Please Sign This Petition! Cycling Safety and Infrastructure

Cycle Community

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/26019

Please, please, please take the time to sign this petition, it makes so much sense, Thanks!!!

http://www.cyclecommunity.co.uk

rjsterry

Out of interest, do you, or anyone else, have the figure for the current spending per capita?

marz

No, it's a badly worded and vague petition some of which I don't think I agree with.

vermin

No. It's poorly thought through and divisive. Please take it (or indeed shove it) elsewhere.

And you can't even spell the address of your own website correctly. :roll:

Cycle Community

Hey Vermin, thanks for that, shame we can't all be as perfect and polite as you.

By the way, just for reference, the request was please sign the petition, not "You must sign this petition". Clearly if you don't agree with it then don't sign it.

"The proportion of GDP spent on public infrastructure by the UK
Government has been lower than government spending in many other
countries, averaging around 1.5 per cent between 2000–2004 – around
half of the investment occurring by governments in Italy and France.51
Despite rail accounting for only six per cent of total passengers in the
UK, the sector received a subsidy of around £6.5b, almost equalling
road investment, which carries the majority of journeys undertaken in
the country.52 In addition, tax revenues from transport eclipse
expenditure on transport by £14b, reflecting a net flow out of the sector
from receipts.53 Cycling’s proportion of the UK transport budget is less
than one per cent, whilst in the City of London, one of the UK’s larger
cycling ‘hot spots’, cycling has been apportioned 0.45 per cent of the
£135m transport budget, amounting to around £600,000.54 Currently,
10,000–15,000 cyclists commute into the Capital each day, which has
increased by 52 per cent since 2007, and is forecast to quadruple by
2025.55 These macro and micro conditions continue to create the ideal
milieu for cycling participation to increase across social strata, with
significant benefits."

So according to http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/ ... ng_economy

The above means that the London budget for cycling amounts to (600,000/10,000)= £60

If you extrapolate that to a % of the London population you get (£600,000/8,174,100*) = £0.07

The above document is a very interesting read if you have the time and inclination

* March 2011 Census

SimonAH

Hi,

O.K. Vermin was OTT in his response, so I'll take a moment to explain why, when I read your post earlier today, and took the time to read the petition, I decided not to add my name.

It is not that your aim is not laudable (and let's face it, if you want a single issue group of people who are in favour of improvements to cycling infrastructure, it's here) but the approach that is the problem.

To say that something deserves additional funding because other things receive more funding is not a valid argument. To specify so huge a sum (there are a LOT of people out there dude - do the mathematics) is not viable. To demand huge additional funding in a time of a stretched (well, frankly non existant) public purse when pretty much every deserving cause is on short commons is unrealistic. To run a petition so ill conceived devalues the petition process. To argue that there are more cyclists than train passengers is specious as the one facility is required for more than personal transport - you need it for goods, freight, national infrastructure and the enormous employment that is based upon it. This does not apply to the cycling infrastructure (even if the roads were nothing but potholes we'd just switch to MTBs and carry on).

Am I in favour of your aims? Yes.
Could I in concience append my name to your demands? Not on your nelly.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it anyway.

Cycle Community

SimonAH,

Thanks, a perfectly reasoned and fair response, I have no problem with people disagreeing with the specifics or even the principle, there is just no need to be rude about it.

You make some very valid points, and in hindsight the petitions author (not me) oversimplifies the situation.

Perhaps what we should be asking for is a greater hypothecation of the income cycling provides to the treasury, and the amount "it" is prepared to spend back out to ensure that is sustainable. The report I linked earlier (yes appreciate the authors have a biased stance) shows a massive discrepancy between funding raised and that ploughed back in. The more dangerous cycling is, or even how dangerous it appears be directly influences peoples readiness to take it up, and logic says the less invested in infrastructure the less safe it will become (that assumes efficient spending of course).

Thanks

SimonAH

Fair and well said.

In his defense Vermin is a London lawyer and stands about two foot six. This is a combination bound to make anyone irascible.

vermin

SimonAH wrote:

In his defense Vermin is a London lawyer and stands about two foot six. This is a combination bound to make anyone irascible.

Oof!

I'm sparing with rudeness and bad temper, but this sort of thing really winds me up. "Down with the sort of thing", I say.

Cycle Community

Irascible and a good guy to know, no doubt.

PS, if you can tell me how the hell to sort a signature in the UCP, I will send you a (virtual) kipper for breakfast

nicklouse

account closed as it is a duplicate.

if you wish to continue with this please use your other account.