[Closed] Should road provision for cyclists be based on Strava use?

For me Strava users are exactly the wrong people to use as a sample.

Bit Harsh maybe, they are part of the overall "cycling mix" that local authorities will want to have data on, I know of a couple of users who log their daily commutes (including one in that there London).

The Data has some value to anyone looking at cycling infrastucture, but obviously it will not be definitive, at best it is indicative.

I'm sure there are other possible sources of information for them to draw on and compare with Strava...

Strava is the devils own... Turning the wonderful act of riding alone or with mates into mindless willy waving.

If any policy or data is used from that source, then it's study and use is to highlight the preferences and activities of mindless willy wavers in society.

(God I'm getting old and grumpy)

from that other recent heatmap thread...

how reliable is that data? shed loads of people must be logging other activities (walking/hiking for sure) as cycling.

maybe (hopefully) they'll get finer grained data than just a heatmap

For me Strava users are exactly the wrong people to use as a sample.

from that other recent heatmap thread...

how reliable is that data? shed loads of people must be logging other activities (walking/hiking for sure) as cycling.

maybe (hopefully) they'll get finer grained data than just a heatmap

Heat maps might look pretty but they probably don't give enough detail alone, you'll at least want to break the data down by time of day, time of year and to be able to compare it with other sources of road traffic data, of course it all relies on accurate input of information by the user, not just the log, I for one never check the "Commute" box when uploading my commutes, how reliant is "Strava Metros" data on users doing this? if the only report "Commute" logs as commuting data then all of mine will be ommited form the data set, across a few thousand users that could well knacker the accuracy a fair bit... crap in, crap out as they say...

And not to be all 1984 about it but surely organisations will want more than bulk traffic data, they could want some broad demographic information on cyclists, Just how much Detail can "Stava Metro" sell to an organisation before they bump up against the Data protection act? "Anonymizing" is more than just deleting my name and address from the data...

But Overall though I'm still in favour of the idea...

Presumably it wants taking with a pinch of salt, and is pretty Fredly, but it's a sane enough way of picking up some patterns of behaviour reasonably cost-effectively.

🙂

Taken on it's own, it would throw up some strange results, but making the point to planning committees that there are a good proportion of cyclists who do speeds regularly over 20mph, might help avoid more waste of time pavement based "shared usage" cycle routes.

I feel far safer dealing with buses, trucks and other assorted winkers in tin boxes than I do dealing with mums'n'prams, dogs on extending leads, kids on microscooters and joggers with ipods, all wandering around willynilly with no thought for what else is going on around them.

I want good cycle provision for my children cycling 5 miles to school across several busy junctions.

I don't really care about spending my local taxes on cycling provision for lycra-clad duffers who are past their reproductive age.

[i]I feel far safer dealing with buses, trucks and other assorted winkers in tin boxes than I do dealing with mums'n'prams, dogs on extending leads, kids on microscooters and joggers with ipods, all wandering around willynilly with no thought for what else is going on around them. [/i]

I think that was one of my thoughts really;

'Strava users' will tend to avoid shared use paths, quiet side roads with lots of junctions, a diversion through back streets to avoid a busy junction because they're usually more confident and experienced riders.

The routes they choose may not be typical.

And that's without discussion the whole segment psychology where people may choose to ride a certain road for competition rather than because it represents a good place for a cyclist to be.

lol at the strava demographics
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

[i]lol at the strava demographics[/i]

about the assumptions being made about who uses it?

about the assumptions being made about who uses it?

They tend to be doing longer journeys, they may pick routes which are faster rather than safer and most importantly they're keen cyclists who are unlikely to be 'Joe Bloggs' riding 2 miles to work and back each day.

If any policy or data is used from that source, then it's study and use is to highlight the preferences and activities of mindless willy wavers in society.

I don't really care about spending my local taxes on cycling provision for lycra-clad duffers who are past their reproductive age.

'Strava users' will tend to avoid shared use paths, quiet side roads with lots of junctions, a diversion through back streets to avoid a busy junction because they're usually more confident and experienced riders.

I hate taking a watch and even a phone on a ride with me. People ride for different reasons but I don't 'get' why anyone would go out into nature/out there and want to digitally record/track everything that they do.

It's possible mike but I think everyone's 'gut reaction' is that there's not many kids Stravaing their ride to school or people on Boris bikes chasing segments.

It may just be the misapplication of 'common sense' but Strava is not going to provide a good indication of where cycle provision should be made to encourage non-cyclists to take it up or make local journeys (less than 15 minutes riding) more appealing to people - even most strava users probably don;t record a trip to the shops.

They tend to be doing longer journeys, they may pick routes which are faster rather than safer and most importantly they're keen cyclists who are unlikely to be 'Joe Bloggs' riding 2 miles to work and back each day.

Why does that make them the 'wrong' type?

Joe Blogs wants to get to work just as quickly as FatLadInLycra, it'll highlight to LA's that cyclits won't tolerate stupid diversions out of their way etc. And my major bug is that cyling infrastructure is dissjointed. Why can't it cover 'routes' rather than just 100m sections?

I doubt LA's are going to look at the maps and conclude Box Hill or the local TT 10 mile needs a cycle lane. They're incompetent, not stupid.

This reminds me of the apocryphal tale about the RAF trying to figure out how to improve their planes in WWII. They started analyzing planes returning from dogfights, and noting where the bullet holes were so they knew where to place additional armour.

Of course it made no difference at all, because they were analysing the wrong thing. They were looking at the planes that made it back [i]despite[/i] being shot full of holes. What they really needed to look at were the planes that got shot down!

Likewise: a major flaw with using Strava data is that you are analysing people who already cycle [i]despite[/i] the bad infrastructure, when really you need to analyse why people don't cycle and what infrastrucure would change their mind.

it's very true but as proved the word strava means one thing here despite it accounting for huge amount of mileage on bikes on roads where I live. A proper consultation/study would take this and any other available data. In terms of value for money data collection strava is probably very good.
the hardest data to collect is the "I would but...." data

even most strava users probably don;t record a trip to the shops.

[i]Of course it made no difference at all, because they were analysing the wrong thing. They were looking at the planes that made it back despite being shot full of holes. What they really needed to look at were the planes that got shot down![/i]

In the end someone suggested they look at the planes that came back with loads of bullet holes in them and add armour where there weren't any holes - for the very reason you suggest, planes hit there didn't come back.

I think we are really agreeing mike - I don't think strava data is intrinsically useless, it's just such a small proportion (and possibly skewed to one type of cycling) of the people who do (or want to) cycle that provide it.

add armour where there weren't any holes

Yep - and that is one possible use for the Strava data: identifying cycling blackspots.

Yes I agree with the data aspect but people claiming statistical reasons for not using a data source and then making completely speculative assumptions about the users that build that data amuses/pisses me off.

What they need to do is employ cyclists in the cycle planning dept!

The info strava collects is invaluable, interpreting it is where the skill comes in though!

What they need to do is employ cyclists in the cycle planning dept!

Much the same problem. "Cyclists" already cycle.

Its not irrelevant data as long as its used properly. Unfortunately, given the complexity of the data, I think thats going to be unlikely.

However, what else is there? *some* data is better than no data, even if its a skewed sample.

Whilst it might not lead to a Netherlands style cycling Utopia, its difficult to see how that would happen anyway. The Government typically adopts a "predict and supply" method for building roads, rather than taking a pro-active stance of building for the sort of transport options they'd like people to use.

basically, its probably the least worst option right now.

[i]basically, its probably the least worst option right now. [/i]

Sustrans should throw their full weight behind it then 😉

I realise you are teasing wwaswas, but folk using good Sustrans facilities (e.g. traffic-free rides to school, low speed utility riding to the shops etc) is exactly the kind of thing this data won't show very well.

I was just referring back to the previous thread on their new book GrahamS.

I agree with you and it's the point I'm making - the infrastructure likely to see most use by occasional/casual cyclists will be ignored int he Strava data.

Which is fine if the people looking at the data accept that and account for it. The problem I have is that I think that like most things once there's concrete data available then people tend to try and hang everything they do of it as justification for spending money. The actual value of the data and it's usefulness can become lost.

Which means we need different data to investigate that. Those thinking Strava now drives cycle infrastructure policy see the cartoon above on extrapolation.

whilst I agree that the data should be better represented as time dependent overlays, what we have on the base of it is roads and routes that are identified as common pathways to get from a-b. Roads that are most used will have other 'users' used to encountering cyclists. This may then follow that it is safer to cycle on these roads, perhaps as other traffic will expect cyclists to be there.

It may also allow planners to identify the suitability for cycle traffic along a particular stretch, especially if it were scheduled for upgrading for example and provide alternative cycle corridors, or even consider cycle traffic in the grand scheme.

maybe.

Why are we complaining about LA's using Strava heatmaps to hopefully try and improve the cycling infrastructure, ok the data may not be perfect, but if they use other methods of data gathering (which will probably cost more and may not be as easily available) as well as this then they should be able to make decisions that improve the lot of just about all cyclists using the roads.

Or we could just randomly create cycling routes that aren't very well laid out and don't go anywhere particularly useful (much as we have at the moment) and people will still use at least some of them.....

The really scary thing is that data like this could be used incompetently and achieve the exact opposite of what is needed.

e.g. council/media/motoring-campaigners uses the data to look at how many people use the nice top-quality Dutch-style segregated cycle path that was installed as a trial and they discover that "everyone is just cycling on the road instead".

The reality is of course that the folk on the segregated cycle path are far more likely to be doing casual or utility cycling so are far less likely to Strava it than the warriors shunning the cycle path so they can blitz down the road.

I think we'll have to wait and see whether the Strava data becomes;

"Cyclists do this"

or

"Some cyclists do this"

over time.

I'm just waiting for a statistical analysis of where people would cycle if they could/felt like it/pretended to care about stuff when surveyed.

If I was the CEO fo Strava I'd be looking to maximise Income and to that end I see where they are coming from and see no reason why they wouldn't want to share that data either.
Now then, take the demograph of folks on Strava and who record on Strava and you'll be hitting a small minority, fair enough. It will also distort the data by stating folks ride along at say 15mph when in reality the population is rides at more like 10mph.
But..
But I think it can be used, used for ID'ing WHERE a lot of folks ride and WHY.
Clearly fast routes and easy routes will show up, a sort of Superhighway route that we have here in London. To maximise that and place that on the lap of MrCity/TownPlannerType and it may actually help his (rough) decision making process.
It'll add to the various Groups that get called into meetings to, combine Strava and Local gather information and I think you are onto a Winner.

And Strava get more income and the CEO is happy and this from App Startup started on the notion of folks wanting to record and race in a virtual world..

Gene
i
ous
😉

[quote=wwaswas ]'Strava users' will tend to avoid shared use paths, quiet side roads with lots of junctions, a diversion through back streets to avoid a busy junction because they're usually more confident and experienced riders.

So actually they're choosing the routes which less confident cyclists might like there to be infrastructure on. If you build good infrastructure going the way they want to go then Strava users would choose to use it (and the chances are other people might also want to go the same way).

[quote=wwaswas ]It's possible mike but I think everyone's 'gut reaction' is that there's not many kids Stravaing their ride to school

Now there's a thought. The KOM from the school gate to the playground will be mine - do you hear me, mine.

[quote=GrahamS ]

What they need to do is employ cyclists in the cycle planning dept!

You reckon David Hembrow would do a poor job? Come to that I think I have a fair idea of what would really be useful to get non-cyclists cycling. So long as they don't employ a time triallist.

[quote=GrahamS ]I realise you are teasing wwaswas, but folk using good Sustrans facilities (e.g. traffic-free rides to school, low speed utility riding to the shops etc) is exactly the kind of thing this data won't show very well.

I think you've just proved my point from the last thread. If Strava people aren't using those Sustrans routes, then they're not the quality I'm after.

Its all about finding useful ways to interpret and apply the data you are able to obtain.

So the problem is that you want to see data on the cycling habits of people who don't currently cycle in urban areas, but would if given better infrastructure/safer roads...

I think you'll struggle to get that Data somehow, next best thing you can obtain is data for those brave souls currently using bicycles in the area you are interested in, Strava provide this data.

Yes their will be holes in it, not all demographics will want to, or be aware of Strava, but If you can sort the data you do get by time of day/year you'll see patterns of use that roughly outline the [b]current [/b] major cycling commuter routes, and putting that against your [b]current[/b] Transport layout as an LA you should be able to focus your efforts on the most used routes and identify risk spots...
Those patterns of use probably won't match extant cycle infrastructure and major road layouts, cyclists have a habbit of taking routes based on the trade off between journey time and risk from traffic.

At this point you'll need to get out from behind the desk and actually go and look at the infrastructure on the ground as it is currently used, it will allow some slightly more targeted assessment.

Say you have a major four way junction, under traffic light control that your Strava data tells you a large number of cyclists travel through one way in the morning and the opposite way in the evening, and that most of them see a dip in speed and/or a significant time stood still at this point, you now know where and when to stand to figure out how cyclists are tackling this section: are they using pavements/cycle lanes to avoid stopping, does this bring them into conflict with Ped's or cars if/when they rejoin the main carriageway? Are those that stay on the road finding themselves at risk from "enthusiastic" drivers when lights change, are some choosing to RLJ? is current cycle infrastructure working (ASLs, cycle lanes, cycle paths)?

And of course this leads you onto what could be implemented to improve safety and avoid users feeling the need to circumvent that "Proper" route...

There will be indicators from Strava data that applies to all cyclists behaviour that should help LAs target their cycle infrastructure work...

You reckon David Hembrow would do a poor job? Come to that I think I have a fair idea of what would really be useful to get non-cyclists cycling.

Yeah I think I do too. 😀

But I know from previous conversations that we are both people who take in a more-than-typical interest in cycling infrastructure and have read around the subject a fair bit. i.e. we are not simply "cyclists"

Employing "a cyclist" in the Planning Dept (and listening to them) would certainly help avoid some of the typical mistakes in cycle provision for existing cyclists.
But you need someone with that further interest in alternative infrastructure and cycling development to really get more people cycling.

If Strava people aren't using those Sustrans routes, then they're not the quality I'm after.

Taking the Strava stereotype, that implies you would only accept infrastructure that you can race for KOMs on.

So something like this would be unacceptable to you?

[img] [/img]
-- Source: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013/09/the-school-run-in-assen.html

How many folk on that path are using Strava do you reckon? 😉

So something like this would be unacceptable to you?

Pretty much, yes.

I don't do Strava, but I do want to get from A->B as fast as possible - especially when commuting (time spent travelling = time wasted). To ride on a cycleway like that, in that kind of traffic, at the speed I usually go would be downright irresponsible. (and I'm no race head - I commute on a brompton now!)

If it had next to no one on it (and wasn't covered in broken glass!), I'd be very happy to use it - especially if it was more direct than the road route. (some of the London Cycle Superhighways aren't too bad)

Yes, that's a very selfish outlook. Maybe that's what 20+ years of bike commuting does for you. Or maybe I'm just an oik.

The thing I like about roads is there's a set of rules to work by - "The Highway Code" - that means that the behaviour of most road users is predictable for any given situation. It doesn't always work, but it does give a good starting point of what people *should* be doing. That's just doesn't exist for cycle paths or shared use pavements, and probably can never do so once you start chucking young children in the equation.

Pretty much, yes.

And that right there is the problem.

People call for "better cycling infrastructure" but we have very differing ideas about what that means.

To some it means safe, segregated Dutch-style paths that are usable by everybody (like that photo). To others it just means modifying the road network to better accommodate fast on-road vehicular cyclists.

No wonder government struggles to implement the right thing - we haven't even decided what the right thing is!

Yes, that's a very selfish outlook.

It's an honest description of what you want.

But I don't think it is what is needed to massively increase the number of people leaving their cars at home and doing every-day journeys by bike instead.

[quote=GrahamS ]

Pretty much, yes.

Well not really - because I agree with him to some extent and wouldn't particularly want to be using that myself (on a bicycle). Not at that time of day. Doubtless there is another cycle way not far away from the one pictured though which faster cyclists use, because they seem to manage a mix which suits everybody and fast cyclists do use the off-road routes.

Oh look, this doesn't appear to be on a road:

http://www.strava.com/segments/6264110
(in case I need to point it out, check out who holds the KOM)

It also needs pointing out that the Sustrans paths you've shown pictures of aren't full of kids wobbling, so presumably there's some other reason the Strava crowd aren't using them.

No.

I never log my commuting journeys as it would be tedious. However, they are the ones that require most cycing provision as it takes me through Newcastle city centre and various other busy parts of the area.

The routes I do log are long in more remote parts of the country. Generally the roads are good and quiet (that is why I choose to ride them in my leisure time).

The data set you would get from Strava would not be representative of the cycling population. Most people who cycle into work where I am don't use Strava, they aren't even enthusiastic cycling fans,they just use a bike to get them to work.

[quote=aracer ]wouldn't particularly want to be using that myself (on a bicycle)

...just to quote myself, it occurs to me that what they need in the planning departments are unicyclists 😉

I think that there's a danger that using this heat map data from a 'sports' app just backs up some peoples idea of us being a nuisance on the road.

A bicycle is a form of transport and should be treated as such. Data about where people ride, and why would be more useful,

[quote=jonba ]No.
I never log my commuting journeys as it would be tedious. However, they are the ones that require most cycing provision as it takes me through Newcastle city centre and various other busy parts of the area.
The routes I do log are long in more remote parts of the country. Generally the roads are good and quiet (that is why I choose to ride them in my leisure time).
The data set you would get from Strava would not be representative of the cycling population. Most people who cycle into work where I am don't use Strava, they aren't even enthusiastic cycling fans,they just use a bike to get them to work.

So if they're looking at the Strava heat map in the city it won't have your rides on, but presumably those of other cyclists looking to travel efficiently. I'm not sure it really matters whether they're enthusiasts or commuters - the point is to find out what routes the cyclists who are prepared to brave the current lack of infrastructure choose to travel - that's where there should be infrastructure for the others. As I suggested above, in a way the routes of those who currently use infrastructure are actually less useful as the infrastructure probably isn't where they'd like it. It's a bit like the idea of waiting to see where people walk across the grass before laying pathways.

People call for "better cycling infrastructure" but we have very differing ideas about what that means.

To some it means safe, segregated Dutch-style paths that are usable by everybody (like that photo). To others it just means modifying the road network to better accommodate fast on-road vehicular cyclists.

I'd say it means both.

While I personally fall into the latter category I have a lot of sympathy for those who don't cycle to work/school/for fun around towns because they cannot see a "Safe" environment for them to do it in...

I would like improvements, probably only small ones to roads to allow users like me to be able to ride more safely, and I would love to see better designed segregated routes so people like my Missus to ride to work or for me to take the Kids out around town more.

We're lucky, we live pretty much on top of a Sustrans route which is great for a Sunday pootle (to the pub) but trying to get the same sort of distance into town? you'll never persuade my wife to do it, her perception is (probably quite accuratly) that the car is king in towns, and everyone in those cars is stressed and aggressive, why would she want to risk her life in amongst all of that... I can't blame her TBH...

Could "Strava Metro" based Infrastructure planning help her? I really don't know, nobody else seems to be though...

[i]It's a bit like the idea of waiting to see where people walk across the grass before laying pathways. [/i]

but then only looking at the paths created by people who were running through the park during a race rather than those made by visiting the school and local shops?

To me, better cycling infrastructure, means all of this:

Are people honestly suggesting that the Dutch have somehow got cycling infrastructure all wrong and we should stick to our incredibly successful formula of mixing bicycles with motor traffic?

For me Strava users are exactly the wrong people to use as a sample.

Are people honestly suggesting that the Dutch have somehow got cycling infrastructure all wrong and we should stick to our incredibly successful formula of mixing bicycles with motor traffic?

No, what most people want are routes that go from a to b, and not via every sodding place in between and a few that aren't! Most people want a route with no traffic.

Current thinking is get the cyclists off the road and out of the way of cars, the correct thinking, which this data might actually convey, cyclists want to get from a to b they want a nice fast route. Now if we can get councils to understand that the ideal is fast and no cars, we are where we need to be.

Mixing utility cycling and cars doesn't work, mixing utility cycling and pedestrians is barely any better.

Look at the picture you post, the pedestrians and the cyclists do not mix, each has there own "road"

Other point to note, UK is crap at utility and getting quite good at sport cycling, the current user base is thus getting a incredibly crap level of provision!

[quote=wwaswas ]but then only looking at the paths created by people who were running through the park during a race rather than those made by visiting the school and local shops?

🙂 Some people also run to the local shops.

[quote=GrahamS ]Are people honestly suggesting that the Dutch have somehow got cycling infrastructure all wrong and we should stick to our incredibly successful formula of mixing bicycles with motor traffic?

Some people are, but they're misguided - presumably because they've only been exposed to crap UK facilities and don't realise that off-road stuff can also work for faster riders. The trouble is, some of the stuff in your video would be sub-standard for Holland* which is why people see it as only suitable for slow riders. I've not just got purely altruistic motives behind wanting Dutch* style stuff - I'd like to be able to ride fast away from cars like they do in the Netherlands* too.

* why so many different words?

Hmmm.. just looking at the Strava Heatmap for Newcastle and, despite my apprehension, the shared-use Sustrans route along the river [i]does[/i] actually show as one of the most heavily used routes, even amongst the Stravaratti.

Interesting!

http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#13/-361.64955/54.96793/blue/bike

Facts? Get off STW.

In a word: No.

In a few words: No. Although there is one commuter amongst my immediate group of a dozen or so ( mostly offroad) cyclist friends, only two of them ever use Strava. Most of us pit our hard earned and fitness against the day or terrain. A far better use of resource would be tougher penalties for poor driving and an understanding by drivers as to how driving rules in the UK demand respect and consideration for other folk who happen to stray onto the thoroughfare.
A driver, who has to use a vehicle for work as well as to cart my bike about sometimes, I never cease to be appalled at how folk seem so utterly divorced from their driving licence and the privelidge it is to have one.
That said, if better provision is to be made, then for the masses, not just those who think that Strava has somehow become the norm.

EDIT; I also happen to believe that you shouldn't be able to take a driving test without having passed a cycling proficiency test in the first place. Naïve, perhaps, but at least to have a basis for understanding.

Hmmm.. just looking at the Strava Heatmap for Newcastle and, despite my apprehension, the shared-use Sustrans route along the river does actually show as one of the most heavily used routes, even amongst the Stravaratti.

Interesting stuff indeed!

Does this make OP's assumption complete bollocks? 😉

[i]Does this make OP's assumption complete bollocks?[/i]

steady on 🙂

I asked a question;

[i]Should road provision for cyclists be based on Strava use?[/i]

then started on the bollocks.

Certainly makes [i]me[/i] question my earlier assumptions.

BUT... my worries still stand about self-selecting samples not being representative, the risks of the data being badly misinterpreted, or concentrating analysis and spending on the wrong thing 😕

Using the Strava data as part of infrastructure planning is a bad idea if the planners' methodology is as full of baseless assumptions as this thread.

spending on the wrong thing

A far better use of resource would be tougher penalties for poor driving and an understanding by drivers as to how driving rules in the UK demand respect and consideration for other folk who happen to stray onto the thoroughfare.

Which achieves what exactly? Does it make the roads a nicer place to be, a little, will it encourage non riders to ride? not a hope in hell!

Having looked at the local area what it shows is that riders are using the main roads, that their is precious little in the way of alternatives. Particularly apparent in the east west direction!

[quote=cakefacesmallblock ]A far better use of resource would be tougher penalties for poor driving and an understanding by drivers as to how driving rules in the UK demand respect and consideration for other folk who happen to stray onto the thoroughfare.

As opposed to spending the resource on Dutch style infrastructure? I bet they wish they'd done that rather than wasting all that money.

no need to worry much, if there'll only be the last few coppers found down the back of the sofa to "spend" on cycling

Newcastle were recently [url= http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-transport/cycling/newcastle-fit-cycling-cycle-city-ambition-fund-bid ]awarded £5.7 million from the DfT Cycle City Ambition Fund[/url], so there is [i]some[/i] money to spend here, but getting it spent in the right place and getting locals to agree is the big challenge.

Cool, I've been waiting for Strava to do this as it's the final piece in my business plan.

I've created a program that takes Strava data and maps it onto the traffic light controller system data to identify RLJ'ers.

This then links to a financial organisation's pricing and billing engine that will automatically generate FPN's to offenders.

I will then sell this to the various Police Forces around the country.

This time next year Rodney, I'll be a millionaire!

£5.0M on chocolate hobnobs then 😉
£700K on trialling what the Dutch already know and then either implementing what they've rejected, or rejecting what works for the Dutch 😉

Make all fines from drivers go straight in the cycling infrastructure fund 🙂

identify RLJ'ers

Sadly it's too Dutch, so will be rejected.

GrahamS - Member
Hmmm.. just looking at the Strava Heatmap for Newcastle and, despite my apprehension, the shared-use Sustrans route along the river does actually show as one of the most heavily used routes, even amongst the Stravaratti.

Interesting!

http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#13/-361.64955/54.96793/blue/bike

See, most of my strava feed (in Newcastle/NE England) is filled with people doing their daily commute into town. I certainly use Strava not just as a "willy-waving" (can women willy-wave...?) exercise but also as a data-tracker. I like to see how many miles I've done, on which bike, at what speed, with what heart rate etc etc. Therefore, I log everything on Strava - I reckon my personal Strava heatmap will include the main cycle routes in Newcastle. So maybe it could be useful data for planners...

Lets be honest here properly "Going Dutch" is pretty unlikely for the majority of the UK, the budget isn't there to do it properly and most LA's idea of "segregated cycle routes" is to put bikes in direct conflict with Pedestrians...
We do "Bolt on" infrastructure in the UK, we do not pull it down and start again very often, as we probably should...

Like others I've just looked at my local Heatmap (I wouldn't be shocked if LA's didn't just use that free, very general data (rather than pay for a more detailed breakdown of the same data) and yep, it picks up lots of activity on local sustrans routes and several slightly longer "Workround" routes that I would take to avoid some of the more tasty traffic and expect a non-racing snake to prefer...

I reckon a good number of local commutes must have been logged to build the map that's shown there, So I'd say the major utility cycling routes are already well established, all the LA's need do is take that knowledge and target some assessment along the routes seeing the most bicycle traffic...

I'm not entirely sure Strava Metro are selling much that Local Authorities really need, they may well have given away some of the useful data already.

I'm not entirely sure Strava Metro are selling much that Local Authorities really need

Well one thing the free heatmap doesn't do is let you filter it by time of day, or indicate which direction the routes are being used in, both of which I suspect would be very useful for planning.

Wow. long thread already.

Not sure if this has been said, but not only is Strava the wrong group of people (by definition anyone who tracks there rides has ventured towards 'enthusiast'), it doesn't even get a proper sample of their riding. I don't track any of the riding I do on my commute bike or Brompton only my road bike and mtb. I did track myself riding up and down Canonbie Road the other day (South London's Alp) and there were a lot of other Strava times for it but it's anything but useful as a commuter route.

Someone up above called out the old myth that they wouldn't use cycle paths because they were slow.

*Please* read David Hembrow's piece on [url= http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/speed ]the speed myth[/url]

Yes, inner city paths can be slow if they're busy but so are inner city roads in heavy traffic. Proper cycle infrastructure, prioritising cyclists at junctions, reduces cyclist journey times even if peak speed drops. In London now you're held up by slower cyclists anyway - good infra allows you to safely pass them

Unscientific experiment [url= http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/how-much-time-do-you-waste-waiting-at-a-traffic-light/ ]here[/url] says 17% of cycle commute spent waiting at red lights. Feels about right - reduce that and you make a difference.

nice to revisit this after a heap more extrapolation and guessing has gone on 🙂 Strava has offered the data for sale, it's a record of a lot of people's cycling habits. Though STW deems these cyclists to be worthless and not to be provided for, as they are stravaists not cyclists.
The key part will be how the data is used by LA's, if it's used as a measure of how some people cycle then it's good, if it's added to a wider study then thats better.
Amazingly people made some judgments about the data without looking at it or reading things properly based on a "Strava Is" principle of fitting conclusions to their pre-existing beliefs. Then it turns out that a lot of people log the routes that they thought they didn't. None of this prove the data is representative of cycling in general but it does go to show forming an opinion based on what you believe not the data will generally leave you being wrong.

The bit nobody can address is how to collect the data that they want to be used which is about putting cycle infrastructure where they want to. then try mapping the journeys that people would make if it was there. Anyway if you can't answer that please return to the assumption that strava is all about tools racing everywhere.

Looking at that heat map for the sixth form my children go to, not a single stravaist has taken the road into their school.

I would imagine that sensible local authorities will use a combination of accident statistics and local knowledge.

[i]The bit nobody can address is how to collect the data that they want to be used which is about putting cycle infrastructure where they want to. then try mapping the journeys that people would make if it was there.[/i]

Given the ability of computers to recognise 'people' on cctv and given that almost every urban trunk/arterial road in the uk is covered by cctv in the UK I'd say we had an ideal combination of data plus ability to analyse it.

The problem is identifying peoples motives for avoiding cycling or for choosing inconvenient routes specifically to not ride on trunk/arterial roads. But strava won;t provide that either.

My personal view is that Strava is not a representative cross section of those that ride bicycles and basing provision [i]solely[/i] on it is wrong. As has been acknowledged finding other sources of data is difficult so there's a danger that people rely on strava as it's all they've got to go on.

More than just distinguishing between solo chaingang commuters that are in a race to get to work so they have time for a shower before logging on vs those that just get on a bike in normal clothes and ride to work / the shops / school etc.
With a bit of luck it'll highlight all the things that would be "naughty" in UK (riding wrong way up one-way, riding thru pedestrian zones, etc.) and give some clues to the LA as to what they can do about it. eg... Euro style 2-way for bikes on 1-way streets, or place an obvious bike route thru a ped zone or city park. Of course they could also be British and use that to choose where to put police to hand out FPNs, rather than actually thinking.
Might even give clues where to place much larger numbers of bike racks etc.

Euro style 2-way for bikes on 1-way streets, or place an obvious bike route thru a ped zone.

All common in London 🙂

The bit nobody can address is how to collect the data that they want to be used which is about putting cycle infrastructure where they want to.

They could try it the old fashioned way and survey cyclists...?

good 🙂

think it's pretty much an automatic right to go "wrong way" here (although most streets seem to have a sign permitting it).

I should say in London it only seems to be certain one-way streets, where it is useful for the cyclist and not hazardous to anyone else.

They could try it the old fashioned way and survey cyclists...?

Anyway I'm sure nothing will actually ever come of it.

STW deems these cyclists to be worthless and not to be provided for, as they are stravaists not cyclists.
....
Ah but which cyclists as it seems very important not to include strava users as they are the wrong kind of cyclist...

I'm not sure where you are getting this from mike. I don't think anyone is saying that the Stravatti are [i]"worthless"[/i] or [i]"wrong"[/i].

Their cycling is as valid as anyone elses. It's simply that using data from Strava means self-selecting for a sample that is very unlikely to reflect the population. That's just stats.

If the bodies using the data are aware of that limitation and bear it in mind when interpreting it then that's fine, but past history suggests that traffic planners are not exactly great at taking a nuanced approach to cycling infrastructure. 🙂

I'm not sure where you are getting this from mike. I don't think anyone is saying that the Stravatti are "worthless" or "wrong".

The heat map data round here is actually really good, you can tell where all the local bike shops are and which are the bike friendly cafe's. It also highlights some of the most used routes.

Safe to assume that most Strava users are at least partly interested in performance, which isn't really compatible with cycle path usage. Generally such cyclists will be comfortable riding on roads so will be less likely to benefit from cycle specific facilities I'd imagine.