Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

How can we get more people riding their bikes?

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

How can we get more people riding their bikes?

Old 02-28-15, 03:20 PM
  #76  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,497

Bikes: Sekine 1979 ten speed racer

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1477 Post(s)
Liked 637 Times in 436 Posts
Originally Posted by auldgeunquers
8 hours is probably enough to ensure that some people would NEVER RIDE ONE OF THOSE DEATH TRAPS AGAIN doncha think?
Those are the people that never intended to cycle anyways. But the experience would make them more responsible motorists, which is what these three posts are about.

But to get more people to cycle, the easiest (if not for the political pressure against it) is to address those people who really want to but can't - safe and separated bicycle lanes.
Daniel4 is offline  
Old 02-28-15, 03:29 PM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times in 443 Posts
Of course, we could also try another approach.

Every single time someone rides a bicycle is good.

Every single time someone rides a commuter bike to work and home is good.
Every single time someone rides on a MUP on a walmart bike is good.
Every single time someone rides to the supermarket on their 30 year old bike is good.
Every single time someone rides down a mountain on a hard tail is good.
Every single time someone rides up a mountain with a number on their back is good.
Every single time someone rides on cinder paths on a hybrid bike is good.
Every single time someone rides around the block on a borrowed bike is good.
Every single time someone rides (even wearing lycra!) nowhere on their $5,000 bike is good.
Every single time someone rides a charity ride on a cab bike is good.
Every single time someone rides a rideshare bike and returns it is good.
Every single time someone rides a tricycle (two wheels in front and one in the rear, or visa-versa) maybe for the first time in fifty-ish years is good.
Every single time someone rides in a protected bike lane somewhere they never would have ridden before is good.
Every single time someone rides on a stroad with their child in a child carrier is good.

Every single time someone rides....
Every single time someone rides....
EVERY SINGLE TIME SOMEONE RIDES....

-mr. bill

Last edited by mr_bill; 02-28-15 at 03:44 PM.
mr_bill is offline  
Old 03-01-15, 08:03 AM
  #78  
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,920

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3345 Post(s)
Liked 1,054 Times in 634 Posts
I would like to add to what I have posted. When anyone shows interest in riding a bike, if they are not riding at all right now, I point out the 131 miles of bike trails here in Lincoln. As we all know a good percentage of people think cycling is dangerous, which it really isnt. But I suggest the trails for them to start out on. That way their fears of being run over by a car is put to rest. Then----------after they do ride on the trails, they will almost always expand their map. Baby steps to begin with. Drivers for instance dont jump in to a Forumla 1 race car to start with.

Last edited by rydabent; 03-01-15 at 03:46 PM.
rydabent is offline  
Old 03-01-15, 12:41 PM
  #79  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Altamonte Springs, FL
Posts: 75

Bikes: Huffy Rockcreek (dual suspension)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
I would like to add to what I have posted. When anyone shows interest in riding a bike, if they are not riding at all right now, I point out the 131 miles of bike trails here in Lincoln. As we all know a good percentage of people think cycling is dangerous, which it really isnt. But I suggest the trails for them to start out on. That way their fears of being run over by a car is put to rest. Then----------after they do ride on the trails, they will almost alway expand their map. Baby steps to begin with. Drivers for instance dont jump in to a Forumla 1 race car to start with.
Good point - riders with inhibitions due to automobile traffic would be be suited to start on trails (both paved and dirt type) in order to get used to riding.
randallovelace is offline  
Old 03-01-15, 01:24 PM
  #80  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rochester MN
Posts: 927

Bikes: Raleigh Port Townsend, Raleigh Tourist

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts
This group is not advocating for bicycling, but their goals would increase cycling. Basically, they are advocating getting away from designing towns for cars and designing the towns for human interaction

https://www.strongtowns.org

Last edited by steve0257; 03-01-15 at 04:53 PM. Reason: forgot link
steve0257 is offline  
Old 03-01-15, 02:25 PM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18302 Post(s)
Liked 4,470 Times in 3,326 Posts
I'm going to cross-post a quote from another topic.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel
In 'murica the average person is >6 times more likely to die walking and twice as likely to die falling down stairs than cycling.


Daily chart: Danger of death! | The Economist
These statistics are always complicated.

Alcohol related deaths would include the rare overdoses, chronic liver failure, automobile (and other) accidents, and perhaps a few other related deaths, and the overall number would be far greater than reported on the page.

Bicycling is complicated. The average cyclist may ride 5 miles a year (including young kids), and have little exposure to lethal situations. On the other hand, a bike commuter or avid rider may ride 3,000 to 10,000 miles a year, and has much greater exposure to the risk. I do wonder, however, if there is a sweet spot where riders averaging 5000 miles a year may be at lower risk than those averaging 1000 miles a year.

As I've pointed out several times, there are also benefits of riding a bike and exercise in general that may outweigh the risks.

I did find a few interesting statistics.
  • Employees who cycle regularly to work are less frequently ill, with on average more than one day per
    year less absenteeism than colleagues who do not cycle to work.
  • The higher the frequency and longer the distance cycled, the lower the
    rate of absenteeism.


From another study:
Injury risk
Unfortunately, trips by bicycle face higher risks of fatality
and injury per trip and per distance travelled than trips by
automobile. In the United States from 1999 to 2003, the fatality
rate per bike trip was about 2.3 times that for automobile trips,
and the police-reported injury rate per bike trip was about 1.8
times that for automobile trips.

The greater distances travelled
on motor vehicle trips (bike trips are about half the distance of
motor vehicle trips) mean that the difference in risk per distance
travelled would be greater still.
[...]
All studies considered
the benefits of increased physical activity,
and all but one considered the risks of traffic
injuries. All studies considered the impact of air pollution,
though two considered its impact only on risk and two only on
benefit. The benefits and risks were calculated in different ways
(deaths prevented, reductions in disability-adjusted life years, and
monetary costs of premature death).
The conclusions of all studies supported that of the British
Medical Association: there is a large net health benefit of increased
cycling, since the risk of fatal injury is greatly outweighed by the
reductions in mortality afforded by increased physical activity.
Air pollution risks and benefits had smaller impacts in either
direction. Benefit to risk ratios ranged between 9 to 1 and 96 to 1


And another study:

For Australian cyclists on the road six hours per week, there is a reduction in risk from heart disease of 85 deaths per 100,000 years and an increase in deaths from cycling of 19 per 100,000 years. Nonetheless, they still have a death rate of 121 per 100,000 years from CHD. There are additional health benefits to cycling as well, which lack exact figures, but they also help reduce the death rate of cyclists at the same time. So, the benefits of cycling greatly outweigh the risks.


And Another:
One study found that people who cycle to work
experienced a 9% lower rate of all-cause
mortality compared to those who did not – even
after adjustment for other risk factors, including
leisure time physical activity
[...]
risk to other road users
An important note with regard to the balance
of risks and benefits from cycling is that cycling
is an extremely safe activity in terms of the risk
that cyclists present to other road users. Only
around three to seven third parties are killed per
year in fatal bicycle crashes, compared to 1,600
third parties killed in fatal car crashes. This is an
important issue for public health professionals,
who should be considering the impact of
transport policies on overall public health.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-01-15, 03:22 PM
  #82  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK
On the other hand, a bike commuter or avid rider may ride 3,000 to 10,000 miles a year, and has much greater exposure to the risk..
Bah.

Comparing someone commuting to work with an "avid rider" is pure horse feces. People riding for sport and leisure tend to engage in risky behavior while commuters, in general, do not. In my city, we have averaged a cyclist death about once every two years despite having the highest cycling mode share of a large city in north america (and a significant fraction of these deaths have involved drunk driving or other road user error/criminality.)

One of the things I find infuriating about cycling advocacy is the tendency to exaggerate cycling risk for political goals. We don't need to lie about the dangers of cycling to argue for separated infrastructure.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 03-01-15, 03:48 PM
  #83  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18302 Post(s)
Liked 4,470 Times in 3,326 Posts
I've ridden in Portland. I had several near-misses, mainly from cars pulling out of side-streets without looking. Fortunately they were all misses. There are many good trails, but at least a decade ago, they had problems with connecting, and there are still places where one might be cruising along on what seems like a nice path/shoulder, and it just disappears into nothing.

As far as a commuter vs recreational cyclist. Generally the recreational cyclist looks for places with few cars, while the commuter is among the traffic.

I do wonder if bicyclists fare better than pedestrians in accidents. For a rear-end accident the speed differential is lower, and the bike may take much of the initial impact. For a "T-Bone", it is just as common for the bike to hit the car as for the car to hit the bike, but speeds would be limited to whatever the rider is cruising at (minus braking).

Mortality, of course, is the worst case, but there are serious cyclist injuries.

Anyway, the studies I listed, and others all seem to conclude that the risk of injury is far less than the risks of not exercising, with even greater benefit if one considers reduced pollution.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-01-15, 04:03 PM
  #84  
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332

Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
People riding for sport and leisure tend to engage in risky behavior while commuters, in general, do not.
Agreed,
Most bad cycling behavior in my area seems to be the stereotypical middle aged TDF wannabes, and kids on fixies.
kickstart is offline  
Old 03-01-15, 05:07 PM
  #85  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times in 443 Posts
You know what I've noticed?

There are some people who stereotype people on bicycles. Some of those people are on bicycles.

-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 03-01-15, 05:13 PM
  #86  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18302 Post(s)
Liked 4,470 Times in 3,326 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_bill
There are some people who stereotype people on bicycles. Some of those people are on bicycles.
I wonder where I fit in the stereotypes?

It is hard to really know a person on first glance.

Around here there are a lot of people who ride a bicycle from Point A to Point B (and back).
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-01-15, 05:17 PM
  #87  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK
Generally the recreational cyclist looks for places with few cars, ...
And many of those places are disproportionately dangerous. For example, a significant percentage of cycling deaths in OR occur on high-speed and/or rural highways (e.g. touring/recreating).
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 01:13 AM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18302 Post(s)
Liked 4,470 Times in 3,326 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
And many of those places are disproportionately dangerous. For example, a significant percentage of cycling deaths in OR occur on high-speed and/or rural highways (e.g. touring/recreating).
Do you have the statistics?
Here is a 1995 analysis of bicycle crashes by Carol Tan,
She had a "serious" category, rather than a fatal category.

I summed everything up and came up with about 69% urban, 31% rural for all accidents, and 66% urban and 34% rural for serious accidents.

The three categories that had a higher prevalence in rural than urban were (none with very high numbers of incidents):
Motorist Overtaking from behind, failed to Detect Bicycle
Motorist Overtaking Counteractive Evasive Actions (bike unpredictably swerving).
Bicycle Left Turn Facing Traffic
Some faults were apparently cars (rear ended or failure to yield), and others were caused by a bike, such as riding out from a driveway without stopping/looking.

There is, of course, more land area in rural USA than urban USA, but about 80% of the population is considered urban, and 20% rural. So, the rural areas are slightly weighted in relation to population, but not when considering land area.

Nonetheless, when considering raw numbers, more accidents, and serious accidents are occurring in urban areas with the exception of the rare rear-ending accidents.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 01:24 AM
  #89  
covered in cat fur
 
katsrevenge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Willkes-Barre, PA
Posts: 614

Bikes: Papillionaire Sommer, '85 Schwinn World Tourist, 2014 Windsor Kensington 8, SixThreeZero SS Cruiser

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel

One of the things I find infuriating about cycling advocacy is the tendency to exaggerate cycling risk for political goals. We don't need to lie about the dangers of cycling to argue for separated infrastructure.
No. Half the population has been pretty much ignored.

Read:
How to Get More Bicyclists on the Road - Scientific American
in short
“If you want to know if an urban environment supports cycling, you can forget about all the detailed ‘bikeability indexes’—just measure the proportion of cyclists who are female,” says Jan Garrard, a senior lecturer at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, and author of several studies on biking and gender differences.
Women are considered an “indicator species” for bike-friendly cities for several reasons. First, studies across disciplines as disparate as criminology and child *rearing have shown that women are more averse to risk than men. In the cycling arena, that risk aversion translates into increased demand for safe bike infrastructure as a prerequisite for riding. Women also do most of the child care and household shopping, which means these bike routes need to be organized around practical urban destinations to make a difference."



Increased Comfort = More Women Biking | League of American Bicyclists
in short
"As Rutger's researcher John Pucher puts it, making cycling "irrestible" is one of main reasons women take 55% of bike trips in the Netherlands, but only 24% in the United States. It's why we see some of the highest rates of women's ridership in our top Bicycle Friendly Communities, like Portland, San Francisco and Philadelphia, where strategic investments are making bicycling more appealing. In fact, 2/3 of American women say their "community would be a better place to live if bicycling were safer and more comfortable."
So what does that mean at the street level? According to our report:
  • More than half of American women say more bike lanes and bike paths would encourage them to start or increase their riding
  • Better facilities get more women on wheels: 94% of women in Portland said separated bike lanes made their ride safer
  • Studies in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New Orleans all show dramatic increases in female ridership after the installation of bike lanes
  • Women will travel an additional 5 minutes more than men to access a bicycle facility
  • Feeling comfortable is one of the most important factors in encouraging women to ride — and it's not just bike lanes..."

Does the Gender Disparity in Engineering Harm Cycling in the U.S.? | Streetsblog USA
in short
“Without inclusion of cycle tracks in the commonly adopted AASHTO guide, without US-based cycle track research, and without public health and transportation policies in support of cycle tracks, it will continue to be difficult to create cycle track networks,” Lusk and her fellow researchers write. “As a result of these and many other historical reasons, the default bicycle facility in the United States remains a bike lane painted on a road, in which many bicyclists do not feel comfortable or safe.
katsrevenge is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 09:13 AM
  #90  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by katsrevenge
No. Half the population has been pretty much ignored.
I'm not sure how you made the leap from "exaggerating risks" to my being against encouraging "comfort" and "perception of safety". I strongly support infrastructure that increases comfort and/or the perception of safety! On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the fear-mongering that is a all too common when it comes to cycling advocacy in the USA. Gender disparity is very unfortunate but I don't think exaggerating the risks of cycling is going to help diminish this disparity.

"As a result of these and many other historical reasons, the default bicycle facility in the United States remains a bike lane painted on a road, in which many bicyclists do not feel comfortable or safe.”
There is very little evidence for this statement. In fact, a recent study of cyclist attitudes towards infrastructure found that the majority of cyclists (including many of the "interested but concerned") were comfortable on "mere paint on the road" (see below). I would also add that I find the anti-bike lane bias among some cycling advocates to be very unhelpful. Historically, Denmark had very high mode share with infrastructure that was largely bike lanes. Likewise, enhanced and DZF bike lanes have been a huge contributor to the surge in cycling in German cities. And in my city, bike lanes undoubtedly contributed to increased adoption of cycling. Bike lanes are not the enemy!

https://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/Types_of_C...rkingPaper.pdf
(See Figure 6 -- bike lane on 25 mph road)
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 09:14 AM
  #91  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_bill
You know what I've noticed?

There are some people who stereotype people on bicycles. Some of those people are on bicycles.

-mr. bill
Uh, takes one to know one...

I would wonder however, if those not on bikes, tend to lump all cyclists together and wouldn't give a sh*t if the cyclist "in their way" was a stereotypical middle aged TDF wannabes, or some hipster kids on fixies.
genec is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 09:18 AM
  #92  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK
Do you have the statistics?.
Media reports. We have had far too many fatalities on rural highways and the total cycling deaths in OR are typically in the low teens or lower.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 09:32 AM
  #93  
The Left Coast, USA
 
FrenchFit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,757

Bikes: Bulls, Bianchi, Koga, Trek, Miyata

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 361 Post(s)
Liked 25 Times in 18 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
People will do what ever is easiest... if cycling is easier and more accessible, people will do that. If public transit is more available, people will do that. The general pubic is inherently lazy.
I guess you have never fought for a parking place at the gym at 6am and 6pm. Add to that all those people chasing high paying jobs that require 2-3 hours of commuting every day. I don't think laziness is a problem.

I took my spouse to a social, peddlers ride. I turns out many of them had a CAT 6 mentality, and the others were required to follow. No fun whatsoever, and pretty unsafe.

Based upon bringing five people into cycling I'd say that safety, inconvenience and the ******-bagginess of other cyclists are the primary reason that people find better ways to get their kicks.
FrenchFit is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 10:31 AM
  #94  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by FrenchFit
I guess you have never fought for a parking place at the gym at 6am and 6pm. Add to that all those people chasing high paying jobs that require 2-3 hours of commuting every day. I don't think laziness is a problem.

I took my spouse to a social, peddlers ride. I turns out many of them had a CAT 6 mentality, and the others were required to follow. No fun whatsoever, and pretty unsafe.

Based upon bringing five people into cycling I'd say that safety, inconvenience and the ******-bagginess of other cyclists are the primary reason that people find better ways to get their kicks.
Why would I EVER "fight for a place at the gym..." I get my exercise through biking and walking... both of which could get me "to the gym" without fighting for any parking places.

Folks chasing high paying jobs that require 2-3 hour daily commutes are wasting a ton of valuable time...

I will agree that safety and inconvenience are probably the biggest reasons folks don't cycle... the perceived danger of an unprotected cyclist on the road with aggressive motorists is indeed one issue, as well as the inconvenience of using routes that are designed for motor vehicles, all this contributes to the lack of cycling in most areas.
genec is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 10:40 AM
  #95  
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,403
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 35 Posts
Originally Posted by auldgeunquers
Well, yes. That and the compact size of the nation. ...

... other than all the differences we are all exactly the same. ....
A lot of good excuses, however I've not often heard them mentioned by people. Safety is the number one thing I hear for why people do not ride for daily transportation. In some locations hills may be next though.

The compact size of the nation - Most people within the U.S. and Canada (and UK, ...) live within easy bicycling distance of schools, groceries, eateries, hardware stores, and a long list of other places they can easily ride to. Pulling from memory isn't the average car trip in the U.S. something like 3 miles?

AND the lack of hills - Certainly a problem in some places but not all. Just because there are tough hills in St Paul doesn't mean people in Minneapolis can't ride bicycles to dinner.

AND the furgal self sufficiency that is part of Dutch culture - Heartily agree. Not sure how much impact this has.

AND respect for other person's place in the world - Agree. Again, not sure this is a big issue. How do you see it having an impact?

AND a culture that learned to make do with shortages of just about everything in the post war years - same as previous.

AND of destroyed infrastructure in those same post war years - The infrastructure that was built in the 3 decades after the war was motor-centric. By the mid 70's The Netherlands wasn't much different than other countries. After the Stop Killing Our Children protests is when they began building the infrastructure we see today. I don't know that there is any infrastructure that predates this.

AND High gasoline prices now - This certainly has an impact but personal monetary policy is only one reason people ride bicycles instead of drive. Health, enjoyment, concern for the environment, not wanting to import oil, and numerous others factor in. Even from a monetary standpoint I'm not sure how much petrol factors in vs other costs like tires, general maintenance, etc.

AND difficulty finding a place to park a car in city centres - Perhaps. Though this is becoming a significant issue in many NA cities.

AND the fact that cycling is fun - ??

AND socially acceptable - Agree. How can we change this?
CrankyOne is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 12:11 PM
  #96  
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332

Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by genec

I would wonder however, if those not on bikes, tend to lump all cyclists together and wouldn't give a sh*t if the cyclist "in their way" was a stereotypical middle aged TDF wannabes, or some hipster kids on fixies.
I seriously doubt an inpatient motorist makes any distinction between types of cyclists any more than they do between other types of vehicles that happen to be slowing their progress.

Being cognizant of the character of different sub groups within a category typically comes with first hand experience. Ever notice when you purchase a new bike or vehicle, suddenly you start noticing them more often than before?
kickstart is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 12:23 PM
  #97  
Senior Member
 
howsteepisit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 4,335

Bikes: Canyon Endurace SLX 8Di2

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Liked 30 Times in 14 Posts
I think that a large hinderance of getting non-cyclists to use bikes as a basic transportation mode is that there is a mostly unstated belief that people on bikes are one of recreational, or too poor to afford a car or has lost their license to drive. Since a great many people are not that interested in outdoor exercise, telling them about the wonders of cycling as exercise has no value to them, Further, most people do not wish to be identified as too poor to afford a car or as a lost my license person, so there is no interest from that angle. Add in the morally superior attitude of some advocates and their is little chance of converting non-cyclist to utilitarian cyclist. If cycling advocacy is to succeed there needs to be a far greater understanding of what is stated and unstated by the non-cycling public, and empathy and understanding of the issues rather than the condensation and self congratulatory backslapping often seen here.
howsteepisit is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 12:33 PM
  #98  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by CrankyOne
Safety is the number one thing I hear for why people do not ride for daily transportation.
I agree but I think we can do two things that help the "concerned" become more interested in utilitarian cycling:

1. Build infrastructure that increases their "comfort" level (real safety and perceived safety are two different things).
2. Challenge the prejudice that cycling is "unsafe" and abnormal.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 12:36 PM
  #99  
Senior Member
 
howsteepisit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 4,335

Bikes: Canyon Endurace SLX 8Di2

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Liked 30 Times in 14 Posts
Probaly for the only time in my life I totally agree with spare_wheel on this. Right ON!
howsteepisit is offline  
Old 03-02-15, 12:45 PM
  #100  
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,403
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times in 35 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
I agree but I think we can do two things that help the "concerned" become more interested in utilitarian cycling:

1. Build infrastructure that increases their "comfort" level (real safety and perceived safety are two different things).
2. Challenge the prejudice that cycling is "unsafe" and abnormal.
Yes.
CrankyOne is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.