they'll take the path of least resistance. Cycling *isn't* lazy.
It's hard work, especially at the beginning.
And not just physically.
Some people cant see how it can work for then... they might not have a desk or a locker or somewhere secure to get changed or leave their bike.

Some people are honest in their responses, and some people lie.

To some, is easier and have less stigma to say that they lack funds than they can't be bothered.

On "cycling isn't lazy, it's hard work". Rabbit hole here!

The brilliant thing about cycling is a) it is the most efficient way people can move by themselves on land b) it does involve *some* effort c) ... but that is effectively continuously variable (make more effort if you want, as motor for assistance).

If the environment is set up for it cycling can be like superpowered walking (but with less effort) - actually more convenient and a lot less mental effort than driving a short trip *.

In the UK cycling can be physically and mentally harder **.

* Parking can be easier and closer to start
/ destination, with well-designed cycle paths you're not constantly worrying about motor traffic and can maintain momentum etc.

** "cyclists discount", start-stop with lots of traffic lights, feeling we need to go as fast as possible because motor traffic... then the mental aspect (you "need" special clothes, social side- by- side cycling is discouraged, you've made yourself an "other").

chrisonabike wrote:

"cyclists discount"

What's this? I think I've been missing out!

(Unless it's that cyclists are routinely discounted, in which case, as you were.)

Cyclists discount - now only half the "route" for the same low price!

My phone autocorrect often leaves my sentences short-changed. But sometimes it improves them.

thats a big IF though, most environments to cycle in are hostile which will put most off before they even start.

I think alot of people kid themselves that cost is the main reason, when inevitably its a whole bunch of stuff that sometimes boils down to they just dont want to cycle.

stonojnr wrote:

thats a big IF though, most environments to cycle in are hostile which will put most off before they even start.

I think alot of people kid themselves that cost is the main reason, when inevitably its a whole bunch of stuff that sometimes boils down to they just dont want to cycle.

That was kind of my point I thought?

Cycling is physically less effort than walking. People still are prepared to walk - at least inside...

I certainly agree that "cost" is very low on the list of "barriers to people cycling" (although certainly authorities are eager to use that as an excuse...)

Also agree it's a lot of factors and sufficiently safe and convenient cycle routes appear empirically to be "necessary if not sufficient".

"Just don't want to cycle" I think is a bit like "hard work". Why do people do anything other than the minimum to acquire food etc?

I'd agree that most people aren't going to be doing 20 miles or more every day on a bike. But actually lots of people's driven journeys are rather short. (And if we can start rolling back our car-evolved planning and improve public transport a lot more could be).

I'm not sure everyone's *into* running a car and all the admin and costs - but most people do because it's the done thing. Obviously we enjoy the benefits, even when many people don't actually enjoy the business of driving, it being sometimes boring and stressful.

I thought you were saying basically cycling is a lot easier than people realise, if the environment supports it.

Which I totally agree with, but the lack of supporting environment is often barrier number 1 to people trying to cycle. So they never get to this realisation its actually pretty efficient mode of transport, actually not that expensive, and really not that hard.

But i've known people who wouldn't even cycle a couple of miles on a fairly well supported set of cycle routes, and they go through all manner of excuses to avoid the real reason, often citing costs, weather, physical effort, and you boil it all down to they just can't be bothered, it's just easier to drive.

I think your last point actually does illustrate where we agree, if I highlight:

"... you boil it all down to they just can't be bothered, *it's just easier to drive*."

So yes, if "don't want to" includes "... because there's a dominant, default transport mode we have spent generations and trillions promoting and facilitating we could use instead - and actually its dominance makes cycling much less pleasant also" I can only agree.

https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/

Of course that *is* where we are in the UK.

But also that's the point where things *might* change (a vast ask - but it has actually happened elsewhere).

Maybe what I should have said originally is "yet a far higher proportion of trips are cycled in NL, by a much wider group of people. Is it because they are Dutch? Are the Dutch less lazy? What about Seville - over a fairly short period modal share for cycling became significant from a very low base. Did they import Dutch colonists?"

In SE London, it's bus, tube, walking. Not driving. Some use hire bikes (Lime). Space to keep bike and bike paraphernalia is more expensive than a room with space for a bed and space under bed for your two cases, rucksacks, holdalls, or whatever you carry your life around in

Cost includes cost of a room or space to store it, wash clothes more often due to sweat, lights worth having, lock, panniers or rucksack. Many folk just have a room in a House of Multiple Occupation. Might even share that room

E6toSE3 wrote:

Cost includes cost of a room or space to store it, wash clothes more often due to sweat, lights worth having, lock, panniers or rucksack. Many folk just have a room in a House of Multiple Occupation. Might even share that room

I would respectfully disagree with the "many folk in HMO" assertion, being a barrier to overall affordability of cycling nationally. If you venture out of south east London, you'll see that the majority of people in the UK do not live in HMO accommodation. My experience differs a lot. I live in a seaside town that's in the bottom 10th percentile for deprivation and poverty, population 65000, I would estimate that the shared accommodation with no storage facilities (thinking the converted town centre hotels/B&Bs rather than shared houses with gardens) house less than 1000 people. 

Bike storage can be an issue - it certainly doesn't help matters, particularly in cities with lots of flats / renting / HMO.

As you say though I'm pretty sure the headline is just "writ large".

Luckily yet again there are working solutions we could copy:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/home-side-bicycle-parking/

...while we waited a generation or so as the new rules about cycle storage provision eg. in new build caught up. (If we did either of those...)

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/parking-your-bike-at-home/

I suspect in Edinburgh at least (where there's high prices for Scotland and some major deprivation) it's not the biggest blocker to cycling. And I've lived in some of the deprived places.

Ironically many of the folks who are near the bottom (immigrant workers probably sharing in private rented accommodation) are those who are riding the most - as food delivery riders (2 or 3 people rent an ebike together and work it in shifts).

TBH I think my wife and kids would probably kill me if I said, sorry, no more phones and we're cancelling Netflix and A-Prime cos dad needs a new bike…

Couldn't you give up smashed avocado on toast and lattes instead?

Or cook some nutritious meals for only 30p ?

Can they? They have to have a smart phone to work, deal with landlord, etc. Probably second hand from one of thousands such shops with pay as you go for data & calls. How do you know they subscribe to TV?