Written submissions received for the Transport Committee’s investigation into cycle safety in London Contents: Dr Rachel Aldred, University of East London 1 Brake 2 Brighton & Hove City Council 10 British Cycling 11 City of Copenhagen 14 Croydon Cycling Campaign 17 Cycxi Ltd 18 Cycling Buddy 20 Cycling Embassy of Great Britain 21 Dr Robert Davis, London Boroughs Cycling Officers Group Delegate 36 Dutch Cycling Embassy 46 The Freight Transport Association 48 Headway 50 Hounslow Cyclists 54 Kingston Cyclists 57 Kingston Upon Hull 60 London Borough of Croydon 61 London Borough of Ealing 62 London Borough of Hackney 66 London Borough of Hillingdon 74 London Borough of Southwark 76 London Councils 85 London Cycling Campaign 94 London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine 118 London TravelWatch 119 Metropolitan Police Service 145 Professor Parkin, South Bank University 149 Road Danger Reduction Forum 152 Road Haulage Association 163 Road Peace 168 Royal Borough of Greenwich 175 SRAM 179 Southwark Cyclists, RoadPeace and Southwark Living Streets 180 Cllr Vincent Stops, London Borough of Hackney 217 Sustrans 223 Transport for London 243 Wellington City Council 250 Wheels for Wellbeing 252 Peter Wood, Open University 262 Dr James Woodcock Cambridge 267 GLA investigation into cycling in London Written submission from Dr. Rachel Aldred, Director, University of East London Sustainable Mobilities Research Group, 24/07/2012 I am a sociologist focusing on sustainable transport. I have recently directed several relevant projects. One is Cycling Cultures, a two year Economic and Social Research Council funded project, looking at experiences of cycling in four relatively high-cycling English urban areas (see www.cyclingcultures.org.uk/). We conducted observations of cycling environments and activities in each area and interviewed over 150 people, around 75% cyclists (most ‘everyday’ cyclists) and around 25% stakeholders (e.g. local authority officers). The project included the London Borough of Hackney; similarities between case study areas suggest our findings are of broader relevance. A second project is on cycling advocacy in London, involving in-depth interviews (9 participants) and online surveys (c. 400 participants). 1. Cycling is an enjoyable activity that policy seeks to encourage for a variety of reasons. Yet despite this, in the UK cyclists remain a stigmatised and stereotyped group, often disproportionately blamed for collisions, injuries, congestion, etc. 2. Poor treatment of cyclists is common and should be seen as a continuum. Many Cycling Cultures interviewees and online survey participants cite experiences demonstrating a lack of respect and care by other road users. Experiences of ‘close passes’ are common and frightening, as are, for example, occupation of ASLs by motor vehicles meaning that cyclists risk having to wait in an unsafe position. Collisions resulting in minor or no injury are likely to be substantially under-reported due to cyclists’ perceptions (and sometimes experiences) that the process is difficult and authorities will not be interested. 3. Cyclists experience verbal and even physical abuse much of which is again likely not to be reported. From our Hackney interviews, examples include a woman who was verbally abused and spat at by a van driver (not reported), another woman verbally and physically sexually harassed while cycling (not reported), and a man pushed off his bike into a canal (reported). Such incidents were described by cyclists in other areas suggesting these experiences are widespread. 4. Cyclists report that cycling environments often remain poor, due to heavy/fast moving motor traffic, and lack of safe, direct, pleasant and continuous infrastructure where it is needed. This is seen as putting others (e.g. children, friends, colleagues) off cycling. Importantly, many existing cyclists particularly value those parts of their journey where they do not have to cycle alongside heavy or fast moving motor traffic. Often they would prefer more such separation, as long as the infrastructure/alternative route provided is of high quality (direct, pleasant, safe, and suitable for use outside daylight hours, e.g. early Winter evenings). 5. Cycling environments send a signal about how policy-makers value cyclists, which – if negative – can serve to reinforce the stigma and poor treatment discussed above. Infrastructure and other interventions should signal the priority and importance of cycling as an everyday mode of travel suitable for all, including children, older and disabled people. Providing these kinds of environments will help legitimate cycling and counter the marginalisation of cyclists. Cycling must be made easy, a default choice: not something that has to be carefully planned because of the need to negotiate multiple barriers (which can include intimidating traffic environments, routes that are unsafe and/or are impassable after dark, lack of bike parking, gates hindering cycle access, badly managed roadworks, routes that are indirect and difficult to follow, etc.) 6. The Cycle Superhighway Programme was launched to offer safe, fast, direct ways to ride into central London from outer London. This aim is laudable as a first step towards creating a dense grid of such routes, including orbital routes between boroughs. Importantly it recognises that for cycling to become mainstream cyclists 1 need routes that are quick and direct as well as safe and pleasant. It is not sufficient to give cyclists a choice between an unpleasant but direct main road route and an indirect but quieter route. 7. However, the execution of the first Superhighways is highly problematic. It is not consistent in space or in time terms. In terms of the latter, some bus and cycle lanes are ‘peak hours’ only. Yet if reliance is placed upon a ‘safety in numbers’ effect, it becomes particularly important to ensure that facilities do not disappear outside peak hours, when cyclists may then be more vulnerable. Moreover the reliability of infrastructure signals the importance (or otherwise) of cyclists and affects the ease of cycling: are cyclists catered for all of the time, or only some of the time? New cycle infrastructure should not perpetuate this problem. 8. Frequently, rather than a dedicated lane or track there is a blue stripe within a general motor traffic (or bus) lane. As users have pointed out, that space is often taken up by queuing, moving, or parked motor vehicles, blocking the progress of cyclists, given that there is usually no room in such lanes for a cyclist to fit alongside a motor vehicle. As cycling infrastructure this is even less satisfactory than advisory cycle lanes which, according to the Highway Code, are not designed to be used by motor vehicles (although such vehicles can if necessary use them). The blue surfacing is generally used as part of a lane dedicated to other road users, which does not prioritise cyclists. 9. I would here like to draw attention to the implications of these design issues for cyclist experiences and marginalisation. Cyclists generally want direct, safe, reliable and pleasant routes. It is not clear what a ‘blue surface’ facility adds to the existing experience of cycling along a busy main road (which many existing and potential cyclists find unpleasant and off-putting). The appearance of giving space to cyclists alongside the reality of ‘designed in’ conflict may in fact further increase their marginalisation. This is evident in the comments provided by respondents participating in the GLA’s survey on the Superhighways. 10. By contrast, the bike hire scheme acts to reduce this marginalisation, by opening up cycling as public transport rather than as a specialist activity undertaken by ‘cyclists’. It and other developments such as cycle training for HGV drivers, and the increasing provision of cycle parking are undoubtedly positive and are helping to ‘normalise’ cycling. 11. However, based on the research I have done, I am convinced that the major gap that remains is a well- funded programme to dramatically improve cycling environments and prioritise cycling in infrastructural terms. The current transport network often prioritises motor vehicles. Prioritising cycling will necessitate removal of motor traffic lanes or car parking space in some places, as has been done to improve walking conditions elsewhere in London. Along main roads, it should mean creating high quality segregated facilities that both existing and new cyclists want to use. 12. This could begin immediately with the new and extended Superhighways being developed, but should be extended to orbital routes, and to other major roads. These facilities should be wide enough for faster cyclists to overtake slower cyclists. Some cyclists have longer journeys and need to ride more quickly; as in higher-cycling countries infrastructure should facilitate a range of journey purposes, making choice of route simple rather than complex. Looking to the likely future increase in cargo bicycles to transport people and/or goods (currently happening in cities such as Copenhagen) sufficient space should be provided for these vehicles, also increasing inclusion by improving access for tricycles etc. designed for use by disabled people. 13. The Cycling Cultures research has demonstrated the substantial effort many existing cyclists make to promote cycling to others, including recommending bikes, training, shops, accessories and new routes. Providing a substantial amount of high quality new infrastructure, where it is needed, will