More motorways, airports and cities, cried the leader of the “greenest” government ever. The Prime Minister is absolutely right that we need new infrastructure but what we need is not ever wider motorways but a modern cycling infrastructure, to get the ridiculous 50% of journeys under 5km that are currently taken by car, out of the way of essential business traffic.
Millions of UK citizens are too old, young, poor or eco-conscious to own a car. In countries from Denmark to Japan, their governments provide safe cycle-paths. Our roads however are not fit for purpose, as demonstrated when in a recent survey of schoolchildren in Southwark, 30% wanted to cycle to school but only 3% do so, due to parents safety fears, which helps explain why over 40% are clinically obese. Children should not fear death for simply cycling to school in a liberal society.
Across the UK only 2% of journeys are undertaken by bicycle, whereas in Holland 25% of journeys are by bicycle. Their roads are now safe enough for children as young as eight to cycle on. In the 1970’s the Dutch set up a mass campaign called “Stop Murder of Children” and their politicians responded. Holland now spends £25 annually per person on cycling infrastructure. The equivalent here is £1.25, despite the coalition doubling what was spent under New Labour.
So what should Liberal Democrats be doing? They could advocate a step-change in investment by the coalition and local authorities across the country. To match Holland we need to spend £1.5 BILLION annually on cycling. To actually catch up the annual investment needs to be £2 billion. Studies show the cost benefit analyses for cycling average 19:1, compared to a paltry 2:1 for motorways. We must escape the clutches of the antediluvian British Roads Federation and invest instead in an economic stimulus that benefits the economy, health, social justice and the environment, in ways no motorway could ever compete with.
But to create a cycling network fit for purpose, we also need to tackle the destructive underlying UK cars-only culture. The Highways Agency needs to be The Cycling and Highways Agency. The Roads Minister should be Minister for Cycling and Roads. Local and national transport managers need new job-descriptions requiring delivery of a modern European cycle-path network and the expertise to deliver them.
Liberal Democrats could make a National Cycling Network motion as a main debate at Autumn Conference. Get Lib Dem Ministers making speeches about the environmental and economic benefits. Lobby Cameron and Osborne. Get Lib Dem councils to put cycle-paths at the heart of their transport plans and budgets. Put pro-cycling motions to councils across Britain. Make it a part of the coalition deal for the remainder of this parliament. Go on Lib Dems, you showed courage and vision when you opposed the Iraq War. You can do it again on the creation of a National Cycling Network. Let’s make our roads safe for 8 and 80 year olds again! Yes you can!
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
* Donnachadh McCarthy is a freelance journalist and author, and eco-auditor at www.3acorns.co.uk. He is not a member of any political party.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The "Just War" tradition
Our kids need a lorra, lorra, larffs!!
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
The Joy of Six 1275
Find Halloween and seasonal gifts in my Etsy shop today.
Pamela Manning
Simon R
Nonconformistradical
Peter Hirst
21 Comments
I agree completely with the need to promote cycling but talk about money and investment is a stage further on. What needs to be done is to persuade people that it is worthwhile, enjoyable and good for them. I cycle and drive to work and every day that I cycle I save £6 in petrol. That’s a ‘selling point’ for anyone. I also feel great and I get to enjoy a guilt-free Danish to boot! Before we ask the government and local authorities to invest millions – which I agree completely with – we need to ‘sell’ cycling to voters and us ordinary folk.
You haven’t mentioned that cycling is on the increase despite the woeful provision in the country, proving that we could be pushing at an open door.
Finally, my big idea for promoting cycling provision: what about a policy that every new road which is built, from the smallest cul de sac to the largest motorway, should have a dedicated separate cycle lane included – not just a painted line. That way we would start to develop a network over time in the most affordable way possible.
They could bring back the Cycle to Work scheme.
Ending that was profoundly anti-cyclist.
I think persuading people is only half the problem. People aren’t going to be encouraged to cycle anywhere if the provision isn’t there for them to do so safely. I’d also think that investing in cycling proficiency schemes for primary school-aged children would be worthwhile – it certainly makes a difference in my local area.
You can’t sell it when it isn’t safe. Anyway, cyclists have been sorting out their safety problems themselves, by turning the pavements into cycle paths.
… by turning the pavements into cycle paths, and thereby making it dangerous to walk!
I agree with the need for infrastructure for cycling.
My council created cycle paths on roads that were too narrow for them in the first place. With the cycle lane, a car could barely fit on their side of the road. They did it because the Scottish Government told them that if they paint road markings and the cycle sign on the road they would give the council extra money.
That being said, we had fairly good cycle paths down the seafront in my town, but everyone just parks on them sometimes on double yellows.
That being said we do have national cycle routes. I did part of one from Ayr to Troon the other weekend. It goes from Carlisle to Inverness. There are some infrastructure their but I agree it needs improving on.
My school growing up did cycling proficiency classes in P7.
Richard Dean,
The highway code when it comes to cycling is ridiculous.
Rule 63: Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
Rule 64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Sorry, but if you do not have the experience or the skills to use a cycle lane, you do not have the experience or skill do you use the road, therefore, the only other way to get from A to B is to use the pavement. I have seen police officers in my neck of the woods cycling on pavements.
If you are not allowed to cycle on a pavement and not experienced enough to use the roads/cycle lanes then where can you cycle. It makes cycling null and void. That needs changing imo.
Nicola – are you suggesting that its OK for people to cycle on pavements if the road is dangerous?
Nicola: the Highway Code at the point you raise is, if you read it closely, saying that you can use the *road* if you have the skills and experience, but to use the cycle lanes otherwise, and the pavement never. This is not in fact quite correct advice for various reasons, which boil down to the fact that cycle lanes are a proper subset of the road network, but it is clear enough in itself.
cycle lanes are a proper subset of the road network
Oops, just thought of an example near me: they are an intersection of the road and pavement networks, but very rarely a thing apart from either.
Simon – I think society has already said that. We encourage kids to cycle as long as its not on the roads because the roads are dangerous. I think if cyclists are considerate of other pavement users then it wouldn’t be dangerous. In fact there are some cycle paths on pavements.
I was more pointing out how ridiculous the highway code is in regard to this matter. I think we need to look into this so that roads and pavements are safe for everyone.
As a keen cyclist I am completely against people using pavements. It’s a no as much as driving along a pavement would be. If cyclists want to be taken seriously, we must obey the rules and look out for others. That includes stopping at red lights every time.
If motorists want to be taken seriously they should always obey the speed limit, and give cyclists sufficient space when overtaking – as it says in the Highway Code “at least as much space as a car”
To the risk averse readers, it makes no sense to invest in cycling infrastructure [until it is safe], but others are correct in pointing out that [until it is safe] uptake will not justify the expenditure to car-loving politicians – chicken and egg exemplified!
It is also true that the number of journeys by bike is on the increase, perhaps as more people are forced out of their cars by the cost of motoring or by making sensible lifestyle choices.
I agree with wit and wisdom as a cycle-rail-cycle commuter/enthusiast myself – particularly the idea about using more room to build new roads by having a dedicated cycle lane installed nearby along the route. Assert yourself on the roads fellow cyclists of all ages, ride legally (i.e. follow the Highway Code) and respectfully and most of all have fun!
Yes to investment in cycling infrastructure, but not by nationally directed funding. I have seen cycle routes put in which make no logical sense to anyone who lives in the area, and as a consequence they are not being used. Well intended money has been wasted because it had to be spent too fast and without proper local consultation.
Segregated cycle lanes are not the answer in all situations, and to put them into every new road would be nonsensical where the volumes of traffic do not require it. In many cases proper traffic calming to create a safe environment in which cyclists can share the road safely with other road users is the most appropriate solution. One of the biggest complaints in my postbag as a councillor is cycling on pavements. The safest place for cyclists should be on the road, not on the pavement where they can cause a danger for themselves and for pedestrians. Dedicated cycle paths and lanes should be used where there is no alternative, but they are not the only answer.
Equally important is proper provision for cyclists when they reach their destination. Planners should require the provision of bike storage facilities in new places of employment and housing developments as well as shopping centres, public buildings etc.
While we are at it, let’s invest in pedestrian facilities too. On some new developments the provision for pedestrians is dire, and for short journeys the foot is as important an alternative to the car as the bike.
Thanks for comments, – much appreciated.
Many of them display the fundamental issue i.e. there is great lack of cycling infrastructure in this country. The car-drivers want cyclists off the road and the pedestrians want them on the road. Hence the Dutch solution is to create real cycling infrastructure and everybody is happy !
But nobody has answered the core question and that is should the Lib Dems support the UK following the Dutch continental Europe model in raising the annual investment in safe cycling to £25 per head, instead of the miserable token £1.25 as at present?
The studies all show if you provide safe traffic-free cycle-paths on the right routes, people start using them.
Do we want our streets to be safe for 8 year olds to cycle on again as a society and do Liberal Democrats believe that the millions who are currently afraid to cycle, should have that freedom to cycle without fear of imminent death restored to them?
The costs could be covered by instituting a Big Four Waste Responsibility Act on the top four supermarkets, who are subsidised to a tune of over £2 billion annually by council tax payers to pay for the disposal of the packaging that they generate.
Great article Donnachadh, and great to see you still in touch with the Liberal family.
In Reading, it’s pretty certain that the spend on cycle transport is much less than 2% of the transport budget: the spend on cycle lanes by this Labour council has generally been less than £100,000 per year, which is pathetic. The upshot is a join-the-dots mess of bits of cycle lanes which don’t connect anywhere to anywhere. The most recent road changes, around Reading Station, have made cycling there much more dangerous, forcing you to ride along the main pedestrianised shopping street or the inner ring road, then compete with buses and taxis in a free-for-all. Many go on the pavements (I don’t apart from one bridge where to cycle is to dice with death on a four-lane highway).
A spend of £25 per head would make a huge difference. But how do you square localism with useless Labour councils who couldn’t care less about cycling?
Hi Gareth – have had the same problem locally in Southwark but am afraid the 8 years of Lib Dem administration were not much better.
As regards the localism issue, roads currently are split between national routes and local routes. ie Highways Agency does the big links and councils do local roads. I think that is a reasonable model for the national cycle highway?
But having a charity (Sustrans) with a few breadcrumbs bravely trying to do the national routes is shameful.
As regards the local paths, could you not create a national pot that local council’s could bid for, to create cycle paths fit for 8 to 80 year olds as they are in Holland?
Labour Southwark refused Environment Agency request to report on meters of cycle-path installed annually, arguing that they were opposed to them except in exceptional circumstances. This could be made a statutory reporting item. Likewise could the total amount of installed cycle-paths and the percentage of road network covered with safe cycle paths be a reporting issue. Then people could name and shame local councils who do not care about the safety of their kids.
Am also anxious to see the concept of corporate manslaughter that is being applied to rail-companies, be applied to local councils, who install non-cycle safety infrastructure. Excitingly the Metropolitan Police are beginning to think this way also. This would really shake up lazy car-addicted council transport officers…. 8))
Lib Dem-led Edinburgh Council has recently taken a bit of a lead on this, ring-fencing 5% of their transport budget for cycling investment. It’s going to take our councils to commit to similar levels of funding if we are really going to make a difference.
Cycling is a fantastic way to get about for a variety of reasons, mainly benefiting health and the environment. It should be at the heart of our transport policy for journeys under five miles, about a 30 minute cycle.
It’s not just about routes though – as important as they are – it’s about providing information to people on just how easy it is to get about by bike, 20mph speed limits and on-road cycle training, especially for school children.
And I agree with Richard Church, secure cycle parking, showers at offices and putting cycling at the heart of new developments is also crucial. We could do so much with what is really a tiny fraction on what we spend on roads.
Yet again, Donnachadh presents an excellent case for cycles as a cheap and non-polluting means of mass transit in cities and beyond. Having also witnessed his taking his life in his hands and feet at the Elephant & Castle roundabout I admire his commitment, but lack the courage to join him.
i would appreciate your views, Donnachadh on some form of licensing-cum-insurance scheme, ringfenced to provide some funds to local authories to make cycling easier and safer. Give money to bureaucrats and charge them to use it for a speciefied task, and they will begin to find out that a lot more is required to do it properly.
Am afraid I must agree with you about our regime in Southwark, as well as the current council.
Wit & Wisdom: Yes absolutely all new relevant transport infrastructure should include traffic-free cycle paths, but would exclude residential cul-de-sacs and some zones, as they do in Holland – as they design these to be play and cycle friendly. Got this adopted by Southwark Council 3 times since 1994 but officers for 18 years have refused to implement it…. 8(
Matt Hemsley: great to see 5% transport budget ring-fenced. We are arguing for 30% in Southwark, due to absolute absence of safe infrastructure and the need to catch up on over 50 years of failure to invest. Cycle-training is important but figures in Southwark show it makes the kids who cycle safer, but does not affect numbers cycling, as parents will not allow them.
Jonathan: Re licencing and insurance. I have third party insurance as part of my LCC membership, but licencing of cyclists has been rejected wherever it has been considered, as they realised adding a bureucratic barrier to cycling, would reduce it even more, when what we need to do for everyone’s sake, including the economy, is to get more people cycling.