Seven out of ten people say they never ride a bike, as safer roads – not more cycle lanes – viewed as key to encouraging cycling, new national travel study finds

I'm sure you'd find people in the UK *saying* "I'm not sporty enough to cycle" -. And in the UK the road environment - and some cyclists - exert psychological pressure to be one of the fit.

OTOH cycling is less effort than walking (why you tend to find people with leg issues on wheels rather than crawling along with their arms)! And where cycling is normal you see the normal proportions of "sporty" and "normal" people:

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/who-cycles-in-netherlands....

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/what-defines-dutch-cycling-2/

So in short: it may be a *perceived* obstacle in the UK. You could say "well eg. the perception that the roads are not safe is also just ... a perception as they are, statistically". I'd say that's more significant for people - some people's fear of death is activated regularly, if not constantly, cycling on some UK roads. And it's just not pleasant to cycle in traffic at all. Plus roads are now designed for *motor vehicles* eg. lots of traffic lights - inconvenient and unnecessary where there are just vulnerable road users in a space.

As I got in to cycling because of type 2 diabetes I wold argue that it was fear of dying prematurely that got me in to cycling. Deaths caused by obesity and conditions like diabetes far outnumber those on our roads. I'm not suggesting that that more cycling infra is a bad thing only that they have ignored other factors, perceived or otherwise, that hold back cycling.

Me too - cycling is the only form of exercise I enjoy and have managed to stick at for over 10 years as an adult. It's been great for keeping weight and blood sugar levels under control. I didn't go straight onto a road bike, I rode a hybrid for a 6 months "apprenticeship" until the kgs started falling away, before buying a drop bar bike, that's how I got round the thoughts of "I'm not sporty or fast enough for this."

Haven't looked back since, it's been life-changing both physically and mentally. Highlights since have been Paris-Roubaix, Alpe d'Huez, Passo dello Stelvio, Portugal N2 (5 days), multiple RideLondons and dipped my toe into a few 200km audaxes. All of this would have seemed impossible until that day I walked into Primera Sports and said I wanted to buy a bike.

IanMK wrote:

As I got in to cycling because of type 2 diabetes I wold argue that it was fear of dying prematurely that got me in to cycling. Deaths caused by obesity and conditions like diabetes far outnumber those on our roads.

Glad to hear!

I'm a little confused though - you seem to say that you think a reason people don't cycle is lack of fitness / health issues, but then cite that as why *you* took up cycling?

TBH given that most people in the UK don't cycle and certainly don't regard cycling as a sensible mode of transport I'd be skeptical of some of the reasons anyway. If someone asked me the reasons eg. I wasn't playing the organ (I don't) and then either gave me a multiple choice or "categorised" my answer I doubt my responses would inform. I'd have just "put something down" - the question not naturally occurring to me and not being of great relevance. (eg. I have no desire to learn this skill and if promoted probably don't believe I could).

That probably applies to many choices we make unconsciously / don't appear to be choices. "Why did you drive here today?" - "well I felt 30 miles was a bit far to walk in the rain, the space hopper was flat and I couldn't find my rollerskates."

The British Medical Association says that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20:1. Good on you for improving your health. A buddy of mine has done the same for the same reason and seen the benefit.

Of course it's not so much that the Dutch can cycle because they're healthy, the causation runs the other way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504332/

Hmm. I agree. Cycling in the UK is definitely a political statement of sorts as it's just not that pleasant or safe a lot of the time. There are certain cities where I wouldn't want to but even in London, it can be pretty terrifying. Even though some of the ebike riders are a bit kamikaze at least they don't intimidate unlike the legion MAMILs with head to toe Rapha gear for their Tour de Peckham and who shout at you if you don't get the intricacies of peleton etiquette on the cycle superhighways....

Where does this "cycling is banned in every park" thing come from?

No, it isn't.

Until we actually go after dangerous drivers with more than a slap on the wrist

It's worse than that really- mostly, dangerous and other offending drivers are looked after by the police and not troubled in any way. Around here, you would have to be a KSI'd cyclist for the police to even think about noticing the offence. Although I appreciate that motoring offences such as that below are not what we're talking about here, when the police can't even be bothered with these 'open and shut' cases where somebody else has done all the work for them, there's no hope that they will do anything over offences where they have to do some work. MA66 RWO is dead easy- no MOT for almost 4 months, operated by an easily traceable large building contractor RM Rigby of Preston. An ideal candidate for the £1000 maximum fine, which the company wouldn't even notice. The police will do nothing at all. Everybody knows that, so traffic offences are very common.

I think that's right.

And although only 29% supported 'cycle lanes', 52% said off-road and segregated cycle paths would encourage them to cycle more.

Maybe they interpreted cycle lanes as paint at the edge of the road.

Don't forget this is the UK where even "avid cyclists" can't think except in terms of our current state of motornormativity.  Probably take most of us a week or so in e.g. NL with a sympathetic guide to start realising what we don't know we don't know about our current environment.

I say this as someone who'd been to NL a couple of times - even cycled there once - without really understanding what it was about or that the UK could be much different!

Is this in the "If only people would drive more carefully" / "It would be fine if we just shared the road" / "Just get rid of a few nutters and the problem goes away" category?

I disagree that they are fallacies. While I agree that segregation is important for busy towns and main roads the most pleasant routes are quieter country lanes where this isn't practical. I'm quite happy sharing the road with the majority of traffic it's the significant minority we know too well that worry me. Increasing their perception that cycles should be on separate paths not the road won't make me feel any safer.

Separate paths that are shared with pedestrians and not properly maintained. I'll stick to the road thanks.

ChasP wrote:

I disagree that they are fallacies. While I agree that segregation is important for busy towns and main roads the most pleasant routes are quieter country lanes where this isn't practical.

Is there another fallacy / desired utopia you're positing there e.g. cycling must go where the existing roads go and thus separated infra must also go everywhere? (This is what they do in the countryside in NL).

Of course the cycling fallacies site (and my own view) isn't just about taking some rough edges off for those few of us who currently cycle in the UK.  It's mass cycling - because without it's also much harder to do signficant motor traffic reduction. (What works for achieving that).

I don't think it's just "just remove the few bad apples - simples" ("the significant minority we know too well that worry me").  I agree there seem to be low hanging fruit (if the police would to do something) - but I would like to see more data on this though.  (Perhaps it's all Nigel?)

For one - there are a significant number of unlicenced drivers.  We don't even effectively enforce driving after revocation of licence ("do that again and we will tell you not to ... again!).  Even if you could a) get the police to do the job and b) acquire more police I think ultimately it needs societal changes - for which we need to get to the virtuous circle e.g. the Dutch and Danes have accessed (see mass cycling again).

As to "not practical" - why?  Do you mean "not likely"?  We have already made a vast network of very large tarmac surfaces all over the countryside.  They're called the roads - and indeed that is the environment you enjoy!  How could doing that be practical but fixing that for for cycling not?

I feel that a lot of the respondents think of cycle lanes as those sections of the road that are delineated by a bit of paint, so conclude (probably rightly so) that they wouldn't feel safer because of that paint. From that standpoint, safer roads means fewer dangerous drivers and a better overall attitude towards cyclists.
In the absence of proper, segregated infrastructure, I'd tend to agree with them - riding along our quieter country roads can be relatively pleasant, but things need to be improved before they will be seen as welcoming places for the inexperienced.

It's the paradox of our "safe" roads.  Statistically very safe in large part through making it feel unpleasant or actively excluding* those outside of a motor vehicle.  Nice quiet country roads you can cycle on because we build high-quality motor infra everywhere (even if it quickly degrades...)

This leads to another paradox:  many people are unhappy about some aspects of the roads but almost everyone is against cycle infra!  Including many road cyclists.

How?  In general people are worried about any restrictions to driving - because they feel that's the only way to do many journeys.  So more cycling provision is seen as a problem.  People are frightened that when walking "killer cyclists" will be invading their small "safe spaces".  Some people with disabilities feel from experience that any change will be at their expense.

The policies and indeed rules about motor traffic access plus concerns of the above combine with ignorance of alternatives to mean that what is then built is often hopelessly compromised, inconvenient and sometimes unsafe cycle infra.  Current cyclists are rightly unimpressed with that and don't use it, often complaining at best it slows them down.  Some even feel that more "cycle infra" will just create a backlash of some kind.

So everyone's pointing at the crap infra and saying "no one uses it".

Meanwhile in the many places where they have actually built a network of good enough cycle infra they can start reaping the benefits.

* e.g. pedestrian "protective barriers" / bridges / underpasses which are as much about keeping them out of the way of motor traffic.