- Rachel Aldred, who says "abandoning a cycling target is going in the wrong direction", and calls for "a clearer strategy to reduce cycling KSIs, focusing on the known causes of danger and doing more to test, utilise and evaluate policies and strategies adopted in countries that are leaders in this area."
- Southwark Council, who say "The cycling specific actions in this plan are too few and too vague" and that the Cycling Safety Action Plan it relies on is "too ambiguous to be accountable". They also say "More needs to be done to improve road safety for cyclists and this plan does not suggest any substantial new measures".
- The City of London. This response was drafted by City officers and I don't know if their members amended it before submission. Again, the vagueness of the plan comes in for criticism: "In many cases the timescales are vague, there is no indication of relative priority and, critically, there is no indication of how much the actions will cost or where funding will come from". The response also calls for deployment of technologies such as "intelligent speed adaptation systems – for example, trialling this in TfL and City fleets; rolling out average speed technology in speed cameras; converting speed cameras to enforce 20 mph speed limits". The proposal for a single casualty reduction target that covers all modes is opposed because it "could be achieved through improvements to transport modes that are already much safer" But I thought the most interesting bit was:
Specifically it is questioned whether there are sufficient new actions – as opposed to continuation of existing actions – to protect cyclists, such as measures to physically separate cycle traffic from motor traffic on busy roads and/or the removal of motor vehicles (or certain classes of vehicle such as lorries or buses) from key cycle routes at busy times.That's kind of surprising to hear from the City in light of their proposals to remove cycle lanes at key junctions. Maybe there's more internal disagreement on these issues than we think.
I think those extracts sum up most of the issues I have with TfL's plan. Mainly I'm still struck by how unambitious it is, and how it looks nothing like the product of an organisation determined to transform the way it approaches road design and cycling provision, which is how TfL have taken to describing themselves of late. Whatever your own views, I hope you will send them a response before Wednesday.