A
al Mossah
Guest
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11089996
WHEN John Major, Britain's most recent Conservative prime minister,
wanted to evoke the spirit of England in 1993, he bowdlerised George
Orwell, talking romantically of “old maids bicycling to Holy Communion
through the morning mist”. It was an anachronistic image: by the time
Mr Major delivered his speech cycling accounted for only 1% of
distance travelled on British roads, down from around a third of the
total just after the second world war.
Today the proportion is even lower, at around 0.9%. But if the
government has its way, the decline could soon be stopped. Whitehall
is pouring money and effort into two-wheeled transport. Cycling
England, a government-funded outfit that promotes pedal power, will
see its budget increased from £10m to £60m by 2009. The cash will be
spent on connecting schools to the national cycle-lane network,
training for children and propaganda aimed at motorists. Six towns
have already been singled out as test-beds; 11 more are planned.
Besides helping to reduce congestion (a growing problem on the roads
in most places) and air pollution, the ambitious argue that bicycles
can help to save both the nation and the world. Cycling is hard work
and therefore likely to cut obesity in the fattest country in the
European Union. And carbon-free bicycles could help ministers meet
their elusive climate-change targets.
Enthusiasts point to the two-wheeled renaissance in London as a source
of good ideas for aspiring local councils. Transport for London (TfL)
claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.
Concerns about safety, which keep many would-be cyclists wedded to
their cars, seem overblown. Despite the surge of new cyclists, London
has seen the numbers killed or seriously injured fall by around a
third over the past decade, and national data show a similar trend.
TfL attributes this partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them.
Another shining example for cycling fans is Cambridge, where an echo
of Mr Major's Albion can just about be discerned in the dons and
students cycling between ancient colleges. Cambridge is widely
regarded as the most cycle-mad city in Britain, with around a quarter
of its residents biking to work, eight times the national average.
That reflects some natural advantages (the place is mostly flat) and
some deliberate decisions (such as plenty of cycle lanes and places to
lock up bikes). But historically, no conscious decision is responsible
for cycling's popularity. Other, less tangible cultural factors seem
to be at work, harder to export to the rest of the country. “Everyone
does it and always has,” explains one Cantabrigian. “It's just the way
Cambridge is.”
Peter.
WHEN John Major, Britain's most recent Conservative prime minister,
wanted to evoke the spirit of England in 1993, he bowdlerised George
Orwell, talking romantically of “old maids bicycling to Holy Communion
through the morning mist”. It was an anachronistic image: by the time
Mr Major delivered his speech cycling accounted for only 1% of
distance travelled on British roads, down from around a third of the
total just after the second world war.
Today the proportion is even lower, at around 0.9%. But if the
government has its way, the decline could soon be stopped. Whitehall
is pouring money and effort into two-wheeled transport. Cycling
England, a government-funded outfit that promotes pedal power, will
see its budget increased from £10m to £60m by 2009. The cash will be
spent on connecting schools to the national cycle-lane network,
training for children and propaganda aimed at motorists. Six towns
have already been singled out as test-beds; 11 more are planned.
Besides helping to reduce congestion (a growing problem on the roads
in most places) and air pollution, the ambitious argue that bicycles
can help to save both the nation and the world. Cycling is hard work
and therefore likely to cut obesity in the fattest country in the
European Union. And carbon-free bicycles could help ministers meet
their elusive climate-change targets.
Enthusiasts point to the two-wheeled renaissance in London as a source
of good ideas for aspiring local councils. Transport for London (TfL)
claims that cycling in the capital has increased by 83% since 2000,
thanks to a combination of investment in cycle lanes, free lessons for
the curious, a push from the congestion charge and a five-fold hike in
funding. Ken Livingstone, the city's mayor, wants to see the number of
cycling trips rise by 400% by 2025.
Concerns about safety, which keep many would-be cyclists wedded to
their cars, seem overblown. Despite the surge of new cyclists, London
has seen the numbers killed or seriously injured fall by around a
third over the past decade, and national data show a similar trend.
TfL attributes this partly to education campaigns and partly to safety
in numbers: the more cyclists there are, the better motorists become
at sharing the road with them.
Another shining example for cycling fans is Cambridge, where an echo
of Mr Major's Albion can just about be discerned in the dons and
students cycling between ancient colleges. Cambridge is widely
regarded as the most cycle-mad city in Britain, with around a quarter
of its residents biking to work, eight times the national average.
That reflects some natural advantages (the place is mostly flat) and
some deliberate decisions (such as plenty of cycle lanes and places to
lock up bikes). But historically, no conscious decision is responsible
for cycling's popularity. Other, less tangible cultural factors seem
to be at work, harder to export to the rest of the country. “Everyone
does it and always has,” explains one Cantabrigian. “It's just the way
Cambridge is.”
Peter.