Public Inquiry: Get Britain Cycling

The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) is calling for evidence for an inquiry entitled: “Get Britain Cycling”

The inquiry will examine the barriers which are preventing more people from cycling in the UK. Cycling makes up 2% of all journeys, compared to 27% in the Netherlands and 18% in Denmark. Some European towns have more than 50% of all journeys made by bike.

Afraid I only just found out about this - the deadline is December 5th. More info on their website: http://allpartycycling.org/inquiry/ - but, in brief:

We are looking for written submissions which will answer the question “How can we get Britain cycling?”. The deadline for submissions is Wednesday 5th December 2012 and should be sent via e-mail to coffmana@parliament.uk (coffmana@parliament.uk). Submissions should be brief and any submissions of more than six pages long should include a table of contents.

YES! Let's get Blighty Cycling!!!

However, if you are crushed, maimed, or left for dead by a motorist then rest assured that British law will do sweet FA for you and it is your own fault for riding a bicycle.

However, if you are crushed, maimed, or left for dead by a motorist then rest assured that British law will do sweet FA for you and it is your own fault for riding a bicycle.

I think that's one of the things that people should be raising - the more people who make this point to the inquiry, the more likely it is to get listened to.

How many committees/organisations/councils/boards etc. are there now and how many cyclists are still getting injured/killed?

[I]Boris, Boardman, British Cycling, Whatever cycling ex-footballing personality in the media whom is looking for their fifteen minutes honcho[/I] - all jump on the bandwagon and push the statistics that cycling is a safe way to travel and it is a healthy, beneficial transport for all, yet how many incidents involving motorised vehicles and cyclists/pedestrians happened in the last year alone?

Cyclists are being forced off Blighty's roads and I'm sick of all this bollocks of, "The more cyclists that are on GB's roads, the safer we will become" bullshit that is so often used in the media. WhoTF thought up that gumf?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3606032.ece
Motorists will just get even more pissed off if there are more cyclists on the roads and seeing some of the dickheads I saw on two wheels on London's streets the other day - I'm not surprised.

Also, never mind this [I]"Get cycle training"[/I] shite that I see. All the feckin' "cycle training" in the world is not going to save you if your rear-ended by two-tonne-plus of steel travelling at 30mph+

I can see it now, cardigan wearing 2.1 sociology hippies with socks 'n' sandals carrying a copy of the Guardian faffing on about "traffic counts" and "what's the best colour for cycle lanes" twatting nonsense, followed by a lukewarm latte in the local hip coffee shop so they can pontificate about their wondrous spoutings at the "inquiry".

I couldn't force myself to attend such a meeting because I have before and I would rather take a cheese grater to my cock, smother it in Deep-Heat and then bathe it in vinegar than visit such a waste of my time again.

Stephen Hammond, road safety minister, said that £30m had been invested this year to tackle dangerous junctions for cyclists and that a THINK! cycle safety awareness campaign had been launched in September this year.

BIG FUCKING DEAL!!!

That is a piss in the ocean of road safety.

As I am no longer cycling, my friend gave me a lift to Westminster yesterday. A van driver went into the back of her at the lights at Brockwell Park whilst he was texting .. She inspected the damage knowing full well that there would be none as she has a tow bar.. I, meanwhile, was having apoplexy and rumaging in my bag for a pen and paper. She insisted I carried it no further as the police are self-serving cretins.
My friend Andrea is very, very clever...
I sorely wanted to report him to Roadsafe as he was laughing. I always report the laughing ones...

Years ago, when I was new to driving a motorvehicle, as similar episode happened to me. However, my towbar destroyed the silly cow's VW Polo and my car appeared not to have a scratch.

It was only later that I realised that my undercarriage on the car was bent and it had to be crushed as it was not road worthy.

Titivulus, get your friends car checked by a garage and report the prick whom caused the incident.

In fact, report the prick anyway because he's a prick. See if he's laughing then.

YES! Let's get Blighty Cycling!!!

However, if you are crushed, maimed, or left for dead by a motorist then rest assured that British law will do sweet FA for you and it is your own fault for riding a bicycle.

This. until the law forces drivers to treat us as legitimate road users and not some pesky pheasant then we are all fucked. I guess im thinking about cycling in the country lanes really but any amount of fancy cycle lanes, hi vis clothing, polystyrene on your head etc means nothing without protection from the law. Until the law changes were going to keep dying and getting maimed.

Stephen Hammond, road safety minister, said that £30m had been invested this year to tackle dangerous junctions for cyclists and that a THINK! cycle safety awareness campaign had been launched in September this year.

BIG FUCKING DEAL!!!

That is a piss in the ocean of road safety.

the force is strong in this one.

This. until the law forces drivers to treat us as legitimate road users and not some pesky pheasant then we are all fucked. I guess im thinking about cycling in the country lanes really but any amount of fancy cycle lanes, hi vis clothing, polystyrene on your head etc means nothing without protection from the law. Until the law changes were going to keep dying and getting maimed.

Forget countgry lanes. I pursued the Road Death Investigation Unit at Catford as far as possible over the death of Michael Evans in Layhams Road West Wickham (route out to the lanes for many of us in S E London) and the Range Rover driver was not even arrested as he was doing under 60 mph.

So much for the Highway Code: Part 5:126

Stopping distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

Highway Code: Man Booker prize for fiction 2013

No charges in the Evans case? I can't find anything, the Ranger Rover was travelling in the opposite direction:

Here is some evidence recently submitted to APPCG inquiry. Deadline for submissions was yesterday

Evidence submitted so far from organisations including:
The Road Danger Reduction Forum
Cycle Training UK
UK Cycling Rules

This inquiry starts this week and was mentioned on you and Yours R4 today
http://allpartycycling.org/2013/01/21/get-britain-cycling-inquiry-hears-from-first-witnesses-on-wednesday/

lets hope the politicians get it right.

A post on the Guardian Bike Blog here. I think his points 1-5 are on the money, although he could have added something about 20mph zones where segregation isn't possible or desirable.

I generally agree with him, though not with the segregation is the only answer point. I would emphasise more the need to make all our urban spaces places pleasant to walk and cycle even if we do share them with people in cars. We need to offer much sticks to people who choose to drive so they are considered guests on the roads and need to behave always giving priority to people who use benign means of getting around. This needs to be supported by speed limits, reduced space for cars and more for bikes, reduced parking for cars and more for bikes, heavy penalties for causing harm. And some places where they are not allowed. Everyone need up-skilling through education especially drivers being taught how to treat people not in cars as well as cyclists learning skills.

I am giving evidence next wednesday. Not clear yet what I'm going to asked about.

twitter feed is live with lots of comment
http://allpartycycling.org/2013/01/21/get-britain-cycling-inquiry-hears-from-first-witnesses-on-wednesday/

think there needs to be a push for strict liabiity laws,
segregation isn't the answer in my opinion, dealing with peples fears of the roads is.
segregation is being pushed now, but there is a disconnect between how much it will cost, and how long it will take to implement in a city as large as london.

strict liability, making drivers responsible for their actions and an ongoing education campaign to remind drivers that cyclists have as much right to be on the roads as they do is more important in my mind, segregation just says we (cyclists) shouldn't be sharing roads with them, so lets have our own seperate space, this thinking is powered by fear of traffic and interacting with it, road apartheid as MultiGrooves calls it, and puts the onus on cyclists to change the environment, rather than pointing the finger at drivers and driving culture and telling them they need to change, and to adapt, reducing the speed limit to 20mph to manage the differential in speed between bikes and cars, is just as important as it means its easier to navigate into and through the flow of traffic.

Everyone seems to feel that segregation will get people cycling, it may do, but only on places where there are cycle paths, which seems crazy limiting to me. There's a whole road network out there, change peoples attitudes in how they drive and interact with cyclists, change the rules in how they are allowed to interact with cyclists and pedestrians, give a stick to power the change, and then the infrastructure that is already in place need only be tweaked to ensure cyclists can get anywhere, as long as they can turn their own pedals..

But one point about getting more people cycling is that that means more drivers will also be cyclists which, hopefully, would make them more sympathetic to cyclists on roads where there are no cycle lanes. If you cycle, know people who cycle, if cycling is a common everyday way of getting around, then you are less likely to be aggressive and impatient towards people on bikes when you are in a car.

i fully agree with cornelius. perhaps even more importantly, extending segregation to every road in the country is just infeasible - the only way to get change through is to legislate much more in favour of vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians).

there's also evidence to say that this will have a huge impact on public health (for the better): beyond just cycling/walking as a mode of transport, this kind of shift would improve cardiovascular and other types of health, as well as decreasing air pollution. win-win situation??

plosone article: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051462

[conflict of interest: i'm one of the authors of the quoted study]

Corny's right.
I am all for segregation where possible. It simply isn't right to force cyclists to share some of the faster roads with motor traffic, and there are several back roads in London which could easily be closed completely to motor vehicles without impinging on traffic volume significantly.

But having ridden here and on the continent the drivers across the sea give metres of room to cyclists when overtaking and never seem to bully them, and its all due to stricter liability. This is absolutely what we must push for,

And we should emphasise its effect on deterring cyclists from bullying pedestrians too.

This^
And much much more education for drivers about how to share the roads, as well as appropriate punitive measures for drivers stupid reckless bullying behaviour. Punish outcomes not intent, so people drivers hurt are truly compensated. Driving needs to made hard in cities where people not in cars should always get priority.

The reign of the private motor in places where we live and work has had it's day. Which is why spending billions on mass segregation is a waste when we have in our towns superb cycle lanes ... Roads

This is a case of 'don't get me started' ...

... which I'm sure Niall in particular will appreciate. :)

This^
And much much more education for drivers about how to share the roads, as well as appropriate punitive measures for drivers stupid reckless bullying behaviour. Punish outcomes not intent, so people drivers hurt are truly compensated. Driving needs to made hard in cities where people not in cars should always get priority.

I seem to reply to your posts quite a lot, even though I agree with most of what you write. So...

You should punish outcomes, rather than intent, but driving is an atypical situation where you can cause a great deal of harm with no explicit intent to (vs. say, burglary, in which you have to have the intent to commit the crime). As a result you have to punish not only outcome, but also the no-harm-intended-risk-creating behaviour, such as speeding, even if there is apparently no adverse outcome at all. Lots of people don't see the problem with this kind of risky behaviour if nothing bad happens, but this misses the point that lots of people are killed and injured every year by drivers who decide just to take an apparently negligible extra risk and then are unable to deal with an uncommon event e.g., like a cyclist hitting a pothole and falling into the road in front of them.

The reign of the private motor in places where we live and work has had it's day. Which is why spending billions on mass segregation is a waste when we have in our towns superb cycle lanes ... Roads
I agree that cars probably are up for severe deprecation in the future, at least in urban environments. We should bear in mind though that this is "Get Britain Cycling" not just "Get London Cycling". There are lots of situations where segregation will allow for easy useful cycling, where it's impractical to limit the other road traffic, like adjacent small towns linked by a 60mph road.

I agree with both these points. Inter-city traffic free cycle lanes are absolutely necessary