Cyclists prefer to use the road and do not want special infrastructure

Disclaimer: these are draft wiki pages that many people can edit. They are not in their final form and you should not assume that they represent official Cycling Embassy policy.

Summary of the claim

Whenever dedicated infrastructure for cycling — especially cycle tracks beside roads — is proposed, some existing cyclists are likely to claim that such infrastructure is not wanted by cyclists. The claim is often coupled to several others regarding the expected quality or safety of such infrastructure: that such infrastructure will make cycling less attractive, efficient or safe than riding on the road. The implication is that, if cyclists do not want it and will not use it, it would be a waste of money building it.

Example sources

Notable, influential, good quality or extreme examples of the claim. Keep it short.

Summary of responses

  • Cycling infrastructure is not for “cyclists”. It is for the much larger group of people who have been deterred from using bicycles for transport by the road environment currently on offer.
    • Dozens of surveys and in-depth studies have shown that there is significant latent demand for cycling that is being held back by the lack of attractive infrastructure.
  • Even amongst cyclists who are able to tolerate existing conditions, those who believe that dedicated cycling infrastructure would not be an improvement are a minority, albeit historically the loudest campaigners. They are disproportionately young to early middle-aged adults, and disproportionately male.
  • Though they may not be doing so deliberately, the effect of this minority fighting infrastructure is to preserve the bicycle as a minority mode of transport from which the rest of the population is unfairly and often unwillingly excluded.
  • It is true that that the typical poor-quality British cycling facility does not provide a more attractive offering than the road, which is why British facilities do little unleash the latent demand for cycling. The Cycling Embassy opposes such ineffective facilities, campaigning instead for the adoption of the systems that have been so successful on the continent and which demonstrably do provide an attractive, effective and safe environment for cycling.

In more detail

The full prose essay, meticulously argued and backed up with the facts. This can be as long as it needs to be: the summaries above are for quick access to the main points, while this section is to ensure that they are thoroughly supported.

Further reading

Bulleted list of links to relevant blogs, books, etc, which cover the topic of the page. If the link is to reinforce one specific point being made, it would be better to use footnotes and references.

Footnotes and references

1 Build the footnotes list like this.
fn2. To reference a footnote within the text, just add the number in square brackets, like this.12

Related claims

  1. Cycle paths are poor quality
  2. Cycle paths are unsafe
    1. Cycle paths are dangerous where they cross junctions
    2. The Milton Keynes cycle network is more dangerous than the road network
    3. Dutch cyclists are not competent to cycle in the UK
  3. Cycle paths create conflicts with pedestrians
  4. If you build cycle paths we will be banned from cycling on the roads
    1. The Dutch are banned from cycling on the road
  5. Cycle paths can not accommodate all kinds of cyclist
  6. Dedicated cycle paths can not ever realistically be door-to-door for every journey