There is still time to submit written evidence to the select committee, and I urge you to do that to get your opinions heard

On Tuesday the bike blog published a post that was highly critical of the Commons transport select committee's investigation into cycle safety. Here, the Labour MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion, a member of the committee, responds.

On Monday parliament's transport select committee held two witness sessions as our information gathering on cyclist safety. We had already received over 50 written submissions. The topic has been on the agenda for debate for months, but the tragic deaths of six cyclists has really intensified our desire to research if the Department of Transport could be doing more to protect cyclists. This is not an inquiry into those specific deaths as Chris Boardman has wrongly stated.

I was at the first session where we had representatives from the police, cycling campaign groups, the chair of the London assembly transport committee and the parliamentary advisory council on transport safety. For me, an inquiry is an opportunity to challenge some of the evidence received, give the panel the opportunity to refute common myths and prejudices and really explore the issues as they unfold. I thought it was a good debate; everyone was engaged and the witnesses had many opportunities to put forward their opinions.

Little did I know a storm was brewing! Admittedly I've only been an MP for a year, but in that time I have never been on a transport select committee that has generated so much coverage. It is a topic that clearly polarises people's views.

Since Monday, I have been bombarded with emails and tweets from cyclists who have attacked the committee for things we did, or did not say. I have had motorists passionately trying to tell me that cyclists are pretty much responsible for all ills in the world. None of this helps find a solution.

Katja Leyendecker from NewCyling in Newcastle, really impressed me as a witness. Rather than getting caught up in detail, she kept pulling the debate back to the philosophical position of what should be the vision of transport in our cities?

Personally, I believe this is how we should be approaching the debate: How do we operate within cities? Who uses what transport and why? How can we make the city a safer place for everyone? Once we have a position on this, we are then better informed to drill down in to the detail; how can we protect cyclists? How do we encourage more people to cycle? These questions should then lead us to practical solutions with the knowledge and confidence that we know why we are taking them.

Of the written submissions we have received so far; segregated cycle lanes; junction improvements; education for drivers and cyclists and greater enforcement of drivers breaking the law have been the most popular topics. I don't want to make a judgment on our inquiry before we receive all the evidence, but on a personal level, they are the topics that make the most sense to me. There is still time to submit written evidence to the panel and I urge you to do that to get your opinions heard.

Finally, for the record, I was a cyclist but got too scared by the dangers on our roads so gave up. I take my hat (not helmet) off to all of you brave enough keep going!