Questionnaire for Active Cyclists

Questionnaires targeting active recreational and utility cyclists were used to learn more about their perceptions of urban cycling and bicycle theft. The objectives were to (1) better understand active cyclists’ attitudes towards utility cycling, (2) identify reasons why they do not fully adopt utility cycling in urban areas, and (3) find possible requirements that they would want in the solution being developed. The motivation for performing the questionnaire was to obtain insight from cyclists in the South African context, as there exists very little literature on this specific group relating to the research question addressed.

3.1.1 Approach

The interviewees targeted are categorised as ‘active cyclists’, implying that they cycle at least 2 times per week. ‘Active cyclists’ were targeted due to their high level of exposure to the problem investigated, therefore implying that needs and insights amongst these users are amplified relative to other users experiencing the problem at lower frequencies. The “barriers towards cycling” identified amongst this specific group of active cyclists is also seen as extremely valuable since it identifies those factors that are preventing individuals who already agree with the intrinsic value of cycling, from using cycling in the form of urban utility cycling. The research questionnaire was sent out using an electronic-form format, making use of Google

Sheets to capture and process the feedback received. This approach was chosen since more

users can be reached using an electronic format, while larger quantities of data can also be processed. An electronic form is generally also more flexible and convenient for interviewees than physical questionnaire forms. Various cycling clubs in the Western Cape assisted with spreading the questionnaires, sending it to club members categorised as ‘active cyclists’. 90 cyclists in total contributed to the questionnaire’s results.

The questionnaire consists of 20 questions divided into 5 main categories – each category addressing a different objective. The first category defines a user description by gathering information on the user’s age and fitness, type of cyclist and cycling frequency. The next category investigates the interviewee’s perception of urban cycling, and what benefit he/she sees in it. Category three investigates the interviewee’s experience and perception of urban bicycle theft. Category four tests the interviewee’s attitude towards proposed methods able to solve the problems experienced, while category five investigates the interviewee’s direct requirements for a solution aiming at solving the current situation of urban bicycle theft. The questionnaire that was used can be found in Appendix A on page 95.

3.1.2 Results

From the 90 respondents, 93% use their bicycle at least 2 times per week, while 72% use their bicycles 3 or more times per week. This verifies the requirement of the targeted group to be classified as ‘active cyclists’. The majority of respondents are older, with 44% aged 44+, and 17% aged 19 – 25. The respondents rely on their cars for the majority of their urban commuting, with 62% of their urban commuting trips being done with their car, while cycling is their second most used form of commuting at 24% utilisation. When using their bicycles to commute in an urban environment, 45% of respondents cover distances of more than 8km per trip, while 26% cover distances of 3-8 km.

The cyclists’ perceived individual and societal value of urban cycling correlates very well to the benefits identified throughout the literature. The cyclists realise the potential societal benefits of urban cycling, and are aware of the value that it holds if it is implemented. The most common perceived benefits are ones related to personal health, cost saving, reducing traffic and the improved environmental impact. Also, a very positive attitude and willingness towards urban cycling is recorded from the respondents, with 70% of the respondents willing to cycle more than 8 km when commuting in the ideal urban environment, and another 19% willing to cycle between 5 and 8 km.

The biggest barriers that keep them from more frequently using a bicycle in an urban environment were identified as road safety, violence and bicycle theft. When asked what the biggest barriers towards urban cycling is for the respondents, 44% mentioned bad cycling infrastructure and unsafe roads, 29% mentioned the risk of bicycle theft or a lack of safe bicycle storage facilities at their destinations, and 22% mentioned violence and attacks on cyclists as their biggest barrier. 47% of the respondents have had at least one bicycle stolen while it was locked in an urban environment, with 10% having 2 bicycles stolen from them and 9% of the respondents more than 2 bicycle. 13% have also had individual parts stolen from their bicycles (lights, saddle bags, lights), although users mentioned that they are very hesitant leaving easy- to-remove items on their bikes while it is docked, possibly explaining this low figure.

The respondents’ attitudes towards bicycle-sharing and a proposed conceptual solution to keep their bicycles safe was positive, with 86% of the respondents stating that either one will, when implemented, lead to an increase in their frequency of using a bicycle for urban commuting. When asked what the most important requirements for such a system would be, respondents stated protecting the bicycle from theft (88%), quick bicycle lock-up (53%), ease-of-use (48%) and low user cost (46%) as their main requirements.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The research questionnaires clearly show that there is a willingness amongst active cyclists to increase the frequency of their urban cycling, but that there exists clear barriers that are preventing them in doing so. The majority of the respondents fell into the category of ‘active recreational cyclists’, thereby ensuring the relevance of the data gathered from them. This research activity highlights the importance of bicycle protection, showing that it is one of the current barriers preventing the adoption of urban utility cycling. Clear requirements are extracted from the research which will aid in the design process. These requirements are presented in Section 4 on page 23.