New report claims that tripling bike use would boost London’s economy by £5 billion a year

Lukas wrote:

Ugh, this comment section has been hijacked  by Nigel Fromage. Ignore it - and it will go away. 

I agree with you. He is very much against active travel and has a track record of distracting threads that show there are great benefits to society from a greater take up of active travel.

Depends on gear ratios, I suppose...

HarrogateSpa wrote:

How does the maths of trebling bicycle use work? Is there a quirk that means trebling numbers of bike trips amounts to an increase from 2 to 14%?

I'm guessing (and maths is very much not my strong point) that there's an assumption that the modal share of other modes would fall as cycling increased, i.e. not only does cycling increase but fewer people drive because it  does?

ETA much to my surprise I seem to be right - looking at the report trebling cycle use would result in a 14% modal share.

Rendel Harris wrote:

HarrogateSpa wrote:

How does the maths of trebling bicycle use work? Is there a quirk that means trebling numbers of bike trips amounts to an increase from 2 to 14%?

I'm guessing (and maths is very much not my strong point) that there's an assumption that the modal share of other modes would fall as cycling increased, i.e. not only does cycling increase but fewer people drive because it  does?

ETA much to my surprise I seem to be right - looking at the report trebling cycle use would result in a 14% modal share.

so 100 people are travelling

2 of them by bike, 98 by other means

trebling cycle usage means 6 travel by bike, if this is now 14% model share that means now only 43 people are travelling in total, and 57 people who used to travel are now sitting at home sulking because there are more bikes on the road.

Garage at Large wrote:

I think that's the same maths employed as pretending that tripling bike use would improve the London economy by £5bn.

I'm sure you've read and analyzed the report and haven't just produced a kneejerk sneer?

Garage at Large wrote:

Don't need to read it - commissioned by the "Bicycle Association" and written by a Friends of the Earth activist.

I'd rather spend ten minutes doing something productive.

Like dicking around spreading lies and hatred on a website where virtually everybody holds you in contempt? Gotcha.

Garage at Large wrote:

Don't need to read it - commissioned by the "Bicycle Association" and written by a Friends of the Earth activist.

I'd rather spend ten minutes doing something productive.

What like saying people like me deserve a heart attack?

I mean it's not like I literally had an uncle die from a massive heart attack a couple of days ago.

TriTaxMan wrote:

What like saying people like me deserve a heart attack?

I mean it's not like I literally had an uncle die from a massive heart attack a couple of days ago.

Surely that's just part of his self-described "hilarious banter" like the rest of his fat-shaming, misogynist and racist comments?

Sorry about your uncle, RIP.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Surely that's just part of his self-described "hilarious banter" like the rest of his fat-shaming, misogynist and racist comments?

Sorry about your uncle, RIP.

Thanks Rendel.

Yes that's going to be him thinking he is being funny.

He seems to have the mentality of a small child, everything has to be about him, and if he doesn't get the attention he wants he starts lashing out at others and making comments to get attention.

Garage at Large wrote:

Er no, you made a "joke" about my mother (those kind of gendered jokes go down well with Rendel, so he'll approve). In reply I made an actual joke about your wife buying you a Peloton for Christmas.

Seriously you are going to try that utter crock of BS?

Garage at Large wrote:

No I was talking to your wife actually, in light of the Sex and the City reboot she's very keen on buying you a Peloton for Christmas.

What you actually referred to was the fact that one of the Characters in Sex in the City died from a heart attack on a peloton.

Or are you going to deny that's what you said?

Garage at Large wrote:

Yes that was what I wrote in jest -  glad you managed to understand it 24 hours later. I continue to find it very amusing and will not be apologising.

No Nigel what you said was a thinly veiled comment about you thinking that I should be bought a Peloton bike so that I have a heart attack.  Nothing more nothing less.

Garage at Large wrote:

Yes that was what I wrote in jest -  glad you managed to understand it 24 hours later. I continue to find it very amusing and will not be apologising.

Way to try to hijack these comments to make it all about TriTaxMan by the way, I won't be replying again.

Is that because your mother has decided you've had enough screen time today?

Garage at Large wrote:

Er no, you made a "joke" about my mother (those kind of gendered jokes go down well with Rendel, so he'll approve). In reply I made an actual joke about your wife buying you a Peloton for Christmas.

He asked you if you'd asked your mother's opinion - seeing as you inflicted upon us a few days earlier a tedious lengthy screed that allegedly was your mother's opinion it was a perfectly reasonable comment.

You can continue your silly little attempts to portray me as a sexist as long as you wish, I'm not the person who describes young adult women with whose opinions I disagree as "silly little girls" and says that if they were male they should have been beaten on the bottom - that's you.

Garage at Large wrote:

Er no, you made a "joke" about my mother (those kind of gendered jokes go down well with Rendel, so he'll approve). In reply I made an actual joke about your wife buying you a Peloton for Christmas.

No Nige, the joke was about you..... not your mother..... but that seems to have been way too complex for you to grasp.

And there is a million miles of difference between making a joke about the fact that you probably still stay at home with your mum.....  and making a "joke" about suggesting that someone deserves a heart attack. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Garage at Large wrote:

I think that's the same maths employed as pretending that tripling bike use would improve the London economy by £5bn.

I'm sure you've read and analyzed the report and haven't just produced a kneejerk sneer?

Erm, so I have read it - well, skimmed it - and can confirm that it appears to be nonsense. The report talks about a six-fold increase in trips, and a 50% increase in the average trip length. What seems to have happened is that Carlton Reid has mixed that up with what they estimate to be a consequent trebling of associated economic activity (and road.cc have then regurgitated that without reading it first).

If it's wrong then fine, I've only glanced at it – my point was that our resident troll rejects anything in favour of cycling out of hand without analysis and by his own admission did not read this report before condemning it.

ETA had a closer look, so re "sixfold" it says:

The potential for further growth in cycling in London is substantial with an estimated 3.1 million car driver trips a day potentially cycleable. If these were converted into actual cycle trips, this could result in an estimated cycle mode share of 14% and taking account of forecast population growth, a six-fold increase in cycling trips by 2030.

Sixfold = six times more, about what one would expect for an increase from 2% to 14%. The report does admit:

Although this sounds ambitious more than eighty world cities already achieve this cycling mode share (including UK cities) and rapid increases in cycling have been demonstrated in the UK and elsewhere.

Highly ambitious but not nonsense, it's effectively taking the best case scenario and saying what the outcomes would be if it happened.

Yes - and to clarify, when I said 'it's nonsense' I didn't mean the report - only the way that Reid and road.cc have ballsed up the numbers in it.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

How does the maths of trebling bicycle use work? Is there a quirk that means trebling numbers of bike trips amounts to an increase from 2 to 14%?

where is the current 2% modal share assumption coming from? 2% might be the figure nationally but in london it is higher because (stick) driving is not practical) and (carrot) cycle infrastructure is good better than most places.