The UK Cycling Alliance (UKCA) will host a national cycling debate on Monday 2 March at which Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats will state their position on cycling ahead of the General Election in May.
John Humphrys will host The Big Cycling Debate at which Transport Minister, Robert Goodwill MP (Conservative); Shadow Transport Minister, Richard Burden (Labour); and Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrats), will all be in attendance.
The event is being hosted by the UK Cycling Alliance, a group of non-government and membership organisations working in and on behalf of cycling. Members include British Cycling, CTC and Sustrans. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance, Chris Boardman said:
“In the last couple of years we’ve started to see real progress being made and a will to make the changes needed at the top to embed cycling into our culture. With the election just around the corner it will be interesting to hear what plans the major political parties have.
“With cycling more popular than it’s been in decades and a new clause in the Infrastructure Act that makes providing for cycling a legal requirement, we have what is perhaps a once in generation chance to change our country for the better. All of the cycling organisations in the alliance agree that leadership and sustained investment are key to transforming Britain into a cleaner, more liveable and healthier nation. I am anxious to hear which of the would-be leaders of this country have the vision to grasp this opportunity.”
In 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron promised a ‘cycling revolution’ but a year later, the Government’s cycling delivery plan was described as ‘derisory’ and little more than ‘a wish list’ by campaigners.
Chief among the criticisms was the lack of any firm commitment to spending. 2013’s Get Britain Cycling report from the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) called for initial minimum annual spend on cycling of £10 per person. However, the report merely expressed an aspiration to work with local government and businesses to “explore how we can achieve a minimum funding equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020 and 2021 – and sooner if possible.”
Transport minister, Robert Goodwill, claimed that the government had doubled funding since 2010, with £374 million committed between 2011 and 2015. However, CTC chief executive, Paul Tuohy, led the reaction to what he described as being ‘a derisory plan not a delivery plan.’
“If we can afford long term strategies for our roads and railways, why not for cycling? It has such huge benefits to the economy and the environment, our waistlines and our wallets it would be foolish not to.”
16 thoughts on “National cycling debate scheduled ahead of the General Election”
Why not the Greens? Because
Why not the Greens? Because they would put all three of them to shame?
userfriendly wrote:Why not
Long story. Partly to do with Electoral Commission and having to invite 11 other parties, too.
userfriendly wrote:Why not
They’re certainly more pro-cycling but – like UKIP, albeit on different points – they’re increasingly being shown up as the shambling amateurs they are. I was at an infrastructure event with their deputy leader Amelia Womack today – her ignorance and incoherence was breathtaking.
This debate is a very good
This debate is a very good idea. Unless politicians know that they’re being judged on their commitments to cycling, nothing will ever change.
Robert Goodwill is an awful cycling minister, in my opinion. He just makes excuses on behalf of the government, and spends his time trying to justify a lack of action. There is no point in him being in that post.
That said, cycling is the only issue on which the Conservatives generally could be said to be progressive and enlightened, albeit only some of them, in only a limited way.
I am concerned about John Humphrys being the host. Does he know anything about cycling? Will he make it all about himself? Will he feel he has to ask stupid questions about cycling, because they’re the questions that are usually asked in the media (hi viz or other such rubbish)? Isn’t it time the pompous so-and-so retired?
HarrogateSpa wrote:This
It’s a terrible idea. They are looking for votes. Not necessarily the votes of cyclists. The biggest bang for your populist buck is to advocate compulsory helmets, hi viz, registration and insurance.
The same way that if you had a debate on driving you’d get a big cheer for the police leaving the poor old speeding motorist alone, the removal of safety cameras, unmarked Q cars and the like.
Not a good idea at all. We need politicians to listen to real experst in a calm manner not play to the gallery for a big cheer before an election.
This debate is a sideshow for
This debate is a sideshow for career politicians to sell their respective party bullshit to the new demographic interest group who have taken up cycling in the last few years.
Expect weasel words, half-promises, media speak and above all self-serving bollocks from people insulated from reality by a large salary.
crikey wrote:This debate is a
So that’s a “I don’t think it is going to very good” then?
Seriously, you do have a good point. The current Government has been appalling, and I don’t rate Labour higher http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/12/02/does-labour-support-cycling/
Brilliant, we’ll need to get
Brilliant, we’ll need to get the bingo card out for this one.
I wounder how long it will take Robert Goodwill to say “it’s it time cyclists started paying road tax”
Housecathst wrote:I wounder
He won’t. I don’t think he’s been very effective for cyclists – but he isn’t UKIP.
This is a good idea. My only
This is a good idea. My only concern is that John Humphry may not be the best choice.
I would have preferred someone with deep knowledge off and commitment to cycling who could have really grilled the representatives
But I hope I am proved wrong & John really turns the screws tight. I’ll have the bingo card ready though
Green party
Green party policy:
Cycling
TR170 Cycling has decreased in modal share as roads have become dominated by cars. The fear of the potential of motor vehicles to inflict injury to cyclists in accidents, and the harm to their health from vehicle pollution, has been primarily responsible for this. This has led to many cyclists choosing to use pedestrian areas rather than roads. A lack of recognition of the problems faced by cyclists in being able to travel safely and conveniently has led to a huge lack of resourcing of all types of cycling infrastructure.
TR171 The Green Party recognises that the keys to promoting the use of bicycles are:
Reducing the need to travel long distances for work, leisure and shopping.
Improving road conditions to make them safe, convenient and comfortable to cycle on, including reallocating road space. (see TR110 etc)
TR172 Cycles are a vehicle and, as such, cycling should, wherever possible, take place on roads or, where not feasible, on cycle paths segregated from pedestrians. To this end, local authorities would need to review all roads regularly, and the measures needed to bring them up to a standard of safety required for cycling. In targeting support, including funding, local authorities will be expected to ensure that the most congested routes in urban areas will be given high priority, and that any works must ensure the completeness of the route.
TR173 There will be a hierarchy of measures to create this provision. The primary objective of these will be reducing speeds and volume of motorised traffic. Where this cannot achieve a safe cycling environment, various forms of segregation from vehicles will be implemented, including routes completely away from the road system.
TR174 Where the cycle infrastructure is shared with pedestrians or horse riders, or where the cycle provision on roads is shared with bus priority measures, adequate space must be provided for the two users to share it safely.
TR175 Where cycle routes are provided which give some form of segregation from other road users, the cycle route will be given priority at junctions over motorised traffic. Alterations to national rules, including the Highway Code, and education of other road users to understand this, will be needed to allow this to happen in a safe manner. (see TR163)
TR176 Stricter enforcement of parking and other violation of cycle facilities by motor vehicles will be undertaken. Where legitimate uses of cycle facilities by other vehicles takes place, e.g. servicing adjacent properties, any opportunities to provide for these elsewhere will be given priority.
TR177 A national network of longer distance cycle routes will be encouraged, within which local networks will be connected. However, the priority in cycling provision will be for local needs.
TR178 Technical innovations that allow for bicycles to be used by the greatest number of people (e.g. bicycles for people with disabilities, and including renewable power assistance for those unable to use bicycles to their full ability), and those that allow for bicycles to be used for a greater number of uses (e.g. load-carrying bikes, bikes that can carry more than one person, folding bikes, etc.), will be encouraged. (see TR071). However, simplicity in technology is of paramount importance to encourage the greatest use of bicycles, and the Green Party will encourage manufacturers to make bicycles for everyday use widely available.
TR179 All public transport providers will be obliged to fully consult with and provide for cyclists, both on their vehicles (train, ferry, bus, light rail/tram, etc.) and at all the boarding and termination points where they run along fixed routes.
TR180 All large employers and organisations that are publicly accessible must provide for cyclists to be able to leave their bicycles and belongings in safe, secure dry surroundings. For clusters of small shops or workshops, the local authority or estate owner must make such provision. This should also apply to council and private housing. Provision for cycle storage should be made in all new developments.
TR181 Local authorities will be responsible for providing cycle parking as needed in public spaces and for enabling the widespread provision of cycle resource centres, where the fullest range of supporting services, such as cycle maintenance and indoor cycle parking, can be provided.
TR182 The Green Party will encourage all other initiatives that may encourage a change of mode to cycling. This can include alterations to allowances paid by employers to their employees for their necessary travel, and government tax relief for work related cycling, on a scale no less generous than car allowances.
TR183 Training for children in all practices relating to cycle use, e.g. riding and maintenance, will become an integral part of the education system, and will be supported by the provision of safe places for children to learn to cycle. Provision for the training of adults will also be supported and must be an important element in promoting cycling in the short term whilst road conditions are particularly hostile to cyclists.
TR184 Road safety training in relation to promoting cycle use will be organised on the principle that cyclists should make their own decisions on safety needs. However, the Green Party feels that all bicycles sold should, as a minimum, have lighting (preferably pre-wired to allow for the fitting of dynamos) and a bell, or other warning device, and will support technological developments that improves this provision.
atgni wrote:Green party
fitting lights to all bikes seems like a poor policy. likelihood is that lights fitted will be barely suitable for cycling in towns. No consideration to the user requirements, some people may never ride in the dark, some will be riding only on lit streets, and some will be riding on unlit streets. yet others will want lights for off road rising at nght
as for pre wired for dynamos – nonsense. no manufacturer is going to ship bikes with internal wiring for lighting to dynamo connection. external wiring can be fitted at the time.
a lot of the rest of it is good, but the difficulty is not coming up with good ideas but finding funding for them.
wycombewheeler wrote:
as for
have a read about German law, until recently you had to have a dynamo on a bike if it weighed more than 11kgs? Whether there is any point when the police can’t enforce the current speeding laws, mobile phones etc. That is a more relevant discussion. But to say it can’t be made law is not nonsense.
It’s ambitious I’ll give them
It’s ambitious I’ll give them credit. Was thinking of voting green. It depends how much of that they can actually achieve.
I would think TR184 regarding pre-wired lights would work in conjunction with TR178 regarding more utility bikes. I can’t see the likes of Cervelo or Pinarrello pre-wiring dynamos into their latest aero bikes!
As for the debate it’s a good idea but I’m afraid it will be veiled in media savvy pre-election talk designed to get each type of demographic to support them in some way. Non cycling car addicts won’t be watching.
IMO almost all of those Green
IMO almost all of those Green policies are excellent, really excellent.
Sadly, having seen the performance of the party leader the other day, the chances of any of them happening is zero.
Green stuff is just a
Green stuff is just a wishlist of stuff, take this
All large employers and organisations that are publicly accessible must provide for cyclists to be able to leave their bicycles and belongings in safe, secure dry surroundings.
No point doing that if showers are not provided eh ?