Unlikely that Kings Cross would have had any effect....that was in 2007!  
And, ummm, interlinking of modal share....that's a systems dynamic effect (a methodology that doesn't exist in the transport planning arena...but would be really really interesting!).

I'd note the data is not mine, it's issued by ProdCom (the trade data section at NatStats).  The data has been ignored by most but I've been compiling it for some years now.  

Sales rose steadily, from 1.6m in 1996, right through the late 90's until 2004.  Since then it drifted down from that 3.8m peak (with a minor recovery in 2006) to 2.9m in 2009.  

I think the  current peak reflects an increase in interest in road racing, and is likely to be temporary.  I'd note that, prior to Halfords closing down it's Bike Hut operation (in 2009/10) orders for Boardman road race bikes were on 5 month backlog.  I'd also note that magazines like Cycle Plus nowadays have virtually no adverts for mountain bikes nowadays.  There's also a big shift to road based hybrids (at least in the London area) and increased interest in folding bikes.  

What I think we're seeing, in terms of sales, is a more sophisticated cycle consumer buying/acquiring bikes to meet specific (and different compared to recent years) needs/aspirations, rather than just what they have been sold through the 90's.  

Two of the numbers I've been trying to determine from these stats is total ownership, i.e. the size of the UK cycle fleet, along with individual ownership.  Part of the reason for this is that I don't believe that sales above 3m are sustainable in the long term.....once current re-equipping is over sales will fall to a more stable "replacement" level, with a smaller "new owners" element on top.  My local surveys on ownership suggest that average cycle ownership is, currently, two with folder owners owning three.

A couple of years ago, using a "life cycle" approach to analyse sales since 1996, I got a total in the region of 40m bikes in the UK.  Based on an (admittedly) small sample in our area, that rises towards something closer to 50m (hence my interest in obtaining ownership numbers from surveys), though I wouldn't be surprised if it's higher.

Given the relatively low regular usage for individual bikes that suggests that a very high proportion of of the fleet remain unused...a stranded asset.  Economically, therefore, we would be better off bringing in schemes to increase fleet usage rather than investing in high cost schemes such as the Boris Bike scheme....  It would be much cheaper to increase good quality secure cycle parking at prime destinations and workplaces and schools, particularly at public transport hubs, to hoover up some of the unused cycle asset.

If, as I believe, that the "average" British cycle owner has been re-equipping in recent years, then 3.7m cycle sales is unlikely to be sustained....at least in the medium to long term (though it's entirely possible, if there's continued interest in road/race bikes, that this figure will be maintained into 2012).  

Combine that with the likely squeeze in incomes then, beyond this, sales to existing cycle owners will slow, with growth only in much smaller, new cyclist, market segments.  

I also think there's some value in considering the "life of a bike"....how long to owners keep their bikes, what do they use them for and do they, as many do, adapt their older bikes for utility purposes at the end of their primary life?  

That said adaption has become more difficult since the demise of non-suspension mountain bikes (suspension bikes are not so easy to add racks to) which might push some to buy new, but cheap, road based hybrids, for their utility needs, adding to sales volumes.

One of the philosophical planks on which Cycling England was built was application of marketing techniques.  I agree.  Understanding who existing cycle owners are and what they use bikes for (and what they want to use bikes for) is a key bit of market information needed to define and target effective, and cost-effective measures to stimulate cycling.  In reality this was never done...it just translated into hobbyism and a self-serving political agenda.

In truth I just haven't seen any real market analysis of British cyclists yet...not from Cycling England or anyone else...despite the propaganda coming out of the UK's cycling organizations......

Cheers

John Meudell
C.Eng, MIMechE
Research Associate
Swansea University





-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pardo
Sent: 20 September 2011 17:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The British cycling economy

Has the Kings Cross bombing have anything to do with 2004 sales boost? I'm mentioning it out of sheer ignorance of the whole issue but it may be a factor. 

Pardo

Typed on keyboard projected onto a glass surface. Please excuse typos. 

On 20/09/2011, at 10:54, Mike Cavenett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Sorry, I missed the earlier discussion
> 
> Did you say why bikes sales have declined since 2004?
> 
> I don't doubt your figures, but I would have guessed that increases in modal share (at least in some areas such as Greater London) and Cycle To Work sales would have boosted sales during the period 2004-2011
> 
> cheers
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> On 20 Sep 2011, at 13:14, John Meudell wrote:
> 
>> Just a quicky correction.
>> 
>> I got an e-mail from ProdCom today, following my enquiry of a few weeks ago regarding official 2010 trade data for bicycles (the reply then was that they hadn’t yet produced data for 2010…and were already two months late).  This time they confirmed they’d made an error in transferring data to the (Division 30 trade stats) publication…..and do now have the necessary data!!
>> 
>> What they do confirm, however, is that cycle sales in 2010 were 3,724,992; and the total (import) value is £304,095,000.  So the stats on cycle sales in the above report are actually correct….but total sales value is miles out….unless there’s been a mark-up of about 5.3 on the official dockside figure.
>> 
>> I’d note that, contrary to the headlines, this still does not exceed the level of sales achieved in 2004, which was 3.8m, the highest recorded figure in recent history (I can supply a plot (or data) showing bicycle sales volumes from 1997 to 2010).
>> 
>> I’m still of the view that this report is somewhat simplistic and misleading in a number of areas (highlighted by myself and others then).
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> John Meudell
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: john meudell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 25 August 2011 11:55
>> To: 'Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list'
>> Subject: RE: The British cycling economy
>> 
>> Ok, done the sums.
>> 
>> First point, table 4 and 5 cycle sales and value, along with associated  assumptions.
>> 
>> As I mentioned, cycle sales have been in decline for a couple of years, with 2009 sales 2.91m at an average import price of £78.65 per unit, giving a total import value of £229.6m.  Now, accepting the report is correct, that cycle sales in 2010 are 3.7m (noting ProdCom provisional 2010 data is not due for release until about now), and assuming a 5% increase in import price (£82.58), that would make the total value of cycle imports in 2010 £305m.
>> 
>> If the value of retail sales were as suggested, £1.62Bn, that would imply an import to retail margin of 430%, making cycling probably the most profitable trade in the UK (so why did Halfords pull the Bike Hut concept…?).
>> 
>> That is not reality.  Noting that the cycle retailers margin on the average cycle is somewhere in the region of 40%, total real margin on bikes through the entire supply chain is probably not more than, at best, 200% over import price, making total UK retail cycle sales no more than £915m, considerably below that suggested.
>> 
>> Given this discrepancy, I would want to see sound confirmation of revenues in the other segments of cyclists spend in these two tables.
>> 
>> (Note:  I do have a plot of cycle sales since 1997, constructed from ProdCom data, but the configuration of this server means I can’t send it.  That said, I’m sure someone can suggest a way of getting it out to you.)
>> 
>> I’d also note the use of the term “Gross Cycling Product” (one assumes an attempt to (pseudo-) relate to Gross Domestic Product).  In a gross domestic product calculation, import cost is subtracted from the output price…..in which case the GDP sales value quoted should really be £610m.
>> 
>> The second major point I have is in the use of discounted cash flow and NPV.  Discounted cash flow only has relevance in comparative investment appraisal….NPV has no meaning in terms of real money and anything besides internal investment appraisal.  Here we seem to have an analysis that combines a calculation of a benefit in 2010, then tries to calculate a component over a ten year life cycle on a discounted basis….I note with no investment attached to it.  Given I’ve spent the best part of 30 years involved with capital project appraisal I find the approach somewhat weird!
>> 
>> In the same vein, I also find it hard to understand the choice of discount rates, given that government (presumably the target audience) use only a single, well publicised, discount rate to be found in the Treasury “Green Book”.  This is currently 3.5% (where “project” cost and revenue streams are up to 30 years)….so why generate three arbitrary rates that have little application except outside of private sector internal investment appraisal?
>> 
>> Furthermore, the DCF analysis only considers the “savings” in the context of “employment”, but doesn’t consider the “investment” required to achieve that outcome….the calculated result being therefore somewhat optimistic (though, presumably, the assumption is that the only costs would be cycle sales).
>> 
>> Finally, in terms of the analysis, other major benefits, such as overall health and congestion, are ignored, arguably benefits much larger than the pure employment aspects.  I would, however, note that to date, evaluations of these two have been poor to non-existent.
>> 
>> The only thing I do find encouraging is the attempt to assemble benefits and costs in a systematic manner, albeit very crudely.  That approach, and the report, is let down by gaping holes in the evaluation stemming from, in my view, likely crude and self-interested aims of the sponsors, combined with lack of knowledge of the authors.
>> 
>> I have to say I find the errors and omissions highlighted above worrying.  Even within the limitations of this particular analysis, the author has failed to use solid trade and economic data that is freely available and should be well known to staff at LSE.
>> 
>> UK Treasury and other analysts are not stupid.  Like the SQW analysis commissioned by Cycling England a couple of years back, analysis like this actually has the opposite effect of that desired, and undermines not only the arguments for improvements for cyclists, but also the credibility of those cycling sector arguments ….with the consequence that we’re even less likely to be listened to than we are now…….
>> 
>> Must try harder………a lot harder!
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> John Meudell
>> C.Eng, MIMechE
>> Swansea University
> 
> 
> 
> [log in to unmask]
> 07939 606359
> 
> 39 Brailsford Road
> London
> SW2 2TB