So apparently Chris Boardman has a manifesto that he’s presenting to the Commons Transport Committee today:

The Boardman manifesto
1 Spending on cycling to increase to £10 a head from current £2
2 Safer lorries
3 Better road design
4 Improvements to the justice system and stricter enforcement
5 Cycle safety a core part of the driving test
6 Changes to the Highway Code to protect cyclists
7 National campaign urging “mutual respect” among road users
8 Cycle training part of the national curriculum
9 Cutting town speed limits to 20mph and some country road limits to 40mph
10 Consistent political leadership

But will it change anything? Would adding 11. Stop it raining be about as a) important, b) as likely as any of the other points of being taken forward?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article4000709.ece

unlikely to happen.
i hope im wrong though.
i have had many people (co workers, friends, family members) say to me
“i hate cyclists” and, when asked why, they are unable to actually give any reason for it.

So he’s basically re-stating the key recommendations of last years ”Get Britain Cycling” Report from last April…

10 months on and the APPCG have to wheel CB out again to endorse, what seemed like reasonably sensible recommendations the first time… It’s almost as if Parliament and the Great British public don’t really give a crap, but that couldn’t be it surely?

All really sensible recommendations and it’ll be a real shame if this doesn’t get anywhere. For a whole host of reasons it feels like The Right Thing To Do.

However, does the financial argument stack up?

An extra £8 per head spending in the UK means about £480m total (assuming UK population is about 60m). The saving from implementing these proposals is estimated at £250m. If this is right then the financial argument surely doesn’t make sense. What am I missing?

i don’t know why people keep singling out the lorries… sure, they cause deaths, but i would say that the lorries have more of a right to be on the roads that the thousands of cars. even more so in the cities where transport infrastucture is better for those making short journeys. not that easy to make deliveries on foot, with a bus or on the bus.

i think that the problem lies with non-cycling motorists and their attitude towards cyclists in general.

the UK needs a massive culture/attitude shift before cycling can be seen as a normal form of transport. you can either do this by force (such as making 20mph limits compulsory or changing the design of lorries) which causes resentment or softly which has no garntee of changing anything.

either way cyclists will continue for the most part to get a bad press from the general public.

living in Germany and having cycled a lot around Europe i pity the situation in the UK.

living in Germany and having cycled a lot around Europe i pity the situation in the UK.

Exactly, it was like a breath of fresh air when I moved to Germany, it is far from perfect, but far far better than the UK.

The thing is they have had policies that encourage cycling for 30 or so years, just like Holland. They decided a long time ago that they wanted to encourage cycling and took that course of action. In the early 80’s they were probably in a similar position to the UK.

All really sensible recommendations and it’ll be a real shame if this doesn’t get anywhere. For a whole host of reasons it feels like The Right Thing To Do.

However, does the financial argument stack up?

An extra £8 per head spending in the UK means about £480m total (assuming UK population is about 60m). The saving from implementing these proposals is estimated at £250m. If this is right then the financial argument surely doesn’t make sense. What am I missing?

It was a half baked argument constructed to fit the political landscape 12-18 months ago, when the record was stuck on “Austerity” or money, Money, MONEY!!…

Thus the game was don’t propose anything unless you can demonstrate straightforward overall Cost/Benefit that a DM reader can follow.
The easiest way to do this is claim you’ll save the NHS many, many Millions, of course while £250m might sound a lot, the NHS probably spends twice than on loo rolls in a year, and the true net benefits for the country of more cycling would go well beyond clawing back pocket change for the Health service…

TBH I think there’s been a slight shift, people are getting a bit bored of ministers throwing made up numbers about and claiming they can save the NHS Trillions so long as we stop housing the poor/immigrants and just line ’em up against a wall… You start to get the impression that the general well being of the British public comes in a very distant 3rd place behind general penny pinching and blaming the other lot…

I think a greater focus on Public Health, Environmental and personal financial benefits would have gained more support for investment in cycling infrastructure this time round. Don’t tell us cycling benefits the economy, tell us it benefits the individual, in terms of our personal health, the air we breath and the money we piss away on petrol, tag the benefits to the economy and NHS on the end if you really must…

We already spend a fair chunk on twee little claymation adverts and pamphlets to tell the great unwashed that eating lard and Sugar isn’t good for them, so why not adopt that tac for promoting cycling?
What sells a policy these days is the impression that it’s actually going to be good for people, not just that it benefits faceless government bodies and their stretched budgets…

I don’t expect anyone believes all ten recommendations would get passed, but if the Driver/cyclist Education points and improvements in road layouts/planning guidance were to get carried forwards that alone Could make a huge impact on cycling uptake…

All IMO of course.

but i would say that the lorries have more of a right to be on the roads that the thousands of cars

Do we really want to get into some kind of transport top trumps?

No, didn’t think so.

£250m is about 0.3% of the NHS budget.

3, 7 and 10 please.

Do we really want to get into some kind of transport top trumps?

maybe not, just my opinion. discuss it if you wish. or don’t. but why take offence at it?

Germany, it is far from perfect

yup… like insisting you have to use the bike paths that are <1m wide.

my problems with them are as follows:

directly alongside pedestrians who jump across to get the their motor. path is separated from the road so drivers can’t see you and you can’t see cars wanting to turn right.
covered in grit and/or ice.
can’t overtake due to width.
when they suddenly end and you are meant to get off and push your bike under the underpass (and the old bill are stood there at the other end waiting to issue you a ticket).
little white lines where you are supposed to stop despite your carrying straight on with no road/traffic joining (again, old bill ambushing you.. got fined 160€ for going through THIS “red” light last year.)

there is still too much room given to cars in town, IMO. lots of large two or three lane roads, admittedly full of cars, that could have one lane given over to buses and bikes. would encourage people to ride if they saw it was quicker to ride.