What cycling question would you put to government?

road traffic law

As corporate members of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG), we have the opportunity to submit questions to a transport minister. With another round of questioning happening soon, we would like to know what cycling-related question you would like answered by a transport minister.

Please use the comments section at the bottom of the page to submit your question.

To view examples of previous questions please look at Parliamentary Monitoring for October, visit:  allpartycycling.org/october-2017

We will be submitting a question of our own, which reads as follows:

“In light of a recent trend for schools to formulate policies on cycling which impose onerous rules on pupils who would like to cycle  – policies that include the requirement that pupils seek written permission from the head teacher before they can cycle to school, or threats to impound bicycles used by pupils who refuse to wear helmets – will the government consider issuing standardised guidance to school that is inline with that offered by Cycling UK? “

The best five questions will be sent to all members of the APPCG, and they can then choose if they would like to submit a question into the ballot. If they are not successful in the ballot, then we can request that they be submitted as written questions. The main difference between an oral and written question is that an oral question is asked in person by an MP, who will then have the opportunity for a follow-up question. One of the Transport Ministers will answer. Often it is the Secretary of State.

We are a cycle insurance company like no other

Not only are we Britain’s most ethical insurance company, we campaign for sustainable transport. Sometimes that means protesting until a school gets the zebra crossing they’ve been refused, or running 60 roadshows this year to encourage people out of their cars, or fixing bicycles for free. Supporting this work is easy – you simply have to take out cycle insurance with us, cover that just happens to be excellent.

Unlike other insurers we never devalue your bike. And if you ride a carbon bike, rest assured we will never have a cracked frame repaired – we will always replace your bike with a new one. How many other insurers can say that? Find out more

 

 

Comments

  1. Donnachadh McCarthy

    Reply

    When will the Minister for Transport sign the commencement order to allow TfL to enforce mandatory cycle lanes in London and why has there been such a long delay in undertaking this simple modest measure, for which legislation paved the way, nearly 5 years ago.

    thanks
    Donnachadh McCarthy FRSA
    Co-founder Stop Killing Cyclists

  2. Mike Croker

    Reply

    Why has the UK government consistently avoided the advice given in 1982 by Lord Denning?

    “In the present state of motor traffic, I am persuaded that any civilised system of law should require, as a matter of principle, that the person who uses this dangerous instrument on the roads – dealing death and destruction all round – should be liable to make compensation to anyone who is killed or injured in consequence of the use of it.

    There should be liability without proof of fault. To require an injured person to prove fault results in the gravest injustice to many innocent persons who have not the wherewithal to prove it.”

    • Joel

      Reply

      Gets my vote

  3. Clive Durdle

    Reply

    I am a disabled cyclist – my cargo trike is my main mobility aid. Why is it I feel I do not exist when Copenhagen has 40,000 cargo trikes, equivalent to half a million in London? Where are the scrappage schemes to change modes? Where are the subsidies for e bikes? Where are the plans to move goods to rail with local delivery by e cargo bike from open source rail heads?

  4. Nick

    Reply

    From my experience as a cyclist, long distance and commuting, over 30 years, there are two main dangerous situations that are seen, week in and week out. Firstly and most frequently, near miss collisions or actual collisions, caused by wreckless overtaking. Almost every near fatal situation that I’ve had, has been where someone overtook at high speed, with too little space in which to complete the maneouvre. I think a very high proportion of 2 vehicle RTAs, involve at some point, a life risking overtake. The second cause is people not looking before turning in to or out of a junction/roundabout. The latter is a matter for road safety education, to raise levels of awareness, during intersectional driving. The former is the concern of the law. My question is, in light of the fact that we know that most high speed overtaking is both unnecessary and evidentially a risk to life and property, why does the government and police force treat it so trivially? Why when motorists are captured on camera, almost causing a fatal head on collision, through insane risk taking, do the police respond, by saying that the manoeuvre was in no way dangerous or unacceptable?

  5. Geoffrey Cherry

    Reply

    you might not like what I am saying, I am not a cyclist but use a Road Mobility Scooter, I am fully insured should I be fool enough to rum into someone at eight miles per hour, or do damage to property, I also have legal lights, plus extra flashing light fitted by myself, they cost little to buy, I have a camera fitted to record my driving, that can also be used for evidence should it be required, I am 87+nine months, my point is this cyclists travel at far higher speeds than I and should be compelled by law to have lights and insurance, that is a very small outlay to protect themselves and other users of the highways and byways,

  6. Matt Hodges

    Reply

    Why does the government persist in making most responsible cyclists riding after sunset into Law Breakers by maintaining impractical lighting regulations for cycles.
    Lights marked with the required British Standard are virtually unobtainable.
    Flashing lights flashing between 1 and 4 times per second may be used BUT only satisfy the requirements for cycle lighting if they do not have a steady mode. All the flashing lights I have found also have a steady mode which is needed for riding on unlit roads.
    It appears the only way to have legal cycle lighting is to have lights that meet the German regulations as these should be legal under EU law.
    But even with legal lights most commuter cyclists will be illegal because of the obsolete pedal reflector regulations.
    Few cyclists have legal pedals which after sunset (not lighting up time) must be equipped with British Standard pedal reflectors visible from the front and rear. Such pedal reflectors are generally only found on cheap poor quality pedals found on catalogue kids bikes. Further more for any cyclists carrying luggage in panniers the pedal reflectors even if fitted would not be visible from the rear. And finally pedal reflectors on recumbent bikes are only visible from above.
    The lighting rules are absurd and unfit for purpose. My recumbent tricycle is technically illegal after sunset despite having Five quality rear lights and Four Quality front lights.
    This has never bothered me before but the way the prosecution jumped on a technicality to convict a cyclist under an ancient law aimed at the drivers of horses and carts makes me vulnerable should a pedestrian leap out in front of me.

  7. Peter Kinnear

    Reply

    Please, let’s have more cycle lanes–PROPER ones– not created by painting a white line down a pedestrian way or pavement. That just creates conflict and danger for both sets of users!

  8. Graham Bates

    Reply

    When will the Government see the sense in making a cycling proficiency test pass obligatory before the driving test.
    Exceptions could only be for the registered disabled.
    It would transform our attitudes towards car use. It would provide an environmentally friendly way of teaching use of the road, shortening the time spent with a driving instructor polluting back roads. It would oblige learner drivers to empathise with cyclists, give them another option for future journeys and have untold benefits for the nation’s health.

  9. David

    Reply

    I agree fully with Graham Bates’ desire to make the passing of a cycling proficiency test mandatory for all able bodied persons prior to being allowed to take the driving test.
    However, I would go further by requiring any driver who accumulates over a certain number of points on their licence, to be banned from driving until they have retaken their cycling proficiency test.
    if aggressively policed, there is a real prospect of re-educating the more dangerous and thoughtless drivers about the risks they pose to more vulnerable road users.

  10. Barbara Foster

    Reply

    I would like to know why some ‘Boris’ bike stands have been allowed to cause such a detrimental impact on traffic circulation in certain locations in London. In Garton Road behind Clapham Junction (which is a bus route) the bike stands have been sited at right angles to the road thus forcing single file traffic. It would have been so much more sensible – and saving in emissions from the stalled traffic flow – if they had put the stands at a 45 degree angle to the roadway thus allowing traffic to circulate freely!

    I wonder how many other such situations exist. This is close to the station and a high density residential area and air quality already exceeded safe limits.
    Barbara Foster

  11. Patricia Richardson

    Reply

    I am a driver & a leisure cyclist. I live in Greater manchester. My question is;

    Why have cycle lanes, when you cannot use them because of parked cars. At least you could have them on the edge of pavements, or at least on one side of the road. Many children ride to school, on the pavement.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Your name and email are required.