I’ve long tried to justify an article for Progress about my twin obsessions of politics and cycling. The opportunity came this week with two stories, one welcome and one tragic: Maria Eagle’s Fabian article, which promises to put cycling at the heart of Labour’s transport policy; and the horrific, unnecessary death of Alan Neve on his morning commute, the third London cycling death in a month.
Each highlights the relevance cycling and politics have to one another. Cycling is growing in the UK, particularly in cities, for everyday transport as well as for leisure. But policy has not caught up with demand: bikes vie for space in congested urban areas which is shared with cars, lorries and buses.
The danger has been responsible for 65 cyclist deaths in London since 2008, and 122 nationwide last year. The impression of danger keeps many thousands of people away: forcing them into cars for short trips makes our towns dearer, dirtier and more congested for everybody.
Investing in built infrastructure to separate bikes on busy roads is a positive choice for better and safer transport, not as a frivolous plaything for hobbyists. Bikes are already 24 per cent of morning traffic inside London’s congestion zone; on Blackfriars Bridge cyclists make 42 per cent of crossings but take up only 12 per cent of the space.
In Europe there are lessons on how to do it and what the benefits are. In Berlin more than 18 per cent of journeys are made by bike; in Copenhagen, 33 per cent; in Amsterdam, 47 per cent. Cycling is an integral part of the built environment. Except on quiet access roads, bikes and cars do not mix: space was gradually reallocated to cyclists, creating an environment where cycling not only is safe, but feels safe.
Cycling was consciously developed because it was quick, easy and cheap. Cyclists impose less wear and tear on roads, so they’re cheaper to provide for: Amsterdam saves €20m annually because people cycle rather than drive. Congestion and pollution are eased, cutting journey times. Public health and obesity rates improve as light exercise is built into daily routines.
We could enjoy these benefits here. Rather than being the preserve of the ultra-fit and lycra-clad, cycling can be for ordinary people and families. In Europe it is a normal part of everyday life. A city where large numbers of car journeys are swapped for bikes is one which is cleaner and quieter, more liveable and human. In Europe high streets don’t suffer when cars and parking are restricted in favour of cycling: shoppers linger and footfall increases when streets move at a human pace.
Getting cycling right can improve our transport, health and urban environments. But progress has proven elusive in the UK. There are political lessons to learn, with a wider political relevance.
First, it is important that progressives aren’t captive to the status quo. Sticking with the current patterns of our roads is a choice and has policy consequences, just as changing would be.
A road system which effectively limits cycling to ‘the quick and the brave’, where car demand increases beyond current capacity, imposes costs: in maintenance, future provision, and in social, health and wellbeing terms. Perhaps the most expensive, deleterious choice for road transport is doing nothing.
Second, it highlights a fact of successful localism: that local decision-making is enhanced by the state retaining an interest and not simply backing off. In each of the countries mentioned above the zeal of municipalities is matched by national government. The central state gives direction, expertise and funding, while councils are empowered to develop plans.
This is important in transport: while councils control most British roads, the network must knit together consistently. The Department for Transport publishes manuals restricting councils to approved designs: these currently prevent some European best practice. Coalition ministers have talked up cycling, but rely on councils to act. Progressive localism would see central government supporting council innovation, and promoting best practice.
Third, few policy decisions are costless and unopposed; savvy policymakers must navigate obstacles. Forty per cent of UK car journeys are less than two miles – a distance most adults can cycle in 15 minutes. British people are unnecessarily reliant on cars: while comparatively few could give up motoring entirely, plenty could leave the car at home and cycle sometimes, if circumstances favoured that choice.
Other countries made a public policy choice that they would favour bicycles, stuck to that choice, and used infrastructure and gentle discouragement of car use to change opinions. I daresay few bicycling Amsterdammers feel ‘forced’ onto their bikes, or would prefer to drive if only their city government hadn’t browbeaten them out of their cars. This takes time, consistency, and willpower.
—————————————————————————————
David Green is a management consultant and former Labour party organiser. He tweets @itsdavegreen
—————————————————————————————