The advantages of cycling are so obvious it’s not worth banging on about them – cycling is quicker across town, it doesn’t pollute or cause congestion, it’s better for you, and of course it’s a whole lot cheaper than running a car or getting the bus.

What is interesting, though, is how much better economically it is for society to promote cycling over other forms of urban transport.

Dr Harry Rutter is a longstanding Cyclox member and an internationally-eminent authority on the economics of cycling and walking. At Cyclox’s annual meeting last week, he outlined the economic reasons why local and national governments should prise citizens away from motorised transport.

It all hinges around the health disbenefits of leading sedentary lives.

In 1995, 15 per cent of males and 16 per cent of females were obese. Today, only 15 years later, that figure has rocketed to 24 per cent of males and 25 per cent of females being obese. The cost of treating this obesity is massive, and as the population ages, the costs will go through the roof.

Several decades of encouraging the public to eat their five pieces of fruit, and of taking however many thousands of steps each day, have fallen on deaf ears.

People are reluctant to eat healthily or to stay fit. It’s time, says Dr Rutter, for transport and health officials to work together so people can develop healthy personal transport habits as a part of their daily lives.

Sir Muir Gray, chief knowledge officer of the NHS, called this obesity epidemic “walking deficiency syndrome”. If we can persuade governments to invest in getting us walking and cycling to work, to school and to the shops, then we can buck this trend.

The benefits to society are enormous. Anyone who cycles for 20 to 30 minutes per day reduces their risk of dying in any given year by 25 per cent. The economic costs of mopping up after a serious road accident are huge: £1m per death in the UK.

The overall cost benefit of providing any sort of infrastructure for cyclists is twice that of providing road improvements for motorists.

Investments in cycling in London have led to an additional 300,000 trips per day in the capital. The economic value of this change, in terms of the reduction in mortality, represents a net saving of 100 million euros a year.

Dr Rutter playfully suggests we should ban seat belts because they promote obesity. The protection of seat belts and air bags means cars are driven more quickly.

The real and perceived dangers of faster traffic have led to a decline in walking and cycling.

Higher speeds have also allowed people to live further from where they work, shop and socialise. Longer distances are less cyclable or walkable.

No-one is ever going to ban seat belts, of course, but Dr Rutter’s wry observation is that wearing them has caused more problems and costs through obesity than the lives that belts save in collisions.

On a more serious note, governments absolutely must join up their thinking so that the health and transport sectors collaborate to get people walking and cycling more.

The ultimate goal must be to make all urban areas safe enough for children to cycle or walk anywhere in complete safety. Hear, hear!