Ten common questions about cycling

Ten common questions about cycling, with answers Health, collisions, pedestrians, reputation, road positioning and behaviour, regulation, tax, helmets, hivis and the strong case for investing in cycling

Ten common questions about cycling, with answers Health, collisions, pedestrians, reputation, road positioning and behaviour, regulation, tax, helmets, hi-vis and the strong case for investing

May 2022

Contact Cycling UK: Cycling UK Parklands Railton Road Guildford Surrey GU2 9JX Tel.: 01483 238300 Email: campaigns@cyclinguk.org Copyright © 2022 Cycling UK. All rights reserved.

1

Contents: Q1: Why is cycling so healthy?

3

Q2: Who contributes most to collisions between cyclists and drivers?

5

Q3: Who puts pedestrians most at risk?

6

Q4: Do cyclists deserve a good reputation?

7

Q5: Why do cyclists sometimes ride in the middle of the lane, ride two+ abreast, suddenly swerve, shun cycle paths etc.?

9 Q6: Why are compulsory licences and number plates for cyclists & cycles such a bad idea?

11 Q7: Why would it be unfair to tax people for cycling?

13

Q8: Why would making helmets compulsory be another bad idea?

14

Q9: What about making hi-vis compulsory, then?

15

Q10: What’s cycling’s potential, and why is it such a good investment?

16

2

Q1: Why is cycling so healthy?

Cycling reduces the chance of suffering from lifethreatening diseases and its health benefits far outweigh the risks.

A famous 1990s’ calculation suggested that the paybacks (life years gained) outweighed the risks (life years lost) of cycling by around 20:1 (GB).1 The ratio is probably higher nowadays, given the drop in cyclists hurt per billion miles since then.2 Exercise is good for you, after all,3 and cycling is a particularly convenient and advantageous way for people of all ages to meet NHS exercise guidelines4 because you can travel around very economically at the same time – cycle to school or work, for example: • • • •

Physical activity reduces the risk of developing serious conditions that are costly to treat, including heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and cancer.5 Increased walking and cycling in England could save 1,189 people from early deaths each year6 – no wonder GPs are prescribing active travel.7 Compared to commuting by car, cycling is associated with a lower chance of dying from cardiovascular disease (-24%) and cancer (-16%).8 For urban commuters shifting from driving to cycling, on average the health benefits are “about 9 times larger than the risks”.9

Exercising also helps guard against putting on too much weight: • •

How many calories cycling uses up depends on your age, weight etc., but on average it burns around five calories a minute.

According to a study that followed 8,000 school children over a period of years, children who walk or cycle to school may have a healthier body weight than those who arrive by car.10

Hillman, M. Cycling – more life years gained from fitness than lost from injury. 1992.

See Q16 of Cycling UK’s Cycling Statistics.

3 Public Health England. Health matters. 2020.

4 nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/exercise-guidelines/ 5 nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/exercise-health-benefits/ 6 Health Foundation. Health benefits of active travel: preventable early deaths. 2021.

7 West Midlands Combined Authority press release, 24 September 2021.

8 Patterson R et al. Associations between commute mode and cardiovascular disease, cancer, and allcause mortality, and cancer incidence, using linked Census data over 25 years in England and Wales: a cohort study. 2020.

9 De Hartog J et al. Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks? 2010.

10 NIHR. Schoolchildren who switch to walking or cycling may have a healthier body weight. 2021.

1 2

3

What’s more, cycling’s health benefits are of considerable financial value, and they could reduce the NHS’s huge outlay on treating preventable disease: • •

The health benefits of cycling were estimated to be £1,056,598,000 in 2015 – it’s probably more than that now.11 The NHS spent around £6.1 billion treating diseases related to being overweight or obese in 2014/15.12

To put the risks of injury in perspective, on average a year from 2015-19 (GB): • •

Over a distance equivalent to 1,000 journeys round the world at its widest point, one cyclist was killed and 33 cyclists killed or seriously injured.13 The general risk of injury of any severity whilst cycling is just 0.045 per 1,000 hours of cycling. (Over three-quarters of these injuries are slight).14

Also, the more people who cycle, the safer it is likely to become, given the right conditions – the ‘safety in numbers effect’15. This may be because drivers grow more accustomed to seeing cyclists about, interacting with them and sharing space safely.

They may also be more likely to cycle and have a better grasp of cyclists’ needs.

And we haven’t even mentioned the fact that cycling doesn’t produce nasty exhaust fumes16 for other people and car occupants to breathe in, or gases that contribute to climate change, one of the biggest health threats facing humanity.17

SQW for the Bicycle Association. The economic value of the bicycle industry and cycling in the United Kingdom. 2017.

12 Health matters: obesity and the food environment. Public Health England. 2017.

13 DfT. Reported Road Casualties Great Britain, Table RAS30001; Road traffic estimates, Table TRA0402 14 DfT. Reported Road Casualties GB, (link above) & National Travel Survey Table NTS0303.

15 Analysing the ‘Safety in Numbers’ Effect in England. Road Safety Analysis. 2016.

16 RAC. A guide to vehicle exhaust emissions. 2020.

17 WHO. Climate Change and health. 2021. See also Cycling UK’s Cycling fights climate change brochure.

11

4

Q2: Who contributes most to collisions between cyclists and drivers?

Motor vehicles in collisions with cycles are more likely to be assigned a ‘contributory factor’ (CF)18 by police at the scene than cyclists.

From 2015-20, in fatal or serious collisions with a cycle, the police assigned:19 •

11,348 CFs for ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’, the most common CF by far. Of these, 3,782 were allocated to cyclists, and twice as many (7,565) to the other party.

•

2,558 CFs for ‘poor turn or manoeuvre’, most of which (69%) were assigned to the other party.

•

For the top ten CFs combined, 43% were allocated to pedal cyclists, and 57% to the other party involved.

Even though the police are more likely to conclude that drivers contribute to these collisions, the cyclists involved are much more likely to be hurt. In collisions involving a car and a cycle, for instance, many cyclists but very few drivers are injured or killed20: •

Over the whole period 2015–19 (pre-pandemic, ‘normal’ years): o Killed: one car driver; 231 cyclists o Seriously injured: 61 car drivers and 15,870 cyclists.

•

In 2020: o Killed: no car drivers; 67 cyclists o Seriously injured: six car drivers; 2,966 cyclists

While cycling is safer than many think (Q1), people who ride bikes are inevitably more exposed than motor vehicles occupants, not just to injury collisions but also to near misses which, we know, are “an everyday experience for cyclists in the UK”. 21 It is vital for drivers to take particular care of all vulnerable road users – children, the elderly, people with disabilities, pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists.

It’s not just Cycling UK and representatives of other non-motorised users who are saying this: the Highway Code now recognises in no uncertain terms that drivers “bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others”.22 CFs do not attribute blame – they simply reflect the opinion of a police officer at the scene, but not the result of forensic investigation or a court judgement.

19 DfT. Pedal Cycle Factsheet, 2020. September 2021.

20 DfT. Reported Road Casualties Great Britain, Table RAS40004.

21 Aldred R. Cycling Near Misses: Findings from Year One of the Near Miss Project. 2015.

22 Highway Code, Rule H1.

18

5

Q3: Who puts pedestrians most at risk?

Motor vehicles, not cycles, put pedestrians most at risk. This is the case in all locations, including pavements and urban areas, where cyclists and pedestrians often mix densely and share the same space.

Department for Transport (DfT) statistics,23 which cover incidents reported to the police on public roads (but not routes away from roads such as towpaths) show that: •

98% of pedestrians hurt on GB roads (urban and rural) are hit by motor vehicles, four-fifths of them by cars.

•

On urban roads, cycles are normally involved in only 2% of all reported pedestrian casualties, which is proportionate to how much cycling there is on this type of road.

This means that cycles don’t put pedestrians at greater risk of injury mile-for-mile than motor vehicles, even though they are arguably more likely to travel in close proximity and, being slower, meet more people out walking along the way per hour. In fact, cycles are involved in just 1% of pedestrian fatalities, so they are less likely be involved in hitting and killing someone on foot than most types of motor vehicle24, milefor-mile.

•

Most pedestrians injured in reported collisions on the pavement/verge are hit by motor vehicles (100% of fatalities in these locations between 2015 & 2020, and 95% of all collisions, whatever the outcome).

•

Pedestrians are more likely to be killed in urban areas by a lorry than by any other vehicle. HGVs make up only 2% of total urban traffic (non-motorway), but are involved in 11% of pedestrian fatalities.

Hospital data (England),25 which cover all locations not just roads, also show that: •

Most pedestrians treated for injuries in collisions are hit by motor vehicles (95%).

Only 5% are hit by cycles.

DfT. Road Casualties Great Britain, Table 30018.

Per billion vehicle miles, vans/light good vehicles are least likely of all other types of vehicle to be involved in pedestrian fatalities, but not much less so than cycles. The biggest threats are heavy vehicles – lorries and buses or coaches.

25 NHS Digital, Hospital admitted care activity (external causes).

23 24

6

Q4: Do cyclists deserve a good reputation?

Yes. Cyclists pose little harm to other road users (Q2 & 3), and cycling is good thing to do for public health and the environment (Q1). Of course, no road user group is without its minority of mavericks, risk-takers and bad apples – and there’s no excuse for irresponsible behaviour – but it’s unjust to assume that cycling harbours more than most.

Without forgetting that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks (Q1), there’s no escaping the fact that cyclists are vulnerable. This makes most of them ride as attentively and carefully as they can, and may explain why they are less likely than drivers to be assigned a contributory factor in collisions between cycles and motor vehicles (Q2).

For those who are not attentive and careful, it probably doesn’t matter what kind of vehicle they’re driving or riding: risk-takers will be risk-takers, most likely young men with their “heightened tendency to act impulsively”.26 Yet attitudes to cyclists as a whole leave a lot to be desired. One study from Australia discovered that a significant proportion of drivers don’t even view cyclists as fully human.27 This echoes research from Britain that motorists “tend to classify [cyclists] as an ‘out group’ with significantly different characteristics from most other road users.”

It gets worse. Another study found: “Car drivers’ negative attitudes towards cyclists relate to aggressive driving behaviour addressed at cyclists”. The drivers felt the same no matter what kind of cyclist they encountered – Lycra-clad or casually dressed. Why? The authors concluded that attitudes like these are rooted in a sense of attachment to cars.

That said, most cyclists experience courteous, considerate and good-humoured behaviour from drivers every day too, so it’s unfair to stereotype them negatively in turn.

So, what do we do about all this?

•

•

We must distinguish misperception and misrepresentation from reality. Statistics prove that people on bikes do little harm in comparison to motor vehicles (Q1), but are more likely to be harmed. Yet, most emphatically, this does not make cycling “dangerous” – motor vehicles/drivers are the “dangerous” party in most crashes, and we need both the public and transport practitioners to accept this.28 The Highway Code and its recent revisions29 need to be communicated effectively because, apart from explicitly expecting drivers to exercise a greater degree of

Transport Select Committee. Road safety: young and novice drivers. March 2021.

Delbosc A et al. Dehumanization of cyclists predicts self-reported aggressive behaviour toward them: A pilot study. 2019.

28 This point is made very well in the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety’s (PACTS) 2020 report What kills most on the roads?

29 Cycling UK. Changes to the Highway Code: FAQs. 2022.

26 27

7

•

• •

responsibility for the sake of vulnerable road users, they explain why cyclists adopt certain positions on the road, demystifying the behaviour that seems to puzzle, not to say aggravate, all too many drivers (see Q5 below).

Awareness campaigns aimed at drivers and/or cyclists must be: based on sound research, accurately targeted, positive and non-judgemental; avoid victim-blaming; and linked to enforcement activity.30 Journalists need to follow guidelines to stop them making lazy generalisations and using dehumanising language when reporting on cycling collisions.31 Engineers should be able to tell if and why cycling behaviour is causing genuine problems to, say, pedestrians, and solve it with high-quality infrastructure32, e.g: o Installing cycle lanes segregated from fast and voluminous traffic or, if that’s not possible, addressing the hazards on the roadway o Making junctions cycle-friendly by, for instance, phased signalling (one of the most commonly cited reasons for running a red light is because it helps riders get ahead into open space before the lights turn green and motor vehicles flood onto the junction).

No cyclist should have to choose between obeying the law and keeping themselves safe.

•

•

•

Giving more people of all ages and abilities the chance to take ‘Bikeability’33 courses.

These equip trainees with the confidence and skills needed to ride in today’s road conditions. We recommend Bikeability for everyone, but especially: o all children, encouraging them to turn cycling into a life-habit o driving instructors and professional drivers (mandatory), and learner drivers, to give them personal insight into what it’s like to be on a bike o offending cyclists and drivers guilty of an offence that has harmed a cyclist.

Codes of conduct/advice. Cycling UK: o supports Sustrans’ advice on using shared use paths o collaborated with the British Horse Society on Be Nice, Say Hi!’ to explain how cyclists should interact with horses and their riders o publishes a code for mountain bikers o offers pages and pages of advice on safe and considerate cycling.

And, finally, the authors who found that drivers tend to dehumanise cyclists, suggest: “If we can put a human face to cyclists, we may improve attitudes and reduce aggression directed at on-road cyclists. This could result in a reduction in cyclist road trauma or an increase in public acceptance of cyclists as legitimate road users.”

See: What kind of awareness campaigns really help improve road users' behaviour? Cycling UK. 28 Feb 2019, and Road safety message that misses the target. 26 Nov 2021.

31 Active Travel Academy. Road Collision Reporting Guidelines; see also Cycling UK’s article What’s in a word? 30 Sept 2020.

32 DfT. Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN1/10). 2020.

33 bikeability.org.uk/ Bikeability is based on the Government’s National Standard for Cycle Training which Cycling UK (then CTC) helped develop in 2005.

30

8

Q5: Why do cyclists sometimes ride in the middle of the lane, ride two+ abreast, suddenly swerve, shun cycle paths etc.?

Drivers who cycle will probably understand why cyclists ride where and how they do, but those who haven’t ridden since they were a child (or never) may be completely baffled. They might even take it personally, assuming that cyclists are deliberately getting in their way and delaying them.

This table explains the cycling behaviour and road positions that drivers commonly misinterpret: Riding away from the kerb rather than hugging it, and sometimes ‘taking the lane’ The Highway Code (rule 72) explains that there are two basic road positions that cyclists should adopt, depending on the situation: (1) To stay as clearly visible as possible, riding in the centre of their lane on quiet roads/streets and in slower-moving traffic, moving to the left to allow faster vehicles to overtake if it’s safe. It also advises taking the lane at the approach to junctions or road narrowings “where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you.” (Rule 213 explains this to drivers) (2) At least 0.5 metres away from the kerb, and further where it’s safer, on busy roads where vehicles are moving faster, allowing them to overtake “where it is safe to do so”.

Giving parked cars a wide berth Cyclists can be – and have been – seriously injured or killed by people opening car doors in front of them. It’s an offence to hurt or endanger, or allow others to hurt or endanger, anyone in this way, and Highway Code Rule 239 now advises car occupants to practise the ‘Dutch Reach’ to avoid it. The Code also advises cyclists to “ride at least a door’s width or 1 metre from parked cars for their own safety” – this avoids being toppled and, potentially, thrown under the wheels of another vehicle, by a negligently opened car door.

Riding two or more abreast It’s perfectly legal to ride two abreast and, as the Highway Code says, “it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders” (Rule 66). This helps keep riders visible and stops drivers overtaking when it would put riders or oncoming vehicles at risk. Groups of cyclists are advised to be aware of drivers behind and allow them to overtake when they feel it’s safe to let them.

9

Sudden, unpredictable moves When you’re cycling along, it’s disappointingly rare to find yourself on a smooth, unobstructed expanse of roadway. Typically, there’ll be drain and utility covers, oil, water, snowy and icy patches, debris and potholes. Cyclists have to dodge them somehow, often suddenly – either that, or risk negotiating them (perhaps when there’s tail-gating car) and falling off. The Highway Code (Rule 213) warns drivers about this, asking them to give “plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction.”

Opting for the road rather than purpose-built cycle facilities to the side Some routes alongside roads improve the cycling experience, but others are uncomfortable, too narrow, inconvenient, indirect, badly maintained and/or constantly interrupted by side roads, driveways and returns to the road etc., thus presenting more junctions than the road itself – 72% of pedal cycle casualties happen at junctions.

Even staying in an on-road cycle lane marked only by paint can cause problems if it’s too narrow, directs riders into the gutter, over drain covers, out of drivers’ field of attention at junctions, and/or makes it harder to see what’s coming out of a side road.

Consequently, these ‘facilities’ can not only frustrate faster riders, but also put children and novices riders at risk. Some, in consequence, prefer to stay on the road itself, where they have every right to be: since the late 19th century, bicycles have enjoyed the legal status of ‘carriages’, so can use the carriageway. In 1896, they were legally confirmed as a ‘vehicles’ too. So, when it comes to ‘traffic’, cyclists are not a separate entity, but a legitimate part of the on-road mix.

The Highway Code, Rule 140, says: “Bear in mind that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes or cycle tracks.”

Crossing in front of drivers in slow-moving traffic In slow-moving traffic, cyclists (and pedestrians) may want to cross in front of vehicles, and drivers should allow them to do so – it’s efficient road behaviour, not an aberration. (Highway Code, Rule 151).

10

Q6: Why are compulsory licences and number plates for cyclists & cycles such a bad idea?

Licences and number plates to regulate a relatively harmless activity like cycling would be a waste of time, effort and tax-payers’ money. It would probably suppress cycling too – not a good thing for public health.

Introducing licences and number plates to regulate cycling would not be cost-effective because it would: Make negligible difference to people’s safety •

Compared to motor vehicles, cycles pose little danger to others, including pedestrians and car occupants, but their riders are: less likely to be assigned a ‘contributory factor’ in collisions with motor vehicles than the drivers involved, but considerably more likely to be hurt (see Qs 2 & 3)

•

Cycles are relatively light, low speed and they’re easy to learn to ride – it’s so simple that many toddlers manage it. Conversely, driving involves operating a large, heavy piece of complex machinery capable of high speeds.

Quite rightly, this has to be regulated and you must be at least 17 before you’re even allowed to take a test.

•

Any new regulations would probably miss their target altogether. Reckless cyclists would probably go on riding regardless of the regulations. Indeed, Toronto stopped issuing cycling licences long ago because they failed to change offending behaviour.34

Discourage people from cycling, so society would lose out •

Banning people from cycling if they haven’t registered/licensed themselves is likely to put many off, especially would-be cyclists or those who, like many, ride intermittently or seasonally. Society would then lose out on the health, wellbeing, environmental and economic benefits of cycling (Qs 1 & 10). 35

Burden the police for no good reason • •

34 35

Forces are stretched and need to focus their resources on tackling real threats to the public which, in the case of road safety, come from motor vehicles.

Even if supplied with a licence plate number, officers find it challenging enough to pursue every single report of motoring offences, particularly if they think it’s “minor”.

Reports of infringements involving number-plated cycles are highly unlikely to attract a more robust response, unless the incident is serious or fatal in which case they would respond anyway, whether or not the vehicles involved were number-plated.

City of Toronto. Bicycle Licensing.

See, for instance, p9 of DfT’s Gear Change: a bold vision for cycling and walking, July 2020.

11

Be a costly and bureaucratic nightmare because: The law only covers registration for mechanically propelled vehicles, so the Government would have to introduce new legislation for cycles and then pay for extensive upgrades to the relevant computer systems. They don’t want to do this,36 and they’ve repeatedly stated that the costs and complexity would outweigh any road safety or other benefits.37 Talk about complexity: the system would have to add millions of bikes to the 30-odd million private licenced cars they already regulate. There are, at the very least, 25 million cycles in GB (assuming that individuals own just one bike, and excluding those owned by children under 5).

What’s more, cycles change hands as often, if not more often, than cars and, unlike driving, many people use them intermittently38 and/or keep them in the garage/shed all winter – hence fairness would dictate some version of SORN for bikes. 39 The system would also have to decide what to do about children.

They are more likely to own cycles than adults and regularly grow into and out of one frame and into another. In England alone, about four-fifths of children aged 5-10 and just under 70% of 11-16-year-olds own bicycles (= 8 million+ cycles – ownership among other age groups ranges from 24% to 49%).40 It's useful to note here that regulatory systems were introduced in Toronto and Switzerland, but subsequently abolished because of the nightmarish bureaucracy necessary and the pointlessness of it.41 In countries famed for their high levels of cycle use, cyclists aren’t tested/licensed/registered etc. Prime examples of this are the Netherlands and Denmark, where c.27% and c.16% of trips are cycled, respectively – in Britain, we usually struggle to get past 2%, sadly.

3rd party insurance Cycling UK does not want anyone to face barriers if they decide to cycle, and this includes making public liability insurance compulsory.

Nonetheless, we encourage cyclists to take out 3rd party insurance, and automatically cover our members up to £10 million Answer to House of Lords Written Question, 9 Oct 2006.

For example: Answer to written PQ, 28 June 2021; Answer to Question in the House of Lords, 18 March 2019; Answer to a PQ, 4 Dec 2015 38 See Q2 & Q5 of Cycling UK’s Cycling Statistics.

39 DfT. Traffic statistics. Table TRA0404.

40 DfT. National Travel Survey. Table NTS0608.

41 Toronto; Switzerland 36 37

12

Q7: Why would it be unfair to tax people for cycling?

Most cyclists already pay for the roads one way or another (including roads they rarely or can’t use) and for damage they don’t cause, and the charge would be probably £0 anyway.

It would be unfair to ‘tax’ people for cycling, because: •

•

•

•

•

Almost all adult cyclists are motorists too42 so already contribute to the Government’s budget for roads anyway.

Most cycling – 82% – on British roads takes place on minor roads, which most adult cyclists help pay for via their local council tax, like almost everyone else.

Much of the hypothecated revenue from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) funds the strategic road network (SRN), i.e. roads which cyclists either can’t use (motorways), or roads they are much less likely to use (strategic major roads). 43 If cycles had to be registered, the first VED payment would be £0, because they do not emit CO2 (there is no charge for zero emission cars either, when they are first registered). Although the subsequent charge is not based on CO2 emissions, the likely rate for bikes would probably also be £0, given the £0 rate for electric cars.44 Cycling inflicts nowhere near the damage that motor vehicles do to road infrastructure. This costs £millions to repair each year: damage from vehicles passing over the surface is generally estimated to be proportional to the weight over the axle to the power of four.

Thus, a car with 500kg weight over each axle does over 15,000 times the damage of a 90kg rider + bike.

Data from DfT response to Cycling UK’s Freedom of Information request, 28 January 2022.

According to the DfT’s Roads funding information pack (2020), funds from English VED are ‘hypothecated’ – i.e. earmarked for roads spending through a ‘National Roads Fund’. The original ‘Road tax’, which had often been raided for other purposes, was abolished in the 1930s. Winston Churchill, as a backbencher, said that it was a “monstrous assertion that any important body of taxpayers should claim proprietary rights over the particular quota of taxation which they contribute”. After that, motor vehicle taxes were paid into the Government’s general bank account but, in 2015, the link between these taxes and major roads spending was, to all intents and purposes, reintroduced through the new hypothecation arrangement for VED revenue. For more, see House of Lords Library, Funding roads: Coming full circle?

44 Vehicle Tax Rates 42 43

13

Q8: Why would making helmets compulsory be another bad idea?

Cycling UK believes that individuals should be able to choose whether or not to wear a cycle helmet, mainly because making it compulsory in other countries put a significant number of people off cycling altogether.

The only known effect of enforced helmet laws is to substantially reduce cycling. For example, in the immediate aftermath of compulsion, cyclist numbers dropped: •

by 60%+ in Nova Scotia, Canada

•

by 21% in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia

•

by 22% among adults and 55% among children at road intersections in Sydney, Australia

• by 91% among girls at secondary schools in Sydney.

You don’t have to reduce cycling by much to make serious inroads into its enormous benefits, which outweigh the risks by far (see Q1). So, even a tiny drop is likely to shorten many more lives than compulsory cycle helmets could possibly save, even if they were 100% effective in all types of crash or collision (which they’re not).

Helmets are not designed to withstand the sort of impact a cyclist could suffer if hit by a speeding car. Instead, standards dictate that they must cater for an impact velocity of 20 km/h (12.5 mph)45, which might happen, for example, when someone – maybe a young learner – falls from a stationary bike. Helmets may also protect the head from minor knocks and scrapes (e.g. from branches).

Many reports find that helmet laws have failed to reduce the overall risk for people who aren’t put off cycling, and there are even cases where their safety seems to have worsened as helmet wearing rates increased.46 To improve conditions for cycling, it makes better sense to tackle dangers at source. This means: effective traffic law enforcement and driver education; 20 mph limits for most streets in built-up areas, normalising the idea of driving at low speed where people are likely to be cycling; cycle-friendly highways and junctions; plus moves to deal with the risks posed by lorries.

Cycle training also helps give adults and children the skills and confidence they need to ride safely on the road (Q4).

•

45 46

For considerably more detail, see our formal policy and collected evidence on cycle helmets.

Brian Walker. Heads Up, Cycle magazine, June/July 2005. www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf See Appendix B of Cycling UK’s overview of the evidence on cycle helmets.

14

Q9: What about making hi-vis compulsory, then?

If wearing a hi-visibility jacket helps people feel safer when they’re cycling and more willing to do it, that’s a good thing. But deciding to make anything compulsory in law should be evidence-based – and there’s no compelling evidence showing that hi-vis makes cyclists any safer.

If cyclists wear hi-vis, drivers may spot them more readily – but, it seems, spotting is one thing and driving safely around them another.47 One academic study, for example, found that whether a cyclist is wearing hi-vis or not makes very little difference to how closely motorists overtake them.48 On the other hand, research does imply that retroreflective accessories designed to make you more conspicuous in the dark – especially ankle straps that move when you pedal – are probably worth the investment.49 Contrasting colours (i.e. colours that contrast with the background) seem to make a difference to drivers’ detection of motorcyclists – e.g. riding in a black outfit against nothing other than the sky in daylight. This may be true for cyclists as well.

Irrespective of hi-vis, people at the wheel of a large, heavy vehicles capable of high speeds should always been on the lookout for vulnerable road users anyway.

It also makes sense for cyclists to know how to make themselves as visible as possible through road positioning, and for drivers to appreciate that cyclists ride in the centre of their lane in certain circumstances in order to do exactly that. Rules 72 and 213 of the Highway Code now explain this to both cyclists and drivers in some detail (se Q5).

Finally, to put the issue of cyclists wearing ‘dark clothing’ in perspective – which, it appears, some drivers see everywhere and all the time – only 5% of the top ten contributory factors (CFs) allocated to the cyclists involved in fatal or serious collisions from 2015-2020 (GB) were assigned by the police to ‘rider wearing dark clothing’.

•

See our collection of evidence on hi-vis for more.

A review of hi-vis (i.e. fluorescent / retroreflective) found it made a difference to drivers' ability to detect and recognise pedestrians (& presumably cyclists), but it was impossible to tell by how much, and if it made them any safer. Kwan I, Mapstone J. Interventions for increasing pedestrian and cyclist visibility for the prevention of death and injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. A similar lack of detectable benefits was found by JM Wood et al, (see ref below), and Miller P, The use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and the risk of crashes involving other road users. 2012.

48 Walker I et al. The influence of a bicycle commuter's appearance on drivers’ overtaking proximities: An on-road test of bicyclist stereotypes, high visibility clothing and safety aids in the United Kingdom. Nov 2013.

49 Wood, JM et al. 2010. Cyclist visibility at night: Perceptions of visibility do not necessarily match reality.

47

15

Q10: What’s cycling’s potential, and why is it such a good investment?

Cycling has a lot going for it already, and its potential is massive.

In Q1, we looked at why more cycling, as a convenient, inexpensive and healthy physical activity, could tackle lifethreatening conditions and save the NHS money.

It’s also low carbon, zero emission, creates jobs and a proven, economically sound investment for public and private money.

Yes, people do need to be encouraged, especially by creating safer road conditions: around two-thirds of the population think it’s too dangerous for them to cycle on the roads.50 But no one can say, even now, that it has no appeal, worth or potential, or that adequate funding and political will won’t help cycle trip figures rise from around 2% in the UK until they match the levels of other European countries, e.g. 27% of trips in The Netherlands, 16% in Denmark and 12% in Germany. 51

Mass appeal Already, fun or fitness makes cycling a particularly popular activity for people aged 16 or over, more so than swimming and team sports; and it’s one of the ten most listed most prevalent activities for children aged 5-16 (about a quarter of them said, when asked, that they’d ridden their bikes over the last week).52 Cycle commuting is already flourishing in London, where the congestion charge, public hire bikes, segregated cycle lanes and other incentives have unlocked much suppressed demand. Around six times as many people cycled across the central cordon in 2019 than in 1977 – 168,000 compared to 27,000.53 Even during the pandemic

DfT. National Travel Attitudes Study. Table NTASA101a. This figure is for England, but it more or less matches the results of earlier, GB-wide surveys that asked the same question for years.

51 See Q15 of Cycling UK’s Cycling Statistics 52 Relates to England. Sport England. Active Lives surveys, 2020-21 53 Transport for London. Travel in London Reports 12 & 14.

50

16

in 2020, 161,000 cycles still managed to flock over the cordon.

In fact, during the Covid-19 pandemic in spring 2020, daily car use dropped nationwide and cycle use shot up, often doubling or tripling when compared to an equivalent day just before lockdown.54 Clearly, many people seized the moment to exercise and enjoy the much quieter roads.

We mustn’t underestimate public support for measures to encourage cycling and walking nor, for that matter, overestimate the opposition: •

•

In 2020, Cycling UK commissioned a YouGov survey to reveal people’s views on new, pandemic-related active travel schemes being introduced all over the UK (e.g. cycle lanes, restricting through motor traffic in residential areas and 20mph limits). We found the majority supported them (56%), and only 19% opposed, yet respondents assumed public support was lower (33%) and opposition much higher (29%).55 Another YouGov survey, this time for #BikeIsBest, discovered that for every 1 person against measures in their local area to encourage cycling and walking, there’s 6.5 who back them. They also found that for every 1 person who disagreed that “Britain would be better if more people cycled”, 3.26 agreed. Again, respondents “drastically overestimated the negativity towards cycling” – they thought that only 1.88 of their friends, and 1.74 of the public agreed for every 1 who disagreed. 56

DfT. Transport use during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Cycling UK press release. New research finds public overestimates opposition to new bike lanes by 50%.

20 Nov 2020. (The rest either had no strong opinion, or didn’t know).

56 #BikeIsBest. Public backs greener, safer streets but is being silenced by minority. 23 July 2019.

54 55

17

Healthy investment Investing public money in walking and cycling offers a ‘high’ to ‘very high’ benefit to cost ratio (BCR), the average return being around £5-6 for every £1 invested.57 (Road building schemes – bypasses, widening, upgrades to motorway standards etc. – have repeatedly failed to live up to their economic promise58).

•

•

•

•

We know that central funding spent wisely makes a difference: in the six Cycling Demonstration Towns (2008-2011), for example, there was an overall increase of 29% in cycling trips.59 A compact town optimised for walking and cycling can have a “retail density” (spend per square metre) 2.5 times higher than a typical urban centre; and, also per square metre, cycle parking delivers five times higher retail spend than the same area of car parking.60 The TUC estimated that, along with energy efficient upgrades and reforestation, building cycle lanes and pedestrianisation came top for immediate job creation (direct and supply chain jobs) per £1 million investment.61 For places with tourist attractions and/or set in tempting countryside or by the sea, catering for cycling visitors makes sense. Who wouldn’t want a share of the c£520m that cycling and mountain biking is estimated to contribute to British tourism every year?62

• We’ll stop there for now, but not because we’re running thin on evidence. Above is just a fraction of the research out there on the returns on investing in cycling.

Read more in Cycling UK’s: •

•

Getting there with cycling: the Case for building cycling infrastructure – an evidence review’ (2022) Economic benefits of cycle tourism (2020)

DfT. Investing in Cycling and Walking: The economic case for action. 2015 CPRE. The end of the road? Challenging the road-building consensus. 2017.

59 Sustrans. Evaluation of the Cycling City and Towns and the Cycling Demonstration Towns programmes.

2017. See also Sustrans’ Bike Life reports on other major UK cities.

60 Rage F & Saffrey A. The Value of Cycling. 2016.

61 TUC. Rebuilding after recession: a plan for jobs. 2020.

62 TNS (for VisitEngland, Visit Scotland & Visit Wales). Valuing Activities. 2015.

57 58

18

The potential More than a third of the non-cycling population seems to be open to the possibility of cycling, agreeing that: ‘‘Many of the journeys of less than two miles that I now make by car I could just as easily cycle, if I had a bike.”63 If people really did convert these short driving trips to cycling, the impact on local motor traffic levels would be significant: almost a quarter of all car trips by drivers are under two miles which, even at only 6 mph on a bicycle, would only take 20 minutes.64 The appetite for more facilities for cycling is already significant: around three-quarters of people surveyed in twelve large British cities/city areas think that more cycle tracks along roads physically separated from motor traffic and pedestrians would be useful to help them cycle more, and over two-thirds support their construction even when this means less room for other road traffic.65 There is no shortage of bikes – in England alone, around 42% of people aged five and over have access to at least one.66 For those who don’t, bike recycling projects and public hire schemes are proliferating.

On top of that, non-standard machines and inclusive cycling programmes offer the experience of cycling to people who might not otherwise experience its joys, 67 while electric bikes are there for people who need a boost for some reason (health, hills, longer distances etc.).68

DfT. National Travel Attitudes Study. Table NTAS0201e DfT. National Travel Survey. Table NTS0308.

65 Sustrans. Bike Life UK report. 2019.

66 DfT. National Travel Survey (link above). Table NTS0608. Although this figure is for England, it’s reasonable to assume from earlier, GB-wide data, that it reflects the wider picture. The table now combines ‘own’ with ‘have access to’, but the table from earlier years used to separate them. These showed that the ‘owning’ figure was always around 40%, the ‘have access to’ figure around 1%.

67 See Wheels for Wellbeing, along with Cycling UK’s collection of material on inclusive cycling programmes 68 cyclinguk.org/cycling-advice/type-cycling/e-bikes 63 64

19

And, finally, we must decarbonise transport, and cycling is part of the solution. Cyclists have 84% lower lifecycle CO2 emissions from all daily travel than non-cyclists,69 so just imagine what would happen if we multiplied the number of cycle commuters by five, which would happen if people in England became as likely to cycle as people in The Netherlands70. We could also cut CO2 emissions in England by up to 50% by shifting from driving to ebikes.71 So, instead of being dragged down by the loud minority of anti-cycling naysayers, we should focus on the mass appeal cycling already has, what it’s already doing not just for our health, but for the environment and economy too AND how much more we could all benefit from it with positive thinking, positive attitudes, sound decision-making and, importantly, investment.

Brand C et al. The climate change mitigation effects of active travel. 2021.

CEDAR. England’s Cycling Potential. Feb 2017.

71 Philips, I et al. E-bike carbon savings – how much and where? 2020.

69 70

20