Exploring Australian residents cycling engagement – Differences in self‐reported cycling behaviour between urban and rural dwelling Queenslanders

Abstract

Issue addressed Cycling participation rates in Australia and Queensland remain low. Rural residents typically do not have distinct cycling infrastructure available for use. Investigating current cycling participation and barriers to cycling engagement will inform future work to promote cycling engagement. Methods Data were collected through the inclusion of cycling‐related questions in the 2012 Queensland Social Survey. Results The majority of the sample had not cycled in the previous 12 months (66%; n = 831). Significantly more rural residents reported not cycling due to environmental concerns (P < 0.05) and preferring other modes of transport or exercise (P < 0.01). Rural cyclists (31.4%; n = 113) had higher levels of cycling engagement in the previous week (41.6% to 32.6% urban; χ2 = 7.83; n = 420; P < 0.05) but lower cycling durations than urban cyclists (41.6% rural residents cycling for 30+ minutes vs 57.4% urban residents; χ2 = 8.25; n = 418; P < 0.01). Rural cycling engagement was independently associated with being male (OR = 2.34; 95% CI = 1.40‐3.91); sufficient physical activity engagement (OR = 1.86; 95% CI = 1.10‐3.15); and having children at place of residence (1‐2 children: OR = 3.21; 95% CI = 1.88‐5.49; 3+ children: OR = 3.01; 95% CI = 1.17‐7.75). Conclusions One‐third of all adults cycled in the previous 12 months irrespective of location; however reasons for not cycling varied by urban/rural location. Results indicate that environmental factors appear to be inhibiting cycling participation in rural areas. Advocating for government commitment for infrastructure development to support safe cycling across Queensland including outside of metropolitan areas is required. So what? This research explores self‐reported cycling engagement amongst a sample of urban and rural dwelling Queenslanders. Differences in cycling exposure and reasons for lack of engagement offer insights into what may encourage greater cycling participation.

Traversing Community Attitudes and Interaction Experiences with Large Agricultural Vehicles on Rural Roads

“…Unfortunately, this doesn't assist in communicating with vehicles which don't have these radios, but it can enable communication between operators. The provision of safe road shoulders in order to enable the provision of space for LAVs by other road users and for LAVs to make allowances for traffic are important infrastructure factors, as well as being an important road safety countermeasure more generally [13][14][15]35]. Ultimately, slowing down and moving over are the two main approaches utilized when approaching an LAV.…”

Climate protection, health and other motives for active transport – results of a cross-sectional survey in Germany

“…The analysis shows that adults living in rural areas use active transport less often than adults living in urban areas, which, next to longer travelling distances, might indicate the lack of suitable infrastructure for active transport, especially in rural areas [ 48 ]. A systematic review of reviews, investigating the barriers to low-carbon transport mode adoption, found that infrastructure explains the largest amounts of differences in mode choice [ 25 ].…”