Contact details for Cycle East Sussex Groups:
Battle, Robertsbridge and the surrounding 1066 area:
Lewes to Newhaven (Ouse Valley cycle network):
Seaford, Newhaven and Peacehaven:
Brighton and Hove:
Cycle East Sussex Fundamental principles
These principles have been compiled by local cycling groups and in consultation with their members. They are intended to give basic guidance for the various planning departments to follow when planning or changing existing infrastructure. In this way there will be a more sustainable approach to a project, and opportunities will not be missed that could have facilitated cycling. They provide baseline guidance which can be adapted in each individual situation, thus promoting a “can do” approach to cycling.
1. All traffic management and street design proposals should be assessed for their impact on cyclists using the latest guidance from the Department for Transport and the Cycling Touring Club (CTC) (see references).
2. Local cycling groups have a great deal of experience. They are to be consulted wherever traffic management and street design schemes are proposed. The design should consider best practice according to the latest guidance from the Department for Transport and the CTC.
3. Local cycling groups should be consulted on other proposals for cycling facilities, eg parking.
4. Most people do not cycle because of concerns about safety. Safety features incorporated into traffic schemes would help encourage a modal shift to cycling. Sustrans has more information on this (see references).
5. There are many different types of people cycling. The most confident cyclists cycle in the flow of traffic. People new to cycling prefer traffic-free routes. Segregated cycle lanes need to be considered but are not the exclusive answer. In order for individuals to make the modal change to start cycling, cycling needs to be seen as an option for less confident people. Road junctions are a particular area of concern for beginner cyclists.
6. There is documented evidence from various U.K. towns and abroad of the interventions that are needed to facilitate a change in culture. This shows that cycling can be seen as a normal means of transport.
7. There is a great deal of evidence about how sustained changes in activity levels have a large impact on physical and mental health, social inclusion and reduces costs for individuals and society. Economic analyses show the benefits of interventions to increase cycling repays costs ten-fold.
1. Planning of cycle lanes should involve cyclists and finish points should be carefully designed to incorporate options for cyclists.
2. Coloured cycle lanes improve the visibility of cycling.
3. No parking in designated cycle lanes (24/7)
4. Clear signage of safe recommended cycle routes especially underpasses and cycle bridges.
5. Priority to pedestrians and cycles at toucan and pelican crossings and any other crossing point. (In Cambridge there are lights triggered by approaching pedestrians and cyclists). Signs should reinforce this for motorists.
6. Advance stop boxes with feeder lanes at all traffic lights and railway crossings. (The Advance Stop Line aims to put a cyclist in front of the blind spot of a lorry. The feeder lane itself is a danger area, but often better than a cyclist between vehicles in very slow moving traffic)
7. 2-way cycling in all streets. Contra-flow cycle lanes in one-way streets where feasible. New one-way streets should not be created without consideration of possibilities for cycling.
8. People are nervous of taking up cycling on roads due to the speed and volume of traffic. Introducing traffic calming and addressing inconsiderate parking would go a long way to encourage people to take up cycling as a viable means of transport. Traffic calming needs to be cycle friendly. It can be a hazard to cyclists. http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4698
9. We support the 20mph limit in urban areas and villages.
10. Paths should be opened up for shared use, especially twittens, where there is space. If barriers are considered useful to reduce speed, they should be of sufficient width to allow cyclists and those using mobility scooters or with pushchairs to use the path.
11. Where roads have been closed to change an old “rat run” to a cul-de-sac, there is scope to get a good low-traffic route. Dropped kerbs at the barrier would help access onto these by unconfident cyclists, pedestrians and those using mobility scooters or with pushchairs.
12. Dropped kerbs are very useful. They allow unconfident cyclists to walk their bike around a traffic hazard or young child cyclists to use a pavement for a short distance around a traffic hazard. They are also useful for pedestrians and those using mobility scooters or with pushchairs.
13. Cyclists should be permitted to use bus lanes.
14. Build-outs to be constructed wherever cyclists are expecting to join the flow of traffic and it is possible.
15. A pragmatic approach should be encouraged. Funding for cycling should have greater priority. With limited budgets, it is still important to make small improvements and get work started as this shows progress. Network links can be developed gradually.
Schools and businesses:
16. Schools and businesses should be rewarded for achieving targets for their healthy transport plans.
17. All large buildings should have visible accessible cycle parking at the front. Visitors and staff should see cycling to that destination as possible, welcomed and normal.
18. Businesses should be encouraged to promote ‘cycle to work schemes’ to promote a healthier workforce and reduce employees’ sick leave.
19. Businesses should be encouraged to finance cycle routes as an opportunity to compensate for their carbon footprints.
20. Adequate secure cycle parking should be a requirement in the event of planning permission for expansion. Also an adequate council budget is needed for the installation of cycle parking close to cyclists’ destinations; and the inclusion of cycle parking in all planning applications where there is public usage.
Motorists (including HGV drivers)
21. Motorists need education, especially to encourage them to have respect for cyclists as fellow road-users and to give them space and time.
22. Motorists’ education should reinforce the need to indicate and to look left before turning left. This should reduce smidsy “Sorry Mate I didn’t See You” (see www.stop-smidsy.org.uk)
23. Motorists’ education should reinforce the need to look over their shoulder before opening their vehicle door.
24. Lorries should be equipped with the appropriate devices to see cyclists and mirrors to reduce blind spots.
Other forms of sustainable transport:
25. The rail network should aim:
a. to have facilities to support cycling to and from stations at all times.
b. to be supportive of bikes on trains at all times
c. to provide adequate space for bicycles. Flexible seating could be an option.
d. to realise that it is important that bus replacement services (used during engineering works) also accommodate bicycles.
e. to make ticketing / reservation of bike space should be possible / simpler. Cyclists need to be able to undertake a long journey in the certainty that their bicycles will be carried for the length of the journey if they change trains.
26. A holistic approach favouring integrated transport solutions should be encouraged.
27. Innovative sustainable transport solutions eg electric bikes should be considered as part of a joined up approach. This is particularly useful in areas with hills. Electric bikes are attractive to those wishing to change to cycling but concerned about their fitness level and to people with disabilities.
28. We support a move in law to stricter liability, also known as proportional liability, so that the motor vehicle driver is assumed to be responsible for a crash (unless he/she can prove otherwise), and not the more vulnerable cyclist or pedestrian. This is the case in other countries, including the Netherlands.
29. Supporting enforcement of traffic law where vulnerable road users are involved in crashes is beneficial for cyclists and others. Ensuring that the police act on cyclists’ reports of anti-social driving (e.g. via Operation Crackdown or other reporting) and that road traffic casualty data is correctly gathered and analysed is also extremely helpful.
Promoting safety for people cycling:
30. There should be improved design of road junctions. This is where crashes are most likely to happen. The needs of a person on a bicycle should be considered at each. The priority needs to shift from the motorist to the pedestrian and cyclist.
31. We support the 20mph limit in urban areas.
32. Speed reduction (“20’s plenty”) should be considered in villages and anywhere
where people are. www.20splentyforus.org.uk
33. We support speed reduction on rural roads (e.g. to a maximum of 40 mph). This is important for East Sussex which is largely rural. The hazard from fast traffic is considerable.
Better and safer facilities for people cycling can be achieved with planning and forethought, often with little cost incurred.
Sources of further information: (direct links)
· www.stop-smidsy.org.uk Road safety (Sorry Mate I didn’t see you)
Compiled by Cycle East Sussex 14 May 2012, Review date May 2013
Cycle East Sussex is a social network