• Home
• What's new?

• About
• Cycling 2020
• Membership
  • Join the Campaign online!
• Newsletters
  • The current newsletter
  • Previous newsletters
  • Newsletter 'threads'
  • Advertising
• Events & diary
• Campaigning
• Elections
• Planning
• E-mail lists
• Resources
• Mapping
• Shop
• Links
• Contacts

• Get Acrobat Reader 
• Search the site 

Photomap
& Journey planner

Newsletter 44 (October/November 2002)

Contents:

• Bottisham cycleway
• Campaign meetings
• Hills Road
• Short Street cycle lane
• Neighbourhood Watch
• Storm in a teacup
• Cycle parking - 'Take a Stand'
• Tesco cycle parking
• Bike art
• Cycling as house contents
• Cycling shorts
• Try Cambridge without a car
• Green Belt routes
• London to Cambridge
• Home Zones
• Doomed to dissatisfaction
• Facts and figures from the County Council
• Commentary
• Newmarket Road roundabout
• Cycle of Crime
• Small ads
• Spot the cycle lane, number 9
• Letters
• Your streets this month
• Campaign Diary
• About the Campaign
• Elected Officers
• Contacting the Campaign

Bottisham cycleway

There has been a lot of cycleway construction in the Newmarket Road corridor over the last year and, although a bit more is planned, now is a good time to review the completed projects. The two major new sections are the off-road Jubilee Cycleway from the Green Dragon Bridge to Newmarket Road Park and Ride site (Sustrans), and the shared-use path from the Airport Way-Newmarket Road roundabout to Bottisham, via Quy (County Council). There is a related but disconnected section from Lode to Swaffham Bulbeck, and the City Council has upgraded the shared use path beside the Newmarket Road cemetery between Ditton Lane and Marshall's.

Taken together, all of this amounts to a significant new set of options for cyclists on the east of Cambridge. There is now a continuous, high-quality, off-road cycle route all the way from Bottisham to Jesus Green, and although some bits let it down a little, on the whole it is a good example of a radial cycle route. It is, of course, now part of the Sustrans National Cycle Network - NCN51.

Park and Ride signposts

The signposting of the Jubilee Cycleway at the Park and Ride site is useless. There is no clue at all to anyone to go out of the back of the car park rather than the front entrance. The cycleway entrance itself has a small map but no directional signage, so whilst the huge bike is a clue, a newcomer is unlikely to realise this is the way to the centre of town, because it doesn't look like it. There is in fact one sign at the car park entrance but it is only visible if approaching from Cambridge on foot or by bike. No-one arriving from out of town is likely to spot it. Clear signs visible to cyclists leaving the Park and Ride or coming from Quy are needed at the entrance, near the bus stop, and at the start of the Jubilee Cycleway. One recent visitor to Cambridge also pointed out that all the signs on NCN51 coming back out of town say 'Bottisham' which of course meant nothing to him. They need to say 'Park and Ride' too to be of any use to tourists.

Beyond the Park and Ride

Good

• The alignment is good - no sudden jogs or sharp corners on the new construction.
• The surface is generally excellent, although there has been some weed breakthrough already near High Ditch Road.
• Services and street furniture have been moved or re-levelled throughout to give a smooth ride.

Bad

• No priority at side-roads. The crossings of High Ditch Road, Albert Road, Longmeadow Road and Fen Lane have no cycle-priority or warning measures at all. Visibility is very poor at the first three of these due to buildings or vegetation. These should be raised crossings with priority for cyclists, but failing that there should be elephants' feet or a coloured strip or something to indicate to road-users that cyclists are likely to zoom out from behind the shrubbery and buildings. This is by far the most serious issue on the route.
• The kerbs are not flush. Not one is done the way Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure says it should be - bull-nose kerbstones are used throughout. Most of them aren't too bad, but as the plans specified flush, they really ought to have been made so. One of the worst, which has to be crossed at a shallow angle, is on the corner leading to the tunnel under the A14.
• You can't get on and off the route when you want to. For example, the drop kerb to access one farm has been removed for no good reason. Now you need to bump down or cycle 200 m extra to the nearest drop kerb and back.

Indifferent

• The project took eight months to complete.
• The width of the route is 2 m - the absolute minimum for this sort of facility. It's adequate but the difference between this and the 3 m Sustrans and City Council sections is stark.

As the Jubilee Cycleway was covered last month, this article mainly looks at the out-of-town section.

Airport Way to Quy

Good

• The lay-by outside the Ida Darwin Farm shop was removed to help keep the track away from the driveways. This is a rare example of removing some under-used car space so as to provide properly for cyclists.
• New signpost means that users will find the A14 tunnel more easily. I rode past this for three years before realising it was there.
• Edge markings have been painted on the whole unlit section.

Bad

A barrier has been installed past a small bridge on the Cambridge side of the Quy tunnel taking up cycleway width.

• A barrier has been installed past a small bridge taking up half the available cycleway width. It was not on the original plans otherwise the Cycling Campaign would have complained about it! On the next bridge along the barrier is installed inside the path where it takes no space at all from cyclists.
• The south side of the tunnel exit is an awkward double-90° bend. This wasn't in the plans we were consulted on - which used a few metres of the disused field corner here instead to smooth out the wiggle.
• Give-way lines have been painted every time the cycleway meets a kerb. This is particularly nonsensical outside the farm shop where the entrance gets give-way marks and the exit doesn't. There is also one at the tunnel access road which has about two vehicle movements a day. These unnecessary give-ways devalue the ones that do matter at High Ditch Road.
• A high hedge reduces visibility at the start of the tunnel approach.
• The cycleway goes up and down at each driveway. Given the amount of cycle traffic compared to people going into their drives, plus the very wide verges, the cycle track could have been kept horizontal and the crossing vehicles given level changes.

Sharp bends by the tunnel entrance were not ironed out.

Indifferent

• Half the surface on the track to the A14 tunnel was re-laid, but the other half only had the worst potholes filled.
• The layout of a bollard and a fence at the north end of the tunnel effectively reduces the tunnel to half-width.

Quy to Bottisham

Good

• The B1102 (Quy to Lode road) crossing is reasonably well laid out. It is much better than in the original plans, to which we objected.
• Give-ways have not been painted at every crossing or driveway.
• There is no bumping up and down when passing driveways on this section.

Bad

• There are no detector loops at the B1102 crossing. There is plenty of approach space to put detectors in, as the Campaign pointed out: stop, push button and wait is definitely second best.
• No flush kerbs: the Albert Road crossing (four kerbs) is particularly bad.
• The alignment past the easternmost houses is too close to high hedges and driveways.
• The B1102 crossing is somewhat spoiled by the tightish corner (effectively single-bike width) onto the Quy Mill access road, with a filled pothole in exactly the wrong place. Water pools on the corner here - it will be hazardous in winter.
• At the Wilbrahams junction a gravel drive is crossed. Any cyclist turning to go to the Wilbrahams here is likely to come off on the gravel.

Indifferent

• The road sign at the Wilbrahams junction does not have the regulation 2.4 m clearance.
• The route past Quy church is rather circuitous. However a good job has been done given the constraints, with properly rounded bends instead of 90° corners.

Lode to Swaffham Bulbeck

Bad

• Interesting jug-handle turn to join the route at Swaffham southbound, but it has no crossing markings on the road, no priority and is accessed at a shallow angle without a properly flush kerb.
• A drop kerb which would have allowed you to avoid the no-priority crossing with exceptionally bad visibility at Longmeadow Road has been removed.
• A couple of bollards on the pavement have been left in place.

Indifferent

• A long section of existing shared use, which is narrower than the rest of the route, overgrown and weedy, has been retained.

The ubiquitous Give Way even where there are hardly any vehicle movements at the access road to the Quy tunnel. The sign now makes it clear there is a way through avoiding the A14 roundabout though.

Past the cemetery

This short section of shared-use cycleway is constructed to a high standard. The surface is smooth, the width is good (because it is not divided into pedestrian and cycle parts), it does not dip at the one driveway crossing, the kerbs are flush, street furniture has been moved out of the way and there are flush access points for roads opposite. However it still suffers the perennial drawback of pavement cycleways in Cambridge: at the first side road crossing cyclists are expected to stop and give way.

An interesting new feature is a 10 m long flush kerb at the Marshall's end for rejoining the road or turning right into Meadowlands Road. It is not really flush - most of it is about 10 mm - but John Isherwood tells us this is to stop water pooling and causing an ice hazard in winter. Also cyclists will not be going up it at a shallow angle. The section at the end for cyclists continuing on the shared use is quite flush. But the flush access points for roads opposite shouldn't be directly opposite but some 50 m-80 m earlier so that cyclists can rejoin the road and correctly position themselves for a right turn. The existing drops assume the cyclist will stop, wait for a gap in the traffic and then cross (a 'Dutch' right turn). In practice, the various drops are close enough together that a sensible cyclist will just use the previous one so it's not a major problem.

Summary

A 10 m long, flush kerb has been installed at the Marshall's end of the new path alongside the cemetery on Newmarket Road for rejoining the road or turning right into Meadowlands Road.

So we have a route that suffers from fewer problems than in the past: it is generally wide enough, smooth, well-aligned, well-signposted and has some good crossings of major cross-routes. City Council construction has significantly improved and Sustrans construction is good. Let us hope that the County Council can learn to do better.

However it also has a number of failings on the out-of-town sections, some serious: very poor crossings of more minor routes, poor road access, a host of non-flush kerbs, some gratuitous narrowings, some confusing signposting, and it's only on one side of the road. The key problem is priority-at-side-roads and must be addressed. Someone will get flattened on one of these junctions eventually. It won't be me because I know better than to use them, but all the inexperienced cyclists the new route is attracting may not. Overall I think we can give this route 8/10.

Wookey

Campaign meetings

Cambridge Cycling Campaign holds a monthly meeting on the first Tuesday of (almost) every month. This year an unusual number of first Tuesdays have fallen on awkward dates. Tuesday 5 November continues this trend, as the annual fireworks display will be happening on Midsummer Common. We have therefore decided that:

• The November monthly meeting, on Tuesday 5th, will start at 8.30 pm instead of the usual 8.00.
• This year's Annual General Meeting will take place on Tuesday 3rd December, at 8.00 pm.

You might like to make a note of the AGM date now, as the next Newsletter will come out just a few days beforehand.

These meetings will take place at the Friends' Meeting House, on the corner of Jesus Lane and Park Street, in Cambridge. The topics covered at monthly meetings are varied. There is always ample opportunity for members to raise (cycling-related!) concerns, and ideas for campaign action. We often have up-to-date information about current council consultations, and seek members' views on them.

The next monthly meeting is on Tuesday 1 October - hope to see you there.

Clare Macrae

Hills Road

We are busy planning action against the proposed removal of the cycle lanes in Hills Road in order to install a bus lane between Cavendish Avenue and Long Road. We believe there are other options for resolving the delays to buses during the evening peak period. It is now obvious that the County Council consultations have been postponed, as no announcement has yet been made explaining what form the consultations will take or whether public meetings will be held. In the meantime we want to distribute leaflets and carry out surveys of the road use now that the holidays are over. For this we will need volunteers. If you think you might be able to spare some time to stand by the roadside or to distribute leaflets during the next months, please get in touch with the Campaign - we need all the help we can get.

Short Street cycle lane

This short and narrow cycle lane, nicely surfaced in red tarmac, appeared recently in Short Street. It has mystified many cyclists. In fact, this lane marks the end of a new pavement cycleway from Maid's Causeway, and it is meant to help cyclists merge back onto the road. Unfortunately, it doesn't make the build-out at the zebra crossing any easier to pass. (See Newsletter 39 for a summary of these changes.)

Neighbourhood Watch

On 20 July 2002 Girton Neighbourhood Watch (NHW) organised an Open Day. The aim was to make our community more aware of NHW activities and to introduce our local Community Beat Officer and some other members of the Histon Police force. Although the start coincided with a spectacular thunderstorm, we had a good steady stream of people coming through.

Douglas gets to work on a visitor's bike.

Among the stands was a Cycling Security and Safety stand, displaying posters and a number of cycle safety devices, from locks through fluorescent clothing and helmets to lights. We were very grateful to Chris' Bikes for the loan of the equipment, which was offered for sale (though, of course, no-one had money on them!).

As I talked to people who came through I was interested to discover how unaware many were of the progress which has been made in cycle lighting over the past decade or so. It was good to be able to demonstrate how small and portable, yet bright and reliable, modern lights can be.

Cycle post coding was offered on the spot, using an engraving tool; and it's good to report that there are now five more cycles in Girton at significantly less risk of being stolen.

Douglas de Lacey

One of our advertising posters.

Storm in a teacup

'A furious row is set to erupt between Britain and Europe over proposed legislation to make car drivers responsible for all accidents involving cyclists - even when the bike rider has broken the law and is in the wrong.'

That was the beginning of the lead front page article in the Observer on 4 August 2002. Only in the silly season could cycling be front page news. There was, of course, some substance behind the article: three paragraphs in a much longer document from the European Union about how to make it easier to insure your car Europe-wide. There was also some completely ignored good news for all road users in there about protecting victims from drivers who don't have insurance.

'Straight banana' legislation

The reasoning behind the proposals, as in other EU directives, is simply to make it easier to function Europe-wide by making the rules the same everywhere. Car insurance varies wildly from place to place, some countries operating 'no-fault' insurance and others relying on court decisions. Specifically on cycling, some countries already have a system where car insurance pays out automatically to cyclists involved in a crash.

The reaction to the press story was entirely predictable and exactly what the authors of that article - and those that followed - wanted to achieve: an orgy of cyclist bashing. In among that, there were some quite sympathetic articles too. The Observer's leader ('Cyclists are not all wonderful people') was careful to distinguish between 'benign' cyclists and 'Lycra-clad fanatics ... like a Mr Toad on two wheels'. Why just cyclists? The proposals apply to pedestrians too.

Straight banana legislation

Many of us reacted in the same way as the press: it isn't fair to have someone take the blame for someone else's failings. Personally I think that there are circumstances when this approach is reasonable. For example, because children cannot be expected to take full responsibility for their actions, drivers should have a special responsibility towards them that recognises this fact. I also think that there is a case for certain streets to be identified where the motorist is always assumed to be at fault in a crash. In a Home Zone (see page 11), the street is engineered to give priority to pedestrians and cyclists. If a car is unable to avoid a crash then the driver must, by definition, have been doing something wrong. (OK, there are exceptions, but the point is the reversal of the presumption of fault.)

There is also the consideration that where the balance of power is all on one side - as it is with big, fast, heavy vehicles operating in an environment designed almost completely for them, versus pedestrians and cyclists - there does perhaps need to be some redress in the balance of what 'fault' and 'blame' means.

But this is all academic, because what the article said was not really true.

Not true

Reading the original document reveals that it does not, in fact, propose making motorists take the blame for cyclists' faults.

The proposal covers only personal injuries, not damage to property. The newspaper articles conveniently left this information out, saying 'motorists to pay compensation and damages in all accidents with cyclists.' Even within the narrower aspect of injuries, the scope of this is unclear: does it include compensation or just the cost of medical attention (where, if there is an insurance policy covering the incident, the NHS recovers costs from an insurance company, but provides treatment in any case)?

The quote 'Motorists face blame for all crashes with bikes' in the Observer's front page article simply isn't true, even if indeed this gets beyond the stage of being a proposal. The proposal does not say anything about fault or blame (in which disputes would still be decided in court), but it does propose that driver's insurance pays out in a crash. At the moment, a cyclist would have to go through the long, expensive and risky business of taking the driver to court to obtain compensation. The presumption of fault is reversed to reflect the fact in the majority of cases.

The second Observer subheading quoted the RAC as saying 'Car insurance premiums set to rise by £50'. Where the RAC got this from is not clear. (Perhaps the cost of implementing the whole directive might raise premiums this much?) For the cycling and pedestrian cover clause, the proposal specifically says 'As far as the Commission is aware, such inclusion of pedestrians and cyclists in some Member States' legislation does not seem to have had a significant impact on the cost of the insurance.' Indeed, the amount of legal wrangling should be reduced in such a system. That is one of the big arguments in favour of no-fault insurance generally, as operated in the United States.

So what it boils down to is that the insurance company sues a cyclist when they think the circumstances of injuries are such that they can win a court case (and the cost of taking the cyclist to court is worth it). The cyclist would still probably have to sue to obtain redress for damaged bike, clothing and so on. This contrasts with the cyclist, who does not usually have the backing of a powerful insurance company, currently having to take the motorist to court in order to obtain compensation. What is wrong with that?

David Earl

Cycle parking - 'Take a Stand'

Take a Stand is a scheme that provides matched funding (up to 50%) for cycle parking facilities for employers in and around Cambridge. It is run and funded by the Cambridgeshire Travel for Work Partnership together with Cambridge City Council.

Take a Stand recognises that good cycle parking facilities at the workplace can make a big difference to staff travel choices. It can often make the difference between an employee choosing to cycle to work, rather than commuting by in other ways (including the car).

The way it works is that employers fill in an application form with details of the cycle parking (for example, bike racks, bike racks with roofs, etc.) that they are planning on developing, and the cost of their proposed project. The bids, which must include the design specifications of the proposed cycle parking, are considered against a range of criteria (for example, the location of the cycle parking on the work site, integration with other measures to support cycling, estimated effects on travel behaviour, etc.). Funding is provided for successful bidders.

Good cycle parking facilities at the workplace can make a big difference to staff travel choices

Employers are responsible for the construction of the cycle parking facilities. The bidding guidance includes details of contractors around Cambridge.

Application forms and guidance notes for employers will be available from 9 September with any funds being disbursed by the end of February 2003. The project has already been run successfully earlier this year, with new cycle parking supported at the Institute of Astronomy and Brookfields Hospital.

Application forms are available from Travel for Work, (01223) 712429, c/o Cambridgeshire County Council, Box ET1007, Room B313, Shire Hall, Cambridge CB3 0AP. bill@tfw.org.uk

Bill Park Weir

Tesco cycle parking

Cycle stands at the new Tesco store on Newmarket Road are inadequate. They don't support bikes properly because they are far too low at one end. An attempt has also been made to roof them, but the roof is not big enough.

Bike art

In our report on Bike Week in Newsletter 43 we did not have space for a full report on the Bicycle Art Competition. We were delighted with the entries and we thought readers would like to see the four winning entries. We would like to thank Ben Hayward's, www.dutchbike.co.uk and H Drake for their generosity in providing three of the prizes.

Michael Barnes won first prize, a £200 voucher from Ben Hayward, with this spread of five posters.

Les Waters won second prize, a www.dutchbike.co.uk voucher for £100, with this first day cover.

Claudia Anne Cope won third prize, a £30 voucher from H Drake, for this face made of cycle parts.

Leila Dorling won fourth prize, £15, for this bicycle made from quilled paper.

The Cycling Campaign posters are available in A4 and A3 laminated form or as A1 unlaminated posters. If you have the opportunity to display these - at college, library, hospital, surgery, village fair, etc. - you are welcome to borrow them.

Cycling as house contents

So do you have liability insurance when cycling?

Recent discussions in the media have made many aware of this problem, and most members of Cambridge Cycling Campaign will know of the problems with the Third Party insurance we used to offer via the CTC.

As a teenager in the 1960s I became aware of these issues when a friend on a bicycle knocked down an 'old lady', who was probably younger than I am now. She was on a Zebra crossing, broke her pelvis, and subsequently claimed damages amounting to several thousand pounds in today's money. My friend's father had no suitable insurance cover and had to pay the amount from his wages as a petrol pump attendant over several years.

I remember my father reading the small print of the 'Liability' section of his household insurance at that time, and have since always been conscious of individuals' liability, be it from branches falling off a tree in a garden, or children riding bicycles in a careless manner.

I do not believe that such third-party insurance should be compulsory, as incidents are rare, and claims for damage usually small. But I do think that if individuals have some form of household insurance it is worth ensuring that it does provide liability insurance for such accidents, including those involving a pedal cycle ridden by themselves or a member of their family.

The only vehicles excluded in their 'Liability' sections are mechanically or motor propelled ones

A quick trawl on the web produced six house contents insurance policies (Royal and Sun Alliance, Eagle Star, Liverpool Victoria, Norwich Union, Tesco and Lloyds TSB), which apparently cover liability resulting from cycle accidents. This is not a recommendation of any policy, but for all of these, the only vehicles excluded in their 'Liability' sections are mechanically or motor propelled ones. The two 'help lines' for policies that exclude mechanically propelled vehicles that I contacted said that liability for those involved in cycle accidents was included.

I suggest that you check your insurance policies, and then when someone says 'cyclists don't have insurance' you can say 'I do and so do most people.'

Jim Chisholm

Cycling shorts

Bill Park Weir, who has been the Travel for Work Adviser for the last year, will be leaving in November. The job will be advertised soon: please contact the Campaign if you would like to know more. In the meantime, we would like to thank Bill for his hard work and many achievements during the year, and wish both him and his family well in Australia.

Progress has been slower than expected in producing a new Planning Brief for the Cambridge Station area. It is now expected that the proposals will go out for public consultation in October or November 2002, and then to Council committees for adoption in January 2003. This planning brief is not a planning application, but simply to set written guidelines as to how development on the enlarged development area should proceed.

Charles Simmons-Jacobs has used Ipswich's new bus with a specially designed cycle trailer to travel from Debenham to Ipswich Station and, although the bus was a bit shaky, his bike arrived perfectly safely.

Try Cambridge without a car

The date 22 September has, for a number of years, been International Car Free Day. This year, more than a thousand towns and cities world-wide took part.

In London, where International Car Free Day is well established, this year the flagship event closed Tower Bridge to motorised traffic. Other activities included costume dancers, parades, interactive games, live bands and information stalls.

This was the first year that International Car Free Day was recognised in Cambridgeshire. Over the weekend of 21 and 22 September, the County and City councils organised a range of events called Try Cambridge without a car to promote travel alternatives to the car. These included:

• Free bike safety checks and security coding
• Discounts on cycle tours run by Geoff's Bike Hire
• A bus information stall in the Market Square
• A free historic walking tour around the city centre
• Free travel on some Park & Ride services, and various discounts were available when you presented a Park & Ride ticket

A pocket guide to sustainable transport in Cambridge has been produced, containing lots of useful information. This guide will be useful long after the International Car Free Day events are over. Copies of the leaflet are available by from Tim Carter ( Tim.Carter@cambridgeshire.gov.uk). Please give a leaflet to anyone you think might be interested in driving a little less!

For information on the events held in London, see www.londontransport.co.uk/tfl/carfreeday.shtml
. For information on other events in the UK, go to www.local-transport.dft.gov.uk/eurocar.

Clare Macrae

Green Belt routes

The popular series of local cycle route leaflets, describing rides around the Cambridge Green Belt area, has recently been updated and reprinted.

There are five routes, each with a different theme, and highlighting interesting places to visit:

• Route 1 - Earthworks and Landmarks (13 or 24 miles). A 'figure of eight' route to the north west of Cambridge.
• Route 2 - River, Canal and Roman Road (13 miles). A loop between Chesterton and Waterbeach, with a transportation theme.
• Route 3 - Settlement on the Chalk (12.5 or 25 miles). East to Dullingham.
• Route 4 - Local action for wildlife (16 or 25 miles). Exploring Cambridgeshire countryside south of the city, including many sites managed by local volunteers.
• Route 5 - Moats and Meadows, a Medieval tour (14.5 miles). A loop from Foxton railway station, then through Shepreth, Barrington, Haslingfield and Thriplow.

The pack of route leaflets, together with a summary leaflet and a Cambridge Cycle Route Map, costs £2.75, and is available from the following:

• Cambridge Tourist Information Centre
• Cambridgeshire County Council
• Cambridge Central Library
• Trumpington Park and Ride tourist office (limited opening hours)
• Milton Country Park

Clare Macrae

London to Cambridge

Riders arriving at the end of this year's London to Cambridge ride. Around 4,000 cyclists did this year's ride on 28 July, in scorching heat of over 30°C. The 54-mile ride started at Lee Valley Leisure Centre in London, ending with a festival atmosphere on Midsummer Common. The charity Breakthrough Breast Cancer hopes to raise £180,000 from the event.

Home Zones

Home Zones are residential streets designed to improve local quality of life. They aim to strike a better balance between the needs of drivers and other street users such as pedestrians - especially children and older people - and cyclists. Changes to the layout of the street emphasise this change of use, so motorists perceive that they should give informal priority to other road users.

Romsey Town: Dominated by cars, to such an extent that they now take over pavement space too, with the blessing of the authorities.

In June 2002, the Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers published new guidance on Home Zones which collated the experience gained from the nine pilot studies that were carried out round the country and which shared that experience with transport professionals and community groups.

Indeed, Transport Minister David Jamieson, who launched the new guide, drew particular attention to that point. He said: 'I encourage local councils, communities and residents associations to use this guidance and think about how Home Zones can improve the quality of life of their local area.'

Just improving the appearance of a street has a big impact. Streets have become dominated by cars, and their reconstruction to break up the house - garden - pavement - road - pavement - garden - house arrangement breaks this down and starts to reduce the domination.

There are problems implementing Home Zones. The foremost problem is cost. Reconstructing a street is not cheap: it costs many hundreds of thousands of pounds if done properly. Unfortunately, new streets are still nearly always constructed in the traditional pattern, although the cost of constructing them differently at this stage would be negligible. The Government has put £30 million into a fund to develop Home Zones further, and is now supporting 61 schemes (none in our area). That's half a million pounds per scheme on average.

Esdelle Street in Norwich has the feel of a Home Zone even though it isn't one of the trials.

The second problem is that, unlike their Dutch equivalent called Woonerf ('Living Street'), pedestrian and cyclist priority is not backed up by legislation. The standard of 'due care and attention' needs to be much higher in Home Zones.

We will be obtaining a copy of the guidance shortly.

David Earl

Doomed to dissatisfaction

I argue that building at pavement level inevitably leads to poor quality cycle facilities.

Off road or on road? That's a perennial question and has as many answers as there are cyclists. Some cyclists want to be as separate from traffic as they possibly can, irrespective of how poor or even legal it is. Others decry anything but the road as suitable for cycling and avoid off-road facilities almost on principle.

In between, there are those (like me) who take a pragmatic approach, using whatever suits the journey, mood and weather. Avoiding the worst facilities and confident in traffic to a greater or lesser extent, but using the better constructions when it suits us and welcoming them as an improvement.

Frequent driveways mean repeated undulations in pavement cycleways. This example is on the newly constructed path on Trumpington Road, though the ramps are better further on where the path is set back from the road.

Even when using them, nearly everyone is frustrated that facilities could be so much better. Seeing European examples shows just what we are missing. Some aspects of northern European practice are hard to emulate. Many continental cities are more geared around apartment living. So the preponderance of driveways we get here is often less. Communal off-road car parking fees up space. Other aspects, though, could easily be adopted.

Fundamental to all this is the way in which nearly all construction here - across the country, not just in Cambridge - is done at pavement level. The cycleway is a specialised part of the footway rather than the road way. Perhaps that's a hangover from the days when 'cycle facility' meant just allowing cyclists to use the existing pavement.

Secondly there's only limited willingness to give up some of the decades-old design parameters for roads and junctions - the way kerbs curve into a junction for example.

Pavement level facilities are hard to build. The space for getting machinery in is often limited. The foundations are not built to road standards, so weeds are often a problem within months of completion. Driveways, minor entrances and so on require a ramp down onto the road, and conventional pavement construction spreads these across the whole width of the path. This means each driveway presents a thump up and down for the cyclist.

Typical of European streets, this path is constructed at the same level as the road, is straight, smooth and level, and does not require a Give Way. Cars wait further back so do not block the junction.	Even when the cycle track is higher than the road, this typical arrangement (from Ry, Denmark) meets side roads with a smooth, straight, barely perceptible ramp, and crosses forward of the car Give Way line.

Being at the same level as pedestrians means each inevitably strays into the other's space. Often cyclists have to do so in order to pass safely. Cost and space considerations usually mean such facilities are only built on one side of the road, so two-way use is needed (and having to cross the road twice can reverse any safety advantages of a cycleway).

The way kerbs are curved at junctions means a pavement level path joins at an odd angle offset from the desire line, and also requires a wider road crossing.

At junctions, cyclists always have the Give Way against them. The best we have achieved so far in Cambridge is a three-way Give Way. The argument is that drivers cannot be trusted to give way in this country (well, not in Cambridge anyway) so it is not safe to reverse priorities. But this discounts the actual behaviour, where most cyclists don't observe the Give Way properly. Starting and stopping at these frequent intervals is frustrating and takes effort, so human nature means people don't do it. Unfortunately, some cyclists also don't know what the markings mean. I think the current arrangement serves largely to place the fault on cyclists when there is a collision, rather than doing anything to improve safety.

A typical Cambridge scalloped bump down onto the road: off the straight line, always a Give Way, cars frequently block the way and the kerb is not flush.

Furthermore, the many different directions cyclists should look - including 180° behind - is demanding. This is typically combined with pedestrians and cyclists coming together at the same point, tactile paving and inspection covers lessening stability, and often a bump down and a wiggle off the straight line. There's a lot to handle at once.

Where the path is not set back from the road, the splay of the kerb means that the ramp down and up isn't lined up with the path and is at an angle across it (see diagram). The slope is over a very short distance (unlike driveways), scalloped out of the path. Yet the width to cross is increased by the curve.

Wheelie bins often block pavement cycleways.

Pavements have other obstacles too. Permanent ones like bus stops and temporary ones like wheelie bins and parked vehicles all add to the mêlée.

Contrast all this with various European models which use a kerb to segregate the path - on both sides - from the road. Sometimes these are wide kerbs including planting, even car parking. But the path is at the same level as the road and the kerbs inserted after construction. This means it is all laid as part of the road, with all the advantages of foundations and mechanisation.

Segregation by level means pedestrians and cyclists don't mix. Ramps down are not needed - though sometimes cycleways are a half-level raised, where ramps down are gentle and straight, not a bite out of a kerb. Linking into junctions is smooth and at right angles. More fundamentally, being at road level when the junction is reached means that the path appears to be part of the junction, so side roads more naturally give way to them. In many places this is emphasised by the side road being raised, not the cycleway. Both the footpath and cycleway physically take precedence and cars have to drive over the continuous pair of paths, not the other way around.

At larger junctions, bringing the cycleways in at road level means it is easier and more natural to think of them as part of the junction, so are signalled as part of it, rather than as part of the pedestrian phase. Only at Barton Road, and perhaps the exit from Coldham's Common, do we really have this level of integration in Cambridge, with proper ramps and angles.

So, it is my contention that building cycleways as part of the pavement rather than part of - but separate from - the road way is inevitably doomed to create second and third rate facilities. Getting away from conventional pedestrian and car-oriented design - creating long smooth ramps and sharper junction angles, for example - could help. But fundamentally, road-level construction just makes the design thinking better for the end users.

David Earl

In Groningen, Netherlands, the footway and (separate) cycle track both run right across the mouth of many side streets, completely changing the perception of priorities.

Facts and figures from the County Council

Every year Cambridgeshire County Council's Environment and Transport Department produces a set of reports and plans about the road network. This year the department has changed the format of these documents (which are also available on the Web): there are now six documents, although so far I've obtained only three of them.

Traffic Monitoring 2001

www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/eandt/highways/tmr

This report describes the routine monitoring that takes place throughout the year using Automatic Traffic Counters, manual 'cordon' and 'screen line' counts, and some other special counts.

Last year the Campaign produced a poster which stated that more people cycled (5,733) into Cambridge than used Park & Ride (5,382) each weekday.

These figures came from last year's report, and I've since realised the figures were for entering and leaving the city, and for entering and leaving the Park & Ride sites. This year I've compared the number boarding Park & Ride buses with half the number of cyclists crossing the cordon round the city. For October 2001 this gives 3,079.5 cycling and 2,864 using Park & Ride, so the headline on the Campaign poster is still correct!

In this report, table 3.4 gives details of growth in traffic entering Cambridge, but it omits cycles. For completeness, cycling increased by 7.5% between Oct 2000 and Oct 2001.

The report also gives some preliminary results of monitoring on the 'improved' Trumpington Road in January 2002. Of some 2,750 people travelling south along this road between 4 pm and 7 pm, some 20% were in buses and 10% were on cycles. Journey times by bus between the Royal Cambridge Hotel and Waitrose were some 5 minutes quicker than by car. As these counts were taken before the cycle path was finished, and cycling for six months (during the road improvements) had been an adventure, it is likely that cycle numbers were lower than normal. From our survey some years ago I would have expected twice this number of cyclists. It would also have been interesting to see 'journey times' for cyclists over this stretch, as I beat the bus most days.

This exercise has relevance for Hills Road where proposed changes could make trips by cycle significantly less attractive. We expect the County to make comprehensive 'before' studies of modal split and journey times by all modes on this route.

Cycling increased by 7.5% between Oct 2000 and Oct 2001

Road Safety Monitoring 2001

www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/eandt/rdsafety

This report has a section on enforcement, which gives details on the effectiveness of 'Safety Cameras' (speed cameras). In Cambridgeshire there is now a partnership, approved by the government, which allows the cost of operating the cameras to be recovered from the fines paid. Unfortunately, new rules mean that some cameras may have to be removed as they are only allowed where there is a significant accident problem, and not where excessive speed discourages vulnerable road users from making trips. Nationally, a legal challenge has been made to this ruling, so there is some hope it may be overturned.

Otherwise I found this a disappointing report. Although there is clear evidence that minor schemes, especially those costing less than £20,000, have much better cost-benefit ratios, major schemes come in for much praise. For the A1(M) and similar schemes, it has been suggested by some people, that to report accident reductions on the 'improved' section and not to include increases in accidents elsewhere caused by 'generated trips' biases such statistics in favour of major schemes that increase capacity and reduce delays, against those that provide road danger reduction and hence improve conditions for vulnerable users.

Speed cameras: The County Council gets some of the money from fines now, but some cameras may have to be removed soon. That's because the Government listened to the car lobby who said, in effect, that it's OK to speed except where there have been lots of crashes.

Joint Road Accident Data 2001

www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/eandt/roadacc

This is the second year this report has been produced. It brings together accident data reported to the police (on STATS19 forms) with that collected at hospital accident and emergency departments and others.

It is becoming more common to use the word 'crash' rather than 'accident' to make it clear that crashes do not happen by accident. Perhaps next year I shall be able to report on the Joint Road Crash Data 2002 report.

Unfortunately, I can't find the tables I'd find most interesting. I believe that most serious crashes involving cyclists occur on high-speed rural roads and that, in Cambridge, you are far less likely per kilometre cycled to be involved in a crash than elsewhere in the country. In the report, table 6.3 compares city with county, and urban with county rural, but does not differentiate killed or seriously injured (KSI) with slight injuries. (Table 6.5 does differentiate like this, but only tabulates by local authority area.)

It is worth noting that over recent years pedal cycle fatalities in Cambridge have been very low (1997-2000 average was zero), but unfortunately next year's report will show that there has recently been a fatality. The motorist involved was subsequently charged with drink driving and failing to stop after an accident.

Jim Chisholm

Commentary

Newmarket Road roundabout

 

Newmarket Road eastbound: A new central cycle lane has been added on the approach to the roundabout at Barnwell Road. The idea is to make it easier for cyclists heading out of town to get into the correct position to leave the roundabout at the existing central cycle lane on the far side. Using cycle lanes in this way at roundabouts is a new idea and we will be watching to see how well it works in practice. Unfortunately the new lane starts too close to the roundabout, forcing cyclists to make a sharp right fork across the traffic. It should have started further back, at the point where the road starts to widen from one lane to two, allowing cyclists a much smoother movement into it.

Cycle of Crime

After having my bike vandalised at Meldreth station, I decided to look at security at all the stations from Ely to Meldreth. This article is the result. To find out what facilities are on offer to cyclists, I visited the stations and asked cyclists for their opinions on security arrangements.

Ely station: Cycle parking racks on the platform.

Ely is a busy station, offering a wide range of services, with cycle parking racks located on the platform. This is an important point, as you might hope this was a safe position where people would notice suspicious incidents. Commuter Richard Dean said that he felt safe leaving his bike here: 'You don't hear about bicycles being stolen. If I did, I might start walking to the station.'

The remaining stations are small, country ones with only a few hourly services, so they generally have few people passing through.

Waterbeach station: Cycle parking was installed in conjunction with the County Council.

Waterbeach, the only station with CCTV, is located on a minor road off the A10 and is unmanned. Good cycle parking was installed in conjunction with the County Council. Local resident Sarah Lewis said: 'These new facilities have made me really relax. I can go to work, knowing that my bike will still be here at the end of the day.'

Foxton station: Non-existent provision of cycle parking.

Foxton station is located beside the fast and busy A10 so criminal activity would go unnoticed. Cycle parking is non-existent and the bicycles I saw were locked to anything available.

Shepreth station

Shepreth Station, between The Pool Shop and Willer's Mill, offers excellent facilities*. Cyclist Andy Downing said that cyclists feel safe: 'You can leave your bicycle here for hours and you will come back and find it where you left it. These facilities are great because you can't see them from the road; they're fairly hidden which means vandalism or theft rarely happens.'

Meldreth station: 'People are scared their expensive new bike will be stolen or smashed up.'

Meldreth station is in a very isolated position - the far platform looks out on fields and the Melbourn bypass. There are no cycle parking facilities so bikes get locked to metal bars. The station is manned Monday to Saturdays until 2 pm. Cyclist Linda Billton said: 'There used to be lots of bicycles left here, now only a few people do. People are scared their expensive, new bike will be stolen or smashed up.'

'You don't hear about bicycles being stolen. If I did, I might start walking to the station.'

I regularly use Meldreth and always supposed that the lack of secure cycle parking here was repeated at other stations down the line. But the results of this investigation prove otherwise. Ely is best provided for, but why have Foxton and Meldreth been ignored? This brief survey suggests that secure cycle parking protects bikes whether it is positioned in the public gaze or hidden away, and in either case, encourages people to cycle.

Andrew Lansley, MP for Southern Cambridgeshire, said that he had been discussing the matter with WAGN: 'I am currently in correspondence with WAGN on this issue and am waiting for a response on improved cycle parking. I have also written to the Strategic Rail Authority to ask that this should be taken into account in the franchise renewal.' WAGN refused to comment.

Chris Fisher

* While appreciating the cover, the Cycling Campaign would disagree that V-grip racks are 'excellent facilities', not providing support or proper locking points, and also worries about 'hidden' parking as thieves can work unseen.

Small ads

For Sale

Girl's bike (suit age 6-9). Raleigh Elyssia, metallic pink, 5 gears, 20" alloy wheels, mudguards. Nearly new condition. Price: £50 donation to Cambridge Cycling Campaign. (01223) 410656 evenings

Claud Butler Carabo - 7005 Series - 2000 Model, 27 Speed Shimano Deore gears and quick shifters, front mechanical disk brake, rear Shimano Deore V-Brake, front RST 381 CL suspension forks, full size heat treated aluminium frame, Vuelta Airline 1 wheels. Very good condition. Ashley (ashsk8uk@hotmail.com) for pictures. £150 no offers.

Carlton 'Continental' club frame and forks circa 1975. 64.5 cm (25.5") centre-to-top, 531. £20 ono; David Green (01223) 449304 or for pictures and details : http://web.onetel.net.uk/~davidwgreen/

Britax Romer 'Jockey' child bike seat. Good condition, purple, red rear reflector, for child up to 22 kg. Fittings and instructions included. £20 ono; contact David Green (see above).

Top-tube child seat. Fits to gents or ladies frames. £10; contact David Green (see above)

Wanted

'Kiddie cranks' conversion kit for child riding stoker on an adult tandem. Mark or Lorraine (01223) 882378 Mark.Irving@care4free.net

Spot the cycle lane, number 9

Finish the job properly? Nah, they're only cyclists, they don't matter. Cambridge Cycling Campaign objected (unsuccessfully) to the plans for this pavement build-out at a new crossing on Tenison Road, but we did not expect the cycle lane to be quite so short.

Letters

Mandatory cycle lanes

Regards the comments reported in the article The Things People Say, number 2 (Newsletter 42) - e.g. motorists indicating that cycle lanes should be mandatory where provided.

I would like to point out to motorists that cycle lanes marked with a continuous white line are properly termed mandatory but this applies to the motorist, not the cyclist. This means that vehicles should not be parked in the cycle lane or incur a £20 fine. I expect that this legal restriction also applies to moving traffic as well [it does - Ed].

It's good that the council provide cycle lanes but when are the authorities going to properly enforce mandatory cycle lanes and make some examples of those motorists who seem to regard them as convenient parking space and, worse still, as inside lanes provided for the purpose of overtaking right turning traffic?

The whole point of cycle lanes is to keep vehicles and cyclists separate so that oversight by either party is less likely to result in injury.

Yes, dear motorist, we know you always check for cyclists before using the cycle lane but these lanes are provided for the times that you (or the cyclist) make a mistake - if you treat cycle lanes as optional road space then the whole point of having cycle lanes is undermined and we may as well scrap cycle lanes and instead rely on your perfect vigilance to protect us from injury.

After many years as a Cambridge motorist, cyclist and pedestrian I have yet to see the police, traffic warden or other authorities take action on a vehicle parked in a cycle lane - a blind eye approach seems to be the norm here.

Perhaps it is frustrating for motorists when cyclists choose not to use cycle lanes but if we are going to get into these 'waters' then let's first deal with the issues of motorists driving in cycle lanes which seems to be the more common and serious transgression.

Jon Lightbourne, Shelford

Enforcement?

I note reference in Newsletter 43 to abuse of the bus/cycle lanes on Shelford Road which I echo as I cycle from Sawston to Cambridge every day. I have never seen any police presence. How many prosecutions are there each year for abuse of bus/cycle lanes?

Richard Lane

'When are the authorities going to properly enforce mandatory cycle lanes and make some examples of those motorists who seem to regard them as convenient parking space?'

Helmets

Newsletter 43 elevates David Earl's article against the wearing of helmets to second feature, giving the impression that this irresponsible diatribe represents the organisation's considered view. If this is the case, many will think that the Campaign has abdicated any claim to represent the responsible voice of cyclists in this city.

He admits that his arguments offer 'no comfort to individual victims of crashes'. Society is made up of such individuals, and I for one know of at least two people who would have been alive now had they been wearing helmets at the time of their accident. Perhaps he would like to address his comments to their parents.

Against all the evidence, he seems to suggest that not wearing helmets actually makes cycling safer. The last figures I saw were that 75% of fatalities are caused by head injuries and 80% of these would have been a lesser injury had the cyclist been wearing a helmet. If this is not conclusive evidence, what is?

Most of us can remember when motorists resisted the introduction of seat belts, using the same specious arguments that David Earl now grinds out.

Life is indeed about taking measured risks - not about compounding them. I am glad that my grandchildren cycle to school, but I welcome the fact that they take proper precautions when they do so. I also applaud the fact that the Coleridge School authorities in my ward insist that pupils who cycle to school wear helmets.

The debate over whether helmets should be made more generally compulsory is still open and rational debate is welcome. In the meantime, Stephen Norris may resist 'dressing up as a spaceman.' For my part, in advancing years, I may not have much left between my ears, but I will take sensible action to protect what is there.

Martin Ballard,
County Councillor, Coleridge Ward

In my opinion Cambridge cyclists would be wise to read much the most detailed article on cycle injuries in Cambridge before deciding not to wear a helmet. This is 'Injury patterns in cyclists attending an accident and emergency department: a comparison of helmet wearers and non-wearers' by C Maimaris, C L Summer, C Browning and C R Palmer published in the BMJ on 11 June 1994 and available on the Internet (http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6943/1537).

This paper analyses data on 1040 patients presenting to the Accident and Emergency department at Addenbrooke's in a single year (1992) with cycle-related injuries, of whom 114 had worn cycle helmets when the accident occurred. It confirmed the protective effect of helmet wearing for Cambridge cyclists and is obviously far more relevant than data from elsewhere, where conditions are different, for discussion of whether Cambridge cyclists would be sensible to choose to wear helmets.

James Woodburn

Rusty prejudice

Oi! Cambridge! No! In Newsletter 43 you say 'There will shortly be a pilot project in Sheffield, a city better known for steel than for cycling, identifying some of the issues in the new role.' Actually Sheffield does have a bit of a reputation as a cycling city. Apart from a number of well-known cycling clubs, the area has spawned several world-famous racing cyclists such as Malcolm Elliott, Adrian Timmis, David Baker and Simeon Hempsall.

We have to put up with enough prejudice of the 'Oh, Sheffield's too hilly for cycling' variety without you lot joining in! Seriously the topography of the city is not necessarily a major factor in suppressing cycling - studies done both by ourselves and by the University of Sheffield suggest that road safety is a far greater concern. This is hardly surprising in the context of a city where 56 children are killed or seriously injured on the roads each year. Many residents of Sheffield, who cycle out to the Peak District at the weekend to tackle some fairly serious hills, balk at the idea of cycling to work in peak-hour commuter traffic.

And what do think those frames of yours are made of anyway?

Simon Geller, Secretary,
Pedal Pushers Sheffield Cycle Campaign
www.pedalpushers.org.uk

Your streets this month

Bad news

Cambridgeshire County Council's plan to remove the cycle lanes from a long section of Hills Road (between Cavendish Avenue and Long Road) and use the road space to introduce an outbound bus lane has taken a further step forward. The council's Cambridge Area Joint Committee has rubber-stamped an earlier decision by the council's ruling 'cabinet' to proceed with the scheme. There will now be a period of public consultation before a final decision is taken later this year.

As reported in Newsletter 43, this scheme would remove the best cycle lanes in the city and replace them with very narrow traffic lanes shared with other traffic. Cyclists would instead be expected to ride on the pavement in the inbound direction and, if one of the two alternative schemes were chosen, on the pavement outbound as well.

Cambridge Cycling Campaign has formed a campaign to save these cycle lanes, and will be doing its utmost to explain how their removal would be bad news for cyclists, pedestrians and local residents. Can you help? See the article on page 3.

Garry Drive: Planning permission refused to close this way into the Science Park.

Good news

A planning application by Bidwells, the company that manages Cambridge Science Park, to close the informal access from Garry Drive to the Science Park has been rejected by South Cambridgeshire District Council. The decision followed objections by Cambridge Cycling Campaign, Milton Parish Council and others. Cyclists and pedestrians will therefore be able to continue to use what is the most direct route to the Science Park from most of King's Hedges. Bidwells do, however, have the right to introduce a gate here and restrict access outside of working hours.

Other news

Construction work continues on a traffic-calming scheme in the Chesterton High Street area. As part of this scheme, St Andrew's Road was closed to motor vehicles at its junction with Elizabeth Way at the beginning of September.

Construction continues in Bateman Street, with a really bright, almost orange, cycle lane, and pits ready to have speed bumps installed alongside the new islands.

Construction work also continues on a traffic calming scheme in the Bateman Street area.

The opening of a new Tesco supermarket on Newmarket Road has given cyclists two new routes between Newmarket Road and Riverside. The main route leads from the main vehicle entrance near Cheddar's Lane (opposite the entrance to Cambridge Retail Park), past the east side of the store and down to Riverside. An alternative route leaves Newmarket Road a few hundred metres further west and leads past the west and north sides of the store before joining the main route down to Riverside. Unfortunately, both routes are obstructed by chicanes and are impassable to cyclists with trailers. The main route is also poorly integrated to the road network at each end. At Riverside there is no way off the pavement. At the Newmarket Road end most cyclists will need to skip the first section of the route and use the road instead.

The cycle paths into the new Tesco store off Newmarket Road and Riverside are blocked by some of the fiercest chicanes we have seen, completely unusable with a trailer, and in a location which is likely to see more trailers than most.

At present, the main value of these routes is that they provide access to the supermarket itself. In future, however, they are likely to form part of a new north-south route leading from Chesterton, across a new river bridge, through the Tesco site, across Newmarket Road at the existing signals and then through existing and proposed retail parks to the Beehive roundabout on Coldham's Lane. It is a pity, therefore, that the section of this route through Tesco has been designed to such a mediocre standard. Comments to: Peter Studdert, Cambridge City Council and to The Manager, Tesco Stores Ltd.

Long-overdue County Council proposals to improve Mitcham's Corner for cyclists, reported in Newsletter 41, have been delayed by several months following a 'mixed' reception to the public consultation, with some people opposed to the introduction of traffic signals or to the removal of some car parking spaces to make space for a pavement cycleway. Comments to Chris Creed.

Campaign Diary

October 2002
Tue 1	7.30 pm	Monthly open meeting, Friends' Meeting House, Jesus Lane, at the Park Street junction. (Tea and coffee, a chance to chat, and for us to introduce ourselves to new members for the first half-hour. The meeting proper starts at 8 pm.)
Wed 2	5 pm	Free cycle security coding at Cambridge Station Cycles, next to the railway station, until 7 pm. The security code is a deterrent to theft and enables bikes to be traced nationally.
Thu 3	7.30 pm	Cycle parking subgroup - revived. A meeting to discuss ways of improving cycle parking in Cambridge, at Bentinck Cottage, 3 Bentinck Street (01223) 354600.
Sat 5	10 am	Police cycle auction at the 29th Cambridge Scout Headquarters, Stanesfield Road, off Barnwell Road, Cambridge. Viewing from 9 am. (01354) 688197 for information.
Sun 6		Home Farm Trust 20 or 50 mile circular sponsored bike ride. Registration at Orford House, Ugley, Bishops Stortford. £6 p/p or £9, 1 adult & 1 child. hcolbert@hft.org.uk (01525) 376564.
Sun 13	1 pm	Leisurely Ride. A countryside ride, at a gentle pace. Meet at Hobbs Pavilion on Parker's Piece. Back in Cambridge around 4.30 pm.
Mon 21	7 pm	Join us for a social gathering at CB2 café 5-7 Norfolk Street.
Fri 25	8.30 am	Newsletter 44 review meeting, over breakfast at Tatties café.
Sun 27	1 am	British Summer Time ends. Set your clocks back, and don't forget your bike lights!
Tue 29	7 pm	Bicycle Maintenance 2 evening class, Coleridge Community College, Radegund Road. Five weekly sessions aimed at people with some experience of bicycle maintenance, this course builds on the basics and concentrates on other, less-everyday bike maintenance tasks. (01223) 712340/1 for information.
November
Tue 5	8.15 pm	Monthly open meeting. For description see 1 October, but this month's meeting is 30 minutes later than usual. The meeting proper starts at 8.30 pm.
Wed 6	5-7 pm	Free cycle security coding at Cambridge Station Cycles. See 2 October for details.
Sat 9		Newsletter 45 deadline. Please send copy to Mark Irving.
Sun 10	1 pm	Leisurely Ride. For description see 13 October.
Mon 18	7 pm	Join us for a social gathering at CB2 café 5-7 Norfolk Street.
Wed 27	7.30 pm	Newsletter 45 Envelope Stuffing at the Baby Milk Action offices, 23 St Andrews Street (between the Robert Sayle main and computer shop entrances, entrance next to Lunch Aid). Help very much welcomed!
December
Tue 3	7.30 pm	Annual General Meeting. For a description see 1 October.
Wed 4	5-7 pm	Free cycle security coding at Cambridge Station Cycles. See 2 October for details.
Sun 8	1 pm	Leisurely Ride. For description see 13 October.
Mon 16	7 pm	Join us for a social gathering and Christmas party at CB2 café 5-7 Norfolk Street.

About the Campaign

If you like what you see in this newsletter, add your voice to those of our 700 members by joining the Campaign.

Membership costs are low: £7.50 individual, £3.50 unwaged, £12 household. For this, you get six newsletters a year, discounts at a large number of bike shops, and you will be supporting our work. Please get in touch if you want to hear more.

Cambridge Cycling Campaign was set up in 1995 to voice the concerns of cyclists. We are not a cycling club but an organisation for lobbying and campaigning for the rights of cyclists, and for promoting cycling in and around Cambridge.

Our regular stall on Saturdays outside the Guildhall is the public face of the campaign; volunteers are always welcome to help. And don't forget our meetings, open to all, on the first Tuesday of each month, 7.30 for 8.00 pm at the Friends' Meeting House, Jesus Lane, Cambridge.

Elected Officers

Co-ordinator - David Dyer

Liaison Officer - Clare Macrae

Membership Secretary - Dave Earl

Newsletter Editor - Mark Irving

Treasurer - Simon Nuttall

Stall Officer - Paul Tonks 07870 441257

Press Officer - Sam Davies

Officers without portfolio
Jim Chisholm, Nigel Deakin, Richard Taylor,
Lisa Woodburn and Wookey

(Non-Committee) Secretary & Webmaster Martin Lucas-Smith

Contacting the Campaign

Cambridge Cycling Campaign
PO Box 204
Cambridge CB4 3FN

Telephone and fax (01223) 690718

Web www.camcycle.org.uk

E-mail contact@camcycle.org.uk

This newsletter is printed on recycled paper by Victoire Press, Bar Hill.