Cycling as transport

[il padrone]

CYCLING IN AUSTRALIA: In 1970, nearly all young people in Australia walked, cycled or took public transport to school or university (84%). Few travelled by car (16%). Fast forward to 2011 and most children are now driven to school.

So what has changed in the past 40 years? What can we do to get more children cycling to school? And why does this even matter?

National data are no longer available but in Melbourne, nearly four times as many young people are being driven to school than in 1970. Cycling levels are at an all-time low of 2.6%.

In fact, Australian children are among the most chauffeured young people in the developed world. Out of the total distance 10-14 year olds travel, walking and cycling is used for 33.5% of the distance in the Netherlands, 14.4% in Switzerland and 13.8% in Germany.

In Melbourne (again, there is no national data), it’s 4.6%.

from The Conversation

There is a social disorder afflicting our new parents - parental paranoia. Symptoms indicated by the presence of 'baby on-board' and 'my family' car window stickers and the regular use of SUVs for the 'school-run'. Symptoms are worsened by the mandatory requirements for bicycle helmets, pool fencing, and water filters. Contagious and spread widely via the community's diet of commercial shock-jockery and 'news media'.


BTW a great selection of useful articles and comment on cycling in Australia overall is here.

[Calvin27]

Adults: 1970 people mostly lived within cycling range. Now you try convince average Joe and Josephine to ride 20-40km one way to get to their job while dodging SUVs powered by mums on a mission.

Kids: I used to cycle to primary school everyday rain hail or shine. It was about 4kms one way and we (+ my bro) pretty much rode on the footpath. I remember the giant hill that nowadays isn't so big and there was also an alleyway that you had to sprint through for fear of a nasty german shepherd - it never escaped but we were adamant one day it would break through. Good memories. The problem is now every parent seems to think their kid will die if they don't helicopter them. We had shaky incidents including falling and the odd creepy dude in a commodore (it always was a commodore for some reason) every now and then, a few times one of us crashed and came home all bloody. Parents never really made a fuss about it, just made sure we were confident we knew how to handle the situation and most of all watch for cars and traffic. The fact that a lot of kids also rode made it a lot more pleasant too. We'd run into the same people everyday and say hi and knew we could rely on them if something went wrong.

on MHL, Dad did, however insist on MMHL - Mandatory motorbike helmet laws. They were big, stupid and overkill. All I ever wanted was am orange stack hat that everyone else had - never got one because dad wanted our heads protected, legs and arms were fair game

[lobstermash]

Our kids are dead keen to ride to school. However, there's a horrendously busy road that they have to cross, and the only safe crossing (an underpass) has been closed for about 6 months (and probably at least 6 more to come) to occasionally let machinery drive across it for never ending roadworks.

[il padrone]

The problem is now every parent seems to think their kid will die if they don't helicopter them. We had shaky incidents including falling and the odd creepy dude in a commodore (it always was a commodore for some reason) every now and then, a few times one of us crashed and came home all bloody.

The ever so common myth that perpetrates the thinking of ignorant/misguided parents (and it makes the streets less-safe for everyone else).

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (2005) Personal Safety Survey, of all those who reported having been victimised sexually before the age of 15 years, 11.1 percent were victimised by a stranger. More commonly, child sexual abuse was perpetrated by a male relative (other than the victim’s father or stepfather; 30.2%), a family friend (16.3%), an acquaintance or neighbour (15.6%), another known person (15.3%), or the father or stepfather (13.5%; see Figure 1).

from Australian Instiute of Criminolgy

Parents never really made a fuss about it, just made sure we were confident we knew how to handle the situation and most of all watch for cars and traffic. The fact that a lot of kids also rode made it a lot more pleasant too. We'd run into the same people everyday and say hi and knew we could rely on them if something went wrong.

This is the concept of safety in numbers. It works for all sorts of risks, in particular personal safety on the streets and road safety for vulnerable road users.

[g-boaf]

Adults: 1970 people mostly lived within cycling range. Now you try convince average Joe and Josephine to ride 20-40km one way to get to their job while dodging SUVs powered by mums on a mission.

Kids: I used to cycle to primary school everyday rain hail or shine. It was about 4kms one way and we (+ my bro) pretty much rode on the footpath. I remember the giant hill that nowadays isn't so big and there was also an alleyway that you had to sprint through for fear of a nasty german shepherd - it never escaped but we were adamant one day it would break through. Good memories. The problem is now every parent seems to think their kid will die if they don't helicopter them. We had shaky incidents including falling and the odd creepy dude in a commodore (it always was a commodore for some reason) every now and then, a few times one of us crashed and came home all bloody. Parents never really made a fuss about it, just made sure we were confident we knew how to handle the situation and most of all watch for cars and traffic. The fact that a lot of kids also rode made it a lot more pleasant too. We'd run into the same people everyday and say hi and knew we could rely on them if something went wrong.

on MHL, Dad did, however insist on MMHL - Mandatory motorbike helmet laws. They were big, stupid and overkill. All I ever wanted was am orange stack hat that everyone else had - never got one because dad wanted our heads protected, legs and arms were fair game

Odd creepy dudes seem to get around in black Audi A8s surrounded by a posse of bricks acting as bodyguards, wife and daughter at each arm...

Yeah, anyhow - I think it's just too dangerous in suburbia now with the urban terror vehicles (SUVs) and drivers primed up by shock jocks to hate anything on a bicycle. It will take a lot to change that.

This would change with lower speed limits - eg 25-30km/h for cars and maybe a car is the guest mentality.

[minhyy]

I walked home from my local shops once and at an intersection saw a queue of 7 consecutive parents of differing backgrounds all driving their <10yo kids in 4WD/SUVs :/

[il padrone]

Yeah, anyhow - I think it's just too dangerous in suburbia now with the urban terror vehicles (SUVs) and drivers primed up by shock jocks to hate anything on a bicycle. It will take a lot to change that.

The more people say this, including cycling forum-members, the more it becomes self-fulfilling

A really telling story of the decay in childrens' freedoms to roam over four generations.

When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere.

It was 1926 and his parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without adult supervision.

Fast forward to 2007 and Mr Thomas's eight-year-old great-grandson Edward enjoys none of that freedom. He is driven the few minutes to school, is taken by car to a safe place to ride his bike and can roam no more than 300 yards from home.

[g-boaf]

Yeah, anyhow - I think it's just too dangerous in suburbia now with the urban terror vehicles (SUVs) and drivers primed up by shock jocks to hate anything on a bicycle. It will take a lot to change that.

The more people say this, including cycling forum-members, the more it becomes self-fulfilling

Your lucky I don't get videos of the great driving in my area. LP640s doing 180+km/h (it raced a C63), Various other street racers. I still get about on the bike but not when it's peak hour.

It might not be convenient for your aims - but it is a bad area for dangerous driving.

Occasionally the local law enforcement people will set up a sting to catch them, but it's not all that frequent.

[Drizt]

Riding on the road is dangerous. If it wasn't dangerous there would be no need for 1 meter matters rules. The danger comes from the crazy car drivers that seem to not give a crap about bicyclists safety.

Less cars on the road, more dedicated cycle lanes (not in the dooring zone) and greater driver and cyclist education is the key.

[il padrone]

Give you a clue - riding on the roads was an awful lot more dangerous in the 70s, yet kids all rode to school.

Less cars on the road = faster speeds. Congestion is generally a good thing for cyclists. Lower speed limits (enforced) will achieve this as well.

[Mulger bill]

How about a 500m radius No Stopping zone around all schools and fee reductions for cycling students?
Stick and carrot.

EDIT Before anybody points out the blindingly obvious, permits for local residents can be issued for all but the school zone.

[Drizt]

Give you a clue - riding on the roads was an awful lot more dangerous in the 70s, yet kids all rode to school.

Less cars on the road = faster speeds. Congestion is generally a good thing for cyclists. Lower speed limits (enforced) will achieve this as well.

To be honest I don't care how safe or unsafe it was in the 70's. It is irrelevant.

[human909]

Give you a clue - riding on the roads was an awful lot more dangerous in the 70s, yet kids all rode to school.

Is this correct? Is there evidence that cycling was more dangerous based on hours cycled? (I'm not challenging you, I am just curious.)

Sure driving a car was more dangerous. But with all the cycling that was taking place back then was it really more dangerous?

[Squashed]

Adults: 1970 people mostly lived within cycling range. Now you try convince average Joe and Josephine to ride 20-40km one way to get to their job while dodging SUVs powered by mums on a mission.

most people living in suburbia live within 5km of a school, shopping centre and doctor. Most people also live within 20km of the major city.

---------------------------

Give you a clue - riding on the roads was an awful lot more dangerous in the 70s, yet kids all rode to school.

Is this correct? Is there evidence that cycling was more dangerous based on hours cycled? (I'm not challenging you, I am just curious.)

Sure driving a car was more dangerous. But with all the cycling that was taking place back then was it really more dangerous?

I reckon cycling was safer back in Perth in the 70s. But this wasn't because cars had good brakes or anything like that. It was driver mentality. Back in the 70s cars were used primarily on weekends to take the family to the beach or visit the relatives. And motorists back then were a lot more careful than they are now. If a motorist hit a pedestrian or cyclist they would stop and see if you were ok. These days half of them will drive off swearing at you for getting blood on their tyres, and leave you to die in the street.

The majority of today's motorists really don't give a sit about other people on the road. And if you aren't going to damage their car they have no hesitation about pulling out in front of you. If their vehicle is damaged or they hit someone, they just claim it under insurance and don't give it a second thought.

Personally if I had a choice of cycling in the 70s or now, I would take the 70s any day.

[casual_cyclist]

A really telling story of the decay in childrens' freedoms to roam over four generations.

My sister lets her kids 3 and 7 ride around their neighbourhood, after appropriate training of course. I was with the 3 year old on the road recently and she has more road sense than some adults I know

[casual_cyclist]

CYCLING IN AUSTRALIA: In 1970, nearly all young people in Australia walked, cycled or took public transport to school or university (84%).

It's funny about how we are institutionalised about transport options, walking distance etc. I recently discovered I am walking distance to my local train station (3.1 km, half an hour). It hadn't occured to me that I could walk there even though I walk to the shops and ride to work. I would either bus or drive, which is silly considering the bus can take 15 mins to arrive.

[Mulger bill]

Personally if I had a choice of cycling in the 70s or now, I would take the 70s any day.

Works for me. I was saddled with two rules (beyond "be careful") when out on the bike, A: Be home in time for tea. B: After tea, be home by the time the streetlights went on.

[il padrone]

Give you a clue - riding on the roads was an awful lot more dangerous in the 70s, yet kids all rode to school.

Is this correct? Is there evidence that cycling was more dangerous based on hours cycled? (I'm not challenging you, I am just curious.)

Sure driving a car was more dangerous. But with all the cycling that was taking place back then was it really more dangerous?

We can start with the basic road toll data:



I am not able to find any reliable data on cyclist fatalities covering this period, but certainly the death rates have fallen considerably since the 1980s. In Victoria we have about 7-10 cyclist fatalities per year compared to about 30 per year in the 80s. The 1970s were also not a boom period. Lots of kids were cycling but not many adults. The real cycling boom was in the period from about 1981 to 1990 (followed by a bit of a crash).

From page 2 of this study:

Cyclist deaths – an overview
Since the 1990s, cyclist deaths in road crashes have constituted on average between 2 and 3 per cent of the total deaths in road crashes in Australia. In the 1990s, the number of cyclist deaths ranged from 40 to 80 per year. In the 2000s so far (2000 to 2005), the range has been from 26 to 46 per year (Figure 1).

This suggests a 50% decline nationally since the 1980s.

[il padrone]

To be honest I don't care how safe or unsafe it was in the 70's. It is irrelevant.

Far from it, as it gives some indication that the dangers were perceived in a very different light by parents of that era. So much of the problem is really one of perceptions rather than reality.

As with the 'stranger danger' and that by far most cases of child abuse are caused by family, friends neighbours and other known people. But the percepotion (trotted out all the time by our media and various shock groups) is of the creep on the street. A complete falsehood in the main.

Similarly the 'problem' of greater traffic danger. It ain't real.

[Drizt]

The danger levels now are all that matters to me. The cars that nearly hit me are real. Unless you are telling me they only exist in my mind.

[Mulger bill]

Methinks it's time this copped another airing...

Image courtesy Rick Smith and the Kickstand.

[Squashed]

re: a decrease in cycling road fatalities between 70s and now.
The graph may show a decline in fatalities but that is not because of motorist behavior. It is my opinion that the decline is from better medical support after the accident, and quicker response times from emergency services.
It is also my opinion there are more accidents involving cyclists and motorists now than back in the 70s. This is from significantly more motorists on the road and more distractions for those motorists, eg: phones, ipods, etc.

---------------------------------------------

A really telling story of the decay in childrens' freedoms to roam over four generations.

My sister lets her kids 3 and 7 ride around their neighbourhood, after appropriate training of course. I was with the 3 year old on the road recently and she has more road sense than some adults I know

In my opinion, any child under 8 should not be allowed to ride a bike in public, unless on a suitable path with adult supervision. Children see differently to adults and up to the age of 8, they have tunnel vision and only see what is directly in front of them. They do not see things on their sides. This puts young children at particular risk of being hit by things or having the child ride into something on their side.

[il padrone]

Not so much the under 8's that I am concered about (although my son aged 7 was the one to shout out loudly at a car about to pull out toward us, that I had not noticed). It's the 8-18 yo children, who in the past used bikes for basic transport about the suburb, mostly on residential back streets - we had some nouse to be able to avoid the main highways when we could. These kids are hamstrung today by parental paranoia.

[koshari]

As far as kids riding bikes to school, its not politically correct now because kids may get hurt, they are also forbidden for climbing trees and the monkeybars have a big fence round them.

Also kids must be driven to school so as the yummy mummy brigade have a distraction from their daily fashion parade.

[koshari]

It's the 8-18 yo children, who in the past used bikes for basic transport about the suburb, mostly on residential back streets

the only rule we had as kids was to be home before the streetlighting came on, otherwise a rap over the ass with a length of Hotwheels track ensured. its abazing how quick the old hotfoot could go it i saw a streetlight in the distance begin firing up.