I regularly cycle to work in central Leeds along roads the surface which feel like the Dakota Badlands and that are plagued by half awake, incompetent drivers.

However, as I have not yet cycled a billion miles it looks like I am totally save. Cool.

Will, Leeds, UK

Strikes me that there a lot of people on this board who are somewhat ignorant of the role of companies like Jacobs carry for LAs....I wonder how many of the "sack Jacobs" voices are their direct competitors, anti American or both.

Jacobs can advise their clients until they're blue in the face but the client doesn't necessarily take the advice and develop suitable policies. How many LA's pay nothing but lip service to "green" policies. More than you might think because it costs too much.

Last but not least, having seen some of the antics of vehicle drivers in various cities throughout the UK I don't blame Jacobs whatsoever.

Fiona Mac, Glasgow, Scotland

Better to insist on training for all staff cyclists, car drivers, motorcyclists, public transport users and walkers before they can travel on business. This training to include respect for other travellers and their decisions (however bizarre they may seem at the time).
If cycling is that dangerous why do cyclists live on average 2 years longer (including all the accident fatalities) and have a health status equivalent to a non-cyclist ten years their junior. Surely, by theses criteria car driving should carry a health warning!

Richard alderson, Sale, UK

This is safety concerns gone mad! They should lose their contract with Transport for London

Chris Rissel, Sydney, Australia

TfL should cease to do business with Jacobs-its that simple

John Robinson, Wigan, UK

I always think measuring risk by distance is somewhat flawed.
It should be time at risk.

Sitting in the fast lane of the motorway will never endanger your life if measured as distance travelled, but time at risk.......!!!!

Dave Binks, Loughborough,

This sounds a bit like a Gerald Ratner-type comment - just before his chain of jewellers went bust...

The H&S bandwagon is crippling this country and removing individual responsibility for taking care for themselves. How on earth have I lived this long I wonder?

Rob, Ambleside, UK

This is safety concerns gone mad! They should lose their contract with Transport for London

Chris Rissel, Sydney, Australia

Patrick, you wrote:

> Jacobs Babtie is of course an American owned company. No
> American would ever cycle or walk to work or on company
> business - and only used public transport if really pushed.

I am a 30-year-old American, and over the last five years I have biked everywhere I've ever had to transport my flesh -- work, school, grocery store, everywhere. I've never even driven a car. The city I live in, Chicago, is terrifically bicycle-friendly. I'm sad to hear it's not the same in England.

Jacob should be banning cars rather than bicycles -- that would lower the cyclist accident rate.

Adam Duston, Chicago, USA

If sustainable transportation consultants are afraid to bike to work, seems like TfL should focus on making the roads safer for cyclists, rather than chastizing Jacobs for bringing safety issues to the attention of their employees.

Chris, Boston, Massachusetts

Clearly someone at Jacobs Babtie has lost the plot! If his/her decision is not reversed, they can surely kiss goodbye to any further contracts with Transport for London and, hopefully, all their other clients.

Peter Harvey, Chichester, West Sussex

Monty Python could not have produced a better story line - madness in a country where insurance companies increasingly tell us what we can and cannot do.

Phil Ashbourn, Milton Keynes CTC
Cycling since 1948 and intending to carry on doing so

Philip Ashbourn, Milton Keynes, UK

What hasn't been pointed out was that the policy was launched on . . . Cycle to Work Day! Mind you this is the same company that urged employees not to burn candles at Christmas (far too dangerous) and includes, in its Health and Safety booklet that all staff members had to sign to show they'd accepted the policy, that staff had to have gas and smoke detectors at HOME . . . makes you think eh?

Tom Perry, Reading, UK

i applaud this comany for having the courage to advise staff on safety issues even if it conflicts with the desires of their clients. i cannot see one iota of bad advice in this, we know that if a cyclist is struck by a vehicle they will always come off worst, we also know that councils are getting tough on pathway cycling so forcing more and more cyclists into danger.

What will the employees do if they find that their employers insurers will not cover them for cycling and would therefore have to resort to costly legal action in order to abtain compensation for injuries.

Its not what people want to hear but if more employers impse such restrictions then perhaps the establishment will wake up and provide real facilities, assuming we can afford it of course!

Ian Whyteside, Yateley, Hants, UK

You guys built our roads too and we can't bike on them too easily. But London is much tougher to cycle through than Boston because it is so much smaller. London feels treacherous for miles. In Boston, we just need to get to the paths by the Charles river, which means at worst two tough miles to the bike path. Are there paths by the Thames that are good/useful?

ed, Boston/Cambridge, ma

Mariusz - yes you should be expected not to overtake cyclists at traffic lights. Careless and arrogant drivers are a big part of the reason why cyclists die on Britain's roads. Cyclists should be given priority - they create less pollution and it encourages people to be active and healthy.

On the flip side of course cyclists should not take to the roads lightly and should be aware of the other road users (including pedestrians), and local authorities should introduce cycle friendly measures such as separated bike lanes and traffic light filters which give cyclists a 5-10 second head start on cars behind them.

And as for the weather, I cycle every day come rain, shine or high wind - just invest in waterproofs.

Eleanor, Amsterdam, Netherlands

The other day, I cycled in the dark (with front light, back light, and about a million reflectors) and I'd collected three hurls of abuse before I'd reached the first corner. What is it with drivers? Is it because cyclists can actually hear them that they have a go? And do they realise that honking their horn when they've passed a cyclist halfway is extremely dangerous, and that THEY will be to blame if something happens? The other day a guy in a 4x4 so big that it resembled a van honked his horn because he obviously thought me and my little bike were taking up too much space on the road. Anyway, the aggression towards cyclists here is plain surreal and weird. Without a doubt, there are way more drivers that act like lunatics than cyclists (since a loony cyclist must be suicidal or extremely stupid or both), but for some strange reason I don't see drivers complaining about cars.

starling, Lancaster,

Since I started cycling I have had far fewer accidents than when I was behind wheel of a car.

Simon Baddeley, Birmingham, UK

So, motorcycling is more dangerous than pedal-cycling? 113 deaths per billion motorcycle kilometers against 38 deaths per billion pedal-cycle kilometers.

Depends how you look at it.

Covert that to deaths per billion hours, assuming a motorbike averages 60km/h and a cycle 15km/h, and you get 1.88 deaths per billion motorcycle hours against 2.53 deaths per billion bicycle hours.

So next time you are riding a pedal-cycle for your daily exercise and see a motorbiker out for a blast, just remember that the motorbiker isn't the only one who is a "suicidal maniac".

Brian Eave, Swansea, Wales

Such a ban is not legally enforcable. If any employees wish to challenge it, see a lawyer.

David Masu, Zürich,

Let's be honest, when it comes down to planning new roads on new estates, cyclists are not on the agenda. The new beaumont leys estate was built in inner Leicester in the 1970's. so it's not just down to existing infrastructure, but the pure bad planning of the local council. On this particular estate, the layout is anti car, and some of the cycle lanes are dornright dangerous, especially those alongside road calming measures, bollards in the middle of the road especially so, as it forces the car or lorry closer to the edge of a road which is already too narrow. better planning and a loosening of the purse strings is required, along with proper directives from the government, as councils seem to do what they want, which is all too ofton, the minimum spend!

Glenn Pears, Leicester England, UK., England

I seriously hope that companies such as Transport for London are consequent and sack Jacobs Babtie.
It is absolute madness to think that this company is giving advice on sustainable transportation.

Marco, London, UK

Is it just me or is deaths per billion km an inappropriate comparitor for modes of transport where the average distance travelled per journey is completely different? Surely something like deaths per million journeys would be a more telling statistic.

And Mariusz - yes, you are expected not to overtake a cycle while pulling away at the lights. They are a vehicle like any other and have the same rights on the road. What's more, have you never noticed that after zooming past the cyclist and burning down the road - before you get away at the next set of lights the cyclist you burned past is now in front of you again? That's because the lights are timed to catch road hogs like you and enforce a manageable average speed. Try driving a bit more slowly and see a) How much money you save on petrol, and b) How little time you lose by driving a little bit slower.

Graham, London,

Cycling is already safer than walking, and that's counting the idiots that whizz through red lights and zoom off pavements without looking. What did the transport plan have to say about walking?

We then come on to even riskier activities. Got stairs in your office? Out of bounds. Kitchen? Roped off. Want a shower? It's a bed bath for you my friend <shudders>

Mark, Manchester, UK

I live in Lancaster, which is supposed to be a "Bicycle demonstration town". It has one bicycle path, along the river, basically outside town.

My son's school has just bought itself a bicycle rack, but it's sent us a letter saying that they've looked into a safe way to cycle to school, and they can't find one. It's true, we've tried too, it's much too dangerous.

Bicycle demonstration town, my foot. I still cycle, it's faster (Lancaster's centre is permanent gridlock) and I don't have to pay 3.50 to park for a couple of hours, but I'm always surprised that I arrive in one piece.

starling, Lancaster,

BEN explain to me why this works ,I HAVE JUST RETURNED FROM ROME ,thousands of people thousands of bikes mopeds and cars and lorries ,hardly any traffic lights,park nearly anywhere you like,and 66pence per hour parking,
and the only difference is the pedestrian has full right of way
brilliant system,works for me.

george william taylor, hull, uk

According to the above, walking is more dangerous than cycling or travel by car. The company should therefore provide cars to drive around inside it offices, so that employees do not have to risk walking to the toilet, photocopier, other colleagues desks etc.
Imagine the mayhem that would cause.

Martin, Bristol, England.

'Deaths per billion km' is not a useful measure by which to compare risk between cycling and driving because they are not used for comparable trips. Bicycles are used for much shorter trips than cars, and on different types of road.

The average risk for car driving includes long distance trips on major roads, where the number of crashes per km driven is far lower than on the local roads where people generally cycle. It is therefore meaningless to compare the risk per km of cycling on a local road with the risk per km of driving on a motorway; to do so is to compare apples with pairs.

The most meaningful indicator of risk in the above article is the data from TfL that shows a massive 83% increase in cycling at the same time as total casualties have fallen. So cycling is a healthy and convenient mode of transport and is getting safer as more people take it up.

M Jones, Oxfordshire,

I wonder what the deaths per billion km would be for cycling in sensible countries, which have separately curbed cycle lanes and footpaths, so there are three stepped levels for each side of the road, such as Denmark, Belgium, etc.? I think their road design is the best by far, and I would be interested to know what are the barriers to it spreading to other countries. Is it just that most countries are a bit more hilly? Well, we have bikes with really wide-range, user-friendly derailleur gears, now - they are so much better for hills than they used to be, so I don't see why it should be so much of a barrier. And most well populated areas are not so hilly, anyway.

Steve Lowman, ABERYSTWYTH, Wales

Hello! Since when does the employer have any say on what mode of transport an employee uses to arrive at work? I would agree that cycling on company time would be in managemant's purview, but nothing else.

Geoff Tudor, Sequim, WA, USA

It is in short 100 times more dangerous to cycle than to take a bus, and 10 times more dangerous to cycle than to drive. This will surprise no-one who has cycled in a British city. It is consequently natural that people are reluctant to cycle, and still more reluctant to allow their children to cycle

If we want people to cycle, we should stop haranguing them and start making it safe. With correct traffic engineering, there is no reason why the death rate should be any higher than for driving or indeed taking a bus.

Maruisz mentions Berlin. You could also go to any Dutch city. But the problem exists in the country too. In most villages you have 30mph speed limits which are ignored, and small country roads see some of the most reckless speeding.

It will cost money to make Britain safe for cyclists, but if anyone really believes in Global Warming, this is what they would do.

George Johnson, London,

One of the measures used for assessing risks of different activities is the Fatality Accident Rate (FAR), defined as the number of deaths per 100 million hours of exposure to an activity. Assuming an average car speed of 45kph, and an average cycle speed of 8kph the FAR of cycling and driving are 30 and 13 respectively, so cycling is considered to be riskier than driving. However, the 'tolerable' risk of being killed while at work (assumed to be 1:1000/yr) has a FAR of 50. Maybe Jacobs shoudl tell its employees to stop working!

alistair cadden, Maidenhead,

So, are they going to ban walking, too? It's "patently obvious" that walking is even more dangerous than cycling, if these DfT statistics are to be believed

The sooner TfL terminates its contract, the better. What a bunch of incompetent hypocrites.

Marc Brett, London,

Jacobs Babtie is of course an American owned company. No American would ever cycle or walk to work or on company business - and only used public transport if really pushed.

Patrick Griffin, Stoke Newington, London, UK

If you want to cycle on a daily basis safely don't live in the UK. I was struck off my bike by a car in 2003 and I still suffer daily. I now cycle 23km to and from work all on dedicated cycle routes, it’s quicker than by car during rush hour. The red-bricked pavements of Bremen are only for bicycles. Unfortunate for UK residents the local authorities and government are not bold enough to slash the road space for cycle routes. Don't wish you had somewhere to cycle move country!

Simon Mac, Bremen, Deutschland

I wonder what the death stats. would show if it was deaths per journey or journey time. It's the same ploy as used by the airline lobby to "prove" that flying is "safe". In an hour's journey time an airliner will travel 500+ miles, a cyclist will do 12 and a walker 3. So deaths per miles travelled will always be weighted against the slower forms of transport. It's the typical Brit prejudice against cycle travel and walking which is the problem. We only have to look at the more civilised and forward thinking countries in Northern Europe to see how to integrate different forms of transport and to give the more safe, clean and benign modes greater priority.

Howard, Bath, UK

As an employee of Jacobs (and cyclist), I would like to point out that this email was specifically sent to us regarding travelling on company business, not commuting to the office.

In fact the company inisits that we use the train, and not the car for all business travel.

Otis, Glasgow,

Hang on, check the figures above- walking is more dangerous than cycling, we must ban these PC muppets stuffing walking down our throats! Pavements could be ripped up to make room for the cars that park on them all the time anyway!

Since the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 8-1 (BMC) , Jacob's decision is bizarre and will damage their business by making them a laughing stock. Cycling is the solution, and the more cyclists there are on the roads the safer the roads become, notwithstanding the borderline sociopaths who believe advance stop lines for cyclists are an impedence.

Susan, London, UK

If cycling is not an option Jacobs should encourage their office bound staff members to car share....

Craig, Manchester, Manchester

>"am I really expected not to overtake a cyclist while moving off >from a traffic light?"

You sir, are a danger to the public with an attitude like that. Do you expect to be able to overtake a JCB or a bus if it's in front of you?

If there were less dangerous motorists like yourself then this would never have been considered an issue.

Robert McDonald

Robert McDonald, East Kilbride, Scotland

This is very sad. Are they going to ban staff from walking also as it is even more dangerous than cycling?

PJ, Birmingham,

Presume the HSE Manager for Jacobs is urgently scanning the Sits Vac columns now, along with the PR manager? If not, they should be. Clearly there was very little communication between them or their managers.
I am a professional HSE manager and consultant ; ill conceived and un-thought-through actions like this bring our work into disrepute and make a mockery of a sensible and pragmatic approach to safety and environmental policies and procedures.
What next - Ban walking? Seems the next logical step for Jacobs' staff nannies.

Chris Brandon, Welwyn Garden City, Herts, England

As a responsible cyclist I am often astonished at the rage directed at us by motorists. People are quite capable of rolling down their windows and shrieking abuse for no reason at all, I think they genuinely see cyclists as some kind of inferiors. But it can cause accidents, and attitudes like those of Mr. Kuklinski are particularly dangerous. He obviously feels bikes are the kind of vehicles which should not be allowed on roads that he uses. It is scary to be around people like that if you are on a flimsy bike and he is in a big car.Scary too to be an old person or mother with little kids trying to cross the road when he is fuming around trying to save two seconds geting away from the traffic lights. However he is right in one thing: cycling provision should be approached in a more organised way. The Germans do deal with it much much better than we do. And hey, lots of people cycle in Germany, lots more than here - and will be fitter and healthier for it.

Jenny , London,

The policy does not in fact ban using bicycles. It promotes the use of public transport for company business. It requires safe plans of action for travel and all driving on company business, and allows bicycles to be used if there is a safe plan of action and the use of a bike is approved. Similar approvals are required for automobile rentals and the use of employee vehicles on company business.The policy also restricts the number of miles employees can travel during the day and discourages travel in early and late hours by car. Further, the company promotes the use of bicycles going to and from work by providing bike racks and shower facilities when practical in its facilities. It also provides interest free loans to employees to purchase transport tickets. It also supported the Tour de France in the UK this year. It is a shame that employees with an agenda have mis- characterized this policy to the press. It is a shame the Times bit on a non-event.

Sadi Meanswell, Glasgow, UK

MK... I drive and ride so I can speak from a neutral position.

The object being over taken, be it pedestrian, cycle, horse, milk float, car etc is NOT responsible for the overtakers actions. All they can do is position themselves correctly. It is down to the overtaker to do so ONLY but when SAFE. There is no RIGHT to overtake.

When I cycle, I would love to have a totally car free route and when I drive I'd love to have a totally cycle free route. However, we live in the real world which means we ALL have to make compromises. If everybody did that then road rage would disappear and we would all get around quicker AND safer. My advice.... be patient and live with it.

Lance, Crawley, UK

It isn't just lack of true awareness of the problem or hypocrisy that's in action here. Can a company really dictate to its employees what form of transport they can use in their own time? If they can, then into what other areas of private life can they legitimately intrude? Could they demand that all employees, in their own time, carry out risk assessments around the home, develop policies and procedures, regularly update them and be subject to random inspections by a subsection of HR to ensure proper governance? I don't think so, unless of course they'e allowed to get away with this gross interference.

Bill Q, Derby,

Statistics and Law support the company. An employer has a duty provide a safe place of work for its staff - so it has a duty to put in place a policy for minimising travel needs during work time and to teh extent travel is necessary to use safest mode available - Stats show that cycling is less safe than bus / trains. I suspect that fuller and further inestigation will show that the company policy also recommends public transport over car use as well on the same grounds.

jim, bristol, uk

I had to check that this was not an April Fool! The most alarming point here, I believe (and I suspect it is widespread), is the apparent lack of understanding of health & safety law demonstrated by Jacobs' health & safety manager. It is not about preventing people from doing things which carry a risk - otherwise we would, for example, have no knives in our kitchens, ice rinks, lawn mowers, chainsaws etc - it is about carrying out a risk assessment and managing the risks. This means taking sensible, but reasonable and practicable precautions, and providing information and appropriate warnings. There has to be a balance between reducing risk and recognising the benefits of the activity in question; this company's edict is so disproportionate as to present a risk in its own right!

Adam, London, UK

Ban those irresponsible jaywalkers now!
All footwear should contain a goverment health warning.

Hang on a minute, let's not be too hasty and waste an opportunity. TAX IT, TAX IT whatever it might be.

KaChing, Leicester,

It doesn't stop there. Local councils so often have non-cyclists with responsibility for cycling policy. Our local Road Safety Team has this responsibility, and seems to operate a 'cycling prevention policy'.

Dave Woodruff, Dudley,

According to the statistics above, the company should immediately ban walking to work.

Jepsu, Helsinki,

It's true, of course, that Britain's roads are not designed for bicycles. But the real and important truth is that they're not designed for cars, either; they're designed for pedestrians and horse drawn vehicles, which are an order of magnitude slower than cars.

The problem isn't bicycles on our roads, it's cars on our roads. They pose too much danger to other road users, and have no place in busy urban centres.

Simon Brooke, Auchencairn,

Mariusz says "Britain's road are not designed for bicycles", true, they were originally designed for horses, then along came bicycles, then along came the car. Pure car numbers have usurped the horse and bicycle forcing them into the gutter or off the road entirely whilst poluting the atmosphere. The problem is the total failure from the very beginning to alter the design of roads to cope with increasing car numbers whilst retaining the safe space initially "owned" by horses and bikes. Are the roads in London designed for the free flow of all forms of traffiic? I think not.

John, Sussex, UK

I presume, based on the deaths per billion km figures at the bottom of your article, that Jacobs are going to ban their staff from walking too. If this is the quality of advice that councils are getting on sustainable transport though it's no wonder that cyclists and pedestrians face the problems they do with our car centric transport infrastructure. Its Jacobs advising them it is unsafe to let their electorate walk or cycle ;-)

Tony, Cambridge, UK

I couldn't agree more. Britain's road are not designed for bicycles and any half-measures, enforced by the councils and mayors, who for the sake of political correctness push the bikes down our throats, like painting cycle lanes and most of all, the green zones before cars at the traffic lights, succeed only in making a bad situation worse - am I really expected not to overtake a cyclist while moving off from a traffic light? If any council really loves cycling that much, please visit Berlin and have a look , how it should be done.
Not to mention the weather, of course

Mariusz Kuklinski, London,