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

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.

[i]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.[/i]

I think this is what people are saying.

Bike shops and bike freindly cafe's aren't that high on most people's destinations when riding a bike but Strava shows them as 'important'.

'some' of the most used routes means that there's a lot of well used routes that don't appear as significant.

So, Strava users give a skewed view of where provision should be made. Which is all anyone's said who's questioned the value of the data as a way of planning infrastructure.

It's not wrong data, just incomplete and unrepresentative.

skewed view possibly of where the best provisions already are.

bike shops and cafes (and other POI) may stand out to us on a heatmap, because we know that's where the bike shops and cafes are. whether it triggers TFL and LAs to fit more bike parking etc. in the vicinity is another matter.

Page 1 with the list of grand generalisations about who uses strava and how they ride mostly.

Isn't it fairly obvious that "typical Strava users" are not recording a one mile round trip to the shops for some milk or the pootle to school with the kids? In fact several Strava users have said as much on this thread. So those kinds of journeys are under-represented in the data.

Put another way: if you took a sample of 100 cyclists taking part in a sportive then you'd see a reasonably high percentage of them were using Strava (or some other GPS logger).

If you took the same size sample of cyclists say riding to work at a factory or bimbling through a park with their family then you'd see a much lower percentage of Strava use.

None of this means the Strava users are doing it wrong or should not be provided for. It just means the data has some fairly big limitations to it and is open to misinterpretation by bodies that choose to ignore this.

This has been an amazing and insightful chain of comments and we really do value all of the feedback. If you are interested in hearing more about what we are doing and we our riders really represent you can visit http://metro.strava.com/faq/

On a personal note please know that we do take privacy very seriously and the way that Strava Metro is built does just that. This is not raw data that is being provided back to planning groups but years of well thought out data structure.

Cheers