- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cambridge_floating_bus_stopCambridge segregated bike lanes postponed amid concerns over "kamikaze cyclists"
Despite successful implementation across Europe and in London, and widespread approval during recent planning consultation, it doesn’t look like segregated bike lanes and ‘floating’ bus stops will be coming to Cambridge any time soon. Councillors yesterday postponed a decision on a implementing a £1.8 million bike path project citing concerns about “kamikaze” cyclists.
Cambridgeshire County Council’s were debating plans for improved cycling facilities on Hills Road and Huntingdon Road, but called for revised plans to be submitted in July, despite warnings from council officers that Government funding for the scheme had to be spent by May.
Chris Havergal of Cambridge News reports that councillors expressed concern that the proposed floating bus stops, which allow cyclists to safely pass stationary busses, would be a hazard for pedestrians who would have to cross cycle lanes to board and disembark.
Red lights
John Williams, Liberal Democrat councillor for Fulbourn, said: “I can’t tell you how often I see cyclists disobeying red lights and not stopping at pedestrians crossings and pelican crossings.
“I don’t have any confidence cyclists will give way to pedestrians moving to the bus stop because of what I see going on in this city with cyclists.
“Unless we make pedestrians the priority at these bus stops, I have serious concerns there will be an accident.”
Kamikaze cyclists
Williams’ fellow Liberal Democrat, David Jenkins, councillor for Histon, said: “I’m concerned about cyclists’ behaviour. It’s only a small minority, but it’s a significant small minority of kamikaze cyclists in the city and they are intolerant of other road users, and there has to be some way of policing them.
“Simply allowing them to have priority means less confident bus users will be stranded on the island as these guys go past.”
However, Jenkins later wrote on his blog that he was nevertheless in favour of the plans. He voted against the postponement of the decision, which he described as “an unnecessary cop-out.”
Common sense
Independent John Hipkin, councillor for the Castle ward which includes Huntingdon Road, said bus users would be able to make sense of island stops.
He said: “No traffic scheme can entirely discount common sense and every traffic scheme relies on common sense to make it work.
“I think this is a project which, on balance, I support. I fully support some of the misgiving of my residents but on balance I shall support it.”
Frustrating
Cambridge Cycling Campaign described councillors’ decision as “very frustrating”.
Martin Lucas-Smith, the organisation’s chairman, had told the committee that floating bus stops had been used across Europe and elsewhere in the UK with no major problems.
He added: “These schemes are crucial if Cambridge isn’t to grind to a halt. It isn’t about giving cyclists favours, it’s encouraging more people to cycle.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- HKR 45 min 55 sec ago
Can't believe that child threw his bike on the floor at the end of that. Young people today have no respect... ;))
- Griff500 3 sec ago
Its not the same stem fitted to the two bikes though, and we aren't talking about HTA we are talking about stem inclination or "stem rise" to use...
- Laz 5 hours 48 min ago
hopefully, that will be the last time we see that van in drivable condition
- TheBillder 8 hours 46 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 9 hours 2 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 9 hours 5 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 9 hours 9 min ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 9 hours 19 min ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
- RoubaixCube 9 hours 48 min ago
Ive been using the same £2-3 dish brush I bought from wilko, tesco or pound land for as long as I can remember. I dont understand why anyone would...
Add new comment
38 comments
The hypocrisy here amazes me.
Replace the words 'pedestrian' with 'cyclist' and 'cyclist' with 'car' and we get, for example: "Stick with cars having priority then and make sure the cyclists have a good look before blindly riding in front of oncoming cars.". What bollocks.
The rule is simple (as in Europe): cars give way to cyclists, cyclists give way to pedestrians*.
The problem is that a lot of cyclists get onto a bike and the arrogance levels rise, so their rule of the road is: pedestrians give way to me, cars give way to me.
Until this attitude is eradicated, cyclists will continue to have a (well deserved) bad reputation.
*I'm not talking about the idiots who wander into the road on a red man, totally oblivious of the traffic because they're talking on their phones. I'm talking about the poor OAPs or families with small children trying to cross a busy cycle way after having just stepped off the bus with cyclists flying past with their '**** you, I ain't gonna stop attitude'. The type of situation envisaged here...
Ok.
Right.
Erm...
No, the rule is actually more often "person making a straight-ahead / continuous road journey has priority over someone turning".
We're talking about cyclists going straight on, on a continuous road, having priority over someone who is changing direction to access a bus stop. We're talking about cyclists, going straight-on, on a continuous road, having priority over motor vehicles turning left into a side road. You know, normal road priority, of the sort cars have, and cyclists currently only have if they act like cars.
We're not talking about cyclists leaving the cycle lane to make a right-hand turn having priority over a motor vehicle in the main lane or opposite lane. We are not talking about a cyclist making a left-hand turn ploughing into a pedestrian already crossing a side road. Because that's turning, and you give way to manoeuvre.
A cyclist going the full length of the road, as many do, would have to give way 3 or 4 times without priority at the bus stops. The person accessing the bus stop only has to give way once.
Incidentally, I would like to see the same applied to pedestrians: we should have much tighter turns into side roads and continuous pavements across side roads to give continuous journeys to pedestrians too. Willing to bet the councillors stating how obvious it is the pedestrians should have priority over cyclists would baulk at the idea of them having priority over cars.
“I can’t tell you how often I see cyclists disobeying red lights and not stopping at pedestrians crossings and pelican crossings." At least he's honest; if I didn't know something I couldn't tell you about it either! Another posturing local politician.
People behave as dictated by the environment they are in. When you create an "every man for himself" environment on the road you shouldn't be surprised when people behave in such a way. Using that behaviour as an excuse not to change the environment to a safer, more relaxed one that encourages more relaxed behaviour is stupid.
......hope that's not ©teaboy....spot on
since the solution is always more signs how about a prize for a sign that graphically describes the phrase "would you run your old mum over?"
now I know the answer for some people will be yes but I'd rather see a few more campaigning cyclist awareness posters / flyers around than countless "cyclist dismount" and "slow" signs
I'm in Flanders at the moment and there's loads of bus stops like this. I haven't seen any kamikaze cyclists or pedestrians lying flat on their back after being knocked down either.
It's a different cycling culture though. I suspect pedestrians have a different attitude towards bikes and an expectation that they'll be around which is lacking here. Similarly maybe cyclists don't tend to have that "sod you, it's a bike path so I'm not slowing down" attitude that you can get here. As Teaboy says above though attitudes like that are shaped by the environment people find themselves in.
True it's a revelation cycling over here. No pedestrians or parked cars in the bike lanes, an infrastructure that we could only dream about in the UK and none of this then and us attitude from any parties involved. My wife works teaching bikeability and says that she would be out of a job if the roads were like this in the UK.
The other big difference is that cycling is an accepted mode of transport rather than seen as something that the minority do as a pastime.
With 58% of the Cambridge population cycling once a month, and 30% commuting by bike, pedestrians bloody well ought to expect cyclists in a cycle path in Cambridge!
A lot of cyclists in Cambridge are total knobbers cycling with flat tyres, buckled wheels, no lights front or rear, wearing black at night with no lights, cycling whilst dialling and texting, jump red lights, ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings, ride the wrong way up one way streets, cycle on pavements causing peds to scatter, etc.,
The vast majority here aren't any of that.
Why on earth should those of us that are responsible cyclists- and the potential cyclists that don't because eg Huntingdon road is a threatening main road- have to suffer poor facilities because of a minority of idiots? THere's no chance of the A14 upgrade being delayed because of speeders, texting drivers, drivers of rusting hulks, drivers with faulty lights, red light jumping drivers (and bloody hell there's a lot of them) etc. Hell one of the places I've been closest to be knocked down was whilst walking on a pavement- van pulled up to a shop, onto the pavement, seemingly without looking. Lets cancel all road building till that guy behaves.
I was in Cambridge recently and shocked to see that all those cyclists were cycling in the gutter. I wonder if that's what the councillor meant?
Probably best they don't waste the money on cycle lanes and just move on to the next obvious stage and reduce the speed of motor vehicles in built up places to 20mph or even 10 mph.
I know this idea would not be popular with the petrol heads but it would be the correct way to reduce deaths and manage traffic in city centres.
My experience of cycle lanes is that they are restrictive to cyclist and dangerous to pedestrians.
Cycle lanes also give some motor vehicle drivers the attitude that you should be using the cycle lane at all times.
My experience is based on living in Brighton where the mixing of pedestrian walk ways and cycle paths are bordering on the insanely dangerous. (just my opion, maybe)
So why aren't we looking into ways to slow down the motor vehicles in built up areas ? In this modern world of technology would it be that difficult to fit all cars lorries etc with speed limiters which automatically reduce the maximum speed of a vehicle in built up areas ?
I am not against cycle paths as such but my experience of them does not give me confidence that they save lives or are cost effective in stopping accidents between cyclist and other road users.
The reduction in speed of motor vehicles in city centres has been proved to reduce accidents and when accidents occur they have minor trauma.
Also reducing the speed of motor vehicles in built up areas persuades people to choose the bike rather than the car for short journeys.
Lets not think that there aren't kamikaze cyclist on our roads, there are and they like speeding motor vehicle drivers should be dealt with by the law. But lets not let the smoke screen of supposed safety of cycle lanes stop us from thinking of a better way to reduce accidents and make cycling and driving safer.
I guess I am saying that the money used on cycle lanes could be used to calm the speed of motor vehicles rather than seemingly bit by bit pushing cycling on to pavements and less than viable cycle lanes.
Probably best they don't waste the money on cycle lanes and just move on to the next obvious stage and reduce the speed of motor vehicles in built up places to 20mph or even 10 mph.
I know this idea would not be popular with the petrol heads but it would be the correct way to reduce deaths and manage traffic in city centres.
My experience of cycle lanes is that they are restrictive to cyclist and dangerous to pedestrians.
Cycle lanes also give some motor vehicle drivers the attitude that you should be using the cycle lane at all times.
My experience is based on living in Brighton where the mixing of pedestrian walk ways and cycle paths are bordering on the insanely dangerous. (just my opion, maybe)
So why aren't we looking into ways to slow down the motor vehicles in built up areas ? In this modern world of technology would it be that difficult to fit all cars lorries etc with speed limiters which automatically reduce the maximum speed of a vehicle in built up areas ?
I am not against cycle paths as such but my experience of them does not give me confidence that they save lives or are cost effective in stopping accidents between cyclist and other road users.
The reduction in speed of motor vehicles in city centres has been proved to reduce accidents and when accidents occur they have minor trauma.
Also reducing the speed of motor vehicles in built up areas persuades people to choose the bike rather than the car for short journeys.
Lets not think that there aren't kamikaze cyclist on our roads, there are and they like speeding motor vehicle drivers should be dealt with by the law. But lets not let the smoke screen of supposed safety of cycle lanes stop us from thinking of a better way to reduce accidents and make cycling and driving safer.
I guess I am saying that the money used on cycle lanes could be used to calm the speed of motor vehicles rather than seemingly bit by bit pushing cycling on to pavements and less than viable cycle lanes.
1) Mixed use on the pavements - yes, the seafront setup is crazy and unusable except on the quietest of days.
2) The reduction of the speed limit to 20moh in many areas of Brighton HAS made a difference. I believe that's the way to go
3) The main route into the town centre from the northeast, with it's segregated cycle lanes, seems to work well. Of course that's in the "faster" 30pmh zone!
I believe that Brighton is very progressive towards cyclists and are least making an effort.
There is already a phased consultation and roll-out of 20mph across Cambridge. North area already is, east area will go next. However, A and B roads, which include this one, are exempt except by special request, as residents of one A road have now done.
But 20mph doesn't encourage people to cycle. It reduces the chance of collision, and the results of the collision, which is what is good about it. But if someone is afraid of mixing with motor traffic, they're not going to think "wa-hay! I'll definitely cycle now I'll only be hit at 20mph by an HGV, assuming they obey the law!"
And the experience in Cambridge is that police are very, very reluctant to enforce 20mph, despite repeated public outcry.
Surely the exact opposite of being dangerous to pedestrians? This is a segregated path, replacing, on Hills Rd, a shared use one.
The lanes are designed to be wide enough for overtaking. More width would be better on Huntingdon Rd, but it is possible. The hybrid version preferred by the council means cyclists can exit at any time.
And the experience of the Dutch, who cycle more than anyone else, is that they do. We need to do cycle paths better.
Usual crap.
Of course none of these motorists are kamikaze http://road.cc/content/news/120146-96mph-30-limit-149mph-motorway-figure...
I can imagine been stuck behind some 5mph bearded CTC member, trapped in a segregated cycle lane...
The great thing about these plans is that the proposed cycleways are 1.8-2m wide, plenty of room for getting around dawdling beardies!
Think you mean 2.8! 2.1m if segregated, but officers have rejected that option, despite consultation revelling it was the preferred public option.
I guess Cambridge will ban cars, and some of the things buses do....
And another thing. It's maddening how frequently concerns over the safety of the disabled and the elderly are used to attack schemes like this, as was the case here. You've only got to look across the North Sea to see how cycle provision can give those with limited mobility their independence back.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/independent-mobility/
Fair play... If cyclists are making suicide attacks on the local populace, what can you expect?
There's a very cool and collected analysis of this on Rachel Aldred's blog.
http://rachelaldred.org/writing/cambridgeshire-councillors-block-space-f...
As she says, it's insane for a scheme like this, which is aimed at broadening the demographic of users who can cycle, to be axed because of a tiny few who already do.
Also, you have to remember that on Hills Rd, there are already bus stops in the cycle lane on the shared-use path. The new design is just better for pedestrians and cyclists in every way.
Stick with bikes having priority then and make sure the pedestrians have a good look before blindly stepping in front of oncoming cyclists.
Well if it's that dangerous crossing a bike lane, let's hope no one wanting to use the bus needs to cross from the other side of the road.
I went to school on one side of that road. Getting out well before the bus arrived at the stop on the other side of the road and seeing it leave, ten minutes later, still not having been able to cross the road, was fairly common. (There is a crossing with lights there now though.)
Pages