CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: 10 year high

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: 10 year high http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: 10 year high en Sun, 17 May 2026 10:42:44 +0000 chdot on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-117173 Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:46:34 +0000 chdot 117173@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ "If Edinburgh is serious about meeting its targets it should be able to supply these figures on a regular basis and they should be showing a consistent upward trend" I think that is a reasonable expectation... Calum on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-117172 Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:39:43 +0000 Calum 117172@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Well, the Active Travel Action plan states that the overall modal share declined from 2% in 2005/6 to 1.6% in 2007/8. In other words, the undoubted rise in commuter cycling was being cancelled out by a decline in cycling for other reasons at that time. We would all love to think that a big increase in cycling is either happening right now or is just around the corner, but on the basis of these figures I don't feel that's a credible position to take. We're forever hearing about how commuter cycling in Edinburgh has reached the dizzy heights of 8% (or whatever it is), and that cyclists make up fabulously high proportions of the traffic on certain main roads. What I would be very interested in seeing is recent figures for the modal share - that is, the percentage of all journeys by all people for all purposes that are cycled. If Edinburgh is serious about meeting its targets it should be able to supply these figures on a regular basis and they should be showing a consistent upward trend. Instography on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-117156 Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:42:02 +0000 Instography 117156@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I also showed early on that the impression of significant increase in Edinburgh (27% growth since 1999) was perfectly compatible with flat-lining nationally. This was the original extrapolation error - of translating personal experience in Edinburgh into a massive increase nationally. chdot on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-117152 Sat, 06 Jul 2013 09:46:23 +0000 chdot 117152@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ "membership numbers of cycling organisations, in participation numbers in cycling events, in sales numbers" But they only signify an increased interest in 'cycling'. More members could mean more people wanting third party insurance or wanting to 'belong' or better marketing by those organisations. Presumably it's analogous to people going to football matches for years and deciding to join the Supporters' Club - more members, no extra people spectating. More people taking part in events, is partly because there are more events. It would certainly show up as more mileage if they were all measured - but I'm not convinced that it would be a significant amount. In general such events are not ridden by people who have 'just' started cycling. An exception may be Pedal for Scotland. Presumably Cycling Scotland has done surveys to see if riding PfS has resulted in more people cycling more(?) More bikes being sold means more N+1 and maybe more miles ridden. It also means some people buying bikes with the intention of using them, but deciding not to. Dave has just written an entertaining piece on the QBC, it contains - "cyclist numbers are just exploding, with virtual traffic jams on the canal and North Edinburgh Path Network as large numbers of ordinary looking people take to two wheels in an environment free of the tender mercies of the Edinburgh motorist." <a href="http://mccraw.co.uk/qbc-swansong" rel="nofollow">http://mccraw.co.uk/qbc-swansong</a> Which is anecdotal, about Edinburgh (a very particular route) and recent. If this is an increase (rather than just a blip caused by a few sunny days) and replicated more widely than one attractive/'safe' corridor then the figures should show up in next year's published surveys. It's undoubtedly the case that there is more cycling going on - especially in parts of Edinburgh and London. It's also the case that short of all bikes having GPS, and automatically uploading data somewhere, the 'facts' will never be known. However flawed the current system is, it shows an increase but not a massive one - and certainly not enough to give CEC or SG any confidence that its various 'targets' will be met. Maybe time for some policy changes... Charterhall on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-117143 Sat, 06 Jul 2013 08:44:13 +0000 Charterhall 117143@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I've already told you where you can find the evidence, in membership numbers of cycling organisations, in participation numbers in cycling events, in sales numbers. But as you are not prepared to accept these there's clearly no point in continuing this conversation. Instography on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-117107 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 19:38:56 +0000 Instography 117107@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ OK. You believe that if you want to. I do have metrics for for leisure cycling. One direct - adult participation in cycling, variable sprt3ad in the Scottish Household Survey - and I've already said several times that it has shown no significant change since it was introduced to the survey in 2007. One indirect - household access to bicycles (cos you'd think they'd be buying bikes and more households would have them) but that hasn't increased significantly either. And I've also said that I haven't been just using the figures for commuting and extrapolating them. I've been using commuting as a leading indicator - a sort of bell weather of cycling and supporting it with five other measures and finding that they all show the same thing - no significant growth. In contrast to that all you've done is repeatedly assert the same thing about a massive growth for which there seems to be no evidence. Find some evidence and then we can maybe take this conversation a bit further. I'd love for there to be evidence of a massive unrecognised growth in cycling. It would better and more pleasantly support demands for more funding than increasing deaths and injuries do. But I'm an evidence kinda guy and can't just accept your assertions based on the strength of your faith. Charterhall on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-117102 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 18:31:44 +0000 Charterhall 117102@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Insto, the massive growth in cycling in recent years is clearly in the sport/leisure area, an area that you are choosing to ignore. Just because you haven't got metrics for it, it doesn't mean it's not happening. You can't simply extrapolate from the figures you do have for commuting and assume that the same trends apply uniformly across the board. And Crowriver, the same cyclists riding further and more often amounts to the same thing as new cyclists in the context of this thread, ie. they both provide more cyclists on the road. Instography on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-117048 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 13:31:44 +0000 Instography 117048@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I haven't just looked at commuting. I've used commuting as a leading indicator of what seems to be happening with cycling across the board. In the SHS I have four indicators of cycling: as usual commuting, as an alternative mode for commuting, leisure participation, and, from the travel diary, cycling's contribution to all journeys. I've focused on the commuting indicator for two reasons - it's been in the survey unchanged since data collection began in 1999 and, pragmatically, it's readily available to me. The others have been there for less time but these indicators and the national measures from the National Travel Survey back up what we see in the commuting indicator. But, let's look at what we have for 'every type of cycling use'. Turns out Transport Scotland have time series tables from the SHS travel diary on their <a href="http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and-research/publications-and-consultations/j240090-00/data">site</a>. The travel diary has been in the survey since 1999 and covering all journeys it shows that cycling was the main mode of transport for 1.1% of journeys in 1999 and 1.3% of journeys in 2011. Where is this substantial rise in cycling? crowriver on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-117045 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 13:21:32 +0000 crowriver 117045@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ If you were to look at every type of cycling use you'll see that the total across all uses has risen substantially. I'm not convinced it has. Are there any figures available which support the theory that there is a cycling 'boom' going on? People may be buying more bikes, but that could just be the n+1 effect. There may be more cyclists about, but it could just be existing cyclists riding more often/further. Cycling organisations may be growing memberships, but that could just be greater awareness of these organisations amongst existing cyclists (the internet helping people with common interests to connect, for example). Is this cycling 'boom' any more real than the previous ones? The 'boom' in the late 1970s/early 1980s; the 'boom' when mountain biking became popular; etc. How do we measure who is cycling, how often, and how far? Quite a difficult thing to measure reliably, I would think. Charterhall on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-117040 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 13:04:37 +0000 Charterhall 117040@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ "not really sure what you mean about applying filters to the accident statistics. I can't separate out the accidents associated with travel to work" That's exactly my point. Your argument that cyclist accidents have gone up but cycling use has remained static is flawed as you've only looked at one aspect cycling use, ie. commuting, whereas the accident statistics include those involving every type of cycling use. If you were to look at every type of cycling use you'll see that the total across all uses has risen substantially. Instography on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116963 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 10:14:03 +0000 Instography 116963@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I think I'm as aware as I can be of the limitations of the measure that refers to usual mode of commuting and, for the years that data is available, I've compared trends in alternative commuting mode, leisure cycling and the modal share of cycling the SHS travel diary. We can compare all that with trends in the GB as a whole, which also show that cycling is more or less static, in spite of what we hear about massive growth in London. For instance, the National Travel Survey reported in 2011 that "there has been a small drop in the number of bicycle trips per person per year from 18 trips in 1995/97 to 16 trips in 2011." Cycling still makes up only about 2% of journeys, like it has for years. So, pretty much all the evidence we have about cycling at a Scotland or GB level says much the same thing. The only information that suggests any increase in cycling is the distance travelled measure published by the Scottish Government. This suggests that cycling on roads has increased by 30% in the last 10 years. I'm pretty sceptical of that increase because it doesn't tally with any of the other indicators. Also, the Government isn't exactly brimming with confidence about the estimates. They say, "traffic estimates, indicate only the broad level of traffic, shouldn't be relied upon for year-to-year changes as they are based on a very small cross-section of the roads in Scotland: 12 hours in one day traffic counts taken at around 750 sites per year and data from automatic traffic counters at about two dozen sites in Scotland (then combined with data from automatic counters at similar sites in England and Wales)." So if they are only broad indicators for all traffic and unreliable for year-on-year changes, taken from a small number of sites in Scotland, I'm guessing that the estimates for cycling are even less reliable (and really they have no business publishing them with the levels of spurious accuracy they give them). So, I think I'm giving due weight to all the sources I have available to come to my 'flat-lining' conclusion about the general level of cycling in Scotland. I'm not really sure what you mean about applying filters to the accident statistics. I can't separate out the accidents associated with travel to work. crowriver on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116946 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 09:34:07 +0000 crowriver 116946@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Okay, anecdote time, as I don't have any stats to prove or sisprove my point. I've been cycling for 34 years. For most of that time, I was blissfully unaware of any of the organisations Charterhall mentions. I think I was made aware of Spokes in the late 1990s, and became a member about 10 years ago if memory serves. I was mostly ignorant about CTC, British Cycling, etc. until more recently. I joined CTC in 2009, Audax UK last year. Why do I mention this? I'm a textbook case of someone who was cycling anyway (primarily transport, some leisure) who joined cycling organisations only after many years of just being a bloke on a bike. I'm not claiming to represent some kind of trend. I'm sure there are youngsters who join ERC before they enter their teens. I'm certain though I'm not the only 'regular cyclist' to have left it until much later before joining cycling organisations. So it's perfectly possible to explain growth in membership of cycling organisations mostly through people a bit like me. Charterhall on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116932 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 07:33:16 +0000 Charterhall 116932@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Insto it's not for me to tell you which statistics to use but you do need to be aware of their limitations and to take care to factor those in to your conclusions. Your 'flatlining' statement appears to refer to primarily commuting cycling. Have you applied the same filter to your accident statistics ? You need to compare apples with apples. Instography on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116928 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:38:45 +0000 Instography 116928@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @crowriver Yeah, that's what I mean by the perfect swamp. Almost unique. @Charterhall Those are perfectly compatible with the same people doing more. Not necessarily with more participants. Sorry but happy though I would be to collect better data you'll have to tell me what that much better measure would be. Charterhall on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116912 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 22:00:41 +0000 Charterhall 116912@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CTC membership at record high, British Cycling membership at record high, huge numbers of riders participating in sportives, many of them newbies, bike sales booming. Hardly what I would call flatlining. crowriver on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116896 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 18:06:33 +0000 crowriver 116896@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ To be fair, Edinburgh has a larger population than Oxford and Cambridge put together. I take the point about St Andrews, but that's really small. Dundee is about the same population as Oxford. Edinburgh has it's own unique mix of employers, but a really big concentration of office workers: higher education; public administration (Scot gov and lots of quangos, etc.); financial services; and so on. It would make a lot of sense for many of these workers to adopt active travel in their commute, if for no other reason than offsetting their sedentary occupations. SRD on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116863 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:56:58 +0000 SRD 116863@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I was entirely unaware of it at the time but: <a href="http://www.cyclox.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cyclox.org/</a> you may also have seen <a href="http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/</a> On twitter he suggests that you can have a cycle-friendly city w/out segregated bike routes. I think he underestimates how unusual Oxford is - its centre is not much bigger than Durham, despite being a much bigger city. In googling, I thought this was interesting: <a href="http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10521773.Oxford_s__Boris_bikes__are_riding_high/" rel="nofollow">http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10521773.Oxford_s__Boris_bikes__are_riding_high/</a> Bike share - what is notable is that it is being based out of the park and rides, with assumption that people will (long distance) bus or car to the park and ride, and then ride to work. Instography on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116861 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:46:50 +0000 Instography 116861@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Does Oxford have a Spokes? SRD on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116858 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:43:14 +0000 SRD 116858@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I've lived in Oxford and Edinburgh for almost equal amounts of time. and in both north and south of both as well. Oxford is odd mix of University + University press (huge employer) + schools + hospitals and former industrial town. Since at least 20 years ago much of the service sector workers come in from surrounding towns (think penicuik/fife). One thing that makes Oxford really different is almost total lack of out of town shopping malls(until large supermarkets opened up + Bicester village), so large proportion of people travelling in/out doing so for shopping. I don't have data, but I think Oxford's park&ride much more successful/more used than Edinburgh. Instography on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116852 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:27:52 +0000 Instography 116852@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Maybe. Don't know them at all. They seem a bit more like St Andrews - the class mix, the student population and small but without the transport and office-based employment that distinguish Edinburgh. Maybe Bristol would be better. But I don't know Bristol either. I do remember that after I'd been working on the Edinburgh car club I worked for a company looking to set up somewhere that their analysis suggested had many of the same characteristics as Edinburgh - Oxford. crowriver on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116839 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:48:24 +0000 crowriver 116839@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ You know, compact, studenty, middle class with an usually high percentage of its affluent middle classes in the city centre and within cycling distance of their studies or employment or transport hubs. Add a bit of environmental awareness, some socially and attitudinally similar and sympathetic councillors and officials and evolutionary magic happens. People campaign and advocate in their own interests and out of that perfect mix grows a lobby group. You mean, like Oxford and Cambridge? Instography on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116838 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:46:08 +0000 Instography 116838@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I'm sure it's no coincidence but did Spokes create Edinburgh or did Edinburgh create Spokes? The distinctive level of cycling in Edinburgh only makes sense to me if I imagine the city as the sort of natural swamp where that level of cycling could evolve. You know, compact, studenty, middle class with an usually high percentage of its affluent middle classes in the city centre and within cycling distance of their studies or employment or transport hubs. Add a bit of environmental awareness, some socially and attitudinally similar and sympathetic councillors and officials and evolutionary magic happens. People campaign and advocate in their own interests and out of that perfect mix grows a lobby group. SRD on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628&page=2#post-116826 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:53:57 +0000 SRD 116826@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ To link in to a previous debate, it is surely no coincidence that growth in cycling in Scotland is occurring where we have the most active lobby group (spokes). I would definitely like to think that this also reflects work on part of cycling officers/active travel dept at Council, and cycling Councillors, but I don't have data to reliably assert the difference to other councils. Instography on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628#post-116823 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:49:34 +0000 Instography 116823@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ It wouldn't exclude them automatically unless they themselves thought that their bike commuting wasn't usual. I would say that someone who commutes one or two days a week by bike doesn't "usually" commute by bike although they do regularly commute by bike. The 'alternative' mode (which hasn't really been growing) would catch them though, although that's not been in the survey for as long. As would the travel diary. Any commuting by bike in the last month might give you a bigger number but it's also a different number. It's measuring something else and it wouldn't necessarily be more illuminating. It wouldn't, for instance, show modal change or regularity, which would, for me, be the real indicators of growth in cycling. The definitional issues don't matter all that much. In terms of measuring change over time what you need above all is consistency. If there's growth in cycling then it'll be reflected in a consistent measure even if the measure fails to completely capture the thing you're trying to measure. The exception is if the 'growth' is entirely lopsided. If everyone who started cycling only did it one day a week then none of them would ever 'usually' cycle. You wouldn't see the growth. But that would just be weird. But I thought my post was just a long-winded, numerical way of saying what SRD had said succinctly - growth in Edinburgh (27%) but flat-line nationally. There is growth but its localised and maybe skewing perceptions of what's happening in general. crowriver on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628#post-116822 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:45:40 +0000 crowriver 116822@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I have to say I tend to agree with Insto. There's a potential pitfall that we assume that what is happening in Edinburgh (similar but not as pronounced an effect as in London in recent years) is happening across Scotland. I've been cycling in quite a lot of places in Scotland and I have to say I don't see much evidence of a cycling 'boom'. Edinburgh looks like an exceptional case. Also, there were some stats recently (don't have link to hand) that showed London to be the only place in the UK to experience a decline in motor vehicle use. Everywhere else, motoring mileages continue to rise. That survey may not pick up smaller trends in places like Edinburgh, Bristol, etc. but it does show the scale of the challenge. Dave on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628#post-116786 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:18:19 +0000 Dave 116786@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ "Usual" mode of commuting would exclude everyone who's started but rides less frequently than three days a week. i.e. DaveC of this forum, if I remember correctly, would not be counted as a cyclist as (at least until recently) he maybe only did 2-3 days a week by bike... Asking whether people had commuted by bike in the last month might be a more illuminating measure? That said, I daresay the travel diary thing would be expected to pick up on an incidental increase (although surely it would vary wildly with the weather). The 2011 household survey wasn't done in winter or anything, was it? Instography on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628#post-116771 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:29:55 +0000 Instography 116771@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ The Scottish Household Survey is one of the Government's official sources on mode share. It's a National Statistic, quality assured by the Statistics Authority. In 1999, it recorded 1.8% of adults usually travelling to work by bicycle. Edinburgh, with about 9% of the adult population, accounts for 20% of the cycling commuters. In 2011, the survey recorded 2.0% of adults usually travelling to work by bicycle and Edinburgh accounted for 23% of those adults. If Scotland has, roughly, 4m adults that means in Edinburgh in 1999 there were 14,400 commuting cyclists and in 2011, 18,400. Hardly any growth nationally but 27% growth in Edinburgh and, I suspect as the path network has improved the larger number in Edinburgh is also becoming more concentrated on particular routes. But in terms of cycling as a whole, I think that makes talk of massive growth a localised illusion. But I also entirely accept that 'usual commuting' is only a partial measure of the totality of cycling but it's one that has been consistently recorded so any growth in cycling (provided it's not all in road racing, with no resulting impact on commuting) should be reflected in the other stats. There are other measures in the SHS. The travel diary, which collects all journeys on the previous day, has shown almost no increase in cycling. For the time it has been in the survey (since 2009), cycling as an 'alternative mode' which complements the 'usual commuting' measure has increased by 0.7% and participation in leisure cycling (since 2007) has increased by 0.9%. Household access to bicycles also has not changed. SRD on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628#post-116760 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 08:27:33 +0000 SRD 116760@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Growth in Edinburgh area - and some other areas - balanced by flat-lining elsewhere. Dave on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628#post-116759 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:47:10 +0000 Dave 116759@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ A little over five years ago I started riding from Edinburgh to Fife every day on the NCN1. I would perhaps see two or three riders between the office and the outskirts of Edinburgh. I bet that's not the case now? Still, it could be that existing cyclists are now commuting where they previously would have appeared on a survey but only rode their bikes once on a blue moon around the park, or something? Charterhall on "10 year high" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10628#post-116758 Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:39:19 +0000 Charterhall 116758@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ 'The number of cyclists has hardly changed' I can't believe that for one minute. If that's what the measurements show then they are either being incorrectly taken or they are measuring the wrong things. There's massively more cyclists on the roads now than 10 years ago. I understand that this has paralleld a fall in golf club membership.