---

Cycling

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on obtaining this debate on an issue which I feel can make a positive contribution to the health of the nation when looked at in its widest context. I declare an interest in that I am a keen cyclist. I would not describe myself as a professional cyclist, which would be taking it a bit too far. For me, 2004 was a special year. I entered this House and I also cycled from Land’s End to John O’Groats with a friend. We did 1,012 miles in 21 days, which was not the most direct route and certainly was not done in the fastest time. But it was a great way to experience the state of the roads and to test how integrated the transport system is as a whole. We also experienced the good, the bad and the ugly of British bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the joys of the Youth Hostel Association. Last year, we toured the Western Isles and I occasionally cycle to the House from my home in Southall, a distance of 12 miles through busy, London traffic. I bring to this debate current experience of what it is like to cycle all over the UK. Some cyclists—it was in the news recently—have a reputation for going through red lights and even for cycling down one-way streets, and some cycle recklessly on pavements. Clearly that is not acceptable behaviour, but we need to get it into perspective. It is rare for pedestrians to be injured or killed by cyclists. However, when cycling, the behaviour of many drivers leaves a lot to be desired. They have a desperate desire to overtake anything and everything, whatever the circumstances. They will drive frighteningly near cyclists, which adds to the climate of anxiety to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred. Being in a cycle lane, which is just a painted area of the road, does not afford the cyclist much protection. The state of the roads is another disincentive to cycling. More and more one finds significantly large potholes. Cyclists need to look ahead, because if they do not it is not just the wheel of their bike that will be bent, it will be a part of their anatomy as well. Sometimes potholes are left unrepaired not just for months but for more than a year. It is important for the Minister to encourage local authorities to understand that cyclists need a safe environment, and that includes the state of the roads. Many more people might consider cycling to work or taking their bike on holiday if they could use the train, but facilities are minimal. If trying to organise taking your bike on a train, you will have to plan a long time in advance. The facilities are minimal. If using your bike for work, it is at risk of vandalism or theft if you have to leave it at a station without lock-up facilities. I welcome the Department for Transport report, A Sustainable Future for Cycling, which was published in January. I have not had the chance to read it perhaps as closely as I would like, but, if it has a gap, I did not notice a reference to an integrated transport approach, which we need on cycling. It is no good looking at cycling on its own. It should be part of an integrated approach to transport. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, I, too, welcome the three-year budget of £140 million for Cycling England. There are some interesting elements in the programme. For example, the report states: "““500,000 Year 6 children (10 year olds) will be to take part in a Bikeability cycle training by 2012, equipping them to cycle safely and responsibly””." It is really good to encourage the next generation of young cyclists to cycle safely and responsibly on the road. The infrastructure programme will deliver 250 additional links to schools. Up to 11 new demonstration areas and six demonstration towns will have their own projects to encourage cycling in towns. These are really good developments. A Sustainable Future for Cycling also states that the infrastructure programme will also deliver: "““Doubling the number of ‘cycling to school’ champions from 20 to around 40 who [will work] with schools””," and, "““Development of a number of smaller programmes to get more people cycling””." Many people may think that £140 million is quite a lot of money for what they consider to be a niche area. But if we look at the cost-benefit ratio, for every £1 spent on the programme, the Government expect benefits of £3.20, which is a good return on the investment. If one asks the average person his or her perception of how safe it is to cycle on the roads these days, given the increase in traffic, I think that most people would feel that it is less safe. Interestingly, statistics give a different story. It does not mean that there is any room for complacency, but, while it is true that cyclists are more at risk of being killed or seriously injured than motorists—a rather obvious statement—the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured in 2006 was 35 per cent lower than the 1994-98 average. It is important to make drivers more aware of cyclists. Very often cyclists feel that drivers do not care or are blissfully ignorant of people on two wheels using the road. I welcome the fact that driver testing and training has been improved to encourage more awareness of vulnerable road users. How much of that is incorporated in the driving test, I am not sure. A Sustainable Future for Cycling makes a valid point when it states that cyclists also need, "““to take steps to reduce the likelihood or consequences of an accident by wearing high visibility clothing and cycle helmets””." I must admit that too often I see the ““near invisible cyclist”” at night. They have no lights and dark clothing, and clearly have a bit of a death wish. Educating cyclists is as important as educating motorists. The CTC, the cyclists’ touring club, has suggested that 20 miles per hour should be the default urban speed limit. I have no doubt that motorists would see that as a severe attack on their liberty. It is interesting that the CTC states: "““20 mph zones in Hull have resulted in 90% falls in killed and seriously injured from collisions. 20 mph limits are strongly supported by residents and evidence from Germany indicates that they result in an increase in walking and cycling””." The Government should seriously consider that. The CTC also proposes that we should: "““‘Health check’ every transport and land use decision. Ensuring that houses and services are planned to minimise travel and maximise access by walking and cycling has a major contribution to public health””." So the Government should promote walking and cycling as a key part of their plans. If we have to assess the contribution of the Government, overall they are doing a good job of promoting the benefits of cycling, but in terms of whether we yet have a truly integrated transport that sees road, rail and cycling as a whole, I am not convinced. I will welcome the Minister’s comments on that. Again, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for giving us this opportunity.