« Back to list of all 34 questions for this election

Question 2 - we asked:

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?

We asked this question in all 14 wards, namely: Abbey, Arbury, Castle, Cherry Hinton, Coleridge, East Chesterton, King's Hedges, Market, Newnham, Petersfield, Queen Edith's, Romsey, Trumpington, West Chesterton.

56 of the 61 candidates (92%) who were asked this question responded as below.

Those candidate(s) which were elected are highlighted.

(Conservative Party)

Yes I support increased provision for safe cycling facilities separated as far as possible from other traffic

Manas DEB
(Conservative Party)

I completely agree with this principle. I support more dedicated cycle paths in Queen Edith’s for commuters and school children for safe cycling and reduced traffic congestion. However,new cycle paths should not be built at the cost of losing significant numbers of cherry trees or any residential characters and must be in due consultation with local residents. Fendon Road, Mowbray Road and Wulstan Way could be a possibility to build dedicated cycle paths similar to Hills Road to coonect Addenbrooke’s with Cherry Hinton Road and Perne Road.

(Conservative Party)

I support the Guide and its principles.

When I was a councillor from 1998 to 2002, I promoted the idea of a trail alongside the railway in the southern part of Cambridge - this is now the south end of the Chisholm trail.

(Conservative Party)

I fully support the idea of separate cycling zones and equally safe walking areas. All this should be structured in the upcoming environmental plans. Obviously this must be done within reasonable financial resources. So I do support your objectives.

(Conservative Party)

I support these principles, and would consult widely with all residents before backing specific proposals.

(Conservative Party)

I am a big believer in segregating cycling space from traffic and pedestrians, less so in reducing traffic per se. Transport choice is partly a matter for the private sector and partly the state: the Conservative government recently introduced the Bus Services Act 2017 allowing more local government involvement in organising bus services.

In terms of actual road infrastructure: motorists have been the principal beneficiaries of design decisions for several decades; this has influenced current attitudes and the cost of new measures. I do not approve of the "creepy demand management" measures that seem to crop up to try to coerce transport users' behaviour, in particular any congestion charging scheme that would undermine personal privacy.

Until recently, I lived on Great Eastern Street in Romsey, which is basically a pedestrian-unfriendly car-park and occasional building site. Workmen would literally use the road outside my bedroom for preparing building materials, and there were often considerable difficulties parking bicycles in a manner which didn't interfere with pedestrian access given the very narrow pavements.

The speed-bumps and other anti-car infrastructure in the heart of Romsey make life difficult for cyclists as well. Romsey has unusual arrangements for car parking and traffic; measures clearly designed for facilitating cycling, like those little single-lane cycle paths too often end up benefiting no-one as they're used for parking wheelie bins and otherwise obstructed.

Simon LEE
(Conservative Party)

I do agree and I’m very keen on segregated cycle ways, I personally don't think enough thought is put into our infrastructure in CB in particular to Cycling. Mill road is a mess, I think if we could implement some sort of red route at peak times to avoid people parking on the pavement, tidy up the junctions, fix potholes and finish off the car park at the station, the surface has not been finished and is dangerous to both bike and foot.

(Conservative Party)

I support the guide and its principles. More needs to be done to ensure access to bike trails and more adequate signage, particularly along Grange Road and other major thoroughfares.

(Conservative Party)

These principles are often extremely helpful and I have personally been impressed by the dedicated cycle zones rolled out in many cities especially on the continent. However, in an historic City such as Cambridge we face specific challenges which make the application of these principles more difficult. For example, the high number of tourists in the City especially in the summer months, who have come to see Cambridge in her best light, means that it is often not possible to separate cycles and pedestrians without causing undue congestion for both.

I am committed to thinking critically about where we can separate traffic for safety’s sake and where it is not reasonable to do so. In those latter cases we must look to education of road or path users and perhaps the introduction of road/path markings to remind pedestrians and cyclists alike that neither are the sole users of these byways.

(Conservative Party)

I do support segregating cyclists from traffic where possible on safety grounds
although this can have some crossover with bus lanes which is less than desirable.
There are dedicated cycle lanes in the ward including new ones on Trumpington road.
I would like to see some signage at the town end warning all road users of the potential dangers
as the Lensfield road roundabout is an accident black-spot.

(Conservative Party)

The best-practice is outlined in‘Making Space For Cycling’ is fully supported by me and, where feasible, should be the starting point when considering improvements to road infrastructure. See my answers below for ward specific thoughts.

(Green Party)

I do support these principles, the making space for cycling document appears to be excellent.

(Green Party)

I support these principles . I would also add that it's important for cyclists (and potential cyclists) to have access to information about existing cycle routes and safer routing options. For example, when I moved to Cambridge, I didn't know anything about Abbey's network of footpaths or that I could cycle along the Wadloes loop to avoid a chunk of Newmarket Road . I have an old Cambridge Cycling map but it's now out of date and out of print.

I think that the biggest problem for Abbey residents is Newmarket Road which is very busy and has lots of places that we all want to visit on or near it. Newmarket Road does have cycle lanes but both the on and off road ones are shared and far from pleasant. Your question 6 mentions this too.

(Green Party)

I wholeheartedly support these principles. I have two thoughts about how they might be applied in Market Ward. First, we need to work harder to separate cyclists from pedestrians. In places such as Parker’s Piece (along Park Terrace) and across Midsummer Common and Jesus Green the current shared pavements are not satisfactory. Secondly, we should examine demarcating the contraflow cycleways, such as that in Pembroke/Downing Street, more clearly e.g. with coloured tarmac and cobbled boundaries.

(Green Party)

The principles of protected space is absolutely right - though, even then, there is always a range of cyclists to consider (the high speed commuter through to the first-timer) who have different expectations of such facilities. The challenge is always finding space to modify existing infrastructure without losing important green space and trees or compromising width of lanes for big vehicles. Measures to control parking as well as the 20MPH speed limit are ostensibly making some of the adjustments retrospectively and beyond those Queen Edith's ward is not one where many other changes are possible. Wulfstan Way is perhaps one local road that needs further attention. The arguments over Queen Edith's Way, however, have demonstrated that prioritising the cyclists perspective - especially the commuter cyclist's perspective - is not readily compatible with the needs of those who live in the road. And more importantly, as is often the case, it is pointless identifying individual stretches of road that could be adapted. These need to be part of a holistic change to the way transport is planned and managed.

(Green Party)

I feel that a Dutch style cycle path system would make it safer for younger and older and disabled people to feel safe and increase the volume of cycling in the city.
I fully endorse this document “Making Space for Cycling” it is very thorough and covers many of the cycle issues I have campaigned for in the last 40 years. It very good to see such a comprehensive document in print. Thank you Cambridge Cycle Campaign for producing this.
What is needed now is local and national government to get behind it and fund the changes that need to take place and to see this enshrined in planning law.
From reading the document I have few questions for further discussion in the cycling community. In future I would like to see more focus in this documents on how we make cycling more appropriate for less abled people.
1. How do we make cycling more appropriate for less abled people, such as older people with medical conditions that affect their ability to use cycle facilities and for promotion of cycling for disabled people in general?
For instance there is no restriction to the ground floor parking of the new multi-storey cycle park at Cambridge station for people who have, walking limitations or for other users with large cargo bikes or for use of lower level of cycle rack being restricted to users with poor hand function and strength. Nor is there easy access to upper floors when this area is full as there are no lifts to upper floors, which seems quite an oversight in new building where disability issues should be considered.
The upper storey of the cycle racks are very difficult to use if you have arthritis in your spine, hands or reduced physical strength due to age or disability causing back pain and rib pain and frustration when you can’t pull the rack down or up for instance. These concerns when raised with local government decision makers seem unheard it appears they seem to think cycling is for fit healthy young adults.
2. It would also be good to see more ideas to support other groups with complex needs such as employers using cycles for delivery and employee transport where they provide suitable bikes at work for transport to locally. I’ve worked in number of places when bikes were provided for staff to make visits to see clients or do shopping at lunch time. This is useful to those who have limited choice and have to use a car as their main transport to get to work. In other places in-service cars meant staff could come to work by bike and do some travel by car and bike during work hours.
3. I’d like to see more discussion on better disabled cycle parking and parking for parents carrying children in cargo bikes or to move bulky items and general shopping. Parking for these groups Can be very problematic
4. I personally and not keen of cycle lanes next to main roads, preferring a line of trees between myself and a vehicle. I imagine that many people feel similarly.
5. I would like to see a lot more work done on cycle junctions. The one at Lensfield, Regent Street and Hills Road has been confusing due to unfamiliarity but having got used to it I prefer it to what was there before. However the Junction from Barton Road and Fen Causeway always confuses both myself and my partner as it is not clear when you have the right of way to cross the road. I have observed many others being unable to decide if it is our turn to go ahead because the lights are not obvious. It needs clearer lining up of the lights.
6. I’d like to see the promotion of cycling for disabled people in general increased and an interest free method of purchasing suitable bikes and off-road buggies and grants for people on low incomes for this plus training and more options to try out off-road bikes and buggies before purchase.
7. Finally I think there is not enough discussion in the document about the differing needs of slow and steady cyclists and those who prefer to cycle faster to get from A to B. My partner cycles on the road as he wants to travel fast this puts him at disadvantage from a safety point of view. At the same time cyclists travel very fast on the guided busway cycle path from the station of to Trumpington. As they see it as cycle path for themselves as well as slower cyclists. This addition of fast cycling on the track becomes more unsafe when there is a mix of runners and pedestrians. However on segregated paths I think there would still be conflict between slower and faster cyclists because when people get up speed it’s more difficult to be aware of others. We need cycle paths for people who prefer to get from A to B at speed and wish to get fit and use their strength effectively to cut time of their journey time. I feel though this may have to wait for a longer term solution as we are not yet providing a good enough cycle infrastructure for people in general. However this discussion needs to be included in future documents ready to make changes in policy.

(Green Party)

I fully support these principles. Cycle lanes along the main arterial roads would be extremely beneficial.

(Green Party)

We have a particular problem at my residence (built 1976) with complete lack of sufficient cycle parking (10 spaces for 13 flats). There must be many other residences like this.

(Green Party)

Yes, support it. Shared space is intimidating and unpleasant for pedestrians and small children, especially if your balance isn't as good as it used tone - somebody coming up unexpectedly makes you jump. Also, alas, too many cyclists cycle too fast and too close to pedestrians.

Milton Road is the obvious place. Why not "do a Hills Road" on it - decent wide cycle lanes, narrower car lanes in middle, which automatically slow traffic.

Chesterton Road also needs decent wide cycle lanes, especially between Mitcham's Corner and the big Chesterton roundabout. (It could be a beautiful Continental-style boulevard. Trees down the middle?)

(Green Party)

I wholeheartedly support developments that facilitate and promote cycling as the favoured mode of transport for people living in and visiting Cambridge. I am excited and hopeful about the Chisholm Trail, for example, which will provide a safe and separated cycle route from the north to the south of the city.
In the Coleridge ward, there are many improvements that could be made, particularly with regard to the two main roads, Coleridge and Cherry Hinton Road, where I would like to see cycle lanes, not shifted to the pedestrian pathway, but on the same level as the road. I don't understand why the pavement has been made for dual usage when it would make much more sense safety-wise to use the same amount of space on the roads and make the pavement narrower but still adeqately-sized for pedestrians.
Also on the lead up to the well-utilised pedestrian/cycle bridge from Rustat Road to the train station, I have witnessed a few accidents and many near-misses involving cyclists due to the confusion between pedestrians and cyclists coming too fast down the bridge onto the road and colliding with other cyclists and pedestrians. At the risk of creating stop-start cycling at this junction, I do feel it would be wise to indicate which cyclists have right of way by including signage to facilitate smoother and safer interaction between the users of this bridge and junction.

(Green Party)

Yes, I have previously read the campaign's guide and support the principles. There are many places in Romsey where cyclists need greater protection from traffic and I would support making this happen through the planning process and by lobbying as necessary.

(Green Party)

I fully agree with the points raised in "Making Space for Cycling". For example the new cycle lanes on Hills Road toward the hospital are pleasant to ride along, allowing for faster cyclists to overtake slower cyclists, protecting the cycle path from buses, and having the cycle lane "semi-separated" from the car lanes. Priority green lights for cyclists, such as at the junction of Hills Rd. Regent St and Lensfield Rd (coming from Hills Rd) are also great, and really help keep traffic flowing in a less dangerous fashion. I believe that Queen Edith’s Way would benefit greatly from a separated cycle path. Currently the choice is either to cycle on the road, where several accidents have taken place. or to cycle on the path, which is filled with potholes and where pedestrians get cross at cyclists for using the path. I have also been told that the lack of lighting along this road is discouraging for cyclists, as it feels loo dark to cycle safely (the person who told me this now takes the bus instead).

(Green Party)

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

(Green Party)

100 % : I fully support and endorse this guide. Despite our reputation as a ‘cycling city’ the infrastructure does not reflect this. The three underlying design principles mirror my sentiments as I rarely cycle for pleasure but as a means of getting from A-to-B; I want a direct route with minimal stoppage.

Newnham Croft is largely residential and the Grange Road area cycle routes are pretty direct, so I think the main improvements would be with convenience. Barton Road in particular can be frustrating if not cycling on the road; with frequent stops on the cycle path and the odd layout of lights by Lammas land making it awkward to cut across traffic smoothly without a long wait.

(Labour Party)

I support these principles.
When I drive I follow cyclists rather than overtake them on narrow roads. On Mill Road it is difficult to overtake a cyclist safely so I normally don't overtake.
Most of my ward could only achieve a safe space for cyclists by closing the roads to cars. An interesting thought but currently just that.
What we need to do together is to improve the space given to cyclists and work to create a slow environment where cyclists and cars co-exist.

(Labour Party)

Yes I do support those principles. I think the simple answer is they be applied across Newnham, but the ward has many competing demands, from the new City centre developments around the Mill Pond, to maintaining cycleways on Barton Rd, to more local, less obvious but equally important measures. I think the answer is to develop a plan for the ward, and make priorities, albeit within the framework of a citywide transport plan.

(Labour Party)

I most certainly do support these principles. I particularly agree with the need to stop rat runs in residential areas and that streets should be closed at times to encourage pedestrian and cycle use only which encourages this more environmentally friendly form of transport. There is a need for balance so I feel verges and trees should not have to be sacrificed for new cycle paths, however the ultimate goal is that we have more dedicated cycle paths on the side of the road and not sharing paths.

(Labour Party)

I support the principles in MSFC and have used my roles on the Greater Cambridge Partnership and on the Council to argue the case for more investment in effective added Cambridge cycling routes. An example in Coleridge ward, is that I and fellow ward Labour Councillors are pressing for the delayed County Council £1m scheme for Cherry Hinton Road to shift car parking from Ch H Rd so that additional cycle lanes can be created, and risks to cycle safety significantly reduced.

Clare KING
(Labour Party)

Yes, it's a useful Guide. Mitchams Corner needs completely changing in line with the Mitchams Corner SPD.

(Labour Party)

I do endorse these principles, and in fact my comment above above worrying about the safety of my children when they cycle shows this. If my children had the space to cycle safely, wide safe cycle lanes for example then I would worry less. I also agree that the space should not be shared with pedestrians, shared spaces are not safe for people with disabilities, segregated cycle lanes are the better option in my view where it is possible to do so.

Newmarket road could benefit from added and better cycle lanes, and Wadloes road as currently you have to cycle on the pavement, because the current cycle lane is not fit for purpose. (I address this in Q6)

(Labour Party)

I often think that the very close mix of riders and walkers is not alway a happy one: The risks that riders have on the highway from fast moving and large vehicles - then transports itself to some of our mixed use pavments with the walkers sometimes being at risk from cycles who don't always accept that they are now the 'fast moving traffic' and could present the same hazzard to the walkers as the motor vehicle does to them. I have seen many very close calls in Cherry HInton High Street from cylist on the pavment (its not a multi-use pavment) refusing to make way for walkers including small children. As such - I do indeed support the principles above - its a right way forward if it's possible to do it. To be honest - at the time of responding to this I don't have a route for such a cycleway in my head but will now be giving this more thought -

(Labour Party)

I do support this segregated system, I feel the high street would benefit a great deal for such a system and now the train station is operating fully I feel water lane and Fen rd would also benefit. I feel Union lane needs looking into to see how we can make it safer for cyclists.

(Labour Party)

I absolutely back these principles, as shared spaces can increase both harm and the fear of harm, for cyclists as well as for pedestrians. Whilst sensitive to concerns about too much concrete and paint on Midsummer Common I have long thought that some form of segregation might help there and on Jesus Green. However, the path widening we have done has already eased some of the issues in both these places. Pavement parking on East Road forces cyclists into traffic and also causes problems for those with mobility difficulties trying to use the pavement. One unfortunate feature of living in a historic city centre is that space is constrained and in many areas the scope for further improvements are limited.

(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.

Patrick SHEIL
(Labour Party)

I support *Making Space for Cycling* and have continued to promote its use. I would say that lowering speeds for motor vehicles either through design (as on p. 12) or by legal restriction is key in Arbury, containing as it does a long stretch of road (Carlton Way) on and off of which cyclists are at risk because of speeding. Cars on Perse Way should go slower and so should motorbikes. Speeding on Arbury Road needs to be controlled, especially now that we are encouring more cycle use on this road through the addition or segregated cycle lanes.

Another principle that could usefully be applied in Arbury is the visibility principle (see p. 21). The shaping of junctions (and especially hedges and fences near junctions should allow people to see each other whatever vehicle they happen to be using. The junction of Roseford Road and Histon Road is an example.

In Arbury we have a number of roads that were built at a time when there was less infrastructure and/or developments generally. This means that visibility can become an issue where previously it would not have been.

Total visibility should be the aim in all the new developments - so no fences or hedges going right up to corners for example (as we currently have at points on Histon Road for example).

On the protected space theme, the plans being put before the Greater Cambridge Partnership for the Histon Road upgrade will include segregated cycle lanes and i welcome this.

I will continue to promote the *Making Space for Cycling* guide. The SUSTRANS *Handbook for Cycle-Friendly Design* is also a useful guide.

(Labour Party)

Protected space for cyclists, away from both traffic and pedestrians, is desirable where conditions allow and I would strongly support - but it lies outside of the jurisdiction of the city council. In much of Petersfield, the narrowness of streets and pavements create difficulties. I hope that current discussions will lead to improvements for both cyclists and pedestrians around the central station area.

Martin SMART
(Labour Party)

Making space for cycling is very important and I support segregated provision wherever the available space makes this possible. This has been done on Hills Road and Huntingdon Road in Cambridge and can be seen to work well. In King’s Hedges I have been a councillor for the past four years. I have worked on behalf of residents with the Greater Cambridge Partnership to get the best possible outcome for the Milton Road scheme. I have been involved from the early stages with the improvements to Arbury Road and look forward to the next phase coming forward. I believe that it would also be worth looking at possible improvements to both King’s Hedges Road and to Campkin Road in the future.

(Labour Party)

I absolutely support the provision of better infrastructure for all road users, especially those most vulnerable. In Trumpington, there is good cycling provision from Bateman Street south to Alpha Terrace, with a dramatic drop-off in quality from Alpha Terrace to the M11 junction.
There are two areas about which I feel particularly strong: first, the junction that governs access to Waitrose, particularly the right-turn lane facing south; and second, Hobson Avenue junction across the guided busway.

In addition, I think small changes – such as paving unpaved cycle tracks around the ward, and reconsidering pedestrian and cycle safety during construction – could have a major impact on providing transport choice.

In addition to infrastructure improvements, there are a few things I would like to see that would support better transit opportunities for all Trumpington residents. I would love to see bike racks added to Busway vehicles, preferably of the sort shown used in places like Stuttgart. The more common fold-down racks only fit two cycles at a time). Additionally, adding an additional bus stop north of the turn-off to Addenbrookes would mean many more buses serving the Trumpington community.

Finally, there are a number of old or informal cycle and pedestrian tracks around Trumpington that are in a poor condition. Improving them – preferably without closing them, as that entails substantial disruption to regular users – would make a big difference to people who are car-free or experience limited mobility.

(Labour Party)

I do support the segregation system and I believe Elizabeth Way, from the Milton Road roundabout to the Elizabeth Way bridge will benefit from it. Since Elizabeth Way is a main route to the city and to East Road for university students, a segregated system will definitely benefit the people.

(Liberal Democrat)

I am glad to see our national cycling organisations working together to influence policy and encourage safer, better cycling for all. I would love to see clearer guidelines and signage in place for the many side-streets off Mill Road, where there has been a lot of uncertainty and even hostility towards cyclists around the one-way roads changing to two-way for bikes. We would also benefit from more on-street Sheffield stands and dedicated parking areas, particularly on Mill Road itself, which can fill up very quickly, particularly around our eating establishments. Finally, I would be very supportive of exploring the proposed Chisholm Trail and its role in connecting up the busways and providing an excellent, safe through route for cyclists across our city.

(Liberal Democrat)

I do. Of vital importance is to sort out proper cycle infrastructure at the CB1 development. Station Square has no through route for cyclists which is absurd, given it's between the southern busway cycle route and the proposed Chisholm Trail. Similarly, I believe plans for both the council depot site and the next phase of CB1 are unambitious and risk squandering an opportunity to create truly excellent cycle infrastructure in the city.

(Liberal Democrat)

I support these principals. It is important that any improvements enhance the street environment, for example i would not support the remove of trees on Barton Road to deliver improved facilities.

In Newnham i have campaigned for improving key junctions for cyclists and pedestrians, such as the Newnham Road and Barton Road junction, where i was successful in securing funding for a feasibility study on improving the junction. Hopefully the funding from the greenways project will allow for this work to move forward together with improving the Barton Road Grange Road junction (see separate question).

(Liberal Democrat)

I fully support these principles, and they are very important for a number of key projects around the ward, such as Milton Road, Mitcham’s Corner and Arbury Road. I was therefore concerned that shared usage pavements were being discussed again at the last Milton Road Local Liaison Forum and I will be working hard to ensure that the scheme includes the level of segregation envisioned by the resident led ‘Do-optimum’ proposals.

There is also a great opportunity to develop Mitcham’s Corner (as raised later), and I think any longer term plans for a redevelopment of the area must seek to provide space and parking for cyclists.

(Liberal Democrat)

I support these principles. In East Chesterton I'd like to see more continuous segregated off-road cycle routes, particularly along Green End Road and Nuffield Road to connect to the busway spur, Cambridge North, and the Chisholm Trail.

I support efforts to make estates more permeable to pedestrians and cyclists - cut-throughs connect communities - so I would like to see more direct cycle and pedestrian access from Maitland Avenue to Nuffield Road. I've also been talking to the County Council with a view to adapting the new Chesterton bridge to provide a cycle and pedestrian bypass for Fen Road level crossing.

Daniele GIBNEY
(Liberal Democrat)

Yes, I support these principles. For Milton Road, I support the proposals for segregated cycle lanes with priority over side roads. On King’s Hedges Road, I’ve long been bemused by the cycle lanes that hop on and off the pavement. Linking from King’s Hedges Road to the cycle lane alongside the busway is very confusing – the interchanges have no clear route through and signage is poor.
There are a lot of off-road cut-throughs in our ward – which is excellent, but some are narrow and have blind spots, and are used by both cyclists and pedestrians, leading to potential conflict. It would be good to see improvements made, though possibilities in each case will naturally depend on available space and balancing the effects on our green spaces. The cut-through between Woodhead Drive and Hawkins Road is an example of dedicated space done well, though with a very awkward dog-leg at one end.

(Liberal Democrat)

I support the principles, and believe Cambridge should aim to be among the most cycle-friendly cities in the world, learning from abroad such as Holland and Denmark. At the same time, we should bear in mind that it is prudent for the popularity of the cycling cause to carefully consider the consequences of safety measures that disrupt motor traffic, especially in Trumpington where options are severely constrained. In part, the answer could be a user-first approach, where improvements are suggested by the public (see Q5 below). Another angle is to nudge the city towards cycling, by planning proactively with organisations such as Camcycle. At the moment, half a dozen locations I see in the ward where the principles could most effectively be applied are: 1) the corner of Hauxton and Shelford Roads, because the crossing at the entrance to Waitrose is extremely dangerous for children travelling to and from Trumpington Meadows school; 2) along Hobson Avenue from the Busway southwards, which is very dangerous for children travelling to and from Park School and to and from Trumpington Community College, and for cyclists alongside the Busway (see further below); 3) from the end of the Busway cycle path northwards into the rail station, where little protection exists even though this is part of the Parkside Federation route; 4) on Trumpington High Street, especially at the Anstey Way turning, which is very dangerous and recently had a fatality; 5) lighting on the Busway and paths into the Foster Road estate, in order to deter attacks; 6) the currently limited cycling provision in all the newly built estates, as they progressively get adopted by the Council.

(Liberal Democrat)

Yes – I think East Road lacks space for cyclists and I frequently have to overtake illegally parked cars. I would be keen for there to be more enforcement on this. The Catholic Church junction remains a big problem in the ward. I think some of the paths across the open spaces (e.g. Jesus Green) are also too narrow and I know that some pedestrians feel intimated by bicycles there. The Grafton area SPD had some really good ideas for allocating separate spaces for different road users and I’d like to see that followed through.

(Liberal Democrat)

I support the principles. Pavements and road surfaces on Queen Edith’s Way are in a terrible condition. Vulnerable pedestrians need protection and cyclists commuting between Cherry Hinton, Addenbrooke’s and Netherhall need dedicated, segregated cycleways as traffic density and speed is far too high. But this cannot be at the expense of our traditional neighbourhood. The beautiful Cherry trees were planted with the support of Lib Dem councillors and we will only support schemes which promote space for cycling, improve the roads and pavements and preserve the environment.

(Liberal Democrat)

I do support these principles, subject to the practical availability of suitable space. In my ward, Queen Edith's way and Coldhams Lane appear to be two key roadways where additional space should be made available to improve cycling and pedestrian conditions.

Coldhams Lane appears to be a case where a thin strip of extra land needs to be made available on one side of the road, to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists properly ; while in Queen Edith's Way a re-allocation of space on one side of the road could result in improved conditions for cyclists on that side, balanced by improved conditions for pedestrians on the other side.

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.

Shahida RAHMAN
(Liberal Democrat)

I support these principles:

The most obvious place is Nuffield Road where Labour candidates and Councillors are actively blocking segregated cycle lanes, using the excuse that the Maitland/Mortlock wall cannot be knocked down.

This is an excuse for not bringing City Deal consultants in line: without knocking the wall, it is perfectly possible to provide segregated lanes.
I believe residents of East Chesterton who care about cycling should vote for Owen Dunn and I on this basis alone.

(Liberal Democrat)

Abbey has been very much forgotten in recent years, and any developments to road infrastructure carried out in a piecemeal way. The best practice set out in ‘Making Space For Cycling’ is a clear outline for how to approach future changes. The original plans for the City Deal (Greater Cambridge Partnership) included re-designing Newmarket Road, and this could have allowed for off-road cycle paths rather than the shared bus routes we have today. Unfortunately, Newmarket Road seems to have been pushed off the list for the city deal, so it will fall to Abbey’s councillors to fight to put this back on the agenda. I commit to doing this, as well as working with developers where possible, to ensure any new infrastructure meets the needs of the whole community.

Lindsey TATE
(Liberal Democrat)

Yes, I support these principles.

Coleridge is fortunate in that many of our roads are wider than those in the city centre. Despite this, many roads have on-street parking on both sides of the road and no cycle lanes.

Where the roads are wide enough for a cycle lane in both directions, I would much prefer to see a two-way cycle way on one side of the road separated from the traffic by a curb and with priority over side roads, rather than cycle lanes pained onto the sides of the existing road structure.

(Liberal Democrat)

I support the principles, but as there is essentially no unused land available for new development in Arbury the use cases would be largely restricted to "street renewals". The recent work at the top end of Arbury Road is interesting, but even this has its downside, making the right turn into St Alban's Road that much more challenging now that both lanes of traffic are no longer slowed down by the mini roundabout. The poor GCP proposals for Histon Road show the difficulties of satisfying the demands of cycling as well as those of preserving trees and front gardens where available land is severely restricted, but at least, following representations I made last year, the proposal to ban cyclists from turning right into Warwick Road has now been dropped.

(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.

(UK Independence Party)

If you wish me to answer questions, you must present them at the point of asking, not ask me to go to read another document.

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.