As a rule, FTSE 100 companies avoid writing letters to politicians asking for particular policies. Sure, they might lobby very effectively behind the scenes, or get their view across via someone like the CBI. But asking publicly? It’s much more rare.

That’s what so stands out about today’s action by GSK, National Grid and British Land, among the biggest 100 companies listed in London. They, along with other corporate giants including Santander, Orange and Allen & Overy are calling for concerted, consistent investment in cycling, and not because they see it as a partisan issue. For them it’s just common sense.

These companies are among those who have clubbed together with British Cycling to make some very explicit demands: that all parties sign up to committing 5% of the total UK transport budget to cycling; and with a view to getting 10% of all trips made by bike by 2025.

For anyone interested in the possibility of mass cycling in Britain and all the many benefits this would being, both individual and societal, this is big stuff. For decades, what cycle lobbying there was has mainly been the preserve of committed, earnest campaigners with a drawer of Lycra garments and opinions about gear ratios. Extremely well meaning, but arguably niche. And easy for governments to ignore.

The paradox of the new grouping, officially called the Choose Cycling network, is that it was born out of a corporate attempt to derail a bike scheme – the vigorous (and sometimes misleading) briefings by Canary Wharf Group and others against London’s soon-to-be-built east to west cycling superhighway.

After other businesses lined up to back the scheme, British Cycling pondered the idea of a national lobby group, and brought in the saintly and tireless Chris Boardman to speak to companies. Choose Cycling is the result, with the hope other companies will join up later.

I’m not expecting the campaign to bring immediate success. While the Liberal Democrats are fully signed up to the laudable Get Britain Cycling recommendations, the Conservatives and Labour are maintaining their traditional approach of supporting cycling in theory while committing almost nothing specific.

This is unlikely to be changed overnight by the views of about two dozen companies and charities, especially given almost half have a direct – CTC, Sustrans, London Cycling Campaign – or indirect – Sky, Santander – link to cycling anyway.



But it’s a really interesting development. One of the big arguments about the London bike routes was about the way the city needs to change to attract businesses. Whatever Canary Wharf believe, corporations don’t just want fast taxi routes to the airport. They want decent air quality, a human-friendly environment, and the choice for employees to cycle to work without excessive risk.

David Morley, senior partner (equivalent to executive chairman) at law giant Allen & Overy, cycles about six miles from his home in Surrey to a station, and then uses another bike to go from Waterloo station to the firm’s offices in the City. “It makes my day,” he says.

Morley explains why they signed up:

My interest is both personal and from a business point of view. We think as a firm it’s good business having people cycle to work. It’s good for their health, it’s good for their motivation, their productivity, their outlook, and it’s good for the environment. There’s lots of reasons.

One big caveat to this news is how, again, it seems mainly focused around London. The bulk of the companies involved have headquarters in the capital, and cycling levels elsewhere remain low.

Matt Wilson, head of sustainability for GSK, told me that for all the company’s efforts in getting employees to cycle, so far just 3% of their workforce does nationally. However, this rises to 9% for their London outpost, even though that is in the far west of the capital, just by the M4. (Wilson himself doesn’t ride to work, but he lives in Guildford and says a 70-plus mile round trip might be a bit much).

Mark Treasure, who writes the excellent As Easy as Riding a Bike blog, this week posted an exhaustive and depressing piece about the state of cycling in his home area, West Sussex, something not helped by the haphazard and cackhanded way councils tend to spend money on often useless cycling infrastructure (he notes that £100,000 of “sustainable” funding was spent in Horsham on traffic lights for cars, on the grounds it would reduce queues and thus emissions).

The British Cycling-led letter seeks to tackle this, asking for all local authorities to be obliged to follow uniform design guidance on cycling infrastructure.

This would be very useful, but it only serves to reinforce what’s needed most of all: political leadership. Just about every party you care to speak to (possibly excluding Ukip) believe more cycling is a good thing, but the big two have yet to show the gumption and ambition needed to actually get it done.

Instead, Labour’s new transport spokesman, Michael Dugher, seems more worried about the fictional “war on the motorist, perhaps the only modern conflict less successful than the war on drugs.

I asked his press people whether Labour agreed with the letter’s ambitions. The response was a quote full of generalities – “ambitious targets to increase cycling and walking participation”; “Labour has committed to move cycling to the mainstream of transport policy and planning” – which didn’t address any specifics. “This covers all the points raised in the letter,” wrote the press spokesman, a sentiment that just about sums up Labour’s despairingly vague attitude to the subject. (In fairness, he did email again to further explain Labour’s views on the commitments, but again without many specifics).

Eric Pickles, meanwhile, spends his time arguing for easier car parking to help shops, despite all the evidence to the contrary (the letter mentions how bike lanes on some New York streets have seen big increases in retail sales).



They have as yet not been shifted by the appeals of campaigners. Will they listen to big business? Let’s hope so.