Pinch Point - by Bradley Stearn

A short documentary about cycling in Cambridge and the conflict between cyclists and motorists. Take a look...



Not bad, eh? Decent point, well made. I especially like the bits about how and why cyclists might break the rules.

I don't want to use this video to launch a discussion on the merits of the vehicularist versus infrastructuralist phoney war. But this thought provoking little film does rather demand that we consider it a moment.

One of the things (pointed out in the video) that makes cycling popular in Cambridge is the network of routes into the city centre across Jesus Green, Midsummer Common, Coe Fen, etc. A lot of the tedious ring-road jostling that typifies commuting cycling in much of the UK isn't quite so bad here - even if you're coming from routes that aren't bypassing the edge-of-city rush there are some half decent cycle lanes to be used. As a result, and due to the fact that Cambridge is flat, dry, and as a city culturally dominated by the University and companies attracted to the University hub, Cycling is a big deal here.

But we're hated as much, probably more (due to our numbers) than on most places. I've been yelled at elsewhere, only ever spat at or assaulted here. Giving cyclists a warning nudge at a junction is just a thing her. Make no mistake - our road system is run for motorists, by motorists, and on the actual roads we're fair game. 

We aren't going to get any further in Cambridge or anywhere else by telling cyclists they have to be bold. Sorry folks, we've been doing that across the UK for generations now and we're at historic low levels of cycling (the recent seemingly stellar increase in cycling is from such a low base - a massive precentage rise from feck all is still next to feck all). I ride in primary cycling position whenever appropriate, but I don't expect the retired old lady down on the allotments to do so  (she recently bought a POLITE vest because, purely for kicks, motons will even bully an old age pensioner). It is futile to suggest that this is the answer. A minority of folk like me will do it, but I'm a bolshy, stocky, Northern bloke who only a complete nutter or serious hard case would start a fight with - are we really saying to children who want to ride their bikes that they should go and play in the traffic? Would you be telling your Gran to mount a Pashley and assert her presence of the road among bin lorries, cement mixers and Beamers who'll scare the crap out of her to relieve the monotony of their worthless existences?

Assertive cycling is a survival tool we need because our road planners, despite making encouraging noises of late, still want us to eat shit at junctions. But don't lets pretend its the answer. The answer is that we spice safe cycling into the very DNA of our city; every key route, every hazardous junction. Anything else is just stamp collecting.

Does obeying the rules matter?

I think I should clarify something in this blog, something that may not be apparent from either the tone or content of what I've been writing - mostly I don't care if people obey the rules of the road.

I mean, I DO care if folk endanger others - or themselves, for that matter. And I care very much when people are quite obviously lying about what is or is not safe. And I do care if people are breaking the rules in a way in which they increase the risk of causing harm.

But if you're on a motorway, at night, alone, with good visibility, and you want to speed, I really don't care. Thats your business and, frankly, whether you get home at 60mph or 80mph, just don't ask me to have any opinion on the finer details of what you're doing. I haven't got one. Likewise, if you want to ride your bike downhill with your hands off the bars, fiddling with your earbuds, its not my business. If you have an accident doing either of these things, thats your own problem. I'd rather you didn't, but hey, its up to you. Your choice.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't get why folk get angry about some breaches of the rules but not others - I have never heard anyone who drives making sweeping generalisations about other motorists always speeding, always parking on the pavements, etc. even though the overwhelming evidence is that such crimes are so common places as to be ubiquitous. Yet I frequently (every day, in fact) encounter such generalisations regarding cyclists. About us going through red lights or going on the pavement or whatever else we all do all the time (apparently).

I could spend yet more time 'putting things in perspective' by reciting yet more data showing that the proportion of cyclists who break the law isn't that great, and certainly isn't as great as the proportion of motorists who speed, drive on the mobile phone, etc. But that isn't the point.

I could bleat on yet again about how this portrayal of cyclists as law breakers demonstrates that motorists are for the most part delusional in their prejudice against us. But thats also not the point.

My question here is a simpler one; does it matter if we break the rules of the road? It doesn't matter, to me, when done in a responsible context. But thats my subjective judgement call; it actually will matter to other people that someone is doing 90mph on the motorway at night. And, to many, doing 40mph past a school is considered okay, while others would happily shoot you through both lungs with their rifles of parental rage. Before impaling you on their nimby bayonets.

Lets take this to the extreme. You see a child molester crossing the road. You know they're a child molester, they've escaped from jail having been convicted for it, you know them personally, they're right there. No one could argue that this person is of any value or worth; they're a bad person who deserves to be punished. Now it would be absurd to suggest that you can validly drive your car over this person, because murdering people is wrong. The rules of the road do not suddenly get suspended because someone deserves, from your perspective to get run over. Or, in other words, the law is not subjective - we've got a set of rules that matter because if we all obey them we'll get along just fine.

I'm not going to argue that all law-breaking is the same - thats clearly stupid. But thinking this through, I can't make a case that we should further the cause of endemic lawbreaking by furthering the attitude that its okay so long as we're not doing much harm. Surely as mature adults we must accpt that with our right to criticise those who break the law because, in their subjective judgement its okay, we must just accept the same criticism when we've done similar? We can fairly suggest that the level of critisim, the severity of the action, may not be the same, but we have to accept that the concept of said criticism is fair.

Which brings us back to the criticisms regularly levelled at cyclists. We all jump red lights, we all go on the pavement, we all ride around at night without lights on... Even were these assertions true (and of course they're not) there is an inherent hypocrisy at play here. But its an hypocrisy so common as to be entirely un-noticed; its such a commonly shared anti-cyclist stance as to be one that most are blind to. 

Does it therefore matter if people break the rules of the road? Of course it does. Does it matter which rules they break? Clearly. Does it matter what vehicles they're using at the time? Well the bigger and faster the vehicle, the more it matters (or so it seems to me). No other way of prioritising road user infringements makes a great deal of sense; base it on harm caused, or you're pissing in the wind.

Make no mistake - you don't care either. You don't believe everyone should slavishly follow the letter of every law. You don't want that any more than I do. But I hope you DO care about the potential each of us has to cause harm - so why do we blandly stand by when those with least capacity to harm others are the ones so regularly demonised for breaking rules that carry the lowest risk to others?

Cambridgeshire County Council Elections - Summary

It would be fair to say that I've only scratched the surface - I've picked out two candidates from each party to base my analysis on. If you're interested, here they are again:

Conservatives

Labour

Liberal Democrats

UKIP

Green

I'll go and look at a few of the minority party candidates and independents next, but for the moment, there it is.

I'm surprised to be relating that the Greens are comically inept in this area. It really pains me to say that. 

The Tories and Labour are about as bad as each other - the former having the odd good candidate but reverting to type with others, and the latter being full of platitudes but no substance or shape to their policies regarding cycling - they want to be seen as pro-cycling without throwing us the slightest scrap of actual policy. 

UKIP. Oh, UKIP. How you've made me laugh. At you. Not with you. 

And the Liberal Democrats? Well in Cambridge they're about to get crucified. Maybe thats why they're finally getting their policy right on cycling. I can only hope that they carry some of this through to how they do things at the City level, although I won't hold my breath. Best of a bad lot, truth be told.

The bottom line? Politicians, even at councilor level, are very good at saying a surprising amount, without a great deal of substance. 

County Elections - Who to vote for 5: Greens

You might assume that Greens and cycling go together like organic tofu and tie died pashminas. And I suspect even before looking at Cambridge Cycling Campaigns survey that they'll be making positive sounds about cycling, but will they have good, solid, realistic polices for us? 

Here I should also declare an interest - I voted Green in the last general election. Environmentally, I'm a green. I like many, but not all, of their policies.

Locally the Greens have had a torrid time of late - they've lost City council seats through bad election results and a shameful election time defection to Labour (and that councilor has stood down now - sorry Adam, good riddance, I hope that the shame of what you did keeps you out of politics forever). 

We haven't got a candidate here in Kings Hedges, so I've got to go over to Arbury before I find my closest Green - one Stephen Roger Lawrence.

As we can see, he's off from the gun claiming cycling credentials:

Cyclist since 1981 - commuted for some years - use a bike daily, and commute out to Hauxton once a week. I have two bikes.

 Great start. And does he want cycle facilities to new developments so folk can get in to Cambridge:

In short, yes

Simple and to the point, although some thoughts on how you'd do it would be good.

But unfortunately then he's gone a bit weird. The first banana skin question, re. evidence based policing. Does he support it?

 "Evidence-based" is the word. Also "based on levels of danger". However, people have their own priorities. Blitzes are popular, and do also work (viz success with bike lights). So we should say "the evidence suggests this" and "but peoples' preferences are this" so "as a compomise we'll do this". Ie as educative as possible, without IMO being judgemental. We do have to police our community together, after all.

Dude. What are you smoking? The question wasn't that complicated - should policing be evidence based and should it be based on where the real dangers are, should it be about how people are actually getting hurt? Or is the populist approach going for blitzes on this and that the right way? If there are compromise positions between evidence based and prejudice based policing can you give us examples of how to reach them? Sorry, I've read your answer five times now, and I still don't know what you're saying.

He's then said what we'd expect him to say regarding cycle routes (he likes them). So thats all good then. But I'm afraid he's off with the fairies again in a minute. Fairly simple question from Camcycle:

Do you support major development of the A14? What do you consider the effects on Cambridge would be if or when this were done? What measures would you support to ameliorate negative effects on cyclists of any traffic increases in Cambridge that this might cause (estimates have been made of a 30% increase)?

Or, in other words, many folk want the A14 to become ever more a motorway in all but name, bringing even  more cars at peak times, so how would you make it okay to ride here under those circumstances. His response:

 My response to the A14 is that it is primarily a problem with freight. Therefore the solution involves moving "swap-body" traffic on to the rails, using a proprietary system such as Modalohr or CargoBeamer, with terminals located near Harwich (I think this is where most swap-bodies come from - Felixstowe is for containers) and the Midlands, to name the first two.

 Felixtowe? Felixtowe? What the hell is the relevance of that to whether or not pumping ever more cars into Cambridge makes the roads here un-rideable? You've completely not got the point of the question, and it isn't clear that you understand the problem. He then goes on to support 20mph (although oddly prefers 25pmph), but really he's a bit limp if I'm honest.

Honestly Greens? Is that the best you can do? I mean, where's the plan? Whats the overall shape of cycling policy? What I want out of a Green party is to look for a shape to your policy; where would cycling in Cambridge be 5 years from now if you won? 10 years? Where are you going with this? Do you even have a clue what you want to achieve?

Okay. So far, so limp. Lets wander down to another ward and see if the others are the same; a chap called Shaun Peter Esgate is standing there. Another long time cyclist, but for some reason he finds the question of whether cycle facilities for new developments are a good thing rather complicated. Goodness knows why. And on evidence based policing? 

Increased traffic policing of dangerous road users in the city could be effective if enough resources could be diverted for finely targeted actions. The dangerous incidents which have been highlighted in the press over recent months are usually over in seconds and unless they result in injury need to be witnessed by police officers for any action to follow.

...well, your guess is as good as mine. I have no idea what he wants, he's answered some other question entirely.

And if you think thats bad take a look at what he things about Bozzas plan in London and whether we should go for it here:

 I can't say that I know enough to comment.

And on cycling and public health?

This question is a bit broad but Green Party policies address these issues and consider them to be primary concerns.

So why the hell are you standing for election then if you've got neither knowledge nor your own opinions? In short, what are you for Mr. Esgate? The rest of his comments are blandly supportive of cycling without ever giving us an idea what the Greens want to do.

To be brutally honest, these responses disappoint but don't surprise me. Nationally the Green party have become a dynamic and exciting political force, putting forward creative and sensible policies on councils where they've either become the main opposition or part of the ruling block. Caroline Lucas has been a stalwart in parliament, and if there is any justice they'll go from strength to strength under their inspiring new leader. It should however be noted that none of those people or places have any link to Cambridgeshire, where I'm afraid the local Green party have more or less fallen to pieces and stopped being anything like a coherent political unit. 

Is cycling an issue for you? Indeed, are there any issues you care about? Sorry, but the Green party here in Cambs is not for you. You wouldn't have thought it possible they could be so limp and uninspiring.

County Elections - who to vote for 4 - UKIP

This party present perhaps the biggest problem for those deciding who to vote for. Its not that anyone with half a brain-cell thinks that a UKIP government would be a good thing, its that in many ways their local candidate selection processes epitomise localism - as far as I can tell all you have to do is fill in a form and you're a candidate. How else can you explain the fact that no two UKIP candidates seem to have the same policies, on nearly anything?

But that means that its perfectly feasible for a UKIP candidate to be spot on with regard to cycling. Possible, if perhaps not very likely.

Now I've got to go as far as East Chesterton to see the nearest UKIP candidate who responded to Cambridge Cycling Campaigns questions, a Peter Burkinshaw. Quite a tough ward for UKIP that one - Ian Manning vs. Clare Blare is the fight we'll all be watching, it's looking like a LibDem - Labour battle. Manning ain't a bad chap and has a good record as a councillor, but as you know the Liberal Democrats are about as popular as the clap in a boarding school. UKIP usually get squeezed out - for me the question is whether thats because of the party or the candidate. Lets look see how he answered the questions...

Now, on the subject of cycle provision in and around new developments:

You are asking for benefits paid for by other road users.
I would prefer more car parks.

Gosh. Okay... So he doesn't understand how the roads are paid for?  We have to assume these candidates are being genuine, so for the moment at least lets assume he isn't taking the p1$$.

On to the key (for me) question of evidence based policing:

Cyclists are by far the most undisciplined road users.
On several occasions, I have had to stop or dodge cyclists riding through red lights when
crossing at pedestrian crossings. More police attention to cyclists would be useful.
Cars are not a danger to other road users, provided they in turn act sensibly.
It should be borne in mind that motorists have to pass a driving test. Cyclists are not tested for competence or knowledge of road signs and traffic lights.

So, no. He doesn't support evidence based policing, he supports policing based on his own prejudice. Show him data that demonstrates few harmed by bikes and hundreds harmed by cars, and he doesn't care - he's had to dodge cyclists you know, bloody cyclists coming over here ruining our country, bugger off back to Bikeland or wherever the hell you come from.  I don't know, youth of today, wasn't like that when I were a lad. You could tear down the roads at whatever pace you like, they knew their place then you know, these uppity cylists. Now they want jobs, houses, the right to vote, bloody cyclists.

Is the stuff Bozza is doing for cyclists any good? Would he do it here? Do we even have to ask?

No. This proposal amounts to theft from the people who pay to use roads and the benefit given to those who don't.

Oh, of course. Because there's a road tax which goes into the road fund, and anyone who says otherwise is just some namby pamby weirdy beardy yoghurt knitting liberal who wants to steal from hard working, oppressed motorists and spend the money herding lentils into their yurts.

Now you could be temtped to give up on his ranting right about now. Don't, you'll miss some comedy gold. I mean, put this in context; this was a survey done by Cambridge Cycling Campaign to help those who look at their site (more cyclists) decide who to vote for. This candidate has been so staggeringly dumb as to insult those people - he hasn't even tried to sugar the cyclist-hating pill he's trying to ram down our throats. 

We've then got assorted 'cyclists don't pay' kind of comments so why should we get facilities, a vow that nothing should be done on Orchard Park to fix badly linked up facilities that won't even cost the County Council anything (this is just spite!), an insistence that the Milton Road shared use facility is okay if cyclists stick to their half (much of this route doesn't have 'halves' and isn't segregated in any way; thats why its called  'shared use' Mr. Burkinshaw... The clue is in the name. Do you see what they did there? 'Shared' use?). He answers a question about the Green Dragon bridge with anecdotes about cyclists abusing him on another bridge entirely (I'm increasingly thinking they're abusing him because they know who he is - its not general abuse he's getting from idiotic cyclists for being in the way, I think people might know who he is and they're being highly specific in their insults), before closing with this absolute corker:

Why are there cycle tracks on Hill's road on both the road and footpath?
Road space is required for motorised vehicles who pay for it. It shouldn't be wasted on people who don't.
Just for your information, I walk to most places in Cambridge, but you should bear in mind that if everybody cycled, there would be no roads to ride on.
What is "sustainable transport"? Is it using things that other people pay for?

It transpires that Mr. Burkinshaw is wrong in every possible way. There are cycle tracks on Hills Road on the road and the footpath because for reasons best known to the County Council designing one high quality facility is too hard, they'd rather give us two poor ones. Road space isn't paid for by motorised vehicles; such things are inert lumps of metal that pay nothing. Road space is paid for mostly via council tax, which we all pay. VED covers fuel efficicney;  if you don't want to pay it get a Prius or a Nissan Leaf or any of the other low emission vehicles. Roads were not built for cars. Sustainable transport is using things you've paid for but doing less damage to the local and global environments... 

Wow. This guy has set out to alienate half of the population of the city - the half that regularly cycle. He's got half the potential electorate he might have had - he's going to lose. This has made local news, its had national comment. I was talking to a proud UKIP supporter from well outside that ward (from Milton in fact) who has stated that he'll never vote UKIP again after this. Mr. Burkinshaw, your frothing at the mouth, misinformed cyclist hate has ballsed this up for you. You. Are. Going. To. Lose. Why would anyone seek to make absolutely sure they can't win?

I was going to say 'lets not be too harsh on UKIP, look, here's their nominee for Gamlingay who is like a breath of fresh air' but Mr. Burkinshaws comments are so stupid that I feel like I've had myIQ beaten down by a mallet and I don't believe that UKIP deserve further coverage.

In conclusion, I flat out don't care which ward you're in - a vote for UKIP is a vote for the party that provided a platform for Mr. Burkinshaw. Vote Tory, LibDem, Labour, Green, even Loony if you're in Bar Hill, vote anyone but UKIP. 

When you put a cross in the UKIP box, angels weep for you. Their kind of stupidity is infectious - like head lice or the zombie apocalypse plague. Don't catch it.

County Elections - who to vote for 3: LibDems

Yeah, yeah, I know, you hate them. Nick Clegg and all that. I take your point. They're about as popular as public lice. But this is a local election, about local issues. Lets hear them out. At least our local candidate in Kings Hedges has bothered to reply to Cambridge Cycling Campaigns Survey, so thats one up on the Tories.

I'm sure I remember hearing that the LibDem candidate here, Neale Upstone, vowed that he never wanted to be a councillor again after last time. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, after he's stated he cycles about the place he comes right out with the goods when asked about cycle provision for new developments:

Yes. In particular, I believe dedicated off-road routes are the only mass transit solution as shown in Europe.

Okay. I'm on board with that.

Then on evidence based policing on road issues:

Broadly, yes. I think safety should be the priority, injury accidents whether injury drivers, cyclists or pedestrians have a massive impact on people's lives and a cost to taxpayers. I think we need to start talking about *dangerous* anti-social behaviour (both driving and cycling) and prioritising that over pestering teens in hoodies.

The incident on Hills Road could well have been me having caught up with a reckless driver and made my views on their speeding known. The police response when reporting the threats from the passenger who got out and 'in my face' should not have been "it's better to ignore speeding drivers". My response: I'll be ignoring what you said as I want our streets safe for children, and I will not live in fear of bullies.

So, you agree with the idea that we should be policing such things but that we should be putting more effort into the things that are most dangerous? Excellent. Spot on.

He's clear on what kind of cycle provision we need, he's direct and unequivocal regarding the problems faced on Orchard Park... He wants clear improvements on Milton Road but chickens out of condemning the police as they deserve for how they've targetted cyclists there (shame). Bloody hell - a local politician speaking no-nonsense good stuff about cycling. We should have him stuffed.

Is he a one off though? Lets pick another one. Arbury is next closest to here so lets see what the candidate there, Daniel Stephen Levy has to say.

Its a bad sign when he responds to the question about cycle facilities in the new developments thus:

Safe, high quality cycle routes are going to be an important part of the infrastructure needed to support growth in Cambridge and the surrounding areas. The Liberal Democrats are already seeking to have £8m invested in cycling and the Chisholm Trail. If elected I would support this measure.
However, investment in other forms of travel, including facilities for pedestrians and frequent, reliable bus services will also be needed. As a councillor, I would seek to find the best possible balance between all these various facilities.

Really? In response to a cycling question you're going to go on about some idea of 'balance' between public transport, pedestrians and cyclists? Would you start waffling on about pedestrians if the question were about the A14 or cyclists if it were about train services? No, of course you bloody wouldn't. This insane concept that improvements for cyclists must somehow be contextualised by changing things for everyone else too has even sunk into the LibDems it seems.

His response on evidence based policing is even worse:

I fully support evidence-based policy making, but I'm not sure I agree with the rather strange definition of the term that is given in the question. If something is evidence-based then it should be based on all the available evidence, not just the bits that fit with a particular agenda.

Agenda? What? The question is simple enough, should the evidence (for example how many people are harmed by different activities) lead police priorities - thats not some suspicious or peculiar agenda, and that you believe it is speaks volumes about your own peculiar world view. Flat out, why would you want to set police priorities other than on evidence? Why is this something candidates find so hard to grasp?

He goes on to give out entirely the wrong message on cycle facilities - we've got ample wide enough roads across most of the city, I'll simply not have it that routes of identical width in Holland have space for cycle lanes but here in Cambridge they don't. And his reticence to come right out and support high quality facilities for new settlements isn't so much short sighted as outright stupid. And I'm afraid, its down hill from there.

Bottom line is that the two candidates I've looked at are as different as chalk and cheese - Upstone gets it, Levy doesn't. Upstone understands that you can be pro-cycling without being anti-anyone else. Levy doesn't. Upstone gets that we're interested in making things better for cycling and that this in turn reduces congestion and makes for a safer environment for pedestrians. It is unclear whether Levy does.

In short, you might consider voting LibDem if cycling is an issue for you. But corner your candidate and pump him for information first. As a party, the local LibDem group clearly are not pro-cyclist (the City Councils dreadful record shows that to be true), but there are some among them who are spot on.

So if you've got a good LibDem candidate and the thought of Nick Clegg betraying every principle you hold dear doesn't make you feel physically sick, they might be the party for you.

County Elections - who to vote for. Part 2: The Labour Party

You might expect me to be a fan of Labour, being a native of the Peoples Republic of Gateshead. And I have met some cracking Labour councillors; regrettably I've also met a fair few folk who knew they'd win with a red rosette so did nothing of interest, at all, ever. So I'm quite happy to say that I 'get' Labour, but I also know they've got as many bad candidates across the country as any other party.

So, lets look what they've been saying in response to Cambridge Cycling Campaigns survey this time round.

I met our Kings Hedges labour candidate when she was doing a walk about the ward with some of the City councillors. Fiona Onasanya seems okay, but catching her unaware I got the rather startling answer from her that she's no fan of the 20mph speed limit. It was amusing watching the City councillors she was with hilighting that as its Labour group policy she actually supports it. 

Unlike the Tory candidate in Kings Hedges she did reply to the survey. Which is a good start.

She starts off making the right sounds about cycling infrastructure and pedestrian routes being important, which is easy enough of course. But unfortunately, when we start getting to meaty questions like this one:

Do you support our view that traffic policing, of all groups of road users (cyclists, drivers, etc), should become a greater police priority, and that this should be evidence-based, namely based on the relative levels of danger presented by each such group?

...she simply doesn't answer properly...

Enforcement action by the police is most effective when accompanied by education and other measures to ensure good behaviour by all road users including cyclists and drivers. 
Speeding cars, bad driving and poor behaviour by some cyclists come up on the doorstep quite often and it is important to address concerns expressed and ensure good understanding between different road user groups including pedestrians.

So, I don't get it, does she support the view that policing priority should be evidence based, on relative levels of danger, or not? Because it doesn't look like it. That reads like some wishy-washy fence sitting mutual respect fallacy nonsense. Sorry, thats a big black mark against our Labour candidate right there. Still, plenty of questions left, shall we see if she redeems herself?

The one about whether or not the candidate supports doing things here along the lines that Boris Johnson has got going on in London, thats a good one. And an easy one to answer too. So what does our candidate say?

We support a new Cambridgeshire bike plan, including:-
learning from Dutch towns and country cycling and;
radical thinking, given similar needs (and flat topography) in Cambridgeshire.

So... What? Radical thinking? Doing WHAT? And learning WHAT from Dutch towns? What do you actually want to do? What lessons are there still to learn from the Dutch? Haven't we learned by now, is not the problem one of implementation rather than knowledge? Sorry, thats another cop out answer.

There follow a few more questions to which Fiona Onasanya makes the right kind of noises, frustratingly without ever committing to what she wants done, before dropping a monumental clanger. The question is simple enough, but oozes with righteous anger from the Campaign:

Do you agree that the shared-use paths along Milton Road are in general highly unsatisfactory, and that proper cycling provision should be provided, maintaining priority at sideroads? Do you condemn recent police action to ticket cyclists using pavements on Milton Road that join up with shared-use areas, despite no white lines or clear signs being present to delineate clearly the section where the status changes?

This of course refers to the fact that  Cambridge Police took to staking out the unlabelled end of the cycle route on Milton Road to catch unwary cyclists who had no reason to believe they couldn't ride there, and to councillors outrageous decision to target cyclists who didn't want to face near death like I did. Her answer was:

I feel unable to agree or disagree with the statement that "the shared-use paths are in general highly unsatisfactory" as this is a subjective question and without having specific responses from frequent users (both cyclists and pedestrians) of the paths in question it would not be fair or right to comment. I will however seek more information in respect of police action.

Hang on... Subjective? You've just been talking about Dutch standards, and you must surely know that the Milton Road route doesn't come anywhere near that. You've told us what you want to aspire towards and now when given a crystal clear example that falls miles short its 'subjective'? Are you kidding? It is a major route used to get towards Kings Hedges - if you want to represent the ward you should know it. You're standing for election, and lets be honest we all know you're very likely to win (right now the LibDems are so unpopular that Labour could nominate a gazebo, and it would win) but you're only going to find out about police priorities NOW? That is not good enough. That isn't good enough at all. 

All in all I'm unimpressed. But lets be fair - lets look at another candidate from Labour. I'd go to Arbury but no response from Labour there, so lets go look in East Chesterton to see what the gloriously named Claire Blair has to say. 

Again, she makes the right noises regarding cycle routes, but once again completely bottles it on evidence based policing:

Talking to people frequently on the doorstep speeding cars and poor behaviour by some cyclists come up quite often and it is important to address those concerns. At the same time enforcement action by the police is most effective when it is side by side with education and other measures to promote good behaviour by all road users.

Either copped out again or both candidates I've looked at here utterly failed to understand the question. Neither looks good. She then repeats the same mantra about learning from Dutch towns (so she's way behind the understanding reached in London like the previous candidate is), and while she makes some decent points about the requirement for a new bridge she also fails to get it on policing of Milton Road (saying that shared use facilities are often unsatisfactory without referring to THIS shared use facility... why not?). 

Labour candidates are trying to win cyclists votes by saying things that sound good but are, at best, meaningless. But mostly their answers are evasive, if not downright patronising. It pains me to say it, but if cycling is an issue for you in Cambridge in this election, there is no way you can support Labour. The two example candidates I've picked, if representative, prove that cycling isn't even important enough for them to have learned the issues before replying to the Cycling Campaigns survey. 

Pathetic. Just... pathetic. Labour, you have no plan for cycling here. You have no policies. You have no idea. Wake up and smell the chain lube - you're monumentally failing on this issue, and it pains me.