Forum Topic

Cycling and the common good

A new study concludes that riding a bike rather than driving a car is positively associated with “orientation towards the common good”. https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-17-october-2023-304523An interesting finding that is evident in Chiswick where people who ride bikes are often associated with the most noteworthy and successful civic activities like greening spaces, planting trees in parks and organising markets usually having to overcome determined opposition from motorists and their attempts at forming local social groups to do so. From the report;“They argue that while the interactions motorists and car passengers have with their direct environments are “significantly reduced”, cyclists on the other hand “directly experience the breadth of social diversity and cultural heterogeneity that make up urban life and cannot escape these impressions due to sensory density”.This direct experience of the environment around them, the authors say, “leads to a stronger emotional bond between people and their neighbourhood” and therefore can lead to them participating in civic activities and politics.In other words, riding a bike – and the interactions and emotional connection you have with the people, communities, societies, and things around you while cycling – can make you a more responsible, engaged citizen and neighbour”.This is why Chiswick Area Forums are so poorly attended. They do not appeal to people with an orientation to the common good.

Paul Campbell ● 1063d121 Comments

It probably isn't a good idea for cyclists to be too smug about their mode of transport as that isn't the way to encourage people to get on a bike.Whether cyclists are better people is very debatable. The statistics and daily observation show that they are more likely to be white, middle class and male so it is dicey territory to claim that there is a correlation between riding a bike and an orientation to the common good. If people want to ride a bike to signal their virtue that is fine but the reality is that in most cases in London taking up cycling probably provides little net benefit to the planet.Most people in the capital don't commute by car and those that do generally live so far away from work cycling is impractical. So commuting by bike is more often than not substituting for the use of public transport.I did a rough calculation on the amount of CO2 I save by cycling and it is pretty tiny less in a year than turning the thermostat down by one degree for a month. I may not be typical because I wouldn't drive much anyway but unless you are replacing a daily commute by car with one by bike there are probably a hundred things you could quite easily do which would have more impact on global emissions.There are however two much more important but perhaps selfish reasons that everyone should take up cycling if they possibly can. Firstly, the health benefits. I've always cycled a certain amount but made a conscious effort to cycle more often a decade ago after a health scare. The impact has been amazing and I am fitter than I was ten years ago despite never visiting a gym or doing that much other forms of exercise.Secondly, there is the money you save particularly these days when public transport fares are so high. I don't commute daily now but when I did I was keeping a few thousand pounds extra a year. Even now I'd say it adds up to a tidy sum each month plus a bit extra from saving on petrol and depreciation on the car from not driving as much.Another financial benefit which wasn't really anticipated is  that it enables the 'small and often' shop reducing the need for a big shop. As I'm keen to get my bike miles up I'm generally happy to pop to the shops at short notice. This means we tend to eat fresher food and throw much less away.If you cycle because you think it makes you a better person than everyone else that is your prerogative but most people aren't than bothered about the opinion of others. The way to encourage people to cycle more is to point out that it will make them healthier and less poor. They are perhaps less worthy outcomes than saving the planet but in these two cases you will at least be making a noticeable difference.

Mark Evans ● 1059d

That was a lot of effort to refute claims that the German study did not make Mark. Well done. Perhaps you should now read the report and come back to us with a relevant counter-argument. Clue: it isn't about carbon emissions, it is about orientation to the common good; civic engagement and social cohesion. The study controls for demographic variables too. I'm afraid the Chiswick car lobby and local pseudo-cyclists will have to be more inventive than recycling their usual reductive arguments. I accept this is likely to be too challenging. To help you I have extracted the abstract which summarises the purpose, nature and conclusions of this scientific study. The last line is particularly important as a call to action for public policy to prioritise cycling over driving in urban environments.  "Orientation towards the common good is considered as a building block of social cohesion and has been shown to benefit both social communities and their residents. Mobility behavior (e.g. cycling) is associated with many positive psychological variables, but little is known about its relationship with the orientation towards the common good. This study examined the relationships between mobility behavior and four facets of orientation towards the common good: political participation, social participation in organizations, neighborhood solidarity, and neighborly helpfulness. Using a longitudinal multilevel analysis, annual surveys between 2014 and 2019 of a representative sample of the German general population (GESIS PANEL, N = 410) were analyzed. Cycling rather than driving was positively associated with orientation towards the common good in all models. Cycling was the only variable that was a significant positive predictor for all four facets of orientation towards the common good after controlling for possibly confounding variables (homeownership, personal income, education, sex). This research demonstrated that mobility behavior is associated with the orientation towards the common good. These findings are significant for policy and planning because the benefits of cycling over driving are more profound and sustainable than previously thought."

Paul Campbell ● 1059d

Steve,I don't think I could disagree more with your two posts on how awful cycling is.I practice about 5 times a week, 40km to and from work and then on weekends before the family wakes up. Every now and then I go abroad with my bike. It's been an amazing journey. I don't have to spend money on the Tube, I get a good dose of endorphines prior to my workday, it's allowed me to make friends and to get to know incredible people, from farmers in Morocco to other cyclists in Italy, to monks in Ladakh. It's keeping me fit - according to my GP, though I'm 47 I've got the metabolic of a 32 year old - and I'm seeing the same effects on friends who've picked it up. Is it always a laugh? No. Cycling in the rain with a headwind sucks, for the headwind if nothing else. But what makes it bad is when people - and this is mostly drivers, unfortunately - are being nasty to you for no reason, or simply don't care. Today a taxi driver overtook me near Hatton Cross, in spite of a sign that said 'do not overtake cyclists', and knocked down a few cones as a result, almost hitting a worker. Another driver just ignored me, moved into the carriageway and then turn left, cutting me off twice. This is what makes people angry, because it's pointless, selfish, carelessness that could get me killed. Only because the driver is too lazy to check his mirrors, or too impatient to stick behind me even if I'm doing 20 on a 20mph road. Luckily the overwhelming majority of drivers out there aren't miserable gits like those two, and everyone's a winner. Ignore those miserable gits and have a go at riding a bike yourself, Steve. It's fun.

Francis Sheehan ● 1057d

HEADLINE NEWS - TelegraphCycling charity Sustrans handed £92m in grants to introduce low traffic neighbourhoodsCampaigners argue taxpayers’ money should not be used to fund ‘lobby group’s’ work to push through controversial schemesBy Steve Bird16 September 2023 • 2:44pmA cycling charity handed vast sums of taxpayers’ money to introduce controversial low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) has amassed £165 million and doubled the number of executives paid up to £140,000.Sustrans’ latest accounts show how it also received £92 million in grants from national and local government bodies.The 'charity', which for years has lobbied politicians to back #LTNs, has £165,205,000 as “cash or cash equivalents” in the bank, according to its accounts for the 2022-23 financial year.Its annual report reveals how the charity has benefited from the Government’s LTN policy introduced in 2020 to promote walking and cycling at the height of the pandemic.The huge sums Sustrans now handles are in stark contrast to 2017 when it had £16million in the bank and and 2018 when it had £25 million in cash.Critics claim that Sustrans is effectively a cycling “lobby group” and is largely unaccountable and not subject to democratic processes, such as Freedom of Information laws or elections.In March, The Sunday Telegraph revealed how the Information Commissioner had to force Lambeth Council to honour Freedom of Information laws to reveal it had paid Sustrans £400,000 to help set up LTNs. For 15-months Labour-run Lambeth refused to release the payments spanning five years because they were “commercially sensitive”.Rishi Sunak has called for a review of LTNs in EnglandRishi Sunak has called for a review of LTNs in England CREDIT: Carl Court/Getty Images EuropeWhile LTNs are meant to reduce the public’s reliance on cars, opponents claim they simply shift congestion and pollution on to busy roads where poorer communities often live.Sustrans accounts also reveal how it now pays 20 staff between £60,000 and £140,000. Its chief executive, Xavier Brice, earns between £130,000 and £140,000, up to £25,000 more than the salary Graham Stuart, minister for climate change and net zero, receives.Six Sustrans staff were paid between £90,000 and £100,000, a further 12 were on £60,000 to £70,000, and one employee was on £70,000 to £80,000.The previous year only 11 staff were paid more than £60,000, with Mr Brice then on £120,000-£130,000. In 2018, he was paid £110,000-£120,000, with just three executives paid £60,000-£70,000. Sustrans’ 779 staff numbers run up a total salary bill of £26 million.Some employees are “embedded” in councils, meaning they are based in local authority transport departments to advise on ways to develop cycling infrastructure.‘Deeply concerned’A spokesman for the group Social and Environmental Justice, which highlights what it sees as the “unfairness” of LTNs said: “We are deeply concerned that Sustrans, essentially a cycling lobby group, continues to rake in millions of pounds of public money to help councils push through schemes such as unjust, discriminatory LTNs.“We look forward to the upcoming independent review into LTNs recently announced by the Government.”Joe Ventre, digital campaign manager at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Brits wonder why their money is funding controversial campaigns.“Some charities lobby for contentious policies while receiving taxpayers’ money, all while being exempt from many forms of accountability.“Government should focus funds on taxpayers’ priorities.”‘Value for money’Sustrans, which claims it also represents people who walk, insists it provides value for money.A spokesman said: “As governments, local authorities and organisations across the UK repeatedly appoint Sustrans to roles in design, consultation and review of a wide variety of schemes to make walking and cycling easier and safer, our expertise and value for money is made clear.”

Maggie Dodge ● 1055d

Dearest JaniceI took it upon myself to go check the forum for my posts. Have I really become such a blowhard, always moaning about his encounters with car drivers? There's nothing I want less than to be the velocipede version of the average ChiswickW4.com forumer moaning about the cycle lane! I searched up to September and - besides the one post of 27/10 on this thread, I managed to find this one on the 20th where I wrote what follows: "On the other hand, as somebody who predominantly rides to commute to work, it's REALLY hard not to get worked up sometimes. I try not to get it on my nerves, but at the third time that somebody pulls up in front of you, parks on a lane, or just turns without indicating, checking or crosses the road randomly without checking it's hard not keep cool. "http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=community&link=http://appasp.chiswickw4.com/server/app/forum/ShowMessage.asp?ID=1565402Does it count? Let's say it does. That's twice in a couple of months. And yet you wrote - two, or three times - that I do this every week. But, hey, I'm happy I'm making an impact and I'm delighted you read my posts. Once or thrice per week, as it would seem.Oh, and on the topic of the two people on the bus. I was glossing over it, but since you've now mentioned it twice I'd like to point our that you've misread.My post said: "Indeed yesterday afternoon I did that: I was coming back by bike on Goldhawk road and there was a constant stream of traffic going on South Parade in the opposite direction, then turning onto Turnham Green. All made of cars (and one lone 94 bus) with one, tops 2 people, in them. "By virtue of the fact that the bus is within bracket, and considering that cars is plural - and not the bus, since it's lone - I'd argue that it's pretty clear that it's the cars, not the bus, that had one - tops 2 - people in them. Respectfully,Francis.

Francis Sheehan ● 1054d