perspectives and images of cycling as a barrier or facilitator of cycling
TRANSCRIPT
Transport Policy 18 (2011) 211–216
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transport Policy
0967-07
doi:10.1
n Corr
Health S
2050, A
E-m
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol
Perspectives and images of cycling as a barrier or facilitator of cycling
Michelle Daley a, Chris Rissel a,b,na Health Promotion Service, Sydney South West Area Health Service, Level 9 North, King George V, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australiab School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Available online 25 August 2010
Keywords:
Cycling
Qualitative research
Physical activity
0X/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2
016/j.tranpol.2010.08.004
esponding author at: Health Promotion Serv
ervice, Level 9 North, King George V, Missend
ustralia. Tel.: +61 0 2 9515 9055; fax: +61 0
ail address: [email protected] (C. Riss
a b s t r a c t
The public images of cycling can act as barriers or facilitators of cycling. This qualitative study explored
images and perceptions of cycling, their potential influence on cycling and whether these views differed
between regular, occasional and non-riders.
Seventy participants (24 males and 46 females) were recruited. Of these, 22 were classified as non-
riders, 23 were occasional riders and 25 were regular riders. Twelve focus groups were held in inner
Sydney during October and November 2005. Data were audio taped, transcribed and thematically
analysed.
Themes linked to images of cycling included: ‘clean and green’; ‘healthy and fun’; ‘dangerous’ and
‘serious business’. Themes linked to images of cyclists included: ‘risk takers and law breakers’ and
‘status and sub-cultures’. Discussion centred on the low social status of riding over other transport
modes, the relative acceptability of different riding sub-cultures, the ‘green’ image of cycling transport
and the status associated with the riders clothing and bicycle choice, especially lycra and its ‘serious
and sporty’ connotation.
While ‘cycling’ was generally viewed as a positive, environmentally friendly activity, the actions of
some ‘cyclists’ were disliked, which influenced views about cycling, particularly among non-riders. A
cycling acceptability hierarchy emerged; with recreational riding at the top, followed by cycling for
sport and exercise, with transport/commuter cycling towards the bottom. Bicycle couriers were viewed
least favourably. A common perception among non-riders was the latter two groups were rule breakers
and risk takers, while regular riders felt unfairly judged by this stereotype.
While there was greater acceptance of recreational riding, riding for transport was not viewed as a
mainstream activity. There is a need to improve the public acceptability of cycling and change public
norms so it is seen as an everyday activity that can be undertaken by almost anyone, without the need
for special clothing, expensive equipment or limited to purpose built facilities.
Crown Copyright & 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the 21st century, there are many reasons why riding abicycle is to be widely encouraged. Regular cycling can lead toimproved health and well-being, less pollution and trafficcongestion (Austroads, 2005). However, there are many barriersto cycling in urban environments (Bauman et al., 2008), somerelating to a lack of physical infrastructure, and some beingperceptual or psychological (Daley et al. 2007).
These barriers are not static and vary from person to personand their experiences of cycling. For example, many non-ridersreport significant safety concerns for why they do not ride, yetthese concerns diminish with road riding experience (Rissel et al.,2002). Other fears of cycling include the fear of being ‘on view’and feeling vulnerable when being active in public spaces, afraid
010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All
ice, Sydney South West Area
en Road, Camperdown, NSW
2 9515 9056.
el).
of appearing inept or embarrassed on a bicycle (Horton, 2007).There are also many different kinds of cycling, namely touring,utility riding and commuting, racing, mountain-biking, or recrea-tional cycling. Each of these styles of cycling has its own uniquefeatures and each can generate a range of images and impressions,which are in turn affected by the experiences of the observer(Horton et al., 2007).
The public images of cycling – how we view cyclists – can alsoact as barriers or facilitators of cycling. The perception of a cyclistas ‘‘brave’’, ‘‘fit’’, ‘‘environmentally friendly’’, or ‘‘foolish’’, ‘‘incon-siderate’’ or ‘‘hazardous’’ can influence a non-rider’s choice ofwhether to ride or not in different contexts (Skinner and Rosen,2007). Similarly, the self-identity of cyclists can attract andsustain cycling in certain sub-groups. For example, the rulebreaking and lawless image of bicycle couriers attracts peoplewho want to see themselves as unconventional and ‘cool’ withinthat sub-culture, while for others this image is very negative(Fincham, 2007).
Relatively little research has been conducted into how cyclingand cyclists are viewed, and how this might influence people to
rights reserved.
M. Daley, C. Rissel / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 211–216212
ride or not ride. Qualitative research has explored generalfacilitators and barriers to cycling (Greig, 2001; Daley et al.,2007) or developed market segmentation for types of rides(e.g. Davies et al., 1997), but few have focused specificallyon images of cycling. This paper examines perspectives andimages of cycling and their potential influences on cycling inSydney, Australia.
1.1. Cycling in Sydney
In 2005, 42% of Sydney households owned at least 1 bicycle, upfrom 37% in 2001. (RTA, 2008). However, Sydney has the lowestrate of bicycle ownership (0.29 bicycles per capita in 2004), ofcapital cities in Australia (Pucher et al. 2010). Bicycle tripsaccounted for 0.71% of weekday and 1.10% of weekend trips, a 23%growth of weekday and 58% growth of weekend cycling from2001 (RTA, 2008). Bicycle mode share varies by proximity to theSydney Business District, with bicycle trips accounting for 3–4% oftrips in the inner city areas compared with less than 1% in outerSydney (New and Rissel, 2008). The primary purpose of mostcycling trips is social or recreational (53%), although duringweekdays commuting is the second largest bicycle trip purpose(19%) (RTA, 2008). The majority of Sydney bike trips took less than20 min. In Sydney, only 17% of bicycle work trips are by womenand 83% are by men (Pucher et al., 2010). Moreover, only 1% ofSydney residents report to cycle everyday, the lowest level of anycapital city. Sydney’s topography is relatively hilly with transportroutes affected by the large central harbour and many inlets andrivers that limit overall connectivity (Pucher et al., 2010). AcrossAustralia, a survey conducted by the Standing Committee onRecreation and Sport found cycling was the fourth most popularphysical activity with 1,682,800 (10.1%) of people over 15 yearsold participating in cycling in 2006, with more people cyclingregularly (i.e. twice a week) than running or swimming (Baumanet al., 2008).
Table 1Description of groups and number of participants.
Group Rider type Gender Age range (years) Number ofparticipants
1 Non Female 18–49 5
2 Occasional Female 30–49 4
3 Regular Male 30–59 6
4 Non Female 18–59 6
5 Regular Female 40–60+ 3
6 Occasional Male 30–59 4
7 Non Female 18–59 11
8 Regular Male 30–49 3
9 Occasional Female 30–59 8
10 Occasional Female 18–60+ 7
11 Regular Mixed 40–59 6
12 Regular Male 30–60+ 7
Total 70
2. Methods
2.1. Research participants
As this was a qualitative study, we only required a smallnumber of participants to explore the topic in depth and it wasappropriate to purposively sample and assign participants togroups based on the characteristics of interest. We aimed torecruit adults who lived or worked in inner Sydney throughworkplaces, advertisements in local media and during bicycleweek events. Respondents rang a central telephone number, werescreened for gender and riding status, then offered the mostconvenient date and time to attend a focus group that matchedtheir characteristics. All participants were offered a $25 giftvoucher. Sydney South West Area Health Service, Marrickville andLeichhardt Councils jointly funded the study. The Leichhardt andMarrickville Council areas are both within 5 km of the SydneyCBD, have populations of 51,000 and 76,000, respectively, and arerelatively affluent, ranking 19th and 60th (respectively) of 175New South Wales local government areas in terms of socio-economic status based on average household incomes (HealthPromotion Service, 2006).
In this study we selected three types of riders (non-riders,occasional riders and regular riders) across both genders.Respondents having ridden a bicycle only once or twice inthe past two years or not at all, were classified as non-riders,those having ridden more than four times in the past two yearswere classified as occasional riders and those who currently
rode at least two or three times a month were classified asregular riders.
Twelve focus groups were held in the inner Sydney suburbs ofCamperdown, Leichhardt and Marrickville during October andNovember 2005, with a total of 70 participants (24 males and 46females). Of these, 22 were classified as non-riders, 23 wereoccasional riders and 25 were regular riders (Table 1). Theparticipants identified themselves in terms of their ridingbehaviour (occasional versus regular or non rider) and as suchare representative of this type of rider. Focus groups were heldduring lunchtimes, evenings and on Saturdays. The groupscomprised between three and 11 participants and each discussionlasted approximately an hour. Although we attempted to recruit abalance of men and women within each rider classification, thenon-riders and occasional riders were predominantly female,while most of the regular riders were male. Male non-riderswere under represented, with no group exclusively reflectingthese characteristics. Ethics approval for the study was obtainedfrom the Sydney South West Area Health Service EthicsCommittee. Participants completed a consent form prior to theirparticipation.
2.2. Data collection
Each focus group had a facilitator and co-facilitator, who hadreceived prior training. Each discussion was guided by a semi-structured interview schedule, previously pilot tested with agroup composed of all rider types. There were no changes made tothe questions as a result of the pilot testing. We asked questionsabout images and perceptions of cycling, and environmental andsocio-cultural influences on cycling. For each focus group, afacilitator lead the discussion, while a co-facilitator kept a writtenrecord of the main themes discussed and noted observations ofrelevant non-verbal interaction. Question prompts were usedselectively, depending on the flow of the group discussion. Thequestions and prompts used are summarised in Table 2. All focusgroups were audio-taped and transcribed. Saturation of resultswas reached for each rider type classification as many of the samethemes emerged in the latter focus groups when compared to theearlier discussions.
2.3. Data analysis and interpretation
The transcripts were analysed using ‘template analysis’ (King,1998). This method involves the development of a codingtemplate or framework, composed of codes representing themes
Table 2Semi-structured questions and prompts used in focus groups.
Question Prompts
When I say the word ‘cycling’ what
comes to mind?
� What are some things you have
heard people say about cycling/
cyclists?
� What are some common images of
cyclists?
How do you feel about people who ride
bikes?
� What sort of people ride bikes?
� Why do people ride?
� What are some good things about
riding?
� What are some of the not so great
things?
What environmental factors might have
an influence on cycling?
� Are there enough safe cycling
routes?
� Do the routes go where you want to
go?
� Do oil depletion and petrol prices
influence your decision?
What sort of economic status do you
think cyclists have?
� What would people think it if you
arrived at a friends place by bike?
� Are the latest accessories
important?
� Does cycling have a ‘green status’?
If a lot of people cycled in your
neighbourhood, do you think you (or
your family) would be more likely to?
� What comes first: more people
cycling or safer facilities or
conditions?
Can you think of any cultural issues that
might prevent you from cycling?
� Clothing, festivals, prayer times?
Are there cultural issues that would
encourage you/people to cycle?
� Shared social/family activities or
festivals?
� Concern for health and
environment?
M. Daley, C. Rissel / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 211–216 213
identified in the data through multiple readings of the text.Coding is the process of allocating a label to a section of text onthe basis of its content. Codes are organised hierarchically, withbroad themes represented by the highest-level codes, progressingto more narrowly focussed themes at lower level coding. Thequalitative analysis package NVIVO7 was used to code, organiseand retrieve segments of text and record memos, as themesemerged.
A single researcher read a broad sample of the transcripts;ensuring views across the different strata were represented, andthen compiled a list of the main themes that occurred in eachtranscript. The list was used to develop a mind-map that broadlyclassified the sub-categories of factors linked to differentthemes. All members of the research team then discussed theprovisional themes that emerged, and agreed on a preliminarytemplate prior to commencement of coding using NVIVO7. Initialcoding was conducted by a single researcher, who coded for themain themes and developed a draft template. If a section oftext related to more than one topic or theme, it was doublecoded accordingly. To develop the template further, two otherresearchers independently worked with a sample of transcriptsuntil agreement was reached on the organisation of the templatehierarchy. The final template was developed so that it adequatelyrepresented each of the themes identified in the data, and wasthen validated by discussion between the members of theresearch team.
3. Results
From discussion, it became clear that images of cycling as aform of activity and images of cyclists themselves were notalways congruous. Some participants had fairly positive views ofcycling, yet expressed negative opinions about cyclists. Themeslinked to images of cycling included: ‘clean and green’; ‘healthyand fun’; ‘dangerous’ and ‘serious business’. Specific themeslinked to images of cyclists included: ‘risk takers and lawbreakers’ and ‘status and sub-cultures’. Each of these themes willbe explored in this section, with differences between views byrider type highlighted.
3.1. Images of cycling
3.1.1. Clean and green
Many regular riders viewed cycling as an efficient, cheap andenvironmentally friendly form of transport. These riders were alsomore likely than non-riders to describe cycling as moreconvenient than other transport modes. The fact that they couldsave money and get fit at the same time added to the appeal. Oneregular male rider said ‘‘I exercise each day without even having to
think about it’’ (Regular rider, male).Participants from each rider type group discussed the ‘‘green
image’’ of cycling, especially the environmental benefits of cycletransport and the potential for bicycles to reduce car dependency.Current riders felt good they were doing something positive forthe natural environment, even if that was not their primemotivation for riding. Some riders also enjoyed being more intouch with their local environment when travelling by bike,compared to being in a car. For example, ‘‘The one thing I love
about cycling is silence; there is no impact, it’s so simple and an
incredibly efficient way of getting around’’ (Regular rider, female).Interestingly though, cycling’s ‘‘green’’ connotation was also
framed as a potentially negative image of cyclists. While beingcommitted to the environment was generally seen as a goodthing, some utility and commuter riders felt they were stereo-typed as ‘‘greenie activists’’, or viewed as militant students orelitists. For example, ‘‘ythey are seen as kind of lefty, greeny
university educated kind of people who are into the environment
stuff, they are not good Aussies who want to drive their Commodore’’(Regular rider, male).
3.1.2. Healthy and fun
Talking about cycling evoked many pleasant childhood ridingmemories, among all types of participants and general discussionabout cycling’s appeal as a family recreational activity. Currentriders were especially vocal about cycling’s individual and societalbenefits and why they enjoyed riding so much. The positive viewsincluded cycling’s image as a social, healthy and fun activity.Some of the terms used to describe cycling included: ‘a buzz’,‘adventure’, ‘excitement’ and ‘an escape’. One quote illustratesthis view well: ‘‘I love that feeling of sitting on the bike and zooming
along’’ (Occasional rider, female).A strong theme, especially among current riders, was the
freedom and independence they associated with cycling. Oneregular rider, who grew up in a rural area, recalled how owninghis first bicycle signalled the end of feeling isolated. He said‘‘I associate it with freedomysuddenly my whole outlook changed,
I could get everywhere in my own time’’ (Regular rider, male).
3.1.3. Dangerous
Despite being associated with fun and fitness, discussion aboutcycling invariably lead to comments about its dangerous image,particularly as a transport mode. Perceived danger was a
M. Daley, C. Rissel / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 211–216214
significant issue for occasional and non-riders (mostly females),who had lower levels of skill and confidence than regular riders. Alack of safe places to ride and fear of injury were cited as barriers,especially for transport riding. Recreational riding however wasviewed differently by many participants and was generallyconsidered to be an enjoyable and healthy activity.
Regular riders were more likely to challenge the view thatcycling is inherently dangerous and felt it was a matter ofperception, largely influenced by personal experience andmediated by the individual rider’s skill level and decisions aboutfactors such as route selection, clothing choice and riding style.They did however describe examples of cycling behaviour theyconsidered risky, such as wearing dark colours at night, nothaving bike lights or wearing a helmet.
3.1.4. Serious business
While recreational riding was viewed as something any onemight try, bicycle commuting and sport focussed fitness ridinggenerally had a more serious image among participants. Therewas much discussion about the types of bicycles that appealed todifferent riders and the clothing that riders chose to wear. Manynon-riding participants associated riding with lycra clothing. Thisperception turned some off the riding scene, because they thoughtit was an unflattering look or projected a serious riding image thatalienated the average person. Descriptions of ‘the lycra people’referred to weekend sports cyclists who gear up and rideexpensive road bikes for fitness. However, others thought thatwearing lycra raised the status of the individual rider, makingthem feel more confident and legitimate on the roads. Forexample, ‘‘I am sure when people see cyclists going past in all their
lycra; they don’t think they have a low status’’ (Regular rider, male).Lycra was associated with both track and road cyclists, but a
number of riders rejected the serious and sporty image andviewed their bike as a utility vehicle. These riders often chose towear regular clothing, especially when riding with family orcommuting. However, some non-riders thought it quite odd thatpeople would choose to ride a bike in their work attire. Forexample, ‘‘Who would have the nerve to cycle to work wearing a
suit?’’ (Non-rider, female).
3.2. Images of cyclists
3.2.1. Risk takers and law breakers
Positive images of cyclists included descriptions of fit, healthy,independent, environmentally conscious people, but non-ridersgenerally expressed less favourable opinions of cyclists, comparedwith occasional and regular riders. Regular riders expressed somefrustration at the way they were negatively perceived by manynon-riders. For example, ‘‘Whenever anyone talks about cycling it
always includes things I hate most about cyclists’’ (Regular rider,
male).Non-riders spoke of cyclists on roads or shared paths being
framed as a public nuisance, or risk takers. Some non-ridersdescribed cyclists as irresponsible or aggressive, even referring to‘gangs of cyclists’ impeding cars or terrorising pedestrians. Therewas a view among some of these participants that cyclists werethe impostors in shared spaces and did not belong there.Interestingly, even some occasional riders were not accepting ofcyclists on public roads, especially during peak hours. Regularriders however felt there was a general lack of knowledge aboutcyclists’ legal rights. For example, one person commented abouther drive to work that ‘‘Every now and then I am coming to work
and you will find the cyclist is right in the middle of the lane holding
up traffic’’ (Occasional rider, female).
A common view among some occasional and many non-riderswas that cyclists failed to obey road rules. Riding without helmets,through red lights and against the flow of traffic was defined asthe norm. Current riders felt these views, or witnessing thesetypes of behaviours, tainted the image of all cyclists, includingthose who were law abiding. However some regular ridersquestioned the validity of applying road rules designed formotorists to cycling, and cited examples where exceptionsworked well, such as contraflow of cycle traffic down one-waystreets. They also felt if there were cycle-priority turning bays andactivation of traffic light changes, as exist in some Europeancountries, cyclists would be more likely to obey the signals.
A number of riders described how motorists often mistookthem for bicycle couriers, especially when riding in the city, andthis influenced the driver’s perception and the way theyresponded. From discussion, the bicycle courier image waspredominantly negative and they epitomised the reckless, lawlessstereotype. Some riders thought a proportion of motorists labelledall cyclists as bicycle couriers and this stereotype made themvulnerable to abuse by other road users, who automaticallyjudged them to be dangerous or aggressive. For example, ‘‘ythere
are many people who label all cyclists as bicycle couriers, riding the
wrong way up streets and all that kind of stuff’’ (Occasional rider,
female).In contrast with recreational riding, bicycle commuting was
more likely to be viewed as unusual or ‘fringe activity’, especiallyby non-riders. Regular commuter riders discussed being cate-gorised as ‘crazy’, ‘stupid’, ‘mad’, or ‘hardcore’. One regular riderfelt cycle commuters were perceived to be ‘weird, risk takingnutcases’. He said ‘‘A lot of people are surprised when you tell them
you ride your bike to work. It’s like ‘why are you doing that?’’’(Regular rider, male).
A more positive framing was that cycle commuters werecourageous individuals mixing it with the traffic, and few non-riders could contemplate being brave enough to do so. Forexample, ‘‘I think they are very brave to ride bikes in the peak hour
amongst all the cars. I wouldn’t do that’’ (Non-rider, female).
3.2.2. Status and sub-cultures
The perceived status of cyclists was a dominant topic ofdiscussion among participants, particularly regular riders. Therewas much talk of cycling’s low status in Sydney’s prevailing carculture. While riding was seen as a legitimate form of transportfor young people, it was assumed they would progress to drivingas soon as they were old enough, socially reinforced as a rite ofpassage to adulthood. One example summarises this point:‘‘ythere is no doubt that there is a period in young men’s lives
where they wouldn’t be seen dead on a bike’’ (Regular rider, male).Another perception was the hierarchy of status evident among
the different riding sub-cultures themselves. Current riders talkedabout the varied ‘classes’ of cyclists and their relative status,differentiated by bike style and cost, the purpose for riding andthe type of accessories and clothing worn by the rider. The higheststatus was afforded to lycra-clad sport cyclists, who rodeexpensive racing bikes for fitness and recreation, yet drove (oftenluxury) cars for transport. Some of these bicycles were statussymbols in their own right, worth thousands of dollars. Oneregular male rider said, ‘‘ythe thing I like about roadies and
triathlon people is the first thing you know about their bike is how
much it cost’’ (Regular rider, male).Few regular riders in this study felt part of this sub-culture,
though some transitioned between sport and commuter/utilityriding groups and described varied community reactions, depend-ing on which stereotype they conformed to. One man who rode indifferent sets of clothes said ‘‘When I am cycling on my road bike in
M. Daley, C. Rissel / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 211–216 215
my lycra pants and my Day-Glo gear yI feel a very different attitude
to when I am commuting on my mountain bike or in my pair of shorts
and a t-shirty ’’ (Regular rider, male).From group discussion, it was evident that utility and commuter
riders felt they had less status and acceptance than recreationaland sports cyclists. Riders who chose not to own a car at all feltthey had the lowest status among rider groups, even though theyfelt solidarity with like-minded individuals. One example cited wasnegative reaction to a local mayor choosing to ride a bicycle toofficial functions, and one regular rider felt judged as lessprofessional because he did not use a car for work. Another regularrider believed the relatively low status of cycling and cyclistsexplained why motorists so often abused commuter riders:
‘‘I am constantly being called student y people perceive if you are
on a bike you clearly can’t afford a bloody car, you doley1’’(Regular rider, male).
‘‘I ride everywhere and I am sick to death of being treated as a
second-class citizen because I don’t drive a vehicle that kills and
pollutes’’ (Regular rider, male).
4. Discussion and conclusion
The results indicate there was a range of images of cycling andcyclists, from positive images of healthy and environmentallyfriendly activity to more negative images of danger and hazards todeliberately breaking road rules. Generally ‘cycling’ as an activitywas seen as positive, but the actions of some ‘cyclists’ weredisliked and for some people this behaviour affected their viewsabout cycling.
A limitation of this study was that the primary purpose of thefocus groups was to explore barriers and enablers of cycling toinform the development of local government bike plans, and notexplicitly to explore perspectives on the images of cycling.However, focus group participants freely volunteered theirimpressions and images of cycling in their contributions to thediscussion in all groups and we elicited some very strong views,which appeared consistent with public views of cycling andcyclists (Clark, 2008; George, 2008). Another limitation of thestudy was the lack of male non-cyclists. Non-cycling males simplyexpressed no interest in participating, and the generous definitionof occasional cycling (cycling four times in the past two years)may have overlapped with essentially non-riders. Most of theregular riders were male, which is generally representative of thegender distribution of regular riders.
There was general agreement from most riders and non-ridersabout the positive and fun aspects of recreational cycling (such ascycling in parks, on bike paths, or mountain biking) and almost asmuch support for cycling for exercise and sport training, althoughriding in groups was less tolerated by non-riders. The positive andfun aspects of cycling are important facilitators of cycling, andreasons often given for taking up or returning to cycling (Baumanet al., 2008). As respondents talked more about people riding intraffic and for transport, the non-riders particularly became morenegative and described their concerns for ‘safety’ and the‘nuisance’ of being momentarily delayed while driving. Safetyconcerns are a significant barrier for occasional or non-ridersriding on the road, even if these concerns are exaggerated (Risselet al., 2002). Regular riders also became angrier about the waythey felt they were treated, as if they did not belong on the road.This hierarchy of public acceptability of cycling has recreational
1 A ‘‘doley’’ is a person colloquially described as on the ‘dole’ or unemploy-
ment benefits.
cycling at the top, followed by sport cycling, transport/commutercycling and bicycle couriers at the bottom.
This cycling acceptability hierarchy may be peculiar to innerSydney, as commuter cycling is much more common in otherAustralian capital cities. Further, the number of people involved incompetitive cycle racing is much lower than the number of peopleriding bicycles to work or for transport. The relatively low publicacceptance of cycling for transport in Sydney to some extentreflects the government investment in cycling infrastructure androads spending in New South Wales. Relatively little money isspent on commuter bike lanes and paths compared to off-roadrecreational bike paths. Overall government spending on cyclinginfrastructure is less than one per cent of the roads budget, andalmost no funds are allocated to public campaigns to promotecycling and the benefits of cycling, let alone the rights of cyclists.Lack of cycling infrastructure is one of the main barriers identifiedby riders for not riding on the roads for transport (Tin Tin et al.,2010). Not surprisingly, the public impression is that cycling is amarginal activity, and people who ride (especially for transport)are stereotyped as non-mainstream ‘fringe’ individuals, whichtypically carries negative connotations. This negative stereotypecan become a barrier to riding for non-riders, who may not wantto be seen as ‘fringe’.
The average person does not view cycling as an everydayactivity. This is a significant psychological barrier, particularly fornon-riders, who simply do not even think of riding a bicycle as atransport option. For cycling levels to increase, cycling needs tobecome more mainstream. Positive social marketing campaignscould contribute substantially to this change of image. Suchcampaigns need to be careful to avoid the mixed message ofencouraging more cycling, but then reminding the audience of thedangers and focusing on fear and safety—for example, ‘ride morebut be careful’ (Horton, 2007).
The label of ‘‘greenie’’ – someone who is passionate aboutenvironmental issues – was used negatively in the study to describesome cyclists, as someone likely to have extreme views. Thesedata were collected in 2005, and with much of the recent mediaattention to the issue of climate change it is possible that the‘‘green’’ label might now be viewed more favourably. Framing the‘bicycle’ as a constructive solution to rising petrol prices, peak oiland traffic congestion, coupled with actual cycling infrastructure tomake urban transport cycling easier, could be an important strategyfor urban and transport planners in the forthcoming decades.
Competition for space is the major source of conflict betweenpedestrians and people riding bikes, and between motorists andcyclists. Pedestrians complain about bikes ‘‘whizzing past them’’,as do cyclists complain about cars overtaking too closely and atspeed. The speed differential between someone walking com-pared to someone riding can be two to four times the speed, andthis differential is similar between cars and bikes (depending onthe bicycle type and road condition). Either the speed differentialneeds to be reduced (for example by introducing lower speedlimits and traffic calming) or separate facilities are needed forbikes, if the slower travel modes are to be encouraged.
However, completely separating bicycles from the main flowof traffic may be counter-productive if the policy goal is toincrease the proportion of the population cycling regularly. One ofthe principles of the ‘safety in numbers’ phenomenon (Jacobsen,2003) – where the rate of injuries for cyclists and pedestrians goesdown as the number of cyclists and pedestrians increases– is thatdrivers learn to better accommodate other road users becausethey encounter them more often. Therefore separate bicycle pathsmay in fact further marginalize people riding bikes by takingthem away from the public view.
The wearing of lycra while riding, and the associated ‘sporty’image of road cycling may reinforce an emphasis of speed on the
M. Daley, C. Rissel / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 211–216216
road. While very functional for vigorous training rides, heavilybranded specialist cycling lycra is not necessary for short trips, ora ride to the local shops, and works as a barrier to cycling by‘‘turning off’’ some people. Increasing the public acceptability ofcycling and changing public norms about cycling so it is seen as aneveryday activity may involve more people wearing regularclothing while riding.
The perception of people riding a bike on the road as anuisance (for example, ‘‘riding in the middle of the lane holdingup traffic’’) displays a lack of knowledge of the NSW road rules asthey apply to bicycles by non-riding drivers. Public education onthe bicycle-related road rules could help create an informed andpossibly more supportive environment for cycling. Riders alsoneed to be encouraged to follow the road rules. It is possible thatthe negative feelings generated by the more obvious rule breakingby some riders (such as running red lights, or going up a one waystreet the wrong way) may be transferred to other riders whohappen to be on the road. However, it is important to note that theroad environment and road rules are generally designed for motorvehicles, and that more proactive cycling policies and infrastruc-ture that design the environment for bicycles, such as thecontraflow lanes or advance stop boxes seen in many Europeancities (Pucher and Dijkstra, 2003), could reduce the likelihood thatcyclists disobey road rules. However, at the moment, the rule-breaking image of (some) cyclists, reinforces negative views of non-riders, and reinforces a lack of support for promoting cycling.
Cycling offers multiple health, environmental, transport,economic and social inclusion benefits, and has the unique abilityto integrate physical activity into everyday living (Bauman et al.,2008). To attract more people to cycling and in particular to cyclecommuting, riding bikes needs to be viewed and promoted as amainstream activity that can be undertaken by almost anyone,without the need for special clothing, expensive equipment orlimited to purpose built facilities.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bev Lloyd, Jeni Bindon and Helen Jones for assistingin the data collection and design, Vera Zaccari from LeichhardtCouncil and Kendall Banfield from Marrickville Council whoassisted with the recruitment of study participants and collectionof data for this study.
References
Austroads, 2005. The Australian National Cycling Strategy 2005–1010. Austroads,Sydney /http://www.austroads.com.au/documents/TheAustralianNationalCyclingStrategy2005-2010.pdfS (last accessed 17 January, 2008).
Bauman, A., Rissel, C., Garrard, J., Ker, I., Speidel, R., Fishman, E., 2008. Cycling:Getting Australia Moving: Barriers, Facilitators and Interventions to get moreAustralians Physically Active Through Cycling. Cycling Promotion Fund,Melbourne /http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/downloads/CPFHlthRpr08V3prf1.pdfS.
Clark, J., 2008. Letter to Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, July 29, p. 11.Davies, D.G., Halliday, M.E., Mayes, M., Pocock, R.L., 1997. Attitudes to Cycling: A
Qualitative Study and Conceptual Framework. TRL Report 266: TransportResearch Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire (UK).
Daley, M., Rissel, C., Lloyd, B., 2007. All dressed up and no-where to go?A qualitative research study of the barriers and enablers to cycling in innerSydney. Road and Transport Research 16 (4), 42–52.
Fincham, B., 2007. Bicycle Messengers: Images, Identity and Community. In:Horton, D., Rosen, P., Cox, P. (Eds.), Cycling and Society. Hampshire, England,pp. 179–196.
George, T., 2008. Letter to Editor, Australian Cyclist, January/February, p. 8.Greig, R., 2001. Cycling promotion in Western Australia. Health Promotion Journal
of Australia 12 (3), 250–253.Health Promotion Service, 2006. Strategic Plan 2006–2011. Sydney South West
Area Health Service, Health Promotion Service, Camperdown.Horton, D., 2007. Fear of cycling. In: Horton, D., Rosen, P., Cox, P. (Eds.), Cycling and
Society. Hampshire, England, pp. 134–152.Horton, D., Cox, P., Rosen, P., 2007. Cycling and Society. In: Horton, D., Rosen, P.,
Cox, P. (Eds.), Cycling and Society. Hampshire, England, pp. 1–23.Jacobsen, P.L., 2003. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking
and bicycling. Injury Prevention 9 (3), 205–209.King, N., 1998. Template analysis. In: Cassel, C., Symon, G. (Eds.),
Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organisational Research, London, Sage,pp. 118–34.
New, C., Rissel, C., 2008. Cycling to work in Sydney: analysis of journey-to-workCensus data from 2001 and 2006. Sydney South West Area Health Service,Health Promotion Service, Liverpool.
Pucher, J., Dijkstra, L., 2003. Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve publichealth: lessons from the Netherlands and Germany. American Journal of PublicHealth 98 (9), 1509–1516.
Pucher, J., Garrard, J., Greaves, S., 2010. Cycling down under: a comparativeanalysis of bicycling trends and policies in Sydney and Melbourne. Journal ofTransport Geography 18 (3), 493.
Rissel, C., Campbell, F., Ashley, B., Jackson, L., 2002. Driver knowledge of roadrules and attitudes towards cyclists. Australian Journal of Primary Health 8 (2),66–69.
Roads and Traffic Authority, 2008. Cycling in Sydney—bicycle ownership and use.Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney.
Skinner, D., Rosen, P., 2007. Hell is other cyclists: rethinking transport and identity.In: Horton, D., Rosen, P., Cox, P. (Eds.), Cycling and Society. Hampshire,England, pp. 83–96.
Tin Tin, S., Woodward, A., Thornley, S., Langley, J., Rodgers, A., Ameratunga, S.,2010. Cyclists’ attitudes towards policies encouraging bicycle travel: findingsfrom the Taupo Bicycle Study in New Zealand. Health Promotion International25, 54–62.