21% Fewer Cyclists

Not Responding said:

the number of cyclists has fallen 21% compared to last summer. Anyone
seen (or have their own) suggestions as to why this may be? Indeed, is
it likely to be accurate?

The number in London has increased by that sort of proportion, so I have
no idea what it could be about. Although of course the DfT counts
generally exclude people riding alongside roads on psychlepaths.

--
Guy

Just zis Guy said:

Although of course the DfT counts
generally exclude people riding alongside roads on psychlepaths.

What Guy said. Plus, as the paper says, the sample sizes are very small
so over just 1 year the trend can get lost in the noise.

[Not Responding] [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

According to the latest dft release,

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_032709.pdf

the number of cyclists has fallen 21% compared to last summer. Anyone
seen (or have their own) suggestions as to why this may be? Indeed, is
it likely to be accurate?

OK it was a lousy, rainy summer but surely not sufficient to explain a
21% drop?

I've seen an increase here in Edinburgh over the last year or so.
Perhaps they missed out a large city when adding up their totals! ;-)

Jon

Not Responding said:

According to the latest dft release,

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_032709.pdf

the number of cyclists has fallen 21% compared to last summer. Anyone
seen (or have their own) suggestions as to why this may be? Indeed, is
it likely to be accurate?

OK it was a lousy, rainy summer but surely not sufficient to explain a
21% drop?

First struggle through the document suggests that they have all bought
those nice trendy motor scooter thingies - two wheeled motor vehicles show
a strong increase in numbers :-)

David WE Roberts said:

Not Responding said:

According to the latest dft release,

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_032709.pdf

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the number of cyclists has fallen 21% compared to last summer.

Anyone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

seen (or have their own) suggestions as to why this may be? Indeed,

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it likely to be accurate?

OK it was a lousy, rainy summer but surely not sufficient to

explain a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

21% drop?

First struggle through the document suggests that they have all

bought

Quoted message said:

those nice trendy motor scooter thingies - two wheeled motor vehicles

show

Quoted message said:

a strong increase in numbers :-)

And accidents for the latter have gone up at the same rate cycle ones
have come down according to another recent statistic the source of
which escapes me.

Zog The Undeniable said:

What Guy said. Plus, as the paper says, the sample sizes are very small
so over just 1 year the trend can get lost in the noise.

On the other hand, what happened during Q2 of 2004 that might have had
an impact on levels of cycling? Could it have been a highly
publicised private member's bill using [censored] and exaggeration to
falsely claim cycling is dangerous?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, what happened during Q2 of 2004 that might have had
an impact on levels of cycling? Could it have been a highly
publicised private member's bill using [censored] and exaggeration to
falsely claim cycling is dangerous?

Incidentally, I see that <URL:http://www.cyclesense.net/fset.htm> is
still going, providing useful indications of how much the effective
diameter of the head is increased by a helmet.

Troglodytes! Ostrogoths! Vandals!

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

" [Not Responding] " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

According to the latest dft release,

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_032709.pdf

the number of cyclists has fallen 21% compared to last summer. Anyone
seen (or have their own) suggestions as to why this may be? Indeed, is
it likely to be accurate?

OK it was a lousy, rainy summer but surely not sufficient to explain a
21% drop?

Page 9. Note. 2 Pedal Cycle figures need to be treated with caution due to
small sample size.

Quoted message said:

OK it was a lousy, rainy summer but surely not sufficient to explain a
21% drop?

Same number of cyclists with fewer journeys?

My meagre statistics show a 16% drop in miles this year compared to last
year. The unreliability of the weather has definitely been a factor for
me. [Casual leisure cycling]

If the DfT stats are collected by roadside counting this will affect the
result. ie Jumping from the observation "We saw 21% less cycling" to
"there are 21% fewer cyclists".

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm Witham Cycling Campaign
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides East Anglian Pub cycle rides

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:38:49 -0000, "Frank X" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Page 9. Note. 2 Pedal Cycle figures need to be treated with caution due to
small sample size.

Indeed. 21% smaller sample size this year ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Not Responding said:

the number of cyclists has fallen 21% compared to last summer.

Anyone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

seen (or have their own) suggestions as to why this may be?

Indeed, is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it likely to be accurate?

The number in London has increased by that sort of proportion, so I

have

Quoted message said:

no idea what it could be about. Although of course the DfT counts
generally exclude people riding alongside roads on psychlepaths.

Te 23% increase now being quoted for London is not actually false,
but it comes close. Te 23% increase compares just a two month period
in 2003 with the same two months in 2004. The difference between the
two periods is that 2003 was fairly normal, but in 2004 there was a
tube strike, and a threatened train strike as well. It's hardly
surprising that there was an increase in bike traffic

The original 22 July 2004 press release, at
www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-releases/2004/july/press-PN1117.shtml has
more information, including a graph of bike traffic variations from
2000 through June 2004.

Events that might have effected bike traffic include

29 June 2004 18:30 on - 24 hour tube strike
(rail strikes in June called off)
12 Mar 2004 tube strike called off
1 Oct 2002 19:00 on 24 hour tube strike
24 Sept 2002 24 hour tube strike
26 Mar 2002 48 hour tube strike
5 Mar 2002 48 hour tube strike

25 Jan 2003 Central Line closed. Not fully reopened until 12 April
19 Oct 2003 Northern Line closed. Fully closed for a few days, but
complete service not restored for several months

The press release says that the report was prepared for a "Business
Management Review Meeting", which might be why the graph seems to
mark new years on April 5th, not Jan 1.

I suppose that if the report convinced that meeting it served its
purpose. On the other hand, if those who run the system are so
easily conned, that might be another reason to get a bike rather than
relying on public transport.

Actually, I get the impression, from looking at the graph, that
London's cycling trend did start to turn up in about the spring of
2001. I can't think of any significant facilities event from that
time, but it did coincide with when London first issued its free bike
amps.

Jeremy parker

Peter Fox said:

Quoted message said:

OK it was a lousy, rainy summer but surely not sufficient to explain a
21% drop?

Same number of cyclists with fewer journeys?

My meagre statistics show a 16% drop in miles this year compared to last
year. The unreliability of the weather has definitely been a factor for
me. [Casual leisure cycling]

If the DfT stats are collected by roadside counting this will affect the
result. ie Jumping from the observation "We saw 21% less cycling" to
"there are 21% fewer cyclists".

I've already done 45% miles more than last year. I'm doing my bit!

--
Simon

Simon Proven said:

Peter Fox said:

Quoted message said:

OK it was a lousy, rainy summer but surely not sufficient to explain a
21% drop?

Same number of cyclists with fewer journeys?

My meagre statistics show a 16% drop in miles this year compared to last
year. The unreliability of the weather has definitely been a factor for
me. [Casual leisure cycling]

If the DfT stats are collected by roadside counting this will affect the
result. ie Jumping from the observation "We saw 21% less cycling" to
"there are 21% fewer cyclists".

I've already done 45% miles more than last year. I'm doing my bit!

Crumbs, it's all my fault then. I've done about 5% of the miles I did
last year.

Not Responding said:

Crumbs, it's all my fault then. I've done about 5% of the miles I did
last year.

Ah, but I've compensated for you by doing about twice as many miles this
year as I have done in the last five years put together.

d.