There has been much research into the benefits of cycling to underpin cycling strategies adopted by government at various levels. It is carried out by government, advocacy groups and health professionals as well as others. This research variously shows that cycling has many economic benefits, is good for our health, will reduce congestion on the roads, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase agreed upon emissions targets, will save people money and so on. Yet, every time the possibility of spending significant amounts of money on new infrastructure projects is mooted, another study is promised or actually carried out. Interestingly, the findings of such studies do not change, the outcome are always there that cycling improves individual health and the liveability of cities.
The research is already out there: the benefits to society are many and they are real and if the government would commit to spending some dollars on cycle paths instead of more roads, they would go a long way to solving the above problems and save money at the same time. So why is it not happening?
Petrol sales, car rego and the entire automotive retail and repair industry are all areas which generate large revenues for the government. If cars lost their dominance, or even part of their dominance, this would have severe economic consequences for the government coffers. It is more economically feasible to carry out another research project which will find a way to enable cycling but not encourage it to the point where cars lose traction. New roads and highways are constructed all the time without the agonising over the many more millions or even billions that they will cost. Stupendous amounts compared to the cost of a cycling path.