• 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 49 (August/September 2003)

Contents:

• The guided bus scheme
• Recruit a friend or colleague
• Can you help on the stall?
• What do these five schemes have in common?
• River bridges
• Correction
• Option C for Hills Road?
• Milton Road bus lanes
• Queen's Road
• Cattle Market and The Junction development: an update
• Trinity Street: a way through?
• Red paint and lights at Mitcham's Corner completed
• Herbert Street open to cycles
• My Way
• Bike week - didn't we have a lovely time!
• Council quietly shelves parking charges
• Clearing East Road
• Commentary
• The Tins
• Behind the scenes of the Campaign
• Cycling shorts
• Some cycling Councillors
• Oakington cross roads
• Pass or Fail?
• Cycle parking at the station
• Trumpington Road cycle count
• Training gets a boost
• Letter
• Campaign Diary
• Small ads
• Your streets this month
• About the Campaign
• Elected Officers 2002-2003
• Contacting the Campaign

The guided bus scheme

Cambridge Cycling Campaign supports better public transport as a means of reducing private car traffic. At the same time, we are aware that some of our members are concerned about the effects of extra buses in the city, especially in the centre. We are uneasy about giving wholehearted support to the proposed guided bus scheme. This article describes the complicated background, and our concerns.

Cambridgeshire County Council is consulting on the provision of a guided bus route from Huntingdon to the Trumpington Park & Ride site and to Addenbrooke's hospital. We've been here before: in the past a private consortium (SuperCAM) proposed a similar scheme. The Transport Works Act (TWA) required by this scheme will almost certainly necessitate a public inquiry next year. By the time you read this, you will have a few days left to let the county council know your views on the first stage of the consultation.

What's gone before?

The private consortium in the past proposed a similar route, but with ultra modern, ultra expensive articulated vehicles using special guidance (buried cables, white lines or 'grooves'), even on roads within the city. The publicity made these vehicles look like trams, but they weren't - they were simply enormous buses which would certainly have made the streets of Cambridge less pleasant for cyclists and possibly more dangerous. The Campaign might well have found it necessary to oppose their introduction.

We've also had the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi Modal Study (CHUMMS). Basically this reported that, before the A14 was upgraded, a viable public transport alternative should be provided for the many people who commute from the Huntingdon area to Cambridge. Even with such a system, there is still a probability that increased congestion within Cambridge will be caused by the extra capacity of an upgraded A14, and that some form of traffic restraint would be advisable.

What's new this time?

These guide wheels run along the edge of a concrete trough when the bus is in the guideway. They protrude only an inch or two from the side of the bus in normal driving.

Last year the County Council submitted a bid for a modified scheme to Government as part of its annual progress review of the Local Transport Plan (LTP). As this was only an appendix of a report, it received little publicity at that time. The scheme they submitted broke many of the links with the previous consortium, and proposed an open scheme using conventional buses. In an open scheme, any suitable vehicle can use the guided sections for some charge. A conventional bus just needs to be fitted with small guide-wheels to steer itself along the guideway. This means that buses can run directly from villages to any other destination, but they can use the guideway to reduce journey times and avoid much congestion.

What's this got to do with cyclists?

Clearly anything that reduces the number of motor vehicles, or at least slows the increase, must be good for cyclists. However, if you've seen the consultation you might have been alarmed to see little reference to a long-anticipated cycleway alongside much of the bus route. We believe that the Council has designs for helping cyclists but that they are hardly mentioned in this first round of consultation due to the legal process.

Because the guideway cannot be used by normal vehicles, it is deemed necessary to have a maintenance and emergency access strip about 3 metres (10') wide along nearly all of its length. For most of the route, no additional land outside the existing corridor will be required, but there are some locations where small pieces of land will need to be obtained via the TWA. I understand that a separate bid will then be made (via the LTP) to ensure that this strip is raised to a standard that will allow its use for walkers, cyclists and horse riders, because the TWA itself cannot be used for a cycle scheme.

So if all this goes ahead, we should have some 20 km (12 miles) of new cycleways, meaning that the city, the Science Park and Addenbrooke's will be within comfortable cycling distance of thousands more people. We'll have new links under the A14 near Histon and a route from the railway station, under Hills Road Bridge and on to the south. All we will need then is a cycle link alongside the rail line from Cambridge Station to Chesterton Junction. We will be objecting to the suggestion that there is no demand for a cycle route through the cutting from the Trumpington Road Park & Ride site to Shelford Road: it appears that the wrong questions were being asked at the wrong place.

What's the catch?

The guided bus scheme would mean pressure for more bus lanes in areas where routes are on normal streets, and there would be more buses in the city centre. Little detail is available on the bus lanes proposed, but don't expect any of the following roads to become easier to cycle along:

• On Milton Road, bus lanes would be introduced between Elizabeth Way and Ascham Road (where there is already an outbound bus lane which the new one might replace), between Elizabeth Way and Arbury Road (which would involve road widening and removal of some parking spaces) and between Lovell Road and the start of the new busway where the level crossing is now.
• On Histon Road, a short bus lane would be introduced between King's Hedges Road and Blackhall Road.
• On King's Hedges Road, a short bus lane would be introduced at the western end.
• On Station Road, parking would be removed to provide room for a bus lane for the whole length.

Some of the council papers on this subject talk about 'queue relocation' and extra control of lights. These are measures that can speed up all buses without the need for dedicated bus lanes. Unless the bus measures as a whole reduce the number of private motor vehicles entering the city, cyclists could be seriously disadvantaged. The Campaign will resist changes that make conditions worse for cyclists.

Jim's rule of thumb says that the occupants of a one kilometre queue of cars will fit easily into two buses, so which would you rather have? On the other hand if no real attempt is made to reduce private car use at the same time, the new bus passengers may be ex-cyclists rather than ex-motorists, and 'sustainability' then becomes 'madness'.

Jim Chisholm

Recruit a friend or colleague

The printed version of this newsletter should contain a Cycling Campaign membership leaflet and a poster. Please help us by passing on the leaflet to a friend or colleague who might be interested in joining. If you would like more, please just get in touch. Please could you also put the poster up at work, or in your window or some other convenient (and conspicuous) place?

The Cycling Campaign has grown steadily since its inception. Currently, membership has levelled off at about 700 members. The inevitable turnover of people leaving Cambridge or simply dropping out is roughly balanced by new members. We would like your help recruiting new members.

If you are reading this on-line, please would you pass on the website address www.camcycle.org.uk: there's a link to membership details on the front page and there are on-line copies of the membership form. Copies of the poster are available online at www.camcycle.org.uk/membership/poster.pdf, or just contact us for paper copies.

Can you help on the stall?

Stall officer Paul Tonks is always looking for people to help on our Saturday stall in the market square. If you can help, please get in touch with him on 07870 441257 or email pt10001@cam.ac.uk.

David Earl

What do these five schemes have in common?

In June, there was an extra meeting of the Cambridge Environment and Transport Area Joint Committee at which councillors from both City and County councils decided on detailed traffic matters affecting the City. This meeting was held to consider five proposed accident reduction schemes (see Boxes).

The schemes are described as minor in nature, but they particularly affect cyclists and we made extensive representations about them (eight pages of letters in the end). We also discussed the schemes with the officers involved and made a number of site visits of our own and with councillors.

And the common factor? Disappointingly, not one of our comments was accepted in the report to committee. No changes at all were made in response to the consultations. We wonder why they bothered doing a consultation at all.

As a result, some of the longest sections of cycle lanes installed in recent years will be of substandard width. Cycle lanes and paths will be created with restricted visibility, wiggling in and out. Though there was much discussion at the meeting around the points raised, councillors conceded only one point by not agreeing to the build out proposed for Barton Road. Councillors rejected the 'Think Bike!' signs along Cherry Hinton Road.

It is not as if we were wholly negative about the proposed changes. There was a lot to support in what was being proposed, and we did offer support. We acknowledged attempts at innovation on King's Hedges Road, even though we thought they wouldn't really work. As none of our positive comments were reported to the committee, the Officers' report made us look wholly negative and obstructive, which was absolutely not our position. This misrepresentation was exacerbated by previous paragraphs reporting 'substantial local support' for the schemes (based on responses to tick-box type questionnaires).

With hindsight we should have copied all our letters to councillors. As a result of this experience, in future we will make a practice of sending all our consultation responses to councillors. There is a problem with committee agendas and Officers' reports: they are only available a week or so ahead of the meeting and, in fact, most decisions are effectively made a few days ahead of the meeting when the political parties have private meetings.

So if we want to make representations on what Officers say, we have only a day or two to do it to have any chance of anything changing. The timetable is also tight for councillors (who are part-time volunteers too): how can they make informed decisions on agenda papers, sometimes a centimetre thick, with only a few days to read them?

We are deeply disappointed with the whole process on this occasion, as we have been on many others. We are disappointed that road schemes which affect cyclists on such a scale are commissioned while ignoring the Cycling Campaign's considered view. And we are disappointed with the Committee's apparent willingness to go along with mediocre, below-standard works for cyclists instead of seeking to uphold the highest possible standard of provision in Britain's premier cycling city.

David Earl

River bridges

In February we received an e-mail from Ann Fiddes, a Campaign member, on the problems she was facing due to the barriers on the Fort St George-Pretoria Road footbridge. Ann described the problems in Newsletter 47. Many other bridges over the Cam have similar problems: inappropriate obstructions or footpath (rather than cycle way) status. Ann also contacted a number of councillors on the issue, several of whom took an interest and themselves contacted Officers at Cambridgeshire County Council to see what could be done.

We were therefore extremely pleased when an on-site meeting with Councillors, Officers and ourselves was arranged. In the space of a few weeks, Ann had kicked off an issue that the Campaign had itself tried to raise over several years.

The meeting took the form of a tour of seven of the river bridges: Green Dragon, Fort St George, Sheep's Green, Garret Hostel, the Mill Weir (by the Mill public house), Cutter Ferry, and the bridge by Jesus Lock. The meeting was very positive, and a number of areas for improvement were identified which could potentially lead to cycling being legally allowed over these bridges. Many of these measures could also improve the pedestrian environment, currently worsened by the presence of bollards and other obstructions. We followed up the meeting with a letter outlining the points discussed.

It was clear that, generally, cycling over these bridges did not itself cause problems, but the excessive speed of a few inconsiderate cyclists did. A working party, consisting of further council officers and ourselves, as well as a representative of Living Streets (the Pedestrians' Association), met to consider the issues in more detail. We discussed designs which might reduce excessive speed and other measures which would facilitate legal cycling. This was another very positive and constructive meeting, which again we followed up with a letter.

The most recent development was a meeting at the Bike Week breakfast to try out a new bollard arrangement for the Green Dragon bridge. Using the temporary cycle parking scaffold brought to the breakfast by Committee member Jim Chisholm, a variety of potential arrangements were tried. Some difficulty was found here because of the width of the bridge, but we are confident that a solution can be found, given the will to do so.

We understand that the measures proposed will need to be approved by others at the County Council. We hope that the consensus that has been achieved can be carried forward and that the proposed improvements, possibly started as experimental measures, will allow Green Dragon Bridge to lose its 'cyclists dismount' status. We will keep you updated.

We congratulate Ann for the fuss she made in bringing this problem to the attention of councillors, since it has allowed all these bridges to be looked at by the County Council. This shows again how important it is for individual members of the Campaign to write to raise their concerns.

Martin Lucas-Smith

Correction

In Newsletter 47 (Crash) I said that there was no obligation for police officers to record details of cycle accidents, even if injury resulted, unless a motor vehicle is involved.

Paul Stubbings, Cambridgeshire Constabulary's Casualty Reduction Officer, advises us differently. He says that in Cambridgeshire, police officers are specifically told that all accidents that result in injury must be recorded. We are pleased that these instructions have been given, but are concerned that they are not always followed.

Jim Chisholm

Option C for Hills Road?

The prospect of losing the cycle lanes on Hills Road leading up to the lights at Long Road has receded a bit.

Cambridge Cycling Campaign thinks that changes to the timing of traffic lights at Addenbrooke's roundabout could solve the problem - occasional delays to buses along Hills Road - making a bus lane unnecessary.

A significant majority of respondents to the County's consultation exercise opposed both proposed options. Much of that opposition came from Cycling Campaign members and cyclists and residents we canvassed on Hills Road (see Newsletter 46). As a result both of these options have now been withdrawn.

These options involved narrowing the inbound traffic lane to make room for an outbound bus lane. The bus lane would have had either a narrow cycle lane inside it (which required some road widening) or not, putting cyclists who didn't want to share a narrow bus lane onto a poor quality pavement alongside. Our main concern was the conflict generated between cars and cyclists in the narrowed inbound lane, the Milton Road effect.

County Council officers came up with a third option for a recent meeting of the Cambridge Environment & Transport Area Joint Committee. This is the body which combines councillors from the City and County councils and which decides the details of traffic schemes within Cambridge. However, Councillors decided not to accept the officers' recommendation. Instead they asked for more timings to be done to clarify the case for a bus lane before taking any further action on another option.

This was the sensible outcome which we had been asking for. There may once have been a bus that was delayed for as long as was being claimed in the original justifications for the bus lane, but it became clear that no systematic effort had been made to look at the typical picture.

We have done several sets of timings of our own since the scheme was mooted, including two more surveys before the recent committee meeting. These showed that there were no delays for most of the time, and most of the year. Even at the short peak time when buses did get held up a bit, delays were nothing like those being suggested officially.

Our figures revealed a couple of other interesting details. Firstly, when traffic was held up, it was frequently a knock-on effect of the traffic lights at the Addenbrooke's roundabout, or further up Babraham Road. Retiming the lights at the roundabout, and closing Worts' Causeway in the afternoon peak to allow less red time at its junction with Babraham Road would go a long way to shaving off the extra minute or two's delay.

Secondly, the bus schedules were bizarrely random and unpredictable. People waiting for a supposedly ten minute frequency bus might have had to wait 25 minutes, or find two arrive very close together. This was the case even outside peak times, and despite the large amount of slack allowed for in the timetables (the C1 often kills time for ten minutes at Fulbourn Tesco, for example).

Time spent waiting at bus stops is clearly a big factor in journey times as a whole. Whether a bus stopped at the stop before Long Road accounted for much of the variation we saw in our timings.

A new Option C

The story is not over yet. Though deferred for the time being, the new option proposed may yet be promoted. This still proposes an outbound bus lane. This would be shorter than originally proposed, but with the possibility of extension later. (Of course, anything might be changed later, whether mentioned explicitly or not).

The road would be widened to allow room for a cycle lane to remain inbound. However, the existing adequate width lane would be reduced to a grossly substandard width of one metre. In the outbound direction, a rather higher standard segregated pavement cycle track would be installed instead of the appalling shared-use one previously suggested (and cyclists could still use the bus lane as many would prefer to do).

So while this is an improvement over what was previously proposed, the scheme still squeezes cyclists. The present model arrangement is degraded to a poor one.

Storm clouds gathering

Two other related matters give us cause for concern. Firstly, the new Rapid Transit proposals (see article) would mean yet more bus lanes being introduced on streets which have cycle lanes at present. We could end up fighting bus lane after bus lane because of the negative impact on cycling, when we would much rather be welcoming buses in conjunction with high quality conditions for cycling. Indeed, at the Area Joint Committee meeting the officer concerned stressed the importance he placed on not abandoning the Hills Road bus lane because of its implications for other routes. It is astonishing that despite the priority cycling is supposed to have in policies, the reallocation of road space to cyclists that we've been suggesting for years (for example, in Station Road and Hills Road), and which never happens, is almost taken for granted where buses are concerned.

Secondly, it appears as if officers have quietly changed their Council's policy. In justifying the new bus lane, they say 'greater benefits accrue, in modal shift terms, from bus use as opposed to cycle use.' In other words, they appear to have given up on the part of the Local Transport Plan which gives higher priority to cycling than buses. This is particularly disturbing as it seems to imply that existing cyclists will see their cycling environment degraded if more people can be persuaded to use buses.

Not over yet

Local councillors have said that they don't like the new option any more than the previous two. We also have to wonder how residents will react to all of their grass verges being destroyed if the new option were to go ahead.

But this fairly short bus lane is perhaps only a skirmish in a bigger struggle to prevent bus schemes squeezing cyclists off all the main roads into the city.

David Earl

Milton Road bus lanes

Design of a proposed pavement cycleway to replace the cycle lanes on part of Milton Road has been sent back for further consultation.

While Councillors recently approved in principle the introduction of a new stretch of outbound bus lane on Milton Road (see Newsletter 48), there was a little more to the decision than we realised. In noting our concerns, the committee required further consultation on the design of the proposed pavement cycle path, and the legal process that goes with it. This will now happen over the summer.

This doesn't, of course, have any bearing on our main concern - that cyclists are being forced off the road onto the pavement, especially in the opposite direction to the bus lane. We fear narrowed traffic lanes will have the same effect as further down Milton Road where motorists' impatience means cyclists are abused, harassed and in some cases even assaulted. The additional consultation does, however, offer the opportunity for the alternative to be of a higher standard than originally proposed. We commend councillors for this concession.

Don't hold your breath, however. There's no reason to think that officers' implacable opposition to giving cyclists priority at side roads will be in any way reduced by councillors sending the design back for further consultation.

Removing the traffic queue to reach the A14 from the science park will increase traffic.

Meanwhile, in a related decision, car traffic is being given a dedicated lane to get out of the Science Park and onto the A14. While the direct impact on cyclists is not likely to be great (most currently use the path on the other side of the road, and we expect nearly all of those will transfer to the new Milton bridge when it is opened) our concern is largely that this new lane will remove one of the disincentives to drive to the Science Park. Traffic will increase overall.

David Earl

Queen's Road

We've long complained about the inadequacy of the crossing of Queen's Road linking Burrell's Walk with Garret Hostel Lane. We reported in Newsletter 48 that it was going to be changed. The work has now been done. The crossing has been turned into a Toucan (shared by pedestrians and cyclists), where previously cycling across was an offence, though universally done. It has been lined up with the approaches so it is much more convenient and does not tangle walkers and cyclists around artificial barriers. We have been assured that detector loops will be installed in the approaches so cyclists don't have to find a button to push, but this has not happened yet. When it does, the crossing should be a model of its kind. The ice cream van that has a licence to park in the approach will move at the end of this season.

Cattle Market and The Junction development: an update

A massive development of leisure facilities (cinemas, bowling alleys, bars, restaurants, flats, shops, auction rooms and a hotel) is being built off Cherry Hinton Road, opposite platform one at Cambridge railway station. We reported in Newsletters 47 and 48 that the Council's mandatory cycle parking standards were not being observed in this development.

We complained and submitted a formal objection to a planning application for the multi-storey car park at the development, saying that as much cycle parking as possible should be provided close to the entrances of each of the buildings in the development but that any shortfall should be housed on the ground floor of the car park. This location would be far from ideal but much better than insufficient cycle parking. Our objection has now been rejected. No cycle parking is to be provided in the multi-storey car park.

We now have a much clearer idea of how serious the shortfall is. The planning officer responsible reported at the planning committee meeting that the council's standards require approximately 1100 cycle parking spaces for the development as a whole. The exact number cannot be specified until the uses of the various buildings are known in more detail. The officer reported that only about a third of this number of spaces are at present planned but that he intended to get the number up to about 50%.

Condition 44 of the planning permission granted for the development on 6 September 2000 requires that cycle parking is designed into the scheme and is available before the various buildings are brought into use. Full details of the numbers of parking spaces and the type of stands to be used have to be approved by the local planning authority in writing before work starts. But the local planning authority appears not to be enforcing this requirement. We find it difficult to believe that the planning authority could have agreed in writing to the extremely meagre cycle parking, well below the standards, located at Cheffins' offices and auction rooms, or to the wheel-bending cycle stands in the adjacent flats. Work on all the other buildings is under way but there is still uncertainty about how much cycle parking is to be provided. Worse still, a Section 106 agreement - drawn up between the planning authority and the developer - provides for a professional assessment of cycle parking requirements to be made a year after completion of the development. This seems to us to violate the whole principle stressed by the planning authority that cycle parking should be designed into the scheme and should be available from the start. What's more, the site is to be so crammed with buildings that it is hard to imagine that, a year after completion, there will be any suitable space available for additional cycle parking where it is needed (close to the entrances of each building) or, indeed, anywhere else.

Even worse

This cycle parking at the Junction will disappear.

Matters have now got even worse. A planning application has just been submitted to greatly increase the number and size of the auditoria at The Junction which is next to the Cattle Market development. First indications are that 66 cycle spaces will be needed to meet the standards for the redeveloped Junction. Unbelievably the architects for the scheme propose to remove all the existing cycle parking for members of the public and not to build any new on-site parking at all for them. Instead, cyclists going to The Junction are supposed to use the inadequate parking in the Cattle Market development. We have, of course, submitted an objection to the Junction's planning application and will be pursuing this vigorously.

We find the whole situation bizarre. The cycle parking standards are mandatory. They specify the minimum number of spaces that must be provided. They 'shall not be adjusted' (paragraph 5.10.1 of the 1996 standards which apply to the Cattle Market development). Why does the City Council have mandatory cycle parking standards if it doesn't enforce them?

James Woodburn

Trinity Street: a way through?

Good news

In a bold and very welcome move, councillors have voted to allow two-way cycling in Trinity Street between 10 am and 4 pm Mondays to Saturdays (when almost all motor traffic is prohibited), as an experiment. The next steps are formal consultation and decisions about signage needed.

Background

Cycling is currently allowed in Trinity Street at all times when travelling from Bridge Street to King's Parade. However, cycling in the other direction is not permitted, nor is there any suitable alternative route during 10 am-4 pm, as the city centre cycling ban prohibits this.

As we reported in Newsletter 45, the Cambridge Environment and Transport Area Joint Committee resolved in October 2001 that 'there should be a comprehensive review of cycling access in the city centre, with a view to minimising cycling restrictions whilst maximising pedestrian and cycling safety.' This resulted in a questionnaire, which, as would perhaps be expected given that it did not stop cyclists to obtain their views, resulted in support for maintaining the status quo of the cycling ban.

In a response earlier this year to some local Councillors on the City Centre Review, we said:

The City Centre Review needs to accept the principle of a more direct convenient North-South/South-North route at the very least. We believe that, with Officer co-operation and thorough investigation (rather than outright dismissal), Trinity Street could be such a candidate and would resolve many of the problems we currently see. ... The lack of a northbound route, we believe, is a contributor to the level of illegal cycling currently encountered.

We were delighted when on 20 January, City and County Councillors asked Officers to produce a report on how, not whether, two-way cycling could be enabled in Trinity Street, either part-time or all day, as we reported in Newsletter 46. Several councillors, to their credit, spoke strongly in support of such a change. This report came back to the Committee in July.

Councillors voted 7-3 in favour of a 6-month experiment to allow two-way cycling in Trinity Street.

The Officers' report and the vote

As expected, the Officers' report came out heavily against making Trinity Street two-way for cyclists. Although much of their report was well-written and raised valid points, we were unconvinced that Officers really displayed the will to see how two-way cycling could be facilitated, instead sticking to the line they have always taken.

Despite this intransigence, Councillors voted 7-3 in favour of a 6-month experiment to allow two-way cycling in Trinity Street from 10 am-4 pm, Monday to Saturday. We congratulate them on this decision. Councillors have given officers a clear message to facilitate an experiment making Trinity Street two-way for cyclists.

What happens now?

Two things will now happen. In brief, the Area Joint Committee agreed to:

• Consult on an experimental Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). It is rumoured this may take the form of consultation with city and county councillors as well as interested parties.
• Ask Officers, in consultation with the chair and local councillors, to prepare details of fixed signing, to be submitted to the Department for Transport for authorisation.

We will be watching to ensure that these steps are carried out in a fair and efficient manner. In particular, we believe Officers must ensure that, if there is more public consultation than the minimum needed for a TRO, it must mention that cycling is already legally permitted in one direction, for the avoidance of any doubt.

The Chair of the Committee hoped that the above could lead to final approval at the Area Joint Committee meeting in October.

The Campaign will probably engage in a leafleting exercise at the start and during the experiment, to make cyclists more aware of their responsibilities not to abuse the allowance being given to them. Although we are fully convinced that the experiment is justified, we strongly believe that cyclists have responsibilities too, as we discuss in our Position Paper on Responsible, Legal Cycling, featured in Newsletter 48.

Martin Lucas-Smith

Red paint and lights at Mitcham's Corner completed

The £175,000 scheme to improve safety at the Mitcham's Corner one-way gyratory system is now complete. It's been a long time coming, and we commend County Council officers and councillors for their tenacity and persistence in getting a good scheme agreed and implemented.

Mitcham's Corner has long been a serious barrier and obstacle to cyclists coming into Cambridge from the north. Confident cyclists have always used the big roundabout, but even for them it was a tricky and hazardous experience, with long detours for some journeys. Safe passage used to rely on the ability to cycle at high speed, weaving between lanes as the car traffic does.

Less confident cyclists tended to ride on the pavements and crossings, or to use adjacent side streets. The down-side of those were illegality, and the inconvenience (for example, if using Carlyle Road you are met with a zebra - not legal to cycle across - and Jesus Lock bridge - not permissible or really possible to use on a bike).

The recent changes put several traffic lights on the key entrances and exits from the roundabout. This means that cyclists largely don't have to contend with weaving traffic streams and having to look in lots of directions at once. (Nor do motorists - not all motorists are confident at fast moving criss-crossing traffic gyratories like this ether). Advance stop boxes allow cyclists to put themselves in very visible positions at the lights, and the amount of red surfacing in general shouts 'Bike!' at motorists.

Numerous shared-use pavements have been designated for those who prefer not to stay on the road. One group forms a segregated route across the middle of the junction making the direct north-south desire line much easier than in the past - and legal. The new route relied on the removal of a small number of car parking spaces, and this was one of the sticking points which had to be overcome before the whole scheme could be agreed. Ironically Friends of the Earth proposed a very similar route to this as much as ten years ago, which was rejected as impossible at the time.

Secondly, cycling to and from Staples in the centre of the roundabout is now legal on the pavement, and a raised table helps to cross the road to shorten the Victoria Avenue to Chesterton Road manoeuvre. There's possibly a problem with priorities here: the 'elephants feet' markings might imply cyclists have priority when in fact they do not. Of course we would advocate moving the car give way line back so cyclists genuinely do have priority, but painting such lines is probably considered too revolutionary.

Removal of a small amount of on-street car parking has allowed a segregated route between Victoria Avenue and Milton Road to be introduced, recognising a widespread manoeuvre that was already happening.	The north-south route runs up the island at the Milton Road end, helped across the gyratory by traffic lights.

Feedback

There are of course some niggles and concerns about the scheme. The main one is the inevitable conflict between safety and convenience: traffic lights slow everyone down, including cyclists. Pedestrians have to wait for lights instead of having priority at zebras (though not all the zebras have been removed, and two entirely new crossings make east-west and west-east movements for pedestrians much, much easier). However, some initial feedback has been quite favourable.

Paul Robison, who lives by the junction, says: 'Overall, I think it's been an improvement, but with reservations. Cycling from Victoria Avenue to Victoria Road is now even worse than it was before, unless you are prepared to stop and wait at the crossing outside the Boathouse (I don't think I've seen anyone do it). If you stay on the road (between the two lanes outside Staples) the lanes are narrower than before and there is a bit of a Milton Road effect with drivers assuming that if there's a bike lane (a very bright red one) then you should be in it. This seems to be particularly so for bus and coach drivers.'

Stefan Kaye, who negotiates this junction frequently on the road, says: 'I had been dreading the introduction of all the traffic lights, but I have been pleasantly surprised by how well it all seems to work. The entry from Milton Road, on which there are no traffic lights, has been made somewhat easier by there being only one traffic lane plus a decent wide cycle lane. On rounding the corner, you tend to come upon the lights controlling entry from Chesterton Road (east) rather sharply, but once through these lights, the next set (at Victoria Avenue) have been on green on all but one occasion, and I have never yet been stopped by the lights on the exit into Chesterton Road (west) since these are effectively a pedestrian crossing. On my return journey, going from Chesterton Road (west) to Milton Road, the only lights I have to go through are on the entry to the junction, and I actually find these very helpful - I've never had to wait long, and once green, you are protected from traffic screeching round the corner.'

Several people have commented that it is not always clear where you are allowed to cycle on the pavement and where not. Some of the push buttons aren't very easy to reach on a bike.

Advanced stop lines with good approach lanes at the new signals on the junction itself are standard.	A raised table makes getting to and from Staples easier, but who has priority?

Stop gap measure

We mustn't lose sight of the fact that this is a relatively cheaply implemented safety scheme. It attempts to plug some of the causes of crashes and casualties at this fast and busy junction.

Nevertheless, the long term aim must be to abolish the gyratory completely.

It is interesting to note that the Rapid Transit maps still envisage the buses going round the junction. Even if cars still have to, a direct, prioritised route across the middle from Milton Road to Victoria Avenue and vice-versa for cyclists and buses must surely be the answer for sustainable modes. Redevelopment in the area will also have an effect on traffic patterns in the future.

Nevertheless breaking up and slowing down the traffic here, even if it is not reduced, is very welcome and the scheme as a whole stands out from many others where unsatisfactory compromises have been the order of the day.

David Earl

Herbert Street open to cycles

As part of the consultation about Mitcham's Corner we said that Herbert Street - the dead end street between Milton Road and Chesterton Road immediately east of Mitcham's Corner - should be opened up to bikes. This provides a convenient alternative for some journeys to the gyratory. It was already well used by bumping up onto the pavement (arguably illegally), but was inconvenient because cars often parked across the stopped up end.

Even though it was turned down as part of the Mitcham's Corner scheme, it has been done anyway at local residents' request! The island hasn't been completely removed, but ramps replace kerbs, to cross the old pavement which is resurfaced in red. But the main advantage (apart from legality) of this welcome change is that red strips and double yellow lines give the message that it needs to be kept clear of parked cars.

My Way

Kings Hedges to Abbey Pool. Number 8 of an occasional series documenting people's personal journeys.

It's very convenient for Lisa Clatworthy to drop in for a regular morning swim as she works just around the corner from the Abbey Pool. But she lives at Kings Hedges just off Campkin Road, on the other side of the river. If she had to do the journey by car it would mean going almost into town and back out again, or out to the A14 and back in heavy traffic queues. Using the bus is a non-starter: the journey would need a change of buses and would take more than an hour to do the two miles or so. But by bike it is a direct and delightful route using Green Dragon Bridge and riding across meadows.

It takes a predictable 15 minutes. 'I can't imagine doing the journey any other way', says Lisa.

We tagged along one morning. Starting from Lisa's home [A], Campkin Road is the first obstacle. But it has been traffic calmed in recent years and so it is very easy to cross [B]. A few back streets and a path opened up for cycling [C, D] lead to Ramsden Square, just off Milton Road.

	A	B
	C	D

A slightly unconventional cycle/pedestrian crossing with a centre island [E] makes crossing Milton Road straightforward. The crossing can be reached using the shared-use pavement on the 'wrong' side of the road. Lisa says the blue cycle route signs which then mark the way to the river helped her to work out the route when she first moved here.

	E	F
	G	H

The side streets come out on Green End Road in Chesterton [F]. As part of the very recent traffic calming, the mini roundabout at Chesterton High Street has been paved and altered [G]. However, Lisa observes that the only change is that it now looks more attractive. 'Previously, drivers did not give way to cyclists where they should have - and they still don't.'

	I	J
	K	L

A right turn off Fen Road into Water Lane [H] is only possible by bike. It is only a short ride from there to Green Dragon Bridge [I] where cyclists are advised to walk, but virtually no one does. Crossing Stourbridge Common [J] there are cattle grids [K] to keep the cows in - much better than the vicious 'pram arms' that used to be here. The route leads up onto Newmarket Road where the path over the bridge has recently been rebuilt [L]. It is too narrow to pass another cyclist on the path. 'The Toucan crossing at the bottom of the hill is much better now though, and very heavily used.' [M]

Coldham's Common [N] is the last, very pleasant section of the journey: a sharp left by the railway bridge leads up to an awkward gate [O] which is the only exit from the Common without a cattle grid. That leads us to Abbey Pool [P] where there are reasonable cycle racks just to the left of the entrance.

	M	N
	O	P

David Earl

Bike week - didn't we have a lovely time!

Simon Nuttall security codes bikes at the cyclists' breakfast.

The heavens were kind to us during Bike Week this year and held the rain at bay until about fifteen minutes before the end of our final event. A combination of sunshine and attractive events meant that the numbers of participants beat all records. Of course, this was also due to the willingness of those who helped. We must thank all those volunteers who rose early in the mornings to publicise and set up events, who marshalled and who staffed our stall. Particular thanks are due to Cambridge City Council and to Cambridgeshire County Council, TravelWise and Travel for Work for their participation and for allowing so much employee time to be put into Bike Week, for providing funds and for printing and distributing our posters. We must thank H Drake (58, Hills Rd) for providing a couple of bicycles for the Adult Training, and Jamil Akhtar and his staff for their usual cheer and efficiency in running the breakfast at Hobbs Pavilion.

Lorraine Irving leads the way to a pedalling picnic.

Throughout the week a team of adult cycle trainers from Travel for Work trained both novice and more experienced cyclists during the lunch hour. In all 24 cyclists were trained. Many of these had never cycled before and trainers were very impressed at how quickly absolute beginners could learn to ride - almost all could do a standing start, ride more than ten metres and do a standing stop by the end of the one-hour lesson. One confident cyclist even cycled round Elizabeth Way roundabout and received praise for her defensive, self-preservatory riding style. The Adult Cycle Training Scheme is a really valuable way to encourage more cycling in Cambridge.

Our first outing of the week was the City ride led by Simon Nuttall. Over thirty cyclists enjoyed a sunny five-mile ride around the City. We looked at the University old and new, we looked at modern cycle parking and old shops, we saw where the famous worked and lived and we cycled by the river and across the commons, learning new facts all the way. And on such an interesting and informative tour, we appropriately learnt about Nosy Parker.

A City Tour attracted thirty riders.

Our second outing was our Sustrans Pedalling Picnic ride to Anglesey Abbey. This was enjoyed by 48 cyclists of every variety, from the baby in a trailer to the pensioner on an old 'Cambridge' bike. The day started with the threat of rain, but the sun came out and the parasols went up at Anglesey Abbey's picnic ground where we enjoyed the shade of their trees for our picnic. Our route took us over Midsummer Common - past Midsummer Fair - and then along the river following the Jubilee cycle path, Sustrans Route 51. A brief stop by the bicycle sculpture at the Newmarket Road Park and Ride site to make sure everyone was present and happy and on along the Sustrans route past Quy and Bottisham to Anglesey Abbey. The ride was 16 miles there and back but was easily and happily managed by young and old alike. There were many young on a wonderful variety of bicycles. Some, of course, on their own solo bikes but others on the back of tandems, on trailer bikes and trailer trikes, on bike seats at the front and bike seats at the back. Altogether a Fun Day - thank you Lorraine and Mark for organising this Sustrans ride.

Signing a petition at the cyclists' breakfast.

Between rides we sat in the sun and had an open-air breakfast at Hobbs Pavilion. Some participants took the opportunity to have a chair massage from Liz Knox and some had their bicycles security coded. About 170 cyclists enjoyed a relaxing chat with their coffee and croissants overlooking Parker's Piece - a perfect start to a sunny Wednesday.

Lisa Woodburn and Simon Nuttall

(NB Why no apostrophe in Hobbs but one in Parker's? Answers on a postcard, please!)

A variety of cycle designs parked at Anglesey Abbey, waiting for the picnickers to finish.

Council quietly shelves parking charges

While the fact that new road surfacing material in the County consists of 10% recycled tyres warranted a press release, the Cabinet's decision last December to shelve proposals to charge for workplace car parking apparently did not. There was no consultation on whether this plank of Cambridge's transport strategy should be abandoned. It was just quietly put to sleep.

The workplace parking levy was the alternative to congestion charging that the Government proposed in its transport plan. The theory was that much traffic was commuter generated. Parking spaces take up valuable land and charging employers (and, possibly indirectly, employees) for this parking is a means to raise large amounts of money for sustainable alternatives like cycling and public transport. A virtuous circle.

Four years ago, the County Council dismissed the idea that traffic in Cambridge could be reduced at all, merely growth restrained. They refused to consider congestion charging. They did, however, contemplate the possibility of workplace parking charges, considered a brave move at the time, especially for a Tory run council.

Workplace parking levy abandoned partly because of a circular argument that would have excluded spaces at the Science Park and similar.

Now they have abandoned that idea. So, except in the heart of the city centre, traffic restraint is now only carrot, with no stick. Indeed, in places traffic growth is even being encouraged: for example, an extra lane for cars to get out of the Science Park onto the A14. Traffic has increased by 6% in that four-year period. That means more intimidation for cyclists, more queues, more pollution.

Cambridgeshire County Council is not alone. In fact, Nottingham remains the only city still to be pushing ahead with a workplace parking levy. They face tough opposition from their single biggest employer, Boots.

The report to the County's cabinet offered as reasons for abandoning the scheme: that the Government had given them enough money so they didn't need the revenue from the scheme (ha ha, pull the other one), that it wouldn't be fair (never mind the unfairness of bus fares being so much higher than the marginal costs of using a car), that it wouldn't raise that much anyway (but this was a circular argument based on including only the central area), and that it would be hard to administer. The report did not, of course, mention any possible political backlash or the party political demographics that see our city's transport run by politicians whose votes derive from the overwhelmingly car-oriented voters of the rest of the county.

Of course, congestion charging has been in the headlines recently with the success of London's scheme. It's hard to generalise from London's uniquely large scheme to more modest cities, but it is clear that traffic has been substantially reduced (to the extent that noises are now being made that not enough money will be raised from tolls to pay for the public transport alternatives), and that cycling has substantially increased and been made easier.

Given the background it was no surprise that in the middle of July a proposal by the Labour group on the County Council to include feasibility studies into congestion charging for Cambridge was turned down.

The forthcoming widening of the A14 west of Cambridge depended on traffic restraint ('demand management' was a 'key requirement') being applied in the city. Weasel words have been used to argue that even without workplace parking charges or congestion charging, this requirement will still be met. Tell us how! We see no evidence of it, and fully expect that the consultants' anticipated 30% increases in traffic in Cambridge will now occur. A frightening prospect. A betrayal of the basis for allowing a wider A14. And a betrayal of the city's cyclists and pedestrians.

David Earl

Clearing East Road

We recently wrote to The Cambridge Projects Manager on the subject of extending the clearway on East Road.

At present, during much of the day, car parking and stopping near the shops leading to the junction of East Road and Norfolk Street forces cyclists to move into the main traffic stream, in a way which can provoke some car drivers stuck behind cyclists into making dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. Following the junction, vehicles return to normal speed again, indicating the congestion being caused.

We pointed out that, as well as improving conditions for cyclists, extending the operational times of the clearway would also smooth the flow of traffic from the congested Gonville Place, an increasingly important concern in the light of Stage 3 of the Core Scheme, which places additional burdens on the ring road.

The County Council's response agreed with us that extension of the clearway 'would undoubtedly improve conditions for cyclists.' Perhaps not suprisingly, it was also stated that it would 'have a significant effect on the businesses along East Road.' This balance with efficient flow along the ring road and cycle safety is something which councillors would need to take into account if any such change were to be formally proposed.

Our opportunity to bring this to councillors may come up later this year, when Officers report to the Area Joint Committee in October on the next element of the Core Traffic Scheme, which will focus on the Regent Street-Parkside area.

'We have heard reports that this change is being introduced not to increase traffic capacity but to allow emergency vehicles to pass queuing traffic. If this is genuinely the case then there is no need to introduce an additional lane. All that is needed is to remove the central islands. The additional carriageway width could then be used to provide cycle lanes.'

Some members of the Campaign have long wished to see the joining up of the stretches of cycle lane all the way from Newmarket Road to the Royal Cambridge Hotel junction. This would have the effect of enabling cyclists to bypass a better-ordered vehicle queue in East Road. Unfortunately, the dream of such an integrated route, of which East Road would form a part, has been stopped by changes to Gonville Place, where a central traffic lane is being proposed as part of the measures to cope with the knock-on effects of Silver Street. As we pointed out in our letter, however:

We also asked about the proposal of upgrading the Norfolk Street junction to a toucan crossing. It was confirmed that the Area Joint Committee had supported this upgrade but that 'no budget has yet been identified for this work and staff resources are stretched at present. However, I hope to make progress on this later this year.' Changes to this crossing would be most welcome.

Martin Lucas-Smith

Commentary

The Tins

Following objections, by the Campaign and by local councillors, to the proposals for a 1.8 m wide cycle path on the Tins (see Newsletter 48), a modified design has been produced with a 3.0 m width. Campaign member Martyn Smith is busy ensuring that other factors are considered and that designs are further revised. We believed that, as part of the developments in this area, other sections of path would be improved using money from the developers. There now appears doubt about the speed of this process.

Jim Chisholm

Behind the scenes of the Campaign

One of most effective ways you can help is by writing letters.

We thought it might be interesting to give members some insight into how Cambridge Cycling Campaign operates on a day-to-day basis.

Who does what?

The Campaign is run by a Committee of eleven volunteers and a Secretary, who all help with campaigning activities (as do many other members).

• the Co-ordinator ensures that everything is dealt with, and pushes the general strategic direction of the Campaign;
• the Liaison Officer represents the Campaign with other organisations and contacts;
• our Membership Secretary is responsible for membership administration;
• the Newsletter editor co-ordinates the team of people who edit and assemble the newsletter;
• the Treasurer runs the books, and produces budgets. The Campaign's yearly turnover is around £7 000, but our main resource requirement is time!
• our Stall Officer runs the stall on Saturdays and co-ordinates volunteers for this;
• the Press Officer identifies and co-ordinates opportunities to represent the Campaign in the media. We are contacted about once or twice each month for interviews of various kinds or by media personnel requesting quotes;
• there are five Officers Without Portfolio who are also invaluable to the general Campaigning work being done;
• the Secretary is a really important person who serves the Committee, deals with enquiries of various sorts, and takes minutes for various meetings. This is currently a vacant post, but we really do need to fill it; without a Secretary we have less time for letter writing and other campaigning. Generous expenses are paid for use of your own computer etc., so please do contact us if you could help.

The Committee cycle

Some important regular events govern the timescale for lobbying and campaigning work. As well as responses to consultations which we receive, these events are:

• The Cambridge Environment & Transport Area Joint Committee, where detailed decisions are taken by Councillors based on reports from the employed Officers. Much work goes into preparing material to send to Councillors as the agenda is published; despite tight timescales, we stick to a consensus-based letter writing approach described below.
• The Cycling Liaison Group brings together council employees and interest groups to consider cycling-related matters and schemes arising. This very helpful group started up again last year, after a 'fallow' period.
• The planning sub-committee meetings where City Councillors decide upon development schemes.
• A variety of meetings at which the Campaign is represented. These include the Cycle Friendly Employers scheme and Travel for Work, Think Cycling, cycle theft reduction, specific consultation meetings such as for the Local Transport Plan, meetings with Officers on consultations and also on ideas we have initiated.
• Monthly Open meetings and bi-monthly Committee meetings. Increasingly we are trying to arrange speakers to reinvigorate the monthly meetings.

How does your Committee function?

Your Committee is an active bunch. In the last four years over 9 000 e-mail messages have been exchanged between its members, that's 300-400 per month, mostly about letters sent on behalf of the Campaign.

We try to reach a consensus on letters we write. This is one reason why there are so many messages. It can be a time consuming process, but we are happy that letters sent do not just reflect a single person's viewpoint.

We have a Committee Meeting every other month. These are useful for round-table discussions on things which are harder or time-consuming to deal with via e-mail, as well as for consolidating and updating lists of campaigning and administrative items to deal with.

Although there are always many Council scheme consultations to consider, we always try to initiate ideas rather than being simply reactive. Examples of this include the Chisholm Trail (our idea for a major north-south cycle route joining Addenbrooke's to the Science Park) and making Trinity Street two-way for cyclists. Work is also being invested in writing position papers so that we don't have to continually restate our case.

At times all this can be hard work, but it's also fun - we wouldn't be so enthusiastic if it weren't!

Martin Lucas-Smith, Co-ordinator of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

Presenting a public face

Lots of us represent the Campaign at a variety of meetings. These include the Cycle Friendly Employers scheme and Travel for Work, cycle theft reduction, specific consultation meetings such as for the Local Transport Plan recently, meetings with Officers on consultations and ideas we have initiated, and so on.

Our Saturday Stall in front of the Guildhall is a really important way of meeting the public and potential new members, as well as showing that we exist.

A variety of events go on throughout the year, for example leisurely rides. Every year, we are also involved in the organisation of events for National Bike Week, in conjunction with the local councils whose involvement is particularly welcome.

The website is another public face of the Campaign, as is the Newsletter, which is distributed to a variety of public locations such as the libraries, and to our own members and decision-makers.

The Newsletter

The Newsletter is a key campaigning tool. It keeps members up-to-date in what we are doing and informs councillors, council officers and other decision-makers.

We try to offer general articles on cycling as well as information on specific places and proposals. We particularly welcome ideas from members - so if there is a topic you are especially concerned about, do let us know and work with us to write something for the Newsletter.

Because there's a substantial team of people involved, including a printer, we have to work to a pretty strict timetable over two month cycles.

Website

The Campaign's website (www.camcycle.org.uk) currently has around 1800 pages of information. It is constantly growing and there are around 1000 page views a day, roughly corresponding to an estimated 25000 visitors per year.

Several facilities have been and are being developed to help our campaigning work. For example, there is a facility we call 'threads' which means that as well as seeing the articles of a particular newsletter grouped together, you can also see articles on the same topic from different newsletters grouped together.

We are about to add an online joining form. We hope to be able to offer credit and debit card on-line membership and renewal, though it is hard for an organisation our size to do this economically.

We are also about to put our campaigning letters to Councillors and Officers publicly available online. We hope this will make our activities more transparent. It will also enable us to deliver material more easily.

The website also attracts a large number of general searches for information about cycling in Cambridge and in general. We try to provide resources to help: for example, people always ask us about the annual London to Cambridge bike ride, even though we don't organise this.

We'd like to add other resources. For example: a cycle maintenance gateway, things about foreign language schools and students and their cycling abilities, cycle parking information, cycling techniques, bikes and public transport etc.

Public enquiries to the Campaign

We get lots of enquiries about all manner of cycling and Cambridge related topics. Many are by e-mail, some by phone or post and some on the stall. Sadly we can't respond individually to common ones such as 'I'm doing a project about cycling. Please send me all the information you have.'

What can you do to help?

Just by being one of our over 700 members you are already contributing. But here are some suggestions for getting more involved:

• One of most effective ways you can help is writing letters as an individual to Councillors and Council Officers on matters arising which concern you, and need not take long. Please copy letters to us.
• Provide feedback on what we are doing. Councillors are particularly invited to let us know what we could do better and how we could be more effective. We are (still) working on a questionnaire which we hope you will fill in when we send it to you. As well as helping us to set priorities we hope it will help us to alert you when something is happening near to you.
• Help produce the newsletter - writing articles, taking photos, stuffing envelopes, delivering, website conversion, etc.
• Write resources for the website, some suggestions for which are listed above.
• Draft letters to the Council or the press on topics which the Committee can then send as a response on behalf of Campaign.
• Become our Secretary! - we could really do with a hand on administrative items and can pay generous expenses.
• Stand for the Committee at the AGM later in the year: fresh ideas and help are always welcome.
• Come along to monthly meetings with your ideas and views!
• Help organise Bike Week or get involved in one of our subgroups.
• Join the rota of Stall volunteers.

Even just coming to an event or joining a leisurely ride is a good way to become involved and have fun!

Martin Lucas-Smith

Cycling shorts

After a court case the government's decree that speed cameras be painted yellow has been reversed. After the case, brought by the Slower Speeds Initiative and Transport 2000, the Secretary of State has agreed that speed cameras need not be conspicuous, but that such cameras will need individual approval.

The informal cycle and pedestrian access route from Garry Drive to Cambridge Science Park has been permanently closed. Construction of a security fence was due to start in late July. This closes the most direct route to the Science Park from most of King's Hedges. Cyclists and pedestrians will now have to enter via Milton Road or the new entrance near Cambridge Regional College. This follows the successful appeal by management company Bidwells against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council to reject an application to close the access following objections by Cambridge Cycling Campaign, Milton Parish Council and others.

The Garry Drive access to the Science Park is no more.

The Department for Transport has announced a one-off £7.5 million award to be made to a single local authority for a showcase sustainable travel initiative. They especially welcome applications from places not already leaders in the field.

We understand that the proposed outbound Newmarket Road bus lane near Coldham's Lane will not have a cycle lane inside it.

Maurice Leeke, County Councillor for West Chesterton, claimed in a letter to the Cambridge Evening News that lack of action on alternatives to the unsatisfactory cycle lanes in Gilbert Road was because of 'a lack of money to carry it out.'

Mobile phones to be banned, but will the new law apply to cyclists too?

In a very welcome safety move, the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving is to be made illegal. The measure won't apply to hands-free equipment, despite research that showed distraction was a cause of crashes, not just taking hands off the steering wheel. Will the law apply to cyclists too, as it clearly should? It is not uncommon here in Cambridge to see cyclists riding along while on the phone.

Some cycling Councillors

A repeated, but unfair, criticism of the people who make the decisions is that they don't cycle. In fact, many of them do. Half of the members of the Area Joint Committee arrived at the most recent meeting by bike as did some officials. Left to right: Colin Rosenstiel (LibDem, Market), Tim Ward (LibDem, Arbury), Colin Shaw (Labour, Abbey), Anne Kent (LibDem, Trumpington), Maurice Leeke (LibDem, West Chesterton), Graham Lowe (Engineering Projects Manager, City Council), Lotti Bailey (Committee Officer, County Council). In front Julian Huppert (LibDem, East Chesterton).

Oakington cross roads

Final touches being made to the newly traffic light controlled junction at Oakington cross-roads.

Traffic lights have been installed at the cross-roads in the middle of Oakington. They should be operating by the time you read this. This difficult junction is now much easier to handle. The lights are especially important for cyclists because the northern arm of the junction leads to the road to Longstanton, closed (theoretically) to private cars.

This quiet lane around the old airfield is the only real alternative to the A14 for riding to Longstanton and Bar Hill.

Oakington to Longstanton: closed to private cars, in theory.

Pass or Fail?

At about the time the GCSE and A level results are published, there should also be published a 'National List' for every local authority that has responsibility for transport - this includes Cambridgeshire rather than Cambridge City - giving them a score on their achievements in 'Cycling'. This is being compiled by the English Regions Cycling Development Team. Scores will be given on the content of the Local Transport Plan and on what appears in the Annual Progress Review. There should also be a score on what they've actually done.

I don't expect to see any A*s in these lists: Ungraded is likely to be nearer the average. Will Cambridgeshire be told it is 'Failing to achieve its potential?'

Look out and see if these results make the National Press. We'll certainly be reporting them.

Jim Chisholm

Cycle parking at the station

Last year, following efforts by both Cambridge City Council and the Cycling Campaign, a bid to the Department for Transport was made to fund extra cycle parking at the station, to be provided by WAGN railway.

This bid was successful, but on condition that the money was spent within a finite time. As the time has now elapsed and WAGN has not done the work, the money is lost.

Given that the number of people using the station has increased by some 50% in recent years, and that all the cycle racks are regularly full, it is extremely disappointing that the efforts of the City, the Campaign, and the DfT were wasted.

Jim Chisholm

Trumpington Road cycle count

On 22 May we sat from 7 am to 7 pm beside Trumpington Road (on the Trumpington side of the Long Road junction) counting cyclists and pedestrians. We wanted to see what the changes were since our previous count at the same spot on 22 May 1997 (see Newsletter 13). The total number of cyclists observed travelling in both directions on road or on pavement was 1008, rather less than in 1997, but the interpretation of the results is difficult because this time it rained for a while and threatened rain for most of the day. The difference during the morning and evening peaks was less apparent than during the rest of the day. This suggests the possibility that rain, or the threat of rain, may not much deter the typical Cambridge commuter cyclist, but that some optional trips for shopping and so on may be deferred to another day.

We noted that a higher proportion of inbound cyclists were using the pavement cycleway than in 1997, which is what one would expect given the improvements to the pavement cycleway and the narrowing of the traffic lanes along this road. However, this finding is not relevant elsewhere in Cambridge. Trumpington Road is exceptional because there are relatively few side turnings or driveways, so pavement cycling there is much better than almost anywhere else. Outbound, a higher proportion of cyclists used the road because outbound road conditions are better and using a pavement cycleway on the wrong side of the road is less congenial. Interestingly we found that 32% of cyclists were wearing helmets, a higher figure than we had expected.

Trumpington Road cyclists on 22 May 2003.

We hope to publish a fuller analysis of the figures at some point in the future. Thanks to all who helped in the counting.

James Woodburn, Lisa Woodburn, Jim Chisholm

Training gets a boost

Three developments in adult cycle training have happened recently.

National standards for training have been published. The CTC's Adult Cycle Training scheme launches with a three-level programme of user skills from beginners to users of busy roads. It is accompanied by a guide for instructors and organisers, published in May, and a suggested skill set for instructors.

In an interesting move, British School of Motoring, Britain's largest driver training company, owned by the RAC, was to trial a child cycle training scheme in March. If successful, the scheme could be rolled out across the UK and would include adult and family cycle training. Such a scheme might create more cyclists and, if taken up by schools nation-wide, would also mean drivers of the future would have experienced two-wheeled travel first, making them more considerate towards cyclists.

The British School of Motoring's trial was school-based for 11-14 year olds. Three schools were chosen for the trial and 150 students took part. The scheme is supported by Derbyshire County Council and their safer routes to school initiatives. The Transport Research Laboratory will evaluate the results of the trial.

Nearer to home, we promoted the Cambridge adult cycle training scheme as part of National Bike Week (see article) 24 trainees had sessions, from beginners who needed to learn to stay upright, to those who cycled regularly and needed help handling heavy traffic. Two articles covered the events in the Cambridge Evening News.

David Earl

Letter

Helmet

It is a few months since the Newsletter had a letter about helmets.

My recent experience is this: I took a corner, not that fast, on a damp road, and my bike slid away from under me. (I think I hit a man-hole cover which had been worn smooth and then polished by the traffic.)

Gravity, as usual, won. I hit the road, cracked my pelvis and cracked the helmet. That last point tells you all I want to say (my wife tells me that I am becoming a bore about helmets, but I don't care!). This reference http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6943/1537 (BMJ 1994;308:1537-1540) has already been quoted in the Newsletter, but if you missed it, have a look.

Guy Pooley

Of course a helmet can prevent certain kinds of injury in a low-speed crash. Nor does the Campaign discourage anyone from wearing a helmet. The problem most cycle campaigners have with helmets is the way they are promoted, leading ultimately to compulsion. Compulsion is known to reduce numbers cycling significantly, and this is more serious in terms of loss of health benefits than the savings in casualties - Editor.

Campaign Diary

August 2003
Tue 5	7.30 pm	Campaign general 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 6	5-7 pm	Free cycle security coding at Cambridge Station Cycles, next to the Railway Station. The security code is a deterrent to theft and enables bikes to be traced nationally.
Sun 10		No Campaign leisurely ride this month.
Sun 10		Cycle for life, one of a national series of 18 Cancer Research UK events to raise money for research into cancers that affect men. See www.cancerresearchuk.org/cycle contact cycleforlife@cancer.org.uk 0870 161 1010
Fri 15	8.30 am	Newsletter review and planning meeting, over breakfast at Tatties cafe.
Mon 18	7 pm	Join us for a social gathering at CB2 café 5-7 Norfolk Street.
23-25		Mildenhall Cycling Rally: cycling events, entertainment and trade show. Details online at www.mildenhallrally.org.uk
Sat 30	10-2	Free cycle security coding at Park Street Cycle Park. The security code is a deterrent to theft and enables bikes to be traced nationally.
September
Tue 2	7.30 pm	Campaign general meeting. Friends' Meeting House, Jesus Lane, at the Park Street junction. See 5 August for description.
Wed 3	5-7 pm	Free cycle security coding at Cambridge Station Cycles. See 6 August for description.
Sat 6		Newsletter 50 copy deadline. Please send articles to the Editor.
Sun 14	1 pm	Leisurely Ride. A countryside ride, at a gentle pace. Meet at Hobbs Pavilion on Parker's Piece. Back in Cambridge around 5 pm.
Mon 15	7 pm	Join us for a social gathering at CB2 café 5-7 Norfolk Street.
Wed 24	7.30 pm	Newsletter 50 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!
26-28		International Cycle Show Cycle 2003 at the Business Design Centre in London. See www.cycleshow.co.uk for details.
Sat 27	10-2	Free cycle security coding at Park Street Cycle Park. The security code is a deterrent to theft and enables bikes to be traced nationally.
October
Wed 1	5-7 pm	Free cycle security coding at Cambridge Station Cycles. See 6 August for description.
Tue 7	7.30 pm	Campaign general meeting. Friends' Meeting House, Jesus Lane, at the Park Street junction. See 5 August for description.
Sat 11	10 am	Local authority auction of unclaimed found cycles to be held at the 29th Cambridge Scout Headquarters, Stanesfield Road, off Barnwell Road, Cambridge. Viewing from 9 am. Contact 01354 688197 for more information. Please note: although you may find a bargain, you have no rights if the cycle is faulty. If you are new to cycling or know little about cycles, we recommend purchasing from a reputable cycle shop or dealer elsewhere in the city.
Sun 12	1 pm	Leisurely Ride. A countryside ride, at a gentle pace. Meet at Hobbs Pavilion on Parker's Piece. Back in Cambridge around 5 pm.
Mon 20	7 pm	Join us for a social gathering at CB2 café 5-7 Norfolk Street.

Small ads

Free to members, on cycling subjects.

For sale

'Holdsworth' 531 touring cycle with carrier, 21-speed, Michelin tyres, Marin rims and in superb order (21.5 inch). £275. (01487) 814015. Aylin.

Pashley adult tricycle, with rear basket, colour blue, could be converted with rear facing child seats. £150. (01223) 882353 or lionel@tun.co.uk

Your streets this month

Cycle lanes still under threat

The cycle lanes on Hills Road remain under threat despite the decision to abandon proposals to remove the cycle lanes from a long section between Cavendish Avenue and Long Road to make space for an outbound bus lane.

Following a period of consultation during which overwhelming public opposition was expressed, council officers have withdrawn both of their original proposals (the so-called options A and B) and have suggested a third option for a slightly shorter scheme which would keep the inbound cycle lane at a much-reduced width but still remove the outbound lane. Councillors have decided not to press ahead with public consultation on this third option but not to reject it either. Instead there are to be further measurements of bus delays in recognition of the poor quality of the information presented so far. A decision as to whether to hold public consultation on the third option will then be taken in October. See report.

King's Hedges Road today.

Poor-quality cycle schemes approved

Councillors have voted to press ahead with a number of smaller road schemes intended to help cyclists, despite the opposition of Cambridge Cycling Campaign to many of their details (see article). In particular:

Coldham's Lane is to have narrow, substandard, cycle lanes between the Brooks Road roundabout and the traffic signals at Cromwell Road, alongside the parked cars that line the pavements.

King's Hedges Road is to have a mixture of on- and off-road cycle facilities between Northfield Avenue and Milton Road. Heading towards Milton Road, there will be narrow cycle lanes between King's Hedges Drive and Milton Road. Heading away from Milton Road the cycle route is essentially on the pavement, weaving back onto the road at each side road to avoid the need to give way at every side road.

This disused railway cutting may take the guided bus to Trumpington.

Yet more bus lane schemes

Initial public consultation has begun for a guided bus scheme known as the 'rapid transit' between Huntingdon and Trumpington via the City Centre and station. This may result in over 12 miles of cycle path along the new busway. However, it is also likely to mean more bus lanes in Cambridge, some with their familiar effect on cyclists. A bus lane is proposed for Station Road and for yet more of Milton Road, and short lengths are proposed for Histon Road and King's Hedges Road. See article.

Mitcham's Corner back on the map

Mitcham's Corner has become a rather less intimidating junction following the completion of a major accident remedial scheme. The introduction of traffic signals on three of the approach roads has made the gyratory less of a 'racetrack' than before.

Wide, bright red cycle lanes have been marked on Chesterton Road making east-west movements along that road much easier. New pavement cycleways, supported by toucan crossings, mean that cyclists heading from Victoria Avenue to Milton Road, from Chesterton Road West to Victoria Avenue and from Chesterton Road West to Chesterton Road East will have a legal pavement alternative to the long and circuitous road route. Some minor points of detail, such as signposting, need to be fixed.

Mitcham's Corner is much improved.

The scheme is somewhat watered-down from the original proposals and this junction remains a difficult one for many cycle movements. Nevertheless, this long-overdue scheme means that Mitcham's Corner is now much less of a no-go area for cyclists, making this one of the best things the County Council has done for cyclists in Cambridge for quite a while. See report.

Two-way Trinity?

Good news in the city centre: councillors have voted in favour of allowing two-way cycling in Trinity Street between 10-4 Mondays to Saturdays (when almost all motor traffic is prohibited) as an experiment. There will be a period of public consultation before any such experiment goes ahead. Some legal obstacles also need to be resolved: Trinity Street is currently one way southbound at all times. Assuming this experiment goes ahead, it will offer a south-north route through the city centre during the hours when the normal route, through Sidney Street, is closed to cyclists. See article.

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 2002-2003

Co-ordinator - Martin Lucas-Smith

Liaison Officer - Clare Macrae

Membership Secretary - Dave Earl

Newsletter Editor - Mark Irving

Treasurer - David Dyer

Stall Officer - Paul Tonks 07870 441257

Press Officer - Sam Davies

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

Contacting the Campaign

Cambridge Cycling Campaign
PO Box 204
Cambridge CB4 3FN

Telephone and fax (01223) 690718

www.camcycle.org.uk

E-mail contact@camcycle.org.uk

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

Grant aided by