You are in: Home » Newsletters » Newsletter 70 (February / March 2007)
Newsletter 70 (February/March 2007)
Two-way is better than one.
Collecting petition signatures for contraflow cycling.
Why, in 2007, in a place like Cambridge, is two-way cycling
still not the norm?
(Click on image for a larger version)
Contents:
- Co-ordinator’s comment
- New guidance from Cycling England
- Ban the bike ban
- My week in the city
- St John bicycle ambulance service
- The Regent Street squish
- A car club for Romsey?
- Facility of the month
- Letters: the underpass barriers
- Milton Country Park likely to close
- Arbury Park again
- Planning researcher
- Average speed cameras in Cambridgeshire
- Daws Lane – One year on
- Cycle shorts
- Update on cycling to Cambourne
- Cheltenham Cycling Conference
- Monthly meetings menu
- Leisurely rides 2007
- CTC Saturday rides
- Critical mass rides not unlawful
- Your streets this month
- AJC Decisions Supplement
- Photomap this month: editor's pick
- Campaign Diary
- About the Campaign
- Elected Officers 2006-2007
- Contacting the Campaign
Co-ordinator’s comment
Decision time for city centre cycling
As we report on page 4, the city centre cycling ban is finally going to be decided one way or the other. In fact, the decision may already have been made by the time you read this. In a city like Cambridge, with such a high proportion of people cycling, disallowing cycling in the city centre is unreasonable and gives out entirely the wrong message. The experimental suspension of the ban seems to have worked, and we now have backing from Cambridge's MP for it too.
The dilemma of sub-standard cycling provision
 |
Our city (and indeed much of the UK) is littered with sub-standard cycling facilities, some of which do more harm than good. An example is the pair of cycle lanes on Trumpington Road, beside the Botanic Garden, where the cycle lanes next to the parked cars encourage cyclists to ride in the part of the road where they should not be riding, namely in the 'door zone' – the place where car doors are carelessly opened into the path of cyclists.
We have been meaning for some while now to launch a petition to have these cycle lanes removed, or preferably for the car parking (which is the ultimate source of the danger) to be taken away from at least one side of the road. It would be far better to have no cycle lanes here, resulting in drivers taking more care by not assuming that the cycle lane provides the space cyclists need, than for the lanes to exist at all. Look out for our petition soon.
More generally, the Campaign is often put in a difficult position over whether to oppose sub-standard provision. We know from our membership survey, and from cyclists in general, that there are a wide variety of views on this. Should we, for instance, have opposed more strongly than we did the Coldham's Lane cycle bridge? We might have waited another ten years for the main bridge itself to be replaced (which is the correct solution), meaning ten years of less experienced cyclists struggling with the existing dangerous bridge. Or has the new bridge, which is very inconvenient for cyclists wishing to carry on towards Cherry Hinton, resulted in difficulties for those who choose to remain on the road, to which they are entitled? In these days of limited finance available to local authorities, hard decisions have to be made. Views please.
For a more light-hearted look on sub-standard provision, in this issue we feature some of the cycle 'facilities' highlighted by Warrington Cycle Campaign in their 'facility of the month' feature. Take a look on page 10 and see the sort of nonsense cyclists have to put up with at times. You can add your own examples of poor facilities to the photo-map on our website.
Lots of new guidance
New guidance from Cycling England and the Manual for Streets (in our next issue), are two important new sets of guidance being issued to improve the lot of walkers and cyclists, and society more generally. They are of particular relevance to Cambridge, around which some 50 000 new houses will be built in the coming decade, potentially having a huge effect on the rates of cycling. Expect to hear a lot more on the Manual for Streets in particular, soon.
A new direction for Romsey?
The introduction of a car club for Romsey, as we report on page 9, would, in our view, be an important step to civilising the area towards one which is designed for people rather than vehicles. Cycle parking and two-way cycling are still much needed in the area, as is the removal of pavement parking which is so completely unacceptable for those walking. But the car club proposals will finally enable the councils to be able to reduce the amount of private car parking available, freeing up space for better uses. On that, they will have our strong support.
Martin Lucas-Smith, Co-ordinator
New guidance from Cycling England
 |
Shortly before going to press, we learnt of new draft guidance notes just published by Cycling England, the Government's relatively new cycling body. Whilst no guidance is ever perfect, these do seem to say lots of good stuff about how to provide for cyclists, although we need to go through them in more detail. We plan to do so, and to provide feedback to the authors of the documents. We very much hope the guidance will not be watered down between these drafts and their final publication.
Here are a selection of quotations to whet your appetite. Note that many of these do not necessarily imply spending of large amounts of money - they instead back up the need for cycle-friendly decisions to be made.
Cycle-specific infrastructure should not be introduced without first establishing whether cyclists' needs would be better met through demand management or traffic management measures that reduce both the volume and speed of motor traffic.
Carriageway profiles (including those at pinch points created by build-outs and refuges) should be chosen to create adequate space for cyclists to be passed by other road users in safety and comfort.
Cyclists should be exempt from all TROs, including banned turns and road closures, unless there are proven safety reasons for not doing so.
Two-way cycling should be the default option where it is proposed to introduce one-way working for general traffic.
Allowing cycling through restricted areas should be the rule rather than the exception.
ASLs [advanced stop lines] should be considered at all signal controlled junctions.
Where provided, cycle lanes should be a minimum of 1.5 m wide, continuous, made conspicuous across side roads at junctions and not abandon cyclists where roads become narrow, for example at right turning lanes.
Consideration should be given to the removal of centrelines as an option where carriageway widths do not permit the introduction of cycle lanes of adequate width (minimum 1.5 m) whilst retaining two general traffic lanes.
All changes to the highway network, including maintenance schemes, should be the subject of a cycle audit.
Maintaining the continuity of cycle tracks is important if they are to provide an attractive alternative to being on road. Consideration should be given to the use of cycle priority crossings where they cross minor roads where daily traffic flows are below 2000 vehicles per day.
 |
Posts and sign faces should not reduce the effective width of a cycle track by being placed in the path of pedestrians or cyclists.
There should be a presumption against the use of any access barriers on a cycle track/shared-use path until/unless there is a proven need because of the difficulties they can cause all users. Where it is necessary to reduce the speed of cyclists, two rows of staggered bollards are preferred.
The inclusion of "Sheffield" type cycle parking stands should be considered in all highway traffic management and maintenance schemes.
The use of "Cyclists dismount" and "End of route" signs should always be avoided unless there is a proven need.
All new developments should be accessible by bicycle. Their highway infrastructure should focus on on-road provision for cyclists with roads designed to deliver low speeds whilst at the same time creating permeability and advantage through the use of connections and links not available to motor traffic.
Off-road routes which cyclists are encouraged to use after dark should be lit.
If this is the start of things to come from Cycling England, this is a good sign. They are also about to launch a new cycle training system in April to replace the old Cycling Proficiency system, called BikeAbility. Indications from pilot projects being conducted for this are extremely positive, and we hope to report on this in more detail soon.
Martin Lucas-Smith, Co-ordinator
Ban the bike ban
 |
On 22 January 2007, after this Newsletter goes to print, Councillors will have considered whether to make permanent the experimental suspension of the city centre bike ban, which prohibited cycling in St Mary's Street, Market Hill, Market Street and Sidney Street between 10am and 4pm. Assuming a final decision is made then, we intend to report this on our website and via a press release.
The body responsible for the decision is Cambridge Traffic Management Area Joint Committee (AJC), consisting of councillors from both the city and county councils. There is a possibility that they could refer the issue up to the County Council's Cabinet, which for this issue we, and Cambridge's MP, think is inappropriate. We hope that the AJC will ensure that this Cambridge matter is decided by Cambridge people, not rural Councillors from relatively distant parts of Cambridgeshire.
We feel that allowing cycling back into the area has worked with few problems, and should be made permanent. We dearly hope that this can command cross-party support. We remain in favour of action to combat the small minority of cyclists who behave in an anti-social manner in the area.
History of the ban
The city centre bike ban was enacted, back in 1992, against widespread popular opposition, against all evidence and in contradiction of the findings of an expensive Public Inquiry. At that Inquiry, the City Council supported the lifting of the ban in Sidney Street. The Inspector's recommendations agreed with this, but the County Council overrode both the City Council and the Public Inquiry recommendations and confirmed the ban in all of these streets.
Cyclists have been seriously inconvenienced by the ban, especially the many thousands of people resident in the city centre. The prohibition on Sidney Street has been particularly onerous because the alternative northbound route via Hobson Street, Malcolm Street and Jesus Lane is lengthy and is perceived as dangerous and intimidating, especially for child cyclists, the elderly and other less confident cyclists.
Council officials have never disputed the lack of any serious safety issue. Their own reports have repeatedly made clear that there is no record of poor safety in the area due to cyclists. If anything, most danger exists from speeding drivers passing through the area for non-access purposes after 4pm, particularly at night.
Since the formation of the Campaign in 1995 (which was partly in response to the similar cycling ban in Fitzroy Street and Burleigh Street), we have campaigned to have the ban lifted.
In 2004, we put forward a proposal to make Trinity Street two-way for cycling. This street has always been cycleable during the daytime, but only in one direction. Despite this, a fair proportion of cyclists either ignored, or were unaware of, this restriction, and cycled north, which is a natural desire line through the area. The absence of any reasonable northbound route arguably led to increases in illegal cycling. Such a proposal for two-way cycling is far from adequate. Whilst we still maintain this would be safe enough, the streetscape is designed in a way which is not ideal.
On 17 January 2005, the Cambridge Environment and Transport Area Joint Committee (AJC), as it was then called, abandoned this proposal, following a survey, and instead supported an experiment to suspend the main city centre cycling ban. We very much supported this. The motion to do so was put forward by the Liberal Democrat and Conservative representatives on the AJC and was opposed by Labour members, one of whom commented that there would be 'blood on the streets'.
The experiment took effect just before the arrival of new students at the end of summer 2005, and has been in place since then.
 |
Our views
In 2005 we put forward our views that:
- The area concerned should be designated as a 'Pedestrian Priority Zone', making clear that cyclists and drivers should take full account of the needs of pedestrians;
- The Campaign strongly supports both enforcement action on illegal cycle movements and action to promote sensible and responsible cycling throughout the historic centre pedestrian zone;
- The continued allowance of cycling in the city centre on Sundays without significant problems demonstrated already that pedestrians and cyclists can co-exist; many cyclists adjust to this by regulating their speed and/or voluntarily dismounting in the busiest areas;
- That a Code Of Conduct for cyclists be agreed, backed up by publicity and enforcement;
- An observation that the experiment should result in a simplification of the current regulations in the city centre, which should aid compliance with those which remain;
- That a Working Group, to include pedestrian representation, could be established to look at these and related issues.
Sadly, the first point was not taken up due to Department for Transport unwillingness for such signage. The other points were, in the main, taken up.
Support from Cambridge’s MP
Cambridge's MP, David Howarth, supports our view that the ban should be lifted permanently. In a letter to us dated 21 December 2006, he writes:
'I am no longer a councillor and therefore not directly involved in the decision of the Cambridge Joint Traffic Committee [sic] about the experimental suspension of the Cambridge city centre daytime cycling ban, but as you know, as a city councillor was opposed to the original cycle ban in 1991 and continue to be committed to the ban being lifted on a permanent basis.
'I cannot see why the decision should go to the County Council's cabinet. The idea that this is a strategic decision is absurd. I welcome the news that the Area Joint Committee will look at the issue again in January and the matter will be determined by councillors representing the Cambridge area.'
We also wrote to Daniel Zeichner, Cambridge Labour Party's new prospective parliamentary candidate, to seek his views. He is apparently a 'keen cyclist' and thus we hope that he might lend his support. At the time of writing, we had not heard back from him yet whether he opposes or supports the cycling ban.
Of the political parties that currently do not have elected representatives within the city, Cambridge Green Party states on its website that it wishes to see the ban rescinded; Cambridge Conservatives do not mention the issue on their website, but we hope that the fact that the initial experimental suspension was partly put forward by a Conservative councillor on the AJC might result in support 18 months on - we'll wait and see.
National policy and guidance
The Department for Transport recently reiterated in its Local Transport Notes on walking and cycling, which were issued for consultation only a year before, in 2004, that (our emphasis):
Pedestrianised areas are typically located in the core area of a town or city, and as such, can form a barrier to direct through-routes for cyclists. Cyclists often need access to pedestrianised areas to reach their workplace, shops or other destinations. Studies (by Transport Research Laboratory) have shown that there are no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas - accidents between pedestrians and cyclists in these circumstances are very rare. At low flows they mingle readily. When pedestrian density increases cyclists behave accordingly by slowing down, dismounting, or taking avoiding action as required.
This is based on longer-standing guidance from the Government's Traffic Advisory Leaflet TAL 9/93, which makes the same points. Cycling England, the Government's cycling body, this month issued guidance that:
Allowing cycling through restricted areas should be the rule rather than the exception.
It further states:
Advice on this issue is set out in TAL 9/93 Cycling in Pedestrian Areas. This emphasises that, on the basis of research, there are no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas and that cycling could be much more widely permitted than is current without detriment to pedestrians. The TRL research on which that advice is also based established that cyclists alter their behaviour according to the density of pedestrian traffic by modifying their speed or dismounting. Furthermore, the evidence of the case studies contained within the report shows that very few collisions actually occur between cyclists and pedestrians. It also showed that as pedestrian flows rise, the incidence of cyclists choosing to push their cycle also rises and those cyclists who continue to ride tend to do so at a lower speed.
This certainly backs up our own observations.
Review
On-street behavioural surveys, and a questionnaire to stakeholders such as ourselves and local businesses have since taken place. We responded to the questionnaire pointing out that:
- In general the experiment does seem to have worked. Cycling in the area is reasonable given the city's cycling culture.
- There has been a near-complete absence throughout the past year of adverse media/newspaper comment - whether editorial or letters from local readers - about the change. This surely suggests that there is little popular opposition to the change.
- Pedestrians have seen some benefit by being more likely to be aware that cyclists are able to use the area, and that cyclists should take more care as a result of being allowed to do so.
- Many cyclists want to visit the shops in the area by bicycle, and that cycling customers are important to the health of the local economy.
- We still wished to see improved signage (e.g. a 'Pedestrian Priority Zone') as per previous correspondence.
- Directional arrows painted/block-paved on the ground (in a manner respecting the character of the area) at the turning points would increase awareness that a one-way system exists, and improve compliance.
- We remain of the view that increased enforcement is needed by the police to reduce the small numbers of cyclists who use the area in an anti-social manner.
Observation on the ground does show that in general cyclists are taking care. The small minority that speed through the area regardless were the sort of cyclist who did so irrespective of the ban. We feel such behaviour is a matter of anti-social behaviour which is enforceable by the police. But it should not result in reinstatement of the ban, given the majority who do take care.
We very much hope that, by the time you read this, the ban will have been permanently scrapped. We dearly hope that if so, it will have been done so with a degree of political consensus, because, on the ground, the suspension does seem to have worked.
Martin Lucas-Smith, Co-ordinator
My week in the city
 |
Monday forced off the road by a Stagecoach Citi2 bus on Mill Road
Tuesday passed close and at speed by a South Cambridgeshire registered Hackney Carriage
Wednesday spent ages trying to find a secure place to lock my bike
Thursday erroneously stopped by a Police Community Support Officer while riding along a false one-way street
Friday aggressively tailgated by an impatient taxi driver, who then swore at me
Saturday washed off the week's grime and lubricated my bearings
Sunday took a Campaign leisurely ride to the country and talked about the pleasures of cycling over tea in Grantchester
St John bicycle ambulance service
A metallic container in a corner of Park Street Cycle Park is home to a new ambulance station. The two bicycle ambulances inside it provide cover at weekends for the central area of the city of Cambridge.
The bicycles themselves are customised mountain bikes, with front suspension, disk brakes and mudguards. The rear racks are heavily laden with bulging panniers and the whole package is yellow and fluorescent green. The riders are not known as 'paramedics', but must use the official term 'ambulance responders'.
This new service does not replace the statutory requirement for motor ambulances to be despatched.
It works like this:
- An emergency 999 (or 112) call is received at a call handling centre.
- At the moment the location details are accepted, a text message is sent to both the 'normal' ambulance service and to the St John bicycle ambulance service. Both services allocate vehicles and despatch using their normal procedures.
- Within the central area of the city, the bicycle ambulance is more likely to reach the patient before the motor ambulance
When the scheme was about to launch it was anticipated that the ambulance responder would have the power to cancel the motor ambulance after an assessment of the patient. I've just heard that due to 'rather complicated insurance reasons' they cannot stand down the statutory ambulance. This is a shame because the project will not reduce the demand on the normal ambulance service or free up those ambulances for duties elsewhere.
 |
The riders are specially trained to ride at speed through the city. The bicycles are equipped with sirens to warn the public when they are on a mission, but they've been requested not to use blue flashing lights because of fears of confusion with 'normal' ambulances. Blue flashing lights are used by emergency response bicycles in London.
The man behind the project, Wayne Badcock, does not claim to be a cyclist himself, or even particularly interested in cycling. He said 'when looking at ways of providing patient care in the city it was clear that bicycles were the most effective way to get to the parts of the city normal ambulances couldn't reach'. This project has followed from that conclusion.
Nicky Ward, for the East of England Ambulance Service, said the scheme could be a real life-saver. 'In busy city centres traffic can sometimes slow down ambulances, whereas cyclists can cut through the jams quickly,' she added. 'The cycling responder could be a real lifesaver; even if they only arrive two minutes before the ambulance this could mean the difference between life and death to someone who has suffered a cardiac arrest.'
This is good news for accident victims and for the status of practical cycling in the city. Park Street Cycle Park has recently seen the launch of a free pushchair hire scheme. This project further boosts the cycle park as a hub for cycle transport activities.
The project is new to Cambridge but similar schemes have been operating in several other UK cities for many years. It has been a long haul to get this far, and the currently imposed constraints on the service reflect the cautious approach of authority. If the service becomes successfully established I expect some of those constraints will loosen over time.
Simon Nuttall
The Regent Street squish
 |
As part of the long-term plan called the Core Scheme to restrict traffic in Cambridge city centre, a fourth set of rising bollards was introduced, in Regent Street just on the city centre side of the Park Terrace junction. The restriction of the street to buses and taxis that the bollards will enforce hasn't come into operation yet. This isn't expected until the spring.
Unfortunately the new bus gate has caused a serious problem for cyclists, as we briefly reported in 'Your streets this month' in the last Newsletter. At the time of writing, and despite letters to the County Council and an on-site meeting, nothing has been done to reduce the hazard here. We think it is only a matter of time before there is a serious casualty here unless the problem is addressed.
The bus gate has been constructed very much like the ones in Bridge Street, Emmanuel Road and Silver Street, all of which now work reasonably well, having long since had their teething troubles ironed out. At those places, bus lanes with rising bollards restrict traffic, and bypass lanes for cyclists are separated from the buses with a kerb and a thin post. The Regent Street closure is similar, except that it only operates in the inbound direction (so no doubt the odd rogue motorist will dodge round the island once operational).
We thoroughly applaud the principle of the core scheme, which over the last few years has reduced traffic in the central area. Other cities such as Norwich, for example, which still allow unrestricted through traffic into their central areas, are choked.
The problem in Regent Street is in the detailed design. The cycle lane comes to an abrupt halt immediately after the bus gate, where a large build-out has been placed. Ironically, this has been used to provide much-needed cycle parking spaces, but its main function is to delineate car parking spaces just beyond. This means that cyclists are deflected straight into the path of vehicles using the bus gate.
Once operational, this problem may be reduced, as traffic will be limited to buses and taxis, which will be travelling much more slowly because of the bollards. At the moment, though, anyone and everyone is allowed through. Despite the somewhat narrow gap, many vehicles do not reduce their speed. Most do not give way to cyclists: nor are they required to. At the same time, many cyclists simply continue along the indicated path without looking behind them, unaware of the danger that has been created. This is a perfect recipe for disaster. It is a road design guaranteed to put cyclists and fast moving heavy vehicles in the same place at the same time.
 |
Even when the full scheme is operational we are not confident about safety here. This is because, as all of you know only too well, some bus drivers are highly aggressive and the most-complained about class of road user. However it is the immediate situation that is most worrying.
After an email exchange, we wrote to Cambridgeshire County Council in November (the letter is on the Campaign web site) demanding immediate closure of the cycle bypass to avoid a serious crash. While taking photographs for this letter, we witnessed one cyclist crash. Fortunately this did not result in injury. The cyclist ran into the kerb of the build-out in taking last-minute evasive action to avoid being hit, and came off the bike.
No changes have been made. No safety audit has been forthcoming.
The County Council has tacitly admitted the problem, telling us 'many cyclists might prefer to use the traffic lane' until the bollards are turned on. Closing the lane might just move the same problem further back, we were told. We disagree. By closing the lane before the bus gate, cyclists can move over into the traffic lane over a much longer distance: they aren't forced into the traffic stream at a single point. Furthermore, many of the cyclists approaching the gate have arrived there from the crossing leaving Parker's Piece by the Pizza Hut and would not need to have moved over to the kerb at all.
It is so terribly dispiriting to find such appalling and obviously hazardous cycle provision being built in Cambridge, and as we have reported over recent months, this is by no means the only example.
David Earl
A car club for Romsey?
A car club is a system of pool cars on city streets, where car club members can make use of such vehicles on a pay-as-you drive basis. The benefits are that people then don't need to own cars (which is helpful for areas like Romsey where there is limited car parking space), car usage is lower (because people think more carefully about using cars) and so other users, principally cyclists and walkers also benefit. From the motorist's perspective, the costs of car use are also lower because usage is less and ownership isn't required. Lower car usage also benefits the environment and is an important part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
'Romsey's terraced streets look set to be the location for Cambridge's first car club. A city Council survey showed huge support for the idea, and January's traffic committee could give the go-ahead. Car Club parking spaces could be marked out during the summer of 2007.'
 |
We understand from a variety of sources that a car club is being proposed for Romsey. Quoting from a recent political leaflet:
About eight years ago a consortium called RoCoCo tried to start a car club in Romsey. (See Newsletter 23.) It failed because they apparently couldn't agree the location for the cars to be kept. However, the new proposals seem to be gaining official council backing, to the extent that replacement of existing general car parking spaces with car club spaces is proposed.
We very much approve of the introduction of a car club, particularly in places like Romsey and Petersfield, where dense terraced housing is the norm. Pavement parking is shamefully allowed in parts of Romsey, a disgrace which the pedestrian lobby should be complaining about. In fact, the terraced streets of Romsey are excessively car dominated.
We believe that the introduction of a car club should be part of a package of measures which should include:
- The car club scheme itself, preferably backed by the council and with spaces marked out at the expense of general car parking spaces. These could be gradually increased over time.
- Introduction of secure cycle parking in the area. Such cycle parking is extremely rare in Romsey. We are about to conduct a survey of the ratio of car parking to cycle parking.
- Many streets of Romsey are one-way streets. Despite being an ideal area to increase cycling, two-way cycling is prohibited in most of these streets. This needs to change.
Additionally, all Romsey's streets should ideally be made 20 mph. However, that is probably not a realistic prospect in the current set of changes.
The creation of a car club is an ideal time for the introduction of cycle parking into the area, because it should free up some space used at present for car parking. Cycle parking should be included as part of the Traffic Regulation Order required as part of the implementation the car club proposals.
These changes would help start to make Romsey a more people-friendly place, less dominated by motor vehicles, for which there is not really enough space.
Martin Lucas-Smith, Co-ordinator
Facility of the month
Warrington Cycle Campaign have an excellent feature on their website, called 'Facility of the month'. In it are exposed some of the worst bits of cycle provision from across the country, demonstrating how useless some so-called 'cycle facilities' are. We mentioned this site in Newsletter 63, but it has of course expanded since then.
Sub-standard facilities do so much to damage the situation of cyclists. They give the impression that something is being done, when such facilities are merely counter-productive. They provide ammunition for those motorists who dislike cyclists, who can then say 'why should we spend money on cyclists when they don't use what we already give them'.
Here, with their permission, we reproduce some examples. For more, check out their archive.
Many thanks to Warrington Cycle Campaign for letting us reproduce these photos and captions, and the original photographers for capturing such excellent pictures of the nonsense that cyclists around the UK encounter.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Letters: the underpass barriers
Easier than before
I don't agree with the Newsletter article about the new barriers in the underpasses in the Newmarket Road roundabout. I find them easier to cycle through than before, and I have less conflict with pedestrians since they were installed.
The old chicane arrangement was awkward. It is easier to cycle straight through with the new barriers. The old barriers narrowed the space, putting cyclists in the same space as the pedestrians every time.
James Gilbert
 |
Slower than walking
I liked it best with no barriers.
I now find I have to slow down to less than walking pace and hug the outside wall on the way down the ramps, in order to get as much view as possible around a 90 degree blind bend. And when heading out I now always ring my bell, to alert anyone coming the other way.
Even if they just swapped which side was pedestrian and which cyclist it would improve the sight-lines a little.
Eleanor Blair
Barriers should be used sparsely
"Barriers" are obstacles built to bar passage and should be used sparsely.
Comparing the current arrangement to the previous one, in my opinion:
- there is less conflict
- there is less waiting
- it is easier to go through with a tandem and wide handle bars
As this is a narrow tunnel with two directional traffic at different speeds and with different requirements (bicycles, pedestrians, four wheel push chairs and wheelchairs,) I think that forcing the largest two groups apart is probably beneficial.
The only better solution I could propose is blowing this whole ugly concrete monster up (bridge and roundabout). But I assume there is no money available for that...
Klaas Brümann
Milton Country Park likely to close
 |
Milton Country Park was created by South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) in 1993 from old gravel workings just north of Cambridge. It gets a quarter of a million visitors a year including a lot of cyclists, not least because one of the branches of National Cycle Route 11 runs through the Park. Now the countdown to closure has begun.
SCDC decided to close the park on 31 August 2007 to save money. The only hope of keeping the park open is for someone to take on the running of the Park, including all the costs. Given that they have already been trying to find a partner to do this, without success, for over a year, their chances of success must be poor.
 |
A campaign to save the park has been launched by a group of concerned park users, with the support of the Friends of Milton Country Park. There is a campaign web site with an online petition to show SCDC how widely the Park is supported. There you will find a history of the Park closure and answers to your questions.
The closure of the park would be a great loss to the whole of the Cambridge area as well as being one less pleasant place to cycle. So, please sign the online petition and help save Milton Country Park.
Paul Oldham
Arbury Park again
 |
The saga of the roads round the new Arbury Park development seems to run and run. Houses and flats are going up quickly and some internal roads are in place, whilst the off-site road works are largely complete. It's now pretty obvious that the off-site road design has been dictated by the extra cars that will pour out of Arbury Park every day.
 |
King's Hedges Road and Cambridge (Histon) Road have both been made wider and more urbanised. With this, comes increased vehicle speeds and a more dangerous environment for on-road cyclists. The developers, Gallaghers, were advised of the problems inherent in the new layouts in the first two safety audits in 2004. Many crucial recommendations were not acted upon by Gallaghers. Their failure to do so angered many cyclists and local and county councillors, who last summer called for a meeting with the relevant Cambridgeshire County Council officers. This was finally held in October. Amongst the dangers discussed were:
- The lack of signs alerting motorists on the A14 slip roads to the presence of cyclists and the absence of signals for cyclists on the A14 roundabout.
- No on-road cycle lane for southbound cyclists on Cambridge Road, between the A14 roundabout and King's Hedges Road - this has long been promised and should be a priority given that two thirds of cyclists heading for the city centre choose to stay on the road.
- The junction of King's Hedges Road and Histon Road is now very wide - heading west from King's Hedges Road, on-road cyclists find there is no advance reservoir and reaching the west side off-road cycle path involves a sharp right bend (not an easy manoeuvre if it's wet, dark or icy). The alternative for off-road cyclists involves no less than 4 toucan crossings.
- Using the off-road facilities heading south at this same junction involves 3 toucan crossings and a wholly inadequate sheep pen.
- On the south side of King's Hedges Road, the off-road shared-use path veers off down Arbury Road with no exit for those heading straight on (and no entry point on the other side of the junction).
- And finally the most glaring example of poor design is the series of pinch points on King's Hedges Road.
Video footage, taken from the back of a bike travelling through the pinch-points, was shown at the meeting by Ben Brierton and David Hembrow (you too can experience the thrill).
 |
Campaigners came away from the meeting disheartened - the message from chair, Richard Preston, head of Network Management at the county council, was that no funding was available to correct mistakes. But he did agree about the need to review the Safety Audit process and the vetting procedure for developers' designs.
Frustrated by the continuing lack of accountability, especially over the pinch points, Des Phillips wrote to Gallaghers. The reply from their Engineering Director, Andy Hawkes, showed a reluctance to admit responsibility.
 |
He claimed that Gallaghers and WSP Consultants (the off-site road designers) responded positively to the safety audits and the county council. Furthermore, the 'detailed designs took due cognizance of recognised published guidance and provision for cyclists... current at that time'. This is difficult to accept when the safety audits repeatedly recommended avoidance of kerb-to-kerb widths in the range 3.1 m to 3.9 m, as does Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure, published in 1996.
 |
Andy Hawkes asserts that the cycle path which will run alongside the future Guided Bus Route 'influenced the offsite road design'. This will indeed help those cyclists who wish to commute between Histon and Cambridge Regional College or the Science Park (and who won't mind cycling along it in the dark, in the winter, with no lighting, no oversight and dazzling bus headlights to contend with). This attitude fails to acknowledge the number of east-west cycle journeys made, from Arbury, West Cambridge, Girton and the proposed NIAB development to CRC and the Science Park.
Cyclists have a legal right to be on the road... or so they think. But 'The intention is that off road footway/cycleways be provided where possible. Providing signing on the carriageway for cyclists could cause confusion to both motorists and cyclists and lead to more cyclists on carriageway which the scheme is trying to prevent' (Nick Leppard of WSP's response to B7.6 of the safety audit in a letter to Jeremy Smith, Senior Transport Officer, Cambridgeshire County Council, 1 June 2004). So there you have it: don't provide on-road facilities, so conditions become really hostile, and cyclists will use your lovely, safe off-road facility or risk ending up as traffic calming measures.
The new year began with the local press picking up on the story of the pinch points: The Arbury Park Subgroup's press release pinpointed the main issues.
Now that the safety audit is in the public domain, developers and the county council will find themselves on thin legal ice if a collision occurs and they are taken to court.
(Des Phillips)
It cannot be right that changes to the public highway that have huge effects on road users are not subjected to democratic scrutiny.
(Martin Lucas-Smith)
At the monthly meeting of the Castle Community Action Group, the dangerous conditions around the A14, King's Hedges Road and Histon Road junctions were discussed (especially for children on their way to Impington Village College) and it was decided to ask the Cycling Campaign to help sort out the problems!
So what's next? There is a second meeting in January to try to resolve the on-road problems. Cyclists will also push for a permeable, coherent off-road facility running along the north side of King's Hedges Road. Mind you, this will still entail crossing four Arbury Park entry roads and the Guided Bus route, so whether Gallaghers like it or not, many cyclists will opt to stay on the road and get to their destination quicker.
Vanessa Kelly
STOP PRESS
The second meeting to discuss the mess near Arbury Park was held on 11 January. It was attended by a number of Histon and Impington parish and county councillors and by the developers, Gallaghers, who were represented by Steve Riley and Andy Hawkes (Engineering Director).
Richard Preston (county council) fully acknowledged the problems and apologised for the mistakes made by the county council. He stated that issues raised by the Safety Audits were not followed up in the way they should have been, mainly because there was no-one co-ordinating and making key decisions.
King's Hedges Road was discussed first.
- Graham Lowe set out plans for widening all but one of the pinch-points by narrowing and remodelling the central islands. The new kerb-to-kerb widths will be increased to 4.0 m with a 1.2 m 'redmac' cycle lane going through the pinch-points. 1.2m is lower than best practice (at least 1.5m should be provided), but is a step forward. At last! The pinch-points were named as the first priority when funding is released.
- The islands at the King's Hedges Road-Cambridge Road junction are to be widened and the sheep pens made bigger.
- It is hoped that some of the next lot of 'Section 106' money will be spent on cycle facilities on the south side of King's Hedges Road, especially round the Arbury Road junction.
- The nasty right turn west out of King's Hedges Road into Cambridge Road was discussed (perhaps an advance reservoir and better lane markings would help).
- The on-road, southbound red cycle lane between the A14 and King's Hedges Road-Cambridge Road junction will be reinserted the next time there is sufficient 'redmac' work in the area to justify the cost - who knows when this will happen.
The A14 Histon roundabout seems an intractable problem - nothing was agreed upon, not even signs highlighting the presence of cyclists. Denis Payne argued that S106 money that had been earmarked for a bridge or tunnel should be used on improvements. Sustainable Infrastructure will look at this. But the general opinion seemed to be that, with the future widening of the A14, any current solution would be short-term.
The repairs are going to be expensive. Cambridge Cycling Campaign needs to be kept informed on this. Des Phillips doesn't pussy-foot around and, at the end of the meeting, he pointed out that Gallaghers had 'broken' the road and the moral onus was on them to fix it.
The third meeting has been scheduled for 7 March - by then, plans are to be refined and the funding issue explored.
Planning researcher
At the moment there are a great many developments, some very large, being submitted for planning permission. Cambridge Cycling Campaign would like to study and comment upon them, in order to prevent the construction of yet more areas like Arbury Park where provision for cyclists is very poor. But this is an enormous workload. In order to reduce the burden on Committee members we are considering whether, if we can raise the funds, we should find someone to do some of the work for us on a paid consultancy basis. Of course, this depends both upon raising the funds - we have identified one possible source -- and on finding someone suitable to do the work.
The main tasks would be:
- Studying specific planning applications, as soon as they appear;
- Preparing brief summaries of each planning application, for the Campaign;
- Highlighting issues on which Cambridge Cycling Campaign might choose to comment;
- Drafting and amending submissions;
- Attending meetings on behalf of the Campaign and reporting back to the Committee;
- Keeping track of the progress of planning applications and reporting to the Committee.
Would anyone one be interested in doing this work if we could raise the funds? Or does anyone know anyone who might be? They would need the following skills and experience and we would go through a formal tendering or recruitment procedure.
Skills required:
- Understanding of the planning system
- Knowledge of, or willingness to learn, what is in existing key planning documents for Cambridgeshire (Structure Plan, Local Plans, Planning Policy Guidance etc.);
- Knowledge of the context for planning and transportation in the region and of the Cambridge area;
- Knowledge, and experience, of provision for cyclists, both locally and, preferably, elsewhere (so we can learn from successful planning in other places);
- Good research skills, with the ability to understand complex planning documents and maps;
- Excellent communication skills, with the ability to provide clear, concise and timely reports;
- Good time management and the ability to work to, and meet, tight timelines.
We look forward to hearing from people who can help us in this way with good scrutiny of planning applications and assist us in being much more proactive in engaging developers.
Monica Frisch
Average speed cameras in Cambridgeshire
 |
Cambridgeshire County Council has just approved its first permanent installation of average speed cameras. This innovation matters because it opens up the prospect of effective enforcement of speed limits. The cameras are to be installed on the road between Chatteris and Ramsey which runs alongside a local waterway - the Forty Foot Drain - where in recent years several drivers and passengers have been drowned after their cars left the road. Exceeding this road's 50 mph speed limit has been a factor in a number of these cases.
Such cases bring out the fact that loss of control of motor vehicles through speeding is not a rare event on our roads. Obviously this is a risk not just for the vehicle's occupants but also for other people, especially any pedestrians and cyclists who happen to be in the vicinity.
Average speed cameras (also known as SPECS cameras) work by measuring the time taken by vehicles to travel between two fixed camera sites which may be anything between 200 metres and 10 kilometres apart. Vehicles are identified by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. Such cameras are a major advance over the familiar single-site speed cameras because they offer an effective means of enforcing speed limits along a length of road rather than just at a single location.
Independent research sponsored by the Department for Transport has established the effectiveness of average speed cameras (as well as other types of speed camera) in reducing both speeds and injury accidents. The research has shown average speed cameras to be particularly effective in reducing excessive speeds, defined as 15 mph or more over the speed limit (paragraph 2.6).
For cyclists and pedestrians it is particularly important that the speed of motor vehicles is controlled effectively because small increments in speed result in substantial increases in serious injuries and deaths when they are hit by motor vehicles: 90% of people hit by a vehicle at 40 mph die, 20% at 30 mph and 2.5% at 20 mph (see Road Speed Reduction in Cambridge in Newsletter 59).
A 20 mph speed limit is being introduced in most of Cambridge's historic city centre. We strongly support this but would like the zone to be larger than the County Council proposes (see The City Centre 20 mph Zone, Newsletter 60). Arguments against a larger zone have stressed the difficulties of enforcement. What average speed cameras offer is the possibility of effective enforcement without the necessity for road humps and other traffic-calming measures.
 |
The Campaign has pressed for a 20 mph limit along Victoria Avenue, Maid's Causeway and Newmarket Road up to the East Road roundabout. This route skirts the edge of the proposed city centre 20 mph zone. Our intention in pressing for this is to push forward the aims of Cambridge's Core Traffic Scheme which include the provision of safer and more convenient routes for cyclists and the creation of better and safer environments for pedestrians. Such a limit would make this route safer and would enhance the attractions of the commons (Jesus Green, Butt Green and Midsummer Common) through which these roads pass and make them more readily accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. This limit could be enforced for through traffic by two average speed cameras, one sited at the beginning and the other at the end of this length of roadway (see Rising Cameras, Falling Bollards, Newsletter 67).
We are also seeking speed limit reductions in some other areas of the city where, in our view, present limits are too high and are intimidating or dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. 20 mph zones are needed where there are high cyclist or pedestrian injury accident figures or to provide safe and convenient routes to schools. All areas of new development in Cambridge should, we believe, have 20 mph limits from the start.
There are two main obstacles to the creation of more rigorous speed limits and to the increased use of average speed cameras to enforce them. The first is the understandable but unacceptable caution of government, both nationally and locally. In August 2006 the Department for Transport published Setting Local Speed Limits which gives the latest government guidance. To its credit the DfT has developed a road management strategy with the commendable target of achieving a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads by 2010 (see paragraph 15). They recognize the correlation between speed and accident frequency and severity.
For example they cite research indicating that each reduction by 1 mph in average speed reduces accident frequency by 5% (paragraph 17). However they ask that speed limits should be set at the average speed at which people drive along the road in question (paragraph 36) and that, in general, they should be enforced by road design and not just by speed limit enforcement. For 20 mph zones they require traffic calming measures and consultation with the local police force (paragraphs 75 and 79). Such requirements make it more difficult than it should be to introduce lower speed limits. Now that average speed cameras offer effective enforcement, traffic calming is much less necessary than it used to be.
 |
Cambridge's requirements for low speed limits are among the greatest in the UK. A city in which the proportion of cyclists is nearly twice as high as anywhere else in the country and in which the number of pedestrians is also unusually high should place particular emphasis on the control of motor vehicle speed. The latest government guidance helpfully states that, in considering what is an appropriate speed limit, 'traffic composition (including existing and potential levels of pedestrian and cycle usage)' is an important factor (paragraph 32). They continue 'The needs of vulnerable road users must be fully taken into account in order to further encourage these modes of travel and improve their safety. Setting appropriate speed limits is a particularly important element in urban safety management with significant benefits for pedestrians and cyclists' (paragraph 33).
The second main obstacle to the creation of more rigorous speed limits and to the increased use of average speed cameras to enforce them is cost. Current average speed cameras are expensive and this has been a principal reason for their slow introduction. The installation between Chatteris and Ramsey is to cost about £300,000. However, there are promising signs of less costly cameras in future. We understand that some of these are currently being evaluated.
James Woodburn
Daws Lane – One year on
Alasdair Massie followed up his correspondence with Cambridgeshire County Council (see Newsletter 66) with this letter to the relevant council officer later last year.
 |
You will recall that we exchanged correspondence on the maintenance of Daws Lane, and other, similar, traffic free cycle paths at this time last year. I thought that it would be useful to review progress. I hope that you will take the time to read this, act upon it, and review policy with your colleagues, contractors and partner organisations.
 |
I am aware that responsibility for the maintenance of this path does not lie with one body. Indeed, that seems to be a key problem - maintenance is not managed or coordinated very well and appears to be haphazard and reactive rather than proactive.
After our extensive discussions last year a number of the most acute problems were addressed. Unfortunately there are many chronic problems which need addressing in order for this path to operate satisfactorily. These were not addressed, and as a result problems have persisted for users.
As you know, the design, width and geometry of this path falls some way short of the requirements for a shared use path. In order to get the best out of this valuable asset it is therefore essential that maintenance is of the highest standard.
 |
Chronic problems facing users are:
- Poor visibility at bends and junctions due to encroaching vegetation. This leads to increased potential for collisions and conflict.
- Loss of width due to encroaching vegetation. This leads to increased potential for conflict between users.
- Loss of width due to encroachment from plants in private gardens. Conifers at the western end are becoming an increasing problem, and they will not get smaller with time.
- Hazard from vines and brambles trailing from trees. Brambles and rose tendrils are particularly hazardous. They are difficult to see, and can take an eye out. A cultivated rose straggles right across the path at the western end.
- Hazard from nettles growing beside the path. The mid summer cut was hopelessly inadequate. The nettles grow to chest height and straggle so far into the path that it was impossible to avoid getting stung for much of the summer. These need to be cut back far more ruthlessly.
- Dead and decaying branches regularly collapse across the path bringing vines and debris down with them. There is a considerable amount of dead, diseased or unstable wood overhanging the path, just waiting to come down. It provides no benefit, makes the path dark and gloomy, and needs to be cleared back before it falls.
 |
 |
Good, proactive maintenance saves money. Many of the problems are caused by scrubby, low level vegetation. This is easy to cut back, and if done properly it is easy to control. If on the other hand it is allowed to grow out of control, the branches grow thicker and harder to cut, and the volume of material to be cleared expands exponentially. It really is better to nip encroaching vegetation in the bud - proactive maintenance will always prove cheaper and more effective than reactive maintenance.
Now, at the end of the summer, and after your maintenance team has been through, the path is about as bad as it should be allowed to get before you call in the maintenance team. There is a substantial mismatch between the standards needed for safe and satisfactory service, and the standards that are actually applied. At present, the path is passable with care, but in the middle of summer it is an obstacle course.
As a reminder, I am including an extract from TRL Application Guidance Document 26 - Footway and Cycleway Design Construction and Maintenance, giving the dimensions required for successful operation. These are the requirements when growth is at its worst, so an appropriate margin is necessary when cutting. Obviously there are places where these targets can never be achieved by maintenance alone. In this case the aim should be to get the best out of the path, within the constraints, and to keep it that way.
| Cycle Path Basic Design Dimensions TRL AG26 Footway and cycle route design construction and maintenance guide 2003 |
||
|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Recommended | Worst allowed |
| Gradient | 3% | 5% |
| Width | 3m | 2 m (1.5 m if part of shared path) |
| Crossfall | 2.5% | 1.2% to 3.3% |
| Radius of curvature | 15 m or greater | |
| Tight bend radius | 4 m minimum (TD 36/93) | |
| Visibility on bends | 30 m | 20 m |
| Design speed | 30 km/h min | |
Alasdair Massie
Cycle shorts
I was passed the Xmas 2006 edition of Cycling Plus magazine last month and found the page by Dave Holladay under the title The Hub amusing and interesting. For example:
Monitoring sites of on-street parking that have been installed steadily since 2001 has shown a 37 per cent year-on-year growth in the number of bikes making journeys and being parked.
A cyclist was asked: 'How long does it take you to get to work?' His answer surprised the questioner: 'As long as possible.'
Horror of horrors: the school run
Some readers may well have gone (or even still go) to the sort of school where the full uniform, correctly worn, is de rigueur. I was thus not surprised to find that a school in West London, which even bans the locking of parental bikes outside the fence, also insists that perfectly polished shoes have to be worn en route to and from school. Effectively, this makes carrying the little darlings to school protected from storm and flood in a car unavoidable, so that their pristine uniforms are not soiled by pounding the dirty footways or pushing the pedals. Needless to say, they will not countenance any idea that pupils might cycle to school.
Could this be a discriminatory policy? Only those who can be driven to school can attend; certainly it seems to have many elements of exclusion on rather weak and tenuous grounds.
Lisa Woodburn
Update on cycling to Cambourne
 |
Since my earlier articles on Cycling in Cambourne and the 'My Way' article on getting to Cambourne from Cambridge, access into the new town for cyclists has altered significantly from both the east and west.
Coming from Cambridge on the path beside the A428, the old junction to Bourn has now been closed off and replaced by a shiny new flyover a short distance further down the road.
 |
The original plans had no footpath, but pressure from the local parish councils brought about a change of heart with the developers, and the Highways Agency stumped up the extra funds. I don't find it necessary to use the path here, as the traffic is quite light. The other thing missing from the plans and of more concern to cyclists was access to the old airfield track which currently provides the only alternative to the A428 for getting to Cambourne from the east. The new alignment of the road means it now passes the track a few feet up on an embankment, and it looked for a while as if some cyclo-cross might be required to continue using it. However, after a certain number of phone calls and e-mail exchanges with the PR man from the contractors, Nuttalls, and with the resident engineer for Cambourne, a very good, if rather steep, concrete ramp has been provided, so that access is now actually better than it was before.
The said PR man is very sympathetic to our concerns, to the extent that I once met him on his bike as he was checking the conditions for himself.
 |
Things have improved dramatically from the west since the section of dual carriageway between Cambourne and Caxton Gibbet was completed. There is no alternative road here, but a brand new foot- and cycle path has been opened from the point where the road from Cambourne to Elsworth takes a sharp right turn. Though not quite of Dutch standard, it is of reasonable width and smoothly surfaced. The path exits at a rather sharp angle, such that it would need care negotiating it on a tandem. It then runs parallel to, but a good distance from, the dual carriageway until it reaches the A1198 just North of the Caxton Gibbet junction. After this there is a choice of the A428 or the A1198 to Papworth or Caxton for your onward journey, but that's how it was before. The fact that the new path is shared use should not be a problem as pedestrians are likely to be quite rare.
So, some improvements, but the opening of the dual carriageway scheduled for the autumn is still eagerly awaited as it means the old road between Hardwick and Cambourne can be reclaimed by cyclists once the trucks have gone, and the days of timidly (and illegally) bumping along an uncomfortable and muddy footpath will be over.
Stefan Kaye
Cheltenham Cycling Conference
The Cycle Campaign Network organises two conferences each year in the spring and autumn. The theme for the one-day conference in Cheltenham in November 2006 was Mapping; Martin Lucas-Smith and I were invited speakers.
The conference-goers represent campaigning groups from around the UK, such as Wolves on Wheels, East Kent Spokes, and also Sustrans and the CTC (Cyclists' Touring Club). A small exhibition hall was promoting Bike Week and Cycle Accident Insurance.
 |
The conference opened with a discussion about cycling with the Lib Dem environment spokesman. He told us that a group of cyclists had recently won £300,000 of EU money to have their awareness of climate change raised. He thought that was bizarre, and that cyclists were one of the last groups to need that - but then reminded us that many of these 'cyclists' load up their 4x4s, drive into the countryside and race down mountains. He went on to upset the conference by saying that more ought to be done to tackle nuisance cycling (on pavements or in pedestrian zones).
Unfortunately one of the first sessions at the conference was about 'successful partnership working'. This is all about joined up government and how various local agencies, 'Council', 'Police' etc., are now working together. Well I expect that's good progress, but it didn't seem of much interest to conference and did not excite any debate. Worse still, it was allowed to go over time and this meant that the whole day ran behind schedule.
After elevenses Martin and I took to the floor and gave a live internet demo of the Photomap and Journey Planner projects. Martin took a photo of conference and uploaded it during the presentation to our photomap. He went on to show a series of examples of good, bad and plain daft photos of cycling 'facilities' from Cambridge, Cheltenham and around the world, and this soon livened up the auditorium again.
 |
During my session I was able to demonstrate how to add routes to the Journey Planner in Cheltenham. I showed how to plan a route and explained the difference between 'fastest' and 'quietest' routes. The planned route produced a gallery of photos on the route we'd taken that morning as we walked to the town hall.
The questions following our session were naturally leading on to how to define routes, what constitutes 'quiet' and how the photomap could be used in campaigning. Regrettably this was cut short because of the earlier delays in the proceedings.
Then a speaker from wherefromhere.com summarised their five year plan to implement a national cycle journey planner. Their problems are getting all the local authorities to agree on a common way of doing it so that it could integrate with the WS Atkins journey planning algorithm. It all sounds like a managerial nightmare to me. Some local authorities didn't want to say where was safe or unsafe to cycle for fear of being held responsible later.
Conference appreciated the difference between the two systems (one cyclist-led, the other government-led), and if time had permitted it could have been a useful discussion.
In the afternoon there was an interesting update from CTC's campaign manager, Roger Geffen, about the state of campaigning nationally. Notably the awful failure of the Road Safety Bill to make any real difference. He said we should be active on the Daytime Running Lights Bill, which threatens to kill more of us by making us less visible.
Daniel Cadden, who was fined for riding on a public highway near Telford, was present. Little was said about his case because it was pending appeal. Roger talked about the usefulness of having the Cyclists Defence Fund in place to support his case and asked for more contributions.
Finally two interesting talks wrapped up the day: Bike It is a nationwide scheme from Sustrans which aims to increase the number of young people cycling to school and on other journeys. A police officer introduced this talk and explained how he had massively increased cycling in schools where there was previously hardly any cycling. Cycling Solutions are the training providers for the UK's largest schools initiative ever, covering the five major education authorities in Merseyside. They explained how delivering cycle training to five local authorities all with different requirements had kept them extremely busy.
Unfortunately we couldn't stay for the evening sessions or the bike rides on the Sunday and drove back to Cambridge. We were almost forced to go by car because the national rail website quoted ridiculous prices and the journey would have taken more than five hours either via Birmingham or London. In fact the car route was relatively simple, direct and fast, and car-sharing kept our costs down. Ahem.
Simon Nuttall
Monthly meetings menu
We hope this year to get back to a regular cycle of speakers and other special events at monthly meetings. As below, we hope to have a speaker or presentation for the first half, then items for discussion as usual. If there are cycling issues which concern you, come along and discuss them with other members.
Our open meetings are held every month, and we are always pleased to welcome our members. The diary section of this Newsletter and our website have the dates of forthcoming meetings, which are normally on the first Tuesday of each month at 7.30 pm for 8 pm in the Friends' Meeting House, Jesus Lane. Tea and coffee are served from around 7.30 pm.
We hope that Councillors and other decision-makers, and indeed the general public, will attend at least the first half of our meetings.
Tuesday 6 February 2007
Michael Simmons is a research manager at Cambridge University. He is co-ordinating the Cambridge part of a three-year DfT (Department for Transport) funded project to develop systems to collect real-time data on pollution levels. In Cambridge, mobile pollution sensing devices will be developed for pedestrians and cyclists. Come and hear about the project and discuss related issues.
 |
Tuesday 6 March 2007
Mike Causer, Committee member, will be giving a presentation on the National Trust's Wicken Fen expansion towards Cambridge and the plans for good cycle access to this wonderful nature reserve and the countryside north-east of the city.
The previous Newsletter gave a summary of latest developments, but come to the monthly meeting to see and hear more about the bid and the proposals for the Fen.
Tuesday 3 April 2007
Copenhagen is known far and wide as the 'City of Cyclists'. We will be showing a 20-minute video produced by the council at the City of Copenhagen on the way they provide for cyclists, by reallocating road space, providing good quality cycle parking facilities, and giving genuine attention to cyclists' needs at crossings. The video also covers how the Council there regularly canvasses the views of cyclists through their 'Bicycle Account'.
We particularly hope Councillors will consider coming to this meeting to see what a difference can be made when cyclists are given proper attention, rather than being 'squeezed in' or forced onto the pavement, as so often happens in Cambridge and elsewhere in the UK.
Come along and see how different things could be.
Tuesday 1 May 2007
We hope to give a presentation on our findings last year from our visit to the Netherlands, subject to confirmation.
Leisurely rides 2007
Following feedback from riders and the members' email list, the leisurely rides will change format and become more varied. The theme of exploring the transport infrastructure and visiting areas where development will affect cycle routes will continue.
The programme of rides has not been decided yet, but they will no longer happen on the same day, or same time of every month. There will be no leisurely rides in February or April this year. In March we shall be riding to Shelford. See below for the Cambridge 2050 ride in May. In June I'd like to ride to find some elder flowers and make some 'champagne' or elderflower cordial. If you know of some good elder trees away from roadsides please come on the ride and lead us there. We don't need many flower heads. In July we'll probably do a tour of the Cambridge Open Studios again. For that I'm looking for an artist to come on the ride to help choose the studios to visit and to help the group interpret the art. Later in the year I'd like to organise a trip to the Greenwich Car Free day - to see how London boroughs celebrate that event by closing roads and having a big party.
These are your rides. I try to respond to your feedback, so if you want a ride to go somewhere let me know and we'll look at it. We are grateful to Sustrans for kindly providing organisers' liability insurance for these events.
Cambridge 2050
If the weather is on our side, I expect this will be our biggest ride of the year. The ride starts in Cambridge and finishes in Cambridge. The options are a 20 mile round trip to the village of Reach, or a 50 mile round trip to Ely. Both rides will go at a leisurely pace and follow National Cycle Network route 11.
The ride takes place on the first Monday in May, on the day of the historic country fair in Reach. We'll arrive in time to witness the opening of the fair by the Mayor of Cambridge at noon. This tradition goes back 806 years, and is accompanied by the throwing of pennies for the poor villagers.
 |
We'll stop in Reach for about an hour to enjoy a drink and a snack. The ride will then separate with one group going on to Ely. The other group will stay a bit longer at the fair before riding home.
In Ely we'll stop to eat in a local hostelry before coming back. The fair will still be happening when we reach Reach, and some of us may want to stop for further refreshment, before continuing home.
Come prepared for stunning views of open country, wild horses and changeable weather. Bring water. To make the ride run as smoothly as possible I shall be looking for volunteer marshals. The pace will be leisurely - the riding time to Ely is expected to be four hours each way.
Gather at Reality Checkpoint, in the centre of Parker's Piece, Cambridge from 9:30am on Monday 7 May for 10 am prompt departure. We'll pass through Stourbridge Common at 10.15 and Newmarket Road Park and Ride at 10.30 if you want to join us there. Those going to Ely have the option of a return by train to Cambridge, subject to limited availability of spaces for bikes. Bring lights if you're expecting to do the 50.
Simon Nuttall
CTC Saturday rides
From March onwards, on the first and third Saturday of every month, CTC (Cyclists' Touring Club) Cambridge District Association will lead a bike ride to elevenses at a garden centre (or similar), and back to Cambridge in time for lunch. Cycling Campaign members are welcome. These should be gentle rides, and no-one will be left behind. Turn up at the Lensfield Road end of Brookside for 10 am. For more information, visit the CTC Cambridge website or phone Joseph Sugg on (01223) 570490.
Critical mass rides not unlawful
London's Critical Mass cycle ride has taken place on the last Friday of every month since 1994. The Metropolitan Police, who had always been helpful to the rides, suddenly tried to bring a test case last year by prosecuting one rider for breaking the law by being in the ride. The cyclist, Des Kay, successfully challenged the Police's claim that the ride was unlawful. The High Court said it was not a notifiable procession under the Public Order Act. Furthermore, the court said that there was no need to notify the police of the London rides as they knew from experience when they would occur.
Lisa Woodburn
Your streets this month
Wheeler Street and Corn Exchange Street
 |
Cambridgeshire County Council tells us that it is working with the Grand Arcade to arrange for the traffic calming works to be installed in Wheeler Street and Corn Exchange Street in February or March. The 20 mph limit in this area will also be introduced at the same time. However, they say: 'we will not be introducing the contraflow cycle lane in March because the warning signs and the final layout around the car park exit will not be provided until later on in 2007.'
Coleridge Road
 |
A new set of traffic lights is starting to be installed at the junction of Coleridge Road with Davy Road and Radegund Road. This should ease the crossing of this junction for cyclists going to or from the bridge across the railway. However there are design details to which we are objecting, the worst being the installation of pedestrian barriers at the corners. Barriers constitute a potential danger for cyclists (blocking their escape route), do not increase safety for pedestrians and are against government guidance. We have been told that - and the plans show - there will be detector loops to trigger the lights at the approach of cyclists.
Kingston Street, Willis Road and Mackenzie Road
There are plans to allow two-way cycling in all three of these one-way streets. We have welcomed this move, but our welcome has been qualified by criticism of the over-elaborate detailed plans at the cycle entrances. The plans show a cycle by-pass separated from the road by a wide pedestrian refuge which will be set back into the street. This unnecessary refuge will not only take pedestrians away from their desire line, but will mean that the cycle lane is narrower than it should be. A small island and bollard as at St Barnabas Road would be much more suitable.
City Centre
 |
Whether or not to make the lifting the of the City Centre cycling ban permanent should have been decided at the Cambridge Traffic Management Area Joint Committee on Monday 22 January. We think that the trial period has been a great success and that the AJC should follow government policy and allow cyclists and pedestrians to mix as they do now. See New guidance from Cycling England in this newsletter.
AJC Decisions Supplement
Some moments of truth
As indicated in the newsletter, a key council committee met just after Newsletter 70 went to press. The decisions it made are important for the Campaign, so Simon Nuttall has reviewed the meeting for this supplement.
The Cambridge Area Transport Management Joint Committee (known as the AJC) sat for five hours on Monday 22 January 2007. The meeting was attended by about a dozen councillors representing city and county constituencies and by senior officers from both Cambridge City and Cambridgeshire County councils. The public viewed the meeting from the far end of the room, relying on amplification to follow proceedings.
Three items on the centimetre-thick agenda were of fundamental importance to the Cycling Campaign’s aims:
- Two-way cycling in one-way streets
- Experimental revocation of the city centre cycling restriction
- Gonville Place crossing
The first of several petitions wanted to ban heavy commercial vehicles from Lime Kiln Road, because of safety concerns. Following the petitioner’s speech, highway officers said that on a list of roads due for safety work and ranked by the agreed formula, this road is number 152, so no action will be taken, but everybody sympathised with the petitioners.
Forty minutes were then spent discussing yellow lines outside a house in Chesterton.
One-way streets
Following this, there were three petitions about bi-directional cycling in currently one-way streets.
Willis Road petition
The first petition was about blocking the two-way cycling proposals for Willis Road. The petitioner made the case that the one way system had worked well for 20 years, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, more cars might get scratched etc. He said that it was going to cost £100 000 to remove the small section of planting.
During the debate it was pointed out that revised plans meant that the area of planting was not going to be removed and this was going to cut the cost significantly. One councillor turned an apparent absence of any considered view from Anglia Ruskin University students into a reason to reject it. Later in the meeting it was decided by a majority vote not to proceed with plans for two-way cycling in this road.
My personal view was that this was a fairly typical nimby (‘not in my back yard’) petition. In debate it was clear that cyclists had been riding both ways for as long as anyone can remember and there is no record of a safety problem. I think it was the threatened loss of the cherished planting areas in the initially published plans, rather than safety, that doomed two-way cycling in Willis Road. We could perhaps have been more active in this area, by for example raising the issue with Anglia Ruskin University.
Kingston Street petition
The second petition, delivered by a Kingston Street resident and by a prospective councillor, was also about blocking proposals to permit two-way cycling, this time in Kingston Street. The resident’s argument hinged on how dangerous she felt it was to turn right into Kingston Street from Mill Road. A neighbour was worried about reversing out onto the street and not knowing which way to look. She said that there was a perfectly usable alternative route along nearby Gwydir Street.
The prospective councillor appeared to support the resident, but then strangely announced she was a member of the Cycling Campaign. She did not succeed in her attempts to reconcile the two positions.
During debate it became clear that the right turn ban from Mill Road into Kingston Street would remain. One councillor described how unsatisfactory the right turn from Mill Road into Gwydir Street was at the traffic lights because of the very narrow lane in the middle of the road where cyclists are forced to wait.
My view was that this was also another nimby petition but which did not stand up well to the scrutiny of the councillors.
|
Cycling Campaign petition
The third petition was delivered by James Woodburn and Martin Lucas-Smith representing the Campaign. James began by acknowledging the fears of residents but went on to say that evidence shows perceived safety problems do not materialise in practice. Both James and Martin cited government guidance in favour, the lack of an accident record (despite existing high levels of contraflow cycling) and the fact that 277 local people had signed our petition within 24 hours.
Martin finished, saying ‘What hope is there for cycling in Cambridge if these small changes are voted down?’
There were questions from councillors about which streets the campaign would not consider appropriate for two-way cycling, but those councillors did not want to hear the list of streets where two-way cycling was working satisfactorily. There was a little debate on how bad and inconvenient alternatives were, and the right turn from Mill Road into Kingston Street. The campaign mentioned that arrangements need to be changed at the Hooper Street end to improve visibility for motorists and cyclists at that junction.
The vote
When it came to a vote one councillor said that the proposed amendment seemed to have been settled in advance. There were no maps of the revised plans available so it was not entirely clear what was being voted for.
The result was that Willis Road will remain a one-way street, but both Mackenzie Road and Kingston Street will become legal for two-way cycling. There will be a right turn ban into Kingston Street from Mill Road.
My view
The dominant issue was not safety, but a few shrubs and plants in a brick planting area. The loss of that small bit of greenery in the initially publicised plans jeopardised the scheme from the start. The promised survival of the planting in revised plans was not enough to enable the principle of two-way cycling to become more established.
I’m struck by just how hard it has been to win this issue. Two-way cycling is happening in those streets already and so hardly anything will change for non-cyclists. Fears have been raised locally about what might happen, but when challenged with hard evidence those involved just don’t seem to want to listen.
City Centre cycling restriction
By the time it came to the City Centre cycling ban a number of councillors had already left the room. The officer reading from the 34 page report pointed out his surprise that there was not any overwhelming opposition to the lifting of the ban amongst pedestrians. Indeed, on balance from all stakeholder groups there was 50 to 55% support for permanent revocation.
From the debate it was clear that the decision was going to break on party lines. A councillor from the minority party said he’d read the report, and looked at it, but that he was entitled to his own opinion, which was against the findings.
With relatively little debate the decision was 6 to 2 in favour of a request to recommend permanent revocation of the ban to the County Council’s Cabinet at their meeting on 27 February.
Gonville Place crossing
A revised officer recommendation was circulated at the beginning of the discussion on the Gonville Place crossing. It basically proposed revised plans and costings for a parallel pedestrian and cycle crossing (which sounds not too different from what was there before). This item was approved quite quickly.
Windsor Road
The last few agenda items were rounded up pretty quickly. Of interest there was the consideration of objections to Traffic Regulation Orders for traffic calming in Windsor Road. Though support amongst councillors voting for this flawed scheme had dwindled to 3, with only 2 against, it will still go ahead.
Summary
I think the decisions taken in this meeting have been of fundamental importance to Cambridge Cycling Campaign. Our last-minute petition on two-way cycling did make a difference, but it is clear that we shall have to fight each and every one of the two-way street changes as they arise.
The decision on the ban revocation has taken a back seat to the bi-directional cycling issue, and despite the clear recommendation to lift the ban we just don’t know what the Cabinet will decide. The Gonville Place crossing decision is due to the huge support for our petition and the expert and thorough contributions to Councillors and Officers from members of the Campaign’s crossing subgroup.
Many thanks to all our members and supporters for their help with the petitions and their informed contributions.
Simon Nuttall
Photomap this month: editor's pick
A new series. This issue's 'best photo' from the Photomap system is 9351
 |
The scene greeting visitors to Cambridge on their way from the railway station. An acute lack of secure cycle parking leads to bikes parked insecurely to the wooden railing, with the result of this vandalism.
For more cycling-related photos of Cambridge or to add your own, visit the photomap
Campaign Diary
Please note: the most up-to-date version of the diary of events is always in the events section of the website.
February 2007 |
|
| Fri 2 8.30am | Newsletter 70 review and planning for 71 over breakfast at Tatties café on Sussex Street. |
| Fri 2 12.30pm | Friday ride (weather permitting): A lunchtime ride of varying speed and length, usually involving a stop at a pub on the way. Open and to all who like to ride and talk about bicycles. Join the ride at your own risk. Start from the Stourbridge Common side of Green Dragon Bridge. |
| Tue 6 7.30pm | Monthly General Meeting with a talk by Michael Simmons on a pollution monitoring project with mobile sensors for cyclists and pedestrians, 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 8.00pm). |
| Fri 9 12.30pm | Friday ride (weather permitting): Lunchtime ride, open to all. See 2 Feb for description. |
| Fri 16 12.30pm | Friday ride (weather permitting): Lunchtime ride, open to all. See 2 Feb for description. |
| Mon 19 7pm | Social meeting: Join us for a social gathering at CB2 cafe, 5-7 Norfolk Street |
| Fri 23 12.30pm | Friday ride (weather permitting): Lunchtime ride, open to all. See 2 Feb for description. |
March 2007 |
|
| Fri 2 12.30pm | Friday ride (weather permitting): Lunchtime ride, open to all. See 2 Feb for description. |
| Tue 6 7.30pm | Monthly General Meeting with a talk on Wicken Fen, Friends' Meeting House, Jesus Lane. For details see 2 Feb. |
| Fri 9 12.30pm | Friday ride (weather permitting): Lunchtime ride, open to all. See 2 Feb for description. |
| Sat 10 | Deadline for articles written for Newsletter 71. |
| Sun 11 1pm | Leisurely ride: A countryside ride, at a gentle pace, in association with Sustrans. Meet at Reality Checkpoint (centre of Parker's Piece). This month we'll be riding through Addenbrooke's past the Genome Stripes to Shelford. |
| Fri 16 12.30pm | Friday ride (weather permitting): Lunchtime ride, open to all. See 2 Feb for description. |
| Mon 19 7pm | Social meeting: Join us for a social gathering at CB2 cafe, 5-7 Norfolk Street |
| Fri 23 12.30pm | Friday ride (weather permitting): Lunchtime ride, open to all. See 2 Feb for description. |
| Thu 29 7.30pm | Newsletter 70 envelope stuffing at the Baby Milk Action office, 34 Trumpington Street. Help very much welcomed. |
| Fri 30 12.30pm | Friday ride (weather permitting): Lunchtime ride, open to all. See 2 Feb for description. |
April 2007 |
|
| Tue 3 7.30pm | Monthly General Meeting with a video on Copenhagen cycling, Friends' Meeting House, Jesus Lane. For details see 2 Feb. |
| Fri 13 8.30am | Newsletter 70 review meeting at Tatties café on Sussex Street. |
| Mon 16 7pm | Join us for a social gathering at CB2 café, 5-7 Norfolk Street. |
About the Campaign
Please note: the most up-to-date general information about the Campaign is always in the about the Campaign section of the website.
Add your voice to those of our 800 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. Join now on-line at our membership page. 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 2006-2007
Please note: the most up-to-date Committee list is always in the Committee list section of the website.
Co-ordinator - Martin Lucas-Smith
Liaison Officer - Jim Chisholm
Membership Secretary - Dave Earl
Newsletter Editor - Mark Irving
Treasurer - Clare Macrae
Stall Officer - Paul Tonks 07870 441257
Press Officer - James Woodburn
Officers without portfolio - Mike Causer, Monica Frisch, James Gilbert, Vanessa Kelly, Simon Nuttall, Alasdair Poore and Lisa Woodburn
Contacting the Campaign
Please note: the most up-to-date contact details for the Campaign are always in the contacts section of the website, which includes an online feedback form.
In particular, note that our fax number is now separate from the phone number.
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.
Top of page