Thursday, August 4, 2011

Cycling e-petition?

From the Governments re-launched 'e-petitions' website:

e-petitions is an easy way for you to influence government policy in the UK. You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be eligible for debate in the House of Commons.

Of course, e-petitions don't guarantee action, but they do guarantee a certain amount of publicity. If your petition gets over the 100,000 threshold, it goes to a cross-party committee which decides whether it is worthy of debate.

Most of the petitions on the website so far are the usual hang 'em and flog 'em type of thing, with a few oddball and niche items mixed in.

This could be a good opportunity to generate some debate and publicity around cycling. I daresay there are 100,000 people interested in cycling who would be prepared to sign a petition. So it is a question of formulating a petition that has broad enough appeal to attract enough signatories, and is likely to get past the cross-party committee. Maybe the LCC leadership can think of something?


  1. Well my fist suggestion would be London-centric - upgrade the Superhighways to at least cable street quality along the entire route, regardless whether it is "applicable, possible, convenient for motorists etc". I don't think anyone can argue with that and it's specific enough.

  2. I would suggest something which has full national appeal (how else would you get 100k signatures? and which appeals across other interest groups, particularly pedestrians, or advocates for children, the elderly or disabled etc.

    One might be a statutory 20mph limit nationwide in defined areas eg residential or retail, within X yards of schools, etc. Another might be strict liability for civil claims for compensation - the principle that the larger party has a presumption of liability to the smaller when the latter is injured, and that would apply not just to pedestrians or cyclists v car drivers, but to car drivers v truck drivers etc.

  3. Paul M - i bet there are more than 100000 people who want to cycle in London. And while it's true that these are things that would apeal to many - they would do so, because they don't really mean anything. 20mph limit doesn't make me more condifent about my fouryearold cycling with my on such road for one reason - it only takes one careless driver create a dangerous situation - and that careless driver will usually be the one who flouts the speed limit anyway. Strict liability is nice, sure but again - people don't drive into cyclists on purpose, and if they do they don't care about liability laws, trust me. Moreover again it does nothing to protect my son from being injured on the road.

  4. It's already been done: - Cycling: Create network of segregated cycle tracks on busy roads - Make cycleways intrinsic to town planning

  5. I'm also fond of cycling, so I support your efforts. Unfortunately there are a lot of motorists with a careless driving style, so anything can happen. Some can call themselves lucky that nothing ever happened to them, but others can't really say the same.