Are we cycling less (or getting older)?
- Share
It’s good to see some statisticians have taken a look at Gillham and Rissel’s surprising (and depressing!) claim that per capita cycling levels have fallen significantly in Australia over the last 27 years.
As I discussed last month (Are Australians cycling less?), Chris Gillham and Chris Rissel reported recently that the number of cyclists fell on a per capita basis “by 37.5% between 1986 and 2011.” They estimated this outcome by comparing the results of a mail-out survey undertaken in 1986 against a telephone survey done in 2011.
Professor Rissel says the drop was most likely due to the mandatory helmet legislation introduced in Australia in the early 1990s. “Well over a half a million more Australians could be riding bicycles”, he says, “if we didn’t have mandatory helmet laws.”
A group of researchers led by Jake Olivier from the School of Mathematics and Statistics at UNSW challenges the significance of that finding in an article published yesterday on The Drum.
Using the same data, they confirm the conclusion I drew last month (Are Australians cycling less?) that Gillham and Rissel significantly over-estimated the extent of the decline. The correct figure isn’t 37.5%, it’s 22% (I estimated 24% but I’m not going to argue).
But Olivier et al reckon there’s an obvious explanation for the per capita fall (no one disputes cycling rates increased in absolute terms over the period). They say it can largely be explained by the ageing of the Australian population over the 27 year period between the two surveys.
That’s because people cycle less as they get older. They say:
After adjusting for the overall ageing of the population between the 1985/86 survey and the 2011 survey, the per capita cycling trip rate has actually increased by eight per cent.
As I read it, Olivier and his colleagues aren’t disputing that the surveys cited by Gillham and Rissel show cycling fell in total in per capita terms (i.e. by 22%). Rather, they’re saying it probably doesn’t reflect a loss of interest in cycling or a failure of policy, but is most likely due to exogenous demographic changes:
The apparent drop in the crude cycling trip rates reported by Gillham and Rissel is more than adequately accounted for by demographic shift in our ageing population. There is no need to speculate about lack of investment in cycling infrastructure as a cause for a decline in cycling participation, and absolutely no need to invoke the bogeyman of mandatory bicycle helmet laws.
So in a sense both parties are right. But it’s a like a theological debate because it takes it on faith that valid conclusions can be drawn from the two surveys. As I said before (here), I don’t think the data is good enough to draw definitive conclusions. Olivier et al acknowledge that point:
Of course, we should not put too much store in any of these figures – the two surveys on which these calculations were based differ in several important ways, and like all such surveys, each has its own margin of error, which we haven’t been able to estimate from the information available.
Not surprisingly, discussion around the Gillham & Rissel and Olivier et al articles is already mired in an often intense and vitriolic debate for and (mostly) against the mandatory helmet law. Whatever the merits of each side of that argument, the source data relied on here is too flaky to support (or undermine) either position.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Two other factors that affect cycling rates are fitness (in 1995, the earliest numbers I could find, 63.8% of the population were overweight or obese, in 2011 it’s 67.7%) and number of cars per 1000 people (567 in 1985, 730 in 2011).
Both these factors will also reduce cycling rates in the population.
We absolutely agree that the problems with the comparability of the two surveys mean that definite conclusions about changes in cycling participation should not be drawn from *any* analysis of them. We did not attempt to publish our re-analysis in the peer-reviewed literature for this reason. However, the issue of the comparability of the two surveys notwithstanding, we were concerned to correct the mathematically incorrect results reported in the media, and to point out that it is unnecessary to blame lack of investment in cycling infrastructure and/or the cycling helmet laws for an apparent decline in the crude per capita cycling trip rate (based on these surveys), when demographic change adequately accounts for such a decline. In our opinion, Occam’s razor ought to apply. We think it is drawing a very long bow indeed to form any conclusions at all, no matter how tentative, about the effect of helmet laws, or about the effect of cycling infrastructure investment, or relative lack thereof, from just two data points separated by 25 years of demographic, economic, social and built environment change.
Agree with Tim Churches (for once) that the surveys don’t prove much about cycling participation, other than that any increase (“boom”) is small if it exists at all – a “boom” would show up if it was big enough.
The real argument against helmet laws is in more recent data such as the calculation of de Jong which shows that only a 1 or 2% depression of cycling trips results in helmet law being a net cost to the health system. With around 20,000 fines issued to cyclists for not wearing a helmet each year in Victoria alone, it would be hard to believe that helmet laws are not on balance costing the health system money.
As The Urbanist mentions, there is a “vitriolic” debate. So why do people push the argument “mostly against” helmet laws? Because they don’t like helmet laws. That in itself is strong evidence for the laws being a disincentive for cycling.
With no advertising budget, we are gathering signatures at http://www.freestylecyclists.org at a steady pace, every signature is more evidence of the damaging effect of helmet laws on health, on the transport systems and on our cities.
Refs:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html
Tim Churches:
That is what any sensible person (ahem like me in most posts on this subject for the last several years) has concluded.
At the same time, one can say that good (meaning safe, meaning segregated) cycling infrastructure would encourage more cycling, and inter alia make the helmet argument redundant (as it deserves). Why? Because there is plenty of hard evidence around the world. And no, one doesn’t have to turn to places with exceptional cycling habits and infrastructure (though Denmark’s has been a quite recent conversion so it is not silly to look at their experience) but look at places that were strong domains of aggressive car drivers, namely Paris. The transformation of NYC is another on-going test case; they are about to introduce a ($47M) cycle scheme.
Slight change of topic:
This is a horrible problem for city dwellers and was the main reason why I did not replace my stolen bicycle when I lived in Paris. I couldn’t possibly fit my cycle inside my tiny studio without it driving me crazy so I locked it to the stairwell iron balustrade (which the thieves took with my bike attached! –the story is actually more complicated).
Probably this issue is even more significant than the helmet issue when it comes to popularity of free cycle schemes like in Paris Velib system: safely housing one’s cycle at home is a big enough bore but ensuring its safety when you are out and about is just tedious beyond endurance. I know it would be the major reason why I would use a city cycle rather than my own bike. Of course cycle design itself is partly to blame–why the heck do no designers bother with this issue, instead making most modern cycles a casual thief’s smorgasbord?
This raises several questions.
Has they aging of the average age of parents contributed to the lowering of the cycling rate for children?
Would better infrastructure encourage older people to cycle?
Are electric-assist bicycles the answer?
As an ‘older person’, let me say that what would encourage me to cycle more has nothing to do with helmets (an utter non-issue) but has a lot to do with the need for: complete separation of cycleways from cars; someone to go to the trouble to familiarise us with these cycleways so we know how to use them to get from A to B without getting completely lost or taking much more time than necessary; more discretionary time to allow for more travel time; more daylight to avoid riding home in the dark; weather protection; changing facilities at work; electric-assist for the up-hills; and carrying capacity not only for spare clothes, but for briefcase, shopping, etc. (Yes, I’ve seen the images of cargo bikes!) Main issue is probably time and complexities of life. Do I want to get up earlier in the morning? Do I really want the hassle of getting dressed twice every day? Do I want to limit my flexibility in what I do and where I go after work? A bus trip costs me $1.76, 25 min., and I don’t have to change clothes. May sound petty, but that’s how it works. My gym is full of women like me whose day is devoted to seeing how many demands we can meet — hence our cycling takes place several times a week on ‘spin’ bikes, in an indoor environment without having to worry about dodging traffic, getting wet, getting to work on time, getting home before dark, or carrying stuff home from the shops.
If cycling rates fall in Australia as people get older, the question ought to be why? In cycle-civilised countries, it would appear that this phenomenon does not occur, or if it does, is not significant. Cycling in many countries seems to be a lifelong habit, so why do people in Australia give up? The perceived danger and the helmet law are probably as good candidates as any.
Margo – you forgot reliability / punctures. Feeling older, this year I decided to use the car to get to the beach whenever the morning temperature is below ten degrees. This morning it was below 2 degrees and as I motored down the road I spied a cyclist, under a streetlight (still dark at 6.30am) trying to fix a puncture. It’s a wonder his fingers worked enough to do anything. I get about 3 punctures a year and see plenty of other cyclists repairing punctures; well, it’s only the fanatics who’ll be prepared to do that.
maybe he thinks the joy of cycling outweighs the occasional puncture Boscombe, doesn’t make him a fanatic. And you’d get less punctures if you pumped up your tyres
Margo & boscombe,
these inconveniences (some real, some perceived) tend to be balanced out by advantages like:
- always being able to park directly outside of your destination and not have to pay for the privilege, or spend your time stressing about time restrictions
- regularly faster travel times than cars in peak hour, particularly when you can use a combination of roads and cyclepaths to bypass traffic, and
- superior adaptability to circumstances e.g. if there’s a crash on a key route, you don’t get screwed over by it and can easily find an alternative route.
Boscombe, if you seriously get 3 punctures a year then surely it’s worth considering getting more suitable tyres – even if they slow you down a fraction. I went 10 years riding regularly without a single puncture. Then I bought a new bike, and had three punctures within a couple of months! I upgraded to thicker-walled tyres and have been puncture free since, and even if the new tyres slow me down by .5% (I certainly can’t notice it), my overall travel times are definitely improved now I don’t have to stop to patch the holes.
FWIW, I can certainly accept that the inconveniences/difficulties of riding a bike become more serious as we get older. But Australians in general have a long way to go before they are riding bikes at anything like the level generally seen in other countries ( U.S. is the only other country I’ve been to where bicycles are not a common mode of transport), so even allowing for an aging population, there’s no excuse for bicycling not becoming more common in this country.
I suspect a major factor leading to reduced cycling over the past couple of decades is our increasing car ownership – partly because we are more affluent, partly because cars are cheaper as a percentage of average wage, partly because new urban developments are so car centric in their design. 2 or more cars per household is now the norm. When I was a kid, most families had one car, and if you wanted to get anywere as a kid, you rode.
As an adult, I started riding when I hit 30 (and my weight hit 100kg). When our family had 2 cars, any excuse would do (too windy, might rain, too hot, too cold etc), so that I was riding perhaps 2.5 days per week. We made a conscious decision to become a one car family, and for the last 10 years, I have ridden pretty much every day. Work is a slightly less than 20km round trip, takes very little longer than driving, and I never get held up for long periods at the level crossings. I ride on quiet backstreets and bike paths for nearly the whole trip, so feels safer than driving. I have double layer kevlar belted tyres (approx $40 each), and average less than one puncture per year. Financially this has saved us around $100K over 15 years. I am 10kg lighter than I was at 30, and am much fitter and healthier and are very happy about it.
I an curious to see if tougher economic circumstances will translate into higher bike use, or if people now see driving as their only option, and will sacrifice other things rather than look for alternatives to driving.
SBH – I think most people looking at the cyclist, in the dark, in the freezing cold, repairing his puncture would consider him a fanatic. (But then, they would think I was a fanatic for going to the beach for a swim … each to his own).
My tyres, and tubes, are the most puncture resistant!, plus there’s a strip of kevlar, or something, in between them, plus there’s some gunk in the tubes … but unfortunately I have to cycle through Fremantle, where the path is always covered in shattered glass. (Four letters, with photographic evidence about the state of the path, this year – no joy).
I want to try solid tyres, but my local cycle shop refuses to get them in and fit them. Just one more example of how the kind of bikes available doesn’t suit the needs of the non-lycra set.
My fifth letter will go to the Premier and ask that the government stops funding cycle paths ’till they have corrected the policy failure of paying for the construction of paths without working out how those paths will be properly maintained.
Boscombe, the ‘lyrca set’ don’t drive demand for tyres. If we did you’d all be riding on singles. Of course you could go ‘on line’ and order whatever kind of tyre you like – buy some wooden rims while you’re at it – and whatever kind of bicycle you like, there’d have to be thousands of them. Or you could keep railing against the night by berating one particular kind of cyclist you just happen not to like.
It’s an interesting juxtaposition though isn’t it. Nobody calls you a ‘fanatic’ for enjoying a morning swim. I’m guessing nobody lambastes you for wearing your (lycra?? speedo style??) racing swim suit. Nobody accuses you of being a middle aged idiot trying to emulate your iron man heroes as you swim.
SBH – not berating anybody, but the cycle shops I’ve been to have 10 times the number of racing bikes to other kinds. Presumably they know their business, and it’s cycling enthusiasts (and fanatics) who are cycling and not the wider population, especially older people. My local shop won’t get solid tyres in: “too hard to fit”. If it’s too hard for him, it’s certainly too hard for me.
The sight of that poor cyclist standing in the freezing cold, and dark, trying to fix a puncture would have done more to turn the average person (motoring by) off cycling then anyone’s opinions. People do say I’m a fanatic for swimming on cold winter mornings, but I grew up on a beach and it’s a habit I can’t give up.
so live and let live and stop calling people names. And find a bike shop that takes better care of their customers.
SBH – wasn’t calling anyone names. Here’s the Macquarie dictionary’s first definition of fanatic:
noun 1. a person who is extremely enthusiastic about or devoted to an activity, practice, etc.: a skiing fanatic; a health fanatic.
Anyone who is riding a bike around in the early morning dark, when it is 1.5 degrees, where you will very likely get a puncture, could be called a cycling fanatic!
I would like to find a good bike shop, but I might have to go to Melbourne to do that.
Yes I agree because of cars and less fitness, there exist a decrease rate in a cycle riding. But it is very necessary to ride a cycle daily as it help us to maintain our health and also help to reduce pollution.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.