AGM motions confirm our commitment to campaigning for streets that make cycling safe and inviting for every Londoner
- By London Cycling Campaign on at 03:43pm 21 Oct 2013
- Posted in: Blog
- Tagged with: agm, 2014 local elections, space for cycling, uniformity of provision
The London Cycling Campaign AGM on Saturday 19 October 2013 passed a series of motions confirming our commitment to campaign for:
- protected space for cycling or motor traffic reduction when speeds of motor vehicles are over 20mph or volumes of motor traffic are above 2000 passenger car units per day (motion 3);
- our Space for Cycling policy platform at ward level during the 2014 local elections (motion 4);
- cycling facilities that are uniformly attractive enough for everyone to use, including faster commuters and children (motion 5).
There are longer explanations of the three above motions further down this page.
Other motions passed at the AGM include those calling for a membership recruitment drive around our 2014 campaign and wider recognition for local campaigners (see below).
The minutes of the 2013 AGM will be available on this page for download soon.
Motions 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8
The first two motions passed approved formally our annual accounts and approved the appointment of our auditors for 2013/14 (motions 1 and 2).
Other motions included:
- one passed calling for a membership recruitment drive around our 2014 campaign (motion 6);
- one seeking changes to the way the London Cycling Awards are run and how we source product reviews and advertising, which was defeated (motion 7);
- one passed suggesting ways in which local campaigners could be recognised as part of next year’s London Cycling Awards and the AGM (motion 8).
Motion 3: When do we need protected space for cycling?
This motion was proposed by Dr Rachel Aldred on behalf of our elected Policy Forum. It sets out the motor traffic speed and volume that triggers the need for us to campaign for improvements to cycling conditions. Those improvements can be achieved by either:
- full or light segregation using cycle tracks or planters, armadillos or bollards
- reduction in speed and/or volumes of motor traffic.
We don't accept that cyclists and motor traffic should share street space when traffic speeds and/or volumes are high.
This policy is designed to ensure that we campaign for a dense network of streets that have either low-speed motor vehicles in low volumes, or protected space for cycling, including through junctions.
A network with these characteristics is likely to provide safe and inviting streets suitable for everyone to cycle.
Our new policy is to call for intervention when motor vehicle speeds are above 20mph or the number of passenger car units (PCUs) on a given street exceeds 2000 per day.
The figure of 2000 PCUs per day is the same as the Dutch standard for separating cyclists from motor traffic, and includes a weighting element whereby larger vehicles that pose greater danger are worth more than smaller vehicles like motorbikes and cars.
There’s a full explanation of PCUs (including how the measures could be improved) in the Policy Forum’s document ‘When do we need protected space for cycling?’, which can be read here (PDF download).
Motion 4: A ward-by-ward campaign across Greater London for the 2014 local elections
This motion endorses our Space for Cycling campaign for the borough elections in 2014, calling for ward-level actions around the following six policy themes:
- Safe routes for schoolchildren
- Streets without through motor traffic
- Dedicated space on main roads
- 20mph speed limits
- Liveable town centres
The motion also commits to our organising one high-profile event in every borough in support of our Space for Cycling campaign.
Motion 5: Uniformity of cycling provision and suitability for all ability groups
This motion commits LCC to campaign for a cycle network with facilities that are suitabile for every type of cyclist who might want to use them, from the fastest commuter to the newest cyclist or child.
We are convinced it would be a mistake for the quality of any elements of the network - for example, the Superhighways or the Quietways - to be designed in a way that makes them less suitable for any type of cyclists.
For example, For example, the Superhighways must be just as suitable for children, inexperienced cyclists and disabled cyclists as they are for faster commuter cyclists. Equally, the proposed Quietways must be built to a standard that benefits faster cyclists as well as the less able or experienced.
In summary, London’s cycle network should not be designed in such a way as to create a two-tier network, one that trades safety against convenience; rather uniformity of provision should make all areas suitable for everyone.