General Principles

  1. Cycling should be encouraged for health and environmental reasons. Environmental advantages of cycling vs. car travel include: (i) the reduction in pollution and congestion when moving, and: (ii) the smaller area required for cycle parking than for car parking. Provision of cycle parking is also cheaper than car parking.
  2. The size and terrain of the Loughborough campus make cycling the ideal means of transport for most cross-campus journeys, both in terms of convenience and speed.
  3. If cycling is to be encouraged for everyone on campus, the provision of a comprehensive cycling infrastructure needs to be taken seriously.
  4. The principal infrastructural requirements concern security and the provision of a network of cycle paths. In addition, the development of a cycling ethic needs to be addressed. Ideals to be aimed for are set out below, together with an indication of the most urgent priorities.


  1. A sufficient number of secure cycle parking spaces needs to be provided at every campus building. The "Sufficient number" may be difficult to gauge; however, an insufficiency at an existing building is obvious from the large numbers of bicycles parked against walls, railings, etc. The level of security required is:
    1. for daytime use, the frame and preferably one wheel should be lockable to an immovable object by means of a D-lock;
    2. for overnight storage, a locked shed needs to be provided, within which each cycle can be securely locked as in (i) (to prevent the shed being quickly emptied by a thief making a forced entry).
    3. Much has been achieved recently on the campus to improve security by the introduction of "toast racks" and wall-mounted loops, which satisfy the minimum requirements for daytime security. However, there remains a requirement for many more of these facilities. The first priorities for new facilities will be at those buildings where the current provision is clearly insufficient. Eventually all "front-wheel holders" should be replaced by secure facilities.
    4. In principle, the toast-racks provide cycle parking at a high density. However, this relies on users only placing the front wheel, rather than the entire cycle, between the hoops; there is a need for publicity to ensure that this is understood. On some of the older toast-racks, the hoops are too close together to allow easy placement and removal of cycles when neighbouring hoops are in use, but this has been remedied in the more recent installations.
    5. Ideally, even daytime cycle parking facilities should be protected from the weather. When installing new facilities at existing buildings, under-cover locations should be used if any exist and are suitable. Installation of canopies should be considered for large clusters of cycle stands. Any major new building project should include under-cover cycle parking.

Cycle paths

  1. A network of cycle routes should, where feasible, connect all major academic buildings, halls of residence, the Students Union, sports facilities and the campus entrances, and should link up with the growing network of cycle routes off campus. Routes should follow desire lines as directly as possible.
  2. The campus road network provides the most direct route for cyclists between many locations. Keeping vehicle speeds low is a major contribution to cyclists' safety. The safety of cyclists should be considered in designing any modifications to the road network.
  3. Any desire line for cyclists is likely to also be a desire line for pedestrians: adequate provision of paths for both is necessary. Segregation should be by means of frequent cycle and walker symbols on the respective paths. National guidelines are for a minimum 1.2m width for pedestrians and 1.5m for cyclists, but these may not be sufficient on particularly busy routes.
  4. Gradients should be kept as gentle as possible on cycle paths.
  5. Where cycle and pedestrian paths cross roads, vehicular traffic should be made to give way to cyclists and pedestrians.

Development of a Cycling Ethic

  1. The development of visible infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians will help to indicate that these are the preferred modes of cross-campus travel. Traffic reduction measures (e.g. restrictions on car-parking or road closures) may be desirable, but can only be introduced at the same time as alternatives to car use are seen to become more attractive.
  2. There are frequent complaints about the behaviour of some cyclists on campus. Education is needed to ensure that all cyclists understand the importance of obeying the normal rules of the road while on campus, and in particular the requirement for lights at night. Similarly, there is a need for education of motorists to ensure that they do not threaten the safety of pedestrians or cyclists, e.g. by excessive speed. The education programme would be a joint effort of the University and Students' Union. Security officers should have the powers and resources to enforce the rules.
  3. A scheme for cycle hire on a termly or annual basis should be available at competitive rates on campus. This will be of use to students who may have difficulty in transporting a cycle from home to Loughborough. It will also be attractive to staff who may need to use other means of travel to and from work, but would like to have a cycle for cross-campus travel during the day; the cycles could be hired by departments and sections as well as by individual members of staff. The cycles would be equipped with lights and locks.
  4. The presence of a cycle repair and spares shop on campus would encourage all cyclists to keep their machines in roadworthy condition and properly equipped (and would provide the maintenance back-up for the cycle hire scheme). Bulk purchase of good quality lights and locks at reduced prices should be sought.
18 December 1995 (Amended 28 May 2004)