This house notes...

Cool and normal, baby

My RSS feed from the Hansard has just brought to my attention an early day motion that notes "with dismay" that, when refurbishing Birmingham New Street, they have only catered for a handful of bikes, while in Amsterdam they do it for thousands.

I have no idea of what an "early day motion" is, but I suspect it means "a weeny-teeny idea that may never go anywhere".  

On another front, the Guardian yesterday quotes as-yet-unpublished research (by the Univ. of the West of England) that says that people, on the whole, like cyclists.  Or at least, don't mind them.  The actual headline goes "Cyclists! The public thinks you're cool and normal".   Yes, just like labradoodles, but not as hairy.  I reckon the research must have been limited in its goals or hypothesis.  The real issue is one of value.  To put it bluntly, the interesting research question would be how much of a scarce resource (eg. road space) are people prepared to share with those who cycle.  This lies at the heart of both behaviour (what motorists are prepared to do when they see a cyclist) and policy choices (what politicians believe the public to want or to be willing to tolerate regarding cycling).

What is a cyclist, again

And now, robber cyclists!  Yes - not content with being reckless yobs who terrorise motorists and pedestrians alike, cyclists, says the BBC, are into committing armed robberies too.  Whatever next.

I'm sure I don't as often see the label 'motorist' to robberies in which the getaway vehicle is a car (which, I reckon, are the majority).  Or I've yet to see the headline "pedestrian snatches bag and runs away" in cases where that, one could say, is exactly what happened.

I'm not sure what my point is, except that the media, even the oh-so-impartial BBC, seem to have a liking for the label 'cyclist' as a catch-all to be used in conjunction with all sort of negative things.  It wouldn't matter if we were not living in an age in which policy makers have the attention span of a fruit fly (and in some cases less intelligence - eg in the Lords where cycling debates have sometimes descended into outright farce).

My noble Lords...

According to the Hansard, the House of Lords debated walking and cycling on 16 Oct 2008. The starting question, put by Lord Krebs (a real name), was "What steps they are taking with local authorities to encourage walking and cycling in urban areas?".

I'm not being political here (not in the 'party' sense) but I'm left feeling we shouldn't put too much hope in this kind of debate producing much of use to real cyclists - or walkers.

Yes, it is good that cycling should be on the agenda and that Parliament should worry about 'cycling' and 'walking' levels in the UK being well.

Yes, one noble Lord did manage to correctly identify that not feeling safe when cycling is the main deterrent (the point David Hembrow is always making).

But it all seems to have fizzled out into statements that either reinforce prejudices or seem detached from reality - or at least, lacking in a holistic view of reality. Take this utterance:

"the big challenge for us is to see that children and adults alike feel confident in riding their bicycles on the streets and taking them out into those superb national parks and other areas of rural beauty and extremely healthful living that my noble friend highlighted"

So, it's not about cycling to work or cycling to school or to the shops - rather, it lumps cycling firmly on the leisure sector, as a pastime to be made enjoyable. Perhaps I exaggerate.

Then, a Baroness what's-her-name interjects with a spiteful-sounding

"My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many successful prosecutions have been brought against cyclists who have jumped red lights?"

Never mind that she's just been told the UK ranks very low in cycling levels in Europe! Let's focus on cycling as the problem, rather than the problems for cycling!

And although this quote is about walking, it surely gives a good picture of the level and relevance of the debate I'm referring to:

"My Lords, a lot has been said about cycling but not as much has been said about walking, although all the evidence shows that the amount of walking that people do is declining. I know what keeps me walking: it is my dog. Perhaps the Government should consider encouraging more people to keep dogs."
(Lord Hanningfield - own blog an'all!)

So there you have it, my noble Lords and Ladies: forget cycling, it's dog walking the nation needs.