What’s next for Cycle Safe? Question 1a

Did we get our manifesto right? What would you have in there if we wrote it again?

This is one of seven questions that people were asked at June’s Street Talk. The responses below are unedited and in no particular order. We’d welcome further comments/suggestions – comments will close on 2nd July.

  • Bigger focus on children and future of our cities.  Otherwise, very good?
  • 20 mph should be default speed limit in all urban and residential areas regardless of cycle lanes or not.
  • More emphasis on adopting best European practice – learning from those countries that are successful.
  • Freight consolidation centres and night-time deliveries.
  • £100m? Not enough if we want 10% of journeys by bike = 10% budget, 20% of journeys = 20% budget
  • Better integration of cycling and public transport would encourage more people to cycle, esp. For longer trips. (This would include secure cycle parking, which is noticeably deficient across the UK)
  • DfTs Mode Hierarchy should be mandatory, not optional for local authorities/highways
  • Sensors on lorries don’t help if drivers on phone and not paying attention.
  • 20 mph zones need to be polices, problems in Edinburgh in 20 mph residential zones where cars are speeding and going on to pavement to avoid speed bumps.
  • Ask non-cyclists what they need to see to be tempted onto a bike and work from there.
  • Item 6 suggests that 30 mph speed limits in residential lanes are ok where there are cycle lanes – not the case (ignores needs of children, pedestrians, older people, pets and social functions of streets)
  • Needs to include introduction of assumed liability
  • Every local authority (or group of authorities) to have a specific officer in charge of cycling (and walking) and to liaise with local cyclists etc – no fake consultations.
  • “Road safety” is flawed, health and safety pyramid is needed on roads where personal protective equipment (hi viz, helmets) is LAST and removing danger is FIRST
  • Zero fatality approach as starting point in road design, as would be expected for construction sites etc
  • Get commitment to Road Danger Reduction (RDR)Charter:
    1) Identify and tackle sources of danger
    2) Develop science of RDR including street design
    3) Use RDR to support and encourage sustainable travel
    4) Promote actions and charter widely
  • Science includes Understanding risk ‘thermostats’ and what influences risk-taking/compensation
  • Like the idea of encouraging % of road danger for next generation road users…..need to ensure figures available to counter claim that cyclists don’t pay for roads
  • Mostly yes – but quite a conservative manifesto, should push hard for implementation soon
  • Balance reducing danger and positive aspiration
  • There is no one element, no golden bullet (infrastructure, training etc) The problem with cycling in the UK are a systematic failure from uninsured drivers using the roads, to the roads themselves, to the CPS dropping charges and it goes on and on like E$ repeating Friends or Dave repeating Top Gear or whatever
  • Don’t have a manifesto with specific policies.  They know how to do it.  The information is out there we just want it to get better.  Let the councils decide how.
  • 20 mph on all city roads. Cyclists and pedestrians don’t just get killed/injured in residential areas.
  • I think the manifesto is good, but I would. There’s a lot of data on the number of cyclists and accidents out there already, does it need to be in the manifesto or replaced by something else? Encourage cycling training at schools?
  • Include justice system – highlight problems with investigation, prosecution, sentencing and compensation
  • More money essential but also:
    – Rewrite DfT guidance to dutch standards
    – Major road schemes built around cycle infrastructure rather than vice versa
    – Make change in subjective safety a target. See DfT surveys etc.
    – 2% budget commitment – while laudable – is unambitious. Bar set too low as a negotiating position – should be wider to include all public realm improvements, and road maintenance budgets
  • Why for 500 most dangerous junctions?  Why not if there is a certain level of danger deal with them even if turns out to be 5000!
  • Stop calling us ‘cyclists’: talk about ‘people’ on bikes
  • Infrastructure and money should be higher on the list
  • Health, health, health!
  • Adopt a road danger reduction approach
  • Dutch-style infrastructure – cycle tracks – the populace wants it!
  • Not quite, look at southwark cyclists manifesto: all about stopping ’intimidation’ of cyclists either by segregation on main roads or calmer residential routes. Check their website for their very detailed manifesto.
  • Drop the sponsorship nonsense – nobody will do it
  • We have, have, have to move this beyond simply a cycling issue. We cannot simply appeal to common humanity around road traffic incident/victims and move to making it a children walking to school and pedestrian issue.  The dutch won this around ALL road victims.
  • Does not mention looking to Holland & Denmark (and Seville, NY etc) for solutions
  • Ask people who don’t cycle!

2 thoughts on “What’s next for Cycle Safe? Question 1a

  1. Pingback: What’s next for Cycle Safe? | Movement for Liveable London

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s