Advocacy & Safety - no magic way to get more people to cycle

In the Victoria (BC) Times Colonist there was an article, that I agree with. I know, the bottom line for me, why I ride, is because it's fun. Everything else is second fiddle.

Times Colonist

November 27, 2004

I sat down with the legislative health committee's new report and tried to analyse one aspect of my own behaviour in light of all the expert thinking in the document.

Most days, I ride my bike to work. It's environmentally friendly, it's undeniably healthy and it's economical.

But I couldn't care less about that stuff. I cycle because it's fun. No other reason.

There's no conscious decision on my part to save the Victoria airshed a few pounds of carbon monoxide, or save myself a few bucks in gas. It crosses my mind that it's healthy, but I have enough other shameful bad health habits that you couldn't say the health benefits drive my decision-making.

It's simply an enjoyable practice I got into years ago that turned into my standard method of commuting.

When the topic comes up in casual conversation and I am revealed to be a cyclist, I occasionally wax on about the savings to be had and the ease with which you can introduce a 50-minute workout into your daily life.

But I've noticed that mostly when you get into the topic, people's eyes tend to glaze over. I doubt I've ever convinced a single person to regularly ride their bike to work.

And that's one small aspect of the giant problem the committee is trying to grapple with. How do you convince people to adopt healthy lifestyles without expensive nagging campaigns that just turn into background noise?

People sometimes point to a generation of anti-smoking messages as evidence that such campaigns work. But it's not so much the blindingly obvious message that smoking is bad for you that cut the rate of tobacco use down from half to about 16 per cent.

The steady, incremental shift toward turning it into a ridiculously expensive social crime had at least as much to do with that drop.

Discussing public health campaigns of the past 30 years, the committee noted: "The initial thought was that if only people had the right information, the right lecturing tone, or the right scare tactic then they would see the light, change their ways and adopt good habits.

"What has become obvious, after repeated attempts to change individual behaviours, is that despite all the knowledge in the world, individuals' behaviours don't change."

Health decisions are like most other personal choices, the committee found. They are influenced by people's environment, their histories, genetic endowments, personal skills, education and income levels, their sense of control over their lives and "the ease with which a healthy choice is made possible."

So, I don't cycle to work because there's no provincial sales tax on bicycles, or even because provincial and local governments built the Galloping Goose. It's some random combination of all the factors listed above.

Which makes it very difficult for any government trying to cope with the terrible trend lines now firmly established in the B.C. population regarding diet, inactivity, obesity and diabetes. In fact, the committee found no proof anywhere of a successful strategy to reduce obesity and promote healthy eating and active lives on a population-wide level.

"Telling people how and why they need to change does not work. Healthy change comes from a complex, long-term and multi-layered process that enables people to exert control over the decisions that influence their health."

And any time you read "complex, long-term and multi-layered" in a recommendation, it always adds up to another adjective -- "expensive."

The MLAs recommend hiking funding for public health initiatives from three per cent to six per cent over time. That would mean adding another $375 million a year to the health budget, just for preventive measures.

And it would all have to be new money, rather than funds re-allocated from the acute care "sickness system," because diverting funds "could mean that someone might die today in order to save the lives of hundreds in the future." That sort of dilemma stops the prevention investment argument in its tracks.

So the idea is grab as much of the surplus as they can and demonstrate that any increase in preventive spending doesn't come at the expense of the acute care system.

The report is perfectly timed. There is a new federal provincial deal that guarantees $5.4 billion for B.C. over the next 10 years. And every time Finance Minister Gary Collins turns around, he discovers another unexpected revenue bonanza.

The committee said there's an argument to be made that a portion of all new funds and all future budget surpluses should be devoted to catching up on prevention "investments."

It's not finding money that's difficult at this point. It's spending it.

How to invest in the right combination of background factors to convince someone else to cycle to work is the big mystery.

leyne@island.net

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2004

Nice article.

I have to admit, I started riding to work because the transit system was exstreamly poor. It was only after riding in for a little while that I discovered riding the bike made me feel like a kid again. From then on, I was hooked.

So I guess that poor transit was an incentive that got me on a bike.

Could other incentives help others find the enjoy cycling?

It's tough to sell people actual fun, and easy to sell them bad times dressed up as fun. Cigarettes are a good example of this. Drives me absolutely crazy, espcially as I work on the creative side of advertising and design.

I have to admit, I started riding to work because the transit system was exstreamly poor. It was only after riding in for a little while that I discovered riding the bike made me feel like a kid again. From then on, I was hooked.

So I guess that poor transit was an incentive that got me on a bike.

Could other incentives help others find the enjoy cycling?

Poor transit did not get me on the bike. In fact, poor transit made me move to another city where there was good transit. Today, my trip used to involve riding five miles to the rail station and now I only travel 10 blocks.

What keeps me using the bike is good transit. The lightrail I take during the week days makes me use the system on the weekends with my bicycle. Furtunately, more people don't think like me or the trains would be full of cyclists.

It's tough to sell people actual fun, and easy to sell them bad times dressed up as fun. Cigarettes are a good example of this. Drives me absolutely crazy, espcially as I work on the creative side of advertising and design.


I hear ya - that's my bag too.
What we need to do is get cycling awareness raised in Time Out New York. :D
Ya know how most TONY issues nowadays is "sexy____" in the city. I swear they tie it into everything somehow and the folks eat it right up. That's what we gotta do, and the trendchasers will be all over it. ;)

Do you really want trendoids riding with you? Think about it :D

I think they just need more bikeways next to highways, or at least in view. THat way, when everyone is sitting on the road going 5mph home they keep seeing these bikers zooming past and getting home early!

I think they just need more bikeways next to highways, or at least in view. THat way, when everyone is sitting on the road going 5mph home they keep seeing these bikers zooming past and getting home early!

That's one way. Another way is to get non-riding adults onto bikes in the easiest way possible. I think providing multi-use trails is the best way to get nonriders back onto bikes.

Eh. I (myself) find Multi-Use trails to be frustrating. You can't enjoy a good ride on them because you're dodging 2 year olds on roller blades, mom walking a dog, dad pushing a baby stroller, rollerbladers, and every other form of pedestrian / recreationalist.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but if you're cycling and want to build up a semi-good head of steam, it's quite frustrating.

I don't think actively influencing other's behavior is part of my mission in life. When folks ask about riding I am friendly and entusiastic. Whether my example inspires others is not data which I log regularly.

Do you really want trendoids riding with you? Think about it :D

Is this like everyone that's showed up on the roads in the last two years with an expensive Trek or Italian-made road racing bike and wearing a yellow jersey or USPS racing team gear? If so, the answer is definitely no... ;)

I wear no obviously branded clothing, and ride a mid-level Trek. Guess I pass the trendoid test! ;)

Clancy98; I love that idea! Have it visible but not accessable by car; and you bet people sitting in traffic and getting nowhere are going to notice bikers pedaling along with smiles on their faces! It could happen...

Clancy98; I love that idea! Have it visible but not accessable by car; and you bet people sitting in traffic and getting nowhere are going to notice bikers pedaling along with smiles on their faces! It could happen...

Highly doubt it. You would think someone would've thought oh gee maybe I could ride a bike instead of being stuck in this traffice. Nope. Same people in the same cars at the same time, day in day out. Sitting there in their family sedans carrying 0 passengers.

That's just great.

That's one way. Another way is to get non-riding adults onto bikes in the easiest way possible. I think providing multi-use trails is the best way to get nonriders back onto bikes.

Totally agree with your point and the subsequent point of dodging 2 year olds.

Multi purpose trails were fantastic for me when I got back into cycling. I was able to build up some fitness and more importantly, bike handling skills by using the trails. It wasn't until I became fitter that I started to get frustrated by having to continually slow down / look out for kids, dogs, learner bikers, joggers etc. That was when I hit the road, confident that I was able to ride skillfully in traffic and was fit enough to stay alert and in control during a long climb up a hill.

Highly doubt it. You would think someone would've thought oh gee maybe I could ride a bike instead of being stuck in this traffice. Nope. Same people in the same cars at the same time, day in day out. Sitting there in their family sedans carrying 0 passengers.

And trying to figure out a way to hobble those cyclists so they can't get to the same destination before they do, or make their riding either more difficult or more dangerous. Frustration and jealousy do strange things to people.

I think they just need more bikeways next to highways, or at least in view. THat way, when everyone is sitting on the road going 5mph home they keep seeing these bikers zooming past and getting home early!

OH, DON'T I WISH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--The most convincing inspiration that got me to take my bicycle out of mothballs was the PBS documentary about the US Army's 25th Infantry Bicycle Corps. Once I started riding again I discovered a huge benefit came when it was time to PARK. No more hunting for parking spaces. If I were charged with influencing the public to consider bicycling, I would focus on PARKING.

One post on this topic, and hoping to sum it up as briefly as possible. Fact is, as the title of the thread says, there is no magic way to get people to take up riding. People will only do it if: 1) They already have the desire to do so; or 2) [less likely], the other options become less desirable for one reason or another (money, convenience etc). Sure, a small number of people may take it up in the short term for other reasons, but if they don't have the underlying desire, it will merely be a short term thing.

Providing bike lanes or MUP's is not going to make people take up riding in greater numbers. I've seen people claiming to have seen x number of cyclists on a path or in a lane, but they never seem to be able to answer the question of how many of those cyclists were riding that route (or another) without the trail anyway. If one is really going to increase the numbers of people cycling, what is needed is a more literal interpretation of the word promote, and by that I mean a sleazy advertising campaign.

just jack the price of gas up to 20.00 a gallon. things will change real quixk (G)

All of us ride, now, because it is a passion of ours. Many of us started using bicycles for transportation, for other reasons. I quickly came to understand, in college, that cyling was much faster and less expensive than taking the bus. I continued to ride, once I had a job, because I was able to eat out once a week, and go to Europe every couple of years, with the savings over driving. Now, I feel dirty and lazy when I drive the car. And I get road-rage whith the mildest trafic slow-downs.

Many of my friends in college, saw the advantages of biking, and fondly reminisce about the days they rode everywhere. Only one of these guys, besides me, still commutes by bike. That's something I don't understand. I think they are a bunch of freaks, and you know what they think of me.

In the UK, we have some cities where its quite normal for people to ride a bike; no-one would comment if you turned up to the pub or went to the theatre on a bike. In other places, the only people who ride are sandle-wearing eco-nuts, Lance-a-like racers and weirdo bike commuters; normal people wouldn't be caught dead on a bicycle.
There is no correlation with weather or terrain or wealth, its a cultural thing.

In the UK, we have some cities where its quite normal for people to ride a bike; no-one would comment if you turned up to the pub or went to the theatre on a bike. In other places, the only people who ride are sandle-wearing eco-nuts, Lance-a-like racers and weirdo bike commuters; normal people wouldn't be caught dead on a bicycle.
There is no correlation with weather or terrain or wealth, its a cultural thing.

:lol:
Note to self: I've just gotta visit the UK one day...

So, anthropologists & sociologists out there... how do we change the culture?

If I were charged with influencing the public to consider bicycling, I would focus on PARKING.

In my experience, you are spot on. I think higher gas prices could even make motoring an act of conspicuous consumption and cause only a small decrease in driving (and possibly even encourage it.)

However, being able to go to a destination without circling the block for 15 minutes looking for a parking spot is an undeniable advantage of cycling. If and when people realise that cycling is easier and more convenient than driving for may trips, they will cycle. Otherwise, nothing will pry them out of their cars. Therefore, I suspect that cycling will slowly increase in congested cities, but remain rare in rural/suburban areas. Remember, Henry Ford mass-marketed the automobile as transportation for people in the country, not the city.

To a much lesser degree, I think higher availability of utility bikes might help -- nobody is going to want to deck out in spandex for a half mile trip to a restaurant. It's ironic that the 1950s cruisers were much better for such trips than the road and mountain bikes that replaced them.

On the whole, I suspect that more cars, more congestion, and more gridlock will continue to improve the prospects for cycling.

Paul

In the UK, we have some cities where its quite normal for people to ride a bike

I hope to take my boys( currently 9 and 10) on a tour of the English countryside in the summer of '06. I have to take them to Oxford, so that I can get a decent pint of mild, but are there other areas that you could recomend, that are particularly bike friendly? I'd like them to come back to the US appreciating that others, besides me, bicycle for transportation.

Cambridge and York are probably the top cycling cities. Bath and Norwich are pretty good. These cities all have a lot of original pre-motor car street layouts. Surprising, London is quite cycle friendly, if you know your way around the back streets.

To address one aspect of the article, when it comes to the economics of cycling, it's not just the gas savings that are nice-- though they are-- it's the reduced maintenance too.

If you're in a position to replace a car altogether with a bike-- and that may or may not be the same thing as living car-free-- the savings are huge. No initial capital cost, no insurance, no parking expenses, none of that.

Anyway, I want to say something about recruiting more cyclists. It is a curious thing that so many practical cyclists are zealous about winning converts. Many hobbies have the outreach component, but it's more intense in cycling.

There is a danger in recruiting more people to cycling, though. If more people rode for practical purposes, I fear that would be worse for the legal environment, not better. With more riders would come more attention to practical cycling, and what I fear would be an inevitable push for more regulation for "bike safety" purposes or to permit better "coordination" between bikes and cars.

I think, in other words, a dangerous situation for legal freedom to cycle would be the area between the way it is now, when the numbers of practical cyclists are vanishingly small, and everyone's cycling for practical purposes. In that area, there would be enough cyclists on the road to attract attention from motorists all the time, to get into noteworthy crashes (and there would be some), and to attract less skilled people who would behave stupidly. However, there wouldn't be enough cyclists to resist the inevitable push to greater legal restrictions that would be likely to follow.

I don't think any of us will ever live to see a society not dominated overwhelmingly by motorized vehicles. Given that fact, the ideal size of the group of practical cyclists to preserve our liberty might be no larger than just a few times larger than cycling's small population size now.

Merriwether is correct. One of my major concerns in recruiting more people to cycling is the prospect that these people will take the "it's only a bike" attitude. This is a problem because they won't learn to ride properly and display behaviours such as riding against the flow of traffic, footpath cycling, red light running and so on, which is likely to put them at considerable personal risk. While I believe Darwinism is a good thing, the major risk here is that a few of them being killed will increase the perception of cycling as a "dangerous" activity -- meaning more restrictions on the places you are allowed to ride.

Don't think it can happen? Three years ago a cyclist was bashed by a car load of thugs here on the Gold Coast (within 5km of where I live), another was killed by a stoned driver. The only government action was a prompt ban on cyclists from using a major road (not the ones where the incidents took place).

About 10 years ago I was sitting in a bus, moving slowly through the morning rush hour. It seemed I would once again sit there >60mins, covering what I knew to be about 10-15 kms. Staring out of the window, bored, I started to figure out faster ways to commute: car (nope, same traffic), walking (nope, about 2 hrs), skiing (yes, but no snow right now) and finally biking. The moment it crossed my mind I knew I could do it. Next day I visited a friend who had a not-so-local bike store and bought my first hybrid. I haven't looked back since.

Do I want more people to have that same moment of enlightenment (sp)? I am not sure. To some extent less cars would be good for traffic and for the individuals choosing to bike. But bike lanes and bike/ped paths can occasionally get crowded as it is. I can easily picture myself having a fit of bike rage, stuck in the gridlock with hundreds of other cyclists... no thanks!

--J

I can easily picture myself having a fit of bike rage, stuck in the gridlock with hundreds of other cyclists.

Either you live in a much different world than me, or you have a better imagination.

No, I cannot imagine what it would be like to ride among hundreds of other cyclists during my daily commute. But I can imagine I would become very irritated very soon.

--J

I think they just need more bikeways next to highways, or at least in view. THat way, when everyone is sitting on the road going 5mph home they keep seeing these bikers zooming past and getting home early!

See below.

Either you live in a much different world than me, or you have a better imagination.

I doubt a couple hundred or even a thousand cyclists could clog up the roadways like a 1000 cars could.