- 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
Dereham Road and Grapes Hill junction, Norwich (Google Maps)Cycling is being made “more dangerous by design”, claim campaigners after cyclists refused infrastructure and told to avoid busy junction by council
Norwich Cycling Campaign has slammed the council’s suggestion that cyclists avoid a busy junction which is not “designated as a pedalway” and instead stick to other routes, after it ignored cyclists’ plea for additional infrastructure in the wake of a new bus scheme, with fears that cycling is being made “more dangerous by design”.
A major change has been proposed by the Conservative-controlled Norfolk County Council on the junction of Dereham Road and Grapes Hill in Norwich, which will see existing lanes altered and kerbs moved to help the flow of traffic, with the council also hoping to improve bus journey times through this scheme.
However, cyclists have pointed out that this would mean that cyclists are left even more unprotected than before, as the cycle lane along Dereham Road is disjointed, stopping and starting at random without any connectivity.
Peter Silburn from the Norwich Cycling Campaign told road.cc: “A number of schemes have gone out to consultation, all of which have been to the detriment of cycling. We have raised this with council officers but they have said that since they are bus schemes they do not need to take cycling into account.”
He raised a question to the Infrastructure and Development committee last week, asking if the council can ensure that the scheme also improves the roads for cycling, in line with LTN 1/20, the government’s guidance on building cycle infrastructure.
However, he was told by the chair of the committee that “spatial constraints exist when implementing schemes on existing highway corridors.”
Silburn told road.cc that the reference to ‘spatial constraints’ is “clearly a misnomer”. “Gear Change clearly states: ‘If it is necessary to reallocate road space from parking or motoring to achieve this, it should be done.’,” he said.
“There are schools and shops on this section of the road. Should people not cycle to these?”
At a Cabinet meeting earlier this month, Green councillor Jamie Osborn also questioned if the proposals would make an “already dangerous” junction worse for cyclists, highlighting issues with the existing cycle lane in Dereham Road ending “abruptly”.
Graham Plant, the cabinet member for highways, infrastructure and transport, replied: “This section of Dereham Road is not promoted as a cycle route and does not have any designation as a pedalway.
“For those cycling into the city from the west of Norwich, the green pedalway provides an alternative route using West Pottergate, and there is a Neighbourhood route using Orchard Street and Heigham Street, both of which avoid this busy junction.”
He added: “Unfortunately, there is insufficient space to provide additional cycle infrastructure without significantly reducing the capacity of the junction, which would introduce unacceptable levels of congestion and delay for all users.”
In September last year, Plant had taken the decision to disband a committee of councillors which met publicly to discuss highways projects, replacing it instead with a steering group that will hold meetings in private, as meetings of the Transport for Norwich joint committee were all too often mired in controversy.
Cyclists had slammed the decision, calling it “outrageous” and that the perceived lack of transparency will “erode public trust”.
Following Cllr Plant’s recent statements, Silburn questioned if he was suggesting that the junction was a “no-go area” for cyclists. He said: “Dereham Road is a well-used route for people on bikes precisely because it’s the quickest way to the places people want to get to. There are schools and shops on this section of the road. Should people not cycle to these?
“Mr Plant suggests cyclists instead use the Green Pedalway. The Pedalways cycle network is not intended to be the only streets that you can cycle on. Its aim is to provide a coherent network of safe cycle routes that are especially useful for newcomers and beginners.
“There is nothing special about Dereham Road, it’s a normal road that the County Council has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe for all users. We are therefore concerned that by design cycling is being made more dangerous.”
road.cc has contacted Norfolk County Council for comment.
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after completing his masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Cymru, and also likes to write about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 36 min 31 sec ago
What about all the computer misuse? Stop with the downloading already!
- chrisonabike 41 min 1 sec ago
Again - who's proposed that? As far as I can see people who would like less driving or driving further away from un-armoured people are mostly...
- brooksby 59 min 18 sec ago
"Professional Triangle tire Punctured tire Nail for Spike Anti-Theft car Safety Emergency car" Sorry, but WHAT??
- Legin 1 hour 39 min ago
What a pair of fine looking gammons celebrating it's removal....
- HollisJ 2 hours 53 min ago
Have you seen the size of Micras these days? Now, it it were a Micra from the 80s...
- thax1 4 hours 1 min ago
Not quite long enough for him to have a think about what he'd like to say on stage when collecting the award apparently. Which you have to love him...
- LeisureRider 4 hours 5 min ago
As an amply-figured female leisure cyclist, the comfort of a slightly downward angled saddle has long been known for avoidance of mincing one's...
- stonojnr 4 hours 42 min ago
Certainly membership trippled in numbers between 2012 to 2019.i think it's been in decline since so theydon't tend to shout about the numbers...
- OnYerBike 5 hours 26 min ago
The Sora groupset seems very expensive for what it is. Even without going down the AliExpress route, you can get 11spd 105 for £360 (https://www...
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 39 min ago
I like the way that it can collect water in the wrong places and so putting it through a car wash invalidates the warranty.
Add new comment
28 comments
Troll 7 normal posters 0
Yes cycling is dangerious however this is mainly due to the total disregard for their own and others safety with Which they ride . If you saw a driver drinking coffee when driving they would be condemned but a biker yeah that's fine and just carry on riding the wrong way down the one way road . Ignoring all the lights and road markings , and why would they need lights on their bike just wear all black at night it's so the right thing to do . The question I want answered is why don't they have insurance and annual test on the bike, compulsory lighting, number plates and a mental compency test
Lighting is compulsory between dusk and dawn. And I can assure you I am entirely mentally compencent.
Here he goes again
Here he goes again
Here he goes again
(is this a thing, now?)
Looks like it. You don't need to justify anything, you just say, "Here he goes again"; then everybody tuts with you and rolls their eyes at the quoted post.
Saves a lot of typing.
Some years back, a Tuesday I think it was, I happened to be travelling through my old neighbourhood and passed the house where I was born and raised. I hesitated, and then thought I'd knock on the door and ask the owners if I could possibly come in and have a look round, but they flatly refused. God, my parents could be so mean sometimes. What's a mental compency test and where can I get one?
It's very dangerious cycling while drinking Which coffee.
Actually, you see drivers driving along while drinking coffee, eating, smoking/vaping, using a handheld mobile phone, etc, all the bl00dy time
I haven't ever noticed the tabloids or other motorists rushing to condemn this behaviour.
Hang on - you missed road tax.
Its mostly the poor riders that screammfornall kinds of laws for riders. While most road laws, registrations and insurances have been put in place to regulate and control the behaviour of car drivers, not cyclists. Because everyone knows, when you just build a bike road with no lines or trafficlights, its all fine. Oh and never use a designated crosswalk as a pedestrian. Just find a gap to cross the road.
Time for your meds, dear 😂
I'm confused, don't bus schemes increase road capacity (in terms of people)? After we are not prioritising how many metal boxes can go through a space are we? Surely we are focussing on people? Right?
The problem is reliability of service, largely due to traffic congestion, and maybe the bus service aint that great there either
but Ive waited best part of an hour to get a bus from the city centre to go up Dereham Rd,when there should have been at least 3 or 4 in that time. And iirc the bus I did get in the end wasn't supposed to have been where it was.
".....but they have said that since they are bus schemes they do not need to take cycling into account.”
AFAIK, highway authorities have a duty to make the roads safe for all users, and cannot ignore that responsibility. If I was a councillor there, I'd be worried about a very large sum being awarded in damages when a cyclist is involved in a collision and the council wilfully failed to carry out its duty. Maybe Graham Plant could offer to pay any such damages out of his own pocket, but I'm sure he's only reckless with other people's money. Actually, that's an interesting point: would the councillors who passed this be personally liable?
“Unfortunately, there is insufficient space to provide additional cycle infrastructure without significantly reducing the capacity of the junction, which would introduce unacceptable levels of congestion and delay for all users.”
That isn't a problem, it's a feature.
We are seeing the party of the driver doing its worst, behind closed doors, failing to follow national policy and ignoring its duty to vulnerable road users.
Preach, Brother eburtthebike! If the (increasing) problem is "too many cars"* then the answer must involve "fewer cars". That's because driving is so space-inefficient - even more so when you consider on average those vehicles are less that half full **.
Politely asking people to drive a bit less or increasing the amount people pay for this a bit (we're still subsidising some of the total costs of motoring...) doesn't seem to be working.
(The notion that we could improve things by getting more people into those vehicles is problematic because the idea of cars as private, personal transport which takes us almost exactly where we want to go is ingrained. Plus our built infrastructure - most designed in tune with a more car-happy vision - works against that.
I've doubts about the likelihood rich_cb's interesting "future seen from the 1990s" vision of multi-occupancy autonomous pod-transport - although of course very mini buses / jeepneys / songthaew exist...)
* Or rather - too many journeys taken by car.
** Quick Google says 1.6 occupants on average nationally in 2018 for cars and vans - the latter obviously bring down the numbers.
I very much doubt it. No one in government (or banking or anywhere else) seems to be personally responsible any more which IMO is a huge factor in many of the problems we face as a society.
So right. Maggie made greed and selfishness fashionable, and Boris made lying trendy. As for the top brass of the Post Office, they took those lessons to heart.
What is a pedalway ?
A place on the side of the road to leave your spds/ flats or the like ?
in Norwich speak theyre quietways, why they decided to call them something different, dont know.
but if you were looking to travel in the direction of Dereham Rd, as I certainly wouldnt ride on it, youd pick the Earlham Rd 'pedalway' route, via Pottergate and that takes you under Grapes Hill, before you head into the city via St Benedicts.
I dont know why anyone would be advocating a need or want to ride Grapes Hill or Dereham Road, especially when theres a reasonablish alternative. obviously traffic trying to avoid Dereham Road tends to use Earlham Rd too, so its not traffic free by any means in parts.
but then I cant fathom what changes theyre proposing anyway, last time I took a bus up there, the delays to the bus were caused by sheer volume of traffic blocking the lane the bus needed to be in to make the turn it wanted, that and an apparant colour blindness and inability to read traffic signs, especially among taxi drivers.
Are the schools and shops on those side routes?
Not as such, couple of corner shop/newsagents style things, there's an Aldi on Dereham Road, KFC, couple of garages, quite a few pubs around there. Earlham Rd is nearer to the UEA.
Its just one of the main roads in/out that side of the city off the A47 and both cross the inner ring road before hitting Grapes Hill.
"We've put some paint on the roads in some places, designated them Pedalways, and so you cyclists can stick to them and get off all of the other roads as they're for motorists. If you put yourself in danger, you've only got yourselves to blame."
Well, at least we know why they want their meetings to be secret - they're working to endanger the public.
That stance is not lawful.
Since Disabled People and other protected groups are less likely to use buses and mtoor vehicles due to innaccessibility (eg wheelchair space size) and fewer have driving licences (60% vs 75-80% amongst adults), failure to provide equal alteratives is indirect discrimination.
It will need a big legal action to stop them, though. And they won't give a damn.