Useful references

These are links to current documents, plans and statistics which we can use when making the case for cycling.  If you find anything useful, please send us details so that we can add it to our list.


  • Department for Transport: Reported road casualties in Great Britain: main results 2018Link and tables.
  • Lancashire Constabulary killed and seriously injured statistics for this area 2016-18.  Download document or visit blogpost.
  • Road Safety Foundation report 2014 which showed that the A6 between Lancaster city centre and junction 33 was the worst in the country for injuries to cyclists and pedestrians.  Download document.
  • The Near Miss Project 2014.  A report from the University of Westminster summarising the experiences of around 1,500 cyclists who recorded all frightening or annoying incidents that they encountered on one day’s cycling.  It builds up a picture of typical “near misses” and how risky cycling feelsLink or download document.
  • Government’s “Pedal Cycling Road Safety Factsheet” published March 2018.  Link or download document.


Useful when looking at planning applications for larger developments that will impact on cycling.

  • Lancaster District Highways & Transport Masterplan, published October 2016.  Online or downloadable here.  It is committed to the Lancaster-Heysham offroad route and talks of a “Lancaster Links” cycle network, and Dynamo is encouraged that it acknowledges the need to make the A6 south a “sustainable transport corridor” (whatever that means) to enable development.  The County’s Cycling & Walking Strategy will set out the principles.  However, the Masterplan’s key projects are reconfiguring Caton Road and junction 33 of the M6 – so roads come first.  Dynamo’s notes are here.
  • National Planning Policy Framework, revised 2019.  Section 9 deals with Transport.  Link or download document.
  • Lancaster City Council’s Development Plan, adopted September 2015.  Policies DM20 and DM21 refer to cycling and sustainable transport when planning new developments.  DM20 on page 77 states:  “Proposals should minimise the need to travel, particularly by private car and maximise the opportunities for the use of walking, cycling and public transport.  Development proposals will be supported where they seek to:  (i) Make the best use of existing public transport services and where appropriate provide opportunities for improving and sustaining the viability of those services; (ii) Ensure that there is convenient access for walking and cycling to local facilities”.  Link or download document.
  • Lancaster City Council’s Core Strategy 2003-2021, adopted July 2008 here.


  • Department for Transport Cycle Proofing Working Group (with wording so wishy-washy it’s barely there).
  • Lancashire County Council’s guidelines for designing and planning good cycling infrastructure (sadly not always followed by the engineers and debatable about whether it’s still in use).  September 2005.   Link or download document.
  • Lancashire County Council’s functional road user hierarchy (published 2002, but probably no longer current) puts cyclists in third place behind pedestrians and emergency vehicles, with private cars in last place.  It’s cited in section 1.1.7 of the above document.


Lancashire County Council is the highways authority and this plan sets out their transport priorities.  View it here or download it as a pdf here.

There are 7 “transport goals” which give rise to 7 “transport priorities” listed on pages 9 and 10 of the document.  Cycling addresses 4 of those priorities, namely:

  • Providing safe, reliable, convenient and affordable transport alternatives to the car.
  • Reducing carbon emissions and its effects.
  • Improving safety of our streets for our most vulnerable residents.
  • Improving people’s quality of life and wellbeing.  [Remember that local authorities like Lancashire County Council are now responsible for public health improvements.]

These priorities then determine what the Council wishes to do and seek funding for.  Walking and cycling are talked up throughout the plan, but the performance indicators indicate very modest expectations; e.g.  “Increase in numbers of people making cycling and walking journeys on key routes” (page 27).


Lancaster city centre, Carnforth and Galgate are all subject to Air Quality Management Area measures.  Action plans are in place, but the last report for Lancaster (October 2018)) states:

Monitoring results in 2017 for the first time indicate compliance with air quality objectives in both the Carnforth and Galgate AQMA’s. Results in the Lancaster AQMA were mostly lower than previous years but still indicate exceedance of the annual mean/hourly mean nitrogen dioxide objectives. Overall monitoring results in 2017 indicated that 2017 was generally a better air quality year with results overall being reduced on levels monitored in 2016 by between 1 and 4 ug/m3 and continue to indicate a declining trend . . .  For Lancaster centre there is however some way to go before pollution levels meet air quality objectives in all locations. [our emphasis]

There is an interesting website from one who cycles and knows about air quality –

The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs has a page for local authorities with Air Quality Management Areas.

The Department for Communities and Local Government published advice in 2014 stating that ” Concerns could arise if the development is likely to generate air quality impact in an area where air quality is known to be poor”.