We have been here before, and not very long ago. If you read through British Cycling's concise and well-argued 10-point manifesto for their Time to Choose Cycling campaign, you'd be forgiven for being reminded of last year's Get Britain Cycling report.

That document, put together by the parliamentary all-party cycling group, made many of the same recommendations, including the need for consistent, long-term spending to make roads safer for cyclists, proper political leadership on the issue and improved training and education. It was politely read by the Department for Transport and then pretty much ignored.

So why will British Cycling's campaign not meet exactly the same fate? Pessimistically it might, but I'd argue that whatever happens it is a nonetheless valuable and worthwhile exercise.

To begin with, Time to Choose Cycling is considered and forceful. The public policy arguments in favour of cycling taking a greater share of overall journeys is so well known and so overwhelming that, oddly, they can sometimes almost get lost. British Cycling have cleverly commissioned research showing that even if 10% of trips were made by bike that would save the NHS in England and Wales at least £250m a year. That's already half the cost covered of boosting spending on bike infrastructure from £2 per person per year to £10.

British Cycling also have in their favour the spokesman for the campaign: Chris Boardman. The former Olympic track champion turned bike builder has become perhaps the country's most eloquent and effective mass cycling advocate since he became British Cycling's policy adviser.

He is measured but not afraid to be blunt when needed. For example, when the transport select committee bungled their first hearing on cycle safety, he was scathing:

Such a clear demonstration of lack of research and understanding at this level of seniority would, in any other business, be classed as negligent.

British Cycling's manifesto is also quite bold in its way. One of its recommendations is to revise the Highway Code, removing the point saying cyclists "should wear" helmets and high-vis clothing. As they point out, not only does this encourage creeping enforcement of such measures – it's not unknown for police to stop helmet-less cyclists and "advise" them to don a lid – but it runs contrary to a culture of mass, everyday cycling.

My additional hope is that every time these arguments are presented, they lodge that little bit more in ministers' minds. Both the minister for cycling, Robert Goodwill, and the Labour shadow transport secretary, Mary Creagh, are scheduled to attend today's launch at parliament of the British Cycling campaign. Labour in particular have made some positive noises about taking cycling more seriously.

The final, slightly gloomy point, is this: why, given the very well known and conclusive arguments for mass cycling, is this all taking so long? The inevitable answer is a lack of political will in the face of a still hugely powerful car lobby.

Let's take just one example. A week ago the Daily Telegraph ran a large and prominent story about possible plans to routinely use cameras to enforce speed limits on motorways for the first time. The article was overwhelmingly negative to the idea, noting a survey suggesting more than 90% of drivers speed on motorways, and approvingly quoting the decidely fringe Alliance of British Drivers.

This is a newspaper which generally takes the view that laws should be obeyed. And yet it was effectively endorsing the mass breaking of a law in a way which has been proven to cost lives. Can you imagine a newspaper expressing outrage at, say, a police crackdown on cyclists jumping red lights? Of course not.

These are the forces lined up against British Cycling, and the battle is set to be a long one.