I have been considering Cycling UK AGM possible motions as shown below, not the above. If anyone can second the motions I would be grateful. Please advise by Sunday if you can assist, name and membership number needed. email address email@example.com
Motion No 1
Cycling UK should seek improved safety for cyclists on main roads and work with others to establish the most viable options, regarding road widths, speed limits, cycle tracks, cycle lanes, traffic levels or a combination of elements and priorities to achieve this.
The UK cycling fatality rate data vary from about 11.5 to 210 per billion miles cycled.
For urban A roads, the figure is 43
For urban other roads 11.5
For rural A roads 210
For rural other roads 32.5
The 210 figure for rural A roads is 18 times higher than the 11.5, so improvements are needed for rural A roads, especially perhaps near to larger towns or cities where higher cycle use can occur and they often provide the most direct and convenient routes for commuter cyclists. Also, improvements to crossing A roads may add to accessing the local network of country lanes/roads. Cycling UK and the Department for Transport should work together to consider all potential options so that the 210 figure is substantially reduced. Data from RoSPA shows there are more deaths on rural roads than urban roads, 931 v 627, 48% higher.www.rospa.com/media/documents/r
The Government is committed to creating a Road Safety Investigation Branch (RSIB) and this could assist in evaluating potential options.www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Gove
Motion No 2
Cycling UK should consult with partner groups on potential improvements to planning applications requirements and the appeal process as detailed;
a) The expected total number of vehicle trips, average distance per trip and total distances driven per day for developments with 10 or more parking spaces to be specified.
b) Provide a procedure to follow if the average trip distance is greater than 5 miles and seek alternative sites for the development with a lower traffic impact and potentially more suitable for cycling.
c) Allow for Councils and national groups to lodge appeals to the Planning Inspector, if a prima facie case can be made.
d) All environmental aspects to a planning application should be provided at the outline planning stage.
The motion seeks improvements to the planning process so that any development expecting to create 10 or more parking spaces should require a traffic assessment detailing the expected total number of trips, average distance per trip and total distances driven per day. In the event of the expected average trip distance driven is greater than 5 miles, a procedure to follow and seek alternative sites for the development with a lower traffic impact and potentially more suitable for cycling.
Currently developments can result in thousands of miles of driving per day without an environmental impact assessment, such as HMP Millsike (Full Sutton Cat C prison) that may result in more than 20,000 miles of driving per day, see www.researchgate.net/publicatio
Currently planning applicants can appeal a decision to a planning inspector if their application is refused, objectors do not have a similar right to appeal to a planning inspector. Objectors can take legal action at potentially a very high cost via the High Court based mainly on grounds of procedure. Objectors should have a right of appeal via the planning inspector and allowing Councils or national groups such as Cycling UK and Sustrans to object would support cyclists and environmental groups to help deliver an overall better result for the environment and cycling.