THREAD: The need to enable active travel is not going away. It will only become more urgent as we fail to meet climate + pollution targets.
Every major political party’s manifesto wanted more cycling infrastructure; now is the time to stop using it for hyperlocal point scoring.
What’s more, the majority of people support it. Polls show 77% think more cycling would decrease congestion. Two thirds support road space reallocation for active travel.
Regardless of politic persuasion, people are more and more concerned about the environment.
A narrative of a “war on cars” or that cycle lanes somehow cause pollution is so incredibly niche that politicians on all sides risk alienating the lion’s share of normal voters with such vitriolic language. While forgetting that most people would enjoy cycling safely.
People aged 60+ are most likely to own a car and use it most frequently. That makes sense, they grew up in the height of car-focused transport. But politicians are missing whole generations of people who now feel much more in tune with the environment and their local area.
This poll, as one example I found, is from the West Midlands by Liam Byrne MP on policy focuses. The environment is high up on the agenda, as is the sense of community and cleaner air in the word cloud.
Local politicians, of all parties, trying to form some sort of non-existent culture war risk going up against vast swathes of normal people who want to do a normal, everyday and benign activity like riding a bike - without being vilified and used as a political pawn.
This will be especially true as people start to see how the areas who have had strong political will are benefiting. People know what good looks like. People pay to go to Center Parcs to have a 15-minute city.
The more we see this is possible here, the more people will want it.
“We’re not Amsterdam” and “That couldn’t happen here” will turn into “Have you seen what they’re doing over in that town? Why aren’t we getting that investment?”
Nobody comes back from the Netherlands and says “Yeah, I had a nice time but I wish there was more traffic.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: A thread on research and sampling, and how the media use data and polling.
I can safely say from a decade of working with media, it is *highly* unusual for a newspaper to so heavily reference a self-selecting and homemade survey and present it as the views of all people.
Surveys with self-selecting samples, in this case, both from FairFuelUK + cycling advocates, should not be represented as the views of all of those groups; same goes for claiming data represents "Tory voters".
And that's without even mentioning the survey's leading questions.
Polls can make for really interesting stories and are commonplace in media. YouGov, a key player, vets the questions and ensures they don't lead, and gets answers from a statistically representative sample to reflect the views of all GB adults.
Today you might read that cycle lanes will have an impact on ambulance response times, which naturally sounds concerning. But the more you look into it, the more baseless it becomes; quotes from just one individual used by media with an agenda. (Thread)
A new phenomenon caused by hastily rushed through COVID measures, another thing to be concerned about in 2020?
Well, no, the same spokesperson @Richardwebber99 said the same thing in 2017, also to the Mail, about separated cycle lanes then. Concerns that never materialised.
When pushed, articles had to admit that there is no data that specific cycle lanes cause delays to ambulances.
None of the articles referenced that new cycle lanes were actually being used on 999 calls to cut past congestion caused by motor vehicles.