in which there is a large increase in cyclists in London 6


don’t think I bothered looking at the most recent of TfL’s annual Attitudes Towards Cycling report when it came out. They tend to say much the same thing each time: only a small portion of the population, disproportionately male, disproportionately 25-50, get around by bicycle; everyone else thinks that the roads and the drivers on them are too crap. But I just looked it up to confirm what I was saying when referencing it was true.

This amused.

Change in definition of cyclists from pre- to post-July 2010

Previous definition: Cycled in the past year
Current definition: Cycled, even if not in the last year, but does say they use a bicycle to get around London

“Regular cyclist”
Previous definition: All who cycle at least 3 times per week
Current definition: All who cycle at least once a week

“Occasional cyclist”
Previous definition: Cycle at least once a month, less often than three times a week
Current definition: Cycle at least once in the last year, less often than once a week

Previous definition: Never cycles, or not in the last year
Current definition: Never cycles

(I’m assuming that the report’s compilers recalculated the previous years’ figures when making the graph, but it amused me to attach the graph anyway and insinuate that they might not have done :D)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 thoughts on “in which there is a large increase in cyclists in London

  • David Hembrow

    Well spotted. No wonder cycling is "booming".All that can be believed is the actual modal share and the actual number of bikes travelling as recorded by automated counters running for 365 days in the same spot. All else is open to this sort of "interpretation".

  • David Hembrow

    And another thing… presumably these are survey questions. It’s impossible to go back and re-do the old surveys with the new questions, and impossible to calculate from the result of one set of questions what the result from the other might be. Therefore, the graph must be misleading.

  • AJ

    Agree with David they can’t have re-jigged the old figures as the survey questions would have been different.Therefore the assumption can only be that the last numbers are simple not directly comparable with the previous ones.

  • Anonymous

    The survey answers are (and have presumably always been):5 or more days a week3-4 days a week2 days a weekOnce a weekOnce a fortnightOnce a monthLess often than once a monthWithin the last six monthsWithin the last 12 monthsNot in the last twelve monthsSo I assume that all they have done is changed how these answers get grouped into different categories of "cyclist", and recalculated previous years for the new groups. Innocent until proven otherwise, anyway.

  • AJ

    Ahh that’s good info and you’re right it MIGHT even mean that they’ve recalculated the numbers!

  • instography

    I suppose if they redefined it again so that everyone who had ever learned to ride a bike, even if they haven’t even looked at one in the past decade, is a cyclist, they could reach Dutch levels of cycling.