Motions to 2013 AGM

Motion 1: To approve the accounts


The London Cycling Campaign report and accounts for the year to 31 March 2013 as presented on and to the Annual General Meeting shall be approved and adopted.


Motion 2: To appoint the auditors


That Chantrey Vellacott be appointed auditors for the financial year ending 31 March 2014.


Motion 3: When do we need protected space for cycling?


We welcomed the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, and expect its aspirations to be put into practice. Superhighways, Quietways, Mini-Hollands and other transport or streetscape schemes that promise cycling improvements must enable mass cycling. For more detail, see the Policy Forum document When Do We Need Protected Space for Cycling?

LCC resolves:

1. We believe ‘safe and inviting’ cycling environments do not compel cyclists to share space with high speed or high volume motor traffic.

2. Cyclists should not be expected to share space with motor vehicles moving above 20mph.

3. If cyclists will share space with motor traffic, volumes must be low. On the core cycle route network this should not exceed the Dutch maximum for main cycle routes, 2,000 Passenger Car Units per day.

4. In assessing schemes where current motor traffic speeds or volumes are too high we will expect to see either (i) specific measures to reduce both motor traffic volumes and speeds to levels acceptable for sharing or (ii) high-quality protected cycle infrastructure.

5. Where schemes are inadequate, and depending on context (e.g. residential streets vs. main roads) we will push for high-quality protected cycle infrastructure and/or measures to reduce both motor traffic volumes and speeds to levels acceptable for sharing.

Please refer to the full text of the Policy Forum document When Do We Need Protected Space for Cycling, 9 August 2013. 

There's also a detailed explanation of this motion here.


Motion 4: A ward-by-ward campaign across Greater London for the 2014 local elections


Noting the Mayor’s commitments to meet the three key tests for Love London, Go Dutch,  we committed ourselves at the last AGM to make a ward-by-ward campaigning LCC’s strategy priority until May 2014. 

The Mayor has since published his Vision for Cycling in London, which sets out how he will deliver his promises. Our primary campaigning objective now is to secure that delivery.

LCC resolves:

1. To recognise that the principal challenge to delivering the Mayor’s promises is to secure sufficient political will for the reallocation of road space. We therefore reaffirm our commitment to using the 2014 local elections to build local political support for delivery of the Mayor’s promises.

2. To endorse the 2014 local election campaign themes for the ward-level ‘asks’ proposed by the Policy Forum:

a. Safe routes for schoolchildren

b. Low-traffic zones

c. Dedicated space on main roads

d. Greenways

e. 20mph speed limits

3. To campaign for a single demand or ‘ask’ (based on one theme) in each and every one of the 624 council wards in Greater London for the May 2014 elections.

4. To hold one high-profile campaign event in each Borough for the May 2014 elections.

5. To endorse the overall campaign and messaging strategy.

6. To mandate the Board to continue to prioritise capacity building for ward-by-ward campaigning and grassroots activism.


Motion 5: Uniformity of cycling provision and suitability for all-ability groups


LCC welcomes the Mayor’s plans for the Cycle Superhighways, Quietways and the Central London Grid. However, it considers that the standard of all links in the overall planned cycle network for London must be uniform, in the sense that there must be equal suitability, usability, and level of safety, of all the facilities, for all cyclists who might use them.

We consider it would be a mistake for the standards for any elements of the network, for example, the Superhighways or Quietways, to be specified in a way that makes them less suitable, for example, for use by children, or by inexperienced cyclists. The corollary of this is that network elements must not be such as to involve a trade-off between safety and convenience; in other words, cyclists wanting the safest journey should not be forced to use a less convenient or slower route, or a route having lower priority, because the most convenient, fastest, or most prioritised route is engineered to a lower safety standard. 


Motion 6: Membership


LCC exists to represent and further the interests of cyclists in London, and our organisation is an integral part of the wider cycling community in the capital. Over the years we have achieved much, and have an impressive media profile given our small membership base. But therein lies a problem. With only 12,000-odd members we are severely limited in what we can do, and as a campaigning and advocacy body LCC is nowhere near as representative as it could be of London cyclists as a whole.

We call on the LCC secretariat, board of trustees and borough groups to launch a massive membership drive throughout all sectors of the London cycling community, capitalising on recent British triumphs in the Tour de France and on the Olympic Velodrome track. In addition to enhancing our political clout, an increased income from membership dues will allow LCC to fund more projects, and devote more human resources at both London-wide and local levels.


Motion 7: Sponsorship ethics and product reviews


LCC is a campaigning organisation that derives part of its income from cycling-related business interests. Corporate sponsorship provides LCC with valuable funding, enabling us to work for the benefit of the London cycling community in ways that would not be possible were we to rely on membership subscriptions alone. Sponsorship is a good thing, but brings with it a responsibility to act fairly and openly when it comes to product placement, reviews, and public recognition in the form of awards presented in the name of LCC.

We note with concern that corporate sponsors of LCC were among the nominees for the 2013 London Cycling Awards, and question whether this is appropriate. Sponsors of LCC receive considerable brand recognition by virtue of their association with our campaigning work. Having sponsors then included among award nominees and recipients creates the potential for an ethical conflict of interest that LCC must avoid at all costs. We call on the London Cycling Campaign secretariat and board of trustees to ensure this does not happen again.

There is a related question of advertising and product reviews. London Cycling Campaign members have expressed their uneasiness with the review in London Cyclist magazine and elsewhere of prestige products beyond the financial reach of very many cyclists in London. Such focus on expensive products fosters the misconceived notion of cycling in London as the preserve of a social and cultural elite, and is surely against the ethos of an organisation that seeks to promote cycling as a normal mode of utility transport and leisure activity.

If we are to promote and review cycling products, it is essential that ethical conflicts be avoided and our target audience respected. Product advertising must clearly be marked as such, while critical reviews should be delegated to LCC members, with proper bylines included. We call on the London Cycling Campaign secretariat, board of trustees and editor of London Cyclist magazine to develop in consultation with members a code of conduct that applies to product promotion and review in LCC media.


Motion 8: London Cycling Awards


We move that the London Cycling Awards be expanded, in consultation with members, to add more recognition to local London cycling champion categories, and that these categories be judged by a panel according to agreed criteria and be announced at the AGM of the LCC.  The winners may, if this is considered appropriate, be recognised at any subsequent event organised by the LCC to award corporate or national champions. We suggest possible extra categories could be: (1) best local ride leader, (2) most active young rider, (3) most active branch, (4) best trainer of young cyclists.