Conclusions and recommendations
How safe is cycling?
1. We
share the Minister's view that one death on the roads is one too
many, and wish to express our sympathies with the families and
friends of all the cyclists killed on our roads. We accept that
a focus solely on the number of casualties may not reflect a reduction
in the proportion of cyclists killed or seriously injured, but
believe that road safety measures should seek to reduce the overall
number of casualties at the same time as increasing the number
of cyclists on the road. Achieving both of these will require
steps to increase not only the actual levels of safety for cyclists
on the road, but also the perceived levels of safety. This can
be achieved through measures that promote the safer sharing of
the road between cyclists and drivers; increase understanding
of safe cycling among cyclists and drivers, and reduce the risks
from poorly-designed or maintained cycling infrastructure.(Paragraph
9)
20mph zones
2. 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. (Paragraph 12)
3. 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.(Paragraph 13)
Education
4. 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.(Paragraph 18)
5. 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. (Paragraph 19)
6. 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.
(Paragraph 20)
7. 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. (Paragraph 21)
8. 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.(Paragraph 22)
9. 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. (Paragraph 23)
Cycle infrastructure
10. 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. (Paragraph 31)
11. 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.(Paragraph 32)
12. 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. (Paragraph
33)
HGVs
13. We
are greatly concerned by the number of cyclists killed in collisions
with HGVs. The disproportionate number of HGVs involved in collisions
with cyclists demonstrates that the industry must improve its
road safety record. We are particularly concerned by the number
of construction vehicles, such as concrete and tipper lorries,
involved in fatal collisions with cyclists, and the failure of
some haulage companies to follow best practice around cycle safety.
(Paragraph 42)
14. We
welcome the European Parliament's approval of changes to the design
of HGV cabs to reduce drivers' blind spots. We call on the Government
to ratify these changes which will improve safety for cyclists
and other vulnerable road users. (Paragraph 43)
15. We
are not persuaded that a ban on HGVs in town centres would be
workable in practice. Instead, we endorse the Minister's call
for a culture of safety for all HGV drivers and support the education
of HGV drivers and cyclists about road safety. (Paragraph 44)
16. We
call on the freight industry to create a culture of safety among
HGVs. We recommend the establishment of a timetable for the development
of an industry-wide code of conduct, and a clear programme of
work to promote the enforcement of HGV safety regulations. The
effectiveness of these measures must be monitored, and demonstrated
by a reduction in the proportion of cyclists' collisions involving
HGVs, and by the number of cyclists injured or killed in collisions
with HGVs. If such a reduction is not forthcoming once safety
measures are implemented, we expect the Department to consider
set out the steps it will take to ensure the safety of cyclists
on our roads.(Paragraph 45)
Volumetric mixers
17. We
note the Batched on Site Association's argument that there is
no evidence that volumetric mixers had contributed to cycle accidents.
We do not, however, accept their argument that such vehicles should
not be regulated as goods vehicles. By the Batched on Site Association's
own evidence, the vehicles spend close to a third of their time
on the roads, and should be regulated in the same manner as goods
vehicles.(Paragraph 49)
18. We
welcome the Minister's commitment to closing the loophole around
volumetric mixers and ask that the Department provides an update
on progress, as part of their response to this Report. (Paragraph
50)
The role of the Government
19. As
the Prime Minister has set out his ambition for a cycling revolution
it must be for the Government to champion cycling and not outsource
it to a powerless, and inevitably short-term, tsar or champion.
It is right for a minister in the Department for Transport to
take on this role, and be accountable to Parliament for his performance.
We welcome the Minister's willingness to take on this role.(Paragraph
54)
20. To
achieve the Prime Minister's ambition of a cycling revolution,
it is necessary but not sufficient for cycling to be championed
by the Department for Transport. Government must work across its
self-imposed departmental boundaries to fund and facilitate a
culture change supporting cycling. We ask the Minister to set
out in his response to this Report the specific steps he will
take to coordinate cycling policy across the departments for Transport,
Communities and Local Government, Health, and Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs. (Paragraph 55)
Funding
21. The
cycling budget is currently fragmented between different initiatives
with no consistency or clarity over funding sources. There is
no confirmed figure for the annual spending per capita, but witnesses
estimated it was just £2 per head, and compared this figure
to the higher levels of funding in other European countries.(Paragraph
60)
22. We
recommend that the Government publishes each year the total budget
for cycling to enable strategic and long-term planning of cycle
infrastructure, training and promotion. (Paragraph 61)
23. We
have set out the improvements required to cycling infrastructure
and training, and view these measures as essential to keep cyclists
safe on the roads. To achieve these safety benefits, we need to
see a steady and planned increase in per-capita spend on cycling.
We call on the Government to set out an ambition to reach £10
per head by 2020, with a timetable of how this will be achieved.(Paragraph
62)
Conclusion
24. It
is too soon to know whether the fall in cycling casualties in
2013 represents the start of a long-term reduction in the numbers
of cyclists killed or seriously injured on our roads. We hope
that this is the case, but do not think there is any cause for
the Government to be complacent. As we stated in 2012, a cross-departmental
effort is required to improve safety for cyclists. We remain concerned
that, despite the warm words of the Prime Minister, this coordinated
working has not yet materialised. (Paragraph 63)
25. There
is also limited evidence of a widespread culture that is supportive
of cyclists as road users. Progress in developing this culture
will inevitably vary across different areas of the country, reflecting
local road use and support for cycling, but there remains a role
of the Government in enabling this culture to flourish and making
it easier for local authorities to introduce cycle safety measures.
Above all, it is for the Government, and regional and local authorities,
to use all the tools at their disposal to promote the sharing
of the road between drivers and cyclists.(Paragraph 64)
26. Making
the roads safe for cyclists requires adherence to the rules of
those roads, from both cyclists and drivers, and the development
of a mutual respect between the two. Improving cycling infrastructure
can help to improve this behaviour and culture; and we call on
the Department to show leadership in this area, in particular
through the development of consistent design standards for local
areas and guidance on how local authorities can design roads safe
for cyclists and pedestrians, while still reflecting local need
and circumstance. It is the duty of Government ministers to ensure
that all government policies reflect the fundamental understanding
of cycling as a valid form of transport, and promotes the safety
of all road users. (Paragraph 65)
| 
