Govt announces £20 million for cycling infrastructure improvements.
Listed issues, most recent first, limited to the area of Cambridge Cycling Campaign:
Govt announces £20 million for cycling infrastructure improvements.
Marshall reveals plan for 1,500 homes
There are rumours that the AJC will be scrapped.
There is a suggestion of a group looking at issues for those cycling in the A10 corridor between M11 J11 and Royston. This is, in part about cycling along the corridor, but mainly about access between villages and access to rail stations. Of course the A10 north of Cambridge has LSTF money, but there are currently few funds available for improvements in this area.
Road closures - but will cycle parking be OK?
I noticed that half of the bicycle shelter was fenced off, and I wondered whether we may be getting some new racks. In Connect I read the Trust was considering two tier bike racks so I was half expecting we would get these. Today however I learnt that the area will be transformed into a smoking shelter! Is this true?
I think it is fair to state 30% of the people working in the S-block cycle into work. Losing half of our cycle parking facilities is not very helpful. The area is heavily used and often overflowing with bikes.
If the area will indeed be turned into a smoking shelter, can you please explain why this decision was made and why it was not communicated to the staff concerned?
This is outrageous and a good press story. Robin - are you up for this?
An application to extend the cycleways within the West Cambridge site including some shared use paths.
A DfT consultation to see whether speed limits on single carriageways should be introduced for HGV's. This will clearly have implications for cycle safety.
Winter gritting is essential for many cycleways and there have been problems in recent years.
A new development is proposed behind 231-247 Milton Road in Cambridge.
The entrance driveway / road will need to cross the popular off-road cyclepath on Milton Road.
The crossing needs to be designed to be cycle friendly; ie. level for cyclists, with good visibility for cars to be able to see cyclists on the path, and with cars required to give way for cyclists.
There is a need to watch this development through the planning process.
Alternatively an access to the development from Woodhead Drive might be the safer option.
There appears to be potential for a cycle and pedestrian route through the site; but that is not currently planned for.
My article on the proposals is at:
The path between Wadloes Road and Ditton Fields is popular with pedestrians and cyclists.
It is unlit though, and as it has buildings and high hedges on either side sofeels enclosed and it is much darker on the pathway than it is out in the open.
Lighting on this pathway would I think make it feel safer, and I think would actually improve safety for example through helping cyclists spot pedestrians earlier.
The county council is reviewing parking arrangements along the Barton Road, between Newnham Road and Grantchester Street (do they not mean Grantchester Road?). They say that in some places - parking restricts traffic flow along Barton Road, although the only restrictions I've ever seen have been due to tail-backs from Fen Causeway.
They are proposing three options, one with minor changes and the loss of 3-5 parking spaces; one with more yellow lines in narrower sections, the loss of 10-12 parking spaces and signs prohibiting coach parking in places; and one replacing all parking on the south (westbound) side with an on-road cycle path, and the loss of about 50 parking spaces.
I assume we would push for the third option, but why not Dutch-style hybrid lanes (on both sides, perhaps)? Ah yes, that'll cost more than painting a white line. Oh well.
There's an exhibition at Cambridge Rugby Club on Grantchester Rd on Nov 7th (1-8pm) and you can respond online at
until Nov 23rd.
There are concerns over the safety of this new junction particularly focussed on the position of the traffic island, lighting and road markings.
Notification from South Cambs regarding a proposed new convenience store.
Infuriatingly this refers to customer cycle parking as 'cycle storage'..
Five retail units (A1 use), three retail warehouse units, car parking etc (notified to us by S Cambs on 23/10/12)
Large new development proposal
Stall, Campaign materials and postcards, attendees, helpers.
General chaos in this area due to the roadworks. How can this be better managed to make cycle access as easy as possible?
This is a general issue aiming to collect together details of cycling and walking statistics in Cambridge as the years progress.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
Surfacing issues for this path.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 2 threads
There are two sets of traffic lights on Jesus Lane which are not really needed any more and just cause delays.
This area of town has lots of children having to cycle round the main road because there is one-way cycling - we should get the council to make it two way.
An application for 148 homes 11/0008/FUL was refused by Planning Committee(against officer recommendation) on 4 April. Cycle parking "storage" is generally less easy to reach than car parking, and it appears that for the central blocks it is proposed in a shared basement area - I haven't found the drawing for the basement.
There is no access to the site except by the narrow road around the existing Westbrook office block - the site is a deep enclave.
The issues for cycling are probably virtually identical to previously. One of various reasons for previous refusal was "...lack of transport mitigation measures..." and the Highways provisional comment on the current one outlines concerns. I fear that cycle and pedestrian access issues were not previously considered grounds for refusal and that therefore we might be fighting a lost cause... have contacted the officer about this, and hope to submit a comment for Sustrans.
There have been problems before with unsatisfactory cycle parking and obstruction of the paths across this busy green space. New people are providing the ice rink this year though.
On Hills Rd Bridge (etc) a large message sign displaying 5 lines of text and two screens warns of delays because of upcoming building work in central Cambridge (Lensfield Rd etc)
I am minded to write to the city early on Monday
Re: Message signs warning of congestion due to street works
Dear Madam, Sir,
We would like to make an suggestion regarding the text displayed on the mobile message signs currently warning of major road works and congestion. Our suggestions would be to add the words “Thanks for cycling” and “Try the bicycle to avoid delays” (alternating).
We believe it is entirely appropriate to use any major road-works as an opportunity to encourage the use of active transportation, because it is proven to reduce congestion. Such messages will also deliver an important message about the status of cycling in the city. The expression of gratitude expressed in the first suggestion is especially important, as it sets a tone of public appreciation.
We would also like to remind you that a recent Freeway closure in Los Angeles was widely advertised by local authorities as “Carmageddon” and residents were encouraged to participate in local bike rides, organised by the regional transportation authority (METRO), to overcome the expected delays. Given our own little Carmageddon, should Cambridge not do the same ?
Feedback please, contacts, CCs to the press, Travel to work, etc
This map shows all issues, whether points, routes, or areas:
The most popular issues, based on the number of votes:
What to do about disgraceful decisions like this:
Clearly, the magistrate erred seriously in matters of both fact and law - all the prosecution had to prove was that the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
Equally clearly, it did - nobody who could possibly be described as "competent and careful" would run over something the size of a cyclist without even being aware of it. He even admitted that he was talking on the phone at the time.
It staggers the mind to think what on earth the magistrates were thinking - or what with. Maybe they slept through the case, so didn't hear the prosecution, but were woken up for the defence (how there can be any defence for that is beyond me). Maybe they are dangerous drivers themselves, so sympathise with others of the same ilk instead of adequately discharging the responsibilities they are charged with? Mark Tyler also deserves complete contempt for not pleading guilty, and so preventing this gross miscarriage of justice. He should have been thanking his lucky stars that the police and CPS are so incompetent as not to pursue Dangerous driving, which it equally clearly was.
How can we get rid of incompetent idiots like Phil King (the lead magistrate in this case) who asserted that "there were “significant gaps” in the evidence". It is obvious to me that this dangerous idiot is perverting the course of justice by remaining in his position.
Presumably his colleagues on the bench conspired with him in this perversion - they could (and should) have over-ruled him unless they were parties to the conspiracy, surely?
The evidence was all there - there was a cyclist in front of him - whether the cyclist was upright or on the ground is irrelevant. Mark Tyler drove over him. Neither of those facts were in dispute. That is not the action of a competent and careful driver, and it should be beyond question that a person being in front of the vehicle is something which the driver should be expected to be aware of, which means the test in s3ZA of the Road Traffic Act is satisfied, and the accused is guilty.
The evidence also meets the test in s2A (Meaning of dangerous driving) so there is no excuse whatsoever for clearing him of even the lesser offence of careless driving. With driving like that, it is clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that he should not be in possession of a driving license, and the magistrates failed in their duty to relieve him of it.
As long as dangerous criminals like Phil King are allowed on the bench, the roads will never be safe for anyone.
As a footnote, from the report is appears that this dangerous character commutes from Whitchurch, Hampshire to Clifton Way, Cambridge. What length does that make his effective working day?
It's about 120 miles each way, so at least 4 hours driving (considerably more if in the "rush hour") on top of a full workday. It's utterly moronic to make a commute like that - when I worked anywhere near that far away, I commuted weekly. But this happened on a Wednesday.
Noticed this a couple of weeks ago. As you will see the sign is incomplete and misleading given that the place to see all the details is the end of Ferry Lane waiting to join High Street. High Street at this point is both Route 51 and Route 11.
Left turn to go to Impington on Route 51 - I think not.
Abbey and Fen Ditton to the left when you could just go back across Green Dragon bridge.
No directions to Histon, Milton, Waterbeach probably others.
Also the lack of any idea where route 11 goes to the right.
This appears to be one of a number of new signs that have recently appeared. If anyone has seen any more let's get the info out there and try to get them fixed.
Ever since Tesco opened their new shop on East Road, there has been poor unloading practice.
The company is unloading always from the front of the store with a large lorry which:
- Is stopped in the (advisory) cycle lane.
- The tail of the lorry is opened into the carriageway without a banksman, with the corner of it at the same height as a cyclist having to merge round the lorry - there is real potential for a head injury because of the relative invisibility of this
- Causing traffic to be reduced to one effective lane (or two, just squeezing through, if no large vehicles), causing delays for a half an hour period.
They have stopped using the zig-zag lines.
This photo shows the danger that is created:
I am bringing up the problem that cyclists and pedestrians have crossing East Road to get to ARU and the neighbouring residential area. It would be helpful have a discussion about how to create safe routes in this area and how to get them implemented.
When I am cycling, I find it dangerous and difficult to cross East Road from Petersfield or Bradmore Street and I resort to using the pedestrian crossings with my bike because it is.
This area that really needs addressing for improvements to safe cycling and I don’t understand why given the expansion of ARU this has not been addressed.
The junction of Mill Road/East Road is also pretty scary for cyclists and pedestrians. The crossing at the slip road at the corner of Petersfield is difficult for pedestrians because it has no traffic controls and cars come quickly round this corner making it dangerous for anyone who is not alert , who is not tall enough to see, or who can't move quickly. This includes the young, the old, someone in a wheelchair. I wouldn't fancy pushing a child in a buggy across either.
Basically, it seems to me that the Junction and East road are designed for motor vehicles and traffic flow not for pedestrians and cyclists. Can we try and address this?
Martin Lucas-Smith // 2 threads
I am writing to point your attention to a "danger spot" on the Barton Road cycle route.
I and many others cycle this route every day and really appreciate how safe it is. However, there have been a number of near accidents at the sliproad from the M11 southbound onto the Barton roundabout. The problem is that the cycle path means that all cyclists must cross the road leading onto the roundabout. This is fine when the traffic is not busy. However, during rush hour the left lane going onto the roundabout is always queued up. This means that, to cross the the road, a cyclist needs to wait for a car to let them out. However, the problem lies with the right lane going onto the roundabout. If there is a queue in the left lane, you are unable to see into the right lane and so quite a few cyclists are nearly knocked off at this point
The problem is that:
a. The right lane is too short and so cyclists are unable to get out of the way in time if a car does not does turn onto it. It seems to me that there shouldn't be a right lane as it's too short to be of any use and poses more of a danger to cyclists.
b. Cars tends to (understandably) be going quite fast as they've just come off the M11 and also are usually looking onto the roundabout rather than the road in front of them. This has meant that I've seen lots of cars having to break very heavily having only seen a bike crossing in front of them at the very last minute.
I, and the other cyclists that routinely use this otherwise very safe route, would hugely appreciate it if this problem could be looked at.
[RL; sent by post, 27th June 2015]
The Eastern Gate proposals are a strategic attempt by the City Council to rework the Newmarket Road roundabout area towards a standard crossing, and create a welcoming entrance into this very run-down looking part of the city.
It is supposed to be being paid for by Section 106 moneys from developments, yet proposal after proposal is coming forward but nothing is happening.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
Fulbourn/Cherry Hinton Eastern Access is one of the five City Deal 'cross-city improvements' schemes.
"The growth of housing and employment sites in the Cherry Hinton and Fulbourn Road area, such as the expansion of the ARM headquarters will put further pressure on local roads. Improving the cycleways on Fulbourn Road would enhance cycle access to the city centre and contribute to the completion of the cycleway network in this part of south-east Cambridge."
The Mill Road traders are planning a meeting (2016) to discuss congestion on Mill Road and have asked us to send a representative. What ideas do we have to for Mill Road?
This intersection needs a right turn light for bikes turning from St Andrew's Street into the Downing Street contraflow lane.
Doing so feels unsafe with buses coming up from behind, and little opportunity to get across the intersection.
I'm considering setting up a 38 Degrees petition on the matter, but wanted to see if this issue had been campaigned on before.
The new road layout here means that eastbound cyclists travelling straight-on find themselves in the left-turn lane, stopped by a Red light, and blocking traffic turning left into the Park and Ride who have a Green left turn filter.
The road markings seem to expect cyclists in this lane to go straight ahead, even though it's the left turn lane, because it is guided into the onward eastbound cycle lane. Just feels wrong and leaves cyclists vulnerable to the left turning traffic.
There should be a 'redmac' cycle lane between the left turn lane and the right hand lane. The road markings should guide cyclists from this lane into the eastbound cycle lane instead of from the left turn lane.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 2 threads
Demolition of ancillary buildings and removal of 1930's facade at the grade II listed Cambridge Union Society. Construction of replacement facade, reinstatement and refurbishment of historic features and internal and external access and refurbishment works including enlargement of existing cafe (use class A3) and re-opening of 'footlight's' entertainment space (sui generis). Demolition of squash courts and un-listed 3-5 Round Church Street in the conservation area. Construction of new link building for access and ancillary uses for the Union Society. Construction of adjacent new building with ground floor restaurant (use class A3) with 41 room post-graduate student accommodation above (use class C2) together with basement storage and services.
Cambridge Union Society 9A Bridge Street Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB2 1UB
Application reference : 16/0673/FUL
Also a Listing Building Consent application: 16/0674/LBC Demolition of ancillary buildings and removal of 1930's facade at the grade II listed Cambridge Union Society
Plans are emerging for development on the Coldham's Lane site with implications for the surrounding area including links with Cherry Hinton.
Some people are especially sensitive to lights, including flashing lights, and lights which point directly into their eyes. Both these two situations can result in migraines for the unfortunate observer.I am glad to read that German law mandates downward-focussed lights. We should do the same.
Flashing lights used to be illegal (i.e. when incandescant lights were the norm) but the law was changed to specifically allow them. However, for the reason above, and also because judging the speed (and to some extent the position) of a bicycle is impossible when the light is flashing could actually make flashing lights less safe. Batteries have improved and LEDs are more efficient, and the battery life even on 'steady' mode is way more than in the 'days of yore' hat some of us knew.
Cycling and Walking provision at Cambridge Science Park is poor. Lets try and get it fixed
If it is not bad enough in a cycle city that the Great Northern Road, the new road to Cambridge's main train station and cycle parking, does not have a segregated and safe cycle paths, the new development is now being proposed which will prevent a segregated cycleway from access to the Station a Devonshire road.
Does anyone agree that there should be a segregated cycle access to the country's largest cycle park?
Objections to U&Cs outline planning application need to be submitted by 10 April. There seem to be some interesting ideas for improving cycling infrastructure but a lot that could be improved upon.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
This junction is currently very poor. Cyclists end up doing awkward manoeuvres and visibility is not good.
It is possible this could be improved as part of the Chisholm Trail.
How could this junction be redesigned to make it best practice?
I've noticed a few of these around Cambridge where there's a "no through road" sign but it's a through road for cyclists and pedestrians. As there's a post already, if the council had a ready-made stock of plates saying "except cycles", "except pedestrians", a single operative could affix the plate below the sign to made it correct. It is highly deceptive and not serving those using non-motorised transport if they go the long way round not realising they can get through a quicker route.
Complete separation of cyclists and cars can't always be achieved. To make sharing of the road safer I would like to propose using rumble strips instead of flat paint to separate the bike lane from the rest of the road. It would act as a physical reminder for car-drivers that they are encroaching the bike lane. This happens particularly near pinch points like road bends or crossroads. So even just a selective application of rumble strips could have a very positive effect, I believe. What's the view of the cycling community? Has it been tested?
I cycle past this junction a lot, and sometimes the lights are red so I wait and look at the lanes and wonder why they're like this.
Created by Gingineer // 1 thread
I work near the station and the area out the front of the new building has short term cycle spaces for the shops there. These spaces are specifically for the retail units (ratios of this is in the planning application I understand). so the racks have to be installed and wont be policed by the retail units (such as the ones by Microsoft which are for employees) yet they fill with commuters who should be using the cycle park.
I have been thinking that Cambridge CC needs to agree a system (bye law?) to create short term racks. The colour should be different and signage provided but for racks that need controlling like this it is essential to stop antisocial cyclists piling up bikes.
Of course its difficult to police, and a heavy handed approach should be avoided but I see a growing issue across the city where racks for specific short term purposes are created but then filled with long term cyclists who should accept if they are parked all day that the extra 2 minutes walk for them to a proper cycle park is reasonable to expect. Otherwise this puts people off cycling the short distances as they fear they wont get a rack or will spend a lot of time scrambling for a spot.
Cyclists could be stickered and if caught again then fined. Or clamped to the rack with a fee to unlock (yes I know that sounds like it defeats the object but it should work after a while).
Created by GG // 1 thread
For a long time I have wondered about a crowd-sourced cycleability map.
In this, people cycle along a link (accepting the first question of how to define the beginning and end of this) then give it a thumbs up or down. After enough people do this, then others can see how popular it is.
Some people wonder about subjectivity but I think this should be less of a problem with more voters.
The reason I am asking is because this method could apply to a potential commercial project for a Council which wants to drive around 100km of rural roads and use a panel of 4 experts to grade meaningful segments on a 1 to 7 scale according to their suitability for HGV movements.
Any views on whether this is already done within an app I am not aware of, or could be it done by anyone as an add-on to something else, or is it something CamCycle could offer as a commercial package (there may well be more than one local authority looking for this sort of thing)
Out of the A1307 Linton Greenway consultation has come a plan for the section between Addenbrooke's roundabout and the Babraham P&R, which the county/GCP are keen to move forward. There was an initial invite-only consultation event on Thur 31st Jan for local residents/residents associations to comment.
Huawei plans to develop R & D superhub at the 550-acre Spicer's Site in Sawston.
The County Council have a consultation running on "improvements along Cherry Hinton Road, Cambridge, to make it safer and more attractive for walking and cycling" between Hills road and Perne Road.
The consultation runs until Tuesday 18 June. There are two consultation events at Rock Road Library, 69 Rock Road, Cambridge on Tuesday 21 May and Tuesday 21 May.