Seven Sisters Road consultation

There's a consultation on Seven Sisters Road which I need to alert you to which is a real cause for concern. It ignores cycle safety and presents a series of sub-standard options some of which appear to be positively dangerous.

http://www.sevensistersroad.co.uk/

The photo on their front page shows the very spot Stephanie Turner was killed by a lorry last year, a fact they seem totally unaware of. 

They have floated seven 'ideas', to "design a solution for the road which balances the needs of residents and pedestrians". In fact they have presented a motor centric vision for Seven Sisters Road maximising traffic speed, marginalising residents & pedestrians and ignoring cyclists and safety. They are suggesting ideas which are totally inappropriate for London as a safe, pleasant and healthy city.

Respond to the consultation:

Please respond to the consultation visiting the website and emailing the address provided. Please add your own comments, you can copy and paste from below or use it for inspiration:

Due to the volume and speed of traffic on this road, fully protected cycle lanes are needed to keep cyclists safe and allow people of all ages and abilities to cycle. These should include physical separation in the form of significant kerbs and/or bollards to provide proper separation from the road.

It is essential we see proposals for all the major junctions including protection for right turning cyclists and designed to prevent 'left hooks', which are totally neglected by this consultation. Without understanding the junctions it is impossible to design or evaluate a scheme such as this.

The road will require regular safe signalised crossings to allow people of all ages and abilities to cross in safety. This should include crossings for bikes side by side to the pedestrian crossings. The designs of all junctions and crossings should avoid potential conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians and avoid 'shared space' solutions.

All parts of the scheme should be designed fully in accordance with the latest issue of the London Cycling Design Standards. All proposed options should be assessed against the 'Cycling Level of Service' tool and the results of the assessments included in consultation documentation.

The ideas suggested in the consultation are badly thought through and most of them would be dangerous for cyclists and/or pedestrians. In addition the consultation fails to consider the option for a bi-directional track on one side of the road in some instances can provide a higher quality solution (perhaps due to fewer turnings on one side of the road) depending on safe and convenient connections at both ends and allowing easy access for cyclists to/from turnings on the far side of the road.

In summary of the ideas put forwards:

• Ideas 2, 3 and 6 would be dangerous for cyclists. 
• Idea 1 has insufficient protection for this busy road with fast traffic and would not allow people of all abilities to cycle. 
• Ideas 4a and 4b are positively dangerous for pedestrians and do nothing to allow people with impared mobility, or with children, to cross the road. Providing pedestrian crossings is the only way to allow vulnerable pedestrians to cross safely.
• It is worth noting that although 'idea 5' shows a protected cycle lane, this design appears poorly thought through and does not provide acceptable pedestrian safety. In particular the central island will encourage high speeds and does not constitute a safe crossing.

Due to the generally very poor quality of the options proposed in the consultation, and the failure to consider options which could provide the best solutions for cycling, we feel the results of this consultation may be unsound. Where respondents expressed preferences between the ideas put forwards this will have failed to identify where the ideas proposed failed to meet the aspirations of the consultee as preferences my represent the 'least worst' ideas due to better options not being presented.

City of London Quietways consultation

The City of London are consulting on their Cycle Quietways and their proposals lack the quality and vision to make cycling accessible for everyone - We need your help to get this improved.

The City's aim "to improve safety and cater for the predicted increase in cycling, whilst minimising the impact on other road users and local occupiers" has led them to a watered down scheme where most of the changes are "minor, such as new or amended road markings, wayfinding signage, parking bay alterations". You can view detailed plans of the proposals here.

This approach has led to a scheme which fails to adequately provide for the "new and less confident cyclists" they are hoping to encourage.

Please respond to the consultation by emailing quietways@cityoflondon.gov.uk

I have copied my response to the consultation below, please feel free to use it as the basis of your response:

Dear City of London,

I am responding to your consultation about the proposed Quietway cycle routes through the City.

I fully support the aim of these schemes to encourage "new and less confident cyclists" to cycle more. Some of the sections proposed seem to provide the kinds of safe and protected conditions which would persuade people to cycle when they otherwise wouldn't.

However there are several other sections where the roads are left largely the same, such as installing a larger Advance Stop Line Area. Many potential new cyclists are concerned about safety on the roads and small adjustments to provision will make little difference to cyclist's experience and perception of the route, so this will not help persuade more to use it. If the City of London wants to really encourage non-cyclists to take up cycling as a form of transport the provision needs to be consistently of higher quality rather than the current patchy proposals.

In addition, the routes proposed are somewhat indirect so to ensure the routes are attractive to cyclists the phasing and priority at junctions should be adjusted to ensure the route is not more inconvenient than the more direct roads. Otherwise large numbers of cyclists may end up ignoring those sections of the routes.

Some specific comments on the plans as numbered in the consultation documentation:

• Plan 1: I welcome the use of segregation to create an inviting route, however I am concerned by the junction between Snow Hill and West Smithfield west-bound cycle lane as there is a lack of visibility for both cyclists and motorists. The position of the crossing, just past the corner, is less than ideal and this should be orientated so the crossing is more perpendicular to the road. In addition the inside kerb of the roadway needs to be adjusted to take account of the lane on the far side, there is a risk that a motorist following the inside kerb line realise late that they are heading straight in to a cycle lane. Ideally this whole junction would be redesigned so the cycle route crossed Snow Hill in one go with a single safe crossing, rather than having to deal with the arms separately and rather awkwardly.
• Plan 3: Cloth Fair is too narrow to accommodate motor traffic and should be made access only. I note that drawing a picture of a bike on the road next to an arrow doesn't make it any easier for a beginner to make a right turn and is exactly the kind of 'provision' which makes it difficult to persuade people cycling is a safe option they could try out.
• Plan 4: The pinch point which is created at the entrance to Beech Street for cyclists heading east is bound to cause conflict and will feel very unsafe for new and less confident cyclists, especially given that many cyclists experience aggression from motorists associated with situations like this, where the driver wants to get past to a clear road ahead and isn't prepared to be a little patient. In addition the left-right from Middle Street to Long Lane looks difficult and unappealing for the "new and less confident cyclists" this scheme is aimed at.
• Plan 6: I welcome the introduction of the no-through route for motor traffic and am sure that a large number of potential cyclists would regard this as safe and inviting.
• Plan 8: I am concerned by the junction between Wood Street and London Wall. For cyclists heading south the junction encourages cyclists to start off on the left hand side and traverse the traffic diagonally. This arrangement simply isn't acceptable given the numbers of cyclists who have been killed in 'left hook' type collisions, it encourages cyclists to put themselves in the danger zone and increases the risk of a fatality. The markings encouraging cyclists to cross the lane diagonally from the left should be removed and the radius on the bend tightened to ensure there is no space for a vehicle to get on the outside of a cyclist. Alternatively southbound traffic should be removed from Wood Street as part of a one way system for motor traffic, with a segregated counter-flow cycle lane introduced.

I hope these suggestions help you improve the quality of these proposals.

Kind regards,

Fred

Proposed Quietway routes (purple)

Our 2015 demands - Reviewing the Mayor's responses

Our 2015 demands are making real progress thanks to all our supporters who have emailed the Mayor and members of the London Assembly in the summer:

• The Mayor has responded to our emails and also to the question put by Darren Johnson in the London Assembly.
• Significantly, the cause is now being taken further with support across the political spectrum most notably by Darren Johnson AM (Green Party), Andrew Boff AM (Conservative Party) and Caroline Pidgeon AM (Liberal Democrat), with Labour Party assembly members also said to be in favour.

This is a sea change in the debate around HGV safety which signals significant political will across the board to address this endemic problem.

While the responses from the Mayor have been positive, they don't include the decisive action we need (yet). However there are signals that significant progress is possible and our campaigning can make that happen.

Rush Hour Lorry Ban

The Mayor says:

I have asked TfL to examine the practicality and potential implications of restricting certain vehicles at certain times as part of its wider freight programme. A full assessment of the implications of any peak time restriction is needed to avoid unintended consequences, such as an increase in vans on the road or an increase in HGVs at other times of the day. 

While it is good this option is being considered, this statement puts the Mayor a long way from implementing any ban.

However, the email also indicates they are looking at ways to remove HGV traffic from cycle routes. This could achieve the same objective - separating HGV traffic from bike traffic to reduce accidents.

The Mayor says the GLA will start using it's planning powers to force construction HGVs to use designated routes & avoid roads with large numbers of cyclists and "Discussions with the London boroughs and the construction industry have already started to ensure that this happens as fast as possible."

The discussions the boroughs may possibly be about existing ‘weight limit enforcement action’ powers which are generally not being enforced. Hackney has successfully been enforcing their ban for a number of years and the City of London are set to start enforcing their central area ban (which includes junctions where HGVs killed cyclists in 2015). As these are existing powers many other boroughs could start implementing these immediately in order to keep cyclists safe this winter. This is an area where pressure from cyclists can make a real difference.

Construction Industry to adopt CLOCS

The Mayor has stated he is working with TfL to encourage companies to adopt CLOCS, which is welcome lacks any requirement for contractors to use this system. They go on to say:

In January the Mayor will consult on requiring further safety modifications including the retrofitting of bigger side windows to further reduce driver blind spots. Bigger side windows, in the lower panel of the cab door, give the driver direct vision of any cyclist who may be alongside them, and can be fitted to most lorries for around £1000. This consultation will be complete and a decision taken before the Mayoral election. In the meantime, as soon as the work can be physically completed, it will be ensured that such windows are fitted to all vehicles undertaking work for TfL, Crossrail, or any other member of the Greater London Authority (GLA) family.

This step towards 'direct-vision' lorries is a very positive sign as 'blind spot minimisation' is one of the measures needed to implement CLOCS. Not only will this make lorries safer, but it is potentially a step towards the roll out of CLOCS in the future and sets a strong precedent for the boroughs.

We need to keep making the case for CLOCS to be adopted by all GLA and borough HGVs to make sure this is adopted as widely as possible.

Confidential reporting of bad practice

The Mayor has responded:

I support any measure that exposes bad practice and increases our understanding of how incidents occur and what needs to be done to prevent future collisions. CIRAS is a whistleblowing scheme widely used in other transport sectors to allow confidential reporting of bad practice by employees, but does not currently cover HGV operations and is not available to members of the public to raise concerns. I have asked TfL to investigate whether CIRAS would provide any additional benefit to the existing range of measures in place to report, investigate and manage bad practice.

It seems clear that CIRAS would contribute to making a much more robust reporting system for bad practice - it is in everyone's interests that potential problems are picked up before they result in tragedy. We will continue to call for for confidential reporting systems as part of improvements to the way TfL identifies and investigates bad practice.

Enforcement

We have recently set up a Freight Compliance Unit (FCU), formed of officers and staff from TfL, the MPS and DVSA and the FCU shares information on operator compliance in order to ensure that enforcement is intelligence led and our efforts are coordinated.

We hope this team will bring new energy to enforcement action in London. This unit will be judged on the number of dangerous lorries taken off the roads, the impact on compliance rates, and the ability to crack down on rogue operators. We will probably need to wait until next year to fully see what the impact of this unit is, but should push for regular status updates before then to ensure it receives the attention it deserves.

The Mayor also says:

I encourage Londoners to report any illegal activity or failure to comply with the law via the RoadSafe London website, which is run by the MPS.

Unfortunately there are many reports suggesting that the RoadSafe website is not always an effective place to report dangerous driving (possibly due to lack of resources and a large number of reports). For alternative places to report bad driving please see this post from the Safer Oxford Street blog.

Official response to our campaign email

Further to the Mayor's written response to our demands in the Question posed by Darren Johnson AM we have also received a direct response from the Mayor's public liaison unit via email, copied in full below:

Dear Fred

Thank you for your petition to the Mayor about HGVs and cycle safety. The Mayor is committed to improving cycling safety and is particularly conscious of the dangers posed by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) to cyclists. That is why he and Transport for London (TfL) have taken a number of steps to address this issue.

HGVs, and particularly construction vehicles, are involved in a disproportionate number of fatal collisions involving cyclists and pedestrians. On 1 September 2015, London launched the UK's first Safer Lorry Scheme, which is designed to protect these vulnerable road users. The scheme legally requires every vehicle driving in London weighing more than 3.5 tonnes to be fitted with basic safety equipment. Under London's scheme, most vehicles that are currently exempt from national legislation for this equipment, such as construction vehicles, will have to be retrofitted. Class V and Class VI mirrors give the driver a better view of cyclists and pedestrians around their vehicle. Side guards protect cyclists from being dragged under the wheels in the event of a collision.

As part of the Safer Lorry Scheme launch, the Mayor also set out plans for strengthening the scheme in the future. In January the Mayor will consult on requiring further safety modifications including the retrofitting of bigger side windows to further reduce driver blind spots. Bigger side windows, in the lower panel of the cab door, give the driver direct vision of any cyclist who may be alongside them, and can be fitted to most lorries for around £1000. This consultation will be complete and a decision taken before the Mayoral election. In the meantime, as soon as the work can be physically completed, it will be ensured that such windows are fitted to all vehicles undertaking work for TfL, Crossrail, or any other member of the Greater London Authority (GLA) family.

Extensive trials are also now being undertaken at the Transport Research Laboratory of a variety of electronic sensors for lorries, aiming to alert drivers to cyclists' presence. If any of these devices are shown to offer significant and consistent benefits, it may also be required that they be fitted to lorries in London.

Many of the most dangerous vehicles are construction-related. For future major construction projects, GLA planning powers will be used to strictly prescribe the routes which HGVs serving them can follow - requiring, for instance, that they avoid a road heavily used by cyclists or take a route that minimises the number of left turns, the most dangerous manoeuvre. Discussions with the London boroughs and the construction industry have already started to ensure that this happens as fast as possible.

Following the launch of the Mayor's Cycling Vision for London in spring 2013, there has been a step change in the approach to cycling facilities across London. Two new, substantially segregated, high quality Cycle Superhighways will be built, running east-west and north-south through Central London. Construction has begun on the north-south route and on the first phase of the east-west route with completion expected in spring 2016. The new Superhighways will provide clear and convenient routes through London for cyclists, physically separated from other vehicles.

Similarly, the Better Junctions programme aims to improve safety at high profile junctions and gyratories in London. Thirty-three locations have been identified where significant improvements can be delivered for cyclists and other vulnerable road users. TfL will deliver improvements at 10 of the 33 Better Junctions by May 2016. Consultations so far have included Aldgate, Blackfriars, Elephant & Castle, Lancaster Gate, Oval, Parliament Square and Tower Gateway. TfL is also trialling a range of innovative cycle infrastructure measures including Dutch style roundabouts and cycle priority junctions. A number of these innovations have now gone live at Oval junction, including cyclist specific traffic lights and a new 'hold the left turn' feature.

These programmes dovetail very closely with what cyclists have been demanding. The Mayor is committed to making progress as quickly as possible, while ensuring that these improvements are done properly. Cycling safety has been and will remain at the heart of the Mayor's administration and the Mayor is determined to make things better for cyclists in London.

Thank you again for contacting the Mayor.

Yours sincerely


Mohammed Rahman
Public Liaison Unit

---

Dear Boris, Jennette, Caroline and Darren,

7 out of the 8 cyclist fatalities this year have involved HGVs [1] and we need the mayor and GLA to do more to protect cyclists and pedestrians. There are still too many dangerous lorries and too many dangerous junctions in London. We are calling for urgent action to reduce injuries and deaths:

• A rush hour lorry ban. When we asked earlier this year over half of our supporters wanted a lorry ban in the rush hour [2]. 
• The construction industry must adopt 'CLOCS' safety standards to prevent further deaths. Construction industry HGVs have killed 5 cyclists this year already [3], CLOCS safety standards should be made mandatory in every public section construction contract in London.
• Confidential reporting of bad practice needs to be rolled out to all HGV drivers, irrespective of whether their employer wants to take part [3].
  
• Stronger enforcement. Operators must never be allowed to put profits before lives by allowing unlicensed, untrained lorry drivers, or unsafe vehicles, to operate on our roads.

These urgent measures must be the starting point for a target of zero lorry deaths on our streets. Safe segregated routes will be key to eventually eliminating road danger but we must start with action which can save lives in 2015-16.


This call comes from the Save Our Cyclists petition and has been circulated to our supporters who have been encouraged to contact you with their personal reasons for wanting action. The petition currently has 37'946 signatures: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-cyclists


We would appreciate responses to this call and will publish all the responses we receive on our blog and Facebook page.


Kind regards,


Fred

---
References:
[1] -www.london24.com/news/cycling/london_cycle_deaths_2015_1_3964719
[2] - When we asked earlier this year over half of our supporters wanted a ban in the rush hour: http://saveourcyclists.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/supporter-survey-2015-responses.html
[3] - http://saveourcyclists.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/higher-safety-standards-needed-for.html

Greens respond to call to end lorry danger

Darren Johnson, a green member of the London Assembly has responded to the call for action on HGVs. He and Jenny Jones AM are supporting our demands for a rush hour lorry ban, CLOCS safety standards, confidential reporting and stronger enforcement.

We welcome his announcement that he will be tabling formal questions to the mayor asking for these measures to be implemented. His message is as follows:

Many thanks for your message. I am responding on behalf of the Green Assembly Members, myself and Jenny Jones AM.

We completely share your concerns and support these safety demands to help eliminate deaths and injuries from HGVs on London’s roads and make cycling safer for everyone. While I welcome the Mayor’s recent announcement on left turns and mirrors, the Mayor and TfL need to do more and I will therefore be tabling a formal question to the Mayor asking him to implement these demands (a rush hour lorry ban, CLOCS safety standards, confidential reporting and stronger enforcement).

Promoting cycling and decreasing road danger have been consistent priorities for the Greens on the London Assembly. We will continue to urge the Mayor to urgently redesign the most dangerous junctions, impose a default London-wide 20mph speed limit, segregate cycle superhighways so that they meet ‘Go Dutch’ standards as well as crucial safety measures for HGVs. 

If you would like to be kept informed about our work on cycling then please email Rachel.Carlill@London.gov.uk and we will add you to our email circulation list (emails are approximately once a month). Please be assured of our continued commitment to making our streets safer and more attractive for cyclists through our work with cycling campaigners, through putting pressure on the Mayor and TfL and through our formal committee work here at City Hall.


Darren Johnson AM
Green Party Member
London Assembly
City Hall
Queens Walk
London SE1 2AA

Response from the Lib Dem London Assembly Members

Caroline Pidgeon AM has responded to our concerns about Canary Wharf's lobbying on behalf of the Liberal Democrat London Assembly Members.

This is the third response and follows emails from Murad Qureshi AM (Labour) and Darren Johnson AM  on behalf of the Green Assembly Members. We hope we will hear from the Conservative AMs soon.

Caroline's response:

Thank you for your email about cycling infrastructure in London. I am responding on behalf of myself and Stephen Knight AM, Liberal Democrat Assembly Members. 

I agree that we urgently need safe, segregated cycling provision, and I strongly support the planned North-South and East-West superhighways. They are extremely ambitious, and crucially they provide segregated space for cycling across the city through what are currently some of the most dangerous junctions. It is a tragedy that another cyclist has been killed at one of these junctions while this debate continues. 

I share your concerns over the lobbying activities of Canary Wharf Group, and I have raised the issue of potential conflicts of interest with the Mayor. You can read my question here: http://questions.london.gov.uk/QuestionSearch/searchclient/questions/question_277710 

I also raised the issue of needing to tackle these vested interests at a cycling fringe meeting recently. To hear this and my views on cycling in London more broadly you can listen to my speech here: https://soundcloud.com/aldcuk/making-space-for-cycling (from 24m 45s).

I do understand concerns about the composition of the TfL board that have also been raised, and I am happy to raise the issue of greater cycling and pedestrian representation in the future. 

I would like to assure you that the London Assembly Liberal Democrats are firmly in favour of space for cycling, and we will continue to campaign to make sure these projects are completed without being scaled back or watered down. 

Thank you once again for getting in touch. 

Kind regards, 

Caroline

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM
Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group
Chair Transport Committee
Deputy Chair Police and Crime Committee
www.carolinepidgeon.org

Response from the Green London Assembly Members

Following our emails to members of the London Assembly expressing our concern about the lobbying from Canary Wharf, I received this email from the Darren Johnson AM (also responding on behalf of Jenny Jones AM):

Many thanks for your message. I am responding on behalf of the Green Assembly Members, myself and Jenny Jones AM.  

I share your concerns about the scale and ferocity of the lobbying from some sections of the business community against the plans for an East-West cycling superhighway. This is a long over-due addition to making cycling safer in London and has our support.  Whilst the Canary Wharf Group have every right to lobby against a particular transport project as part of the democratic process, it is nevertheless still very disappointing that they hold such outdated views and that they expending time and energy actively blocking key measures that will improve cyclists' safety in London. Thankfully, the public consultation has generated a strong reaction amongst those businesses which are keen to support the superhighway and I will be pressing the Mayor not to dilute the plans. 

I also share your concern at the apparent attempt by the Canary Wharf Group to keep the lobbying anonymous, especially when a leading member of the Transport for London Board has not declared his affiliation to the strong views of his employers. The Assembly's Transport Committee which I sit on was assured that legal advice was being sought on this, following complaints. Whatever the outcome of the legal advice on the position of Peter Anderson, it would be unimaginable that any member of the Board should not be asked to declare them.  As chair of TfL's Finance and Policy committee, Peter Anderson is clearly in a very influential position. The key issue for me is the issue pecuniary interest, with Mr Anderson being seen to advocate a position which he believes is in the commercial interests of his employers. Such a pecuniary interest would appear to make his position untenable in chairing or taking part in any discussion on this at the TfL board. I will be pursuing this matter formally with the Mayor. 

On the wider issue of the superhighways, it is clear from many of the Mayor's recent answers to my formal written questions that between three or four more highways will be built by May 2016, when Boris Johnson's term as Mayor comes to an end. He will have failed to deliver on the promise to build 12 superhighways which he made back in 2009. A promise he repeated, with the addition of the East-West superhighway, in his manifesto of 2012. My concern is that most of the current projects contained in the cycling vision, including the superhighways, will not be finished by 2016 and could be abandoned by an incoming Mayor.  

The plans for better junctions and the initial three mini-Holland schemes also need the support of everyone who believes that safer cycling is one of the key priorities for reducing traffic congestion and pollution in London. Whilst I can understand why defending the proposal for an East-West superhighway is particularly important, I am also keen not to lose sight of the bigger picture. 

Promoting cycling and decreasing road danger have been consistent priorities for the Greens on the London Assembly and will continue to remain so. If you would like to be kept informed about our work on cycling then please email Rachel.Carlill@London.gov.uk and we will add you to our email circulation list (emails are approximately once a month). Please be assured of our continued commitment to making our streets safer and more attractive for cyclists through our work with cycling campaigners, through putting pressure on the Mayor and TfL and through our formal committee work here at City Hall.

Darren Johnson AM
Green Party Member
London Assembly
City Hall
Queens Walk
London SE1 2AA
020 7983 4388
http://www.london.gov.uk/profile/darren-johnson

Potential conflict of interest to be reviewed by TfL's lawyers

Following our emails to the members of the London Assembly I will be publishing the responses in the order they come in. If you have received a response not listed here, please add it in the comments at the bottom of the page.

The first response I received was from Murad Qureshi AM, as follows:

Dear Fred, 

I agree with your analysis of this conflict of interest for Peter Anderson, hence why l have sent the following letter below to TfL lawyers. 

Murad Qureshi AM

His email to Howard Carter reads:

Dear Howard, 

I write to you in your capacity as General Counsel for TfL. 

It has been drawn to my attention that Peter Anderson the Finance Director of Canary Group PLC is also the Chair of TfL Finance & Policy Committee. 

Following recent media reports that Canary Wharf Group PLC has initiated extensive and anonymous briefings which are critical of TfL’s Cycle Superhighway Plans, are you satisfied that his role is not conflicted in making decisions over the investment into Super Cycle Highways? 

Murad Qureshi AM

Gilligan's speech at LLC's Big Ride

Andrew Gilligan's speech - LCC's Space for Cycling Big Ride - Saturday 17th May, 2014.

Andrew Gilligan's speech at the Big Ride provides an update on his response to the petition issued in February. It covers many of the same topics, in fact parts of the speech appear to be a re-edit of his response in February.

The text of the speech can be found here:

http://hfcyclists.org.uk/andrew-gilligan-speech-space-cycling-big-ride-saturday-17th-may-2014/

Gilligan's Response

[Andrew Gilligan's response in full]

Dear all,

Thank you very much for the petition. We share all your objectives. We have made an unprecedented financial commitment to cycling - £913 million over ten years, more than three times our previously-proposed level, and more than twice what the Government is spending, over the next few years, on the whole of the rest of the country put together.

Because the standards required in the Mayor’s Cycling Vision are more ambitious than before, and the programme is much larger than before, the programme has had to be extensively redesigned. We have had to enlarge our capacity and recruit extra staff to design the new facilities.

Nor do we own or have powers over the vast majority of the roads and land which we will need to deliver the programme. So we have also had to proceed by agreement with the people who do own them – the 32 London boroughs, Network Rail, the Royal Parks, and others.

Both of these things are enormous and time-consuming tasks. But over the last ten months, significant progress has been made.

Therefore, we agree with your demand to accelerate expenditure on the programme. As we move from a planning, design and consent-gathering phase to a delivery phase, spending will sharply increase. Underspends from the planning phase will not be lost to the programme; they will be carried forward to cover likely overspends in future years.

However, spending money is only the means. Achieving high-quality cycle facilities is the end. We will not spend money for its own sake, or without an agreed high-quality scheme to spend it on, or for the sake of being seen to spend it quickly. That would invite waste and failure. Many of the problems with previous cycling facilities are because they were done too quickly.

We have already published for consultation our proposed map of central London cycle routes, the Central London Grid. By next month, we will have announced the revised Superhighways network, the first Quietway routes, the winners of the mini-Hollands grants and the 33 major junctions to be transformed under the better junctions programme.

We will also give delivery dates, but will stress that these are not entirely within our control. They depend on the boroughs and on how easy a ride the schemes have with local communities. We hope the signatories of this petition will add their voices to win those local debates rather than just to the debate at City Hall, which you have won already.

We understand the impatience some feel at the sometimes grinding processes of negotiation, agreement and consultation with others which we must go through. It is, however, the price of living in a democratic society and of making changes to what are busy and contested spaces. It is usually also, in practice, quicker than trying to bulldoze through change, which risks causing backlash and delay.

On the specific items you mentioned, CS2 will be comprehensively upgraded with segregation or semi-segregation over its full length and five new cycle-segregated junctions. We will start stakeholder engagement this week, publish detailed designs in June and begin work in the second half of this year.

On HGVs, we last week strengthened our proposals to charge lorries which were not fitted with safety equipment to protect cyclists. We now propose to ban such lorries entirely. Subject to statutory consultation, the ban would take effect in the second half of this year.

We are also studying the possibility of banning all lorries in the morning rush hour. We are also studying more targeted time and place-specific restrictions. We are trialling electronic measures, such as proximity sensors and camera systems, to see whether they can overcome drivers’ blind spots. We are strongly lobbying for new EU rules to require redesigned cabs with fewer blind spots.

We have substantially increased enforcement against HGVs. We have found striking levels of non-compliance with existing regulations and can already see that enforcing greater compliance is making a noticeable difference to cyclist safety.

We have also substantially increased enforcement against law-breaking by motorists and cyclists, including Operation Safeway last year. This, too, has made and is making a substantial difference to cyclist safety and will be continued, with similar operations to Safeway.

We are lobbying the Government to require greater cycle awareness and training in the driving (and HGV) tests, but this is not within our power. Over the period of the Business Plan, we will spend £60 million on cycle training, offering it to every London child at some point in their school career and every adult in London who wants it. We are reviewing the cycle training programme to ensure that it is relevant to children’s real needs. We will invest a further £33 million in cycle to school partnerships to create safe cycling routes to schools.

We thank the signatories of this petition again for their commitment to improving cycling.

Mayor's Office, City Hall, London SE1 2AA