This discussion is closed.
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Bill numbering has been adjusted, this is now item B649.

B649 - Cycle Hire Bill 2014, TSR Opposition

Image

Cycle Hire Act 2014

An act to extend the Barclays Cycle Hire system across the United Kingdom.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Cycle Hire systems
1.1 County councils will install cycle hire systems in its most populous areas.
1.1.1 The specific locations shall be left to the council to decide.
1.2 Said bicycles must be of reasonable quality.
1.3 Wherever possible the systems will be financed by sponsorship.
1.3.1 If no sponsorship can be obtained, the local government shall fund the operation of the system.

2. Specifics
2.1 Councils must provide at least 1 bicycle for every thousand inhabitants in their areas of jurisdiction.
2.2 Maximum prices are to be set by central government and will change annually depending on inflation.

3. Commencement, short title and extent
3.1 This Act may be cited as the Cycle Hire Act 2014
3.2 This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
3.3 Comes into force on April 1 2016 following Royal Assent.

Notes
Boris bikes have been almost unequivocally shown to succeed in increasing the number of people cycling, which can only be beneficial for public health and will thus reduce the government expenditure on the NHS. Congestion and thus pollution will both be reduced due to reduced traffic volume. Below are some links to sources supporting and further explaining the above.

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/peda...g-success.html
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/Cycling.aspx
0
Blue Meltwater
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Anther decent environmental and health-promoting bill from the opposition - aye from me.
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
I would tend to vote Aye but what is deemed 'reasonable quality' and 1 bicycle per 1000 should be perhaps bumped up to 10 per 1000- that's still only 1% of the population with access to the famed Boris bikes
0
Faland
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
Not sure how effective this would be in other parts of the country. London, for starters, is very densely populated, and the demand for bike hire is driven by the relative accessibility of bikes as a mode of travelling through the city (due to the number of bike lanes and so forth), the high cost of public transport, and the massive impracticalities of private automobiles. Other parts of the country don't possess this same combination of factors, even larger metropolitan areas like Manchester. So I think that this bill would benefit from mandating 'congestion charge' zones in the larger cities.

And I'd like to hear why the Opposition believes that Councils would choose to use their ever diminishing (in the real world, at least) funding to put in place these schemes, a decision that would necessarily involve diverting funds from other services - most of which, even essentials like child protective services, have been cut to the bone in recent years. Sponsorship would be very hard to come by in most locations outside of London.
0
Obiejess
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Nay from me.

Would this not be quite damaging to bike companies. We could essentially be diminishing jobs for the sake of some bicycles here.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
'Aye'.

(Original post by PhysicsKid)
I would tend to vote Aye but what is deemed 'reasonable quality' and 1 bicycle per 1000 should be perhaps bumped up to 10 per 1000- that's still only 1% of the population with access to the famed Boris bikes
The same specifications as those used now in London, we meant to include it but we started discussing another bill so it appears that one slipped by before we included it in the notes. I'll make sure we include that for second reading or vote.

(Original post by Faland)
Not sure how effective this would be in other parts of the country. London, for starters, is very densely populated, and the demand for bike hire is driven by the relative accessibility of bikes as a mode of travelling through the city (due to the number of bike lanes and so forth), the high cost of public transport, and the massive impracticalities of private automobiles. Other parts of the country don't possess this same combination of factors, even larger metropolitan areas like Manchester. So I think that this bill would benefit from mandating 'congestion charge' zones in the larger cities.

And I'd like to hear why the Opposition believes that Councils would choose to use their ever diminishing (in the real world, at least) funding to put in place these schemes, a decision that would necessarily involve diverting funds from other services - most of which, even essentials like child protective services, have been cut to the bone in recent years. Sponsorship would be very hard to come by in most locations outside of London.
Good point and i'd support congestion zones in other cities, that's probably something for a different bill though.

Cuts in TSR land are even worse to local government (66% approximately), when you abolished local income taxes you never brought back any specific revenue for the local government in your finance act. That said, we can make them if needs be.
0
El Salvador
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
Thank you Mr Speaker.

I support this bill on principle, but would like to point out to my honourable gentlemen that this would heavily disadvantage non-city areas. Would be difficult for councils to look for any sponsorship there.
0
Lipvig
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
Aye from me.
0
ThisIsn'tSpam
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
If we can preserve jobs within the cycle industry and put this into action simultaneously, then it will be any aye from me.
0
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Not sure that this is the best way to do this. While it may be practical in London, in a lot of places these schemes simply won't be used, especially in commuter towns. No use means no sponsorship, which means that a lot of councils and thus council tax payers will be left paying for this.

Why not make funds available for this purpose and have councils which are interested apply for those funds? That way you get the cycle hire where it's needed, and nobody ends up forking out through council tax for pointless bikes.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
Sponsorship will never cover the cost as has been shown in London. Better to start with a few cities and mandate them to have a scheme in a given period of time.

And include some unicycles and tandems as well.
0
Faland
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Rakas21)
Good point and i'd support congestion zones in other cities, that's probably something for a different bill though.

Cuts in TSR land are even worse to local government (66% approximately), when you abolished local income taxes you never brought back any specific revenue for the local government in your finance act. That said, we can make them if needs be.
I think that this policy is reliant on congestion zones being in place, so I think there's a very good reason to incorporate them into this bill.

And IIRC we repealed the whole section of the Welfare Act concerning local government financing - the part that removed the block grant was also taken away, meaning that the block grant was restored.
0
Mechie
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
While this bill is well intentioned, it's actually pretty terrible.

What about rural councils? Having bikes there would be near pointless, nobody is going to cycle anywhere on them. Even the most populous areas can be pretty small. I think this bill would be better served by applying to to cities, where they're more likely to be used.

"reasonable quality" is an incredibly vague term, and vague legislation is never good legislation.

Set the prices! You can't just say that the government will set the price, that's incredibly lazy bill writing. How much will the bikes and associated infrastructure cost, in the case that there's no sponsorship? Take the worst case scenario, that no sponsorship is obtained anywhere and work out the cost for that. You could even set an arbitrary figure such that you expect say 60% of schemes to be sponsored so the bill should cost £x amount in startup and running costs.
0
wizardtop
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
Its also a Aye from me
0
RoryS
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
Aye. :yy:

I'm all for more cycling across the UK promoting a more healthy lifestyle and cutting car usage.
0
Mechie
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
Why are so many people blindly saying aye to this? Yes, the intentions are good, but it definitely needs to improve from it's current state. At the moment, this is a definite no from me. I hope the Opposition take suggestions into account and amend this bill, even though at this rate it looks like it could pass as is.
0
MacDaddi
Badges: 15
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
Aye, but as Mechie pointed out, I feel it needs to be a bit more detailed; how do we define "populous"? It'll be a bit awkward in rural areas.
0
nikkoch
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
Aye if we can preserve jobs within the cycle industry and put this into action simultaneously
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#19
This is in cessation.
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#20
This has been withdrawn.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (22)
17.32%
I'm not sure (3)
2.36%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (41)
32.28%
I have already dropped out (3)
2.36%
I'm not a current university student (58)
45.67%

Watched Threads

View All