Cycling and the Economy

The UK government has done little to promote cycling. Governments in Holland and Denmark have managed to increase cycle usage enormously. I think the UK government failure is mainly down to financial reasons. They like people to be employed making cars. They want the UK to be a big car producing country like Germany. They get tax from cars and tax from fuel. People are employed servicing and repairing cars. Holland and Denmark make very few cars so a car purchase there is bad for balance of trade. My spend on cycle commuting is probably about £20-30 a year for 3000 miles. People on the motoring forum are spending hundreds of pounds a month on new cars to do similar journeys. Why isn't cycling promoted in the UK - it's the economy stupid.
«134

Comments

  • worried_jim
    worried_jim Posts: 11,631
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    You've answered your own question. Plus we are busy with things to do and places to go, we haven't got all day to sit around smoking dope, fingering dams and playing with Lego.
  • elverson
    elverson Posts: 808 Forumite
    A lot of those cars are exported anyway.
  • Johno100
    Johno100 Posts: 5,259
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    fred246 wrote: »
    The UK government has done little to promote cycling. Governments in Holland and Denmark have managed to increase cycle usage enormously. I think the UK government failure is mainly down to financial reasons. They like people to be employed making cars. They want the UK to be a big car producing country like Germany. They get tax from cars and tax from fuel. People are employed servicing and repairing cars. Holland and Denmark make very few cars so a car purchase there is bad for balance of trade. My spend on cycle commuting is probably about £20-30 a year for 3000 miles. People on the motoring forum are spending hundreds of pounds a month on new cars to do similar journeys. Why isn't cycling promoted in the UK - it's the economy stupid.

    You've made an incorrect assumption, namely that more cycling means less car ownership.

    The Netherlands for example may have many more cyclists but motor vehicle ownership per capita is greater than in the UK.
  • Johnmcl7
    Johnmcl7 Posts: 2,816
    Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Forumite
    As others have pointed out, it's not the economy - a large number of cyclists also own cars and many cars manufactured here are exported. Furthermore usually money spent on cycling generates great returns for the economy.

    The problem is the general UK mindset which is very much car driven and this article sums it up well:
    Rachel Aldred, a Westminster University sociologist who studies transport issues, argues that British cyclists suffer because, unlike in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, bikes are seen as frivolous, compared with the serious, adult business of driving. She says: “It’s as if you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing on the roads, almost like you’re playing in the street and getting in the way of the traffic, like you’re a child. There’s also this dual way you can be stigmatised as a cyclist – it was historically seen as something for people with no choice, but now it’s seen as something for people who have a choice. It’s a leisure or play thing that they shouldn’t be doing in this inappropriate place.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/01/sabotage-and-hatred-what-have-people-got-against-cyclists?CMP=fb_gu

    Any time I see an article that is anything positive for cyclists there's always a tremendous backlash against such actions with all the usual rubbish about cyclists don't pay road tax, shouldn't be on the roads, should be spending money or helping cars etc. Even when there's news of improvements in congested areas for cyclists there's always people complaining that they should be spending money on the cars first even though it's car use they are trying to reduce.

    Until the general UK mindset changes away from cars and less towards being so against cyclists, I can't see much improving any time soon.

    John
  • Johno100
    Johno100 Posts: 5,259
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Johnmcl7 wrote: »
    Even when there's news of improvements in congested areas for cyclists there's always people complaining that they should be spending money on the cars first even though it's car use they are trying to reduce.

    Not on cars, on the roads generally to help all road users. Of course taking away already congested road space and handing it over for ZiL lanes for the lycra elite is going to cause resentment.
  • Johnmcl7
    Johnmcl7 Posts: 2,816
    Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Johno100 wrote: »
    Not on cars, on the roads generally to help all road users. Of course taking away already congested road space and handing it over for ZiL lanes for the lycra elite is going to cause resentment.

    That's the problem, it shouldn't cause resentment when cars are causing the problem particularly in larger cities where pollution is getting an increasingly severe and deadly problem. Despite that, the cyclists are still seen as the selfish ones.

    John
  • Johno100
    Johno100 Posts: 5,259
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Johnmcl7 wrote: »
    That's the problem, it shouldn't cause resentment when cars are causing the problem particularly in larger cities where pollution is getting an increasingly severe and deadly problem. Despite that, the cyclists are still seen as the selfish ones.

    John

    Pollution levels are a fraction of what they were a generation or two ago. Just another stick to beat the motorist with.

    trends-uk-so2.png

    6667570_orig.png
  • spadoosh
    spadoosh Posts: 8,732
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    I beg to differ.

    The cycle to work scheme was introduced in 1999. A government funded tax cut for those wishing to buy a new bike.

    The government has put (or at least suggested they where going to) investment of £200million+ in to cycling in recent years.

    My own city has recently spent several million pounds on a cycle route. Every new road that has been installed in the last few years locally has incorporated cycle lanes.

    Government stats on total annual mileage for cyclist has increased year on year since 2007 (excl a slight decrease in 2015) which suggest more people are riding, it could be the unlikely case of fewer people cycling more but as mentioned i think that unlikely.

    Economics is a fine balance. I wouldnt like to comment on whether its more economical to have people healthier living longer requiring less treatment or to have them dying earlier likely requiring more expensive treatment. But youre essentially playing with very fine margins, it would be foolish to think its based solely on the 'economy' when its nigh on impossible to find out the absolute costs/benefits to cycling.


    I can imagine a lot of the resentment between road users stems directly from the holier than thou approach taken in the OP.

    Lastly i dont like government involvement in things. Why should the government promote cycling over say badminton which offers as many health benefits? Is a motorcycle better than a car but worse than a bike? How about government funded horse riding lessons? But its eco friendly!
  • Johnmcl7
    Johnmcl7 Posts: 2,816
    Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Johno100 wrote: »
    Pollution levels are a fraction of what they were a generation or two ago. Just another stick to beat the motorist with.

    It doesn't matter if they're a fraction of what they were, the problem is they're still dangerously high and resulting in many people dying due to air quality issues - currently estimated to be around 10,000 deaths a year in London alone. The levels of nitrous oxide are dangerously high and predicted to remain that way for some time.

    But sure, a stick to beat the motorist with...I really don't know if that's just trolling or what but it's an alarmingly demonstration of the very point I was making if it's not.

    John
  • Johnmcl7
    Johnmcl7 Posts: 2,816
    Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Forumite
    spadoosh wrote: »
    I beg to differ.

    The cycle to work scheme was introduced in 1999. A government funded tax cut for those wishing to buy a new bike.

    The government has put (or at least suggested they where going to) investment of £200million+ in to cycling in recent years.

    My own city has recently spent several million pounds on a cycle route. Every new road that has been installed in the last few years locally has incorporated cycle lanes.

    You can beg to differ all you want but sadly the facts tell a different story, the spend per person on cycling is extremely low and the percentage of journeys completed by bike is also extremely low - a few token cycles lanes don't change that.
    Government stats on total annual mileage for cyclist has increased year on year since 2007 (excl a slight decrease in 2015) which suggest more people are riding, it could be the unlikely case of fewer people cycling more but as mentioned i think that unlikely.

    The current rate of journeys completed by bike is extremely low.
    Economics is a fine balance. I wouldnt like to comment on whether its more economical to have people healthier living longer requiring less treatment or to have them dying earlier likely requiring more expensive treatment. But youre essentially playing with very fine margins, it would be foolish to think its based solely on the 'economy' when its nigh on impossible to find out the absolute costs/benefits to cycling.

    It's not nigh on impossible, there's plenty of evidence from countries who have put the money into cycling and reaped the benefits.
    I can imagine a lot of the resentment between road users stems directly from the holier than thou approach taken in the OP.

    It's difficult to know how to even respond to this aside from the fact that it's very wrong to apply such a crude generalisation to all cyclists, a very diverse group and it's most certainly not accurate.
    Lastly i dont like government involvement in things. Why should the government promote cycling over say badminton which offers as many health benefits? Is a motorcycle better than a car but worse than a bike? How about government funded horse riding lessons? But its eco friendly!

    I'm kind of concerned I need to point this out but unless we're thinking of a different sport, badminton is not a viable commuting solution nor an effective way to reduce congestion and pollution. Neither is horse riding but cycling is, it's an efficient way to travel with no pollution, takes up less space than a car and improves health - that's why other countries have focused on cycling and they they've seen the benefits. That's a combination of benefits neither badminton, horse riding or motorcycling offer.

    John
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards