Elections – Cambridge Cycling Campaign

Elections

Local elections (City), May 2018: Castle

Summary: Elections to Cambridge City Council in May 2018
Polling date: Thursday 3rd May 2018
Ward:
Candidates
(by surname):
  • Othman COLE  (Conservative Party)
  • Cheney PAYNE  (Liberal Democrat)
  • Aidan POWLESLAND  (Libertarian Party)
  • Mark READER  (Labour Party)
  • Lucas RUZOWITZKY  (Green Party)

Questions for Castle ward candidates (8 questions)

Jump to question:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8 

# Question 1

What experience do you and your family have of cycling? Do you have any different concerns about younger or older family members cycling than you do yourself?

Othman COLE
(Conservative Party)
The candidate has not responded to the survey.
Cheney PAYNE
(Liberal Democrat)

I have always cycled in Cambridge, since cycling to lectures on the Sidgwick Site as a student 11 years ago. My most intensive year of cycling was when I spent a year cycling from Castle Hill to Cherry Hinton and back twice daily as a language therapist, clocking up around 14 miles a day. I now work in a school in Suffolk so drive to work, but cycle around the town at weekends and during school holidays.

Despite a lot of cycling experience, it is not really something which comes naturally to me and I actually find it really difficult. I have encountered issues caused by faster cyclists overtaking me in areas of heavy traffic, risking themselves and me. It concerns me that cyclists who, like me, are less steady on their wheels are particularly at risk at busy junctions such as the bottom of Castle hill. This would be an issue for older and younger cyclists in many cases, but is of course not limited to these groups. I have particular concerns about people cycling with young children in trailers behind them: at key pinch points with lots of other cyclists passing quickly, these trailers could not be noticed or avoided easily.

Aidan POWLESLAND
(Libertarian Party)

I moved to Castle Ward in 1990 and from then until 2003 my only vehicular transport was a bicycle. I would not say I was a fanatic for bicycles, but I would say I was almost married to mine. I have a particularly vivid memory of the motorist on Castle Hill who opened her passenger side door to step out of her vehicle onto the road just as I arrived, going at 20 mph, at the spot she opened her door into.

On the subject of the cycling of diverse generations (family members, friends and colleagues or whomsoever) I do not have "concerns" at all. But as to the idea that government policy should be age specific, in any degree, naturally where government intrudes on matters to which age is integral age should be considered. For example, the department of Transport allows £1.6 million per year to prevent a fatality on the roads. I think it would make good sense for them to allow £2.5 million to prevent a fatality among the under 15s (on the grounds their life still lies in full ahead of them and so, in this sense, is more precious) and over 50s (on the grounds their life is getting, all other things being equal, less fun, and so let us to some extent make way out of sympathy as it were) even if it meant allowing only £1.0 million for the rest. The Department of Transport is not an organisation in which Cambridge City has a voice but applying the same principle to measures enacted by the City in respect of the young (or the most elderly) by all means let us be age aware in any specific case. I do not have any such specific case to bring forward so I have explained the nature of the thinking I would apply to any cases that I encountered or did in the future bring to the fore.

Mark READER
(Labour Party)

I cycle to and from Cambridge City every day, except Saturdays and I do most of my work and personal travel by bicycle. And I try to do a 'long cycle journey' one or twice each year. So I have cycled to March, Harlton and to Fowlmere.

Lucas RUZOWITZKY
(Green Party)

I cycle everywhere, no difference in concern. Cycling should be safe, accessible and enjoyable for everyone.

# Question 2

A key aim of our organisation is enabling more people to cycle, by the provision of protected space for cycling away from traffic, not shared with pedestrians, thus reducing traffic and providing transport choice. This best-practice is outlined in our guide, Making Space For Cycling, endorsed by all national cycling organisations. Do you support these principles, and if so, where could they most effectively be applied in your ward?

Othman COLE
(Conservative Party)
The candidate has not responded to the survey.
Cheney PAYNE
(Liberal Democrat)

I entirely support these proposals, and there are some areas of Castle such as the cycle lanes on Huntingdon Road where there is evidence that well-maintained, level cycle lanes of an appropriate width make cycling along a main route much safer. However, a key issue facing Castle ward at the moment is how these principles can be applied on Histon Road. The original proposed developments were clearly to the detriment of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as local residents with gardens leading onto Histon Road which were under threat of compulsory purchase to allow for bus lanes. As these consultations move forward, I think it is essential that the developments incorporate segregated cycle and pedestrian routes. Currently, the width of the road means these cycle lanes are proposed to be just 1.5m wide, well below the 2.1m of cycle space recommended in ‘Making Space for Cycling’. I think this is an unacceptable proposal: cycle lanes which are so narrow and not segregated are barely worth including and can cause more dangers by putting cyclists and cars into close a space. At the very least, keeping these narrower sections clearly marked is essential to ensure drivers know to give space, as well as prioritising the maintenance of these narrow sections so cyclists are not required to swerve to observe potholes. Histon Road is a busy cycle route so the possibility of a narrow and unsegregated cycle lane is not suitable for it.

Aidan POWLESLAND
(Libertarian Party)

I endorse the principle that in general cycles should not share space with pedestrians where there is no motor vehicle traffic. But where the choice is between bicycles sharing the road or pavement with motor vehicles and with pedestrians I lean toward favouring the latter. I recall how some years ago, when one way cycling and two way pedestrian non motor vehicle traffic were introduced in Trinity Street, the Cambridge Evening News reported, with a photograph, on the "happy co-existence," or some such, of pedestrians and cycles on this street. My own observation that very same day was a pedestrian haranguing a cyclist for having the temerity to exercise his right to weave his way through the foot traffic.

On the other hand, I do not favour excessive regulation. For example, when I was a child, policemen would occasionally chastise me for cavorting on the pavement on my bicycle. Notwithstanding the unease that might be caused to, say, a wheelchair bound citizen advancing along a pavement were some sleek fifteen year old road-runner to whip by at 25 mph with a finely calculated millimetre to spare I do favour allowing bicycles on pavements. This morning I spoke to an elector who told me that her elderly friends were reluctant to cross the street where there were one way bicycle lanes because so many cyclists rode the wrong way along them, but I am not sure that this reasoning is totally persuasive surely the pedestrian should not put all their faith in the one way system? Marking bicycle lanes on pavements is certainly no bad thing but perhaps not always necessary or even desirable. I find something patronising, not always perhaps but sometimes, about a bicycle lane on a pavement as if the pedestrians and I were not capable of acting with mutual consideration in the absence of a government white line. In recent times, beyond the bridge beside Trinity Hall, one side has been marked for cycles and the other for pedestrians. If it were proven that the benefits of this in lives saved was great I could not oppose it and yet I do wonder if something is not lost over how matters were before, when the traffic down that hill toward the university library took a rather more ad hoc, weaving and un-regimented course to my great delight both as a pedestrian observing the progress of swift moving bicycles or as a cyclist being one.

Mark READER
(Labour Party)

Yes, I support Making Space for Cycling, wherever space makes this possible. I would hope that Cyclist Safety Can be much improved along the Madingley and Histon Roads (which abut my ward). Schools access routes - more crossings and Histon Road cycle lane. I, personally, found the Huntingdon Road Cycle Lane to be a huge boost to cycle safety.

Lucas RUZOWITZKY
(Green Party)

Yes:
Madingley Road
Castle Street
Chesterton Road
Huntingdon Road
Histon Road
Queen’s Road
Northamtop Street

# Question 3

Safe use of the roads is a major issue. Our view is that traffic policing, of all groups of road users (cyclists, drivers, etc.), should become a greater police priority, and that this should be evidence-based, namely based on the relative levels of danger presented by each such group. What are your thoughts, and where would your priorities be?

Othman COLE
(Conservative Party)
The candidate has not responded to the survey.
Cheney PAYNE
(Liberal Democrat)

I think cyclists in Cambridge often receive an unfair amount of criticism: often the offences committed cause little harm to other road users. However, it is the sheer volume of cyclists we have that magnify these issues. I think the priority actually needs to be educating road users, particularly students, about how to cycle safely, rather than just punishing offences. Many students arriving in Cambridge having never cycled before, and then are suddenly cycling regularly around a busy city, under intense time pressure from their courses, and often with baskets laden with books making them unsteady. Some of the key student cycle routes are complex for everyone, for example the junction of Lady Margaret Road to Madingley Road, and the junction at the bottom of Castle Hill are lethal at the best of times. When you add cyclists to this who are not familiar with Highway Code then accidents are going to happen. As a student, I remember it was compulsory that we attended a tour of our College library during fresher’s week: I think spending some time attending mandatory cycle safety training before being able to register a bicycle in Cambridge would be a really helpful step to educate inexperienced student cyclists and help keep them, and other road users safe.

Linking to Question 2, I also think a lot of the dangers presented by each group can be minimised if more of the recommendations in ‘Making Space for Cyclists’ were embedded across the City, particularly at junctions. Many risks to road users come when cyclists, pedestrians and drivers are in the same place at the same time and thus conflict occurs. One of my key priorities for Castle would be that ensuring routes which are used by a variety of forms of transport aim to separate the users as much as possible. On Madingley Road for example, I think it is essential that good cycle routes are maintained so that cyclists are not forced on the road: it is much safer to combine a bus lane with a lane of traffic than it is a cycle lane with fast moving traffic.

Aidan POWLESLAND
(Libertarian Party)

The cross party infrastructure group of MPs found, in their report, "We're Jammin" that excessive traffic controls are costing the average motor vehicle user circa £500 per year stuck in unnecessary jams. Since bicycles are generally less fast than motor vehicles the cost to cyclists of traffic controls will be less. In the case of Cambridge, allowing for an average bicycle speed of 20% that of an average car along with a 60% cost reducing adjuster for being able to weave through traffic we might surmise costs of £40 per year stuck, say, at traffic lights. The justification for disproportionate (to the increase in traffic) increases in traffic controls is usually on grounds of health and safety but in practice the proliferation of controls has come about willy nilly. Some experiments over the last decade or so (see http://thecityfix.com/blog/naked-streets-without-traffic-lights-improve-flow-and-safety/) have suggested, counter-intuitively, that the removal of traffic controls increases safety by inspiring more careful driving. In "We're Jammin" The cross party infrastructure group of MPs stated that they favoured the removal of all traffic controls but expressed the view that this would so alarm the public that even though it made sense they were not proposing it. What they proposed instead, by implication at least, was a relative reduction in traffic controls and I embrace the report's wisdom. At the start of question 3 you state that traffic policing with a view to achieving reduced levels of road injury (if I have understood you correctly) should become a greater police priority. The police are not directly subject to the authority of the City Council so to some degree this is beyond a councillor's brief but obviously they may attention and I do not mean to disparage the question. While no one could object to your call for evidence based assessment, focused on the relative levels of danger presented by each such group of road user, my over-arching thought is that to prioritise one aspect of health and safety over another or, indeed, to prioritise all questions of health and safety of whatever sort, over other questions such as questions of beauty or harmony or freedom, is not inherently the path to virtue. Especially not if this prioritising is regardless of cost.

In 1865 the "Red Flag" Act was passed reducing the speed limit in towns from 5 mph to 2 mph and in the countryside from 10 mph to 4 mph. Without a doubt and in so far as the Act was complied with it will have improved road safety. Just as strapping everyone to their bed all day long would. Nonetheless I would have opposed it.

In other words, the Cambridge Cycling Campaign's support for greater priority being given to, in particular, a police focus on improving safety, if it is to be fact based in a wider sense should be informed by questions of what resources are available and, more complicatedly, how else they might be used, if not to say should also be informed by notions of virtue that are not confined to questions of health and safety.

My first priority would be to incorporate questions of cost into the evidence based process that you advocate and which I favour, notwithstanding my tone, equally as you do and especially when comparing different groups of road user.

In so far as the police allocate resources to control of road users I endorse your approach but I think that asking the police to allocate more resources to the control of road users cannot be justified solely in terms of lives saved whether targeted or not. The philosophical question a police force faces when comparing road death prevention to, say, murder prevention cannot be definitively resolved and the comparison between road deaths prevented and crimes to property, to take just one example, prevented is philosophically much harder. As a cycling pressure group your priorities make perfect sense and as a cyclist I am warmed by them, but I would prefer to consider issues in detail rather then endorse the wider philosophical principle of health and safety to the fore irrespective of cost or irrespective of competing ideas of what it is right for authorities to focus on.

Mark READER
(Labour Party)

I am very much in favour of risk based policing. Cyclists are very vulnerable road users, and can be hurt or even killed by vehicles. But can also seriously hurt pedestrians - and there are even instances of cyclists killing pedestrians.

Lucas RUZOWITZKY
(Green Party)

I think a better use of funding would be to invest in cycle lanes that run parallel to sidewalks and roads - separating the three user groups. I think spending money on policing is a short term solution, it would be better in the log term to make the investment in this improvement to infrastructure.

# Question 4

We are keen to see more children being able to cycle safely to school independently. Ideas from our members to assist this include protected space for cycling, parking/pickup bans 200m of schools, cycle parking. What measures would you suggest?

Othman COLE
(Conservative Party)
The candidate has not responded to the survey.
Cheney PAYNE
(Liberal Democrat)

As a teacher myself, in a rural area, I know that cycling to school can work really well in an area where the 3 stages of the journey are well-resourced: people need to have space to keep their bikes at home safely; the main routes require safe cycling provision; and the drop off point needs to be car free with safe cycle storage again.

Firstly, while some of the roads in Castle have secure front gardens with space to store bikes off the road, this is not the case everywhere, and so I think creation of safe cycle storage areas in places like Oxford Road where there is less space would enable more families to see cycling to school as an easy option. Shared cycle storage with protection for bikes mean parents are more likely to buy their children a bike if they know they have somewhere safe to keep it that does not involve carrying it through their front room several times a day.

Secondly, providing off-road cut throughs for cyclists is essential to ensure children can cycle to school safely. It is very easy for schools to provide maps and guidance of the best cycle routes to school from the different parts of its catchment area as part of their induction packs to new students. In some of the smaller primary schools, it is also possible to make cycling to school a part of a students’ induction activities: for example, arranging for members of staff or an engaged parent to meet students in a central part of the catchment area and lead them along a safe cycle route to school for the first few days of term quickly ensures children are confident to cycle independently, and learn the best routes to take. This would also help parents to feel confident in allowing their children to cycle, knowing they have been given the appropriate guidance. This is something my school has done as part of our year 6 induction process and it has worked really well to create little groups who then cycle in daily throughout the school year. For this to work, such cut-throughs have to exist of course, which should be a priority of future planning.

The final step in this process is providing a safe drop off point and bike storage. I was really disappointed to see that a LHI bid for double yellow lines around the Mayfield Primary School was rejected recently: providing space around schools is key to ensuring students can arrive safely, get off their bikes and get out of the road quickly. Clear directions for parking around schools ensures that cyclists can get to the bike storage easily without fear of conflict with vehicles, and also aids those dropping children off in a car by giving them fewer cyclists to navigate around at the busy school drop off.

Aidan POWLESLAND
(Libertarian Party)

I too am keen to see more children cycling to school independently. I think the most effective way to achieve this would be for every parent to make it so.

I am glad that you have sought suggestions from members as to how to achieve this. I note that your emphasis is on making the journey safer. No sane person would seek to make it more dangerous. Moreover, if, in fact, it were made safer it stands to reason that more parents would be nudged to let their children cycle to school alone which would in itself be good. I wonder, however, if it might be more effective to write to parents with the evidence setting out the actual risk faced as against the benefits thereby derived?

As a primary school pupil I walked to school (I did not cycle) without a care in the world. No doubt some of my contemporaries somewhere in the country suffered some mishap from doing so and I imagine as a proportion more than would do today. But I wonder if, perhaps, a little less wrapping of children in metaphorical cotton wool might not serve too.

Above I suggested that putting cycle lanes on pavements was perhaps not always to the good but I much prefer to see a child bicycle making its way along the pavement than I do to see it making its way along the road. Given how light foot traffic is along many of our pavements and how much slower accidents are when they occur on a pavement than on the road I tend to the view that moving cycle lanes off roads onto pavements is, subject to cost, generally a good thing and particularly so with cycling children in mind even though this does run against my not always favouring lanes at all on pavements.

I am not crazy for, in particular, parking pickup bans. An inebriated maniac 20 year old driver on a cocaine high is going to be dangerous in front of a primary school anyway but I am doubtful that it is the naturally careful parents whom one should focus on controlling in order to minimise road accidents next to schools.

Mark READER
(Labour Party)

- Cycle paths
- No parking
- Street wardens (?)
- Telling off wayward road users
- Safe crossings

Lucas RUZOWITZKY
(Green Party)

I think an easier solution would be to start a campaign to encourage and allow children to cycle on pedestrian sidewalks - they are everywhere, and would ensure safe passage from all points A to B. Children at least should be permitted to do this in the absence of safe/separate cycle infrastructure. Us adults can risk our lives on the street with cars, although this isn't ideal either.

# Question 5

Our volunteers spend a lot of time scrutinising planning applications for failures such as lack of secure cycle parking, poor access, failure to fund nearby improvements to make the roads safer, and so on. Many of these things get let through by officers and Councillors in clear contravention of the Local Plan. The lack of a full-time cycling officer makes this situation even worse. What are your main concerns about the planning system, and how would you seek to make improvements?

Othman COLE
(Conservative Party)
The candidate has not responded to the survey.
Cheney PAYNE
(Liberal Democrat)

One of my concerns is that representatives of all main users of roads are not always included in planning decisions equally, and this leads to disconnected decision making. This is often to the detriment of cyclists, but pedestrians and motorists too whose needs and safety must also be considered. I think that experienced and knowledgeable representatives of the main users of roads should be included in the planning decisions.

I also think it is important to consider individual planning applications in the wider context of the ward and the overall city. Many of the roads in Castle ward are tributaries in and out of the Cambridge, so poor decision making here has a significant impact on the through flow of traffic around the city. I would ensure local liaison is a priority in any planning decision, where the needs of the surrounding area and all stakeholders are represented. The best place for this to take place is in the Area Committees, where representatives of the community can be heard.

Aidan POWLESLAND
(Libertarian Party)

I am in favour of repeal of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and its replacement with a modified law of tort (in which government could not defend itself from actions against it for damages by arguing that its officers were doing their duty).

During the Second World War it was determined that to maximise the war effort all other considerations should be subordinate to war. To ensure that all competing ideas of virtue were subordinate command economics were deployed and everything was subject to planning and rationing. This wartime presumption was carried into the late 40s, and the sphere of land use in particular, by this Act which also expressed the Labour government of the day's enthusiasm for the Soviet Union and command economics in general. This enthusiasm was also connected to the war against Germany which the USSR was recognised to have made possible the winning of, but was based on a terrible ignorance of the brutality and cost of the Soviet Union's tightly planned war effort let alone the cost of the same within the UK. I mention this history in order to look at the wider picture of which this 1947 Act of parliament is a part. The place from which it came and why it was introduced. What I am referring to is the idea, the ideological belief, that a society is best when it is directed by commands (backed up necessarily by force), when it is planned, rather than when it is not directed at all but evolves instead by the collaborative joint ventures of free individuals and unhampered organisations lesser than the state. At https://aidanpowlesland.wordpress.com/category/communities-and-local-government/Attempted Murder in the South Suffolk Countryside I have proposed that along with repeal of the 1947 Act the Law of Tort be modified to allow land use clashes to be resolved in a more just and efficient way with government no longer being free to ride roughshod over individual rights or those of lesser organisations.

Command economics and planning are not only unfriendly to liberty. In practice they also work very badly.

As an advocate of repeal of the Planning Act it will not surprise you too read that I am opposed also to Local Plans.

What these effectively do is drive down to a lower level of social organisation the attempt to command the minutiae of land use (and many people's lives). Local plans are reflective of a certain idea of democracy, namely, that City councillors, or those activist willing to engage in the process of the creation of the plan, being closer to the people are better able to speak for them than Central government even though there is an element of fiction in this since much power does remain with the higher authority. But my point is this: democracy is not always a friend to liberty.

I do not believe the citizenry should have to bestir themselves to participate in the creation of a plan if they have better things to do and I in particular do not believe that their liberty should be reduced by those who have created the plan even if they do live within five miles.

To answer your question more directly I would oppose the creation of a full-time cycling officer on principle as I am opposed to the creation of any additional planning officers on principle and rather would prefer to see fewer of them by which I mean in fact none.

My main concern about the planning system is that it imposes the collective will on the right (as I believe it should be) of individuals or organisations smaller than and subordinate to government, organisations such as business, charities and churches, to dispose of their property as they see fit.

That I favour an individual's right to dispose of his own property is not because I care for things more than people. It because I care for the freedom of individuals against collective power which a person's property buttresses.

Freedom unchecked by duty is not, however, what I advocate. If the Law of Tort were duly reformed so that thoughtless land use which hurt or imposed on others were subject to civil action in court I believe a freer and more efficient system would evolve organically. In particular government would be checked in its more grandiose and unhelpful schemes.

To put it more humbly I would like to see people work these matters out among themselves collaboratively as far as possible without government power being deployed at all.

Mark READER
(Labour Party)

I support the Local Plan, and would do my best to enforce the proper provisions for cyclists (adults and children).

Lucas RUZOWITZKY
(Green Party)

My main concerns about the planning system is that it doesn't place the interests of citizens first, how to solve this would require some brainstorming.

# Question 6

Cycle routes which are narrow and involve sharp turns and chicanes make routes difficult or impossible for users of adapted cycles, tricycles, handcycles, cargo cycles and cycles with trailers, impairing accessibility for the most vulnerable. Can you think of anywhere in your ward where it is difficult to use a non-standard cycle and what would you do to improve it?

Othman COLE
(Conservative Party)
The candidate has not responded to the survey.
Cheney PAYNE
(Liberal Democrat)

My partner uses a recumbent tricycle for his commute, and this has really highlighted to me the extra effort those riding non-conventional bikes need to make in order to avoid difficult kerbs and narrow cycle lanes. In Castle ward, the three staggered gates where the Ridgeway cycleway meets Storey’s Way are very difficult for users of non-standard cycles, and they are tight to weave around, especially when pulling a trailer. This area does need some kind of approach to slow cyclists down as the cycle way then hits the chicane on Storey’s Way, but I would replace the gates with bollards wide enough to allow non-standard cycles through.

Aidan POWLESLAND
(Libertarian Party)

I propose to answer this under separate cover in the event I am elected. I would not like to comment on so specific a matter without having attended to it adequately.

Mark READER
(Labour Party)

- Mayfield School cut-through (I am unsure what is best here, as a number of residents have complained to me, personally, so I would work with all stakeholders to achieve the best possible outcome).
- Windsor Road pinch point (hopefully the Oxford/Windsor traffic calming will mean that the need for this point will cease).

Lucas RUZOWITZKY
(Green Party)

I cant think of any - it's not something I have looked out for personally.

# Question 7

Protected junctions where walking and cycling traffic are fully separated from motorised traffic have been proposed by Cambridge Cycling Campaign for junctions being rebuilt by the Milton and Histon Road GCP projects. Which junctions do you think would benefit from similar safety improvements within the Cambridge area?

Othman COLE
(Conservative Party)
The candidate has not responded to the survey.
Cheney PAYNE
(Liberal Democrat)

The junction where Lady Margaret Road joins Madingley Road is hugely dangerous for all users, as cyclists need to cross Madingley Road to reach the cycle path which is integrated with the pedestrian route. Cyclists turning left or right immediately join lanes of heavy traffic without any kind of cycle lane, meaning many cyclists cycle on the pavement. This all happens in the middle of a complex series of hazards for motorists, and just before a zebra crossing. This is a classic example of where all road users are placed in conflict, so any means of separating users would improve the safety of this junction.

Aidan POWLESLAND
(Libertarian Party)

I propose to answer this under separate cover in the event I am elected. I would not like to comment on so specific a matter without having attended to it adequately. I have examined the proposals but found the information inadequate, mostly because of absence of consideration of costs (in the widest sense) to put forward a position on the basis of what I know so far.

Mark READER
(Labour Party)

- Warwick / Gilbert Road
- Carisbrooke / Histon Road
- Windsor / Histon Road
- Victoria / Huntingdon Road

Lucas RUZOWITZKY
(Green Party)

All junctions.

# Question 8

There is a new route to Eddington via Storey's Way, but this road suffers from rat-running between Madingley and Huntingdon Roads, and an awkward pinch point which makes access to the new cycle path difficult. What would you suggest to improve this situation?

Othman COLE
(Conservative Party)
The candidate has not responded to the survey.
Cheney PAYNE
(Liberal Democrat)

As mentioned above, I think removing the staggered gates here would improve access to the cycle path for all cyclists, including those on non-standard bikes. In the photo, it is clear to see the impact that cars parked on the side of the road have on traffic on Storey’s Way so there is the question here of what to do about roadside parking. There is mixed opinion on this road about the impact introducing a residents’ only parking scheme would have on traffic, with some residents feeling allowing on-road parking is preferable as it slows cyclists down. I have surveyed residents on Storey’s Way about the parking situation, and opinion on this is very mixed on different parts of the road. While I am in favour of maintaining as much open parking in Cambridge as possible in areas where residents have ample driveways, it is often the parked cars that add to the danger of this road in busy periods. I think exploring further ideas about the balance of space for parking and cycle paths would be fruitful to help solve this problem. Additionally, clearer indication of lane usage around the chicane would help motorists and cyclists to position themselves correctly.

Aidan POWLESLAND
(Libertarian Party)

I propose to answer this under separate cover in the event I am elected. I would not like to comment on so specific a matter without having attended to it adequately. I did examine the photographs but have not derived enough information from them to make a sensible answer.

Mark READER
(Labour Party)

- CCTV cameras, for policing of rat-runs and to obviate the need for gate on Ridgeway
(eg display saying "your speed is 15mph, but you WILL get fined if you drive through here")

Lucas RUZOWITZKY
(Green Party)

Invest in infrastructure improvement, redesign the layout.

Camcycle is a non-partisan body. All candidates are given an equal opportunity to submit their views. Information published by Camcycle (Cambridge Cycling Campaign), The Bike Depot, 140 Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0DL.