Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Over half of Londoners think councils prefer improving roads for drivers over safety of cyclists and pedestrians, as majority call for more Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and 20mph limits, new study finds

The survey also found that 88 per cent of the capital’s residents believe that cycle lanes should be compulsory when one is available

A new road safety survey has found that 70 per cent of Londoners believe more Low Traffic Neighbourhoods or liveable streets schemes should be introduced in the capital, while 60 per cent think that all roads throughout the city should have a 20mph speed limit.

Meanwhile, over half of the London residents surveyed agreed that local councils prefer improving infrastructure for motorists over increasing safety for cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users, while 88 per cent feel that cycle lanes should be compulsory when one is available.

The survey, which appears to have touched upon every cycling-related hot button issue of the past few years, was carried out as part of Cyclomedia’s 2024 Urban Road Safety Index, which sought the views of 11,982 people across 32 European cities.

The index, established to ascertain the success of the EU’s Vision Zero strategy to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2050 and now in its third year, aims to examine transport trends and road safety opinions across Europe, including perceptions of safety, active travel, and road laws.

Cyclists stopped at red light in London (Simon MacMichael)

> Cyclists continue to be “most at risk” alongside pedestrians and motorcyclists, together making up 80% of all people killed or seriously injured on roads in 2023, reveals Transport for London

According to the study, in London, where 1,035 people were surveyed, road safety perceptions are very positive compared to other European cities.

In fact, London came on top out of all 32 cities included in in the index when it comes to residents’ belief that local authorities do enough to improve road safety in their city, with 72 per cent of Londoners agreeing that they do. In contrast, only 28 per cent of Rome’s residents agreed that the Eternal City’s management was intent on improving road safety.

Meanwhile, 75 per cent of London respondents would also recommend moving to the capital in terms of road safety, and 72 per cent believe that its cycle lanes are safe, ranking London second on that particular bike lane metric behind Helsinki.

However, London – where the fourth cyclist was killed in 2024 on the capital’s roads earlier this week – came tenth out of the 32 cities when measured on safety overall, with a still high 80 per cent saying they “feel safe in traffic”.

When it comes to particular aspects of road safety, and what could be done to improve it in London, the top answer for respondents was notably “better separation between road, cycle, and bus lanes”, with 54 per cent of those surveyed calling for greater protection for vulnerable road users.

> Cyclists “incredibly disappointed” as councillors vote to reopen formerly notorious junction to taxis – despite casualties dropping to “virtually nil” seven years since restrictions introduced after cyclist’s death

Despite the overall positivity of other aspects of the survey, 53 per cent of Londoners also agreed that the city’s local councils prefer spending money on infrastructure designed for motorists over improving the safety of other road users.

Over half (51 per cent) also felt that road safety is getting worse because London is currently not equipped for new forms of urban transportation, such as e-bikes, e-scooters, and cargo bikes.

76 per cent, meanwhile, agreed that e-bikes should be treated the same as mopeds, with riders forced to take out tax and insurance and display a number plate, and 88 per cent argued that cyclists should be forced to use a cycle lane when one is available (thought the exact character of that cycle lane was not specified).

And finally, away from the kind of debates common in the Daily Mail or Telegraph (or in parliament) about cycle lanes and number plates, the survey also showed that most Londoners are keen for more traffic calming and safety measures to be introduced in the capital, with 70 per cent showing support for a further roll-out of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, while 60 per cent called for a blanket 20mph speed limit in the city.

20mph sign (Albert Bridge / CC BY-SA 2.0)

> "Every casualty reduced makes a difference": Significant drop in casualties on Welsh roads since 20mph speed limit

“It’s encouraging to see Londoners want safer streets with more LTNs and 20mph limits but many still have concerns about worsening road safety, due to inadequate infrastructure for new types of transport, such as e-bikes and e-scooters,” Cyclomedia’s Elizabeth Evans said in a statement announcing the 2024 index’s publication.

 “The survey showed that the growing number of e-bikes, which often travel at speed, is of major concern, with citizens feeling they should fall under the same legislation as mopeds or motorbikes. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods remain a contentious topic across London, but while there is opposition, it appears the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for most residents in the capital.”

She continued: “With many different modes of active travel competing for space with vehicles, local authorities need new ways of understanding and planning for the competing demands on the road, pavement and kerbside environment, so the safety of all can be considered.

 “The great news is that London came top in Europe when residents were asked if authorities are doing enough to improve road safety. This is really encouraging as it demonstrates that councils are fully committed to making positive changes and improving road safety for everyone.”

Cyclist LTN planter, Hackney London (by Adwitiya Pal)

> More than 30 new low traffic neighbourhoods could be implemented in London as LTNs remain “key” to improving public health by encouraging active travel

With support for low traffic neighbourhoods – an all-too-common feature of the ‘culture war’ narrative between active travel activists and motorists perpetuated by certain sections of the media – seemingly high among Londoners, it’s timely then that in July London mayor Sadiq Khan reiterated his support for the traffic calming schemes.

Funding for over 30 new LTNs was made available to councils by Transport for London just over a month ago as part of its annual progress report on Khan’s long-term strategy to have 80 per cent of journeys walked, cycled, or made by public transport in the capital by 2041.

According to TfL, LTNs remain central to the city’s cycle lane expansion, and form a “key part of the Healthy Streets approach [as] we continue to support boroughs’ implementation of schemes with both funding and technical support”.

Research published last year by TfL found LTNs introduced since 2020 had 50 per cent fewer road casualties and 74 per cent less traffic compared to other parts of London.

Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

14 comments

Avatar
ajuk.uk@gmail.com | 1 week ago
0 likes

The problem with a blanket 20mph limit is that not all roads are of the same standard, yet this approach treats them as if they are, disregarding the reasons behind engineering recommendations for setting speed limits. It assumes that many drivers exceed safe speeds simply because there isn't enough signage telling them not to.

Including main roads, especially those built to higher standards, diminishes the effectiveness of 20mph limits on roads where they have been shown to work better. This overuse brings such limits into contempt, leading to widespread non-compliance, which gives pedestrians a false sense of traffic speeds. Additionally, it causes sat-nav systems to no longer recognize main roads as faster routes.

Avatar
Simon E replied to ajuk.uk@gmail.com | 1 week ago
1 like

ajuk.uk [at] gmail.com wrote:

The problem with a blanket 20mph limit is that not all roads are of the same standard, yet this approach treats them as if they are, disregarding the reasons behind engineering recommendations for setting speed limits.

Is there a problem with driving at 20 mph on roads built to a higher standard? Does it affect you so much by taking a few seconds longer to drive somewhere or reach the back of the queue of vehicles in front? Because, let's face it, most urban journeys are stop-start due to traffic lights, road furniture and the sheer number of vehicles, which all have a far greater impact on journey times than speed limits.

The recent stats from Wales suggest that casualty rates and insurance claims have dropped significantly since the new limit. Has anyone really suffered because they are expected to travel at or below 20 mph now instead of 30?

And exceptions to the so-called 'blanket' 20 mph limit* do exist. There are plenty of urban and extra-urban roads with 30 mph limits. The main problem with this topic that too many drivers simply want to do 30 mph (or more) for selfish reasons.

* it is not a blanket, as you'd know if you live or regularly drive in Wales.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Simon E | 1 week ago
1 like

Like Linus, some folks seem unable to let go of the blanket.  Even though there was one previously (30mph blanket, applying to ... er ... the same roads), and there are other unaffected ones ("derestricted" / NSL blanket).

They're right though, the "best in class" idea for changing speeds / behaviours is to make the road design follow the desired function and "cue" the appropriate speed (more or less) *.

Also (some) people have severe loss-aversion when it comes to small reductions in the amazing facilities that we've provided, everywhere, for people driving.  Some tend to throw their toys out of the pram.  Even though they've still got the lion's share of toys.

A subtle point is that opinion does matter - overall we do rely on "social pressures" / norms and conformity.  It's unlikely the UK would be able to "police it better" if everyone dug their heels in (and/or there was market pressure - see "war on some drugs"...).  Or not without transforming greatly and becoming a police state / recruiting sufficient numbers of informers -unlikely if we're positing "nobody will obey this".

However the positive side of social conformity is that in fact it works so well that merely changing the numbers on the signs does indeed make a difference!  (Of course there are other reasons e.g. "anchoring effect" etc.)

One trick we're missing with lower motoring speeds though is to push harder on providing better facilities for cycling and also public transport.  There's a potential virtuous circle we could access as follows.

At least in NL it may make getting public buy-in for motor traffic reduction easier.  They can point out that it's needed to open the way for benefits like faster and more reliable public transit and more (separate) space for cycling.  And in addition to create more areas where motor traffic is slow and infrequent enough that everyone feels safe enough to cycle on the streets and thus new separate infra is not needed.

* Lots of ways to do this (e.g. here).  UK designers already understand this idea - although mostly in the opposite direction e.g. how can we make it safer for drivers given they're going at speed!

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 weeks ago
2 likes

This is mostly good news, with most people finally realising that we need to get past the great car culture of the 20th century.  I'm sure that that attitude will filter down to the rest of the country in the next fifty years, quicker if we cull the tories.

Avatar
Karlt | 4 weeks ago
9 likes

I have a feeling people don't distinguish between legal ebikes - assistance limited to 15mph, 250W etc. - and all the illegally used ones which are already, legally, electric motorcycles. They are quite different animals.

My big worry is that the former are being tainted by confusion with the latter.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Karlt | 4 weeks ago
3 likes

Tell it to the meeja.

Avatar
Rome73 | 4 weeks ago
5 likes

The problem with London is there are two London's when it comes to cycle infrastructure - inner London (good) outer London, with a few exceptions, terrible. Cycling in outer London can be scary whilst the centre is fantastic in parts. As for Rome, I'm surprised as many as 28% of respondents believed the Rome authorities were working to improve road safety. 

Avatar
anke2 | 1 month ago
2 likes

_I_ believe that using a bikelane should also be compulsary for drivers when a bikelane is available (forced to use a bike instead of cars, for sure). There is no excuse for blocking roads with cars when good bikelanes are available. 

The roads are needed for heavy transport, for the emergency services and for public transport. After all, the road system is paid for by everyone - so nobody should claim a patch of 5m x 2m just for themselves. After all, this is not the "Wild West" where ground could simply be claimed by moving west...

Avatar
mitsky | 1 month ago
3 likes

"88% feel that cycle lanes should be compulsory if available"

What type of "cycle lane"?
One that is just paint that offers no protection, or is actually worse than having no cycle lane?
One that is full of tyre damaging debris? (Or unusable for other reasons?)
Would that 88% feel it OK for THEM to be made to pay such damage if they insist on cyclists using crap infrastructure?

Avatar
Tom_77 | 1 month ago
10 likes

Quote:

72 per cent believe that [London] cycle lanes are safe

88 per cent argued that cyclists should be forced to use a cycle lane when one is available

So a significant number of people believe cyclists should be forced to use unsafe cycle lanes?

Avatar
bensynnock replied to Tom_77 | 4 weeks ago
4 likes

I suspect that they don't realise they are unsafe.

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to bensynnock | 4 weeks ago
3 likes

If more people cycled, drivers in particular, they'd quickly realise how poor most cycling infrastructure is. Cycle training should be a compulsory component in the driving test. Trikes or power assist hand cycles should be available for those who can't ride a bicycle.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to bensynnock | 3 weeks ago
2 likes

bensynnock wrote:

I suspect that they don't realise they are unsafe.

That kind of driver attitude really snaps my cranks. It's typically a topic that they know almost nothing about as they don't cycle, but for some reason they suddenly believe that they know better than the cyclists that avoid the badly designed/implemented cycle lanes for very good reasons.

Why do these people believe that cyclists don't know what's best for themselves?

Avatar
polainm replied to hawkinspeter | 3 weeks ago
2 likes

"Why do these people believe that cyclists don't know what's best for themselves?"

Because they (drivers) are paid-up first class highway citizens and cyclists are ignorant free-loading scum?

A cultural norm reinforced by the media, police, courts, judges and juries. 

While the suffragettes were fighting embedded ignorance across society I can't help but compare this degree of cultural hatred with the UK's current attitudes towards people on bicycles. 

Latest Comments