More big increases in cycling

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 minutes ago, Rockets said:

oh @Earl Aelfheah..........deary, deary me....you're on a roll today aren't you 😉

You've asked what people think is the catalyst, and immediately added that you're not buying the infrastructure message.  🤷‍♀️

I think it's fairly clear that the consistent, upward trend in cycling in London over a couple of decades now, demonstrates the impact of continued investment in infrastructure. 

[Rockets]

But does that explain the massive sudden annual jump from 5% to 12.7% - I believe (and it's hard to tell as TFL has changed their reporting methodology over the years) that could be a bigger % jump in growth than even during and post-Covid?

Would you not expect that if it was infrastructure then growth would be gradual rather than an overnight jump? This year massively bucked the year-on-year decline in cycle-stage growth.

Anyone else got any other ideas?

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The sustained long term trend is clearly linked to infrastructure. Shorter term, the massive popularity of hire schemes (e.g. Lime etc) in the context of that infrastructure having been put in place, no doubt a big factor. 

Why do you think infrastructure isn’t relevant?

Edited 20 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The sustained long term trend is clearly linked to infrastructure.

But until this year cycle stage growth was in decline in the preceding years: in 21/22 it was 18%, in 22/23 it was 6.3% in 23/24 down to 5% and then in 24/25 back up to 12.7%. 

I don't think infrastructure is irrelevant - but it just doesn't explain the over doubling of cycle stage growth in the last year. 

Edited 19 hours ago by Rockets

[Spartacus]

Maybe the explosion of lime and forest bikes has had an impact on cycling numbers over the past year 🤔 

[Earl Aelfheah]

54 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But until this year cycle stage growth was in decline in the preceding years: in 21/22 it was 18%, in 22/23 it was 6.3% in 23/24 down to 5% and then in 24/25 back up to 12.7%. 

I don't think infrastructure is irrelevant - but it just doesn't explain the over doubling of cycle stage growth in the last year. 

That's not decline, it's a slowing in growth over 2 years (there have been similar spikey patterns in other areas over the last few years linked to changing commuting habits post-Covid). Of course, any single year will not tell you the whole picture, but the trend has been consistent; Cycling has been growing year on year for over a decade, as investments have been made in cycle infrastructure. And the recent boom in hire bikes has also been enabled by the existence of that infrastructure.

I'm so bored of your completely predictable responses to anything to do with transport. It's great that we've seen consistent growth in cycling over many years now. The investment to get here has been tiny as a proportion of the overall TfL budget. It's a great success story.

And it proves those that said "a low single digit percentage gain in cycling numbers is all any set of measures will ever deliver" wrong.

Edited 18 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[DulvilleRes]

Earl is indeed on a roll of brilliant fact checking, the overall result of which has been a decrease of unchallenged factual inaccuracies and misleading statements on these threads. Long may he keep it up.

Yet again Rockets, you have been proved wrong - out of respect to your fellow posters, why don't you just admit it?  That way we could have a measured and mutually respectful debate, instead of constantly having to counter what feels like propaganda.

 

[Rockets]

49 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That's not decline, it's a slowing in growth over 2 years

I have consistently said a decline in growth....which it is exactly what it is....which can also be referred to as a slowing in growth if you prefer....deary, deary me....

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And it proves those that said "a low single digit percentage gain in cycling numbers is all any set of measures will ever deliver" wrong.

Ha ha....still some way to go to get to the 10x increase promised during the lobbying for funds phase during Covid though....we are seemingly at .43x after 6 years....

12 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

Yet again Rockets, you have been proved wrong - out of respect to your fellow posters, why don't you just admit it?  That way we could have a measured and mutually respectful debate, instead of constantly having to counter what feels like propaganda.

@DulvilleRes what, in your mind, have I been proved wrong about exactly? Is what I say about the data and information in TFL's report wrong? No it isn't. Do you have an opinion on the catalysts for the big jump in cycle stage growth this last year - or are you just here to try and attack a fellow poster? I do find it laughable that you suggest I am pushing propaganda when asking questions about  TFL's report....

 

 

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha....still some way to go to get to the 10x increase promised during the lobbying for funds phase during Covid though

The mayor suggested cycling could increase tenfold and pavements could be widened, under a scenario where travel returned to normal levels, but the need for distancing remained in place. This was 5 years ago, during the Covid lockdown, when we didn't have vaccines and things were extremely uncertain. They were planning for the possibility of having to move large numbers of people about the Capital, whist enforcing distancing. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

12 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

 

The great worry is that cycling, like hula hooping, was or is a passing fad. 

 

In deed, I understand that in the 1950s rock and roll was considered to be just a fad by many.  

And in the 1860s the same thing was said about the new fangled bicycle

[Earl Aelfheah]

This trend for driving around in cars will likely be replaced by pogo sticks next week.

[first mate]

15 hours ago, Rockets said:

what, in your mind, have I been proved wrong about exactly? Is what I say about the data and information in TFL's report wrong? No it isn't. Do you have an opinion on the catalysts for the big jump in cycle stage growth this last year - or are you just here to try and attack a fellow poster? I do find it laughable that you suggest I am pushing propaganda when asking questions about  TFL's report....

 

It has gone very quiet. Looking forward to @DulvilleRes response..
 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This trend for driving around in cars will likely be replaced by pogo sticks next week.

Malumbu told us that he performs a community service by driving around checking on various aspects of road design to ensure they are working properly. It will be most entertaining to see him do this on a pogo stick. Let us know when he starts.

[exdulwicher]

20 hours ago, Rockets said:

I am not downplaying the data just asking if people know what is driving the large jump this year (after years of decline in cycling growth). Is that a question I am not allowed to ask? I would suggest that anyone who had read the TFL report (and not just the headlines from TFL's press release) would probably ask the same questions I am as there are clear contradictions within it - do you have any explanation?

Various explanations.

One is that over the years you have consistently cherry picked stats and figures to suit whatever your opinion is at the time, shouting about the ones that you like, downplaying the ones you don't so that will have skewed your perspective. I honestly don't know how much of that is wilfully misleading on your part or you simply don't understand how stats work - sadly facts don't really care what you do or don't believe in, they remain facts no matter what.

Another is that mainstream media (of all political persuasions) are not good with stats because most people (readers and the people writing the newspapers) don't understand them so they'll dumb them down. Now to an extent, that's the job of media, to take a complex topic and unravel the basics so that the layperson can get the gist of it but it does lead to confusing stats such as "50% increase in cycling" (for example) but with no indication in the headline of over what time period, from what baseline, is it numbers of people cycling (and if so is there any understanding of how often those people are riding) or is it done on mileage / time...?

Very basic examples:
If I ride 10 miles in a day and then the next day I ride 15 miles, that could be interpreted as a 50% increase in cycling!
If an average of 100 people ride their bike 3x a week or more for a year and then the next year, an average of 150 people do the same for a year, that's also a 50% increase in cycling. However, that won't pick up local and period-specific trends. During the school holidays for example, only 20 people are riding for 3 months of the year cos everyone is on holiday  - whereas you'd probably look at that and shout "DECLINE IN CYCLING!!!", anyone doing some statistical analysis on it would look at the overall trend and agree that yes, there are peaks and troughs (as with all stats) but the overall average trend is a 50% increase.

As an aside, you can see this with vehicle traffic; the School Run Effect in Dulwich is very pronounced because of the sheer number of schools.

Another reason is, as I mentioned above, locality. Where exactly are these stats being measured - is it City of London, Greater London, London within the N & S Circulars, all London boroughs combined...? This also needs balancing out because averages hide a lot of info. If you have a safe and efficient cycling corridor (like Greendale, Calton, Dulwich, HH) it's very well used compared to a corridor like Denmark Hill, EDG, Village Way, HH. So someone standing at Goose Green will see a very different picture of number of people cycling vs someone standing in Dulwich Square which is why personal views and "I've seen / I've not seen..." is such a terrible measure of understanding.

(same way that if you said there were an average of 30 buses an hour in Dulwich - there might well be 30 buses but someone on Woodwarde Road will see zero and someone on LL will see 20 and someone on EDG will see 10. Every single one of them would question the "30 buses per hour" narrative.)

And a final reason is methodology although that one is easy to balance via various statistical calculations. Data now is more dense and detailed than ever before via traffic count sensors, mobile phone data, fitness tracking apps, connected vehicles etc so there's a constant process of adjustment and factoring in new info while still maintaining the old info.

*it should be obvious but all the figures, counts and percentages I've quoted above are examples, designed to show the picture of how stats work. I don't know how many buses there are, I've chosen easy to understand figures.