The genesis of the of Pedal on Parliament can be traced back to a meeting in Edinburgh to discuss the formation of a Scottish Consulate of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, involving Sally Hinchcliffe, Dave du Feu, Dave Brennan and myself. There was some talk of taking a protest ride to the Scottish Parliament, but at this stage there was no formal plan. The Pedal on Parliament campaign really started on the 24^th February, with a single e-mail to Sally and myself from Dave Brennan:

Hi Guys,

The call has gone out for cyclists to go to London on the 28th April in a show of support for the ‘cycle revolution’. I’d love to go, but I just can’t make it. Too far, too expensive, too difficult.

However, that got me thinking, surely this is the right time to push the agenda north of the border. We have a separate parliament who have yet to make any major noises about this campaign. So, I’m wondering if we need a Scottish ride to coincide with the London ride. Probably an Edinburgh ride to Hollyrood.

What do you guys think?

I’ve started writing a blog post about it, we would need a lot of support from others, and this might be a good time to get support from the Scottish press (we’d ideally have support from the Times as well). We’d obviously need Spokes, GoBike, Cycling Scotland etc on board.

Just thought I’d pass it by you guys first.

I’ll have to cancel my entry to the Kinross Sportive which is a shame!

Dave

Since then it has been a roller coaster ride, the three became seven and then eight, and before we knew it we had started a revolution. We had a website (run by Alan of Go Bike), we were getting press coverage in local then national papers, even a couple of mentions on the BBC and STV evening news. On the evening of the Spokes Hustings (29th March) Michael MacLeod of STV suggested that there could be as many as a 1,000 people turning up on the day. This was the figure we started to talk about, even though I for one didn’t entirely believe it.

Around this time we decided that we really ought to have something to give to Parliament, well, we had our Manifesto (a modified version of the one I had originally written), but we felt the need for something more. So it was that we started an on-line Petition and watched the signatures trickle in. The numbers were disappointing at first, but did give us an idea of where we where getting support from, all across Scotland. It also meant we could watch the momentum grow over time, and by the 28th April we had a little over 3,000 signatures.

We somehow managed to blag a wee bit of money out of Spokes and CTC Scotland, which paid for some flyers, using one of the posters designed by the Magnificent Octopus’ (or Andy Arthur as we know him). Andy also kindly donated the monies he was paid for designing a poster for a cycle rally in London, which paid for some blue Hi-Viz tabards for the marshals. We chose blue so that it would stand out from the expected sea of yellow, but I digress. Armed with said flyers, three of us headed for the Scottish Bike Show, where, with the aid of a wonky wallpaper table (is there any other kind?) we set about trying to reach people we couldn’t reach via Twitter and FaceBook Thanks to the Scottish Bike Show for letting us do this for free!.

As the day grew closer, so the flurries of Tweets we were sending to the world increased, as did the blizzard of e-mail between ourselves. Anth, Alan and Sara were busy organising feeder rides and recruiting volunteers to help with publicity, marshalling, etc. We were all working flat out, no one was free wheeling, and, despite the strong characters involved, there were no fallings out.

The day its self dawned, there were three laptops on the breakfast table, the e-mails and tweets were still flying, to try and encourage last minute support. Checking the Petition, we noted that we had just got past the 3,000 signature mark on-line, we had also picked up around 250 on paper at the Scottish Bike Show. About 09:30 there was a phone call from the Police to ask about numbers and arrangements for the day. The conversation went something like this:

Police: so you are expecting 300 (this was the number we had put on the original application form)
Me: um no we are expecting around 1,000 now
Police: OK we will work with that

I later heard that the police briefing for the event had said that they expected around 600 riders to take part. Some of the feedback we have received from participants since the ride has been critical of us, for not anticipating the number of people who turned up on the day. But we literally had no way of knowing how many would turn up. The petition had only just gone over 3,000, and from mapping the first part of the post codes we knew that almost 1970 of those came from the central belt, but how many of those could be expected to turn up on the day? We knew there were going to be some people coming in on feeder rides, but no firm numbers.

Setting off at midday, we (Dave B and I) headed for PoP HQ, Andy’s flat just off the Meadows, to meet up with the rest of the team. This was also to be the meeting point for the non-political invited riders, namely the McNicoll’s (parents of Andrew McNicoll who was sadly killed while cycling in Edinburgh in January) and Mark Beaumont (the round the world cyclist). While there, we tried testing the megaphones we had borrowed (yes, we had 2!), only to find we had bought the wrong batteries, cue mad scramble to get more batteries and pull strings to find if we could borrow a portable P.A. system. Next, there was the phone call from Mark Beaumont to say that he was stuck in traffic on the Forth Bridge, cue jokes about telling him to get on his bike. Fortunately, the Standing Orders for the day were “Keep Calm and Carry On”, which was what we did.

Andy’s neighbours must have wondered what was going on with the constant comings and goings. Ian and Lynne McNicoll arrived with a friend (whose name I have unfortunately forgotten), we had just done the introductions when a tall figure appeared in the doorway. I looked up and thought I recognise that nose, and said “Hello Mark, come in”. The others were looking a wee bit stunned, so I set about doing the introductions as if I was introducing old friends, until I got the friend of the McNicoll’s, when I went blank, at which point the room fell silent and Mark Beaumont looked confused. Fortunately, Ian realised what had happened, finished the introductions, and we were back on track.

People filtered in and out, I left the flat for the last time about 13:30, when I received a call on my mobile from a BBC cameraman down at Holyrood, asking when we expected to arrive and what we would do when we got there. I said that people had been told to gather from 14:00 and we would set off at 15:00. He asked if there were going to be many people. I looked down Argyle Place and across to the Meadows, on the far side I could already see a crowd gathering, so I said I thought that we would make our predicted figure of about a thousand.

Across the Meadows, I went looking for people I was expecting to see, and met some old friends I hadn’t seen for years. The crowd continued to swell, we asked people to keep to one side of Middle Meadows Walk, but it was soon clear this was filling up rapidly. It was when someone told me that people arriving were backing up Argyle Place and fanning out along Melville Drive, that I started to realise that this was really BIG. However, we didn’t really know just how big yet. A conversation caught on video with the police suggested that it was well over a thousand! The new batteries for the megaphones arrived, but we found that we still couldn’t get them to work, so to tell people about the planned minute’s silence, marshals walked down the line telling people at intervals and asking them to pass the message on. It worked! When the whistle was blown to signal the start of the minute’s silence, the whole park fell silent, even people walking past stopped talking. It was a truly eerie feeling, being faced with thousands of people with the only sound being a few birds in the trees.

Photo by Chris Hill.

After the silence came a cacophony of bells, hooters and cheers! Then the ride was led off by Mark Beaumont and the McNicolls, I filtered into the line later on and rode along, chatting with people on the way. There was a wee bit of a delay getting from George IV Bridge on to the High Street, and a taxi driver in Victoria Street decided the solution was to lean on the horn in his cab. Well, until one of the police officers went and had a word with him. Generally the drivers were well natured and patient, more amusing was the reaction of the tourists who cheered and took photos. Every one seemed to be smiling.

On reaching the Scottish Parliament, the organising team all headed for a grassy knoll which stands out (the grounds in front of Scottish Parliament have been landscaped to accommodate rallies such as ours), and invited politicians headed over to meet us as they arrived. All had ridden from the Meadows, we were very happy to have cross party support. Half an hour after the first riders had arrived at Holyrood, we heard from the police that the last riders had just left the Meadows. Once everyone had finally arrived, a number of short speeches were made. However, due to the size of the P.A. system we had blagged at the last moment, quite a number people didn’t realise that speeches were happening, as they couldn’t hear them.

There was a further discussion with the police about numbers, they said at a “conservative estimate there were at least 2,500 people and probably 3,000″, this figure was agreed by many of the others who were there. There was a comment from the politicians that this was one of the biggest rallies they had seen outside the Scottish Parliament, and definitely the most friendly. The buzz was amazing and has continued for well over a week!

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

• Only days to go before the Pedal on Parliament: time for action!
• An accidental revolution
• On cycle commuting
• British cycling success comes at a price
• Thoughts on the Spokes Hustings
• A proposed eight point manifesto for safer cycling
• How do you get more people to ride bicycles

So join us, together we can make Scotland a cycle friendly nation!

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

• An accidental revolution
• On cycle commuting
• British cycling success comes at a price
• Thoughts on the Spokes Hustings
• A proposed eight point manifesto for safer cycling
• How do you get more people to ride bicycles
• How the Dutch got their cycle paths

Cllr Gordon Mackenzie wrote:

Kim

I didn’t say we couldn’t remove parking but I think the point I was making about local shops depending for some of their income on passing car trade has been covered by the first contributor. I read your comments about they traders in Gorgie but if you pop down to the shops near you on Newington Rd you will find that many recently suffered substantially from the loss of trade during the gas mains works in the area which removed quite a lot of the parking. I’ve no doubt several would go out of business if that became the norm. Similarly if you’ve been to a GP practice, like the one near me on Dalkeith Rd you’d appreciate that while many patients could do with a bit more exercise there are also a substantial number who have impaired mobility and a ban on parking would mean that they’d have to move practice or require more home visits.

However I wasn’t arguing in either scenario that we couldn’t change or improve the situation for cyclists, I was mainly highlighting the fact that it’s not as easy as saying ‘lets remove parking’. There would undoubtedly be significant consequences for many of those involved. Loss of trade could mean a business becoming unprofitable and a loss of jobs. Having to move GP could involve more travel, loss of a key relationship and additional costs to the NHS. These are not insurmountable obstacles but they’re not easy or cost free to remedy. That’s why I’m not sure that a parking restriction is always the best option.

Thanks for your comments, Gordon.

Interesting that you should mention the effects of the recent gas mains works on traders on Newington Rd. As I live nearby, I did go to some of these shops while these works was in progress. It was very noticeable at the time that pedestrian access was also hampered by the work going on. Firstly, all of the temporary traffic signs were placed on the pavement, causing obstructions to pedestrians (including wheelchairs, prams etc.). Also, the pedestrian crossing at Salisbury Place was not available because of the temporary lights which had no provision for pedestrians. There is a Pelican crossing 150m north on Newington Road. However, from experience, using this Pelican crossing was more hazardous when the works were going on, as drivers were choosing to ignore the red light and driving straight through during the pedestrian phase. I had a number of near misses and I know of other people who had similar experiences. Given these difficulties in pedestrian access, it is not surprising that there was a decline in trade during the gas mains works, and it can hardly be attributed to the loss of a few parking spaces alone.

Neither the GP practice nor the dental surgery I use have parking outside, yet both are busy. So, here again, parking is not the key issue that it is often made out to be. You say that a parking ban would impact on patients with “impaired mobility”, but Blue Badge holders are permitted to park on yellow lines, and disabled-only bays could easily be provided (as long as they were enforced). Since July of last year I have had to make regular trips to the Royal Infirmary, all of these I have made by bus, including the initial trip to A&E, to have my broken collarbone diagnosed. I have a friend who broke his leg playing football, he travelled to all of his outpatient appointments by bus, too. The suggestion that access to a car is needed in order to receive medical treatment really is a red herring.

People need to have a choice of transport, but the over-emphasis on making it easy to use a car, as the default, leads to car dependence and a closing-off of opportunities for active travel. International experience has shown that restricting parking is effective at increasing active travel, and quality of life for those living in urban areas. It is very noticeable that places which often are voted as being “the best place to live” are those where walking and cycling are easy and car access is restricted. This doesn’t mean that people living in these places own fewer cars or have less access to cars, just that they use them far less often.

If you are serious about reducing congestion and air pollution in the city, for the benefit of all, then you really do have to grasp the nettle and reduce car parking. Again, looking at international evidence of places where these changes have been applied, they didn’t always have high approval rating when they were first brought in. But after a couple of years when people had experienced the benefits of having more people-friendly streets, they have proved to be highly popular. To quote Jeremy Clarkson (I never thought I would find myself doing this) writing about Copenhagen “The upshot is a city that works. It’s pleasing to look at. It’s astonishingly quiet. It’s safe. And no one wastes half their life looking for a parking space. I’d live there in a heartbeat.” This is the way I would like Edinburgh to be!

With regard to the “Quality Bike Corridor”, there is no reason why drivers have to be able to park on the main road. They could be provided with a small number of short term Pay & Display parking bays in nearby side streets and walk the last few metres. If active travel is to become the default means of transport, it must be made the easier option, with driving being a less attractive option. Current policies are having the opposite effect, this needs to change for the benefit of everyone.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

• Thoughts on the Spokes Hustings
• On cycle commuting
• More on cycle parking…
• A proposed eight point manifesto for safer cycling
• A message to Edinburgh Councillors on 2012/13 transport budget [Final update]
• How do you get more people to ride bicycles
• Shopping: a reply

This should be regarded as total unacceptable, no one should have to take their life in their hands to train for a relatively safe, legal activity. This is why I urge you to support the Pedal on Parliament campaign, which aims to make our roads safer for everyone. Please help us to make a change by signing the petition and joining us on the 28th April 2012.

Oh, and if anyone feels that having good quality cycle infrastructure is in some way a threat to cycle sport, have a read of this, there is no threat to cycle sport from making the roads safer for all.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

• Only days to go before the Pedal on Parliament: time for action!
• An accidental revolution
• Thoughts on the Spokes Hustings
• A proposed eight point manifesto for safer cycling
• How do you get more people to ride bicycles
• How the Dutch got their cycle paths
• Something about bicycle lanes, strict liability etc.

However, there were other things which stuck in my mind, such as Cllr Gordon Mackenzie (Lib Dem) saying that the Council couldn’t remove on street parking from bus lanes or the “Quality Cycle Corridor” because people depend on their cars to drive to the local shops. What? The reason we have so many local shops is because Edinburgh still has people living in the city centre, and they shop in places within walking distance. If the on street parking was removed from Causewayside, the antiques shops would still be there, it is just the residents of the Grange and Newington would have to walk 5-10 minutes to get there. The reason those shops are there is because the customers live nearby and not because there is on street parking. Come on, Cllr Mackenzie, have you actually gone and looked at other cities which are pedestrian and cycle friendly? One thing you will find is that they have lots of local shops, because people can walk and cycle to them. It is the places where people are car dependent that don’t have local shops, which is the result of failed transport policies making people car dependent and causing the death of the High Street in clone towns across the UK. Also, Cllr Mackenzie, when you say people have to be able to drive to their local Health Centre, have you talked to the doctors about this? Increasingly the medical profession is waking up to the benefits of active travel, and encourage people to be more active in their daily lives. This includes walking to their local Health Centre. It should be noted though that Cllr Mackenzie is a regular cyclist and the current Transport Convener of the City of Edinburgh Council, who has done much to support cycling in Edinburgh.

Then there was Cllr Lesley Hinds (Lab), who said that she thought cycling was a good idea, but doesn’t cycle herself because she doesn’t feel safe. The interesting thing here was the reaction of avid cyclists, who all told her that cycling was safe and completely ignored what she was trying to tell them. This is important, as it has a dramatic effect on policies to increase cycling: we are constantly being told that it is safe to cycle, and that we just have to share the roads. We are told that we just need to train more people to cycle with the motor traffic, and cycling will become even safer. Then, once a critical mass of cyclists on the roads has been achieved, we can have more infrastructure to accommodate cycling on the roads. Well, we have had cycle training for children for 60 years, and yet we haven’t seen this increase in safety, just a decline in the numbers cycling and walking as transport on a regular basis. We need to learn to listen to people like Cllr Hinds who say they would cycle as transport, if they felt it was safe. It is the provision of infrastructure to make cycling feel safer and more convenient that increases cycling rates, and not the other way around. Experience from other countries has shown that, when safe and convenient routes are provided between places people want to go, cycling rates increase rapidly.

Instead, British transport policy has historically been aimed at making driving easier, and at the same time taking away choice by making it harder to walk and cycle, through measures such as “traffic smoothing” and “cycle networks” which look like they have been designed by a spider on caffeine. This is something we need to turn around. The one piece of news Cllr Hinds gave the meeting, that came as a surprise to all (including Cllr Mackenzie), was that TIE (the company set up to run Edinburgh’s trams) intends to renege on its promise to carry bikes on the trams when they start running. This would be a very foolish move on their part.

Next on the list was Cllr Cameron Rose (Con), a long time Spokes member and regular utility cyclist. Given that description, you might expect Cllr Rose to be supportive of active travel, but he wasn’t keen on the idea of spending money on it, well he is a Tory. More oddly, he seemed to think that we should “experiment” with different solutions, rather that using existing best practice from places where cycling is common, and where they have already carried out these “experiments” and found out what works. The reason given by Cllr Rose was that the Netherlands are flat, an argument which I really can’t get my head around, what has topography got to do with safe junction design and the principles of separation? If he was trying to suggest that high levels of cycling can only be found in places that are flat, he should try telling that to people in cities throughout the Alps where cycling rates are high. I have personally seen this in Salzburg, Innsbruck and Bozen/Bolzano, these places are not exactly flat. I do however like his strong support for the idea of having a bicycle share scheme in Edinburgh, similar to those found in cities across the world.

I don’t remember Cllr Steve Burgess (Green) saying anything I could disagree with, indeed he seemed to have read the Pedal on Parliament manifesto and was supporting all the things we are calling for. Then again, I would be seriously worried if the Greens weren’t supportive of Active Travel.

Finally there was Cllr Alasdair Rankin (SNP) who seemed a wee bit unclear as to just what the SNP policy on cycling is – he is not alone there, non of us are clear on that. He was, however, keen to take on board the need for change. I just wish Keith Brown MSP, the Transport Minister, was the same. Currently the SNP’s transport policy seems to be stuck somewhere in the 1980’s, building more roads without strategic thought for the future. For example, the new Forth road crossing has been designed with no provision at all for cycling or walking (which came as news to Cllr Rankin). At the end of the day, using the roads should be safe for all, and no one should have to take their life in their hands to get from A to B.

The one glimmer of hope on the SNP front comes from Marco Biagi MSP, whose response to the Pedal on Parliament manifesto I received today. He says: “The Pedal on Parliament manifesto is a set of practical and helpful proposals that set out very clearly the action that must be taken at all levels if cycling is to grow and flourish in Scotland.” Let us hope that he can persuade the rest of his party of this.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

• A proposed eight point manifesto for safer cycling
• How the Dutch got their cycle paths
• Of on street parking and bus/cycle lanes
• How do you get more people to ride bicycles
• On cycle commuting
• A message to Edinburgh Councillors on 2012/13 transport budget [Final update]
• Say no to ridiculous car trips

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

• First bat of the year…
• Strange voice in the early morning
• New Edinburgh Wildlife Website
• First bird to sing
• Evicting squatters
• A gentle breeze to the Border
• One swallow

rac.co.uk/news-advice/mo… Cyclists ‘need space to stay safe’, so when will RAC members oblige?

— Kim Harding (@kim_harding) March 21, 2012

@kim_harding – Really, what’s it got to do with RAC members Kim? Or AA members come to that? Or in fact, the car driver in general, at all.

— David Cameron (@DaveCameronNo10) March 21, 2012

@DaveCameronNo10 As an ex driving instructor, I would say that safe driving has a lot to do with drivers or is dangerous driving OK by you?

— Kim Harding (@kim_harding) March 21, 2012

So there we have it, some people don’t understand how it is that drivers can be a considerable risk to other! But then if you are a Twitter troll and not senior politician, you are bound to have opinions like that. Obviously the person behind that Twitter account is very unlikely to support the Pedal on Parliament campaign, but you can by signing the petition in the sidebar–>

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

• Only days to go before the Pedal on Parliament: time for action!
• Of on street parking and bus/cycle lanes
• British cycling success comes at a price
• Thoughts on the Spokes Hustings
• An accidental revolution
• A proposed eight point manifesto for safer cycling
• City of Edinburgh Councillors who have a Blog

It wasn’t long before more tweets, then e-mails began to fly, a core group formed, and the whole thing started to snowball. A thousand e-mails and a little over a week later we had formalised our manifesto, drafted a press release and produced a website, thus Pedal on Parliament was born!

It wasn’t long before we started to get positive press, but the big surprise was the coverage we got from the Edinburgh Evening News, a paper which hasn’t always been friendly towards cyclists, but this is a very welcome change of editorial direction. We also received support from Mark Beaumont, who said: I support the manifesto points and hope that the politicians do take notice of them. There have been some tragic accidents in recent months and small changes could make the difference between life and death. I’m also glad that the Pedal on Parliament organisers understand that cyclists and motorists must share the road, too many times cycling safety campaigns get bogged down in adopting a them and us stance. I’m both a cyclist and motorist myself and I’ll do my best to be there on the day, too. Thanks Mark, we really appreciate your support!

On Monday morning, I was asked if I could get some people together for a photo call that same afternoon! At that time, only three members of the core group were in Edinburgh (of the others, three are in the west of Scotland and one in the centre), and I did wonder if it could be done. But fortunately, a call on social media for volunteers was picked up by an other blog and the local Edinburgh Cycling Forum. So by five o’clock there was a reasonable turn out for the photo call, and we gained a new member for the core group.

© Johnston Publishing Ltd

We also have coverage in the cycling press, from road.cc and bikebiz. Day by day the momentum is building, you can now follow the campaign on twitter and FaceBook. There are an increasing number of posters available, with more to come, great work Andy!

As this is a campaign to make Scotland’s roads safer for everyone, whether you live here or visit, you can join in by signing the newly launched petition. Those of you who do live in Scotland, please write to your elected representatives and urge them to support the manifesto to help make Scotland a healthier, happier, safer place for us all to live in. Don’t forget that the Scottish local elections are on 5^th May. Now is the time to focus the minds of your local councillors and persuade them to follow the City of Edinburgh’s example and commit 5% of their transport budget to active travel. We can do it, we can make Scotland a cycle-friendly nation again, if we work as if we are in the early days of a better nation!

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Margaret Mead

Please sign the petition and get your friends and family to sign it to, and if you can please join us on 28^th April at two o’clock on the Meadows, to set off at three o’clock to Pedal on Parliament!!

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

• Only days to go before the Pedal on Parliament: time for action!
• On cycle commuting
• British cycling success comes at a price
• A proposed eight point manifesto for safer cycling
• How do you get more people to ride bicycles
• How the Dutch got their cycle paths
• Of on street parking and bus/cycle lanes

I have a few reservations about these pollution-busting garments.

It is not because it uses nanotechnology, there is much rubbish talked about the supposed risks of nanotechnologies, as if they are all the same thing. Each technology needs to be looked on its own merits, talk of grey goo is best left to those whose knowledge of biology comes from talking to the plants in their greenhouse.

Nor is it because I under estimate the level of the problems of air pollution. Four thousand people died as a result of the Great Smog of London in 1952, and this led to the introduction of the Clean Air Act in 1956. In 2008, 4,000 people died in London from air pollution and 30,000 died across the whole of the UK. Air pollution costs Britain £10bn a year, with 925,000 people exposed to concentrations of NO₂ exceeding the legal limits. There is a very serious problem with air pollution in Britain which is not being taken seriously enough. According to SEPA, there has been “little or no demonstrable improvement in air quality” over the last 10 years in areas targeted for action by local and national government. We are now in a situation where Scottish ministers have applied to the EU for permission to delay complying with the safety limits, even though we have already had ten years to get things sorted out. We don’t need an extension to the deadline for compliance, we need our politicians to get their heads out of the sand and take the issue seriously.

No, the reason I have reservations about these “pollution-busting garments” is because they fail to actually address the problem of pollution.

First off, they only remove one air pollutant, what about all the others that come out of the exhaust pipes of motor vehicles? Secondly, it doesn’t actually remove the pollutant from the environment, it merely moves it to another place. When the garments are washed, the nitrates are mixed with phosphorus from the washing powder and flushed down the drain, where they become a potent water pollutants, causing problems with eutrophication down stream.

It would be far better to deal with the problem at the source and reduce the number of motor vehicle movements which lead to pollution in the first place. Fortunately, there are signs that this is starting to happen in Edinburgh where higher than average death rates, linked to air pollution, have prompted plans for an overhaul of traffic systems. These proposed changes are not before time, and it is only to be hoped that they are not scuppered by a narrow minded campaign from a scurrilous local rag.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

• Thoughts on the Spokes Hustings
• A proposed eight point manifesto for safer cycling
• A message to Edinburgh Councillors on 2012/13 transport budget [Final update]
• Pre budget letter to list MSPs and replies (updated)
• An open letter to Alex Salmond MSP on active travel
• How do you get more people to ride bicycles
• The Cargo Bike Club idea revisited

1. Lorries entering a city centre should be required by law to fit sensors, audible turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
2. The 500 most dangerous road junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors that allow lorry drivers to see cyclists on their near-side.
3. A national audit of cycling to find out how many people cycle in Britain and how cyclists are killed or injured should be held to underpin effective cycle safety.
4. Two per cent of the Highways Agency budget should be earmarked for next generation cycle routes, providing £100 million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities should be graded on the quality of cycling provision.
5. The training of cyclists and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.
6. 20mph should become the default speed limit in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes.
7. Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycleways and cycling super-highways, mirroring the Barclays-backed bicycle hire scheme in London.
8. Every city, even those without an elected mayor, should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.

Personally I find this a disappointing mishmash of ideas and lacking in ambition. I think that we can do better, so here is my version:

Active travel is a great idea as it achieves so many policy objectives: it is clean, it is green, it reduces congestion in towns and cities, and it is healthy (active people, such as regular cyclists, live longer). In addition, people who use active ways of travel to get to work are more productive, and it is relatively cheap and therefore has great potential to save money (the future savings in health cost alone make worthwhile).

1. Commitment to cycling: Cycling is booming in Britain and said to be worth £3 billion to the economy. But while in the Netherlands some £10-£20 per head is invested in cycling. In Scotland it is nearer £2-£3. In England the best achieved was the 2005-2011 Cycling City and Towns project, which invested around £10 per head and achieved significant growth in everyday cycle use. The Scottish government should invest 5% of its £2bn annual transport budget in active travel (cycling and walking). This is exactly in line with its own ‘Low Carbon Scotland’ proposal for £1.32bn over 11 years, and with the per-head figure which The Netherlands spends on cycling alone. Scottish local authorities should invest, from their own internal transport budgets, a proportion at least equal to their existing commuter cycling modal share, as the City of Edinburgh Council has done. Bearing in mind that the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland aim is “By 2020, 10% of all journeys taken in Scotland will be by bike.“
    
2. Improved provision for cycling: this must include a commitment to reviewing major roads and junctions, prioritising dedicated space for cyclists where speed limits are not already 20mph and ensuring quality infrastructure which ensures safe reintroduction of cyclists to the highway where relevant. This should be done following best practice from places which have a cycling modal share of 20% or greater. Local Transport Note (LTN) 2/08 and Cycling by Design 2010 should be scrapped as neither is truly fit for purpose (although the latter is better than the former). The important thing is to get rid of the concept of “dual networks” cycling should be safe for everyone, not just the quick and the bold. The Dutch and the Danes have developed their best practice over 30 years of trial and error, we have the opportunity to learn what works and avoid repeating the mistakes.
    
3. Slower speeds: in residential and built up areas. There are significant road safety benefits with a 20 mph speed limit. National government must commit to supporting, encouraging and funding local authorities to follow many of their peers and make the change to 20mph.
    
4. Encouragement of cycling – Smarter Travel Choices. National Government and local authorities must commit to supporting safe and active travel within a wider programme of ‘smarter choices’ investment. By committing to this policy direction, we are more likely to see a joined-up package of measures. A good example of this is the “Better way to work” campaign which was run in Edinburgh last year.
    
5. Improved road traffic law and enforcement: Traffic law must do more to protect the most vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians, children and older people. In addition, traffic policing teams much be given more resource to ensure that existing laws can be enforced more effectively. Sentencing must be appropriate when drivers cause harm, and fines should be related to income as following the Swiss model.
    
6. A focus on Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs): heavy lorries are associated with a disproportionately high risk of death or very serious injury to cyclists and pedestrians. Despite being just 6% of road traffic, lorries are involved in around 20% of all cyclists’ fatalities. Government policies must ensure a commitment to the roll-out of a comprehensive package of measures to reduce the risk of HGVs to cyclists and pedestrians.
    
7. A strategic and joined-up programme of road user training: to include better information, provision and training for all road user types including cyclists from an early age.
    
8. Improved data: the information that records how many people are cycling is very poor at the national level and inconsistent at the local level. This makes it difficult to monitor what is happening and which interventions have greatest impact. At a minimum, counts should be carried out twice a year using standardised protocols for data collection and handling. Where possible, electronic counters with displays should be used to count the number of cyclists passing certain routes. This both raises awareness and creates a community feeling among cyclists, as well as being a good evaluation instrument to monitor the success of the project.

If these eight points were to be taken on board and fully implemented, we could make this a happier and healthier country.

This post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Possibly Related Posts: (automatically generated)

• How do you get more people to ride bicycles
• On cycle commuting
• How the Dutch got their cycle paths
• Introducing the Dutch Cycling Embassy
• Cycle parking, a new opportunity in Edinburgh?
• Fear, loathing, and cycle campaigning
• Of tram tracks and cyclists