I started writing this first thing this morning, and it's been
interesting watching the debate develop since I began to work out what I
wanted to say. John M, I think your comments on different types of
users/non-users and owners/non-owners of bicycles are very pertinent to
the question of how to change things. I interviewed c100 bike owners
10+ years ago about their travel choices - most of them driving to work
for much of the time, though we skewed the sample a bit towards
workplaces where cycling was supported institutionally and culturally.
We deliberately only spoke with people who owned a bike so as to
overcome the problem that starting to cycle would be a bigger step
change for those who would have to consciously make that purchase
decision first.
Aside from that aspect, what isn't commented on in the new research
report/debate is the degree to which you can treat non-cyclists' reasons
for not cycling at face value, and assume that removal of the barriers
they claim prevent them from cycling would straightforwardly solve the
problem and lead them to immediately start cycling.
I was persuaded by the way people responded in my research that the
majority of explanations for why they didn't cycle were simply
rationalisations of the fact that it was easier, more convenient, even
more enjoyable to use other means (mainly car), compounded by various
other factors such as journey distance, complexity of trips involving
other family members, etc. When people claimed that helmet hair, messy
clothing, sweatiness and lack of showers at work, poor parking
facilities etc were the reason for not cycling, I saw no evidence that
if you overcame each if these barriers one by one it would result in
behaviour change. Rather, a new barrier would be likely to then pop up
to explain their lack of cycling.
Ease, convenience and enjoyability were the same benefits that explained
the behaviour of those who mainly cycled to work, too, which led me to
see social marketing as the model that cycling promotion needs to adopt,
rather than planning and environmentalism - i.e. it's necessary to sell
the benefits of cycling to those who currently only see those benefits
in driving. There may be things about the experience of cycling that
are needed to change in order to demonstrate and reinforce those
benefits - which is where the arguments then kick in about what those
things are.
To test this, it would be useful I think to do research that engages
critically and practically with the things non-regular users say, e.g.
take a cohort of non-bicycle users through a process of becoming
confident on a bike, in traffic, so they lost their fear of traffic, as
a start. Would they then start to cycle everywhere? I'm not entirely
convinced they would!
Paul
|