Cambridge Cycling Campaign Survey

Each year the Cambridge Cycling Campaign runs a survey of election candidates on their views on cycling matters relevant to their potential role as councillors. I think this is an excellent idea and am always keen to take part.

My answers are reproduced below. My apologies to anyone who was looking for them earlier when I hadn't yet submitted them.

# Question 1

Our new Cycling Vision 2016 report, available on our website and as featured in the local media recently, outlines a range of proposals for increasing the rate of cycling in the area. Do you give Cycling Vision 2016 your backing, and what are you most keen to see implemented?

Relevant links (each opens in a new window):

• Cycling Vision 2016

The vision is an impressive report. A core of high quality cycling backbones across the city would really make a big difference. Some of the junction improvements are badly needed.

I also like the idea of removing substandard cycle lanes - we need all road users to be fully aware that cyclists do belong on the highway and not on substandard cycle lanes.

# Question 2

There is a major shortage of cycle parking all around the city. Cycle theft is over 10% of all reported crime in the County. Do you have any suggestions for locations for cycle parking? Would you be willing to see a very small proportion of on-street car parking being replaced by on-street cycle parking in your ward? How will you work towards a situation where every resident and every worker in every ward can keep a bike safe?

Relevant links (each opens in a new window):

• Photo: Bateman Street - hundreds of insecure bikes
• Gallery of cycle parking problems from the Campaign's 'Photomap' system
• Newsletter 67: Cycle parking in the Local Plan
  

I do support this idea. I think it is particularly relevant to neighbouring wards, such as Petersfield and Romsey around pubs, shops and terraced houses practically fronting the highway and in the city centre. Kingston Street’s cycle parking is an excellent example, albeit insufficient! I am not sure where in Coleridge the take-up would be quite so high (except from cycling canvassers of course!) but would be interested in any suggestions.

In critical areas it may also be worth converting the odd verge for this purpose - perhaps one that is already mutilated by car parking.

I would like to see more rigorous enforcement by city council planners of our minimum cycle parking standards for developments.

See my blog for further comments on cycle parking and theft:

http://cherryhintonroad.blogspot.com/search/label/Cycle%20parking

# Question 3

Do you support our view that traffic policing (including fining of cyclists without lights or using pedestrian-only pavements) should become a greater police priority?

Relevant links (each opens in a new window):

• Position paper on responsible, legal cycling
• Newsletter 71: Examining legality
• Newsletter 58: Mandatory Cycle Lanes: some progress

I do support this view.

I campaigned for proper police enforcement of speeding on problem roads in the area, including holding police officers to account at the council’s East Area Committee. I persuaded my colleague who was Conservative councillor to get police enforcement of speeding made a priority in our area, which was eventually successful despite being opposed by councillors from different parties all along the way.

One of the advantages of using police to enforce speed limits is that they can also tackle other motoring and cycling offences at the same time.

http://cherryhintonroad.blogspot.com/2009/05/surprise-victory-on-policing-speeding.html

I organised a survey of bicycles on Mill Road over a couple of nights to gauge the extent of the problem of cycling without lights and found that 50% of lights were missing. I achieved some publicity as a result of this survey and consequently found police paying attention to the problem. It is important that policing of cycling is not just confined to a token annual check on Sidney Street.

http://cherryhintonroad.blogspot.com/2009/10/bicycle-lights-on-mill-road.html

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Half-of-cyclists-snub-law-on-lights.htm

http://cherryhintonroad.blogspot.com/2009/11/police-respond-to-unlit-cyclists-on.html

We should be trying to increase the total amount of policing by cutting out police bureaucracy, doing more patrols individual rather than in pairs and allowing the public to elect no-nonsense police chiefs directly, something I am delighted to note that the new government is planning.

Cycle offences such as riding in the dark without lights and using pedestrian-only pavements, which intimidates pedestrians, should be taken more seriously. I think the prevalence of shared-use footpaths as part of a box-ticking culture towards cycling provision has created uncertainty and led many to assume that cycling on footpaths is always permitted.

# Question 4

We believe that 20mph should be the norm for local streets in residential areas (as distinct from main connecting roads). 20mph would: greatly encourage walking and cycling; improve the quality of life in an area for residents; and would not delay car journeys significantly (because only the start/end of a journey would be affected). Do you agree that 20mph should become the norm for local streets in Cambridge and surrounding villages?

Relevant links (each opens in a new window):

• Newsletter 90: 20 mph in Portsmouth
• Residential Speed Reduction - Cycling Vision 2016

I certainly agree that many such streets in our area are not suitable for higher speeds (over 20mph) most of the time. It is worth reading speed reports for places like Mill Road - most of the traffic was already limiting itself to this speed most of the time. We shall have to see if anything actually happens about those who used to go too fast now that the 20mph speed limit is in place there...

However, I do think the obsession with 20mph zones detracts from wider arguments about safety and by being unnecessarily broad in cases can undermine support for traffic restrictions. Safety measures should certainly be deployed for safety reasons only, not social engineering.

# Question 5

There have not been enough cycle stands at the station for at least a decade now. Given the level of cycle theft, congestion and growth in the city, what steps will you take to solve this and in what timescale?

Relevant links (each opens in a new window):

• Photo: the scene greeting visitors to Cambridge at the railway station.
• Newsletter 88: Station switchbacks

I support the cycling campaign's continued pressure on railway companies to release parking spaces for cycles at the station. But this should not be the only avenue as the financial incentives may not be aligned there to see action... Regular removal of unused cycles is also important but also cannot be seen as a panacea. New developments nearby really should have been required to include much more cycle parking with them - we must not allow that to happen again.

# Question 6

Will you give your active support to the proposal to construct a proper cycle path linking Ashbury Close to Golding Road?

Relevant links (each opens in a new window):

• Photo of the area

I have already given active support to this proposal:

http://cherryhintonroad.blogspot.com/2010/08/connecting-asbury-close-golding-road.html

I have put the case strongly to local residents as to how the scheme is a good one but in final decision making I will only support the scheme if we have been successful in gaining the support of local residents when it eventually goes to consultation. They have to live with the consequences either way.

# Question 7

Do you support our proposal for 'The Chisholm Trail', a cycling super-highway that would run roughly along the railway, joining up the Science Park to Addenbrookes? More details are in our Cycling Vision 2016 document. This high-profile scheme would cut journey times, give people a genuine, realistic alternative to car use and help the city cope with the population increase which will take place in the coming years.

Relevant links (each opens in a new window):

• The Chisholm Trail - Cycling Vision 2016

I do support the Chisholm Trail and would do what I could to get rail companies and any other relevant bodies to facilitate the scheme.

The Conservative-controlled county council is open to the idea of the trail and Cambridge Conservatives have supported it for many years.

# Question 8

Do you have any other general cycling-related comments or points? And what support have you given for cycling and walking, or sustainable transport more generally, in the recent past?

Cycling has been my primary mode of transport for many years.

I have promoted cycling with lights, defensive cycling, the need to open up what I call value-added cycle paths (not the same as a splash of white paint on the road/pavement) which open up new options for cyclists, adequately sized cycle lanes (many in the city are not) and have campaigned to get speeding vehicles under control.

I oppose road measures that make life more difficult for cyclists, such as road humps. I have been sceptical of the culture in government of painting white lines on the road or sharing pavements and calling that a cycling facility. Cyclists need to feel confident cycling on the main highway, through promotion, law enforcement and training.

I recently wrote some notes about commuter cycling in Cambridge:

http://cherryhintonroad.blogspot.com/2010/09/commuter-cycling-in-cambridge.html

Bike recovered

I now have my bicycle back after it was stolen a month ago!

On Saturday afternoon afternoon I spotted my stolen bicycle being ridden along Coleridge Road and followed it to Cherry Hinton Road, where the rider stopped outside Wilco. After I indicated a string of identifying features the person was keen to hand my bike back to me. I have given details to the police.

The bike has suffered a lot of wear in the month and will need some attention but it is great to have it back!

Thank you to Labour's George and Dan for looking out for it - I guess it can't have been very far away all along. Now having had two recovered from six stolen I wonder how common a 33% return rate is?

The photograph has been edited to protect the guilty.

Commuter cycling in Cambridge

The Cambridge Cycling Campaign does an excellent job at raising awareness of the needs of everyday cyclists in Cambridge and promoting safe cycling. One of the problems they face in a place like this is that a lot is said and done on behalf of cyclists by people who may have the best intentions at heart but don't themselves make a daily cycle commute.

As someone who often used to do a 14-mile cycle commute and now mostly cycles to work but over a shorter distance, I take a different view of what is helpful than council officials often do.

If a bicycle is to replace a car then it needs to enable good, direct, progress without excessive stopping.

Some of the solutions that get proposed, however, I believe actually harm cycling. In many people's minds the obvious cycling measure to be deployed is a cycle lane. I think these can have a place, particularly if they are wide, but they rarely are (or can be) and are often relegated to second class lanes, disappearing or moving onto the pavement. They can be worse than useless, putting cyclists into more danger.

Shared-use cycle paths are another love of well-meaning bureaucrats, but a look at Milton Road should scotch that. Cyclists on that path should stop at each junction, which horribly detracts from progress and the temptation is just to go for it. Knowing someone whose teeth were broken in a resulting collision I don't think this is something that should be encouraged and I know that pedestrians feel intimidated by cyclists on the pavement. Progress is much better on the road itself but users who do that often suffer the ire of drivers who think the cyclists should be on their 'facility' (or 'psychle farcility' as some cam.transport posters rather endearingly call them). I can't help thinking Milton Road would be better for cyclists if widened (possibly by removing the bus lane if it turned out not to be that effective but I am not that familiar with bus progress rates on Milton Road to be able to comment competently on that at the moment.)

A good use of cycle lanes, in my view, is contraflow lanes, such as in Downing Street. These add genuine value to the cycling network and should be encouraged. It does help if delivery vehicles aren't parked in them, though!

There's a lot to be said for the shared space concept - in town or village centres - with large vehicles giving way to smaller ones in turn up to pedestrians. The centre of town could be cited as an example. Unobservant pedestrians make cycle progress slow, but that should be expected and accepted - the only problem is inconsiderate (and going-the-wrong-way) cyclists, who can make life unpleasant; motor vehicles can sometimes also be a menace in the evenings but that is partly a cultural problem.

I do value investment in cycling infrastructure. Their merit should be judged on whether they add value for cyclists - opening up new routes, speeding travel or genuinely improving safety (and not just the illusion of such). Schemes such as the Shelford DNA cycle path, which is really nice, and Coleridge Conservatives' proposed cycle route between Ashbury Close and Golding Road are, in my view, really valuable. But I am very sceptical of plans to entrench cycling on the pavement on Cherry Hinton Road (although if the shared-use footpath is to remain that then the proposed plans could be beneficial for safety), 'cycling town' money which could perhaps be better spent on other cycling infrastructure.

An alternative view is taken by Lib Dem Market Councillor Colin Rosenstiel who has argued in favour of narrow cycle lanes, even in the 'dooring zones' to the right of parked cars. Colin says that some people are not so confident on the roads and really value these facilities. I don't agree with Colin but perhaps my views are skewed by being a confident and experienced commuter cyclist. Has Colin got a point? What do you think?

[Picture from after this year's London to Cambridge cycle ride]

UPDATE: The original version of this article may have given the impression that the cycling campaign promotes pavement cycleways - that was not the intention as I know this is not the case.

Bradney on Bikeability and Cycle England

Matt Bradney's views on the recent news about these cycling projects is worth reading:

http://eastchesterton.blogspot.com/2010/09/bikeability-and-cycle-england.html

Connecting Asbury Close & Golding Road

Coleridge Conservatives have supported a cycle route between Ashbury Close and Golding Road since 2007.


This is a scheme which Chris Howell requested for an environmental improvements grant. A plan has now been devised. See page 83 (87) of the agenda pack for the last East Area Committee for the details


Cycling is currently banned in the area but in practice this rule is barely followed, with people variously cycling on the pavement and on the grass, neither of which is ideal for residents.

A cycle path between the two, if well sited, could ensure that those who already cycle do so in a considerate fashion and open up the route to people who are currently penalised for following the rules.

If the path eliminates a couple of 4x4s from driving children to school and puts cyclists out of the way of pedestrians and children playing on the grass then it will have been a very worthwhile scheme.

We have generally found residents to be accepting of this idea, with a small amount of opposition. The concerns expressed have been:

• It will increase cycle movements.
  Not much – the current prohibition is widely ignored & some movements will be instead of vehicle movements clogging up nearby roads and parking.
• It will bring antisocial behaviour.
  I cannot see how this claim is supportable
• Parking will be lost.
  This is a risk but a good scheme would lose only two spaces and possibly fewer
• The money could be better spent.
  The proposed grant is from the environmental improvements pot and this is a capital project so comparisons with potential expenditure that would be recurring are not fair.
• Cyclists will be a menace to pedestrians.
  This should become less true than it currently is because the path will mostly run along the inside of the existing pavement and will mainly not be shared.
  
• The path would otherwise dissect the greens and be a loss to an area for children to play.
  The proposed plan has the path mostly adjacent to the path or nearly adjacent to the path. Of greater impact to children enjoying themselves must surely be the miserly 'no ball games' signs adorning the area?

The bottom line

I support this scheme but only on condition that:

1. No more than one parking space is lost at each end and options are investigated to reduce this to nil. (I think more work on the current plan is due in this respect.) It certainly would not be acceptable for council officers to introduce gratuitous parking restrictions by the back door through this proposal.

2. It is as much as is practical a separate rather than shared-use path.

3. The large grass area should not be dissected.

4. There is a proper consultation of local residents - and not the usual faux consultation.

At the city council's recent East Area Committee of 17 June Coleridge Conservative Councillor Chris Howell spoke in support of the scheme but stressed the importance of a proper consultation, which officers have promised to provide.

As a footnote, the record of what local politicians have said about this scheme in the past is available on the Cambridge Cycling Campaign website:

May 2010 District Elections (question 6; see also question 5).
May 2008 District Elections (question 8).

Cambridge Gateway and Hills Road

Coleridge residents will already be aware of the latest works on Hills Road bridge. When the bridge was being restored after the recent guided bus works the opportunity was taken to trial new cycling arrangements over the bridge. Now the Cambridge Gateway project designed to create a new bus, pedestrian and cycle link to the railway station area is in progress and includes a new permanent layout for the bridge with more cycling provision.

There are traffic restrictions in place such as a ban on turns from Hills Road into Brooklands Avenue and no overtaking of cyclists on the bridge in the single lane on the bridge. All the work is expected to finish in February 2011 and work on the bridge is anticipated to be finished by Christmas.



We are anxious that the no overtaking restriction is observed. We previously secured CCTV for this purpose but to doubtful effect. It would be easier to solve the problem if cyclists had the confidence to ride in the middle of the lane in this situation but that rarely seems to happen.

More information is available on the county council website: layout and briefing note.

Personally I think the new layout is far too complicated and would be happier cycling over the bridge without any cycle lanes at all but I accept that is a minority preference. Let's hope when the work is finished that it proves to be worth the money!

Should Cyclists be forced to wear helmets?

An argument that has been rumbling on for years hit the local press over the last week.

On wednesday, blog favourite Cllr Colin Rosenstiel was quoted claiming that wearing a cycle helmet makes you more likely to have an accident, and criticised the County Council over their attempts to compel staff to wear them.

But yesterday, the chief executive of Cambridgeshire head injuries charity Headway hit back, questioning the assumption that cyclists with helmets are more likely to be involved in an accident, and calling for a common sense approach, that those with helmets are more likely to have their skull protected in an accident than those who don't.

On this latter point, it is hard to argue that in the case of an accident involving a head impact, you wouldn't be better off with a helmet on, although the protective effect is nothing like as comprehensive as some might think, particularly in high speed collisions.

The issue of whether wearing a helmet makes you more likely to have an accident in the first place is more debatable. There are usually two parties involved in causing an accident, and usually through defensive driving or riding, either party can stop an accident happening. It is possible cyclists would ride less 'defensively' whilst wearing a helmet - an extreme way of expressing this is the argument sometimes suggested for preventing injury from car accidents - it would be safer to put a large metal spike on the steering wheel than an airbag - which rather graphically illustrates the point. Another factor that could cause  helmet wearers to be more likely to be involved in an accident is the effect the helmet has on other road users, and in particular it is claimed that drivers are more likely to drive closer to cyclists (i.e. less defensively) if they have a helmet.

But there is a third argument why forcing cyclists to wear helmets might increase the accident rate (not to mention also increasing levels of traffic and obesity) - a second order effect, namely that forcing helmet usage reduces cycling as it is significantly less convenient, which it turn makes if less safe for all cyclists. Countries with very high rates of cycling like Holland don't insist on helmet use, and tend to have much lower accident rates amongst cyclists, as road users always expect high levels of cyclists and change their driving or cycling accordingly to reduce the risk of accidents.

Put all these arguments together, and I can easily believe that the protective effect of helmets in some accidents is more than outweighed by an increase in accident rates and reduction in cycling take up if helmets are made compulsory.

Add to this my natural scepticism whenever government tries forcing an individual to do something purely for 'their own good', even when that individual has taken a considered and informed view that they wouldn't otherwise do it, and I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing rather more with Cllr Rosenstiel that we shouldn't be forcing helmet use on cyclists - it should be a personal choice.

Usually around town I don't wear a helmet - but I hope I ride quite responsibly and defensively. Riding along the tow path this evening marshalling the town bumps I probably will choose to use my helmet...

Action on cycle theft now a priority

Progress was made at Strategy and Resources committee on Monday to tackle the problem of cycle theft in Cambridge, as Councillors changed the city wide community safety partnership priorities for the year ahead to including tackling the problem of cycle theft. The current situation with cycle theft in Cambridge is a scandal - nearly 2,500 stolen last year, and many Coleridge residents have been affected.

Cycling in Cambridge isn't something people do for a couple of hours leisure activity on a Saturday afternoon, it is vital to getting people to their places of work or study, and it is a vital part of transport systems in the city. We need this problem taken seriously, and co-ordinated steps taken to make it as easy as possible to securely lock or store bikes around the city, and to identify, track down and severley punish those that think it is acceptable to steal or trade stolen bikes in the City. I don't go quite as far as Boris, who as ever is very sound on the subject but pretty close.

I'm pleased to say that despite being the only Conservative Councillor on the City Council, it was my amendment that was passed to make cycle theft a priority, with Labour support, and the Lib Dems abstaining - leaving the committee in favour, and the leader of the Council with little choice but to accept the amendment!

When the annual community safety plan priorities were agreed last January, I was persuaded that cycle theft didn't need to be a priority as there was a separate project and it was already being taken seriously. Since then, cycle theft has increased in the city by 8% - whatever has been done over the last year clearly isn't working, and the suggestion that there is a special project to look at the issue just didn't go far enough. The lead police officer for the proposed special project mentioned in the committee report is apparently no longer even working in Cambridge City, which gives some idea of how much activity is really going on in this area at the moment.

The Community Safety partnership brings together police and local authorities, to tackle crime and community safety problems that need action from several agencies. I will be following up how this priority is taken forward, and would like to see a taskforce setup to tackle this problem, involving the police, the councils, the Universities and campaign groups like Cambridge Cycling Campaign, starting with a meeting that (once the hour long bleat from the police about lack of resources is over) brainstorms what could be done.

I'm sure there is lots more encouargement that can be given for locking bikes, and ensuring they are registered (e.g. at immobilise), but the authorities need to go much further. The situation with lack of suitable cycle parking, not just at the station but around the city is scandalous - this must be addressed, and urgently.

But we should stop just blaming the victims for having their bikes stolen - lets have 'bait bikes' with tracker devices around the city, not just one or two, but significant numbers owned and operated by residents as well as the police. There needs to be a senior police officer in the city (above sergeant level) who has tackling bike theft as a specific responsibility, and we need to make sure every effort is made to catch, severely punish and name and shame those reponsible for bike theft until it is clear it is totally unacceptable.

Cycling town proposed works

Some specific improvements for cycling have now been put forward by the county council for consultation as part of the cycling demonstration town works.

As a general rule I'm sceptical of splashing paint around, which is often just a way of cutting transport capacity of particular kinds for ideological purposes, but welcome genuine improvements. It looks like there's a mixture planned:

Cherry Hinton Road
Facilities for cyclists have been reviewed in detail to see what improvements could be made. Due to the relative narrowness of the road, it is not realistic to have on-road cycle lanes on both sides of the road. The proposals involve improvements to the shared use off-road cycle route.

Madingley Road
The team have been looking at improving the provision for cyclists with a combination of onroad and off-road cycle paths. From Queens Road to Storey’s Way the existing off-road shared use path will be widened. From Storey’s Way to the Park and Ride there will be a combination of on-road and off-road paths, as the width of the road varies considerably.

The Tins
Discussions are currently taking place regarding the purchase of land to widen the route on the north and/or south side. From initial survey work carried out the most likely improvement will be to the north side.

Gilbert Road
The proposal is to introduce traffic calming measures and improve the cycle lanes along Gilbert Road. There is a separate leaflet available with more details of the proposals.

There's a chance to view the plans and air views at the consultations:

Tuesday 19 January 2010 - 4.30 - 7.30pm
Cherry Hinton Village Centre, Colville Road

Wednesday 20 January - 8 - 10am and 4.30 - 7.30pm
Madingley Road Park & Ride waiting room

Thursday 21 and Monday 25 January - 4.30 - 7.30pm
Chesterton Community College Lounge, Gilbert Road

Wednesday 27 January - 4.30 - 7.30pm
Cambridge Central Library, Lion Yard (Third Floor opposite the Café)

Coleridge Conservatives are keen to know what residents think of the ideas.

Minor Victory for Common Sense

When lots of people have been working towards a particular policy change, you can only hope your efforts played a part, but last September there was some movement on an issue local Conservatives have been campaigning on for a while. We want Councils to be allowed to put up sensible signage to allow two way cycling on otherwise one-way streets where this is appropriate - a key part of making it more convenient for people to use bikes rather than cars to travel around Cambridge.

I blogged on this issue in June 2008, and followed it up with a request to the department of transport. It seems that there has been some common sense coming out of the review of signage regulations (the rules that are used to ensure central government bureaucrats can over-rule local decision making on issues where local circumstances suggest a local decision would be better...).

It has just been announced by the County Council that there will now be a trial of more sensible signage arrangements in Cambridge:

"I am pleased to announce that Mawson Road in Petersfield, Cambridge is set to become part of a national trial of the signage combination 'no entry except cycles' along with sites in Brighton and Kensington & Chelsea. Cambridge's status as one of Cycling England's Cycling Towns was key to Cambridge being included in the trial.

The new signage should be in place in March 2010.

The site will be monitored by the DfT, with the hope that the new signage combination will become a permitted option that can be used at the discretion of highway authorities."

The current signage in use on places like Kingston Street is the sign best described as 'warning, low flying motorbikes' that very few motorists seem to understand the meaning of (motor vehicles prohibited), so it causes problems with illegal manoeuvres by cars, and abuse of cyclists...

Cyclist vs Driver

Last nights local Inside Out program had a section on the long running debate between cyclists and car drivers in Cambridge - available here on iPlayer for about a week, from about 1 minute in.

It uses cameras to compare the view of a cyclist, in this case Jim Chisholm, liaison officer of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, and a delivery driver. There is lots of footage of cycling around Cambridge, and there are a fair few clips of other cyclists and drivers that that leave you feeling scared for the participants (mostly for the cyclists).

Overall the report seemed fair on both sides, but if anything I would say it exaggerates the extent to which there are problems - it is a small percentage of cyclists and drivers that give each side a bad name, and the extent of problems can be overstated.

But that doesn't mean there aren't problems. I have the advantage of being both a cyclist and a driver - I drive around 4,000 miles a year, and probably cycle around 1,500 miles. This gives a good insight into both points of view in Cambridge.

Car drivers, in theory at least, need to be formally trained and their costs are significantly higher - this can lead some drivers to assume they have a greater right to use the roads in Cambridge than cyclists. They don't, and sometimes (e.g. following a cyclist who is taking a perfectly reasonable position in the middle of a road), they need to just relax. But sitting inside a comfortable vehicle, many drivers simply fail to appreciate the risks that they are exposing more vulnerable road users to - in how much room they give cyclists when following them or overtaking, how fast they travel or when manoeuvring at junctions. A mindset change from a small number of drivers would solve a lot of problems.

Cyclists on the other hand can just get on a bike and ride off - no training, no insurance, no tax (and quite right too!) - but they also run a much greater risk of being injured in any collision with a car. And in this context, there is clearly a problem with a significant minority of cyclists. There are simple steps that all cyclists could take to be safer - assuming that they must stop at red lights, always using bike lights at night, not cycling whilst on the phone or whilst drunk. But to significantly improve cyclist safety, I think it would take some less obvious solutions. I am frequently in a hurry as a cyclist, and end up taking manoeuvres that if not outright dangerous, with hindsight could be called aggressive - in the same way there is a concept of defensive driving, there are definitely times when my safety would benefit from 'defensive cycling'.

The debate between cyclists and drivers in Cambridge has been going on for decades, and doubtless will go on for decades more. But as someone who does both, I don't think the importance of cycling to Cambridge can be overstated - and both cyclists and car drivers should welcome ever greater take up of cycling. If every cyclist in Cambridge gave up cycling, the results would be disastrous - Cambridge would grind to a halt and cease to function as a City. I don't think cycling is going to be that crucial in saving the planet from climate change, but if every car driver was to take up cycling in Cambridge, if only for some journeys, the roads would be less congested, people would be fitter and healthier, and journeys would be faster and safer for everyone. Which is why I usually, if not always, err on the side of the cyclist in these debates.

Hills Road Bridge Consultation

I visited the County Council's consultation exhibition on the plans for Hills Road bridge last night.

Whilst the trial I think has generally been popular - it is worth pointing out that the plans currently being considered are different to the current trial layout in a number of ways:

Firstly, a new pedestrian crossing is planned for the north part of the bridge, to avoid the problems with pedestrians crossing outside the Earl of Derby pub - this will also provide access for cyclists to the Guided Bus route towards Addenbrokes and Trumpington, so will help to take some traffic off Hills Road completely.

Secondly, the plans are being considered in conjunction with the 'Cambridge Gateway' plans, where funding has been obtained for a new bus and cycle route from the station to Hills Rd joining opposite Brooklands avenue.

But the final change from the trial layout is a proposal to create a wide central cycle lane coming off the bridge towards the City Centre, and guide all cyclists going straight on into this lane (double click on the plans above to see details). This removes the need for the 'straight on' cycle lane at the lights, that many cyclists ignore anyway as it is usually quicker to move into the straight on road lane. There are a number of advantages to this layout (not least it will allow more room for cyclists/cars heading southbound near the Earl of Derby), but I have a couple of potential concerns - firstly in terms of whether less confident cyclists will be happy cycling in a cycle lane in the middle of the road (even if it is a wide cycle lane), and also that it increases the number of crossovers between cars turning left and cyclists going straight ahead.

None of these changes affect the general principles of the scheme, that seem to be working well, but if you are a regular user of the bridge, I would recommend the final County Council consultation exhibition to be held as follows: Mon 30th Nov 5.00 – 7.30pm, Science Lecture Room, Hills Road Sixth Form College, or visit the County Council's website.

Cycle facilities going in the right direction

There has been action on some of Coleridge Conservatives long running campaigns to improve facilities for cyclists in the ward.

Firstly, signage has now been put up to guide people through Corrie Road and Brackyn Close - this looks useful without being too obtrusive:

And following my complaints about lack of cycle parking at East Area committee venues, I am told that there will be more cycle parking installed at Lichfield Hall, and City Homes have been asked if some cycle racks can be put on their land opposite the Cherry Trees centre in Petersfield.

Many thanks to the City Council's cycling officer for making these improvements happen.

Still waiting for some more progress on other cycle related issues that I hope can be tackled soon with funding from the Council's environmental improvements scheme: completing the footpath near Carter Bridge to avoid pedestrians having to walk in the cycle lane, and opening an official cycle route between Ashbury Close and Golding Road...

Police respond to unlit cyclists on Mill Road

It was good to see a police officer checking for cyclists without lights on Mill Road tonight. An earlier survey by Coleridge Conservatives, that hit the front page of Cambridge News, showed that 50% of lights that should have been present and on were either absent, dim or obscured. We don't know exactly how many people were therefore not properly lit (as we were checking light positions independently, not cycles as a whole) but it would obviously have had to have been at least half.

The officer I spoke to tonight reckoned 80% of people he'd seen weren't lit properly. That's a damning statistic, but I'm glad that they haven't just done a symbolic annual check on Sidney Street but seem to be taking the problem seriously.

Mill Road safety scheme consultation closed

The consultation period for a proposed £400,000 safety scheme for Mill Road is now over. Coleridge Conservatives participated in the consultation and now await the report that will be drawn up for the Area Joint Committee (joint transport committee of city and county councils) to consider in January.

As we noted previously, systematic speed analysis on this road suggests that speeds are already kept low. Accident records obtained by Coleridge Conservatives also seem to confirm anecdotal evidence that the real dangers on the road are at junctions.

It is not clear how any of the measures in the proposed scheme would reduce incidents of cars pulling into Mill Road without noticing cyclists already on the road. Yet the costs of the plan are high at £400,000 and humps in the road are really going to annoy not just car drivers, but also cyclists; they will no doubt also encourage cyclists to hug the kerb instead of cycling in a safer defensive position into the carriageway, while car drivers may be tempted to drive in the middle of the road between the humps. (And it would be a terrible shame for the lovely new road surface to be ruined in this way - it is now a pleasure to cycle along!)

We really need a more thorough analysis of what the actual problems are if we are to come up with an economical solution that we can have confidence will actually make a positive difference, and preferrably without annoying all classes of road user simultaneously.

When I attended the exhibition at St Barnabas Church in September I noticed that the sign-in form had columns to tick for Romsey, Petersfield and 'other' residents. This suggests that the consultation, including official flyers to notify people of the consultation, was aimed predominantly at Romsey and Petersfield residents and not other city residents, such as in Coleridge, who have a big interest in this important road. (Although we of course publicised the consultation in our August newsletter.) I think we should therefore expect conclusions to be skewed heavily towards the views of the residents around the road itself, who are less likely to own or need a car themselves. We shall be making this point to the relevant people.

Here are some of the ideas that Coleridge Conservatives think should be considered:

1. Do a proper analysis of why accidents are happening and work out what could be done to fix the situation. (Rather than dogmatically assuming that speed is the cause and annoying drivers the answer.)

2. Proper police enforcement of cyclists being unlit at night (currently no effective enforcement at all undertaken and huge numbers of cyclists are unlit),

3. Driver education relating to junctions, along with analysis of why cyclists are so hard to spot.

4. Look at delivery arrangements e.g. whether side streets can be used to cut down on the amount of delivery from the road.

5. Ban overtaking anywhere on the railway bridge.

6. Consider marking advisory cycle lanes in the middle of the two lanes so that cyclists are encouraged to ride in a position that makes them prominent and discourages unsafe overtaking, such as in the tunnel at Heathrow airport.

Hill Road Bridge to fully reopen Sept 7th

The County Council have confirmed that the Guided Bus works on Hills Road bridge will finally be completed on 6th September. The County Council will then work overnight to implement a trial road layout to help cyclists across the bridge, that will be in place from Monday 7th. From their press release:

The safety trial will segregate cyclists and motorists using the bridge with temporary kerbs and a raised white line, known as a rumble strip. The trial is expected to be in place for up to four months."

Busway contractor, BAM Nuttall, has informed the Council they will finish all the work on the bridge this Sunday. Currently there are around 4,000 cycle trips each day over the bridge and it is hoped the new scheme will help cyclists and motorists as well as encouraging more people to use their bike.

Mike Davies, Programme Manager for Cycle Cambridge, said: "The aim of the trial is to show how the new cycle lanes could improve the safety of this busy route. Each day 4,000 people ride their bike over the bridge and by making it safer even more people will choose to cycle, rather than drive. Less cars on the road means good news for everybody.

"During the trial we will assess traffic flows at the junctions at either end of the bridge, queue lengths and driver behaviour before making a decision whether to make the cycle lanes permanent."

During the trial the bridge will return to two lanes in each direction, however the uphill sections will be reserved for cyclists only. We do not envisage the set-up of the trial causing any delays as we will be doing this overnight and the bridge will remain open.

If the trial is successful, the new cycle lanes could be made permanent as early as next year to coincide with the Cambridge Gateway construction, a £3 million project to improve public transport and safety for pedestrians and cyclists travelling to and from the station area.

Anyone with comments on the Hills Road Bridge cycle lane trial and the Cambridge Gateway project is encouraged to attend one of the consultation events. These are being held on Tuesday 8 September at Hills Road Sixth Form College, from 5.30pm to 7.30pm, and Thursday 10 September at St Paul's Church (Lower Hall), Hills Road, from 4.30pm to 7pm.

Further information on both projects, including a plan of the layout of the new cycle lane and a feedback form, is available by logging on to www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/cambridgegateway

I hope this trial is a success - it is excellent news for the many cyclists on the bridge, and indirectly for pedestrians who are less likely to encounter cyclists on the pavements, and car drivers who could benefit from fewer cars if more people cycle! I am also particularly pleased that the County Council has arranged for the trial to go in immediately rather than having another separate set of works shortly after the Guided Bus works finished - this was something I had been asking for for a long while, and should give the trial the best possible chance of success.

Cyclists Second Class citizens in Lib Dem Cambridge

On numerous occassions when the City Council has run or sanctioned events on the main City Centre Greens and Commons, they have allowed paths forming key cycle routes to be blocked, and received complaints as a result. But in Lib Dem Cambridge, they just don't seem to be getting the message that these routes are a key part of the cycle network, and you can't just block them off without causing serious problems.

The latest example is just beyond belief. The comedy tent, organised by the City Council's Arts and Entertainments dept is back on Jesus Green. So far, so good, but they have managed to layout the site right across the path, with a food van fronting on to the path.

I received a complaint on Tuesday evening after there was a collision between a cyclist who couldn't avoid both an oncoming cyclist and a customer of the food van who just stepped backwards into the path without looking. Injuries were slight, but I can't understand how any practical consideration of Health and Safety as opposed to the all too common jobsworth variety wouldn't have ruled out what the Council has done here.

After I complained, the food van is being moved back from the path and some warning signs will be put up, but there will still be a hazard - it is ridiculous that the Council should be so oblivious to the importance of major cycle routes that they think it is acceptable to regularly block them without warning. They wouldn't set up a whelk stall in the outside lane of the A14 without warning and just expect cars to avoid the hazard. The Lib Dems in charge of Cambridge need to get a grip of this problem and stop it happening in future. On current form, I wouldn't leave them in charge of the whelk stall.

Tins reopened

Following the recent works, I'm told that the Tins path between Burnside and Coldhams Lane has now reopened, with a new surface!

Tins path set to be closed for maintenance

From the County Council:

"As part of the Cycling Town programme we are planning to widen The Tins to make it more suitable for combined use by cyclists and pedestrians. Improving it should encourage more people to commute into Cambridge by bicycle from Cherry Hinton, and will provide a safer more pleasant alternative to Coldhams Lane

This is just a note to inform you that The Tins path will be closed from 7th July for up to 10 days so that initial works can be undertaken to improve the surface of the existing path which is particularly poor, and the subject of many complaints from the public.

An alternative route will be signed taking cyclists and pedestrians along Snakey Path (Burnside, Romsey to Sydney Farm Road, Cherry Hinton)."

However, it appears that these aren't the works to widen the path - negotiations are still ongoing to obtain the land, and it is hoped that the main scheme will be implemented next year. I'll be on their case to make sure this path does get widened as promised...

Mill Road set for 20mph limit?

Mill Road could be set for a 20mph limit, after a meeting held a couple of weeks ago involving Petersfield and Romsey Councillors, Mill Road traders and other interested parties invited to discuss proposals for a road safety scheme on the road.

Unfortunately Coleridge Conservatives weren't on the guest list for this meeting, so it is unclear exactly what was 'agreed' at the workshop, but we understand the meeting concluded that a 20mph speed limit, along with some more subtle measures at junctions would be the best way forward.

The County Council are now likely to put such a plan out to wider consultation.

Obviously we need to see some detailed proposals, but introducing a blanket 20mph speed limit on such a major road is likely to be controversial - and potentially unnecessary. For starters, the police could take the problem of darkly clothed unlit cyclists using the road at night more seriously, and issue tickets every day until people get the message that this unacceptable, and then work on driver education so more care is taken at junctions. What is clear is that the accident record on Mill Road, like that on Hills Road is far too high and the pressure to take action is strong.

The precise proposals however are a long way from a 'done deal', and when any proposals go out for consultation, we need to make sure everyone in the City affected can have their voice heard.