DfT launches new walking and cycling review

09.26 | 9 March | | 2 comments


The DfT is asking the public for views on a range of topics from improved cycle infrastructure to education for all road users.

The review forms part of the Government’s drive to make cycling and walking safer, while encouraging more people to take up cycling at all ages as part of a ‘green revolution in transport’.

The review comes as the DfT publishes a new report which recommends that a new offence to be introduced to tackle dangerous cycling – a move widely anticipated in the media during the course of last weekend.

The independent report, written by legal expert Laura Thomas, finds a ‘strong case’ for changing the law to tackle the issue of dangerous and careless cycling that causes injury or death. If introduced, the new law would bring cycling in line with driving offences.

Transport minister Jesse Norman has also announced £100,000 of seed funding for three cycling safety pilot projects designed to tackle a range of issues, from reducing the cost of e-bike batteries to recycling used laptop batteries.

Jesse Norman said: “We need to become a nation of cyclists, and this Government wants to make cycling the natural choice of transport for people of all ages and backgrounds.

“The call for evidence will support an open, comprehensive and thorough review across Government  to encourage active travel and improve safety for all road users, and I hope that as many people as possible take the time to read and respond to it.

Paul Tuohy, chief executive of Cycling UK, said: “Cycling UK has long campaigned for a review of all road safety laws and enforcement, so it is encouraging that these points will be considered in the call for evidence.

“We want to see more people cycling safely, and will actively engage with the review to ensure it addresses the causes of dangers for cyclists and the barriers to more cycling.”

Xavier Brice, CEO of walking and cycling charity Sustrans said: “We welcome the Government’s ‘Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy Safety Review’ and especially the inclusion of pedestrians in the review. This is something we advocated.

“Safety concerns are some of the greatest barriers to more people choosing to walk and cycle and we are pleased that the review is seeking to make it easier for everyone to travel on foot or by bike, and recognises the wide benefits that active travel brings to individuals and societies.”

The Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) Review consultation closes on 1 June 2018.


Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    The report that finds a “strong case” for legislation to punish dangerous cyclists is a travesty.

    The data from cyclist/pedestrian collisions shows that more pedestrians were at fault in fatal collisions than cyclists:

    page 26, footnote 30:

    “For completeness, not all of these fatalities were attributed to cyclist error:“15/20 fatalities were assigned at least one contributory factor, with 6/20 assigning a factor to the pedestrian only, 5/20 assigning a factor to both the pedestrian and the cyclist, and 4/20 assigning a factor to the cyclist only.”

    If 4/20 cyclists fault is a strong case for changing the law to make prosecuting cyclists easier, then 6/20 pedestrian fault must be an overwhelming case for changing the law to make prosecuting pedestrians easier.

    As one person put it; now we’ve spent all this time and effort on this, could we address the other 99.8% of fatal collisions?

    The report is also inaccurate when it says that in the Alliston case, the bicycle had no brakes.


    Richard Burton
    Agree (0) | Disagree (1)
    --1

    Govt offers a sweetener to offset the narrow sighted move the bring bikes “into line with motoring law”. Better than reinforcing the status quo where we are dominated by motor traffic, let’s ask the public what they want?


    Peter Treadgold, London
    Agree (3) | Disagree (5)
    --2