Auckland Transport sent me some interesting research that has been conducted for them recently looking into walking and cycling and what can be done to get more people using active modes. The research includes an online quantitative survey conducted by over 1,600 people said to be representative of the Auckland population as well as use of the census data – which as we know is limited to only those who are travelling to work. For the purpose of this post I’m just going to focus on the cycling data.

The research suggests that around 27% of people cycle although only 11% do so at least once a week or more. Most commonly people ride for exercise or recreation although as you can see those who cycle frequently cycling to get to shops is more prominent than the other categories. To me this highlights we still have a long way to go before cycling becomes more normalised, but more on that later.

Current Cycling landscape

Positively the numbers cycling have increased although for some of the occasions the numbers have fallen quite a bit. An example is with cycling to the shops which has fallen from 30% to 21% however it’s not clear if  this is an actual decrease in total numbers or just as a percentage from the larger number cycling.

Change in cycling 2014-15

Those that do cycle are much more likely to be male and middle aged.

Current Cycling landscape demographics

The map below shows the Journey to work data from the census. Given those that cycle to work are only a small portion of all cyclists it’s not fully representative of where people cycle but does very strongly show that cycling tends to happen in the areas where cycle infrastructure exists – such as around the NW cycleway. For this it uses AT’s description of cycle infrastructure as also including things like bus lanes. The outlier is a result of the Whenuapai Air Force base

Current Cycling JTW

So what gets people to cycle? Fun and convenience seem to feature highly, as does the presence of cycling networks.

Current Cycling Why Cycle

The things that hold people back from cycling should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the blog, it’s all about safety.

Current Cycling Why not Cycle

Cyclists are considered brave from getting on a bike.
Current Cycling Why not Cycle - safety

What people think about cycling appears to be influenced quite a bit by if or how often they cycle themselves, for example the more you ride a bike the more you like others who ride a bike

Current attitudes to cycling

Based on the Census data, the research shows that demographics strongly influence the propensity to cycle.

Current Propensity to CycleBased on the data it is suggested that the areas for the greatest potential growth in cycling are shown on the map below – although a lot of that will depend on the infrastructure that is put in place. One concern I have with this particular part of the research is that it seems to extrapolate current conditions as to who will cycle and as mentioned above, the census data only counts a small amount of all people cycling.

Potential cycle growth

While middle aged men are the most likely to cycle now, the report also highlights a concern that the stereotype of them being lycra-clad warriors could be preventing people from cycling. As the report notes it is “Cycle infrastructure is clearly a big part of what ‘normalises’ sage, and a clear indicator to users that safety is being addressed”

MAMIL culture

Looking at the potential for growth in cycling the report says of the people who don’t cycle, around 26% could do so.

Potential - who could cycle

It gets more interesting looking at the demographics of those who could cycle regularly. As you can see young people make up around half of the potential opportunity for more cycling.

Potential - who could cycle demographics

Of this potential group, like above it all comes down to safety the majority agree that there isn’t enough safe infrastructure in Auckland.

Potential - holding people back

Again there’s no surprise here but the biggest factor that would encourage more use is more cycling facilities.

Potential - encourage greater use

Lastly the report highlights that if the barriers to cycling were closed that millions more trips per year would take place on a bike.

Potential - Opportunity for growth

So get cracking on those protected cycleways AT – even if only temporary for now the most important thing is getting a usable system in place

Share this


  1. The perception of cycling as more than Lycra-clad MAMILs would be helped by the mainstream media not always grabbing stock footage of a roadie everytime there’s an article about cycling. As the data above implies, as does general observation, most people cycling are just wearing normal clothes to go about their business.

  2. Is Auckland over investing in cycling? If only 11% of population is regularly cycling, we have a massive over investment in a very few with no guarantee that the regular users will grow.
    Perhaps the electrification of the Papakura to Pukekohe line is a better investment.
    Out here in Franklin we note cycling is a recreation, not a commuter activity. City cars with bikes on racks, come out for a ride in the country.
    Perhaps the Council should ban cycle racks on cars to get bikes on roads!

    1. And 0% of Pukekohe people take an electric train, so why would we invest in electric trains? See, daft logic. Clearly you spend for what you want, not what you have.

    2. Get some perspective, that “massive over-investing” you talk of is not even the cost of 1 major intersection upgrade around Auckland these days.

      And I know which of these two investments will be the best on in the short, medium and longer terms and it won’t be a drop in the ocean intersection upgrade, which will be re-congested within a year.

    3. I agree with the need to complete electrification to Pukekohe however you’re on shaky ground with your math: More regular cyclists than residents of Franklin:

      11% of 1.5m = 165k. Population of Franklin = 70k. Cycling wins.

      In fact by your measure regular bike riders are twice as deserving of investment than your neighbours, oh dear. Quick; divert more funds to bike lanes!

    4. Invest into what you want. Yes. What if no one wants cycling investment, or at least no more than current? What then? Who is qualified to decide for me what I want? Certainly not a tiny, vocal minority. Also, I actually think cycling is mainly for MAMILs and hipsters. Its still the perception that cycling is for recreation, poor people or those strange people who are trying to make a point or something.

      No one can seem to agree on where to invest cycling funds. Spread a little everywhere or focus on one area? More onroad cycle lanes or fewer separated cycleways? There doesn’t seem to be much strategy anywhere in spending.

      Focusing on young may be a waste of time and spreading resources too thin. I cycled up till the end of high school but then started driving in my final year and never cycled again for a whole host of reasons. Most people would be the same.

      I think we should increase funding slowly to cycling and spend it all around the city centre and build a network outwards.

      1. People do want cycling investment though- when asked again and again they are overwhelmingly in favour. And forget the MAMILs and hipsters, the funding should be targeted to those who don’t cycle but want to. So anything less than a proper separated citywide network is inadequate- building that is what the overall goal has to be.

      2. For MAMILs cycling investment doesn’t matter that much, they will use the roadway anyway.

        But, since you mentioned it yourself. What about kids? They can’t drive a car. Think about why did you cycle as a kid. Kids were free to cycle to their friend’s place, or to the park or to the movies. In many places they still are. If we don’t invest in bicycle infrastructure, we take away that freedom from our children. And for parents it’s a PITA if you have to drive your kids everywhere.

      3. Unfortunately kids don’t cycle to school where I live. Their bikes get stolen on the way to school, at school or coming back from school. Most students walk because their parents don’t have cars or work 2 jobs and can’t take them to school by car.

        1. “Their bikes get stolen on the way to school, at school or coming back from school.” – That sounds like anecdata – do you have any crime states to back that up? Bicycle theft is not actually a big problem in most of Auckland except a few places like the University.

          More likely they don’t cycle for the same reason as everywhere else – no separated infrastructure that makes them feel safe.

      4. If you want to speed up traffic on the roads, and have an easier commute in a car then you should definitely vote for investment in anything that gets people out of cars.

    5. I think you are correct Don in that there has been an over investment in cycling. There is a strong cycle advocacy group and cycle enthusiasts within AT – these people successfully ensure that their views get noticed irrespective of whether the facilities they promote are justifiable or not. There are examples of significant expenditure on cycle facilities that are either not utilised or under utilised. I also have an issue with the lack of differentiation between commuter cyclists and hobby cyclists. While there may be a case for the provision of facilities for commuters based on the actual numbers that are in this category, I struggle to see why the community should suffer from detrimental amenity impacts just to satisfy someone’s recreational pursuits.

  3. Great to have the data, but the conclusion of where to focus investment is just odd. It seems a very linear, non-visionary conclusion to arrive at.

    The irony is that while central links are valuable, they are also often the hardest to make due to space constraints. I think it is very shortsighted not to develop up the network in the further out suburban areas while we have the space in road reserves to do so, and especially when some of those areas have got intensification planned. The West from New Lynn to Hendo (just one example) is crying out for a decent bit of backbone cycle infrastructure and branch routes into the outlying neighbourhoods, but this suggests we won’t see that initiative happen. The opportunity cost of not doing such network building now is that people won’t shift modes to cycling within those wider areas, therefore traffic growth will be higher than necessary, and then we also have to go back and squeeze in cycle infrastructure at much higher costs later.

    C’mon AT, can we please have a bit more vision in this space? Cycling is for more than just MAMILS and inner neighbourhood hipsters (apologies in advance for that).

  4. Excuse me for one more rant. If targeting the young is key, and if the school run is a key part of Aucklands traffic problems, then surely networks around schools are a key place to start…? Seems stupid that we’ve allowed our kids to be robbed of that pleasure. We just reap the consequences later with a generation that is addicted to driving everywhere…

    1. Exactly Tim. This has left out the single biggest demographic for cycling potential in NZ. And, also the cheapest one to fix. Adults building the city for adults. And that ‘highest potential’ map. What a load of cobblers.

      1. Too true Bryce. there should be separate cycle ways within 1 km of every school. Orewa would be a great place to start, especially given the estuary track is already in place.

    2. I think you are right. Cycle facilities around schools would probably work out cheaper than in and around the CBD and have a bigger reduction on peak time car use. The problem is kids dont get to vote and politicians spend on the noisiest voters. And nobody makes more noise than cyclists.

      1. Yes. Every school should have a Travelwise intrastructure plan from AT, with a hierarchy of works programmed. Especially for those areas where there are bunches of schools nearby and big dormitory burbs. Freedom and safety for kids, freedom for parents, low value driving trips reduced. Looks like low hanging fruit on a cost benefit basis on the evidence of congestion drop off in school holidays.

        Currently AT waste time and resources urging kids to ride without first making it a viable option on their streets. This looks urgent and likely cost effective….? Has it even been evaluated? Suggest picking an area and doing a whole network, then moving on to another, rather than doing it piecemeal, except where renewals are happening anyway. Included Transit stations too, as students use these a lot too.

        But not as an alternative to building safe and complete streets elsewhere in the city. After all the aim is safety, choice, efficiency, and freedom for everyone, everywhere.

        1. Harbour Sport run a brilliant 3 day cycle course for Intermediate age kids, and maybe younger, not sure. It caters for those competent riders and those less so. Certainly increases the number riding bikes to school.

      2. “And nobody makes more noise than cyclists.”
        Really? Your evidence for this is?
        I agree with the surveys: I’d like to do a spot of cycling but I’m not risking my life with the crazy Auckland motorists. Who incidentally make much more noise than cyclists.

        1. The reality is that any time cyclists make noise, there’s a tendency for loud aggrieved comment from those who feel their driving or parking freedom is being curtailed, or who feel that because they are good drivers, and all cyclists are lawbreakers, they should really speak out. Media love (and often stoke) such row, therefore the discussions can indeed get very noisy. Any movement coming from marginal into a mass participation is going to involve a lot of noise.

          1. What car drivers tend to forget about cyclists who, for some reason, are expected to behave in an exemplary fashion on the road, is that they usually learned their behaviour behind the wheel. We should stop expecting better behaviour from cyclists because, after all they are just Kiwi drivers on a bike.

          2. But fewer than that leave on bikes. Apparently bikes abandoned at train stations clog up quite a quite of the stations’ bike parks.

          3. ( Sorry.Ignore my comment of 9.56am. Thought I was replying to Patrick’s comment on bikes at Dutch train stations.)

        2. Perhaps I was being too harsh about cyclists. Car drivers and cyclists actually have a lot in common. Car drivers hate riding public transport so they drive. Cyclists hate public transport even more- to the point where they would rather ride a bike into a head wind on a wet day and run the risk of being killed and still they find that preferable to using public transport.

      3. 3 yearsvago, at my son’s last school they did the travelwise survey. 20% of the 400+roll indicated they wanted to ride bikes. Action taken since then? Some rider training. As if the kids are going to ride these streets.

  5. Refusal to ride (non uptake) is driven primarily by perceptions of safety. There are two ways to improve safety. One is to improve the quality of separated facilities. The other is to make drivers behave in ways that increase real and perceived safety of cyclists.

    I don’t think we’ve done anything near enough to improve the latter. Much of driver perception is driven by being wrong about matters of fact such as the very common idea that cyclists “must” take the extreme-left part of the road or they are breaking rules. And why wouldn’t they think that? Nobody in a position of authority has told them otherwise in their entire lives. They need very clear messaging explaining the rules around cyclists, without fancy or complicated advertising concepts.

    I’m all for things like NZTA’s “Share the Road” campaign, but they don’t affect the road users that cause so much of the problem.

      1. Yes, it’s like that in many European countries. Same in Belgium. To be precise, the car driver is not automatically at fault, but he is always liable for the damage done in case of a collision.

      2. Yes but we tend to avoid strict liability except for the money making end of traffic law enforcement- parking exceeding the speed limit etc.

  6. When I was a kid I used to ride my bicycle everywhere. In my mid-teens a 20km ride in my jeans and t-shirt was nothing. This was before cycling became a “sport” with paraphernalia for the obsessive. 😉

    I own a bicycle. I’m looking at it right now. But I haven’t ridden it since 2009 because my last two outings saw me nearly killed in the Birkdale / Beach Haven area, which isn’t that busy, really…..but some of the drivers were idiots to the point where I didn’t want a ticket in that lottery. “Winning” was too easy.

    I’d happily ride my bike if I felt safe. I doubt that will ever happen in Auckland while bikes share the roads with selfish fools living out their Fast & Furious fantasies.

    I’ve had several near misses – including some knock-offs with scrapes and road rash due to car drivers just turning into driveways right in front of. I’ve also seen people seriously injured right in front of me. I don’t think my fears are irrational or exaggerated.

    (Same goes for motorcycles, really. I’ve been to one too many funerals…..)

  7. I’ll summarize my first impression (a few years ago) of driver behaviour around cyclists, and of the norms here:

    It’s not just that the roads are unsafe (or not really optimized to have both a lot of cyclists and a lot of cars).

    Suppose [hypothetically] I’m driving my car and I am going to overtake a cyclist. Now I could, just for fun, give my steering wheel a flick to the left and knock that cyclist over.

    What happens next? Maybe the newspapers print some silly article about how that cyclist should have worn a helmet, or a hi-vis jacket, or a clowns nose. Whatever. But who would think my behaviour is unacceptable? A minority, if anyone at all. The majority will just conclude that bicycle was not on the street in the first place, tell him he shouldn’t ride in the way of that poor car driver, and maybe point to that newspaper article.

    So me too, I think behaviour of drivers, and what’s considered acceptable behaviour, is the most critical problem. It’s still common to see cars driving on cycle lanes despite having a 4 meter wide lane to drive on.

    Good thing #1: it’s been a while since I’ve seen one of those articles in the newspaper. But maybe that’s because I’m not reading that newspaper as much anymore.

    Good thing #2: someone has stumped up the courage to build a cycle path along—of all streets—Nelson street. That would have been sacrilege a few years ago.

    So although we have a long way to go, I’m cautiously optimistic.

    1. Bit extreme. But I certainly experience drivers (male I would say, always) who seem to enjoy cutting across riders as closely as possible when overtaking, presumably to make some sort of point about their resentment about having to share the road at all…? Can be very scary. Empathy deficit. Seems to go hand in hand with driving for many.

      1. A admit it’s a bit exaggerated. But a while ago on the CAA blog someone told the story of a bus driver actually doing exactly that. That driver, assuming driving that bus is his livelihood, would need to be pretty confident there will be no backlash.

    2. > Good thing #2: someone has stumped up the courage to build a cycle path along—of all streets—Nelson street. That would have been sacrilege a few years ago.

      1. Someone in AT put a line on the planon Nelson Street many years ago. Then nothing happened.
      2. CAA suggested it to AT as a “signature project to AT” in a behind-the-scenes memo. Then nothing happened.
      3. CAA proposed it as a big game-changer project to AT and NZTA in a blog piece (cross-posted here, and with Patrick’s great photos)
      4. NZTA got excited and took the project up. I remember a certain high-up NZTA manager saying “There’s so much free capacity on Nelson Street”.
      5. AT saw the light and followed.
      5. The project got a bit slower than envisaged, but also a lot more permanent, and with extensions up Pitt Street and down all the way to the waterfront.
      6. Cycleway.

      1. Yes, living in that area I can confirm those streets actually don’t carry a lot of traffic most of the time. Except that queue waiting to go on the Southern Motorway in the evening.

        And they are kind of forced to build this cycle path now. Can you imagine that fancy bicycle bridge terminating on Union Street and Nelson Street as they are now?

        1. Hi wsomc, don’t worry. They ARE building it. Signals works for the cycleway have been going on for the last 3 or so weeks. The dividers will go in quite fast. One day nothing, next day, cycleway.

          Hey, that rhymes.

      2. The main reason NY was able to put in so many cycle lanes was because they had an extensive one-way system that are so much easier to retrofit and can cope better with the loss of capacity. Nelson/Hobson are the easiest streets to put cycleways in because you take a lane/parking out with very little changes to much else. Obvious choice for the CBD. Quay/Customs should have been turned into a one way pair ages ago and turn half that road space into pedestrian space.

        1. Either that or turn half the road space into pedestrian space anyway, and leave the local access intact. Turning our waterfront into Nelson/Hobson in the name of pedestrain space is a daft trick if ever I heard one.

      3. It would be a simple matter to fit in many more kilometres of cycle lane on Auckland’s arterial routes without moving a single kerbstone.

        Just remove the central medians. There’s often enough width in these painted median strips to provide for cycle lanes on both sides of the road. They were put in, I presume, to increase separation between lines of opposing traffic. This is guesswork but I don’t believe head-on collisions were ever common in town. That’s a country road thing. The only real consequence of creating that visual separation has been to encourage city traffic to speed up. Surely it would be a good thing to narrow the perceived gap which would have the effect of calming the traffic, even if the width of the lane is the same. What about turning bays for side roads, I hear you cry? Sure, we could still have those where necessary, and if that means we have to narrow the traffic lane a bit on both sides to fit them in then surely that would also be a good thing, slowing traffic slightly around intersections.

    3. Had my first sighting of green paint on Hobson St today, a Herald clickbait opinion piece on this is almost inevitable. Screw with someone’s drive to work by adding a cycleway on Nelson? A bit annoying, but bosses tend to accept traffic as an excuse for lateness. Screw with someone’s commute home? World war declared.

      1. Lol. Good the cycleway got put on Nelson Street then, rather than Hobson Street 😉

        The main Herald writer doing traffic articles is one of the cyclists who will be using the new cycleway – so there’s hope at least that the Herald will report on any outrage in a professional manner, rather than with knee-jerk opinion pieces (knock on wood, lol 😉

  8. The killer takeout for me is that where a reasonable, parallel cycle network exists people will use it for commuting. Since I no longer believe it is possible for cars and cyclists to share the same roadspace safely I think the low cost (compared to road works) of building such a parallel network and the clear health and safety benefits (getting kids back on bikes to go to school for example) is common sense, and I am surprised anyone would ever argue against more cycleways. In fact, as use increases I would argue for all-weathering our cycleways, with wind protection, overhead cover, proper lighting and lanes.

    One thing on the MAMIL – the biggest problem with these types of cyclist is their speed. Many treat the cycleways with the same distain for fellow (low speed) cycle users and pedestrians as they treat motorists when they can get away with it (I followed an informal peloton of over a dozen road cyclists just last weekend. They occupied the entire roadspace at quite a reasonable speed, presenting a real passing hazard for following motorists. it simply isn’t on to do such a thing without any sort of pilot vehicle or warnings in place). Speed restrictions should be clearly signposted on cycleways and maybe even cycleway cops (with flashing lights on their helmets?) issuing speeding tickets can’t be far off…

    1. In Europe it’s quite commonplace to encounter a pack of MAMILs—they’re called bicycle tourists over there—from time to time. There’s no requirement for any leading vehicle or warnings, that pack is just considered another road user. For big groups of cyclists it’s mandatory to use the roadway rather than the cycle path. It’s quite annoying if you get stuck behind one of those, but the same can be said for slow vehicles like tractors.

      And most of those bicycle tourists actually do their best to be considerate to other people on the street, but, as in all groups of people, unfortunately there are exceptions.

  9. Thank you for this post. It is a basis from which to grow. I’m 79 and ride at least 4 times a week averaging 20km/week and have ridden to work most of my life. I admit getting on my bike again after the hips were replaced was a bit scary as in the 6 months I was off it a lot of changes had been made to the traffic flows in our area. Sure I’ve been knocked off once by a man exiting his property when I was moving onto the footpath at a bad intersection (lost a bit of skin and badly bent the bike) Have had a few near misses but as walking hurts and with cycling I can ride to the door of the shop I wish to visit I will keep on cycling.
    Wearing a Hi-vis shirt and having a wide pannier seem to have enabled me to placate the more aggressive abusive drivers who I try to smile at. I like having the CAN stickers on my pannier as well and the “Burn Fat Not Oil” one seems to get quite a few comical comments. I would recommend to others in my age group to get out there, be predictable, take the lane if you feel uncomfortable, don’t try to go to fast, and smile at those ignorant enough to abuse you. Stay healthy.

  10. I like the emphasis on bike infrastructure to improve cyclist safety, but something needs to be done about the bad macho driving culture in NZ, because there are places that won’t have good cycle infrastructure in the near future. suggestions:
    – introducing a small number of mandatory driving lessons with a professional before taking a driver’s license test and
    – an ad campaign shaming macho driving, something like “Are you that guy?”.

    1. And: “Cross on the green circle”. I saw two cars running the red light in the middle of the phase at Nelson Street yesterday.

      The prize however goes to people waiting to turn left, beeping their horn on the driver in front of them while they’re still waiting for the red left arrow.

    2. One of the issues remains so far, and that is being the marginal group. People simply don’t get as aggro if 10% of the population do it than if 1% of the population do it. Normalisation. A great side-effect of better infrastructure leading to better patronage leading to better behaviour.

      Not that I disagree with behaviour improvement programmes having benefit – but without infrastructure improvement and/or speed reduction, they are either useless or quickly things revert back to the bad norm…

    3. Totally agree about the macho driving culture – I’ve been harassed and verbally abused for “obstructing traffic” while cruising along in the cycle lane (apparently drivers believe that they have priority there too). Incidentally, I’m about as far from the MAMIL stereotype as possible. It’s not the stereotype that’s the problem, it’s drivers and their over-riding believe that there journey is way more important than anything else (including the road code). I’ve even challenged a police car about driving in the cycle lane, and been told “…but everyone else is doing it”.
      With that sort of example, we need a major attitude shift, even more than better infrastructure. I like the “are you that guy” idea.

  11. I see good use for Bike+PT, but NW, North & East are neglected by this as they are bus only. South & West however make cycling really practical for commuting thanks to the trains. Local cycling is great, but I would mostly use the bus for that as its less drama, idiots on the road and poorly designed roads make cycling anywhere beyond the local park/cycle path undesirable. The other issue is the need to wear a helmet and people stealing bikes even when they are locked up (bolt cutters), which seems far too common here. I think MUCH more investment is needing cycling to make it a viable mode for more people, same with Walking & PT though, yet we still spend money on new roads, when they already go pretty much everywhere required…

    1. The Dutch tend to focus on bike parking at bus stops/train stations. I think we should follow that model. They know a few things about integrating public transportvand cycling. 😉

      1. Typically around 50% of people on Dutch trains arrived at the station on a bike. Safe local bike infra and quality Rapid Transit work together brilliantly to enable people to avoid and not contribute to traffic congestion.

        1. Yes but fewer than that leave on bikes. Apparently abandoned bikes clog up quite a portion of stations’ parking spaces and they have periodic clearouts. Interesting challenge decided which bikes to take… apologies to the other person I inadvertently replied to with this message.

      2. Absolutely. I do really agree with the point you often make about cycling/PT links and also cycling to school and to the local shops. They are definitely the low hanging fruit.

        Not many people are going to cycle more than 5kms, even if there is separated infrastructure. Not that many people do in the Netherlands so why would they here? The vast majority of trips in the Netherlands are less than 7kms, just like most car trips in Auckland.

        It is those short 2-5 kms trips to the local PT stop, the shops or to the local school that will get most people out on their bikes.

    2. Flogging a dead horse here but helmets are part of the perception problem. In more sophisticated, and probably safer places, the ‘gear’ is not required, which goes a long way towards normalising cycling. I was just looking at the promo for a TV series showing a vicar/super sleuth pedalling along in dog collar, street duds, with his blond locks flowing in a gentle breeze. That kind of cycling looks far more attractive than the manic mamil model prevalent here.


  12. Thanks for the incisive breakdown of the stats Matt. This article and the comments really got me thinking.
    The future is our young ones; it makes such sense to get our kids riding to school again, and if it is seen to be safe, all the anxious parents zooming their way to school and then off to work a little late will immediately be sold on cycling as the viable, purposeful, reliable and worthwhile transport that it is. If parents can rely on their child safely cycling to school, their behaviour will change to being considerate to all cyclists at all times = game changer.

  13. Invest in cycle lanes leading to and from all schools and AT officers to patrol and educate school-run parents on driving around youngsters on cycles for 6 months. Hell, it can only improve, I work at a suburban school of 550 students; 2 cycle to school. Ticketing driving infringements around schools will help pay for these officers.
    Second realization for me was that I am a 1%er; a middle class, middle age male member of the highest cycle commuter cohort; and no-one wants to join us. Me being visible cycling to work every day is not going to change anyone’s mind about considering cycling as a viable, I’ll-give-it-a-try-option, for commuting.

  14. Some lightbulb moments for me:
    1 = me cycling will not change anyone’s attitude to cycling – attitude change must be institutionalised
    2 = we must have cycle lanes for all cohorts of potential cyclists, and that everyone is a cyclist given the chance. (The lowest cohort for cycling according to the report is a combination of Asian, female, parent. Yet in Japan, mothers cycle to the shops even with 2 children on the bike – 1 seated between the handle bars and 1 seated behind; shopping bags hanging from the handle bars- true!)
    3= commuters like me will always speed to work –you don’t dawdle on the daily commute – and I’ll ride the road if I can’t safely go on the cycle path. And we should be seen to share the road.
    Apologies for the 3 part post – couldn’t load as 1 single one

    1. Me cycling has not changed anyone’s mind. My wife is Dutch. Therefore she used to cycle – properly – in street clothes. Turning up a home in lathered lycra has singuarly failed to entice her back onto two wheels.

  15. A massive over investment for 11%, does that report lie? (If they invested more into PT, perhaps more would bus like me.)

Leave a Reply