Couldn't agree with this article more. I can understand why some Australians see cycling as some sort of 'extreme sport', but even here, it doesn't have to be that way. If you ride slowly and take it easy, your chances of having an accident are greatly reduced, and you still get a bit of exercise. If you stop at the lights anyway, it doesn't really make a huge difference to your journey time. Why ARE people all in such a hurry? A subject for another article, maybe..

Champion! I had this exact conversation with my boss yesterday regards why Brisbane's City Cycle Scheme is not working- they are taking money out of making roads safe for cyclists to diverting to spending on those heavy weight bikes- my 700c wheel commuter bike cost $130 from Crime Converters 10 years ago. Its not like no one has a bike- they just too scared to use them.

Totally agree with everything in this article. I live in Brisbane, which I guess is similar to other cities in Australia. I want to use a commuter bicycle to do short trips to;
the shops, doctors, hospital, friends, church etc. but the lack of infrastructure and the safety risks are barriers.
I went cycling in Switzerland recently. Totally the opposite! Commuter bicycles used by everyone for short trips. They actually provide bicycle parking everywhere and charge for car parking everywhere.

I agree with most of the points made in this useful article. However, it is worth pointing out that the average population density of Shanghai is 13,400 people for square kilometre, whereas in Sydney it is just 2,100 people per square kilometre i.e. 6.4 times less dense. This means that on average, any trip (for any purpose, long or short) will be about 2.5 times further in Sydney than an equivalent trip in Shanghai (the square root of 6.4 is about 2.5). (Data source: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html ).

Thus, in order for cycling to become as widespread and ordinary in Sydney as it is in Shanghai, we need cycling facilities designed to accommodate cycling speeds which are more than double those in China. That means things like showers and lockers at workplaces (faster cycling means more sweat), cycle lanes engineered for riding at 20-30 kph, not 10-15 kph, streamlining of cycle traffic through intersections and so on. And e-bike regulations in line with Europe and Asia, as mentioned in the article (European regulations provide for e-bikes which provide assistance up to 25 kph, even uphill).

Dear Matthew

I believe it's disposable income - that is, a relative lack of it - in combination with an economy based mostly on small business 'merchant' activity plus semi-skilled labour - for the most part - compared to most cities in Australia that makes the sort of cycling that you are discussing, the norm.

In a nutshell: bikes in Asia, including India, are so cheap to produce, that high-end carbon whizz bang bikes are ridiculously superfluous; and that includes aluminium-framed bikes.

Steel is cheap. Steal, if it breaks, is easily repairable. A steel-framed bike can take an enormous load.

In a consumer-driven economy such as Australia, nothing is acquired because it is practical and durable. 'We' buy products - in this case, bicycles - that lack durability, and are largely irreparable because we can afford to. And in the case of bikes, for the most part, what we buy plugs directly into our need to look good, to not be out of place, to not be slow, or different.

Having said this, though, there is definitely a growing sub-culture in everyday cycling that is embracing the notion that lycra is for Sunday morning beach road rides, and carbon is what you find on burnt toast.

In the cities of Melbourne and Adelaide there is a growing cohort of Local Bike Shops where the lycra-carbon bicyclist is the outcast. In Melbourne there is Commuter Cycles in Brunswick, and Human Powered Cycles in Thronbury. In Adelaide there is the Classic Bicycle Shop in Adelaide city that sells steel-framed single and 3-speed bikes made in India.

In a motor vehicle dominant country - where it is perfectly normal for a parent to drive 2.3kms to drop off the child to kinder, then another 1.3kms to do some shopping, infrastructure that enables more people to cycle more often in a safe manner, just 'aint going to happen!

We live in a success driven economy. The signposts of individual success in our society are not only how much effort it takes to go about our daily lives (the less effort it takes to live, the more successful we are), but also our capacity to replace the tools of daily life we get tired of, don't like the colour of, and so on.

Infrastructure may help, but I doubt it. If cycling is pushed as a healthy and ecologically sustainable daily activity, then and only then, will the numbers of cyclists increase.

P.S. I have not, and never will, use a carbon-framed racing bike, and I only wear lycra shorts while riding, but I too was enormously inspired by Cadel Evans' TDF win.

All the best

Richard

I'm glad you are tackling this issue Matt. I remember talking to you a few years ago about an action research project I was developing to get disadvantaged young people onto bikes and accessing employment and training using public transport. A good idea I thought, but in the process of trying to engage with transit authorities and the various departments responsible for infrastructure and 'active transport' I found a distinct lack of co-ordination and willingness to engage with the community. This unwillingness was made starkly obvious during the recent Asia Pacific Cycle Congress in Brisbane where there were scant efforts to engage the cycling community despite a lot of talk about growing them.
Bicycle culture continues to grow in ways that go far beyond the obsession with elite sport. This is a great thing that I am glad to be involved with. Keep an eye out for the 'Help us make Mulga Bill's Bicycle' campaign in your social media and look out for the new locally manufactured bicycle products that continue to come to market.

You raise some interesting points, Richard.

However engagement with the local community is precisely how we best encourage mainstream cycling.

In the inner north of Melbourne "mainstream" has traditionally been a secondhand bicycle and that has not changed all that much. This is also the case in Amsterdam and Cambridge, and probably in Shanghai as well.

Although Amsterdam in year 2000 had 100 bikes shops for its fewer than 1 million official residents, only a small handful of those sold new bikes. Most were small workshops that serviced all the old bikes and the shops resembled more closely the Bikeshed at CERES than they did most bikeshops in Melbourne, including the two you mention.

Bicycle sales are a very poor indicator of bicycle usage.

No single bike shop will ever be right for everyone. Unfortunately we lack accurate data but it would be interesting to know the proportions of bike in use in the inner north of Melbourne came from each of the sources mentioned.

A danger when looking for "mainstream" is to assume that it is one's own social peergroup. This can be badly misleading. At administrative and political levels it has led to some very poor spending on the facilitation of bicycling because much of the spending has ignored the needs of the majority: the "non-mainstream" cyclists.

My memories of Vancouver are of Melbourne-like roads on a terrain that was a bit more like Sydney.

That is ridiculously simplistic, of course. However it does focus on the central problem of cycling in Sydney. It is not the hills, so much as it is the roads.

Comparisons with Vancouver are not very meaningful.

Averages deserve caution, too. In the far east of Melbourne, where the roads are fast and the distances significant, bicycle trips comprise under 1% of journeys. Over 90% of those who do cycle are men.

In the crowded inner north the modal share of cycling is over ten times as high and the gender ratio is almost balanced.

It could be interesting to have figures for the various parts of Sydney, and of Vancouver. Could we compare like areas?