Uniformity of Cycling Provision and Suitability for All Ability Groups


Policy Resolutions of the 2013 AGM 

Resolution (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. See for more detail 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, 9th August 2013.

Resolution (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, families, and the disabled. 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.