Cambridge residents try to block junction improvements for cyclists

Guanajuato wrote:

Overall the proposals are a step in the right direction. The dotted line cycle lane is the biggest sticking point here it would seem - its the worst in terms of cyclist safety.  Even if its a solid line, it'll just get ignored by the tin box brigade.  Why not make the grass verge a little narrower and have it separating the cycle lane from the road? That would prevent all but the most unsafe, obnoxious drivers using it.

Exactly. It's not rocket science is it? I started to get interested in the issue simply because I looked at the plans and couldn't  figure out why they weren't doing simply what you suggest?

cammackmartin wrote:

Exactly. It's not rocket science is it? I started to get interested in the issue simply because I looked at the plans and couldn't  figure out why they weren't doing simply what you suggest?

If the motor part of the road isn't actually wide enough then I can appreciate the concerns you have, it'll actually end up with a very expensive version of the status quo because more timid cyclists will still use the footway.  You might want to present an alternative though, at the moment you could be interpreted as suggesting "do nothing because I don't like it". 

The road looks like it could be a bit narrower in order to win proper segregated space AND retain the verge to be honest.  

P3t3 wrote:

cammackmartin wrote:

Exactly. It's not rocket science is it? I started to get interested in the issue simply because I looked at the plans and couldn't  figure out why they weren't doing simply what you suggest?

 

If the motor part of the road isn't actually wide enough then I can appreciate the concerns you have, it'll actually end up with a very expensive version of the status quo because more timid cyclists will still use the footway.  You might want to present an alternative though, at the moment you could be interpreted as suggesting "do nothing because I don't like it". 

The road looks like it could be a bit narrower in order to win proper segregated space AND retain the verge to be honest.  

I agree with both of your points. I think the alternative is to leave the road the width it is, generate separate cycle and pedestrian strips along the side of the road with right of way given to the cycle track at side junctions. Side junctions should have the recommended traffic calming layout with a reduced radius at the corners plus a raised table at the end of the side road. This is similar to the selected side road features seen on CS2 in London and shown to be an effective method of reducing risk at side junctions. I've attached a photo of a CS2 side junction below.

cammackmartin wrote:

I agree with both of your points. I think the alternative is to leave the road the width it is, generate separate cycle and pedestrian strips along the side of the road with right of way given to the cycle track at side junctions. Side junctions should have the recommended traffic calming layout with a reduced radius at the corners plus a raised table at the end of the side road. This is similar to the selected side road features seen on CS2 in London and shown to be an effective method of reducing risk at side junctions. I've attached a photo of a CS2 side junction below.

Absolutely with you, though I'd rather see something like this, or, for a London version from the reworked bits of CS7, this.

Camcycle has been trying depserately to get these sort of side road treatments used but Cambridgeshire County Council are... not keen.

cammackmartin wrote:

I agree with both of your points. I think the alternative is to leave the road the width it is, generate separate cycle and pedestrian strips along the side of the road with right of way given to the cycle track at side junctions. Side junctions should have the recommended traffic calming layout with a reduced radius at the corners plus a raised table at the end of the side road. This is similar to the selected side road features seen on CS2 in London and shown to be an effective method of reducing risk at side junctions. I've attached a photo of a CS2 side junction below.

[/quote]

Hi Martin,

sorry if I've seemed harsh, but suggestion is that you really need to give up on the idea of bi-directional shared use footways.  Realistically the only possible solution that gives you what you want (kerb protected lanes) is one which removes all of the street trees and all on street car parking.  This I'd suspect is where you would part company with a lot of other local residents, hence the problem.  What would probably fit is unidirectional kerb protected tracks, like this only without the trees:

Unidirectional tracks have some issues for kids as it means crossing the road, but if there are points in the road that are wider and could take traffic islands then that helps.  As someone else above said, Cambridge haven't yet got this side road treatement right but they are edging towards it.

But, if keeping the trees and keeping the opportunity for the odd bit of loading in the bike lane is what residents want, then I'd suspect that you'd end up back with what the council has put forward.  The designers involved aren't daft, they just have a brief they are designing to which assumes that there will be a strong body of opinion in this direction.

Not an easy one to deal with but dropping the suggestion of shared use paths and dealing with the issue that without these there is probaby not common ground amongst residents is something you may have to deal with.  

P3t3 wrote:

Normally when I read comments on here I can understand what people are arguing about.  In this instance I really can't see what the specific agruments are one way or another.  Is it a good scheme or not?  After a quick glance at some of the proposals it looks to me like it might work very well but it depends on the specific nuances of the scheme;  e.g. is the scheme really a white line painintg excersise because the road is so narrow that cars are going to have to habitually enter the cycle tracks to pass one another?

The roundabout design looks like a step forward... again, if they get the details right.  

yes it's a white line painting exercise.

darrylxxx wrote:

"We ratepayers, voters and those likely to be most affected by the scheme - and who have most knowledge of the issues on this road – were not consulted by the council."

 

It's this weird implication that people cycling along here- it's a major commuter route to the Hospital and research institutes there- are somehow not council tax payers or voters and don't understand the safety issues on a road they're using twice a day every day. Utter codswallop. But very common.

Al__S wrote:

darrylxxx wrote:

"We ratepayers, voters and those likely to be most affected by the scheme - and who have most knowledge of the issues on this road – were not consulted by the council."

 

It's this weird implication that people cycling along here- it's a major commuter route to the Hospital and research institutes there- are somehow not council tax payers or voters and don't understand the safety issues on a road they're using twice a day every day. Utter codswallop. But very common.

 

Hi both. This sort of argument is typical of these issues and I think is a question of "entitlement". We get sucked into arguments on this type of issue as part of a fight between different factions attempting quite understandably to enforce their rights or entitlement to fair use. We are all entitled to a fair deal. That said, there is a recognised hierarchy that applies to decisions over priorities in these situations and they are based on need, vulnerability, numbers and environment. In this situation we have a majority group numbering 1500  to 2000 child journeys a day during the week, who are the most vulnerable and least safe as cyclists on any road, who currently use the infrastructure safely and securely. They cannot and should not be deliberately and knowingly put in harms way. In addition, shouldn't we argue about the facts, not how this all pisses us off?

It should be noted here that the council proposals as they stand will put all cyclists at risk not just kids, due to the nature of the road layout and the advisory cycle lanes. How can you make the argument that there is a problem when cyclist and cars interact yet put more cyclists on the road interacting in a narrower shared space where the vehicles most likely to stray into the shared cycling space will be the biggest and most dangerous due to the impaired view of the space around the vehicle for the drivers. How can you say the issue is junctions then fail to implement any of the measures designed to reduce risk to cyclists at side junction in the plans you intend to implement. The problem here is poor planning.

TomAlmere wrote:

This campaign has similarities to a situation we had up in the North East.  Residents presented with a cycling scheme that meant some quite significant changes to the street they lived on.  Reacted badly, set up an oppositional campaign which they tried to brand as being about "safer cycling".  Fundamentally what they wanted was no change from the current layout and if anything was to be provided for cycling it would be shared use pavements.

Eventually these "concerns" were quite rightly ignored and the scheme was built.  Many involved will have been left with very negative feelings about the place that they live.  What could have been done better is that residents should have been confronted earlier with the fact that their manufactured concerns would not result in changes to the scheme.  

People need to understand that a council will take their real and genuine concerns seriously but will ultimately ignore concerns which are manufactured as being all about "the kids" (this is very transparent and does not make them look good).  Yes they are no doubt clever people who can read MfS and Sustrans manuals but they need to understand that the complex web of argument that they are weaving will cut no ice if the end result is "shared use" and "no change".

If the main problem with the project for some people who live on the street is that it will remove the cherry trees then they need to be up front about this,  and try and get the layout and appearance changed so that it is less objectional.  But accept that in 21st Century Cambridge nobody is going to sign off on shared use footways as cycling infrastructure.  Carrying on down the path they are on will just result in unhappiness and mean that they miss their chance to influence the scheme in more minor achievable ways.

Hi Tom. I assume it is Tom. This isn't a game with the excuse of saying it's all about this kids. It really is about the kids and in addition to all users. However, the numbers of children you are talking about make them a majority of this user group and a vulnerable group at that. Over 80% of them choose to cycle off the road which is in line with national opinions on cyclists choice of where they'd rather cycle - on or off the road. This added to the fact that the pavements as they are would be wide enough to generate separate pedestrian and cycling areas for most of the road if it was required although there is a great deal of evidence to support shared space and history locally showing how safe it is. This is not about resisting change for the sake of it, it's not about stopping trees being moved, it's about preventing a majority vulnerable group being put in a more dangerous situation than they currently are. These proposed plans, irrespective of whether you can read evidenced based internationally recognised guide lines on the safe implementation of cycling infrastructure, is completely nuts. It's easy for people to roll out the usual accusations to try to discredit someone raising questions in the face of the establishment, but sometimes the questions are valid, pertinent and appropriate. On this occasion, although I understand the reasons for your opinion, you are way off the mark.

cammackmartin wrote:

...

I've been lurking, reading along the comments on this story.  Have to admit, I'm now most interested to know who is cammackmartin and what is their relationship to the story.  They clearly have a very personal interest in it, reading their comments...

brooksby wrote:

cammackmartin wrote:

...

I've been lurking, reading along the comments on this story.  Have to admit, I'm now most interested to know who is cammackmartin and what is their relationship to the story.  They clearly have a very personal interest in it, reading their comments...

I live on the road. I have 4 kids who are 11,9,6 and 3 all who go by bike to one of the primary schools like many others. I road cycle as in done London 100 and Tour of Cambridge, commute on bicycle too. Last, I'm a consultant anaesthetist at Great Ormond Street Hospital. So to put my views in context, I live here and know how the road gets used, I've done census on the road to observe the use and capture current data, my family use the road and I drive a car too. I guess I appreciate keeping kids safe and the consequences of not. Ive lived and commuted by bike in London so appreciate the safety issues and the work done to make cycling safer. Lastly, as for all of you, I have a brain, use it and read stuff to attempt to find out the reasons for things.

that all said I've got better things to do than have to post here or try to get the local council to just do their job for gods sake!! If they'd done a thorough assessment of use and need they'd have realised there was a problem.

simply put, does anyone, seriously anyone, on here reading this think that making up to 1000 kids aged mainly 12-18 but plus down to 4/5 y olds with families, ride on a 5m wide road with advisory 2m cycle lanes either side, is a good idea? Would you want your kids doing it? Do you think it is safer than what they do on our road currently. This is the point. I don't care if they change our road as long as it safer than what we have.

cbrndc wrote:

I would treat the numbers on Crash Map with caution as not all collisions are included making the numbers lower than they should be.  Two collisions in the last 3 years that I have been involved in are not shown on the map (not this location).

I agree. The claimed council figures are not dissimilar and it is generally accepted that not all incidents are reported anyway. One would think any major incident should get reported however.