This article was published in 2002, in Newsletter 45.
A route spoiled
My point is that the slamming of car doors at the hypermarket car park will spoil this route. Isn’t cycling in Cambridge noisy? Often it is. This route – as it stands – is relatively quiet. There is also the number of suicides at the railway crossing. I do not want any more lives to be lost. I do believe ‘better cycling’ means provision so you can ride through surroundings that are pleasant and peaceful.
Alarm lock is useful
I agree with Dave Earl that the motion alarm in the lock reviewed in Newsletter 43 (‘Bike alarm’) is flawed, but I still find the lock a convenient and useful addition to my bike. Apart from the possibility of accidentally tripping the motion alarm at any stage after the lock is engaged (which strikes me as a real design fault), it seems, to me, a sturdy deterrent.
Douglas de Lacey
The alarm lock tested now seems to have got rain water in it, which causes the alarm to go off randomly even when it is not armed – Dave.
Terrifying change to Grafton cycle route
When they started the road works near the Grafton Centre (in June or so), I was very pleased that there would be more space for cycles to cross the exit of the car park. A few months later, I discover these changes weren’t for bicycles (I should have guessed, really!) but to create a second lane for cars to enter the car park.
Now, coming from the back of the Grafton Centre towards East Road is really dangerous (as the way is narrower than ever) but the opposite (against the flow of traffic leaving the car park) is nearly suicide! In theory, it seems this is still a cycle lane (the big sign says ‘Access for cyclists only’ and there is a small blue sign).
More lights please
Rob Turner’s interview in Newsletter 43’s Cycling Shorts was puzzling. He said ‘Supplying lights with cycles would be counterproductive, leading to more poorly lit bikes’. Why? Among the cheaper lights available now are some excellent LEDs which pass German standards, and which are therefore legal here. And, at worst, are not any lights better than none at all? Could you get Rob to expand on his logic? The 1998 consultation decided ‘There was also found to be insufficient justification for mandatory fitment of lights to all cycles as many are never used after dark and, if they are, they are already covered by existing legislation.’ (www.roads.dft.gov.uk/consult/pedbicreg/ria.htm.) I wonder how many ordinary people would find that adequate? Is the Cycling Campaign entitled to respond to the Consultation?
Douglas de Lacey