7/8

Written evidence from the London Cycling Campaign (CYS0071)

The London Cycling Campaign welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Transport Select Committee’s follow up inquiry into cycling. We share the committee’s concern at the tragic death of 6 people in just two weeks on London roads. The continued growth of cycling in London and the UK must be accompanied, and assisted by, a reduction of road danger to cycle users and pedestrians

Summary

• Road danger is the number one concern for quarter of the population who would like to cycle or cycle more
• Providing safe and convenient passage through busy junctions and along main roads requires, as in the Netherlands, separation in time or space of cyclists from motor traffic
• Motor traffic capacity must not be prioritised over the safety of vulnerable road users
• Cycle training must be incorporated in the school curriculum
• Road schemes must consider cycle users from the outset
• International best practice in road design must be incorporated in UK guidance
• Spending on cycling infrastructure must match the levels on the continent
• All public bodies must adopt procurement policies that require safer lorries and trained drivers

.

London Cycling Campaign

The London Cycling Campaign is a charity with more than 40,000 supporters of whom 12,000 are full members. We speak up on behalf of everyone who cycles, or wants to cycle, in Greater London. Our aim is for London to be a world class cycling city. Founded in 1978, our organisation campaigns for every street in the city to be cycle friendly so that millions more Londoners, whatever their age or ability, can enjoy the benefits of cycling, helping to create a cleaner, healthier and less congested capital.

LCC, and its 33 local groups, regularly respond to planning consultations, inquiries into cycling and provide informed input to policy making at both the local and London-wide-levels. Our input and lobbying work led to the comprehensive revision of London’s cycling programmes now encapsulated in the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London. While the LCC would like to see a significant acceleration in the pace of implementation of the Mayor’s Vision, we recognise it as a major step towards improving cycling conditions in the capital. 

1. reducing road danger

1.1 Cycle journeys in London have increased by 176% on main roads in the past decade, and cycle commuting by Hackney residents now accounts for more than 15% of journeys[1] – doubling in a decade.  Yet even the capital, where cycle journeys now exceed 570,000 per day, still has a low overall share of cycling at a little more than 2% of all journeys, well below cities like Berlin (15%) or Amsterdam (36%). The overall figure for the UK is 2% - significantly below the potential rate.

1.2 The key factor in deterring more people from cycling in the UK is road danger and perceived road danger. Recent surveys, both in London[2] and the UK, consistently show that a quarter, or more, of the population would like to cycle or cycle more often. Surveys carried out for LCC and British Cycling show that the number one factor deterring people from cycling is fear of road danger.

1.3 As the DfT funded programme of Cycling Demonstration towns has shown, cycling offers an exceptionally cost effective investment in the transport sector. The Cycling Demonstration Towns showed a cost/benefit ratio of £2- £3.5 for every pound spent and this is described as a conservative estimate[3]. A cost/benefit study in Copenhagen (a city with high cycling levels) found that the total socio-economic cost of cycling (including travel time, health factors, pollution and congestion) was 0.60 DK (Danish Krone) per kilometre compared to 3.74 DK per kilometre for cars. [4] Cyclist fatality rates in Holland and Denmark compared to distance travelled are half those in the UK.

1.4 The NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) report on walking cycling, published in December 2012, makes clear that the health costs of an inactive population are enormous and comparable to those of smoking.[5]

1.5 LCC led the Love London Go Dutch campaign in 2012 that secured 42,000 signatures asking the future Mayor to make our roads ‘as safe and inviting for cycling and walking as those in Holland.’ The elected Mayor made a commitment to realise this pledge and his response has been his Vision for Cycling[6] which commits to both significantly improved infrastructure and safer lorries.

2. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

2.1 In common with the Transport Committee[7] LCC believes that political will, within Government and within Local Authorities, is the single most important fundamental and overarching factor that will deliver improved conditions for cycling in the UK, and unlock the huge latent demand there is for cycling as an everyday means of transport. That political will needs to be reflected in a clear national cycling strategy, backed by adequate resources and funding, which lead to its implementation at local level throughout the country.

2.2 LCC shares the view expressed by the Transport Committee, in its 2012 recommendations on cycling, that local authorities must work together with central Government to achieve improved cycling conditions and therefore we are seeking to secure the support of all local council candidates in the 2014 local elections for cycle-friendly measures in London wards. Our recommendations to candidates. These will follow six themes all related to reducing road danger and removing barriers to cycling.

2.4 A key element of the process of switching people from short car trips (half of which are less than 5 miles in the UK) to walking and cycling is the reversal of the policy followed in the 60’s of re-designing cities to enable high-speed motoring. If we are to achieve the levels of cycling across all demographic groups that are seen in the Netherlands then motor traffic must be deprioritised in favour of cycling and walking most notably for urban, local journeys.

2.5 This is, at heart, a political rather than a technical matter. To fulfil the Government’s and Local Authorities’ declared commitment to sustainable transport, and the numerous environmental, economic and health benefits that follow, cycling (and walking) must be given priority in both time and space over motor traffic in the UK’s urban spaces, as it is in the Netherlands and Denmark. In this context the Government must re-emphasise that the Traffic Management Act must be used to prioritise the movement of people, wherever possible by cycling and walking, ahead of the movement of motor vehicles.  A lesson learned in London is that pre-occupation with maintaining or increasing road capacity for cars can lead highway authorities to overlook, or discard, traffic schemes that can reduce road danger to vulnerable road users and serve to encourage walking and cycling.

3.  Safety Concerns

3.1 Safety concerns are a primary deterrent to cycle use. The factors identified by London road users include:

• Careless, inattentive driving that puts cyclists at risk
• High speed/high volume motor traffic on roads without dedicated space for cycle users
• Road junctions where maximising the flow of motor traffic has been given priority over cyclist and pedestrian safety

• Large vehicles, especially those ‘off road’ style lorries used by the construction industry which lack equipment or large windows that make cyclists visible

4.  Cycling Infrastructure

4.1 All urban road infrastructure impacts on the safety of cyclists. The main issues restraining more cycling in London and identified by Londoners [8] are:

• Fear of actual and perceived road danger [9]
• Lack of confidence in infrastructure [10]

4.2 Cycle Networks

4.3 It is evident from successful cycling countries that cycle routes need to build into a network to give people the confidence that they will reach their destination along cycle-friendly roads without encountering major barriers. 

4.4 As the Dutch Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic (CROW) makes clear, cycle networks must offer:

• Cohesion
• Directness
• Safety
• Comfort [11]

4.5 UK cycle networks, whether in London or elsewhere, invariably fall down on some or all of these principles. The Mayor of London has announced that a network of ‘Quietways” across London and “Grid” of cycle-friendly streets in central London will build into a network. The quality of such a network must meet continental standards to give people the confidence to cycle.

4.6 Main road network cycle provision

The level of provision for safe cycling on UK main roads remains inadequate. London’s Mayor initiated a review of major junctions, following previous deaths, in recognition of the problems across the capital[12]. Cycling infrastructure on main roads is either non-existent or seriously inconveniences cycle journeys. In some cases, new infrastructure increases risk for cyclists as at recent work on Henley’s Corner (A406). This problem is certainly not exclusive to London and must be addressed right across the country.

4.7 One Way Road System Removal

One way road systems (or gyratories) remain one of the biggest barriers to both safety and increased cycle use[13].  Progress on removing the gyratories that blight large parts of UK cities has been very slow.  A major programme of one way road system removal and the introduction of high grade provision for cycle users and walkers is overdue.

4.8 Filtered Permeability Measures

Such schemes allow people on foot or on bikes access through locations where through motor traffic is blocked (often by low cost bollards or a no entry sign) for amenity or traffic management reasons. The impetus for such schemes often comes from residents seeking to eliminate rat running. Permeability schemes such as those in De Beauvoir Town, Hackney and Claremont Square, Islington, attract thousands of cyclists per day (up to 1500 per hour - high even by Dutch standards). The virtual absence of moving motor vehicles means that collisions are unlikely.

4.9 Speed Reduction

In combination with measures such as filtered permeability, speed reduction can create pleasant cycling routes that attract more riders as well as reducing collisions. Following recent changes, DfT guidance allows 20mph limits on main roads such as the TfL network[14], under certain specified conditions.

4.10 Cycle Superhighways

The cycle superhighways In London have provided very visible way marking but they have introduced only a limited number of safety improvements, as acknowledged by the Mayor’s commitment to re-design them with far greater use of mode separation notably at junctions where most collisions occur.

Cycle superhighway 2 in East London is a sad case where six cyclists have died in 3 years. LCC advised against implementation of this highway as originally proposed and welcomes the Mayoral commitment to re-design it with protected cycle lanes and treated junctions. 

4.11 Greenways

Cycle paths through Hyde Park and Green Park in central London are highly popular. Well designed Greenway routes and links can make a significant impact on improving conditions for both walkers and cyclists.

5. Children & Cycle Training

5.1 Cycling, which enables children to stay active and healthy, needs to be incorporated into the educational system, as it is in the Netherlands

5.2 Incorporating an element of cycle training into the driving test would enable drivers to understand the on-road strategies of cycle users and help reduce the incidence of collisions.

6.  Improving Street Design & Management

6.1 Dutch planners and engineers consider cycle and pedestrian traffic from the outset of any design process.  It is clear that this does not happen in much of the UK. Consideration of ‘people’ capacity rather than just motor vehicle capacity would lead to more people friendly planning.

6.2 Not all the transport modelling software used by TfL and other Highway Authorities allows cycle flows as inputs or outputs. TfL’s guidance suggests that junction capacity modelling is unreliable where cycle flows make up 20% (no longer uncommon in London) of the traffic flow[15].

6.3 Safety audits must properly consider cycle users. We note, for example, that TfL guidelines for safety audits of road schemes do not require auditors to have any detailed knowledge of cycling provision or London Cycle Design Standards[16].

7.  Engaging with Cycling Groups

7.1 DfT’s Cycle Infrastructure Design document[17] recommends consultation with user groups. Cycling groups can provide highway authorities with significant and valuable local input to reduce road danger and improve scheme designs.

8.  Best National & International Practice

8.1 Best practice from abroad should inform UK planning and design for cycle users. We provide references below. TfL has recently commissioned an independent study of international best practice. That forthcoming study notes the following common themes in best practice cities:

1. Strong political and technical pro-cycling leadership
2. Cycling treated as a major transport mode with investment to match
3. Increasing cycle mode share is accompanied by decreasing the car mode.
4. Provision of dedicated, fit for purpose, space for cycling  free of intrusion by heavy and fast traffic
5. Clarity about the overall cycle network (see CROW above)
6. Three types of facility: separate facilities on busy roads; quiet streets with 20 mph speed limits and restricted through traffic; ‘greenways’
7. Frequency of need for cyclists to stop is minimised
8. Cycle safety is not bought at a cost to pedestrians, and traffic capacity or car parking  are not a veto on cycling provision
9. Driving culture is more respectful of cycling
10. Plan for growth in cycling and design accordingly[18]

8.2 Transport for London and local authorities have complained about DfT restrictions that prevent the adoption of European best practice in road design.

Best practice guides:

• London Cycle Design Standards, Transport for London 2013 (forthcoming)
• Manual for Streets, Department for Transport 2007.
• Hackney Public Realm Strategy 2012.
• Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, CROW (Netherlands Information and Technology Platform) 2007 (hard copy only).
• Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012, Cycling Embassy of Denmark.
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, NACTO (USA) 2011.

9.  SPENDING PRIORITIES

9.1 Cycle use in the UK has increased in those towns and cities where funding has been provided – London and the Demonstration Cycle Towns are the obvious examples.

9.2 The Rod Eddington report on Transport specifically highlighted that investment in cycling offered particular value for money: “Improving the attractiveness of walking and cycling, e.g. by creating or upgrading routes, can provide strong returns with wider BCRs (benefit cost ratios) sometimes over 10.” Eddington’s conclusion was that “some of the best projects are small-scale, such as walking and cycling [19].”

9.3 We note that a DfT estimate of the annual costs of traffic delays, accidents, poor air quality, physical inactivity, greenhouse gas emissions and noise resulting from motor traffic in urban areas was put at £38 - £48 billion pounds[20].

10. HGV DANGER

10.1 In London 9 out of 14 cycling fatalities in 2013 were the result of collisions with lorries.

10.2 LCC has been in the forefront of the campaign to reduce danger from heavy goods vehicles, most recently with the Safer Lorries for Safer Cycling campaign targeting all London boroughs, and the design of an urban lorry that significantly increases a driver’s direct vision.

10.3 LCC, advised by a transport expert and ex lorry driver, lobbied successfully for the inclusion in TfL contracts of a requirement for lorry operators to:

• be members of FORS (the Fleet Operators Recognition Scheme quality standard);
• have vehicles with full safety features to detect cyclists and pedestrians;
• ensure that all drivers have had their driving and criminal records checked;
• and that they have completed Approved Driver Training that includes a practical ‘on bike’ element.

10.4 LCC shares the view of other cycling organisations that the volume of goods vehicles on urban roads at busy times must be reduced both through traffic management solutions and consolidation depots.

December 2012