Better-off more likely to cycle

wafflycat said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6260803.stm
"Cycling is more popular among wealthier families, government figures
suggest."

It would be interesting to know whether this means:

Wealthier families are more likely to cycle at all

or

Of the families that have at least one cycling member, the wealthier
ones tend to ride further.

I suppose once people get the car that they "need", it's hard to find
five hundred quid for a decent commuting bike (and lights and so on)
that they don't really need because they've already got the car.
Particularly since you tend to have to pay it all at once, rather than
having easy credit extortion the way you do for a big-screen TV.

49 miles a year? I cycled 36 miles on Friday.

R

On 14/01/2007 16:26, wafflycat said,

Quoted message said:

See

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6260803.stm

"Cycling is more popular among wealthier families, government figures
suggest."

Surely there's something wrong with those figures. 25-49 miles a
*year*??? They've obviously not surveyed cyclists!

I like the use of a slalom course to illustrate the article though!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

Surely there's something wrong with those figures. 25-49 miles a
*year*??? They've obviously not surveyed cyclists!

I'm guessing that must be the average of "everyone who has a bike",
including all the people who don't use them.

R

Roger Burton West said:

I'm guessing that must be the average of "everyone who has a bike",
including all the people who don't use them.

At the risk of being insufferably pedantic:

"On average, households on a higher income cycle 49 miles a year
compared with 29 miles for the less well-off, the Department for
Transport said."

That suggests that they surveyed a sample of households, and divided
the responses according to whatever it is that constitutes a 'higher
income'. This, presumably, makes it the average of "everyone" whether
they have a bicycle or not.

Needless to say, neither the BBC article, nor the DfT nor Cycle England
present the statistics on their websites, nor have press releases about
them, so it's impossible to tell. The only cycling-specific statistics
on the Office of National Statistics website that might be relevant are
from 1998 (updated, mysteriously, in 2002) at http://tinyurl.com/yj3dtj
Back then cycle use was, on average, 66 km/yr (about 41 miles/yr) for
everyone over 5 years.

If the 36 miles/year average quoted by the BBC is correct, it suggests
that the intervening 9 years, and the funding we've been eagerly told
about, has resulted in a decrease of 5 miles (or 12%) in overall cycle
use.

Less happily, it might also reflect a rise in the proportion of
low-income households, but given the strength of the economy and the
undoubted prudence with which it's been managed, a more likely
explanation would have to be an unexpected expansion of the mile. I
wonder if we'll be told.

Regards,

Burbage

Roger Burton West said:

Paul Boyd said:

Surely there's something wrong with those figures. 25-49 miles a
*year*??? They've obviously not surveyed cyclists!

I'm guessing that must be the average of "everyone who has a bike",
including all the people who don't use them.

I think its averaged over the entire population, which would include those
without bikes, those unable to cycle, etc.
This is fine for a government statistical paper.

I think this is the paper the BBC are referring to:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_614106.pdf

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

wafflycat said:

See

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6260803.stm

"Cycling is more popular among wealthier families, government figures
suggest."

Like I've said many times before - it is a hobby of the wealthy. The
poor cannot afford to cycle.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/169332ea05744bf8?hl=en&
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/7d051c7973b5510a?hl=en&

One of the surest ways to increase cycling 'take-up' would be to reduce
the tax on car use - thus freeing some of the income of a typical family
to pursue, possibly cycling, as a leisure activity. The car owning
necessity of today, and the unjustified associated tax burden, precludes
many poorer families from such elite activities.

--
Matt B

Burbage wrote on 14/01/2007 19:17 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Needless to say, neither the BBC article, nor the DfT nor Cycle England
present the statistics on their websites, nor have press releases about
them, so it's impossible to tell. The only cycling-specific statistics
on the Office of National Statistics website that might be relevant are
from 1998 (updated, mysteriously, in 2002) at http://tinyurl.com/yj3dtj
Back then cycle use was, on average, 66 km/yr (about 41 miles/yr) for
everyone over 5 years.

It goes counter to other evidence in the UK:
"The Great Britain proportions of those cycling to work in households
with no cars, one car and two or more cars were 6.7 per cent, 3.7 per
cent and 1.5 per cent respectively."
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_505587-04.hcsp#TopOfPage

but in line with Dutch data:

People earning over 30k Euros cycle twice as far as the national average
and as earnings increase the distance cycled increases too. There is
also a strong correlation with car ownership. Those with a car always
available cycled more than average, those with one sometimes available
around the national average and those with no car, well below the
national average.
Table 2.8 of http://www.rws-avv.nl/pls/portal30/docs/10198.XLS

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

"Burbage" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1168802229.297758.273970
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Less happily, it might also reflect a rise in the proportion of
low-income households, but given the strength of the economy and the
undoubted prudence with which it's been managed, a more likely
explanation would have to be an unexpected expansion of the mile. I
wonder if we'll be told.

According to an article in the Express, taxes have increased by an
equivalent of £9,000 for every household in UK since Labour came to power.
(http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=934)

ONS reasearch showed that taxes have risen much higher than income.
Together with increases in fuel bills and interest rates, this means that
people are less well off and have lower disposable incomes. So if the
definition of "low-income" relates to disposable income rather than salary,
there indeed has been a rise in low-income households.

That said, the Express article suggests another possible explanation: Inner
London has the highest disposable income in the country. Reading between
the lines I suspect that those areas where cycling is most likely to be
used for commuting (South Eastern cities) have the highest disposable
income - and so the difference might be due to geographical location and
the correlation with income might be mere coincidence.

Nigel Cliffe said:

I think this is the paper the BBC are referring to:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_614106.pdf

Well done! I don't approve of witchcraft, so I won't ask how you found
it.

The trend's even worse than I guessed. Grim news indeed.

Regards,

Burbage

Isn't that an oxymoron?

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Matt B) said:

One of the surest ways to increase cycling 'take-up' would be to
reduce the tax on car use - thus freeing some of the income of a
typical family to pursue, possibly cycling, as a leisure activity.
The car owning necessity of today, and the unjustified associated tax
burden, precludes many poorer families from such elite activities.

Making driving even cheaper than it already is for the wealthy will push
poor people onto bicycles?

Wouldn't it be even cheaper to leave motoring taxes as they are and pass
a law that forces 'the poor' to buy bicycles? It would be good for their
health too, because they don't eat good food like what the wealthy do.

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

The car owning necessity of today, and the unjustified associated tax
burden, precludes many poorer families from such elite activities.

Have you considered writing self help manuals? A career writing utter [censored]
that nobody will read surely beckons for you...

Tim
--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped

Tim Dunne said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

The car owning necessity of today, and the unjustified associated tax
burden, precludes many poorer families from such elite activities.

Have you considered writing self help manuals? A career writing utter [censored]
that nobody will read surely beckons for you...

Do you dispute that if we had more money in our pockets that more of us
would take up cycling? That is contradicted by the BBC figures.

Do you think that attacking the person who makes a point is the same as
attacking the point? Try a little harder and we may respect /your/
contributions a little more.

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Do you think that attacking the person who makes a point is the same
as attacking the point? Try a little harder and we may respect /your/
contributions a little more.

I couldn't give a FF in a RD what you respect. You're a very tedious single
issue fanatic labouring under the delusion that you're a radical. You're
also incredibly tedious.

HTH, HAND

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped

Terry said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Matt B) said:

One of the surest ways to increase cycling 'take-up' would be to
reduce the tax on car use - thus freeing some of the income of a
typical family to pursue, possibly cycling, as a leisure activity.
The car owning necessity of today, and the unjustified associated tax
burden, precludes many poorer families from such elite activities.

Making driving even cheaper than it already is for the wealthy will push
poor people onto bicycles?

Driving is only 'cheap' for the rich. It is the mosy highly taxed
activity that many people undertake. Reducing the massive tax burden,
would leave more money in many peoples pockets. Cycling would surely
become more popular.

Quoted message said:

Wouldn't it be even cheaper to leave motoring taxes as they are and pass
a law that forces 'the poor' to buy bicycles?

What would they buy them with?

Quoted message said:

It would be good for their
health too, because they don't eat good food like what the wealthy do.

Yes - another good reason to allow them to spend their own money on them
- rather than subsidising the rich, who according to the BBC use them
more - thus paying /less/ in motoring taxes.

How can this position be defended???

--
Matt B

"Tim Dunne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Do you think that attacking the person who makes a point is the same
as attacking the point? Try a little harder and we may respect /your/
contributions a little more.

I couldn't give a FF in a RD what you respect. You're a very tedious
single
issue fanatic labouring under the delusion that you're a radical. You're
also incredibly tedious.

HTH, HAND

Tim

Ah yes, TrollB, the local troll. Please don't feed the troll. Troll's aren't
interested in the content of a response or about actual debate, they simply
exist to be argumentative and just want a response - any response - and will
keep arguing - not debating. Their sole purpose of existance is to be as big
a PITA as possible. Kill-files are your friend.

Response to wafflycat:

Quoted message said:

Ah yes, TrollB, the local troll. Please don't feed the troll. Troll's aren't
interested in the content of a response or about actual debate, they simply
exist to be argumentative and just want a response - any response - and will
keep arguing - not debating. Their sole purpose of existance is to be as big
a PITA as possible. Kill-files are your friend.

Cue the boilerplate "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" response. :-D

--
Mark, UK
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong."

Tony Raven said:

People earning over 30k Euros cycle twice as far as the national average
and as earnings increase the distance cycled increases too.

Cause or effect? As the distance cycled increases earnings increase
too.
Perhaps cycling should be promoted as a wealth-increasing activity?
Maybe the excercise makes folks more effective workers?
I read something the other day about how the obese tend to do less well
in job interviews and promotions, possibly because they are seen as
lazy and weak-willed.

Interesting. From experience, cycling is BIG thing in Hull but is
certainly perceived to be something that is mostly done by people on
low incomes, and who are non-car owners, unlike in York where it
appears to be de rigeur for everyone to cycle. I remember the comments
I got in Hull when I started cycling for recreation and sport, rather
than for utility reasons, which was unheard of. Comments such as 'Can't
you afford a car', 'I thought you had a car', 'Why? etc etc. There was
a very different attitude in Hull than there is here in Leeds to
cycles, people's perception of cyclists and the percieved reasons why
you might use a bike rather than a car to get about. Cycling was very
definitely seen as something one didn't choose to do for any other
reason other that that one could not afford to get about in any other
way. Whether or not that was actually true, I don't know, but that was
definitely the prevailing attitude to cycling.