September 2nd looks like being a critical day in the history of attempts to achieve the aims of the RDRF – reducing danger in the roads as part of a sustainable transport policy. Here are three things for you to do:
ONE: GET YOUR MP THERE AND IN SUPPORT:
Get your MP to attend the debate and make them aware of the issues and the need to support the motion: That this house supports the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report ‘Get Britain Cycling’; endorses the target of 10 per cent of all journeys being by bike by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2050; and calls on the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual Cycle Action Plan and sustained funding for cycling.
A list of organisations has supported a briefing to MPs (RDRF has so far been missed off the list for some reason, but even if don’t get put on we support it). You can use this briefing to write to your MP on templates that the CTC and BC have set up, or just do your own. Here is my off-the-cuff effort:
Dear Ms Jackson,
As one of your constituents and Chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, I urge you to attend the debate on September 2nd.
This is the current text of the motion to be debated on 2 September 2013:
“That this House supports the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report ‘Get Britain Cycling’; endorses… and sustained funding for cycling.”
I ask you to speak in favour of this motion. Our view is that a civilised society should aim to reduce danger to cyclists through a variety of means such as:
* Good quality highway engineering
* Reduced speed limits on roads where people live work and play – and which are enforced
* Increased road traffic policing and deterrent sentencing, primarily through endorsement of driving licences
* Engineering of motor vehicles to reduce the potential to endanger others
These measures would be of benefit to the safety of all road users, particularly pedestrians , as well as cyclists. They would also encourage more cycling, to the benefit of public health and alleviation of a variety of social and environmental problems.
The ringfenced funds required may appear large at a time of austerity – but viewed in the context of the fiscal costs of the problems that can be alleviated by cycling, and the massive expenditure on less sustainable and healthy forms of transport, they can be fully justified.
I do hope you can attend the debate and support the “Get Britain Cycling” report’s reccomendations.
Dr. Robert Davis, Chair RDRF
TWO: SIGN THE PETITION
It is here . You should have already signed it, but you probably have friends and social media contacts who haven’t.
THREE: GO ON THE RIDE.
London Cycling Campaign have organised a protest ride on the day of the debate. It is London specific, but that shouldn’t stop it from being linked into the national issue of the need to support cycling.
It is directed at Mayor Johnson, but if – like us – you see a lot that is positive in his Vision for Cycling – you can see the ride as helpfully urging him to move forward in the directions he and Transport for London have indicated they wish to progress on.
I personally wouldn’t have organised it around “dedicated space for cyclists” – a bit on road traffic justice would have been nice , but I didn’t organise it. And the segregationism is tempered by “Local streets should be transformed into spaces that are safe for cycling and walking by removing through motor traffic and reducing its speed”.
The point is the show of numbers. And you might want a “We ARE the traffic”; “Yes, we DO pay for the road” slogans on banners, although carrying banners on bikes is always a little clumsy.
One excuse for the continued discrimination against cycling as a mode of transport is that supporting cycling requires money. I will address this excuse in the next post.