By Laura Laker and Peter Walker for The Guardian
Jesse Norman, the transport minister whose brief includes cycling, has only been in the job for six months but has already prompted controversy by insisting that cyclists follow the Highway Code, something criticised here on the Bike Blog.
In his office at the Department for Transport in Westminster, he comes across as affable and open – and talks the talk when it comes to bikes for transport.
Having learned a “raft of things” in meetings with campaigners since the controversy, Norman says a key question is “how can we make the transition to a world where a 12-year-old can cycle safely?”
“I like the 12-year-old test,” he says. “I think Chris Boardman is absolutely right to talk about that.”
His solution? “I think if we’re doing our job properly, there’s a whole raft of things, and infrastructure is absolutely part of it. The lesson of many, many cases is better cycling infrastructure – better road infrastructure – helps to bring in new users but it’s not by any means the only part of the picture.”
However, he sees this as primarily the preserve of local authorities and the likes of charities like Sustrans, not national government, which becomes problematic when local authorities fail to act out of a fear of backlash, or a lack of interest.
He also believes in cycle training. “Bikeability is really important, actually teaching kids how to use a cycle safely and effectively on the road, teaching them good manners and good practice as well as signalling. I’m amazed by the number of cyclists who don’t signal effectively on the roads now – it’s staggering.”
The controversy came after Norman wrote to cycling organisations stressing the need for riders to follow the Highway Code after the cyclist Charlie Alliston was jailed for killing Kim Briggs, having hit her while on a bike without a front brake. Critics noted ministers had never done the same with driving groups, despite a vastly greater toll among pedestrians from motor vehicles.
Norman expresses surprise at the reaction of some campaigners to his letter, arguing people have not fully understood the scope of the two-part cycling safety review also announced. This pledges to look at both the laws over dangerous cycling, and more widely into cycle safety.
“They had just looked at the first part and thought, ‘Ah, this is a kneejerk reaction to the Kim Briggs situation’, rather than thinking, actually we understand there is a legal issue we need to get sorted,” he says.
Norman is keen to look at the evidence before making any commitments about the review, repeatedly refusing to be drawn on issues from autonomous vehicle growth and car sharing, to future cycling growth.
He also fails to rule out mandatory helmet or hi-vis rules for cyclists, should they come up in the review, but stresses this will be entirely guided by evidence.
“Obviously there will be some people who feel very strongly that there should be hi-vis, and there will be plenty of people who think very strongly the other way. It’ll be the same with helmets. The literature on risk is quite a well-developed one, I don’t need to tell you.”
Despite the letter, Norman says he doesn’t necessarily believe cyclists break the law any more than other road users, and notes the role of infrastructure in this – at junctions without advanced stop zones for cyclists, he says, there is arguably an incentive for riders to consider jumping the lights to keep ahead of the traffic.
In terms of his own cycling, like fellow Tory cyclist Boris Johnson, Norman says he isn’t afraid of cycling anywhere in London – he admits to almost enjoying Hyde Park Corner – and is happy sharing the road with motor traffic.
“I don’t know if there’s evidence about [people being] too scared to cycle,” he says. “I’m a terribly bad example, because I’ve been doing it all my life.” It’s about how to get inexperienced younger or older people on bikes and ebikes, not people like him, he adds.
Norman says cycling and walking are “at the heart of” Conservatism. “My view is that cycling and walking are really important and I think we, as a government, should be supporting it. And we are supporting it a lot.”
He talks about cycling policy in terms of social justice, noting how cycling in the UK is disproportionately done by men, and that those on lower incomes can be put off by having nowhere to store a bike.
“I don’t think a mode of transport which has a skew in any particular way is meeting the needs of society as a whole,” he says.
In terms of policy, most important, he feels, is taking the cycling and walking investment strategy to the “next level”.
The CWIS puts a legal obligation on government to invest in cycling and walking provision in England. While Norman believes the job of government is to be neutral between road users, he wouldn’t rule out intervening to push local authorities to disincentivise driving. This is where the CWIS will come into play.
He said: “The really interesting question is going to come when we start the process of just nudging local authorities and these other businesses, to ask them: ‘Have you, as the law requires, built in cycling and walking into your infrastructure?’ That’s really important.”
Many argue national design standards would help local authorities build better cycle infrastructure. He seems to agree. “If you look at international precedents, the evidence is pretty clear that that can make a huge difference. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a lot of that put in the cycling consultation and we may want to take it on that, I’m not going to prejudge, but I think it’s a very interesting idea.”