The chart below shows the reasons why people travel to work by bicycle or by car

The two pie charts show the reasons why people go to work by bicycle and the reasons why other people go to work by car.

For cyclists, there were two main reasons with the same percentage. Health and fitness was 30 per cent and less pollution was also 30 per cent. After that, no parking problems was 15 per cent, no costs was 13 per cent and faster than driving was only 12 per cent.

For drivers, the most important reason was comfort with 40 per cent, which is much bigger than all the other reasons. The second reason was distance to work with 21 per cent.

Two reasons had the same percentage for drivers: faster than cycling was 14 per cent and the need to carry things to work was also 14 per cent. The last reason was safer than cycling with 11 per cent.

It is interesting that both groups said their transport was faster than the other one.

In conclusion, cyclists chose their bicycle mostly for health and for the environment, but drivers chose their car mostly for comfort.

The two pie charts set out the reasons people gave for travelling to work by bicycle and by car. The categories differ between the charts, so the comparison is one of pattern rather than of matching figures.

Overall, the reasons for driving are dominated by a single answer, whereas those for cycling are spread far more evenly across the five options. The two groups also give reasons of a different character: cyclists cite health and environmental benefits, while drivers cite practical convenience.

Among cyclists, health and fitness and reduced pollution were equally the most common reasons, each accounting for 30 per cent of responses and together making up three fifths of the total. The remaining three reasons were closely grouped and much smaller: avoiding parking problems at 15 per cent, the absence of costs at 13 per cent, and being faster than driving at 12 per cent.

The driving chart is far less balanced. Comfort alone was cited by 40 per cent of respondents, nearly twice as many as the next reason, distance to work, at 21 per cent. Being faster than cycling and needing to carry items to work were level at 14 per cent each, and safety accounted for the remaining 11 per cent. Notably, speed appears in both charts, with each group believing its own mode to be the quicker one.

The two pie charts present the reasons given for commuting by bicycle and by car. Since the categories are almost entirely different between the charts, the meaningful comparison lies in their shape and in the kind of motivation each records.

Overall, the driving responses are heavily concentrated in a single reason, whereas the cycling responses are distributed almost evenly. The character of the reasons differs as well: cyclists give answers about health and the environment, while drivers give answers about convenience.

The cycling chart has no single dominant answer. Health and fitness and reduced pollution tie at 30 per cent each, so between them they account for three fifths of all responses, and the three remaining reasons — no parking difficulties at 15 per cent, no cost at 13 per cent, and greater speed at 12 per cent — sit within three points of one another. What distinguishes this list is that its two leading reasons are not about the journey at all, but about wider benefits to the cyclist and to others.

The driving chart is markedly more concentrated. Comfort was cited by 40 per cent, almost double the second reason of distance at 21 per cent, and the remaining three answers together account for only 39 per cent. Every reason on this list concerns the practicalities of getting to work — comfort, distance, speed, carrying capacity and safety — with none referring to any wider benefit. The one genuine point of contact between the charts is speed, which appears on both: 12 per cent of cyclists chose their mode because it is faster than driving, while 14 per cent of drivers chose theirs because it is faster than cycling, a reciprocal claim the data cannot settle.