Councillor fears cycling lobby interference in vote to make shopping street more cycle friendly

Perhaps joemmo you should go to their meetings since you might make a difference and help improve the cycling infrastructure in Newcastle. I have seen many things that newcycling has challenged the council on and it's far from "pie in the sky" as you say. Have you ever tried cycling around Newcastle with an 8 year old child? The only safe place is either a park or the pavement. The reason they dropped out of the Council's Forum had nothing to do with not getting their own way and everything to do with the council not doing anything, not even following up on the actions they had set themselves 3 months previously.
Like I say if you want to see better cycling infrastructure in Newcastle get off you backside and go join the campaign and help them do things better rather than just bleating from the sidelines. I'm sure you'd be more than welcome.

Jacknorrel that's not slinging mud, that's voicing an opinion.

As a way os howing what I mean consider their plans for the Clayton Road, Abbotsford Terrace, Brandling Park junction. They want Brandling Park and Abbotsford Terrace to be designated as a "Cycle Street" with the removal of on street parking, where none, or few, of the houses have off road parking. They also want to change the priority on the junction so that people on the "Cycle Street" have priority over traffic on Ckayton Road, by far the more busy of the three (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.9855842,-1.6116512,3a,75y,180h,71.29t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s56kZVVfm61GUQ403lpENnw!2e0)(http://newcycling.org/scr4-jesmond-our-proposal/( there's bben some changes to the website so the figs are missing from the page)

Add to this their assertion that the council should consult them as they have the necessary expertise (I know the chair is a civil engineer working in flood alleviation but riding a bike does not make you an expert on road infrastructure) and their questioning of where the council has a written policy stating that their priority for highways is to keep traffic moving (!) and how else can they be described (that's just three, you could find more if you trawl through their site).

Gazza_d you describe them as "very hard working volunteers" and I'm sure they are but while they go to the council with pie int he sky ideas that involve a reduction in service to the majority of road users, with an attitude that the councils engineers are idiots (when they have to live and work in the real world) and that if the council does what they want every thing will be perfect, they will not be taken seriously and frankly what they are asking for is not he best but some adulterated dutch is perfect idea which could only work with large scale, hideously expensive and unjustifiable alterations tho the road network. As for flouncing out of the cycle forum because they couldn't get their own way ...

As I said, that's my opinion and why you'll never catch me at one of their meetings.

The problem with restricting access to Acorn Road is that it is the most natural East-West route through Jesmond so it gets used as a rat run when the A189 or A1058 clog up. A really bold step would be to ban cars during peak hours (7:30-9:30 and 15:00 to 18:30) using rising bollards like Cambridge and Gateshead use for bus lane access control. Over time drivers will learn that they can't cut through Jesmond on the school run or when other routes are clogged.

This way people can still access the specialist shops by car off-peak and because the road is still a road so you reduce the pedestrian problem that cyclists face on shared routes and allow safe passage on the shortest through route at peak times. Everyone's a winner except for the rat-running drivers and of course Greggs missing out on the morning rush.

So much for that research from New York that showed trade increased on pedestrianised/cyclised streets, eh? Never mind what those Americans say, Jesmond knows best.

Why shouldn't people outside the consultation area reply? Although they're less likely to hear about it, most of our local council consultations make you say where you're responding from, so although everyone has a say, you can then split it down by location.

People driving from outside of Cambridge got a say in whether they could do 30mph down my residential street (they were overwhelming outnumbered by locals who wanted 20mph).

If anything, surely people from outside the area are generally more likely to want car infrastructure? I mean, the locals can walk and cycle, right? And I'm sure these are stunning, specialist shops which have a large catchment area of clients who absolutely must travel from further away to shop there?

That's hilarious, I lived in Jesmond about 10 years ago and was car doored literally outside the Greggs in that photo. The driver's door window caught me in the adam's apple and I could hardly breathe for several minutes.

wow, hope the Government can do more convenient for cycling.

not lip，actual do it.

Having followed the Newcycling.org website for about a year I feel sorry for anyone in the council who has to deal with them. They have totally unrealistic ideas of what can be achieved and want the majority to be disadvantaged and inconvenienced for their benefit. In short they are the kind of campaign that gives cyclists a bad name.

When we had a consultation in my town over proposals to prohibit or limit car parking in town centre streets and in roads around the railway sttaion, there was quite a lot of creative responding by the opposers of the scheme.

For example, objectors wrote in separately road by road, making multiple objections, so that it appeared that there were twice as many objections as supporters, when in fact there were almost twice as many supporters as objectors.

Many of the objections were almost identical - not only the wording but the grounds for objection being irrelevant to the discussion because they stated that a multistorey car park would be the solution, when that has been comprehensively rejected as unaffordable.

I don't recall any of our local councillors or their officers making these features apparent. I had to dig this out for myself.

I know the area. It's a bit of a nightmare to drive, as you have car parking either side of the road and only room for one car to pass in either direction. As such it's very slow traffic and really no problem for cyclists.
Reading between the lines. It's a bit of obfuscation by the councillor. I'd say he actually wants the status quo and is keen to use any means he can to get it. In this case by stirring up some anti cycling sentiment.
The best option is to leave the actual road alone and just make it one way.
My fear is that the city's councillors have several million quid from the cycling fund burning a hole in their collective pocket and will use it to pedestrianise a street and then call it a cycle route.
They've already used some to widen one cycle route (possibly ok ) and buy some outdoor exercise equipment! Because we all love to get off our bikes mid ride and use some handy fitness equipment, don't we?

hmmm, pedestrianised... maybe the council could allow some markets to be set up on Fridays and Saturdays... local crafts and produce maybe?

Like what happens in Gloucester on the pedestrianised Gate Streets? Also local cafes could be allowed to set tables and chairs out front as well?

The center of Gloucester is a very nice place to be these days, unlike back in the seventies beforehand when it was nose to tail crawling traffic through the very center...

Wow! Maybe Tyneside cyclists fancy riding to the shops in safety, even if they have to ride a little further. Some of them might even live together in the same house!

No, not possible, it must be a conspiracy.