1. We already know what needs to happen

I applaud the inquiry and think it's hugely important. However, there's an extent to which – in the nicest possible way – others could argue that it's pointless. We already know how to get people cycling: make it accessible, normal and (visibly) safe.

The key element to this has to be a widespread, well-designed and properly maintained system of segregated cycle lanes. Without a commitment to this, everything else is mere tinkering. Country after country has shown that without such lanes the mass of people will not cycle.

These must be safe in every aspect, particularly at junctions. You're bound to be given this quote from Enrique Peñalosa, the former Bogotá mayor, again and again, but it's central to everything: "A bicycle way that is not safe for an 8-year old is not a bicycle way."

Another vital element would be a rebalancing of the hierarchy on the roads through a strict liability law for motor vehicles v cycles (and, in turn, cycles v pedestrians).

The question isn't so much how to do it, or if it's a good idea – I've never met anyone newly returned from Copenhagen who said, "Nice city but I wish there were more cars and fewer bikes" – but how to generate the necessary political and public will.

2. Target cyclist safety but don't overstate the problem

I greatly admire the work of the Times's Cities Fit For Cycling campaign and applaud its role in creating the momentum for this inquiry.

That said, I believe its message can be too negative. As I write this the home web page for the campaign has about 40 story links on it. Half are connected to crashes, injuries, deaths or increased danger. It's a slightly counter-intuitive argument – we desperately need to provide safe infrastructure for cycling while at the same time not overstating the dangers and therefore putting people off. The more cyclists there are the safer it becomes, the much-observed safety in numbers effect.

As the co-author of a report in November by Nice recommending more cycling pointed out, if you decide not to cycle and are instead sedentary in a car or on a bus the dangers are less obvious but, actually, more real. They're rarely commented on because they're so ubiquitous.

The risks of riding a bike in the UK exist (and, crucially, remain greater than in the Netherlands, Denmark etc) but in absolute terms they're very, very low.

3. Cyclist behaviour is not the problem

Far too many discussions about promoting cycling get bogged down on issues such as cyclists jumping traffic signals, not using proper lights or other misbehaviour. These are a nuisance and antisocial but – and this cannot be stressed enough – very, very rarely a cause of danger, and are thus something of a sideshow.

A Transport Research Laboratory study found fewer than 2% of serious cycling incidents were due to a rider ignoring a red light or stop sign. In London, where this debate is most fierce, analysis of serious accidents showed a likely offence by the rider in just 6% of cases.

This is a hugely important point in shaping the public debate.

4. Cyclists remain marginalised in the media

There's arguably little to be done about this in the short term but again it's worth noting in the context of the public debate. Cyclists are too often treated in the media as something to be either ridiculed or feared, and as a homogenous mass. This even happens within the BBC, for example the misleading and, in places, faked War on Britain's Roads documentary late last year.

5. Some politicians don't seem to understand cycling at all

I'm not a policymaker and some groups I talk to say there are people within the DfT, TfL etc who really get cycling. This is not reflected in some public pronouncements.

To take an extreme example, at last year's Transport Select Committee hearings into cycling Norman Baker and Mike Penning stated that the UK has a better record on bike safety than the Netherlands because we have fewer casualties per head of population. They neglected to factor in that the Dutch cycle around 10 times further per year on average.

It's an astonishing mistake and one never publicly corrected. Speaking personally I have very little faith in a cycle policy shaped by ministers who could make such a hugely basic error as that, let alone fail to correct it.

6. Don't forget e-bikes

They're not mentioned in the remit as far as I can see but they could make a significant contribution, especially in getting older or less immediately fit people riding, and to assist those, for example, riding slightly longer distances or in hilly areas or carrying heavy shopping. The technology is advancing very quickly. Last year more than 700,000 e-bikes were sold in western Europe, as against a mere 11,500 electric cars.

E-bikes can also make a huge impact inside cities for final-leg cargo deliveries. Modern examples carry up to 400kg but can still park directly outside a building.