cambridge cycling campaign · 2003-09-20 · bottisham, via quy (county council). there is a...

Cambridge Cycling Campaign

Bottisham Cycleway – Route 51

Storm in ateacupNew Euro cycleproposals – the facts

‘Take a Stand’Cycle parking in theworkplace

Pavementcycleways‘Doomed to createsecond rate facilities’

Bike artFrom Bike Week

Cycle of crimeParking at five railwaystations

Council statsRoad and traffic reports

Newsletter 44 • October–November 2002£1 — free to members

F o r b e t t e r , s a f e r a n d m o r e c y c l i n g i n a n d a r o u n d C a m b r i d g e

Review of major new part of the Sustrans National Cycle Network – see page 2

Cambridge Cycling Campaign Campaigning Newsletter 44, October–November 2002

2

If you like what you see in this newsletter, addyour voice to those of our 700 members byjoining the Campaign.

Membership costs are low: £7.50 individual,£3.50 unwaged, £12 household. For this, you getsix newsletters a year, discounts at a largenumber of bike shops, and you will besupporting our work. Please get in touch if youwant to hear more.

Cambridge Cycling Campaign was set up in1995 to voice the concerns of cyclists. We arenot a cycling club but an organisation forlobbying and campaigning for the rights ofcyclists, and for promoting cycling in andaround Cambridge.

Our regular stall on Saturdays outside theGuildhall is the public face of the campaign;volunteers are always welcome to help. Anddon’t forget our meetings, open to all, on thefirst Tuesday of each month, 7.30 for 8.00 pm atthe Friends’ Meeting House, Jesus Lane,Cambridge.

Elected Officers

Co-ordinator – David Dyer

Liaison Officer – Clare Macrae

Membership Secretary – Dave Earl

Newsletter Editor – Mark Irving

Treasurer – Simon Nuttall

Stall Officer – Paul Tonks � 07870 441257

Press Officer – Sam Davies

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

(Non-Committee) Secretary & WebmasterMartin Lucas-Smith

Contacting the Campaign

Cambridge Cycling CampaignPO Box 204Cambridge CB4 3FN

Telephone and fax � (01223) 690718

Web www.camcycle.org.uk

E-mail � [email protected]

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

There has been a lot of cyclewayconstruction in the Newmarket Road corridorover the last year and, although a bit more isplanned, now is a good time to review thecompleted projects. The two major newsections are the off-road Jubilee Cyclewayfrom the Green Dragon Bridge toNewmarket Road Park and Ride site(Sustrans), and the shared-use path from theAirport Way–Newmarket Road roundabout toBottisham, via Quy (County Council). There isa related but disconnected section fromLode to Swaffham Bulbeck, and the CityCouncil has upgraded the shared use pathbeside the Newmarket Road cemeterybetween Ditton Lane and Marshall’s.

Taken together, all of this amounts to asignificant new set of options for cyclists onthe east of Cambridge. There is now acontinuous, high-quality, off-road cycle routeall the way from Bottisham to Jesus Green,and although some bits let it down a little, onthe whole it is a good example of a radialcycle route. It is, of course, now part of theSustrans National Cycle Network – NCN51.

Park and Ride signposts

The signposting of the Jubilee Cycleway atthe Park and Ride site is useless. There is noclue at all to anyone to go out of the back ofthe car park rather than the front entrance.The cycleway entrance itself has a smallmap but no directional signage, so whilst thehuge bike is a clue, a newcomer is unlikelyto realise this is the way to the centre oftown, because it doesn’t look like it. There is

in fact one sign at the car park entrance butit is only visible if approaching fromCambridge on foot or by bike. No-onearriving from out of town is likely to spot it.Clear signs visible to cyclists leaving the Parkand Ride or coming from Quy are needed atthe entrance, near the bus stop, and at thestart of the Jubilee Cycleway. One recentvisitor to Cambridge also pointed out that allthe signs on NCN51 coming back out oftown say ‘Bottisham’ which of course meantnothing to him. They need to say ‘Park andRide’ too to be of any use to tourists.

Beyond the Park and Ride

Good

• The alignment is good – no sudden jogs orsharp corners on the new construction.

• The surface is generally excellent, althoughthere has been some weed breakthroughalready near High Ditch Road.

• Services and street furniture have beenmoved or re-levelled throughout to give asmooth ride.

Bottisham cycleway

Campaign meetings www.camcycle.org.uk/events/meetings

Cambridge Cycling Campaign holds a monthly meeting on the first Tuesday of (almost) everymonth. This year an unusual number of first Tuesdays have fallen on awkward dates. Tuesday 5November continues this trend, as the annual fireworks display will be happening on MidsummerCommon. We have therefore decided that:

• The November monthly meeting, on Tuesday 5th, will start at 8.30 pm instead of the usual 8.00.

• This year’s Annual General Meeting will take place on Tuesday 3rd December, at 8.00 pm.

You might like to make a note of the AGM date now, as the next Newsletter will come out just afew days beforehand.

These meetings will take place at the Friends’ Meeting House, on the corner of Jesus Lane andPark Street, in Cambridge. The topics covered at monthly meetings are varied. There is alwaysample opportunity for members to raise (cycling-related!) concerns, and ideas for campaignaction. We often have up-to-date information about current council consultations, and seekmembers’ views on them.

The next monthly meeting is on Tuesday 1 October – hope to see you there.

Clare Macrae

Campaigning Cambridge Cycling Campaign

3

Newsletter 44, October–November 2002

Bad

• No priority at side-roads. Thecrossings of High DitchRoad, Albert Road,Longmeadow Road and FenLane have no cycle-priority orwarning measures at all.Visibility is very poor at thefirst three of these due tobuildings or vegetation.These should be raisedcrossings with priority forcyclists, but failing that thereshould be elephants’ feet ora coloured strip or somethingto indicate to road-users thatcyclists are likely to zoomout from behind theshrubbery and buildings.This is by far the most serious issue on theroute.

• The kerbs are not flush. Not one is donethe way Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure saysit should be – bull-nose kerbstones areused throughout. Most of them aren’t toobad, but as the plans specified flush, theyreally ought to have been made so. One ofthe worst, which has to be crossed at ashallow angle, is on the corner leading tothe tunnel under the A14.

• You can’t get on and off the route whenyou want to. For example, the drop kerb toaccess one farm has been removed for nogood reason. Now you need to bumpdown or cycle 200 m extra to the nearestdrop kerb and back.

Indifferent

• The project took eight months tocomplete.

• The width of the route is 2 m – theabsolute minimum for this sort of facility.It’s adequate but the difference betweenthis and the 3 m Sustrans and City Councilsections is stark.

As the Jubilee Cycleway was covered lastmonth, this article mainly looks at the out-of-town section.

Airport Way to Quy

Good

• The lay-by outside the Ida Darwin Farmshop was removed to help keep the trackaway from the driveways. This is a rareexample of removing some under-used carspace so as to provide properly forcyclists.

• New signpost means that users will findthe A14 tunnel more easily. I rode pastthis for three years before realising it wasthere.

• Edge markings have been painted on thewhole unlit section.

Bad

• A barrier has been installed past a smallbridge taking up half the availablecycleway width. It was not on the originalplans otherwise the Cycling Campaignwould have complained about it! On thenext bridge along the barrier is installedinside the path where it takes no space atall from cyclists.

• The south side of the tunnel exit is anawkward double-90° bend. This wasn’t inthe plans we were consulted on – whichused a few metres of the disused field

Contents

Hills Road

We are busy planning action againstthe proposed removal of the cyclelanes in Hills Road in order to install abus lane between Cavendish Avenueand Long Road. We believe there areother options for resolving the delays tobuses during the evening peak period.It is now obvious that the CountyCouncil consultations have beenpostponed, as no announcement hasyet been made explaining what formthe consultations will take or whetherpublic meetings will be held. In themeantime we want to distribute leafletsand carry out surveys of the road usenow that the holidays are over. For thiswe will need volunteers. If you thinkyou might be able to spare some timeto stand by the roadside or to distributeleaflets during the next months, pleaseget in touch with the Campaign – weneed all the help we can get.

Sharp bends by the tunnel entrance were not ironed out.

A barrier has been installed past a smallbridge on the Cambridge side of the Quytunnel taking up cycleway width.

2 Bottisham cycleway

Campaign meetings

3 Hills Road

5 Short Street cycle lane

Neighbourhood Watch

6 Storm in a teacup

7 Cycle parking – ‘Take a Stand’

Tesco cycle parking

8 Bike art

9 Cycling as house contents

Cycling shorts

10 Try Cambridge without a car

Green Belt routes

London to Cambridge

11 Home Zones

12 Doomed to dissatisfaction

14 Facts and figures from the County Council

Commentary

15 Newmarket Road roundabout

16 Cycle of Crime

17 Spot the cycle lane, number 9

Small ads

18 Letters

19 Diary

20 Your streets this month


4

corner here instead to smoothout the wiggle.

• Give-way lines have beenpainted every time thecycleway meets a kerb. This isparticularly nonsensical outsidethe farm shop where theentrance gets give-way marksand the exit doesn’t. There isalso one at the tunnel accessroad which has about twovehicle movements a day.These unnecessary give-waysdevalue the ones that domatter at High Ditch Road.

• A high hedge reduces visibilityat the start of the tunnelapproach.

• The cycleway goes up and down at eachdriveway. Given the amount of cycle trafficcompared to people going into their drives,plus the very wide verges, the cycle trackcould have been kept horizontal and thecrossing vehicles given level changes.

Indifferent

• Half the surface on the track to the A14tunnel was re-laid, but the other half onlyhad the worst potholes filled.

• The layout of a bollard and a fence at thenorth end of the tunnel effectively reducesthe tunnel to half-width.

Quy to Bottisham

Good

• The B1102 (Quy to Lode road) crossing isreasonably well laid out. It is much betterthan in the original plans, to which weobjected.

• Give-ways have not been painted at everycrossing or driveway.

• There is no bumping up and down whenpassing driveways on this section.

Bad

• There are no detector loops at the B1102crossing. There is plenty of approachspace to put detectors in, as the Campaignpointed out: stop, push button and wait isdefinitely second best.

• No flush kerbs: the Albert Road crossing(four kerbs) is particularly bad.

• The alignment past the easternmosthouses is too close to high hedges anddriveways.

• The B1102 crossing is somewhat spoiledby the tightish corner (effectively single-

bike width) onto the Quy Mill access road,with a filled pothole in exactly the wrongplace. Water pools on the corner here – itwill be hazardous in winter.

• At the Wilbrahams junction a gravel driveis crossed. Any cyclist turning to go to theWilbrahams here is likely to come off onthe gravel.

Indifferent

• The road sign at the Wilbrahams junctiondoes not have the regulation 2.4 mclearance.

• The route past Quy church is rathercircuitous. However a good job has beendone given the constraints, with properlyrounded bends instead of 90° corners.

Lode to Swaffham Bulbeck

Bad

• Interesting jug-handle turn to join the routeat Swaffhamsouthbound, but it hasno crossing markingson the road, no priorityand is accessed at ashallow angle without aproperly flush kerb.

• A drop kerb whichwould have allowed youto avoid the no-prioritycrossing withexceptionally badvisibility atLongmeadow Road hasbeen removed.

• A couple of bollards onthe pavement havebeen left in place.

Indifferent

• A long section of existing shared use,which is narrower than the rest of theroute, overgrown and weedy, has beenretained.

Past the cemetery

This short section of shared-use cycleway isconstructed to a high standard. The surfaceis smooth, the width is good (because it isnot divided into pedestrian and cycle parts),it does not dip at the one driveway crossing,the kerbs are flush, street furniture has beenmoved out of the way and there are flushaccess points for roads opposite. However itstill suffers the perennial drawback ofpavement cycleways in Cambridge: at thefirst side road crossing cyclists are expectedto stop and give way.

An interesting new feature is a 10 m longflush kerb at the Marshall’s end for rejoiningthe road or turning right into MeadowlandsRoad. It is not really flush – most of it isabout 10 mm – but John Isherwood tells usthis is to stop water pooling and causing anice hazard in winter. Also cyclists will not begoing up it at a shallow angle. The section atthe end for cyclists continuing on the shareduse is quite flush. But the flush accesspoints for roads opposite shouldn’t bedirectly opposite but some 50 m–80 mearlier so that cyclists can rejoin the roadand correctly position themselves for a rightturn. The existing drops assume the cyclistwill stop, wait for a gap in the traffic andthen cross (a ‘Dutch’ right turn). In practice,the various drops are close enough togetherthat a sensible cyclist will just use theprevious one so it’s not a major problem.

A 10 m long, flush kerb has been installed at theMarshall's end of the new path alongside the cemetery onNewmarket Road for rejoining the road or turning rightinto Meadowlands Road.

The ubiquitous Give Way even where there are hardly any vehiclemovements at the access road to the Quy tunnel. The sign nowmakes it clear there is a way through avoiding the A14roundabout though.

Campaigning Cambridge Cycling Campaign

5


On 20 July 2002 Girton NeighbourhoodWatch (NHW) organised an Open Day. Theaim was to make our community moreaware of NHW activities and to introduce ourlocal Community Beat Officer and someother members of the Histon Police force.Although the start coincided with a

spectacular thunderstorm, we had a goodsteady stream of people coming through.

Among the stands was a Cycling Security andSafety stand, displaying posters and anumber of cycle safety devices, from locksthrough fluorescent clothing and helmets tolights. We were very grateful to Chris’ Bikesfor the loan of the equipment, which wasoffered for sale (though, of course, no-onehad money on them!).

As I talked to people who came through Iwas interested to discover how unawaremany were of the progress which has beenmade in cycle lighting over the past decadeor so. It was good to be able to demonstratehow small and portable, yet bright andreliable, modern lights can be.

Cycle post coding was offered on the spot,using an engraving tool; and it’s good toreport that there are now five more cycles inGirton at significantly less risk of being stolen.

Douglas de Lacey

Neighbourhood Watch

Douglas gets to work on a visitor’s bike.

One of our advertising posters.

Summary

So we have a route that suffers from fewerproblems than in the past: it is generallywide enough, smooth, well-aligned, well-signposted and has some good crossingsof major cross-routes. City Councilconstruction has significantly improved andSustrans construction is good. Let us hopethat the County Council can learn to dobetter.

However it also has a number of failings onthe out-of-town sections, some serious:very poor crossings of more minor routes,poor road access, a host of non-flush kerbs,some gratuitous narrowings, someconfusing signposting, and it’s only on oneside of the road. The key problem ispriority-at-side-roads and must beaddressed. Someone will get flattened onone of these junctions eventually. It won’tbe me because I know better than to usethem, but all the inexperienced cyclists thenew route is attracting may not. Overall Ithink we can give this route 8/10.

Wookey

Short Street cycle lane

This short and narrowcycle lane, nicely surfacedin red tarmac, appearedrecently in Short Street. Ithas mystified manycyclists. In fact, this lanemarks the end of a newpavement cycleway fromMaid’s Causeway, and it ismeant to help cyclistsmerge back onto the road.Unfortunately, it doesn’tmake the build-out at thezebra crossing any easierto pass. (See Newsletter 39for a summary of thesechanges.)


6

‘A furious row is set to erupt between Britainand Europe over proposed legislation tomake car drivers responsible for all accidentsinvolving cyclists – even when the bike riderhas broken the law and is in the wrong.’

That was the beginning of the lead frontpage article in the Observer on 4 August2002. Only in the silly season could cyclingbe front page news. There was, of course,some substance behind the article: threeparagraphs in a much longer document fromthe European Union about how to make iteasier to insure your car Europe-wide. Therewas also some completely ignored goodnews for all road users in there aboutprotecting victims from drivers who don’thave insurance.

‘Straight banana’ legislation

The reasoning behind the proposals, as inother EU directives, is simply to make iteasier to function Europe-wide by makingthe rules the same everywhere. Carinsurance varies wildly from place to place,some countries operating ‘no-fault’ insuranceand others relying on court decisions.Specifically on cycling, some countriesalready have a system where car insurancepays out automatically to cyclists involved ina crash.

The reaction to the press story was entirelypredictable and exactly what the authors ofthat article – and those that followed –wanted to achieve: an orgy of cyclistbashing. In among that, there were somequite sympathetic articles too. TheObserver’s leader (‘Cyclists are not all

wonderful people’) was careful todistinguish between ‘benign’ cyclists and‘Lycra-clad fanatics … like a Mr Toad ontwo wheels’. Why just cyclists? Theproposals apply to pedestrians too.

Many of us reacted in the same way asthe press: it isn’t fair to have someonetake the blame for someone else’sfailings. Personally I think that thereare circumstances when this approachis reasonable. For example, becausechildren cannot be expected to takefull responsibility for their actions,drivers should have a specialresponsibility towards them thatrecognises this fact. I also think thatthere is a case for certain streets tobe identified where the motorist isalways assumed to be at fault in acrash. In a Home Zone (see page11), the street is engineered togive priority to pedestrians andcyclists. If a car is unable to avoida crash then the driver must, bydefinition, have been doing somethingwrong. (OK, there are exceptions, but thepoint is the reversal of the presumption offault.)

There is also the consideration that wherethe balance of power is all on one side – as itis with big, fast, heavy vehicles operating inan environment designed almost completelyfor them, versus pedestrians and cyclists –there does perhaps need to be some redressin the balance of what ‘fault’ and ‘blame’means.

But this is all academic, because what thearticle said was not really true.

Not true

Reading the original document reveals that itdoes not, in fact, propose making motoriststake the blame for cyclists’ faults.

The proposal covers only personal injuries,not damage to property. The newspaperarticles conveniently left this information out,saying ‘motorists to pay compensation anddamages in all accidents with cyclists.’ Evenwithin the narrower aspect of injuries, thescope of this is unclear: does it includecompensation or just the cost of medicalattention (where, if there is an insurance

policy covering the incident, theNHS recovers costs from an insurancecompany, but provides treatment in anycase)?

The quote ‘Motorists face blame for allcrashes with bikes’ in the Observer’s frontpage article simply isn’t true, even if indeedthis gets beyond the stage of being aproposal. The proposal does not say anythingabout fault or blame (in which disputeswould still be decided in court), but it doespropose that driver’s insurance pays out in acrash. At the moment, a cyclist would haveto go through the long, expensive and riskybusiness of taking the driver to court toobtain compensation. The presumption offault is reversed to reflect the fact in themajority of cases.

The second Observer subheading quoted theRAC as saying ‘Car insurance premiums setto rise by £50’. Where the RAC got this fromis not clear. (Perhaps the cost ofimplementing the whole directive might raisepremiums this much?) For the cycling andpedestrian cover clause, the proposalspecifically says ‘As far as the Commissionis aware, such inclusion of pedestrians andcyclists in some Member States’ legislation

Storm in a teacup

Straight banana legislation

News Cambridge Cycling Campaign

7


does not seem to have had a significantimpact on the cost of the insurance.’Indeed, the amount of legal wranglingshould be reduced in such a system.That is one of the big arguments infavour of no-fault insurance generally, asoperated in the United States.

So what it boils down to is that theinsurance company sues a cyclist whenthey think the circumstances of injuriesare such that they can win a court case(and the cost of taking the cyclist tocourt is worth it). The cyclist would stillprobably have to sue to obtain redressfor damaged bike, clothing and so on.This contrasts with the cyclist, who doesnot usually have the backing of apowerful insurance company, currentlyhaving to take the motorist to court inorder to obtain compensation. What iswrong with that?

David Earl

Cycle parking – ‘Take a Stand’

Tesco cycle parking

Take a Stand is ascheme thatprovides matchedfunding (up to 50%)for cycle parkingfacilities foremployers in andaround Cambridge. Itis run and funded bythe CambridgeshireTravel for WorkPartnership togetherwith Cambridge CityCouncil.

Take a Standrecognises that goodcycle parking facilities at the workplace canmake a big difference to staff travel choices.It can often make the difference between anemployee choosing to cycle to work, ratherthan commuting by in other ways (includingthe car).

The way it works is that employers fill in anapplication form with details of the cycleparking (for example, bike racks, bike rackswith roofs, etc.) that they are planning ondeveloping, and the cost of their proposedproject. The bids, which must include thedesign specifications of the proposed cycleparking, are considered against a range ofcriteria (for example, the location of the cycleparking on the work site, integration withother measures to support cycling,estimated effects on travel behaviour, etc.).Funding is provided for successful bidders.

Employers are responsible for theconstruction of the cycle parking facilities.The bidding guidance includes details ofcontractors around Cambridge.

Application forms and guidance notes foremployers will be available from 9September with any funds being disbursedby the end of February 2003. The projecthas already been run successfully earlier thisyear, with new cycle parking supported atthe Institute of Astronomy and BrookfieldsHospital.

Application forms are available from Travelfor Work, � (01223) 712429, c/oCambridgeshire County Council, BoxET1007, Room B313, Shire Hall, CambridgeCB3 0AP. � [email protected]

Bill Park Weir

Check out the Campaign's new cycle parking pages at

www.camcycle.org.uk/resources/cycleparking

Cycle stands at the new Tesco store on Newmarket Road are inadequate. They don’tsupport bikes properly because they are far too low at one end. An attempt has alsobeen made to roof them, but the roof is not big enough.

Good cycle parking facilities at

the workplace can make a big

difference to staff travel choices

Cambridge Cycling Campaign News Newsletter 44, October–November 2002

8

In our report on Bike Week in Newsletter 43 we did nothave space for a full report on the Bicycle Art Competition.We were delighted with the entries and we thought readerswould like to see the four winning entries. We would like tothank Ben Hayward’s, www.dutchbike.co.uk and H Drakefor their generosity in providing three of the prizes.

The Cycling Campaignposters are availablein A4 and A3laminated form or asA1 unlaminatedposters. If you havethe opportunity todisplay these – atcollege, library,hospital, surgery, village fair, etc. – you are welcome toborrow them.

Michael Barnes won first prize, a £200 voucher from Ben Hayward, with this spread of five posters.

Les Waters won second prize, a www.dutchbike.co.uk voucher for£100, with this first day cover.

Claudia Anne Cope won third prize, a £30 voucherfrom H Drake, for this face made of cycle parts.

Leila Dorling won fourth prize, £15, for this bicycle made from quilled paper.

Bike art


9


Bill Park Weir, who has been the Travel for Work Adviser

for the last year, will be leaving in November. The job willbe advertised soon: please contact the Campaign if youwould like to know more. In the meantime, we would liketo thank Bill for his hard work and many achievementsduring the year, and wish both him and his family well inAustralia.

Progress has been slower than expected in producing anew Planning Brief for the Cambridge Station area. It isnow expected that the proposals will go out for publicconsultation in October or November 2002, and then toCouncil committees for adoption in January 2003. Thisplanning brief is not a planning application, but simply toset written guidelines as to how development on theenlarged development area should proceed.

Charles Simmons-Jacobs has used Ipswich’s new bus

with a specially designed cycle trailer to travel fromDebenham to Ipswich Station and, although the bus was abit shaky, his bike arrived perfectly safely.

Cycling shorts

So do you have liability insurance whencycling?

Recent discussions in the media havemade many aware of this problem, andmost members of Cambridge CyclingCampaign will know of the problems withthe Third Party insurance we used to offervia the CTC.

As a teenager in the 1960s I became awareof these issues when a friend on a bicycleknocked down an ‘old lady’, who wasprobably younger than I am now. She wason a Zebra crossing, broke her pelvis, andsubsequently claimed damages amountingto several thousand pounds in today’s

money. My friend’s father had no suitableinsurance cover and had to pay theamount from his wages as a petrol pumpattendant over several years.

I remember my father reading the smallprint of the ‘Liability’ section of hishousehold insurance at that time, andhave since always been conscious ofindividuals’ liability, be it from branchesfalling off a tree in a garden, or childrenriding bicycles in a careless manner.

I do not believe that such third-partyinsurance should be compulsory, asincidents are rare, and claims for damageusually small. But I do think that ifindividuals have some form of householdinsurance it is worth ensuring that it doesprovide liability insurance for suchaccidents, including those involving apedal cycle ridden by themselves or amember of their family.

A quick trawl on the web produced sixhouse contents insurance policies (Royaland Sun Alliance, Eagle Star, LiverpoolVictoria, Norwich Union, Tesco and LloydsTSB), which apparently cover liabilityresulting from cycle accidents. This is nota recommendation of any policy, but for allof these, the only vehicles excluded intheir ‘Liability’ sections are mechanically ormotor propelled ones. The two ‘help lines’for policies that exclude mechanicallypropelled vehicles that I contacted saidthat liability for those involved in cycleaccidents was included.

I suggest that you check your insurancepolicies, and then when someone says‘cyclists don’t have insurance’ you can say‘I do and so do most people.’

Jim Chisholm

Cycling as house contents

The only vehicles excluded

in their ‘Liability’ sections

are mechanically or motor

propelled ones

Cambridge Cycling Campaign News Newsletter 44, October–November 2002

10

The date 22 September has, for a number ofyears, been International Car Free Day. Thisyear, more than a thousand towns and citiesworld-wide took part.

In London, where International Car Free Dayis well established, this year the flagshipevent closed Tower Bridge to motorisedtraffic. Other activities included costumedancers, parades, interactive games, livebands and information stalls.

This was the first year that International CarFree Day was recognised in Cambridgeshire.Over the weekend of 21 and 22 September,the County and City councils organised a

range of events called Try Cambridgewithout a car to promote travel alternativesto the car. These included:

• Free bike safety checks and securitycoding

• Discounts on cycle tours run by Geoff’sBike Hire

• A bus information stall in the MarketSquare

• A free historic walking tour around the citycentre

• Free travel on some Park & Ride services,and various discounts were available whenyou presented a Park & Ride ticket

A pocket guide to sustainable transport inCambridge has been produced, containing lotsof useful information. This guide will be usefullong after the International Car Free Dayevents are over. Copies of the leaflet areavailable by from Tim Carter(� [email protected]). Pleasegive a leaflet to anyone you think might beinterested in driving a little less!

For information on the events held in London,see www.londontransport.co.uk/tfl/carfreeday.shtml . For information on otherevents in the UK, go towww.local-transport.dft.gov.uk/eurocar.

Clare Macrae

The popular series of local cycle route leaflets, describing ridesaround the Cambridge Green Belt area, has recently been updatedand reprinted.

There are five routes, each with a differenttheme, and highlighting interesting places to visit:

• Route 1 – Earthworks and Landmarks (13 or24 miles). A ‘figure of eight’ route to the northwest of Cambridge.

• Route 2 – River, Canal and Roman Road (13miles). A loop between Chesterton andWaterbeach, with a transportation theme.

• Route 3 – Settlement on the Chalk (12.5 or 25 miles). East toDullingham.

• Route 4 – Local action for wildlife (16 or 25 miles). ExploringCambridgeshire countryside south of the city, including manysites managed by local volunteers.

• Route 5 – Moats and Meadows, a Medieval tour (14.5 miles). Aloop from Foxton railway station, then through Shepreth,Barrington, Haslingfield and Thriplow.

The pack of route leaflets, together with a summary leaflet and aCambridge Cycle Route Map, costs £2.75, and is available fromthe following:

• Cambridge Tourist Information Centre• Cambridgeshire County Council• Cambridge Central Library• Trumpington Park and Ride tourist office (limited opening hours)• Milton Country Park

Clare Macrae

Try Cambridge without a car

Green Belt routes

Riders arriving at the end of this year’s London to Cambridge ride.Around 4,000 cyclists did this year’s ride on 28 July, in scorchingheat of over 30°C. The 54-mile ride started at Lee Valley LeisureCentre in London, ending with a festival atmosphere on MidsummerCommon. The charity Breakthrough Breast Cancer hopes to raise£180,000 from the event.

London to Cambridge


11


Home Zones are residential streets designedto improve local quality of life. They aim tostrike a better balance between the needs ofdrivers and other street users such aspedestrians – especially children and olderpeople – and cyclists. Changes to the layoutof the street emphasise this change of use,so motorists perceive that they should giveinformal priority to other road users.

In June 2002, the Institute of HighwayIncorporated Engineers published newguidance on Home Zones which collated theexperience gained from the nine pilot studiesthat were carried out round the country andwhich shared that experience with transportprofessionals and community groups.

Indeed, Transport Minister David Jamieson,who launched the new guide, drew particularattention to that point. He said: ‘I encouragelocal councils, communities and residents

associations to use this guidance and thinkabout how Home Zones can improve thequality of life of their local area.’

Just improving the appearance of a streethas a big impact. Streets have becomedominated by cars, and their reconstructionto break up the house – garden – pavement– road – pavement – garden – housearrangement breaks this down and starts toreduce the domination.

There are problems implementing HomeZones. The foremost problem is cost.Reconstructing a street is not cheap: it costsmany hundreds of thousands of pounds ifdone properly. Unfortunately, new streetsare still nearly alwaysconstructed in the traditionalpattern, although the cost ofconstructing them differentlyat this stage would be

negligible. The Government has put £30million into a fund to develop Home Zonesfurther, and is now supporting 61 schemes(none in our area). That’s half a millionpounds per scheme on average.

The second problem is that, unlike theirDutch equivalent called Woonerf (‘LivingStreet’), pedestrian and cyclist priority is notbacked up by legislation. The standard of‘due care and attention’ needs to be muchhigher in Home Zones.

We will be obtaining a copy of the guidanceshortly.

David Earl

Home Zones

Romsey Town: Dominated by cars, to such an extent thatthey now take over pavement space too, with the blessingof the authorities.

Esdelle Street in Norwich has the feel of a Home Zone eventhough it isn’t one of the trials.

Cambridge Cycling Campaign Feature Newsletter 44, October–November 2002

12

I argue that building at pavement levelinevitably leads to poor quality cyclefacilities.

Off road or on road? That’s a perennialquestion and has as many answers as thereare cyclists. Some cyclists want to be asseparate from traffic as they possibly can,irrespective of how poor or even legal it is.Others decry anything but the road assuitable for cycling and avoid off-roadfacilities almost on principle.

In between, there are those (like me) whotake a pragmatic approach, using whateversuits the journey, mood and weather.Avoiding the worst facilities and confident intraffic to a greater or lesser extent, butusing the better constructions when it suitsus and welcoming them as animprovement.

Even when usingthem, nearlyeveryone isfrustrated thatfacilities could be somuch better. SeeingEuropean examplesshows just what weare missing. Someaspects of northernEuropean practiceare hard to emulate.Many continentalcities are moregeared aroundapartment living. Sothe preponderance ofdriveways we get here is often less.Communal off-road car parking fees upspace. Other aspects, though, could easilybe adopted.

Fundamental to all this is the wayin which nearly all constructionhere – across the country, not justin Cambridge – is done atpavement level. The cycleway is aspecialised part of the footwayrather than the road way. Perhapsthat’s a hangover from the dayswhen ‘cycle facility’ meant justallowing cyclists to use theexisting pavement.

Secondly there’s only limited willingness togive up some of the decades-old designparameters for roads and junctions – theway kerbs curve into a junction for example.

Pavement level facilities are hard to build.The space for getting machinery in is oftenlimited. The foundations are not built to roadstandards, so weeds are often a problemwithin months of completion. Driveways,minor entrances and so on require a rampdown onto the road, and conventionalpavement construction spreads theseacross the whole width of the path. Thismeans each driveway presents a thump upand down for the cyclist.

Doomed to dissatisfaction

A typical Cambridge scalloped bump down onto the road:off the straight line, always a Give Way, cars frequentlyblock the way and the kerb is not flush.

The way kerbs are curved at junctions means a pavement levelpath joins at an odd angle offset from the desire line, and alsorequires a wider road crossing.

Typical of European streets, this path is constructed at the same levelas the road, is straight, smooth and level, and does not require a GiveWay. Cars wait further back so do not block the junction.

Even when the cycle track is higher than the road, this typicalarrangement (from Ry, Denmark) meets side roads with asmooth, straight, barely perceptible ramp, and crosses forward ofthe car Give Way line.

Feature Cambridge Cycling Campaign

13


Being at the same level as pedestriansmeans each inevitably strays into the other’sspace. Often cyclists have to do so in orderto pass safely. Cost and spaceconsiderations usually mean such facilitiesare only built on one side of the road, sotwo-way use is needed (and having to crossthe road twice can reverse any safetyadvantages of a cycleway).

At junctions, cyclists always have the GiveWay against them. The best we haveachieved so far in Cambridge is a three-wayGive Way. The argument is that driverscannot be trusted to give way in this country(well, not in Cambridge anyway) so it is notsafe to reverse priorities. But this discountsthe actual behaviour, where most cyclistsdon’t observe the Give Way properly.Starting and stopping at these frequentintervals is frustrating and takes effort, sohuman nature means people don’t do it.Unfortunately, some cyclists also don’t knowwhat the markings mean. I think the currentarrangement serves largely to place the faulton cyclists when there is a collision, rather

than doing anything to improvesafety.

Furthermore, the many differentdirections cyclists should look –including 180° behind – isdemanding. This is typicallycombined with pedestrians andcyclists coming together at thesame point, tactile paving andinspection covers lesseningstability, and often a bump downand a wiggle off the straight line.There’s a lot to handle at once.

Where the path is not set back from theroad, the splay of the kerb means that theramp down and up isn’t lined up with thepath and is at an angle across it (seediagram). The slope is over a very shortdistance (unlike driveways), scalloped out ofthe path. Yet the width to cross is increasedby the curve.

Pavements have other obstacles too.Permanent ones like bus stops and

temporary ones like wheelie binsand parked vehicles all add to themêlée.

Contrast all this with variousEuropean models which use akerb to segregate the path – onboth sides – from the road.Sometimes these are wide kerbsincluding planting, even carparking. But the path is at thesame level as the road and thekerbs inserted after construction.This means it is all laid as part ofthe road, with all the advantagesof foundations andmechanisation.

Segregation by level meanspedestrians and cyclists don’tmix. Ramps down are notneeded – though sometimescycleways are a half-levelraised, where ramps downare gentle and straight, not abite out of a kerb. Linkinginto junctions is smooth andat right angles. Morefundamentally, being at roadlevel when the junction isreached means that the pathappears to be part of thejunction, so side roads more

naturally give way to them. In many placesthis is emphasised by the side road beingraised, not the cycleway. Both the footpathand cycleway physically take precedence andcars have to drive over the continuous pair ofpaths, not the other way around.

At larger junctions, bringing the cycleways inat road level means it is easier and morenatural to think of them as part of thejunction, so are signalled as part of it, ratherthan as part of the pedestrian phase. Only atBarton Road, and perhaps the exit fromColdham’s Common, do we really have thislevel of integration in Cambridge, with properramps and angles.

So, it is my contention that buildingcycleways as part of the pavement ratherthan part of – but separate from – the roadway is inevitably doomed to create secondand third rate facilities. Getting away fromconventional pedestrian and car-orienteddesign – creating long smooth ramps andsharper junction angles, for example – couldhelp. But fundamentally, road-levelconstruction just makes the design thinkingbetter for the end users.

David Earl

In Groningen, Netherlands, the footway and (separate) cycle track both run right across the mouth of many side streets,completely changing the perception of priorities.

Wheelie bins oftenblock pavementcycleways.

Frequent driveways mean repeated undulations inpavement cycleways. This example is on the newlyconstructed path on Trumpington Road, though theramps are better further on where the path is set backfrom the road.


14

Every year Cambridgeshire County Council’sEnvironment and Transport Departmentproduces a set of reports and plans aboutthe road network. This year the departmenthas changed the format of these documents(which are also available on the Web): thereare now six documents, although so far I’veobtained only three of them.

Traffic Monitoring 2001

www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/eandt/highways/tmr

This report describes the routine monitoringthat takes place throughout the year usingAutomatic Traffic Counters, manual ‘cordon’and ‘screen line’ counts, and some otherspecial counts.

Last year the Campaign produced a posterwhich stated that more people cycled (5,733)into Cambridge than used Park & Ride(5,382) each weekday.

These figures came from last year’s report,and I’ve since realised the figures were forentering and leaving the city, and for enteringand leaving the Park & Ride sites. This yearI’ve compared the number boarding Park &Ride buses with half the number of cyclistscrossing the cordon round the city. ForOctober 2001 this gives 3,079.5 cycling and2,864 using Park & Ride, so the headline onthe Campaign poster is still correct!

In this report, table 3.4 gives details ofgrowth in traffic entering Cambridge, but itomits cycles. For completeness, cycling

increased by 7.5% betweenOct 2000 and Oct 2001.

The report also gives somepreliminary results ofmonitoring on the ‘improved’Trumpington Road in January2002. Of some 2,750 peopletravelling south along this roadbetween 4 pm and 7 pm, some20% were in buses and 10%were on cycles. Journey timesby bus between the RoyalCambridge Hotel and Waitrosewere some 5 minutes quickerthan by car. As these countswere taken before the cyclepath was finished, and cyclingfor six months (during the roadimprovements) had been anadventure, it is likely that cyclenumbers were lower thannormal. From our survey someyears ago I would haveexpected twice this number ofcyclists. It would also havebeen interesting to see‘journey times’ for cyclists overthis stretch, as I beat the busmost days.

This exercise has relevance for Hills Roadwhere proposed changes could make tripsby cycle significantly less attractive. Weexpect the County to make comprehensive‘before’ studies of modal split and journeytimes by all modes on this route.

Road Safety Monitoring 2001

www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/eandt/rdsafety

This report has a section on enforcement,which gives details on the effectiveness of‘Safety Cameras’ (speed cameras). InCambridgeshire there is now a partnership,approved by the government, which allowsthe cost of operating the cameras to berecovered from the fines paid. Unfortunately,new rules mean that some cameras mayhave to be removed as they are only allowedwhere there is a significant accidentproblem, and not where excessive speeddiscourages vulnerable road users frommaking trips. Nationally, a legal challenge hasbeen made to this ruling, so there is somehope it may be overturned.

Otherwise I found this a disappointing report.Although there is clear evidence that minorschemes, especially those costing less than£20,000, have much better cost-benefitratios, major schemes come in for muchpraise. For the A1(M) and similar schemes, it

Facts and figures from the County Council

Speed cameras: The County Council gets some of themoney from fines now, but some cameras may have to beremoved soon. That’s because the Government listened tothe car lobby who said, in effect, that it’s OK to speedexcept where there have been lots of crashes.


15


has been suggested by some people, that toreport accident reductions on the ‘improved’section and not to include increases inaccidents elsewhere caused by ‘generatedtrips’ biases such statistics in favour of majorschemes that increase capacity and reducedelays, against those that provide roaddanger reduction and hence improveconditions for vulnerable users.

Joint Road Accident Data 2001

www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/eandt/roadacc

This is the second year this report has beenproduced. It brings together accident datareported to the police (on STATS19 forms)with that collected at hospital accident andemergency departments and others.

It is becoming more common to use theword ‘crash’ rather than ‘accident’ to make itclear that crashes do not happen byaccident. Perhaps next year I shall be able toreport on the Joint Road Crash Data 2002report.

Unfortunately, I can’t find the tables I’d findmost interesting. I believe that most seriouscrashes involving cyclists occur on high-speed rural roads and that, in Cambridge,you are far less likely per kilometre cycled tobe involved in a crash than elsewhere in thecountry. In the report, table 6.3 comparescity with county, and urban with county rural,but does not differentiate killed or seriouslyinjured (KSI) with slight injuries. (Table 6.5does differentiate like this, but only tabulatesby local authority area.)

It is worth noting that over recent yearspedal cycle fatalities in Cambridge have beenvery low (1997–2000 average was zero), butunfortunately next year’s report will showthat there has recently been a fatality. Themotorist involved was subsequently chargedwith drink driving and failing to stop after anaccident.

Jim Chisholm

Newmarket Road roundabout

Newmarket Roadeastbound: A new centralcycle lane has been addedon the approach to theroundabout at BarnwellRoad. The idea is to makeit easier for cyclistsheading out of town toget into the correctposition to leave theroundabout at the existingcentral cycle lane on thefar side. Using cycle lanesin this way at roundaboutsis a new idea and we willbe watching to see howwell it works in practice.Unfortunately the newlane starts too close tothe roundabout, forcingcyclists to make a sharpright fork across thetraffic. It should havestarted further back, at thepoint where the roadstarts to widen from onelane to two, allowingcyclists a much smoothermovement into it.

Cycling increased by

7.5% between Oct 2000

and Oct 2001


16

After having my bikevandalised at Meldrethstation, I decided to lookat security at all thestations from Ely toMeldreth. This article isthe result. To find outwhat facilities are onoffer to cyclists, I visitedthe stations and askedcyclists for theiropinions on securityarrangements.

Ely is a busy station,offering a wide range ofservices, with cycleparking racks locatedon the platform. This isan important point, asyou might hope this wasa safe position wherepeople would noticesuspicious incidents.Commuter Richard Deansaid that he felt safeleaving his bike here:‘You don’t hear aboutbicycles being stolen. IfI did, I might startwalking to the station.’

The remaining stationsare small, countryones with only a fewhourly services, so they generally have fewpeople passing through.

Waterbeach, the only station with CCTV, islocated on a minor road off the A10 and isunmanned. Good cycle parking was installedin conjunction with the County Council. Localresident Sarah Lewis said: ‘These newfacilities have made me really relax. I can goto work, knowing that my bike will still behere at the end of the day.’

Foxton station is located beside the fast andbusy A10 so criminal activity would gounnoticed. Cycle parking is non-existent andthe bicycles I saw were locked to anythingavailable.

Shepreth Station, between The Pool Shopand Willer’s Mill, offers excellent facilities*.Cyclist Andy Downing said that cyclists feelsafe: ‘You can leave your bicycle here forhours and you will come back and find itwhere you left it. These facilities are greatbecause you can’t see them from the road;they’re fairly hidden which means vandalismor theft rarely happens.’

Meldreth station is in a very isolated position– the far platform looks out on fields and theMelbourn bypass. There are no cycle parkingfacilities so bikes get locked to metal bars.The station is manned Monday to Saturdaysuntil 2 pm. Cyclist Linda Billton said: ‘Thereused to be lots of bicycles left here, nowonly a few people do. People are scaredtheir expensive, new bike will be stolen orsmashed up.’

I regularly use Meldreth and alwayssupposed that the lack of secure cycleparking here was repeated at other stationsdown the line. But the results of thisinvestigation prove otherwise. Ely is bestprovided for, but why have Foxton andMeldreth been ignored? This brief survey

Cycle of Crime

‘You don’t hear about bicycles

being stolen. If I did, I might

start walking to the station.’

Ely station: Cycle parking racks on the platform.

Waterbeach station: Cycle parking was installed in conjunctionwith the County Council.

Foxton station: Non-existent provision of cycle parking.


17


suggests that secure cycle parking protectsbikes whether it is positioned in the publicgaze or hidden away, and in either case,encourages people to cycle.

Andrew Lansley, MP for SouthernCambridgeshire, said that he had beendiscussing the matter with WAGN: ‘I am

currently in correspondence with WAGN onthis issue and am waiting for a response onimproved cycle parking. I have also writtento the Strategic Rail Authority to ask thatthis should be taken into account in thefranchise renewal.’ WAGN refused tocomment.

Chris Fisher

* While appreciating the cover, the CyclingCampaign would disagree that V-grip racksare 'excellent facilities', not providing supportor proper locking points, and also worriesabout 'hidden' parking as thieves can workunseen.

For Sale

Girl’s bike (suit age 6–9). Raleigh Elyssia, metallic pink, 5gears, 20" alloy wheels, mudguards. Nearly new condition.Price: £50 donation to Cambridge Cycling Campaign. � (01223)410656 evenings

Claud Butler Carabo – 7005 Series – 2000 Model, 27 SpeedShimano Deore gears and quick shifters, front mechanical diskbrake, rear Shimano Deore V-Brake, front RST 381 CLsuspension forks, full size heat treated aluminium frame,Vuelta Airline 1 wheels. Very good condition. � Ashley([email protected]) for pictures. £150 no offers.

Carlton ‘Continental’ club frame and forks circa 1975. 64.5 cm(25.5") centre-to-top, 531. £20 ono; David Green � (01223)449304 or for pictures and details :http://web.onetel.net.uk/~davidwgreen/

Britax Romer ‘Jockey’ child bike seat. Good condition, purple,red rear reflector, for child up to 22 kg. Fittings and instructionsincluded. £20 ono; contact David Green (see above).

Top-tube child seat. Fits to gents or ladies frames. £10; contactDavid Green (see above)

Wanted

‘Kiddie cranks’ conversion kit for child riding stoker on anadult tandem. Mark or Lorraine � (01223) 882378�[email protected]

Small adswww.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/smalladverts.htmlSpot the cycle lane, number 9

Finish the job properly? Nah, they're only cyclists, they don't matter.Cambridge Cycling Campaign objected (unsuccessfully) to the plans forthis pavement build-out at a new crossing on Tenison Road, but we didnot expect the cycle lane to be quite so short.

Shepreth station. Meldreth station: ‘People are scared their expensive new bike will bestolen or smashed up.’

LettersCambridge Cycling Campaign Letters Newsletter 44, October–November 2002

18

Mandatory cycle lanes

Regards the comments reported in thearticle The Things People Say, number 2(Newsletter 42) – e.g. motorists indicatingthat cycle lanes should be mandatory whereprovided.

I would like to point out to motorists thatcycle lanes marked with a continuous whiteline are properly termed mandatory but thisapplies to the motorist, not the cyclist. Thismeans that vehicles should not be parked inthe cycle lane or incur a £20 fine. I expectthat this legal restriction also applies tomoving traffic as well [it does – Ed].

It’s good that the council provide cycle lanesbut when are the authorities going toproperly enforce mandatory cycle lanes andmake some examples of those motoristswho seem to regard them as convenientparking space and, worse still, as insidelanes provided for the purpose of overtakingright turning traffic?

The whole point of cycle lanes is to keepvehicles and cyclists separate so thatoversight by either party is less likely toresult in injury.

Yes, dear motorist, we know you alwayscheck for cyclists before using the cyclelane but these lanes are provided for thetimes that you (or the cyclist) make amistake – if you treat cycle lanes as optionalroad space then the whole point of havingcycle lanes is undermined and we may aswell scrap cycle lanes and instead rely onyour perfect vigilance to protect us frominjury.

After many years as a Cambridge motorist,cyclist and pedestrian I have yet to see thepolice, traffic warden or other authoritiestake action on a vehicle parked in a cyclelane – a blind eye approach seems to be thenorm here.

Perhaps it is frustrating for motorists whencyclists choose not to use cycle lanes but ifwe are going to get into these ‘waters’ thenlet’s first deal with the issues of motoristsdriving in cycle lanes which seems to be themore common and serious transgression.

Jon Lightbourne, Shelford

Enforcement?

I note reference in Newsletter 43 to abuse ofthe bus/cycle lanes on Shelford Road which Iecho as I cycle from Sawston to Cambridgeevery day. I have never seen any policepresence. How many prosecutions are thereeach year for abuse of bus/cycle lanes?

Richard Lane

Helmets

Newsletter 43 elevates David Earl’s articleagainst the wearing of helmets to secondfeature, giving the impression that thisirresponsible diatribe represents theorganisation’s considered view. If this is thecase, many will think that the Campaign hasabdicated any claim to represent theresponsible voice of cyclists in this city.

He admits that his arguments offer ‘nocomfort to individual victims of crashes’.Society is made up of such individuals, and Ifor one know of at least two people whowould have been alive now had they beenwearing helmets at the time of theiraccident. Perhaps he would like to addresshis comments to their parents.

Against all the evidence, he seems tosuggest that not wearing helmets actuallymakes cycling safer. The last figures I saw

were that 75% of fatalities are caused byhead injuries and 80% of these would havebeen a lesser injury had the cyclist beenwearing a helmet. If this is not conclusiveevidence, what is?

Most of us can remember when motoristsresisted the introduction of seat belts, usingthe same specious arguments that DavidEarl now grinds out.

Life is indeed about taking measured risks –not about compounding them. I am glad thatmy grandchildren cycle to school, but Iwelcome the fact that they take properprecautions when they do so. I also applaudthe fact that the Coleridge School authoritiesin my ward insist that pupils who cycle toschool wear helmets.

The debate over whether helmets should bemade more generally compulsory is still openand rational debate is welcome. In themeantime, Stephen Norris may resist‘dressing up as a spaceman.’ For my part, inadvancing years, I may not have much leftbetween my ears, but I will take sensibleaction to protect what is there.

Martin Ballard,County Councillor, Coleridge Ward

‘When are the authorities going to properly enforce mandatory cycle lanes and make someexamples of those motorists who seem to regard them as convenient parking space?’

Diary Cambridge Cycling Campaign

19


October 2002

Tue 1 7.30 pm Monthly open meeting, Friends’ Meeting House, Jesus Lane, at thePark Street junction. (Tea and coffee, a chance to chat, and for usto introduce ourselves to new members for the first half-hour. Themeeting proper starts at 8 pm.)

Wed 2 5 pm Free cycle security coding at Cambridge Station Cycles, next to therailway station, until 7 pm. The security code is a deterrent to theftand enables bikes to be traced nationally.

Thu 3 7.30 pm Cycle parking subgroup – revived. A meeting to discuss ways ofimproving cycle parking in Cambridge, at Bentinck Cottage, 3Bentinck Street � (01223) 354600.

Sat 5 10 am Police cycle auction at the 29th Cambridge Scout Headquarters,Stanesfield Road, off Barnwell Road, Cambridge. Viewing from 9am. � (01354) 688197 for information.

Sun 6 Home Farm Trust 20 or 50 mile circular sponsored bike ride.Registration at Orford House, Ugley, Bishops Stortford. £6 p/p or £9,1 adult & 1 child. � [email protected] � (01525) 376564.

Sun 13 1 pm Leisurely Ride. A countryside ride, at a gentle pace. Meet at HobbsPavilion on Parker’s Piece. Back in Cambridge around 4.30 pm.

Mon 21 7 pm Join us for a social gathering at CB2 café 5–7 Norfolk Street.

Fri 25 8.30 am Newsletter 44 review meeting, over breakfast at Tatties café.

Sun 27 1 am British Summer Time ends. Set your clocks back, and don’t forgetyour bike lights!

Tue 29 7 pm Bicycle Maintenance 2 evening class, Coleridge CommunityCollege, Radegund Road. Five weekly sessions aimed at people withsome experience of bicycle maintenance, this course builds on thebasics and concentrates on other, less-everyday bike maintenancetasks. � (01223) 712340/1 for information.

November

Tue 5 8.15 pm Monthly open meeting. For description see 1 October, but thismonth’s meeting is 30 minutes later than usual. The meeting properstarts at 8.30 pm.

Wed 6 5–7 pm Free cycle security coding at Cambridge Station Cycles. See 2October for details.

Sat 9 Newsletter 45 deadline. Please send copy to Mark Irving.

Sun 10 1 pm Leisurely Ride. For description see 13 October.

Mon 18 7 pm Join us for a social gathering at CB2 café 5–7 Norfolk Street.

Wed 27 7.30 pm Newsletter 45 Envelope Stuffing at the Baby Milk Action offices, 23St Andrews Street (between the Robert Sayle main and computershop entrances, entrance next to Lunch Aid). Help very muchwelcomed!

December

Tue 3 7.30 pm Annual General Meeting. For a description see 1 October.

Wed 4 5–7 pm Free cycle security coding at Cambridge Station Cycles. See 2October for details.

Sun 8 1 pm Leisurely Ride. For description see 13 October.

Mon 16 7 pm Join us for a social gathering and Christmas party at CB2 café 5–7Norfolk Street.

Campaign Diary www.camcycle.org.uk/eventsIn my opinion Cambridge cyclists would bewise to read much the most detailed article oncycle injuries in Cambridge before deciding notto wear a helmet. This is ‘Injury patterns incyclists attending an accident and emergencydepartment: a comparison of helmet wearersand non-wearers’ by C Maimaris, C L Summer,C Browning and C R Palmer published in theBMJ on 11 June 1994 and available on theInternet (http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6943/1537 ).

This paper analyses data on 1040 patientspresenting to the Accident and Emergencydepartment at Addenbrooke’s in a single year(1992) with cycle-related injuries, of whom 114had worn cycle helmets when the accidentoccurred. It confirmed the protective effect ofhelmet wearing for Cambridge cyclists and isobviously far more relevant than data fromelsewhere, where conditions are different, fordiscussion of whether Cambridge cyclistswould be sensible to choose to wear helmets.

James Woodburn

Rusty prejudice

Oi! Cambridge! No! In Newsletter 43 you say‘There will shortly be a pilot project inSheffield, a city better known for steel than forcycling, identifying some of the issues in thenew role.’ Actually Sheffield does have a bit ofa reputation as a cycling city. Apart from anumber of well-known cycling clubs, the areahas spawned several world-famous racingcyclists such as Malcolm Elliott, AdrianTimmis, David Baker and Simeon Hempsall.

We have to put up with enough prejudice ofthe ‘Oh, Sheffield’s too hilly for cycling’ varietywithout you lot joining in! Seriously thetopography of the city is not necessarily amajor factor in suppressing cycling – studiesdone both by ourselves and by the Universityof Sheffield suggest that road safety is a fargreater concern. This is hardly surprising in thecontext of a city where 56 children are killed orseriously injured on the roads each year. Manyresidents of Sheffield, who cycle out to thePeak District at the weekend to tackle somefairly serious hills, balk at the idea of cycling towork in peak-hour commuter traffic.

And what do think those frames of yours aremade of anyway?

Simon Geller, Secretary,Pedal Pushers Sheffield Cycle Campaign

www.pedalpushers.org.uk


20

Your streets this month

Bad news

Cambridgeshire County Council’s plan toremove the cycle lanes from a long sectionof Hills Road (between Cavendish Avenueand Long Road) and use the road space tointroduce an outbound bus lane has taken afurther step forward. The council’sCambridge Area Joint Committee has rubber-stamped an earlier decision by the council’sruling ‘cabinet’ to proceed with the scheme.There will now be a period of publicconsultation before a final decision is takenlater this year.

As reported in Newsletter 43, this schemewould remove the best cycle lanes in thecity and replace them with very narrowtraffic lanes shared with other traffic. Cyclistswould instead be expected to ride on thepavement in the inbound direction and, ifone of the two alternative schemes werechosen, on the pavement outbound as well.

Cambridge Cycling Campaign has formed acampaign to save these cycle lanes, and willbe doing its utmost to explain how theirremoval would be bad news for cyclists,pedestrians and local residents. Can youhelp? See the article on page 3.

Good news

A planning application by Bidwells, thecompany that manages Cambridge Science

Park, to close the informal access fromGarry Drive to the Science Park has beenrejected by South Cambridgeshire DistrictCouncil. The decision followed objections byCambridge Cycling Campaign, Milton ParishCouncil and others. Cyclists and pedestrianswill therefore be able tocontinue to use what is themost direct route to theScience Park from most ofKing’s Hedges. Bidwells do,however, have the right tointroduce a gate here andrestrict access outside ofworking hours.

Other news

Construction workcontinues on a traffic-calming scheme in theChesterton High Street

area. As part of thisscheme, St Andrew’s

Road was closed to motor

vehicles at its junction withElizabeth Way at the beginning ofSeptember.

Construction work also continueson a traffic calming scheme in theBateman Street area.

The opening of a new Tescosupermarket on Newmarket Road

has given cyclists two new routesbetween Newmarket Road andRiverside. The main route leadsfrom the main vehicle entrance nearCheddar’s Lane (opposite theentrance to Cambridge Retail Park),past the east side of the store anddown to Riverside. An alternativeroute leaves Newmarket Road afew hundred metres further westand leads past the west and northsides of the store before joining themain route down to Riverside.Unfortunately, both routes areobstructed by chicanes and areimpassable to cyclists with trailers.The main route is also poorlyintegrated to the road network ateach end. At Riverside there is noway off the pavement. At theNewmarket Road end most cyclistswill need to skip the first section ofthe route and use the road instead.

At present, the main value of these routesis that they provide access to thesupermarket itself. In future, however, theyare likely to form part of a new north-southroute leading from Chesterton, across a

new river bridge, through theTesco site, acrossNewmarket Road at theexisting signals and thenthrough existing andproposed retail parks to theBeehive roundabout onColdham’s Lane. It is a pity,therefore, that the section ofthis route through Tesco hasbeen designed to such amediocre standard.Comments to: PeterStuddert, Cambridge CityCouncil and to The Manager,Tesco Stores Ltd.

Long-overdue County Council proposals toimprove Mitcham’s Corner for cyclists,reported in Newsletter 41, have beendelayed by several months following a‘mixed’ reception to the public consultation,with some people opposed to theintroduction of traffic signals or to theremoval of some car parking spaces to makespace for a pavement cycleway. Commentsto Chris Creed.

Addresses for comments

Peter Studdert, Director of Planning,Cambridge City Council, The Guildhall,Cambridge CB2 3LQ

The Manager, Tesco Stores Ltd, NewmarketRoad, Cambridge CB5 1AA

Chris Creed, Assistant Engineer,Cambridgeshire County Council, MailboxET1018, Cambridgeshire County Council, CastleCourt, Shire Hall, Cambridge CB3 0AP

The cycle paths into the new Tesco store offNewmarket Road and Riverside are blocked by someof the fiercest chicanes we have seen, completelyunusable with a trailer, and in a location which is likelyto see more trailers than most.

Construction continues in Bateman Street, with a reallybright, almost orange, cycle lane, and pits ready to havespeed bumps installed alongside the new islands.

Garry Drive: Planningpermission refused to closethis way into the SciencePark.

cambridge cycling campaign · 2003-09-20 · bottisham, via quy (county council). there is a...

Documents