More Bikes Than Cars Sold in Australia in 2007



N

Noel

Guest
Just came across this. Last paragraph gets it right I think:

http://bicycling.about.com/b/2008/01/13/more-bikes-than-cars-sold-in-
australia-in-2007.htm


More Bikes Than Cars Sold in Australia in 2007

Australia's Cycling Promotion Fund released a report this week showing
bicycles outsold automobiles down under by nearly 50% in 2007, with 1.47
million bikes sold vs. 1.05 million cars. It's the seventh straight year
that bikes have surpassed autos in sales in Australia.

“Soaring petrol prices, concern over climate change, crippling traffic
congestion and the desire to lead healthier lifestyles all contributed to
the record breaking year” said Elliot Fishman, Policy Advisor at the
Cycling Promotion Fund.

The increase in bike sales is accompanied by increased ridership as well.
The number of Australian adults who ride bikes is up 17% from 2001, and
bike commuting is growing at an average rate of 22% across Australia's
capital cities, with Melbourne in particular experiencing a 42% percent
increase in bike commuter trips.

This is great news, obviously, and the type of growth that would be great
to replicate in other places around the world. Just for comparision's
sake, in the U.S., there were 18.2 million bikes of all types sold in
2006, compared with 16.5 million cars. That's good news and the past
couple of years really represent the biggest jump in bike sales since the
1970s in the U.S.

However, this number does include tiny tot bikes, etc., and if you
whittle it down a bit, you get around 12.7 million "real" bikes with
wheels greater than 20" (and please pardon me if I offended any tots with
that distinction). I wish the numbers were higher, but they're still
impressive all the same.

Conventional wisdom says credit for this surge goes to higher fuel
prices, desire for improved physical fitness, concern for the environment
and the so-called Lance effect. Personally, I think the trickle-down
effect from Tour de France type racing to the average Joe getting on a
bike is pretty minimal. A big part of it, I believe, is people just
getting fed up with riding in the car all the time and finally starting
to realize that riding around on a bike is many times just as convenient
and a whole lot more fun.


Cheers
Noel
 
On Jan 16, 7:56 pm, Noel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just came across this.  Last paragraph gets it right I think:
>
> http://bicycling.about.com/b/2008/01/13/more-bikes-than-cars-sold-in-
> australia-in-2007.htm
>
> More Bikes Than Cars Sold in Australia in 2007
>
> Australia's Cycling Promotion Fund released a report this week showing
> bicycles outsold automobiles down under by nearly 50% in 2007, with 1.47
> million bikes sold vs. 1.05 million cars. It's the seventh straight year
> that bikes have surpassed autos in sales in Australia.


From memory, the UK figure for 2004 (the last year for which figures
are available) is 4.5 million bikes against 2.5 milion cars. The 4.5
million however includes childrens bikes, tag-alongs, etc, and I
haven't seen any data for "proper" bikes.

Rob
 
"Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 16/01/2008 19:56, Noel said,
>> Just came across this. Last paragraph gets it right I think:
>>
>> http://bicycling.about.com/b/2008/01/13/more-bikes-than-cars-sold-in-
>> australia-in-2007.htm
>>
>> More Bikes Than Cars Sold in Australia in 2007

> <Snippety>
>
> Is this the same country that supposedly had a marked downturn in cycling
> when helmet wearing became mandatory?
>
> (Ducks and runs for cover...)


very wise, and I hope you're wearing a helmet.

Yes, there is no doubt that there was a marked downturn in cycling when the
helmet law was introduced, and it's great that this is now being reversed.
But......how much cycling would there be now if the helmet law hadn't been
introduced? The answer has to be "more". Probably much, much more.

So while the Aussies, with their long term, whole population study, have
kindly proved that helmets make no difference whatsoever to the risks of
cycling, they don't seem to have proved much else.

I'm sure the authorities will ascribe the reduction in risk following the
increasing amount of cycling to helmets. They always do, no matter what the
real cause of the change.
 
"burtthebike" wrote
> "Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 16/01/2008 19:56, Noel said,
>>> Just came across this. Last paragraph gets it right I think:
>>>
>>> http://bicycling.about.com/b/2008/01/13/more-bikes-than-cars-sold-in-
>>> australia-in-2007.htm
>>>
>>> More Bikes Than Cars Sold in Australia in 2007

>> <Snippety>
>>
>> Is this the same country that supposedly had a marked downturn in cycling
>> when helmet wearing became mandatory?
>>
>> (Ducks and runs for cover...)

>
> very wise, and I hope you're wearing a helmet.
>
> Yes, there is no doubt that there was a marked downturn in cycling when
> the helmet law was introduced, and it's great that this is now being
> reversed. But......how much cycling would there be now if the helmet law
> hadn't been introduced? The answer has to be "more". Probably much, much
> more.
>
> So while the Aussies, with their long term, whole population study, have
> kindly proved that helmets make no difference whatsoever to the risks of
> cycling, they don't seem to have proved much else.
>
> I'm sure the authorities will ascribe the reduction in risk following the
> increasing amount of cycling to helmets. They always do, no matter what
> the real cause of the change.


Australia has one of the lowest rates of cycling in the world. It has this
in common with all the countries with mandatory helmet laws. There is a
strong correlation of helmet laws with few cyclists, but I would not assert
that helmet laws cause this. The only jurisdiction where a helmet law has
not been frollowed by a perceptible decrease in cycling is a Canadian one
where the law isnot enforced.

Mike Sales
 
Paul Boyd wrote:
> On 16/01/2008 19:56, Noel said,
>> Just came across this. Last paragraph gets it right I think:
>>
>> http://bicycling.about.com/b/2008/01/13/more-bikes-than-cars-sold-in-
>> australia-in-2007.htm
>>
>> More Bikes Than Cars Sold in Australia in 2007

> <Snippety>
>
> Is this the same country that supposedly had a marked downturn in
> cycling when helmet wearing became mandatory?
>
> (Ducks and runs for cover...)


A quick check on www.cyclehelmets.org show that the drop in cycling when
the laws were introduced between 1988 and 1992 was between 36%(a) and
50%(b). To get back to the pre-helmet laws you would need an increase of
between 56%(a) and 100%(b).
The article above quotes a rise of cyclist by 17% and commuting trips by
an average of 22% since 2001 (with Melbourne at a 42% rise).

If there was no changes between 1992 and 2001[1], then the amount of
cyclist is still far below that of the 1988 figures.

If the MHL laws had not been brought in, and there was a resurgence in
cycling now, the amount of cyclist would be a lot more than it currently is.

[1] I have no data here, so am just making an uneducated guess.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 16, 7:56 pm, Noel <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just came across this. Last paragraph gets it right I think:
>>
>> http://bicycling.about.com/b/2008/01/13/more-bikes-than-cars-sold-in-
>> australia-in-2007.htm
>>
>> More Bikes Than Cars Sold in Australia in 2007
>>
>> Australia's Cycling Promotion Fund released a report this week showing
>> bicycles outsold automobiles down under by nearly 50% in 2007, with 1.47
>> million bikes sold vs. 1.05 million cars. It's the seventh straight year
>> that bikes have surpassed autos in sales in Australia.

>
> From memory, the UK figure for 2004 (the last year for which figures
> are available) is 4.5 million bikes against 2.5 million cars. The 4.5
> million however includes childrens bikes, tag-alongs, etc, and I
> haven't seen any data for "proper" bikes.


bikes sold per capita cars sold per capita
UK 4.5/60= 0.075 2.5/60=0.042
Aus. 1.47/21= 0.07 1.05/21=0.05

The figures are similar, with Australians more biased towards buying
cars than Britons.