Cycling Safety - Transport Committee Contents

3  Cyclist safety measures

10. Cyclists from across the country shared with us their experiences of cycling on roads that were not safe for cycling. On urban roads cyclists reported the dangers of junctions, and in particular, left-turning buses and HGVs. Cycling on rural roads meant a lower risk of collisions, but when collisions did occur they were more likely to end in death or serious injury. There was, we heard, a range of factors affecting how safe cyclists felt on the roads, including the existing road safety measures, cyclist and driver behaviour, and road design and maintenance. We asked for ways that these factors could be addressed to improve cyclist safety. We received dozens of suggestions, including examples of policies, schemes and infrastructure design from other European countries, including the Netherlands and Denmark. There was a recognition, however, of a different cycling culture between countries, and indeed, between cities and towns, and rural areas. It could not be assumed, we heard, that successful models for increasing cycle safety abroad could be simply transported to a different context and have the same effect.[22] We have set out our views on some of the suggestions we received.

20mph zones

11. Several witnesses called for a reduction in speed limits in local roads, noting that a cyclist involved in a collision with a car travelling at 20mph had a 2.5% chance of a fatal injury, compared to a 20% chance if the car was travelling at 30mph.[23] There was also, we heard, less chance of collisions when cars travelled at lower speeds, as they had more time to react to cyclists and take action to avoid collisions: Sustrans told us that there had been a 60% reduction in injury collisions in 250 existing 20 mph zones.[24] Sustrans noted, however, that the "profound effects on road safety" that could be achieved with lower speed limits required the police to enforce these limits.[25] This was highlighted by several witnesses as unlikely, due to limited resources. Councillor David Hodge, Leader of Surrey County Council told us:

    The problem is that it is all very well putting in a 20 mph limit, but unless somebody is going to enforce it you have wasted a whole load of money. My view is that I have no intention of wasting public money putting in 20 mph zones. When I drove here today I went through Kingston and saw the extent of a 20 mph zone. Nobody was doing 20 mph, but 20 mph was painted on roads almost half a mile from the schools. It went on and on, and nobody was doing it. That is the problem. If you have a 20 mph limit and people obey it, that is fine, but I do not have the resources—I do not think the police in Surrey have the resources—to man nearly 600 different sites with a 20 mph limit, never mind looking at towns and everything else.[26]

In Chichester, where West Sussex County Council introduced 20mph limits for all residential streets in 2012, the local cycling campaign group, ChiCycle, told us that the police had been "very reluctant" to enforce the 20mph limit, due to limits on their resources.[27] The costs of introducing 20 mph zones were also highlighted by witnesses. Councillor Ian Davey, Deputy Leader of Brighton and Hove Council, told there was a case for default 20 mph zones, due to the cost of introducing lower speed limits on certain roads:

    At the moment we have to mark all the 20 mph roads as an exception. It just means that, as it is, there is a lot more work—a lot more infrastructure, paint on the ground, signs and expense—so changing that default would make it cheaper, easier and safer.[28]

Councillor Davey added that, in his view, reducing speed limits, and making the roads safer would not have "anything other than a positive impact on the viability of local economies".[29] Several witnesses also called for 20 mph zones to be accompanied by traffic calming measures to encourage reduced speed, such as sinusoidal profile speed humps, to help the enforcement of the lower speed limit.[30]

12. Local authorities should be encouraged to consider introducing 20 mph limits, accompanied by traffic calming measures, in high-risk areas to improve the safety of all road users. When a car collides with a cyclist, the outcome of the incident can differ significantly depending on the speed of the car. A lower speed limit in residential areas could not only improve safety, but could also contribute to creating town and city environments that people of all ages can enjoy as pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. We note, however, that lower speed limits will not be appropriate or necessary on all roads, and in all areas and consultation with local residents to ensure local support for lower speed limits will be critical to their success. It is also for local police forces to consider how much priority is placed at present on the enforcement of lower speed limits.

13. It is for local authorities to consider whether lower speed limits in residential areas, as part of a wider package of cycle safety measures, would be appropriate for their local environment. We ask the Government to consider what steps it could take to make it easier and cheaper for local authorities to introduce lower speed limits.


14. The Road Danger Reduction Forum stated that the main danger to cyclists was the behaviour of drivers, whether they were behind the wheel of a lorry, car or bus.[31] For this reason, the most effective way of increasing cyclist safety was viewed as changing driver behaviour.[32] The not-for-profit research company, Road Safety Analysis, endorsed this view, concluding from an analysis of DfT statistics that most crashes resulted from human error.[33]

15. We received evidence calling for a change of culture among drivers and cyclists to change behaviour and reduce errors. In a written evidence submission that was criticised by some other witnesses, Greater Manchester Police reported what they perceived to be a "culture" among cyclists of treating "red automatic traffic signals as give ways", cycling on the footpath instead of the road, wearing dark clothing and not using lights.[34] Councillor Helyn Clack of Surrey County Council warned of examples of discourteous behaviour by cyclists which had startled horses and blocked roads.[35] Many cyclists called for the wider use of advanced stop lines at signal-controlled junctions and explained why currently they considered it could be safer to break the law by riding through red lights.[36] Several criticised the aggressive behaviour of other cyclists.[37] We also received substantial evidence from cyclists regarding driver behaviour: one cyclist told us that it was "usual to experience hostile driving at some point every week".[38] Another cyclist argued that "the single biggest contributor to poor cyclist safety" was "driver behaviour and attitudes".[39]

16. A consistent theme was the need for cycle safety training: to help cyclists identify the safest position on the road, and for drivers to understand why it is safer for a cyclist to be part of the traffic stream, and not ride next to the kerb. Access to such training, however, was not comprehensive. The Greater London Authority stated in evidence that it funded cycle training for every schoolchild in London who wanted to take up the scheme.[40] Nationally the Department for Transport spoke of the £24 million funding available to Local Highway Authorities and School Games Organiser Host Schools, which would allow a minimum of 600,000 children between April 2013 and March 2015 to receive Bikeability training.[41] Despite this funding, the Bikeability scheme was reported as being available to only half of all school children.[42] For adults, access was also varied, with examples of best practice in some local authorities which promoted free or low-cost cycle training under the branding of urban cycling skills.[43] There was considerable support for extending the scheme: Edmund King, President of the AA described cycle training as a "life skill", and noted that only 25% of AA members who cycle regularly had received such training.[44] The All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group called for cycle training to be available at all primary and secondary schools, and for affordable (or free) cycle training to be available for people of all ages.[45] In response to the All-Party Group the Government referred to existing funding for Bikeability, and the use by some local authorities of funding from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund for the provision of both child and adult cycle training.[46] We also heard that such training would also help the enforcement of laws in instances when cyclists had broken the law: David Davies, Executive Director, Parliamentary Advisory Counsel for Transport Safety argued that it was "difficult to enforce actions against cyclists vigorously when many cyclists may not have had any education".[47] The Metropolitan Police's "Operation Safeway", set up in response to the deaths of cyclists in London in November 2013, targeted unlawful behaviour by drivers and cyclists. In the first five weeks of Operation Safeway 9,733 motorists and 4,085 cyclists received fixed penalty notices, for offences including jumping red lights, cycling on the pavements, or driving using a mobile phone at the wheel".[48]

17. Reciprocal training for cyclists and drivers in urban areas was recommended by the Freight Transport Association, involving schemes such as Exchanging Places, in which some 10,000 cyclists have had the opportunity to sit in the cab of an HGV to understand the driver's view of the road, and learn the location of blind spots from the cab.[49] British Cycling recommended making cycle awareness training a mandatory part of the CPC qualification.[50] The ability to treat cyclists and other road users with respect should, we heard, be an increased part of the driving test: the theory test should require knowledge of how to share the road with cyclists, and the practical test to assess the appliance of this knowledge where possible.[51] We also received requests for the Highway Code to be updated to be more inclusive of all road users; for example, through stating a minimum distance between vehicles and bikes while overtaking.[52] Transport for London (TfL) argued that while London had experienced an increase of more than 170% since 2003 in the number of people cycling, the Highway Code has not been updated since 2007. TfL recommended that the Code should be updated "to improve attitudes among new drivers to sharing the roads and to highlight safety for cyclists and other vulnerable road users cycling".[53] Witnesses also called for road safety awareness campaigns to promote mutual respect between cyclists and drivers, and to highlight the consequences of bad, dangerous or aggressive driving.[54]

18. Training on cycle safety for both cyclists and drivers will not eliminate casualties on the road, but could contribute to a culture of mutual understanding and respect between different types of road users. The evidence suggests that the growth in confidence and knowledge of safer cycling positions and driver blind spots could help reduce collisions caused by driver and cyclist behaviour. Cyclists will also be able to make an informed choice about the measures they can take to contribute to a safer cycling culture.

19. Cycle training should be available to all cyclists: children of primary and secondary age, adults seeking to gain confidence, and those looking to refresh their road skills. Local authorities should work with local cycling organisations and retailers to fund and promote this training and ensure that it is best suited to the local environment.

20. We call on the Government to set out in its response to this Report how it will use the data available on road safety and cycle usage to monitor the effectiveness of cycle training on both the safety of cyclists on the road and cyclists' perception of their safety.

21. Drivers should be encouraged to share the road responsibly with bikes. We welcome the Government's statement that cycle safety is part of the driving test, with drivers assessed on their approach to sharing the road with cyclists—in the practical test if possible, and certainly through the theory test. The DVSA should place significant emphasis on a driver's approach to motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians: a driver should not receive a licence without demonstrating a level of respect and understanding for more vulnerable road users and pedestrians. (We have considered the responsibilities of cyclists in paragraph 18).

22. As part of its next revision of the Highway Code, the Government should consider amending the code to promote cycle safety and to ensure that it reflects the rights of cyclists to share the road with drivers.

23. The Government should reassess its approach to road safety awareness and set out, in its response to this report, the steps it will take to ensure a clear and consistent message of mutual respect between all road users and compliance with the law by cyclists and drivers.

Cycle infrastructure

24. Witnesses told us of a link between behaviour and infrastructure. We heard that one of the principles of safe cycling in the Netherlands was the design of "forgiving environments", in which roads and streets are designed so that mistakes do not lead to crashes, or, if crashes do occur, serious injuries are avoided.[55] Ashok Sinha, Chief Executive of London Cycling Campaign agreed, stating that the "greatest dangers" that cyclists faced on the road were from "the poor quality of infrastructure" which, alongside sometimes poor driving standards, meant that a perfectly innocent mistake resulted in a cyclist being killed or seriously injured.[56] Katja Leyendecker, Chair of Newcastle's Cycling Campaign, Newcycling, argued that the present road environment made "cycling a transport option available only to the 'brave and fit", and added that improving the road layout would make cyclists' behaviour clearer and more predictable, and help reduce conflict between cyclists and drivers.[57]

25. The most frequent request we received for improved cycle infrastructure sought an increase in the number of segregated cycle lanes.[58] Professor Colin Pooley cited his research from the Understanding Walking and Cycling project that "most non-cyclists and recreational cyclists will only consider cycling regularly if they are segregated from traffic and that pedestrians are hostile to pavement cyclists".[59] A significant number of witnesses, however, warned that seeking to segregate cyclists from other road users "would erode the rights of cyclists to use the road network, and increase perception that cyclists shouldn't be on the road in the way of cars".[60] Segregation was viewed as a costly measure, and only ever applicable on a small proportion of our roads; witnesses such as the British Beer and Pub Association and the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry noted also the risk of segregated cycle lanes on kerbside deliveries to pubs and other businesses.[61] The Department acknowledged this point, stating:

    The segregation of cyclists can bring some safety benefits; however, separating cyclists from other traffic will not always be better for cyclists, as if implemented inappropriately it can increase the potential for conflict between cycles and motor vehicles at intersections with the road network. Whilst we encourage segregation alongside high speed roads, in urban environments space is often at a premium. Providing a broad, high quality cycle route segregated from motor traffic in these circumstances might be desirable but in many cases it is not always practicable. It is important that each proposal to improve conditions for cyclists is considered in relation to the prevailing circumstances and not with a presumption that removing cyclists from the carriageway is always a good thing. This is why these decisions are best made by local authorities.[62]

26. Where cycle lanes have been introduced, we heard that they had in some places made the roads more unsafe, and "very rarely" conformed to the Department's design requirements.[63] We received dozens of examples of cycle lanes that posed a real danger to cyclists and have shared a selection in Box 1.
Box 1: Examples of cycle lane infrastructure

1) Dr Tabitha Tanqueray: "Almost every cycle lane/advanced stop line in London has been tacked on or put in as an afterthought aiming to somehow let bicycles quietly fit in and filter around "proper" traffic.[64]

2) John Trueman: "Most town and city off-road cycle lanes and joint pedestrian/cycle lanes are of limited use to cyclists as currently configured. They stop and start in unexpected ways. They are very poorly signed—only a local would know where they go. The beginnings invariably are unmarked for the approaching on-road cyclist and are very easily missed, even impossible, sometimes, to turn into. These off-road paths typically involve steep grades and rough surfaces while the cyclist must stop to negotiate driveways, road crossings, kerbs and the like and quite often is expected to get off and walk at junctions or bus stops".[65]

3) Chris Kearton: "Cycle lanes in Sheffield are incoherent, difficult to navigate and at times pitch cyclists and pedestrians against each other. […] I cycle along the A61 from Hillsborough to Shalesmoor and there is a pitiful cycle track which includes some pavement, some abandoned side road, and many dangerous small/private junctions. It is not possible to cycle safely on the path at more than 8-10 miles per hour, and even then I think it is more dangerous than using the wide dual-carriageway which has good visibility and a reasonable surface".[66]

4) Peter Garland: "I see numerous examples of so called "bike lanes" where a strip of road margin has been marked with a white line, often filled in green. Usually this strip will continue for a short length of road but only for as long as the road is wide enough for traffic to pass a bike without crossing the centre line. As soon as the road narrows the "bike lane" terminates […] the installation of these schemes is driven by a misguided sense of a need to do 'something' or, worse, to meet some arbitrary target for installed length of bike lanes".[67]

27. Edmund King, President of the AA, stressed the need to be realistic about the fact that not all roads would be suitable for cycle lanes, and that one solution would not be suitable for all roads.[68] He added, however, that improved design standards were required so that the cycle lanes that were introduced did improve safety.[69] Roger Geffen agreed, stating that drivers responded to narrow cycle lanes by leaving less space when overtaking. [70] He added:

    When cycle lanes are marked too narrowly, that is obviously safety-critical; so are things like visibility at junctions and how you provide cycle priority at junctions to not create conflict between turning drivers and cyclists moving straight ahead, particularly if you are going to create safe segregated cycle routes. There is a whole load of issues where we need consistent standards.[71]

The Institute for Civil Engineers has called for "national direction and leadership needs to be provided on design guidance", stating that:

    The actions that local highway authorities (and the Highways Agency) take stem directly from the direction and leadership that they see emanating from central government.[72]

Councillor Davey told us that national standards for cycle lanes "would be invaluable".[73] The Minister accepted that the Department had a "part to play" in disseminating best practice from local authorities on cycle infrastructure.[74]

28. In June 2014 Transport for London (TfL) launched a consultation on the London Cycling Design Standards. The standards had originally been published in 2005 and had been updated to reflect best practice and to set out "the design outcomes that would deliver the ambitions" of the Mayor of London's Vision for Cycling.[75] The consultation also sets out the ambition that all cycle schemes should be designed by people who cycle regularly: as a minimum, the Design Standards state that "anyone who designs a scheme must travel through the area on a bicycle to see how it feels".[76] The Design Standards set out minimum levels of service rather than a one-size-fits-all model; noting that minimum width standards of 2.5m for cycle lanes (3m for a two-way cycle lane) would be desirable, but may be inadequate for non-standard bikes, such as tandems, bikes with trailers, or purpose-built bikes for people with disabilities, such as handbikes.[77]

29. We heard that the provision of cycle infrastructure must also go beyond cycle lanes. The road safety charity Brake warned that "simply marking a cycle lane on otherwise normal roads, especially busy, fast roads with hazardous junctions, does not constitute provision of a safe route".[78] Cycle lanes did not eliminate (and could even exacerbate) the risk at or near junctions—where 75% of cyclist collisions take place.[79] The Department pointed to amendments made in 2011 to traffic signing to allow easier introduction of cycling safety measures including Advanced Stop Lines.[80] British Cycling called for the Department to go further to ensure that roads and junctions are designed and built with cycling in mind, recommending that:

    As a start, the government should urgently update traffic sign regulations to allow local authorities to develop safe junctions for cycling and continuous routes to give people confidence. This should allow features like, 'cycle only traffic lights', 'parallel pedestrian cycling crossing points' and 'Dutch-style roundabouts'. This should be backed by national design standards to ensure continuity and consistency of approach to help all road users.[81]

The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group called for "a statutory requirement" for all new development schemes to consider cyclists' and pedestrians' needs at an early stage.[82] Andrew Gilligan, the Mayor of London's cycling commissioner told us about the new template for cycle-segregated junctions in London, which includes a segregated run-in to the stop line for cyclists, special cycle-specific traffic lights, with a cycle red-amber-green phase, and special cyclist movements through the junction to minimise conflict with other vehicles.[83] Box 2 sets out examples from members of the public about cycling infrastructure in their towns and cities.
Box 2: Examples of local cycle infrastructure

1) Michael Steadþ @MichaelStead: "@CommonsTrans They've added quite a few advanced stop lines in @WiganCouncil. They're also good at maintaining and repairing road surfaces."

2) Mike Prior-Jones þ@mrpj100: "@CommonsTrans Leicester built a nice secure bike park under their Town Hall"

3) Oli Coyle þ@OliCoyle: "@CommonsTrans York has excellent storage and cycle lane accessibility which seems to be well used"

Matt Hoffbrandþ @hoffbrandm: "@CommonsTrans Brighton. they created a full segregated path with the path going behind the bus stop and everything - just like Holland"

4) Jim Taylorþ @JimTaylorNHS: "@CommonsTrans I think the vast increase of dedicated cycle routes around Bristol has been great, particularly concord way"

5) Steve Parrott þ@steveparrott50: "@CommonsTrans at Grimsby we have a dedicated @CycleHubLincs in the town centre. Suits locals & commuters"

6) Shoestring Cycling þ@ShoestringCycle: "@CommonsTrans Cornwall Council fail very badly at cycling infrastructure provision - very patchy, ill-maintained and poorly-designed"

7) Josh Rþ @technicalfault: "@CommonsTrans not Manchester - there are a lot of half-baked ideas, poorly implemented that are then never maintained." "@CommonsTrans e.g. all the segregated cycle lanes put in for the Commonwealth Games are poorly designed and not maintained."

8) Paul Holdsworthþ @pual9: "@CommonsTrans @CTC_Cyclists Cumbria County Council - refuses to accept that ultra-narrow cycle lanes on 60mph A roads are unsafe (viz A591)."

9) Craig S þ@_CraigS: "@CommonsTrans Dartford have a hilarious 1 metre long cycle lane on London Road right before a Cyclists Dismount sign"

10) ShapeThePlaceþ @ShapeThePlace: "@CommonsTrans @BoroughofPoole disconnected routes, dangerous junctions & connections badly designed shared paths, focus on car movement."

30. To create a country of mass cycling as envisaged by the Prime Minister would require more than the introduction of new infrastructure and include a change in mindset about the use of the road, argued Roger Geffen of CTC. He told us:

    We are not going to have mass cycle use if we continue to work on the assumption that the road space is predominantly for motor vehicles, and cyclists just have to squeeze into whatever is left over. That will never create conditions where people of all ages and all abilities feel able to cycle comfortably and safely. We have to do something about reallocating road space.[84]

Val Shawcross AM, the then Chair of the London Assembly Transport Committee, identified the key issue as the "balance of interests in sharing the road space", on the medieval road patterns of central London.[85] This was, Katja Leyendecker argued, a question about the future of our cities and how we would like them to run.[86] One example of thinking in this way is the "mini Hollands" proposed in the Mayor of London's Vision for Cycling in London. Three outer London boroughs: Waltham Forest, Kingston and Enfield have been selected to receive up to £30 million to invest in redesigning their town centres around cyclists, with the aim of making the areas as cycle-friendly as their Dutch counterparts.[87]

31. We are grateful to all the cyclists who shared examples of cycle infrastructure. We were concerned to hear about the cycle lanes that have not only failed to increase safety for cyclists, but were in some cases more dangerous than cycling on the carriageway. In too many cases our cycling infrastructure not only fails to protect cyclists, but also treats cycling as an add-on to roads—an optional extra to be added if there was spare space, rather than a valid mode of transport, as entitled as motor vehicles to space on the road.

32. Safe cycling should be an integral part of the design of all new infrastructure projects. Local authorities should be able to demonstrate that the cycling has been considered and incorporated into the design of new roads at the earliest stage, and that local cyclists have been consulted as part of this process.

33. Cycle-proofing should not necessitate a blanket design and protocol for cycle lanes, which would inevitably fail to reflect local circumstances. Instead there should be an emphasis on sharing best practice. For example, to improve cycle lanes the Department for Transport should set out different options for local authorities to adopt, each designed with cyclists and meeting or going beyond minimum standards of safety. We ask the Department to report back on progress on the sharing of good practice between local authorities.

22   TRL Ltd (CYS 68), para 8 Back

23   Brake (CYS 129), Sustrans (CYS 058) para 10 Back

24   Richard Armitage, David Hurdle, Adrian Lord and Alex Sully (CYS 128) para 54, Sustrans (CYS 058) para 6 Back

25   Sustrans (CYS 058) para 6 Back

26   Q 164 Back

27   ChiCycle (CYS 055) Back

28   Q 164 Back

29   Q 164 Back

30   Anoop Shah (CYS0018), Shirley and John Littlefair (CYS 125Back

31   Road Danger Reduction Forum (CYS 114) para 4.5 Back

32   Road Danger Reduction Forum (CYS 114) para 4.5 Back

33   Road Safety Analysis (CYS 28Back

34   Greater Manchester Police (CYS 39) para 7 Back

35   Q 160 Back

36   Tim Gent (CYS 141) para 4; Simon Lay (CYS 117) paras 2.3, 4.3, Hari Lehal (CYS 79) Back

37   Tim Gent (CYS 141) para 3a; Amanda Carter (CYS 43) Back

38   Mr Stephen Bellows (CYS 41) para 4 Back

39   Mark Goddard (CYS 140) Back

40   Greater London Authority (CYS 60) Back

41   Department for Transport (CYS 40) para 18 Back

42   British Cycling (CYS 143) para 30 Back

43   Greater London Authority (CYS 60) Back

44   Q 119, 135 Back

45   All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, Get Britain Cycling, April 2013, p 13 Back

46   Department for Transport, Response to the "Get Britain Cycling" Report published by the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, 28 August 2013 Back

47   Q 34 Back

48   "More than 13,000 motorists and cyclists fined in crackdown on road offences", The Times, 7 January 2014 Back

49   Q 51 [Commander Martin], Freight Transport Association (CYS 49) para 25, City Of London Corporation (CYS 67), CTC (CYS0053) para 43 Back

50   British Cycling (CYS 143) para 25 Back

51   Life Cycle UK (CYS 112) para 3, Stephen Flaherty (CYS 116) para 2, Transport for London (GMA 7) para 4.4 Back

52   Claire Morgan (CYS 107) para 6.1, Jolyon Western (CYS 97) Back

53   Transport for London (GMA 7) para 4.3 Back

54   British Cycling (CYS 143) para 29, Wystan Palm (CYS 142) para 6.7, Mark Goddard (CYS 140) para 5, Aviva (CYS 134) para 4, Brake (CYS 129), Claire Morgan (CYS 107) para 5, London Travelwatch (CYS 94), John Handley (CYS 69), See Me Save Me (CYS 059) para 3.26 CTC (CYS 053) para 30Mr Stephen Bellows (CYS 41) para 5 Back

55   Cycling Embassy of Great Britain (CYS 133) Back

56   Q 14 Back

57   Q 33, Newcycling (Newcastle Cycling Campaign) (CYS 19Back

58   Caroline Hodges (CYS 87) para 2, Graham Paul Smith (CYS 138) para 2.2.1, Brake (CYS 129) Back

59   Professor Colin Pooley (CYS 126) para 5.2 Back

60   Christopher Howell (CYS 101), Claire Morgan (CYS 107) para 2.1 Back

61   British Beer and Pub Association (CYS 51), London Chamber Of Commerce And Industry (CYS 27), para 15 Back

62   Department for Transport (CYS 40) paras 53-55 Back

63   Martin Porter (CYS 98) para 5 Back

64   Tabitha Tanqueray (CYS 61)  Back

65   John Trueman (CYS 93) para 14 Back

66   Chris Kearton (CYS 64Back

67   Peter Garland (CYS 8) para 1 Back

68   Q 143 Back

69   Q 143 Back

70   Q 142 Back

71   Q 142 Back

72   Institution Of Civil Engineers (CYS 54) para 2.3 Back

73   Q 162 Back

74   Q 104 Back

75   Transport for London, London Cycling Design Standards: Draft for Consultation, June 2014, p 2 Back

76   Transport for London, London Cycling Design Standards: Draft for Consultation, June 2014, p 12 Back

77   Transport for London, London Cycling Design Standards: Draft for Consultation, June 2014, p 61-62 Back

78   Brake, The Road Safety Charity (CYS 129Back

79   CTC (CYS 53), para 44 Back

80   Department For Transport (CYS 40) para 33 Back

81   British Cycling (CYS 143) para 22 Back

82   All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, Get Britain Cycling, April 2013, p 9 Back

83   Q 53 Back

84   Q 143 Back

85   Q 16 Back

86   Q 17 Back

87   Greater London Authority, The Mayor's Vision for Cycling in London, March 2013, p 20 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 18 July 2014