Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Campaigning
Community
Parents feel local roads are too dangerous for children to cycle according to surveyYear 6 students at Hugh Myddleton School in Islington gathering to help launch LCC’s Sign for Cycling campaign.jpg

Parents feel local roads are too dangerous for children to cycle according to survey

London Cycling Campaign says whether roads are safe for children is a litmus test as to whether they’re safe for everyone
by Alex Bowden
Tue, Mar 08, 2016 13:06
7

The majority of parents living in the capital consider their local area unsafe for children to cycle according to a survey carried out by the London Cycling Campaign (LCC). The findings come as the organisation launches Sign for Cycling, a campaign aimed at ensuring all London mayoral candidates commit to making cycling safer for everyone.

LCC questioned 2,064 Londoners in the survey and 69 per cent of those who have children in their household rated local roads as either ‘dangerous’ or ‘very dangerous’ for them to cycle on. Strikingly, 71 per cent of those were cyclists themselves but only 23 per cent cycle frequently with their children in London. Just six per cent of respondents rated cycling in London as ‘very safe’ for children.

Amy Summers, Campaigns Coordinator at LCC said:

“It’s not just parents who won’t let their children cycle out of fear for their safety. Children themselves consider London’s roads far too dangerous for them to cycle on.

“Whether our streets are safe for families and children to cycle is a litmus test of whether they are safe enough for everyone to do so. The Sign for Cycling campaign is calling on all the mayoral candidates to expand current cycling programmes and make our city safe and enjoyable for cycling for people of all ages and abilities.”

LCC is asking mayoral candidates to commit to a three point-agenda:

  1. Create more safe space for cycling by building more segregated cycle lanes on London’s main roads and making dangerous junctions safer.
  2. Encourage more local journeys by bike by offering ‘Mini -Holland’ funding to every London borough in order to transform high streets and town centres.
  3. End lorry danger, by ensuring only the safest lorries, with ‘Direct Vision’ cabs and minimal ‘blind spots’, are allowed onto London’s streets.

The Department for Transport’s national school travel awards scheme, Modeshift STARS, recently held its first annual awards in which it recognised efforts made to reduce the number of car journeys made on the school run.

Six schools were given awards with Rawdon Littlemoor Primary School of Leeds named School of the Year after reducing the proportion of its pupils travelling to school by car from 45.9 per cent in 2013 to 27.4 per cent in 2015. In 2013, no pupils cycled to the school, but two years later the figure had increased to 42 in summer and 18 who cycle all year round – this despite it being all but surrounded by A roads.

London
London Cycling Campaign
Sign for Cycling
Amy Summers
Alex Bowden

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

7 comments

Avatar
jasecd | 8 years ago
1 like

Presumed liability would be a simple low cost way of changing driver attitudes and within a few years could dramatically change the perception of cycling as unsafe.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to jasecd | 8 years ago
3 likes
jasecd wrote:

Presumed liability would be a simple low cost way of changing driver attitudes and within a few years could dramatically change the perception of cycling as unsafe.

You are dreaming. Presumed liability is about insurance only. If drivers are happy to endanger lives they are not going to change attitudes because there might be an insurance claim. And Presumed liability is not going to persuade non cyclists to cycle. They do not want insurance payouts, they want not to bd hurt in the first place.

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to wycombewheeler | 8 years ago
0 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:
jasecd wrote:

Presumed liability would be a simple low cost way of changing driver attitudes and within a few years could dramatically change the perception of cycling as unsafe.

You are dreaming. Presumed liability is about insurance only. If drivers are happy to endanger lives they are not going to change attitudes because there might be an insurance claim. And Presumed liability is not going to persuade non cyclists to cycle. They do not want insurance payouts, they want not to bd hurt in the first place.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Presumed liability is another red herring like helmets and high-vis.

 

Avatar
jasecd replied to wycombewheeler | 8 years ago
3 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:
jasecd wrote:

Presumed liability would be a simple low cost way of changing driver attitudes and within a few years could dramatically change the perception of cycling as unsafe.

You are dreaming. Presumed liability is about insurance only. If drivers are happy to endanger lives they are not going to change attitudes because there might be an insurance claim. And Presumed liability is not going to persuade non cyclists to cycle. They do not want insurance payouts, they want not to bd hurt in the first place.

 

No, I'm not dreaming and you've mostly misunderstood my point. Presumed liability is standard in pretty much every European country where I would argue that drivers atitudes towards cyclists are far more respectful. It's the perception of danger that makes cycling unappealing as opposed to the actual danger itself.

Here in the UK there is large minority of drivers who clearly don't give a shit about us but may well care about an adverse civil claim. Presumed liability may also be of some use in promoting understanding of exactly how vulnerable cyclists are when compared to motorised traffic.

My point about the future was that were presumed liability to be introduced and contribute towards a reduction in aggressive driver behaviour then it could over time, change the perception of cycling as unsafe.

It's not like we have a government who will do more than pay lip service to cycling or a legal system which properly prosecutes unsafe drivers so we clearly need to look for other methods to change behaviour. Presumed liability isn't a red herring as the poster above asserts but could be a useful measure in changing driver behaviour when there are few other options.

Avatar
mrmo | 8 years ago
3 likes

the most bizzare part of this, the reason roads are unsafe at school run times is the school run! ie the respondents claiming it is unsafe are the problem!

Avatar
bikebot | 8 years ago
0 likes

It wouldn't have been an attempt to objectively measure the safety of the roads, the survey is very much about perception. It's an election campaign.

Avatar
LarryDavidJr | 8 years ago
2 likes

Much as this is obviously a serious concern, 'dangerous' and 'safe' are somewhat vauge terms here.  Is a road ever really 'safe' if you could potentially be injured on it?  Mind you, my old man, who knew a thing or two about roadcraft, always said that "there are no dangerous roads, only people driving dangerously on them" which I think is basically spot on.

Coincidentally, this weekend I went for a ride with the boy (9 years old) to our nearest south coast seaside town and back.  Cycle paths most of the way, but as he's getting older, on what would have been some of the more 'lengthy' cycle route diversions, I brought him into the road with me, some of which were quite busy (though usually pretty wide), opting to have him behind me as opposed to my usual side-by-side helicoptering.

Over the distance of road we covered, if I'm perfectly honest, 98% of drivers were courteous and gave plenty of space, and in my opinion it was with more space than usual, so obviously paying attention to the fact that he's young.  The only 'not really giving as much space as they should' was some 4x4 (why is it always those?) and, somewhat disappointingly, a double decker bus.

 

Latest Comments