Proceeding contribution from Lord Berkeley (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 2 April 2008. It occurred during Question for short debate on Cycling.
Cycling
asked Her Majesty’s Government what policies they have adopted to promote the environmental and health benefits of cycling. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to start a discussion in your Lordships’ House about the environmental and health benefits of cycling. A large number of noble Lords cycle to, from or around here. I feel privileged to be followed by my noble friend Lord Young, who is a real professional cyclist. I believe he cycles from John O’Groats to Land’s End and back in a couple of days or so. He is very impressive, and I am greatly looking forward to hearing what he has to say. I just cycle for business and a bit of pleasure, and I find it is a good way of getting around. I must present the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who is another great cyclist from your Lordships’ House. He has had a knee operation today to enable him to cycle better and, although he has been to the House, he has only just recovered from a general anaesthetic, so it is probably a good thing that he does not try to speak. I declare an interest as secretary of the All-Party Group on Cycling. We have our annual parliamentary bike ride on 10 June. Before I launch into what a great thing cycling can be, I congratulate the Minister on the Government’s recent announcement. It is probably worth putting to bed something that comes up every time we have a debate on cycling: the vexed question of cyclists not obeying road signs or wearing lights. We must clearly deprecate any failure to obey the law. I certainly try to obey the law. That is not, however, a reason for knocking everything cycling, which one or two people occasionally do. I shall give a few facts and figures about the benefits of cycling, particularly to health and the environment. If one thinks about the number of car journeys under that most people make, an awful lot of them could be done on a bicycle. Sixty per cent of car trips are less than five miles, which can be done very quickly on a bicycle. Cycling is very good for you; I certainly feel fitter when I cycle. The Chief Medical Officer has said that adult cyclists can be as fit as someone 10 years younger and have a life expectancy of two years above the average. It is a good way to start thinking about cycling if you can behave as if you are 10 years younger and have an extra couple of years of life. There is, however, a ridiculous fluctuation in the number of people who cycle in different countries and different cities in Europe generally or in the UK. Apparently, only 2.8 per cent of commuters in this country cycle. In the Netherlands, it is 27 per cent. The Netherlands is fairly flat, but so is much of England. The difference is that the Netherlands has provision for cyclists that makes one feel safe. I shall return to the question of safety and fear, because fear is a serious disincentive. The UK has two major initiatives. One is from the Mayor of London, whose target to increase cycling by 80 per cent was reached in 2000, five years before the deadline. Cycling around London, one sees that there is still a variation in provision between boroughs, but, my goodness, it is a lot better than it was 10 years ago. There is safety in numbers in cycling. When there are 25 of you trying to get across Hyde Park Corner rather than just one, you feel a lot better and safer, even with the lights. Nationally—I am sure my noble friend will tell us more about this—the Government have increased the funding for cycling to £140 million in the next three years, which is fantastic. Again, there is a terrible variation in provision between some local authorities. I believe that some of them spend only about a £1 a head on cycling, whereas £5 to £10 a head is spent in the Netherlands, Germany and, I suspect, in Denmark. It may interest noble Lords to know that Copenhagen—I have seen a lovely report about cycling in Copenhagen—is going to increase cycling by 10 per cent, which will reduce the years of prolonged severe illness by 46,000, save £5.5 million annually and reduce the number of sick days overall by more than 3 per cent. That is worth having. Copenhagen claims that this will mean an extra 61,000 years of life—I am not sure what that means individually, but it is still pretty good—and will save 80,000 tonnes of CO2 each year. This is all at a cost of about £15 million, which is a tenth of what the Government are putting into cycling for the whole country. It is not unachievable and is of the same order of magnitude as the campaign that I am sure my noble friend will tell us about. The Copenhagen initiative is a campaign to make cyclists feel safer. There will be more cycle tracks and all the usual things as well as better behaviour, which is not a bad thing at all. The key, however, is to make the cyclist feel safer, which I shall focus on for a bit. I certainly find that fear is a great disincentive to cycling—my wife finds it even more so—and I am afraid that that is largely due to the speed of the traffic on the road that you are on and the distance from that traffic that you are forced to be. If you have a cycle lane, that is absolutely fine. If not, a 15 mile an hour speed limit is wonderful. A 30 mile an hour speed limit is probably better. When the speed limit gets up to 40 and 50 miles an hour, one thinks seriously about going on the road at all and tries to find a footpath. You are much more likely to get killed if you are hit by a car going faster. Cars have less room for manoeuvre, even if they are concentrating. There is a lack of good design in many cycling facilities. The worst cycling facility that I have come across is somewhere in Belgravia, where Westminster City Council has put in a chicane, especially for cyclists, with lovely granite kerbs. You have to slow to about 5 miles an hour even when there is a green light. Why bother? The council has clearly not thought about the design at all. The other point about design is that we really must look at journeys holistically. It is fine having a great cycle lane when you want to go across London, but if you cannot get across Hyde Park Corner—which is a bad example because you can get across most places quite well now—you are not going to do it. There must be a proper and consistent series of cycle routes. There is largely such a series in London, but not in many other places. To return to the point about speed limits, the 20 mile an hour zones in Hull, which are one example of good practice, have resulted in a 90 per cent reduction in the number of those killed and seriously injured. Residents also like a 20 mile an hour speed limit. I know that not all motorists like it, but a network of roads in the city with a 20 mile an hour speed limit should be encouraged. Lastly, I make a plea to the Minister. Lorries are bigger than cars, and their size makes them particularly dangerous for cyclists, especially when they turn left. We have had a lot of publicity about this recently. I do not like longer and heavier lorries, and I hope that the Minister can give me some comfort that the Government are not about to introduce them. However, March 2009 is the European Commission deadline for fixing safety mirrors on lorries so that drivers have a chance to see all around their lorry, especially the side that they are not driving on. Will the Government require them to be fitted retrospectively? If not, we would be in trouble and the blind side of the lorry would be a serious problem for cyclists. In conclusion, I hope that the Government will look at road use holistically when they are getting others to spend this £140 million, which is really welcome. There are great gains for the environment and health, but I still worry about the fear factor which can be mitigated by design and speed. Unlike car and lorry drivers, cyclists are not protected. As a number of officials and Ministers have done already, I hope that the Government will continue to look at best practice in Copenhagen, Amsterdam or wherever. The potential for increasing the proportion of people who cycle is enormous and the more of us who cycle, the safer we feel as a bunch. There is a bit of a herd instinct.
Secondary information
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:14:35 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460566
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460566
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460566