tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40313529155194886682024-03-14T17:50:46.231+00:00Cambridge CyclistCab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.comBlogger379125truetag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-29952187473221601142023-09-29T16:06:00.001+01:002023-09-29T16:06:28.983+01:00Cambridge STZ is dead<p style="text-align: justify;">As dead as flared trousers. As dead as consensus politics. As dead as the Earth will be because we're not addressing climate disaster. It's dead, Jim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">And that's a shame, it wasn't entirely bad. The idea that motorists, who are after all polluting, creating congestion, causing damage to the roads, making walking and cycling difficult and dangerous, killing children with avoidable pollution, should pay their way and that we spend that money on better options for everyone? Anyone smarter than a gherkin should say yes to that. The problem was <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2022/11/cambridge-unsustainable-travel-zone.html" target="_blank">the scheme couldn't be delivered</a>, it was a political impossibility. And then they went and did the worst thing you can ever do, <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2023/08/cambridge-unsustainable-travel-zone-is.html" target="_blank">made concessions to swivel headed loony motons</a> who are willing to render their own children down for a litre of diesel. What is it about a bunch of people who turn up at the back of assembly meetings furiously shouting about whatever conspiracy theory they think this is really all about that made the Greater Cambridge Partnership think they might ever be interested in compromise?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But rather than rescue anything from it, they've given up. This is a total victory for the world-ending, climate change denying, cyclist hating motor lobby and considering where we started, with an opportunity to maybe make some positive changes to the city, its a damning indication of how badly our County, Mayoral and Combined authorities have handled this. There are no positives to draw, none. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/news/decision-taken-not-to-progress-with-making-connections">You can read what Councillor Meschini says about it here.</a> She's chair of GCP's executive board. All I can say in response is this - resign, Elisa. Just go. You've failed utterly, you've let us all down completely. You, and all associated with this, ignored all calls for a better scheme involving planning for rapid transit. Sadly, the GCP, the County and mayor Nik Johnson were completely wrong to go in the direction you did. Nik, Elisa, both of you need to square up and accept your failure here, and go. Just go. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This scheme failed for predictable, indeed predicted reasons. If I could see it, why the hell couldn't they?</p>Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-65208501447403784012023-09-28T10:59:00.001+01:002023-09-28T10:59:24.088+01:00Milton Road Still Looks Shit<p>We seem to have been circling the drain on Milton Road forever. <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-66934308" target="_blank">And now we're plunging in to the sewer.</a> Pavements being built there are too narrow to get down with a wheelchair, too narrow with a pram. That's flat out unacceptable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">To set the scene. Milton Road is a major route in to Cambridge, connecting the centre of town to the A14 through the North of the City. Many of the houses on it are huge, the kind of suburban detached and semi-detached quasi-mansions making their geriatric owners paper-millionaires, having done nothing to earn this wealth other than not died. Traffic there is constant, and the folk commuting to the city sit on the guided bus as it slowly pootles across the countryside slower than a train was doing on the same route in the 19th century, and then they spend another hour or so slowly shuffling down a dripping abscess of a road, on a wet day perhaps watching snails ooze past them on the verge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The road has always been made worse by having a shared use route (pedestrians and cyclists)<a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2012/12/cambs-police-arresting-cyclists-for.html"> that randomly stops and stats in places you need a PhD in urban design to understand, a hostile police force</a> and <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2013/12/close-overtake-3-points-60-fine-220.html" target="_blank">angry motorists who will threaten you with their vehicles if you're not using it</a>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The plan to improve it <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2017/06/milton-road-road-where-cyclists-dont.html" target="_blank">started out shit</a> and only got marginally better, always held back by three things. One was the fact that no matter what suggestions came along to make it better the priority has always been to avoid making things bad for drivers - there's no real road space taken from private car users in the final design, roundabouts and junctions will remain <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ64zCM5Rgk&t=1495s">potential death traps</a>. Greater Cambridge and our Mayoral Authority have been, for most of their existence, car sick institutions wedded to the perpetual domination of drivers over all others, as is evidenced by the fact that it took them over a decade to come up with a transport plan (which failed, <a href="https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/cambridge-labour-reveal-they-will-not-support-revised-peak-t-9329143/" target="_blank">wholly because they caved in to drivers</a>). This of course explains the second problem, that we haven't got a good model for how many people will be driving down Milton Road because there's still no public transport plan, and there never has been. Rather than devising a rapid transit system and making plans based on how many people will drive with that in place, reducing car reliance and then building for what's left, we've had to have a design that won't be a problem for an ever increasing number of drivers. And, lastly, the NIMBY paper millionaires who live there willing to chain themselves to the stunted, dying cherry trees sitting in parched earth full of the collected pollution of a century of failure. WE DEMAND TREES, they say, with no understanding of what species are possible or desirable in the space.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We need high quality cycle provision on Milton Road and there is space for it, and we need high quality space for pedestrians and there's space for that too. But because of the car lobby and NIMBY's we're getting a bland treescape and car dominance instead.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the BBC article linked to at the top there, the key passage is this:</p><blockquote><div class="ssrcss-11r1m41-RichTextComponentWrapper ep2nwvo0" data-component="text-block" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #141414; font-family: ReithSans, Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 1rem 0px; max-width: 36.25rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1" style="border: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph e1jhz7w10" style="border: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Mr Porter, the scheme's project manager, said: "We are aware that this section is too tight and we're going to rectify it."</p></div></div><div class="ssrcss-11r1m41-RichTextComponentWrapper ep2nwvo0" data-component="text-block" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #141414; font-family: ReithSans, Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 1rem 0px; max-width: 36.25rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1" style="border: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph e1jhz7w10" style="border: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The GCP plans to move the central curb back slightly to accommodate the changes.</p></div></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">Or in other words, they know it's a problem for pedestrians but they're going to move the 'central curb' back (the start of the cycle lane) to accommodate it. Heaven forbid a scheme be designed from the outset to reduce conflict between cyclists and pedestrians with motorists ceding even an inch of space to allow it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Greater Cambridge learned nothing from their <a href="https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/cambridge-s-10-6m-histon-road-scheme-is-too-narrow-9233185/" target="_blank">failed pavements on Histon Road</a>. And they'll learn nothing from this either. The sooner the pathetic shower of a project that is Greater Cambridge is euthanised, the better off we'll all be. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Milton Road is going to be worse to walk down, meaninglessly better to cycle on because we'll still have dangerous and badly thought out sections preventing anyone new from deciding to ride, and exactly the same as it always was for drivers. And there's the take home lesson - it's really all about the drivers and, from Greater Cambridges perspective, nobody else matters. At all. </p>Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-11556253553168581662023-08-31T11:25:00.004+01:002023-08-31T12:03:29.469+01:00Cambridge Unsustainable Travel Zone is Back<p> I wish I didn't have to <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2022/11/cambridge-unsustainable-travel-zone.html" target="_blank">come back to this</a>. Oh, well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Cambridge's Sustainable Travel Zone, the STZ, turned out to be hugely unpopular. This is unsurprising - if you tell motorists "we're going to make this better for everyone but you'll have to pay..." then they'll get angry. And they'll stay angry. It doesn't matter what the good stuff is, of course. You could be offering free public transport with busses running to high speed rapid transit that transports everyone to their destination as fast as the car, paid for by stubborn motorists who refuse to use it, and the car lobby would insist on being just that stubborn and paying more to travel less efficiently. There's no compromising with the car lobby, they're not interested, their only moral compass is personal freedom to drive as far and as fast as they like at any environmental cost and fuck everyone else.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">So in response to criticism someone at <a href="https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/" target="_blank">Greater Cambridge</a> went out and got kicked in the head by the horse and decided to offer a compromise and charge motorists slightly less often, with some free days, <a href="https://twitter.com/PhilRodgers/status/1695099104924246132" target="_blank">and then not have anything like enough money to pay for the bus service that was the only thing they had on offer</a>. They also had to <a href="https://twitter.com/PhilRodgers/status/1696101611012038988" target="_blank">dump two thirds of the funding for non-bus improvements</a> despite those commitments having been nebulous and non-committal at best. Or in other words "get the bus peasants, but not as many as we were suggesting, or as frequent, or ride a bike but we aren't actually raising the money we need to build cycle facilities that you'd be happy to ride on, not that we were promising to build those anyway, suckers!"</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Other than the democratic deficit inherent in the Greater Cambridge Partnership and the near inevitability that the web toed fenland Tories would win the County back sooner or later and cut the funding to buses as fast as they can say "I do" when marrying their cousins, I raised two concerns with the scheme. The first was that it isn't Tory proof, and that "please get the bus, please!" doesn't fix our urgent need to start building a modern rapid transit system. The other was that the scheme didn't give me any confidence in their commitment to high quality cycle infrastructure. Neither concern has been addressed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">So this compromise proposal, has it any chance of getting through?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No. It's dead. It's just a matter of whether the LibDems or the Labour Party at the County and District councils dump it first and blame the other lot.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You can't compromise with the car lobby, anything shy of utterly unrestrained car access leading to deadly pollution and endless congestion and they'll keep pushing back and refuse. And they have plenty of petrol drinking morons and conspiracy theorists in the media who'll back them up. And more than a few in local politics. Has Greater Cambridge thrown any bones to anyone who opposed this scheme on any other grounds? Nope. Only the petrol heads. Who can never be won over.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There are answers here, good ones, and viable solutions. But because of over a decade of inactivity and squandering vast sums on endless nonsense, Greater Cambridge can't afford them and the Mayoral authority opposes them becuase they can't bring themselves to back any of the half hearted schemes our former Tory mayor never really believed in anyway (remember, he had years in post and listed free parking in Ely as one of his top accomplishments - this is not a man to sort public transport out). I like you Mayor Nick, you're a good bloke, but I believe your opposition to rapid transit scheme and reliance on the bus as an answer is ideological and stupid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I think the STZ is dead, which is a shame because we urgently need to address transport chaos in a fast growing city. But with any luck it'll take Greater Cambridge with it. And if that's true, good riddance. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Edit: <a href="https://twitter.com/PhilRodgers/status/1697152176374645100" target="_blank">Looks like I called that just right...</a> </i></p>Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-63744567437560364992022-11-28T14:05:00.006+00:002022-11-28T14:19:08.377+00:00Mill Road. Why ought I even care?<p style="text-align: justify;">Mill Road in Cambridge is shit, basically. Which is a shame, it could be fantastic. It used to be fantastic. But these days it is just shit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As a destination it should be a vibrant, exciting, diverse place where people visit, shop, can spend time on the street, and enjoy the cultural and culinary influences of dozens of nationalities and ethnicities represented there. What it is instead is a car sick urban canyon, narrow, noisy, chokingly polluted, and too dangerous to walk or ride on. <a href="https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cycling-bike-crash-cambridge-worst-17067679">It's one of the cycling accidents hot-spots in this City</a>. It's the <a href="https://millroad4people.org/">street with most road traffic accidents in the whole county.</a> Or in other words you might want to go shopping there for some fab Korean ingredients, and then sit out in front of a café before popping in to the Chinese supermarket to get a big bottle of soy sauce and a sack of rice from Al-Amin, and maybe a dozen different ingredients in the deli and at the greengrocers. But the reality is very different. You ride your bike there looking for somewhere to lock up, but before you've got to the bridge four drivers have sounded their horns or revved their engines hard from behind, you've faced three dangerous overtakes and a guy driving straight at you has assumed you'll just fucking float over him or something. You get off and try to lock up <a href="https://mill-road.com/pavement-parking-along-mill-road/">but you can't because cars are illegally blocking the pavement stopping you getting to the bike locks</a>. But you soldier on, eventually getting something from the first shop you go in to but after breathing diesel smog you're not in the mood for a coffee, let alone a cake, the thought of food with the pounding noise and aggression from drivers there makes you feel physically too sick to eat. You pop in to another shop, get the minimum absolutely need, and leave.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">That's because, as stated, Mill Road as it is now is fucking horrible. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">And the kicker is, nobody drives between shops there. There's a car park at Parkside, another at Gwydir Street but nobody can possibly drive between the shops. The traffic that destroys Mill Road isn't bringing money to the local traders, it's taking money through Mill Road to the City Centre. Traffic on Mill Road exists at the expense of traders there. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">So why haven't we done something about it? We did. And it was magnificent, after a temporary closure while the bridge had maintenance work, and the world didn't suddenly end, we then had a modal filter on the same bridge and you could breathe there again, it was safer on the road, but the shops and cafe's had a bustle like they'd not had in years. And then a bunch of web toed fenland Tory councillors s<a href="https://twitter.com/camcycle/status/1420065162816593927">upported by a single Labour councillor</a> who has a history of raining derision down on cyclists <a href="https://twitter.com/PhilRodgers/status/1420060287470817280">voted to reopen it</a>. There had been a consultation, the modal filter was overwhelmingly positively received, and it was working, but car-centric ideologues supported by a sole Labour councillor overrode this. And the place went to shit again. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">So we had another consultation. And it was overwhelmingly pro-modal filter again.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://twitter.com/camcycle/status/1595045337173053441">And now we're having another fucking consultation</a>. But this one is apparently the legal one. So why the fuck didn't they do this first time? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">But here's the killer. <a href="https://twitter.com/PhilRodgers/status/1307009564827684865">Mill Road Traders don't want this</a>. They never have. Mill Road Traders Association oppose this, and always have. Because the safety and convenience of cyclists and pedestrians in not important to them in any way, relative to the angry discomfort of motorists driving straight through and not stopping to shop there. Apparently on the whole they favour motorists passing them over cyclists and pedestrians stopping to shop. I've no idea why, nor do I care, but I do know that I take that as a massive "Get fucked, cyclist" from the collected ranks of shopkeepers there. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In strict confidence I've been given an <i>extraordinarily short</i> list of traders who don't dare speak up against this tidal wave of petrol headed wankiness, but who don't support this. And to be honest they can get fucked too, if you're not willing to speak up for the safety of your own customers then you don't deserve that custom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mill Road was one of the first places I went and explored way back in 1999 when I moved to Cambridge. It was always a fun and exciting place to find good ingredients, with engaging and entertaining people and places there. But over the years I've shopped there less and less as the place became ever more dangerous, until first the bridge maintenance and then the modal filter tamed that space and made it possible to go there again. But the opposition from traders to that essential measure to make the space safe is amounts to as statement that they reject making a space accessible and safe for people. I approve of the modal filter but even after that Mell Road can fuck itself for all I care. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">What do I need to make me shop there again? Reinstatement of the modal filter with unambiguous public support from traders. And those traders I'll big up, I'll recommend, and I will shop there. Other than that? Mill Road is dead. The motoring lobby and idiot councillors killed it.</p>Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-18790857468052853072022-11-23T15:50:00.008+00:002022-12-11T15:34:07.760+00:00Cambridge Unsustainable Travel Zone.<p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Well, it seems I have to do some blog necromancy. Oh, well. About time I suppose.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Because we can't have anything nice, instead we have <a href="https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/" target="_blank">Greater Cambridge</a>. What is that? Well, you know all the stuff about directly elected councillors doing stuff they're voted to do? Not that. It's rubbish, in fact, it's a quasi-democratic nonsense made up of councillors chosen from goodness knows how many of the four dead-wood strata of local government we have here, the directly elected mayors office and massive companies and representatives of the University that are there for the good of everyone and who are definitely not pushing their own agendas. Honestly, if more than eleven people in the whole county understand how this fundamentally fucked concept is meant to operate then I'm a Dutchman. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/greater-cambridge-city-deal-signed">They've been around since 2014/2015</a> and basically accomplished nothing other than revamp some roads that were due for it anyway and put some cycle lanes in that the County should have been working on. I would be unsurprised if they've spent more money on consultations than actual tarmac. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Anyhoo, they've decided to give us a <a href="https://consultcambs.uk.engagementhq.com/making-connections-2022" target="_blank">Sustainable Travel Zone</a> and there's a consultation. Doesn't that sound exciting? I mean who wouldn't support a Sustainable Travel Zone? Who isn't in favour of Sustainable Travel? You're dubious? WHAT KIND OF MONSTER DOESN'T LIKE SUSTAINABILITY?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>The plan - what is it? </b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Well, let me paraphrase.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Just shut the fuck up and get the bus, peasants. Yeah, we'll say we're going to put more bike routes in but we're not going to tell anyone where they are or how good they'll be, those hippies will fall for this shit because we said "sustainable" so we don't have to do anything for them really. Oh, we'll not pay for it out of the £1 billion initial budget that Greater Cambridge said it would have over the years its due to run, that would be crazy when we could have a congestion charge. Say £5 a day for anyone to drive in or out? And then if we put a cap on bus fares of, oh, I dunno, £4 a day, that's less than £5 right? So that'll put SOME people off driving but not many, and that'll give us enough wonga to bung to the bus companies, yeah?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Seriously?</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Yes. That's it. They've had a decade to come up with a good plan but the previous Tory mayor seemed to believe in magic fairy dust schemes and did nothing of worth, before that the County built the hilariously still awful <a href="https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/long-heated-history-guided-busway-13388737">Guided Bus Route</a>, delivered cataclysmically over cost and which is <a href="https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/almost-two-weeks-diversions-part-25513472">still basically fucked</a>. The roots of that plan go back as far as 1994, when the County bought the old railway line and did sweet Fanny Addams with it for years until they botched together a scheme to run a bus through a giant gutter more slowly than it could run on the parallel A14 and, amazingly, even slower than steam trains used the same route when Queen Victoria was on the throne. A scheme so mind numbingly stupid that it connects the areas of heavy road congestion together by bypassing the flat, straight, rapid road that also got an upgrade at <a href="https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/a14-cambridge-to-huntingdon/about-the-scheme/">a greater cost than the initially projected entire planned lifespan of Greater Cambridge.</a> </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Oh, and if they don't get this going and get the money spent (crumbs from the table relative to what the Highways Agency has shovelled into a road that's already becoming unfit for purpose as congestion increases) then the government <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/27/nhs-test-and-trace-failed-its-main-objective-says-spending-watchdog" target="_blank">will probably take the cash back so they can embezzle it and give it to their mates.</a> </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>So is it really that bad?</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Yes, it really is. There is no modern mass transit system on offer, there's a trivially lower bus fare than congestion charge. Oh, yeah, and the money they've got will be spent paying bus subsidies in the short term, then the congestion charge comes in after the next couple of rounds of local elections, and then everyone will for reasons unknown get the bus rather than drive and that's it. There are some changes to road utilisation in the City that might give some better space for cycling, but if you tell me you believe for sure that'll happen and councillors won't kick those back into long grass <a href="https://twitter.com/C_residentsgrp">to avoid upsetting the blue rinsed pro car</a> brigade then I suggest that someone responsible needs to take your scissors away.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Wait... The charge comes in after more local elections?</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Oh, yes. And yes, you're right, the Tories are usually in charge of Cambridgeshire County Council, and this scheme would need to get them on-side after that election if they do take control again. It just so happens that last time they were in charge of the County they were so rubbish that an uneasy coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Independent councillors united only by not being Tory currently runs the County. But for that to continue on would be astonishing, especially when the Tories lose the next general election as they seem intent on doing. Last time the Tories lost sole control of the County, it was UKIP did the damage. This isn't a county with a progressive alliance waiting to hold the reins long term, sadly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>But there's a Labour mayor?</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Aye, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-past-the-post-to-be-introduced-for-all-local-mayoral-and-police-and-crime-commissioner-elections">but probably not for long</a>. Honestly, I like Nik, he seems ok to me, and I hope his well publicised recent health issues work out and he makes a full, spectacular recovery. And he's better than the last mayor. But without the County, even if we don't get a Tory mayor next time (and we likely will) this scheme is still in danger. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>So what happens when the Tories take over</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">That's the elephant in the room that nobody will address. We already know they're sceptical. <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveCount">Go look at Steve Counts twitter feed, it's full of this stuff and it varies from conspiracy theory level nonsense to just plain rejection of the scheme.</a> There's an evens chance he's back in the County Council cabinet within 5 years, and that's before a penny of the congestion charge is ever collected. We know the Tories have previously cut subsidy to rural buses. We know they'll do it again. Their whole transport policy has always centred around securing car access for happily married web toed fenland cousins to careen into Cambridge as fast as they can. Remember, the last Mayors big plan was to dual the A10. at massive cost - that'll come back as a scheme, most likely, when the next Tory takes over.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Bluntly, if they don't support this, why won't they do that again? Why is it you think this scheme is Tory proof? And if it isn't, how does it ever deliver?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>What's the alternative?</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I reject the notion that I need to come up with an alternative to a scheme that's rather likely to fail all on its own. But as you've asked...</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ol><li>Commit to gold standard cycle infrastructure on or parallel to all routes in and out of Cambridge.</li><li>A continuous cycle route from Cambridge to Ely, incorporating access to settlements <i>en route</i> e.g. the new Waterbeach development.</li><li>A continuous cycle route to Newmarket, it's really not far, likewise incorporating access to settlements <i>en route.</i></li><li>Start building a rapid transit scheme. When built, light rail is cheaper to operate than buses, and once spending is sunk into it, it's much harder for a future council to cut it. It's also something that people actually might want to use. Lets face it, you use a bus when you must, you never do it because you enjoy getting the bus.</li><li>Make some changes to the congestion charge zone scheme. Talk about discounts for those driving out rather than in, or make it a timed thing (if you're driving for 10 minutes to drop someone at the hospital, should that really be the same cost as someone driving into the city and around all day?).</li><li>Commit to profits from the congestion charge being spent on sustainable infrastructure, both rapid transit and active transport. Shall we say, for the first 20 years, 70% to a rapid transit system, 30% to active transport?</li></ol><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Look, it's this simple. The scheme as presented now has little chance of surviving. In the name of all that is holy, go back to the drawing board and get it right this time. </p>Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-67570125492950490952019-07-18T21:49:00.001+01:002019-07-18T21:49:15.563+01:00'Weaving in and out of traffic'<div style="text-align: justify;">
Is there a phrase or term in psychology or sociology for a phenomenon whereby the mechanism by which a minority copes with a hostile environment created by a majority is as a result demonised?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I ask because I can't think of a better way of describing how people get so very angry about us 'weaving in and out' of traffic.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I mean its a <a href="https://twitter.com/haveabeermate/status/1149222557238857730" target="_blank">constant complaint</a>. You see it literally <a href="https://twitter.com/licenced2grill/status/1149215917575954433" target="_blank">all of the time</a>. And its a senseless, stupid thing to say. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm addressing this mostly at you, motons. Here's the problem - there's traffic and it isn't going anywhere. Its probably not going anywhere at all, although its just possible that it just isn't going anywhere fast. And while I have a certain amount of sympathy for you stuck in the ceaseless, smoke belching, global warming creating traffic prisons of your own devising, I don't care enough for your problems suffer the same fate. I mean, yeah, I get it, you don't want to be there. I don't want you to be there either, what you're doing is delusional and irresponsible and you should be fucking ashamed. But I don't immediately get why that should be my problem.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So I'll go around the right of your car. If there isn't room on that side, I'll go around the left of your car. I mean I'd rather you all just got together and choose which side to leave us space on, but you stubbornly won't do that so I've sometimes got to go around on the right and then switch to the left. I should once again point out I can only do this when you're not (or at most barely) moving. Otherwise I can't do it, but then again if you're actually moving I don't need to. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And yet, despite the fact that you, the motorists, created the problem, I mean you created the only problem here, the one you're suffering from, <a href="https://twitter.com/RemKenlock/status/1060249134974861312" target="_blank">you're angry with me</a>? I ask you, fairly and honestly, just whats fucking wrong with you?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There seems to be a set of unwritten rules among motorists that you're somehow all in it together and its the same for everyone. But for some reason you think it applies to those of us who aren't contributing to the problem? Why? Why is it you require, for your own happiness, that you drag us down into the same shit you're suffering with?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Is this just some fundamental principle of out-group psychology? I mean I can see parallels in how the coping strategies of other groups just looking to get by when people are giving them a hard time. Although here I think it might be different in that we aren't just surviving motons shit, we're doing better than them because they can't get their shit together. Because they've created a road environment that fucks everyone, but mostly themselves, and we're able to get through it, are they primarily angry out of sheer jealousy?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The truth is, I think, that they're angry and we're visible. We're a minority seen to be transgressing the rule that we've all got to be miserable as fuck and wasting time, money and resources polluting the planet and not getting anywhere.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In truth all motorists need to do in the situation where we're 'weaving in and out between traffic' is go and fuck themselves. Bluntly. They made the roads this way, all we're doing is making the world a bit better. </div>
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-42695648883100801392019-07-17T13:19:00.003+01:002022-06-30T16:35:17.443+01:00Jumping Red Lights - when and why I do it<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of the constant bellyaches from cyclist haters and idiot victim blamers is red light jumping. The idea that in some strange way a Moron sees another cyclist who isn't you jumping a red light and that's why they give you a hard time when they see you afterwards. Its nonsense, as anyone who has read any psychology at all will be able to explain.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But at the core of this is the idea that we must not ever jump red lights. only an idiot would say that we should ignore traffic signals. But to maintain that we must <i>never </i>jump a red light goes beyond idiocy and into suicidal stupidity. From a cosy, closeted view that never sees the world without windscreen wipers and a rear view mirror in the way its easy to pretend this is an absolute principle but don't be fooled, it isn't. At some stage when out on a bicycle you too will jump a red light for a valid and fair reason. The road network is so given over to dangerous motorists that by obeying the rules we can be put into extreme danger if we don't.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I don't intend to produce an exhaustive list of reasons, I'm only listing those that come to mind for why I sometimes have to go through a red light. Feel free to add as many more reasons as you like in the comments. But I am going to go through the times and reasons I sometimes go through red lights. tl;dr version: because I don't want to die.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
...because a driver behind is going to kill me if I don't</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is one of the most common reasons, and it will be familiar to many of you. You're heading down the road at a fairly decent lick, probably covering your brakes because there's a light ahead of you and it could change. It goes amber with plenty of time for you to stop at the red light. But there's a car accelerating behind you, and from the sound of it you know the driver isn't planning to stop. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You've got two choices. Stop and <i>hope </i>the driver behind won't kill you, or keep going and <i>know </i>that he's not going to kill you. Go through the red light and survive or hit the brakes and, with any luck, the driver behind is aware enough to stop. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've lost track of the number of times I've run a red light this way. It must be dozens, if not hundreds of times. And on every single occasion the car behind followed through on red - I've never mistakenly gone through a red light to avoid being run over and for the car driver behind to demonstrate that no, he wasn't willing going to kill me.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm not going to die under someone's car wheels just to stubbornly be right about obeying the law.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
...because its understood by motorists that I should</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are some junctions here where if I don't go through a red light and cross the road on my bike on the pedestrian phase, drivers waiting behind become positively hostile. The best local example is the junction of Arbury Road, Union Lane and Milton Road, a four way intersection with lights for all ways on and a pedestrian phase. And almost every cyclist held up at the lights goes on the pedestrian phase, if the lights haven't favoured them sooner.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Is this naughty? Sort of. Its harmless, the space to ride across is safe enough, but you're still jumping a red light. The question really is, why not wait for your own green phase? I invite you to try it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You see, the cyclists going on red aren't holding any of the motorists up. If you wait for green then anyone in a car behind you IS (in their flawed opinion) held up for a few moments while you get away. Whereas all the other cyclists who headed off before you, through the red light, haven't held them up. Which exposes the cyclist waiting for a green light to hostility from ignorant motons who just won't have it that they need to wait their turn to get through. I've had some horrendous encounters at that junction because I've obeyed the law. The end result? I'm not waiting at a red light just to put up with some half wit threatening me for doing so. I'm going off with the other cyclists who don't suffer the implicit threat of murder under the angry wheels of an idiot. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
...because the road is designed without regard to cycling</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is another one best shown by example. If you're riding on Victoria Avenue in Cambridge towards Mitcham's Corner, you will most likely find yourself wanting to get off the road and on to the cycle route and shared crossings across the junction. Reasonable enough, its a shorter, faster, and less hostile route that doesn't require you to take the very centre of a lane of traffic to prevent motons encroaching on you from both sides. You get to the red light, but unless you're lucky and the bike box doesn't have a car in it you're left on the left kerb needing to cross a stream of cars to get where you're going. And they've only got a short light phase to get into the junction, they're not going to stop and let you past. Its not bad if you hit the junction on a green light and can get straight through - but that never happens.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Your other option is to go around the outside of the cars, through the red light, and straight on to the off road facility. Yes, its designed so badly that without breaking the law the safer cycle facility is inaccessible unless you go through the red light.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I mean I could ignore the cycle route and ride in completely the wrong lane holding my right arm out to cross two lanes of traffic hoping someone lets me out (they won't) to go the long way around a hostile road junction, that for once motons will show the slightest bit of respect to a cyclist there (they won't). But for the sake of going through a red light and breaking the law for all of about a yard of distance, screw that. I'll go the safer way.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
...because the bike box is full</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We've all seen this one. You're passing a long stream of car traffic to get to an advance stop box for cyclists, but when you get there its full of car drivers. You have the choice of waiting to their left (and if they'll turn left through you, you'll die), on their right (if there's space, but there won't be - and if they turn right through you, you'll die) or in front of them on the other side of the white line. Illegal, but visible and safer. I mean yeah, I could just legally wait in a stupid place and die, but that's not going to happen is it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
...because a lorry has pulled alongside </h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By far the biggest killer of cyclists is large vehicles turning left through them. Many savages in the press like to blame cyclists for this, but most often if you find yourself in this situation its because as soon as the cab of the lorry has pulled alongside you the driver just forgets you were there, and then you're in danger. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If a lorry pulls alongside me at a red light, or even right up behind me to put me into his blind spot, I'm not going to wait there just to prove a point. I'm going to ride forward until I can comfortably make eye contact with the driver, and I'm going to make sure he's seen me. I'm not going to get myself killed just to win moton brownie points by not jumping the red light. I didn't design the road in such a way as to make it potentially lethal to me - you're going to have to put up with me adapting my behaviour to make myself safer. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
...because the sensor hasn't seen me</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thankfully this is less common than it was, but it still happens. You ride to a light that is meant to be triggered by a vehicle on top of it, and you wait. Maybe other lights change and other people get a phase, but you don't. And you realise that maybe its your alloy bike, or you've maybe not lined your ride up on the right part of the road sensor. So you shuffle about a bit, and the lights change for other people again, and it becomes apparent you're going nowhere.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm not going to wait there all night in hope. I'm going to wait until I can see its safe and I'll ride on. I don't see I've got any other choice.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
...to make space for an emergency vehicle</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A while back I was approaching the red light at the end of Bridge Street, with heavy traffic on the other side of the road blocking that lane all the way around the corner. I heard a siren, glanced back, there was a police car coming. I went past the knot of pedestrians on the pavement, through the red light, and hopped the bike onto a quiet bit of pavement I could see ahead before waving the police car through.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Amazingly someone on the other side of the road stormed out through the heavy traffic on the other side, waving a walking stick at me and yelling for going through the lights and being on the pavement. I think you'll agree it takes a very special kind of dick head to argue its better to block emergency vehicles than to go through a red light.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
...because someone is threatening me</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So you've had someone yelling abuse at you on the road, and there's a red light ahead. You don't want to face continued hostility, and you don't see any reason they should be allowed to project their own inadequacies <i>via</i>. the medium of a car engine and the relentless gleaming metal and glass box they're in. You get to the red light, they're stuck in traffic. Be honest - why the hell wouldn't you ride through and get out of their sight if you can? You aren't obliged to put up with someone abusing you and threatening you, and if you need to take the law into your own hands to escape them? I won't argue against that.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So there you have it - my short list of reasons I've broken the law and gone through red lights. I know, it is an inconvenient truth that on a hostile road network we are forced to sometimes bend or even break the rules to avoid being killed by the idiots who the rules are set up to control. But there it is - I'm not spending time recovering in hospital because I want to demonstrate how virtuous we can be, and I'm not having it that going through a red light in any circumstances where I'm putting myself at greater risk if I don't do so is wrong. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bluntly I suggest that anyone telling you otherwise should be invited to take a long walk off a short pier. You don't have to take their shit. </div>
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-5624571520033506422019-07-12T12:44:00.003+01:002019-07-12T12:44:40.609+01:00Cambridge Transport Policy - How NOT to do local government.<i>Sadly I'm going to have to split this up into multiple blog posts. There's too much to absorb in one go, and its a developing situation changing very rapidly. A friend of a friend of a friend suggests that there have been some leaks from some of the authorities listed below that will be hitting the web in a few weeks time - so the state of things is currently fluid. Stick with me, please.</i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cambridge is often heralded as unique in Britain, in that more people cycle here than elsewhere. And thats certainly true, although the numbers aren't as great as some would have you believe. In my view thats only one of the many ways this city is different to the rest of the UK. There is also strong evidence that we have the worst local government stratification in the country, and that this is completely ruining any hope of ever having an effective transport policy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To explain why, one must look at the organisations involved. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The City itself is operated by <a href="http://cambridge%20city%20council/" target="_blank">Cambridge City Council</a>. Its currently Labour run although as things stand its hard to know whether that majority is safe going forward, especially with coming boundary changes. When you drill down into it you find that the local Labour party is as divided as it is everywhere else - we've got hard red Trots like Dave Baigent and Kevin Price (I can make a case for him being the second worst councillor Cambridge has ever had), essentially they're hard nosed Corbynistas, and we have <a href="https://twitter.com/gnomeicide/status/958427935668568064" target="_blank">notorious</a> cyclist <a href="https://twitter.com/gnomeicide/status/580677212623499264" target="_blank">haters</a> like <a href="https://twitter.com/RTaylorUK/status/1004295321399316481" target="_blank">Gerri Bird</a>, all the way to pragmatic modernists like Carina O'Reilly. And this has bubbled over into petty deselections of councillors to apparently balance the wings of the party. The idea they might have a unified or intelligent transport policy is extremely far fetched.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But in a way that barely matters because the transport authority is the <a href="https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/" target="_blank">County Council</a>. And that authority is made up of a few labour and liberal democrat councillors mostly from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, but is dominated by a comfortable majority of red in the face Tory fruitcakes representing rural and fenland constituencies where a monkey with a blue rosette would win. So thats who they put up, the most frothing at the mouth, swivel eyed, nasty Tory who passes muster with the local associations seemingly more interested in the petty hurt they can inflict by executing Tory dogma than anything else. Until recently the only challenge they faced was UKIP, so now they're effectively unopposed. If they have any interest in Cambridge at all its how to fleece us for council tax to then spend giving immigrants a harder time in the Fens, and how they can maintain car access for hate filled geriatrics who had their souls sucked out by Thatcher. Suggestions to them that cycling and walking are important is likely to get you shot through the lungs. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then we have <a href="https://www.scambs.gov.uk/" target="_blank">South Cambridgeshire</a>. That was a Tory stronghold but spectacular mismanagement gave the Liberal Democrats a way in. So far they haven't done much - in itself sufficient reason for cynicism, and they've really flopped when faced with intransigent road engineers who are making a right royal mess of the arterial road through their area. But they're there. And thats as much as we can say for them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And lastly there's <a href="https://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/" target="_blank">East Cambridgeshire</a>, a council <a href="https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/pressure-grows-on-east-cambs-council-to-lift-parade-ban-1-6134310" target="_blank">so ineffective it fights over folk festival parades</a>. Its a bizarrely run, car-centric place in which an unsustainable free parking in the historic city of Ely means that you can neither walk nor breath safely there. At least its Tory/Libdem contest, but as its a contest fought for control of a freakishly car dependent part of the county I hold out no hope of any improvement. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So four different local government bodies all with their own transport priorities? Oh, no. We're not done. Not by a long way.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Because having at least two, even three layers of local government in each location wasn't enough, our local councillors agreed with central government to have a <a href="https://cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/about-us/mayor/" target="_blank">directly elected mayor</a> who covering the needs of the frothing at the mouth UKIP fenlanders, the cosmopolitan and complex city of Peterborough, and the professors of Cambridge who can show mathematical proof of Plancks constant but if you boil carrots and potatoes in the same pan it blows their minds. Big ask - squaring the circle of a bus and train city, the nations cycling capital and a county that would render down their own children for another gallon of diesel.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The mayor is and will, as far as we can see, always be a Tory - which upsets the Labour/Libdem City of Cambridge. <a href="https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/mayor-james-palmers-plan-to-appoint-joint-chief-executives-sparks-a-war-of-words-with-cambridge-city-council-leader-9071145/" target="_blank">And because its so safe its very prone to cronyism</a>, with the rate at which the mayor shovels cash into the coffers of his mates <a href="https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/huge-severance-payment-for-combined-authority-chief-executive-revealed-9050003/" target="_blank">seemingly showing now bounds</a>. They Mayor has plans for reforming our transport in the city, but he'll probably just blow all his cash on posh headquarters and severance pay.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And last, but oh my gosh no means least, because things weren't complicated enough and we weren't blowing enough cash on 5 layers of squabbling local government (district or city council, possibly a parish council area, the mayoral authority, county council and of course the elected police commissioner) we also have a massive body of good old fashioned quangos shoveling money into endless consultations but very little solid infrastructure work. It was called Cambridge Cit Deal but that became so toxic they renamed it <a href="https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/" target="_blank">Greater Cambridge</a> - yeah, they say its because that was more inclusive, so at best the rebranding might seem convenient. And they have their own plans and views, and ever more absurd and peculiar ways of feigning democratic mandate for an entirely un-elected body.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Needless to say, this city doesn't have a transport policy, nor a coherent development policy. We're a hub for economic growth and in a very short time the city has grown beyond all expectations, and continues to expand. And at the top? More of a bun-fight than an authority. The Mayoral plan is different to Greater Cambridge, which isn't reflected by what the County wants, and the City don't agree with any of that. While the Districts have their own priorities too.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What a mess. What a pity. What a monstrous waste of resources, having endless overlapping consultations from needlessly repeated local government positions. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'll go on to detail how plans of the City Deal and the Mayoral authority differ (and indeed why each is, independently, pathetic) in future posts. But for now, I can conclude that there is no way that the current system can work. Strip away all but two of these layers of government, divide the total number of councillors by 3 and make that a full time job. It would be cheaper, faster, comprehensible, and might actually get something done. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-75195883819975675722019-07-08T17:03:00.003+01:002019-07-08T17:09:04.885+01:00Arbury Road - Camcycles inexplicable love affair with Greater Cambridge?<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the last couple of years <a href="https://www.camcycle.org.uk/" target="_blank">Cambridge Cycling Campaign</a> (often quaintly and trendily known by their twitter handle, <a href="https://twitter.com/camcycle" target="_blank">Camcycle</a>) have been, on the whole, better than they were. While there has been the occasional <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2016/10/no-camcycle-gritting-cycle-paths-isnt.html" target="_blank">weird outburst</a>, and their rabid enthusiasm for the <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2012/09/the-chisolm-trail-great-idea-that-but.html" target="_blank">underwhelming eponymous trail </a>remains peculiar, they have at least no longer got a <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2014/07/cambridge-cycling-campaign-new.html?q=rosenstiel" target="_blank">convicted child assaulter</a> on the committee, and I've talked to Robin (still their chair, I believe) about the support Martin gave for the <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2012/10/gilbert-road-revisited.html?q=gilbert" target="_blank">crap facility on Gilbert Road</a>,and he didn't get it either. There are some excellent, committed, positive people there who deserve our appreciation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/news-opinion/robin-heydon-column-cambridgeshire-live-16546743" target="_blank">So what the heck is he going on about here</a>? Why did he choose this pooch to screw?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All I can think is that he didn't really know Arbury Road, or how people rode in this part of town, before the new lane was constructed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOjOzzNO9esJmGU5BhtEiCfqc4ste_hPtifHO1gnIOqnI-Z7ihgoWZfDEPNiwJG1q4P8aN2l1QsZWoOqY0UgMn_RbhpzP50PtuyqecDoK9EEUknyi-4JeFbbylshpOfCToc4LE2uR86oTF/s1600/IMG_20190607_114407.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOjOzzNO9esJmGU5BhtEiCfqc4ste_hPtifHO1gnIOqnI-Z7ihgoWZfDEPNiwJG1q4P8aN2l1QsZWoOqY0UgMn_RbhpzP50PtuyqecDoK9EEUknyi-4JeFbbylshpOfCToc4LE2uR86oTF/s320/IMG_20190607_114407.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ocado delivery driver dangerous to cyclist and pedestrians</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The background - Arbury Road is the oldest named route in the City, connecting Chesterton to Arbury Camp, which has had some occupation since the neolithic era. And since Orchard Park was built there the site has culturally reverted to that state. It is, like many roads derived from old drove ways, long and mostly straight, the result being that many choose to drive far to fast on it. The modern road can be divided into two main sections. South of Campkin Road it is fast, narrow, with parked cars all the way down one side and occasionally blocking the pavement on the other side too, essentially limiting it to two very close streams of vehicles with no room for safely overtaking cyclists. Not that this stops them. And North of Campkin Road, it isn't much wider but there is (and has always been) a hedge down one side and little parking on road on the other.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
City Deal (sorry, that name had become so toxic they renamed themselves <a href="https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/" target="_blank">Greater Cambridge</a>) has existed in a constant state of existential crisis since it was founded, needing to find ways of shovelling cash into schemes as fast as possible. Hence it has wasted no time in throwing money into shovel ready schemes and the black hole of consultation. And it noticed that building a cycle lane on the North end of Arbury Road would be relatively uncontroversial. So they did.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And... Well, where it is, it isn't bad. If you came at this without knowing this party of the city at all you might think this was great. You would look at the kids riding on this new lane and think its a revelation. But thats incredibly naive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiStw2EsGRmQgTiy6f1jgbFYMAuHFxC0eIWrAL7Zw4iJkKSJ73_BkeT0z0lvvUG3drYOSg9-Mho7enkNXpbaD2-Z_VtA7R0N5Gh84zXLTRLDuLJYyc3SeV0ycJ6ysTrztj4yCJUvhbwxm2f/s1600/IMG_20190708_144322.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiStw2EsGRmQgTiy6f1jgbFYMAuHFxC0eIWrAL7Zw4iJkKSJ73_BkeT0z0lvvUG3drYOSg9-Mho7enkNXpbaD2-Z_VtA7R0N5Gh84zXLTRLDuLJYyc3SeV0ycJ6ysTrztj4yCJUvhbwxm2f/s320/IMG_20190708_144322.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One of the multiple off road routes parallel to the new lane</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The reality in Kings Hedges is that the estate was built at the end of the 1960s in a tremendously forward thinking, progressive way. It was made difficult to drive through the estate but easy to walk or ride, with the result being that a lot of journeys within the estate are made on foot or by bicycle. Conversely no attention was paid to this in much of the rest of the city, meaning that places like Kings Hedges that are great to ride around <i>in</i> are terrible to ride of <i>to</i> anywhere else. The result? You see plenty of kids riding to school within the estate, people riding or walking to the local shops or park, but the rate for commuting by bike is lower than in other parts of the city. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And true to form Greater Cambridge ignored this. They ignored the simple means by which the same scheme <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2014/11/improvements-in-kings-hedges-and-arbury.html" target="_blank">could have been delivered cheaper, faster, with less disruption, with less ecological damage and with a better end result</a>. Because that didn't fit the bill of spending enough money to secure the next tranche of government funding. And what we now have is a highly visible route that accomplishes next to nothing for those who live in Kings Hedges or indeed anyone else. </div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGGxYRVcitt3gx5Gs2UXPXgM2KXaJ7zmMC9CeV7egP9vu-gLUtK0tWjgRrCKn1K8GZWlj9sp6REYFFnCkjm7sB_MieX3vWJKxYHa6lyc1jcE5EsXFtED_I8waqvhjFwywj2Y8tzsdcJBKE/s1600/IMG_20190708_142417.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGGxYRVcitt3gx5Gs2UXPXgM2KXaJ7zmMC9CeV7egP9vu-gLUtK0tWjgRrCKn1K8GZWlj9sp6REYFFnCkjm7sB_MieX3vWJKxYHa6lyc1jcE5EsXFtED_I8waqvhjFwywj2Y8tzsdcJBKE/s320/IMG_20190708_142417.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bus stop filled around one minute from every 10</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In itself, it isn't bad. In parts. I mean if you ignore the fact that the two bus stops are used by a service that is due every 10 minutes, meaning that for about 10% of the time during the day its actively dangerous. And that there is no physical separation so that delivery vehicles are, all through most week days, blocking either the pavement or the cycle lane. But it doesn't take you anywhere. The primary school already had good provision, and the new cycle lane stops before you get to the part of the road thats most dangerous.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would say that Greater Cambridges decision to build this white elephant of a scheme that will not increase the total uptake of cycling in the City but may in fact only get people out of the estate and on to the main road is deeply cynical, and that is clearly demonstrated by the fact that where you actually need protection the cycle route disappears. In theory you might turn right, head through the older estate and ride to town there, but of course if you're heading to the Beehive Centre or any of the shopping or employment locations on Newmarket Road the scheme is valueless. The <a href="https://youtu.be/HzJZvO7DCv4" target="_blank">truly terrifying</a> part of <a href="http://qtf1cj_e828/" target="_blank">Arbury Road</a> has been left entirely untouched by this - no one who was dissuaded by the traffic on the North end of Arbury Road will be persuaded to brave the much worse traffic on the Southern half.<br />
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1Lc5SAe5SnqrVuA7iBqm6398t33PxhyphenhyphensgFkDeVFHBlqwvY3JGuQYb5ctQ6-L-ZtPcXxwKcRVp70XKuSezAEl0ftUcrXzzY4CuRiV5j3T_tuPB0_7xFR55ZCkcZ5JNuaphrDB5TAbXHaow/s1600/IMG_20190708_143452.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1Lc5SAe5SnqrVuA7iBqm6398t33PxhyphenhyphensgFkDeVFHBlqwvY3JGuQYb5ctQ6-L-ZtPcXxwKcRVp70XKuSezAEl0ftUcrXzzY4CuRiV5j3T_tuPB0_7xFR55ZCkcZ5JNuaphrDB5TAbXHaow/s320/IMG_20190708_143452.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Cycle lane ends - at the worst possible place</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course its possible that you might be heading North from Kings Hedges towards Orchard Park, or up on to the Guided Bus Route to go to the Science Park. Well, the latter is unlikely, as its the wrong direction and we've another more direct route (<a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2013/12/the-great-cycle-route-that-isnt-part-1.html" target="_blank">that could really do with an upgrade</a>) if you work there. So you're presumably heading to the A14 bridge, going to Histon or Cottenham, or just up to the hotel on Orchard Park? Its an odd one but lets humour that idea. You ride up Arbury Road heading North and you see some good facilities - the new crossing, for example, is good... </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOIfeU7N9sUrsUGjmJXXSocG1bF9_jMToniXvXeX5Zn4SVu98qcPED_WgqNmzIc-vr4uSi2ShqNvo-4OP_XS3zNLq-jwgCyR4z_1hCxjtg2f_RSi_rAPQNcml9oSLpR6vB4mX021mh1EUv/s1600/IMG_20190708_143758.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOIfeU7N9sUrsUGjmJXXSocG1bF9_jMToniXvXeX5Zn4SVu98qcPED_WgqNmzIc-vr4uSi2ShqNvo-4OP_XS3zNLq-jwgCyR4z_1hCxjtg2f_RSi_rAPQNcml9oSLpR6vB4mX021mh1EUv/s320/IMG_20190708_143758.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And then you end up at the end of Arbury Road, the junction with Kings Hedges Road. Where you're meant to do what, exactly? Well there's a shared use facility off to the Left there heading off up Kings Hedges Road. Its crap and gives way to the side roads without any sensible signage, of course. Or you can go straight across acres of hostile car dominated tarmac without any specific cycling provision at all. Its like someone vomited all the bad ideas they had on one junction, it has nothing to commend it. Or you could go right where there's a shared use route to cut the corner on to Kings Hedges Road which is, in that direction, lethally dangerous. I genuinely don't know what they have in mind that we should do here - are we just meant to disappear because there isn't a cycle route any more? Kings Hedges Road at this point has four hostile lanes for fast cars with motorists mentally preparing for or coming down from the 70mph high of the A14. They aren't looking for cyclists, few ever want to ride on or across it. </div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHCfGGB0VS5w4lQDypnEk9FguVc76TBF2NgjouAL2V2NgYWuePjnSMrbPHK3k7vApuTEJIQ1BMgDHDgBMTYP1mER0LWmtTW2Z2tD_bHk0MNGir4Rm6mohldaqOed3FtLUqgitdN0RK5jP-/s1600/IMG_20190708_143949.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHCfGGB0VS5w4lQDypnEk9FguVc76TBF2NgjouAL2V2NgYWuePjnSMrbPHK3k7vApuTEJIQ1BMgDHDgBMTYP1mER0LWmtTW2Z2tD_bHk0MNGir4Rm6mohldaqOed3FtLUqgitdN0RK5jP-/s320/IMG_20190708_143949.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">End of Arbury Road. Well? Now what?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Robin old chap, you've done some good stuff with Camcycle. But if you think this scheme is good you've been suckered. Its a pointless scheme that won't get anyone new cycling, it'll just get some of the people who were already riding to ride on a slightly different route. It doesn't do enough to make whole journeys better, and by concentrating on the (relatively) good section of the road instead of the brutally hazardous end, this is merely a cynical way of digging holes to pour money into them. No one whose journey was bad has now got a good enough journey as a result of this cynical scheme. I lament that you've been taken in by this. You should know better.</div>
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-20309774983228083292019-05-16T13:03:00.001+01:002019-05-16T13:03:27.274+01:00Cambridgeshire Police - Don't Expect Them to Police Motorists<div style="text-align: justify;">
So this happened. I took this picture at about quarter past eight this morning.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVmahwvcDjmhzADaXSD2HJixJt-dAMz5D8kgV2gbsuHPDU2VsjrpFehXxB6jYGIm2JyPpM2_nL073VY6v1xr30IgLCB29XbRalbDxrG0pbW_33uav3gaOTFdju8VO4pCg6yAo1r-0arncW/s1600/IMG_20190516_082517.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVmahwvcDjmhzADaXSD2HJixJt-dAMz5D8kgV2gbsuHPDU2VsjrpFehXxB6jYGIm2JyPpM2_nL073VY6v1xr30IgLCB29XbRalbDxrG0pbW_33uav3gaOTFdju8VO4pCg6yAo1r-0arncW/s400/IMG_20190516_082517.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
You wouldn't get a pram down the side there, or any kind of walking aid. Frankly it would be hard to get down there with just a walking stick and anyone with any kind of visual impairment would be scuppered. It isn't OK to park like that - ideally they shouldn't be parked on the pavement at all, but if they really must then they need to leave enough space for people to safely get past. There are cars parked on the other side, but they're further on - here the police car could have been entirely on the road. It would take more care and time to park carefully behind another vehicle and on the pavement than to park on the road, so if this was any kind of emergency then parking like this is an approach that sucks.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
I decided to call 101 and tell them, they told me maybe they're responding to an emergency, and I said yeah, clearly this wasn't how you'd park if there was an emergency, it would be much faster parking on the road. Then they put me through to whoever it needed to be and I queued, I waited, and got through to someone. They took the details down and said they're record it as a complaint against the Police. Which isn't right - I'm reporting a crime, I want it recorded as a crime, not a complaint. My reasoning was simple - if this was a plumbers van and I phoned the Police, it would be treated as an incident thats perhaps a crime, not as a complaint to the plumbing company. I don't think the Police necessarily have to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, but clearly they have to be held to the same standard. The officer said they'd put me through to someone else, the phone rang again, I went on hold, then it went dead.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
I called back and basically had the same discussions again, which ended in the line going dead. Again. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Long story short (too late, I know), they required that if I don't agree about this being a complaint against the Police rather than a report about a crime, then I need to raise a complaint about that. So I did, and was told they'd call me back about that. Thats four hours ago now. The line randomly went dead three times trying to get this done and multiple officers flat out refused to accept that this should be treated as a crime that needs investigating.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Bluntly all I'm asking for is for the Police to be treated exactly the same as anyone else. If they park a car blocking the pavement such that a visually impaired, physically disabled person or someone with a pram can't get past then thats out of line. Thats not a police complaint, its something that needs investigating and handling in exactly the same way as it would be if its anyone else.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The Police are not above the law. But in being the prime organisation jobbed with enforcing the law its very clear that they think they ARE above the law. I find that really very sinister - they think that the answer to this is to go and ask the officers in question for an excuse. That can't be right - can it?</div>
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-29344631695986853402019-05-09T15:45:00.001+01:002019-05-09T15:45:23.410+01:00Camcycle Local Election Survey (belated response) - Independent!Sam Davies stood for election to Cambridge City Council as an independent recently, and did really well. With next years elections here being for all council seats, due to boundary changes, she's a very good chance of winning a seat next time round in Queen Ediths, so when she asked me to look through her responses to the Cambridge Cycling Campaign survey I was happy to do so.<br />
<br />
I'm going to treat Sam the same as I've treated everyone else - with as much or as little bitchy sarcasm as I feel like. So, lets have a look at her responses...<br />
<br />
Her experiences cycling here, those of her family, and fears for younger/older riders...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Where do I start? The adults in the family have been cycle commuters in the city for 30 years, plus enjoying cycle touring holidays in Europe, the USA, the Nullarbor Desert in Australia and the Sahara! Our children were on bikes early, for trips to school, fun days out and then racing - MTB, cyclocross, road and track, they tried them all. These experiences have given them a degree of independence and confidence which is fantastic to watch.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
However, in terms of concerns about cycling with younger children, I have several: <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />- the intermittent nature of infrastructure - for example, coming back to Queen Edith's from town there is a gap between the signalled crossing outside Highsett and the lane which starts after Station Road, and then another gap in the stretch leading up to the Brookgate crossing. That's pretty hairy when you're cycling with small children. <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />- inadequate shared provision on high volume routes (eg Long Road, Brooklands Avenue). I lobbied the County Council in 2013 and got them to finance £155k of improvements to Long Road, but when you think that it provides the East-West access to Long Road Sixth Form College, CAST, the Biomedical Campus and Trumpington Community College, you quickly realise the quality is completely inadequate to the importance of the task it performs.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />- the density of bikes. pedestrians and motorised vehicles competing for space in the city centre. Children are just not as aware of the possibility of pedestrians unexpectedly stepping off pavements or a car cutting in front of them at a crossing.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
These and other factors can make it a bit of an ordeal when children are in the 'training' phase. It's worth persevering but it did involve quite a lot of nervous wear and tear on my part at times ...</div>
</blockquote>
Thats a really exhaustive answer and it touches on specific issues in her ward (Queen Ediths) and its all fair enough. I would only suggest that it all really comes down to one thing - infrastructure. Is there enough and is what there is good enough. Nothing at all to disagree with here - but maybe the answer to what the main problems are is just simpler than the candidate is putting her finger on.<br />
<br />
Anyway, the next question - seeing as more people cycling is a good thing for all sorts of reasons, what would she do to get more people out on their bikes. And its another detailed answer:<br />
<br />
<table class="lines questions" style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 1.2em 0px 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: auto;"><tbody style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<tr class="queenediths_independent" style="border-bottom-color: initial; border-bottom-style: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(233, 233, 233); border-top-style: solid; border-width: 1px 0px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td class="key" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(233, 233, 233); border-image: initial; border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 1em 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 6px 4px 2px; vertical-align: top;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: bold; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></blockquote>
</td><td style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(233, 233, 233); border-image: initial; border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 1em 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 6px 4px 2px; vertical-align: top;"><div style="border: none; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I sometimes worry that we make the narrative around cycling rather too much focussed on the practical and the worthy (or worse still the hair-shirt) side of the equation, and not enough about enjoying yourself. Ever since I first joined CamCycle back in the 1990s, I've felt we've been missing a trick by not allying the organisation more closely with sports cycling groups. This is particularly true for young people - I honestly believe that if you can make cycling seem like a fun sport, then the bike handling skills, the heightened awareness of what's around them, and the willingness to just jump on a bike all pay dividends when it comes to the day-to-day stuff. And think about the galvanizing effect that bringing the Tour de France to Cambridge had. Bristol uses its annual 'car-free' event to host a morning of competitive races, followed by an afternoon mass-participation ride around the same route: https://www.bristol247.com/sport/cycling/looking-forward-day-cycling-car-free-streets/ We should be investigating these opportunities for cross-fertilisation more.</div>
<div style="border: none; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Of course you need to then support this increased enthusiasm with the necessary infrastructure to provide a good experience for cyclists of all ages and abilities *and levels of experience*. Crucially you need to catch people as soon as they move to the city. We should encourage the estate agents who operate here to place much higher emphasis on cycling connectivity in their marketing materials, for example. We could also identify cycling 'champions' on new developments who could then help other new residents work out their best routes when they move in. There are lots of creative ways we could do this.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Lots to think about there, and I'll confess I'm rather taken aback by being made to actually think by reasoned, interesting views being put forward in response to this survey.<br /><br />The only thing I'd really change there is I'd flip it around. We know from around the world that the only thing that leads to an increase in mass cycling is better infrastructure - thats the first message to get across, and I always worry when a candidate starts talking about soft measures to encourage before talking about infrastructure. I'm right behind the idea of car-free days and trying to inspire people with sport, but thats a supplementary measure. Heck, I can even get behind talking about cycling as a fun thing to do (not that you'd always know it from this blog).<br />
<br />
On planing, I note that she gets that there's a problem here, and she supports what volunteers like the Cycling Campaign does. She supports having a full-time officer at the City Council, and rightly notes that much of the problem comes from the County. But whats missing here is a clear indication that she gets just how irrelevant a single or small number of councillors are when trying to block bad developments, and how dirty and unequal the fight between developers and councillors is. There's a need to level the playing field here by bringing public opinion to bear against bad developments such that we can get a structural change in how planning operates, and I don't know that she's up for that fight.<br />
<br />
On cycle theft in general and at Cyclepoint in particular:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Security at Cyclepoint is a joke. I won't leave my bike there anymore. I can think of a couple of approaches (apologies if these have already been tried):</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
- City Council/Daniel Zeichner/CamCycle joint approach direct to the Police and Crime Commissioner, Jason Ablewhite<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />- adoption of cycle security at Cyclepoint as a policing priority mandated by councillors at Area Committee<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />- investigation of ways of tying security performance levels into the railway company's franchise agreement.</div>
</blockquote>
That covers most of it. Understanding that one of the key things that councillors can do is direct the Police to prioritise this via. the Area Committee is great. I haven't much to add to this - I'd suggest that understanding that a councillor badgering the Police on this subject carries more weight than us normal folk approaching them is the only thing missing.<br />
<br />
There's a local question about pavement parking in Queen Ediths next, and again Sam hits most of the nails pretty hard. One thing perhaps missing is that there's already a bye-law in Cambridge where the City can put a ban on parking on grass verges merely by having a sign, and that this becomes a useful tool in conjunction with the other stated measures. I don't think she's missing much at all here though.<br />
<br />
So all in all a very solid performance from Sam here - there isn't much missing, I would only question how much she's prioritising fully segregated cycle infrastructure over other measures. But this is a sound response - 9/10.Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-29110899943915868222019-04-30T15:46:00.001+01:002019-04-30T15:46:17.548+01:00Camycle Local Election Survey - My AnswersIts only fair, after roasting local election candidates over their replies (some of which were great, some rubbish) that I should put my own views forward for criticism. Feel free to have a go at what I've said if you like.<br />
<br />
Because when I open up the web page it goes straight to West Chesterton, I'll answer those questions. Enjoy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">What experience do you and your family have of cycling? Do you have any different concerns about younger or older family members cycling than you do for yourself?</span></blockquote>
Myself and my partner ride all the time, its our primary means of transport. Sometimes its for fun too - we're happy going on longer rides, thats normally on the faster road bikes, whereas commuting tends to be by chunky hybrid, and trips to the shops and the allotment are by the sturdy ex-posties bike with or without the trailer. Neither our families live here in Cambridge nor do any of them regularly ride - like most people, in most parts of the country, adverse road conditions put them off. And thats from childhood onwards - I don't blame my siblings from dissuading their kids from riding in places they live, which are all entirely car-centric and hostile to cycling.<br />
<br />
But if I'm honest those concerns, while amplified for kids and the elderly (and those less able bodied), are the same for everyone and can be addressed the same way - safe infrastructure should be there for us all to ride on.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Camcycle believes that more people cycling has positive benefits for individuals' health and the city by reducing congestion and air-pollution. What is your vision to encourage more people of all ages and all abilities to cycle as a preferred mode of transport?</span></blockquote>
It isn't so much my own vision as it is the clear evidence of decades or research on transport choices - there's one game in town, and thats high quality, segregated infrastructure. I know people like to talk about educating cyclists, teaching drivers, good policing, places to lock bikes and in work showers but the impact of all of those measures combined pales into insignificance next to the provision of high class infrastructure.<br />
<br />
So my vision is for all levels of local government in Cambridge (City, County, Mayoral and Greater Cambridge) to commit to installing said infrastructure at every opportunity. Our sister city, Cambridge in Massachusetts, has passed law requiring that cycle infrastructure be installed on every major road project. And thats the way we need to go - the provision of safe routes for whole journeys, not just where its easy to build. Restricting car access to the city centre is also a no-brainer - it should be a beautiful place but its choking with fumes, and that has to change.<br />
<br />
People can quibble about that all they like - but there's no room for more cars, bus routes will always be slower and indirect and we're not getting any kind of underground Metro for decades. To free up road space, make our air cleaner and our city safer for everyone, dedicated cycle infrastructure is the only game in town. Anyone saying otherwise is demonstrably wrong.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Our volunteers spend a lot of time scrutinising planning applications for failures such as lack of secure cycle parking, poor access, failure to fund nearby improvements to make the roads safer, and so on. Many of these things get let through by officers and councillors in clear contravention of the Local Plan. The lack of a full-time cycling officer makes this situation even worse. What are your main concerns about the planning system, and how would you seek to make improvements?</span></blockquote>
I feel your pain.<br />
<br />
The answer I think you want is that I'd push for a full-time cycle officer at the City Council. And yes, I would, and I'd make cost savings to employ one by trimming away some of the endless deadwood in middle management at City level. All too often the people that the Council employs to do work around the city are brilliant, but they're not enabled to do their jobs by managers who just get in the way. I have absolute confidence, from first hand experience, that plenty of savings can be made there to employ a full time cycling officer.<br />
<br />
But thats only part of the problem - another part is that planning is ludicrously slanted in favour of developers and against councillors and residents. And with the best will in the world no one local authority can change that. What they CAN do however is use the media and activists such as yourselves far more effectively - while a depressingly dull planning meeting might not get the attention it needs, calling activists and the press in to hilight oncoming planning disasters is a weapon that few councillors seem willing to use. That has to change - if the law is stacked against sustainable transport in development then we must be willing to win in the court of public opinion first, and that eventually changes the system.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Cycle theft is a city-wide problem, and the greatest frustration is focussed on the Cyclepoint parking facility at the main Cambridge rail station. Official response to cycle theft at Cyclepoint has been subject to a breakdown of relationship between those in authority. When somebody tries to report their bike has been stolen they get a run-around between the railway company, the British Transport Police and the local police. What can the city council do to encourage the necessary co-operation between Greater Anglia and Cambridgeshire Constabulary?</span></blockquote>
Its easy to bottle out of this question by saying its not a councillor thing, its a police thing. But I won't do that. I've seen how it plays out when you report anything relating to crimes against cyclists in Cambridge - the cops want you to shut up and go away and they'll do whatever it takes (frustrating you by losing details, not taking reports, refusing to accept that dangerous driving can be a thing without a collision, etc.) to frustrate you. But then when you call in a councillor, or bellyache online and a councillor pushes it (as Oscar did once when I had footage of a dangerous driver in the city centre) then the Police take notice. Councillors don't have direct sway over policing priorities but their views carry way more weight with the police than the rest of us can manage. Bluntly, councillors in the city must collectively approach Cambridgeshire Constabulary and British Transport Police and tell them that we've had enough. We absolutely require that for each reported bike theft at Cyclepoint footage from CCTV is consulted and images circulated to catch the thief. And, likewise, across the city wherever there is camera footage it must be accessed.<br />
<br />
Its hard to imagine the police being so blase about the theft of anything else - councillors at each local area committee must push the police to prioritise crimes against cyclists, including bike thefts, in every part of the city.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Protected junctions where walking and cycling traffic are fully separated from motorised traffic have been proposed by Cambridge Cycling Campaign for junctions being rebuilt by the Milton and Histon Road GCP projects. Which junctions do you think would benefit from similar safety improvements within the Cambridge area?</span></blockquote>
There was a recent discussion on Twitter about cycle junctions in Cambridge, and I think it was Al from Camcycle who asked whether there are any junctions in Cambridge designed well enough for cyclists. After some consideration the considered, all round response was 'no, not really'. This makes the answer 'well all of them' quite easy, but its (a) unhelpful and (b) glib. But starting with the developments on Milton Road, I'd take the simple approach of addressing each junction in the city in order of the number of cyclist injuries reported there. Lets not guess or blunder about - the data is available and is a simple, unambiguous guide to the action plan we need.<br />
<br />
Ultimately no bike journey is better than its worst junction. The more junctions we fix, the better whole bike journeys will get.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">The eastern section of Arbury Road near Milton Road is narrow, filled with parked cars creating a cycle safety hazard, and speeding traffic far above the 20mph limit. How would you propose to create safe cycling conditions along this part of </span><span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Arbury Road, for instance by extending the new cycle lanes?</span></blockquote>
To be honest I wouldn't have started the Arbury Road project without a plan to do the whole road. Its absurd that there's going to be a short stretch of reasonably decent cycle lane completely unconnected to anywhere else thats worth cycling - at one end there's the dogs dinner of the Arbury Road/Kings Hedges junction where we don't connect up with anything, and at the other the plan is for the route to disappear and we're apparently meant to ride all round the houses and keep out of the way of the car drivers on Arbury Road. Fuck that for a game of soldiers, its not going to encourage anyone to ride to work from, say, Orchard Park to the Beehive. We have to stop these delusional part-projects and stop planning officers patting themselves on the backs for shit like this, its just not on - the current facility being finished on Arbury Road represents a failure, not a success.<br />
<br />
The South/East end of Arbury Road isn't even that hard to fix, I find it inexplicable that we didn't see a plan emerge before the work started at the other end of the road. I'd make it one way for driving, ban parking on one side, and install a fully segregated contaflow lane for cycling on the other side. If there is room I'd put fully segregated cycle lanes on both sides, if there isn't I'd install hard speed restrictions to tame motorists there (they treat it like a long, straight drag track right now)<br />
<br />
And thats before we consider what should be done on Union Lane...Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-76261943662141324002019-04-29T13:29:00.000+01:002019-04-29T13:29:06.873+01:00Camcycle Local Election Survey 2019 - The Purple TeamNot that UKIP have any hope here, at all. I mean even at their best they flopped here, but hey, this is a local election for local issues and I'm sure their demented requirement that a staunchly Remain city should give a shit about them is something we can overlook...<br />
<br />
Except of the three candidates they've put up in the city none of them have responded. Not one. And thats a real shame from a comedy perspective because we've seen some right train crash responses in the past.<br />
<br />
So in light of them not responding, and the known track record of folk like Berkinshaw, I'd like to award them a -50/10. Seems only fair.Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-44186252048475681452019-04-29T13:20:00.005+01:002019-04-29T13:20:58.042+01:00Camcycle Local Election Survey 2019 - The Blue TeamNot a whelk in Hades chance in this ward, but fair is fair, lets find a couple of Tory candidates and treat them the same as we have the others.<br />
<br />
In Kings Hedges there are two seats up, but the Tories have selected two candidates and arbitrarily I'm picking the epically named Eric Barrett-Payton. Just as well like, the other guy didn't answer yet.<br />
<br />
His concerns cycling and for those who are more vulnerable?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Some family members have cycled and I was a very keen cyclist when I was younger, but not now, due to problems with joints. My main concern is the lack of safe places to park and lock a bike where ever we want to stop at our temporary destinations</span></blockquote>
Really? Thats your main concern? Not that councillors direct the Police to target children terrified to mix it with articulated lorries? Well I don't share your values then.<br />
<br />
How would he get more people cycling because its leaner, greener, more economical?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">More places where it is possible to park a bike securely would help</span></blockquote>
Bit of a one trick pony, Eric? Like, did someone beat you to a Chelsea lock once and you've not recovered from the emotional trauma? Look, bike locking helps, but its not the be all and end all. Likewise his answer on planning is, well, not dismissive so much as not in any way invested in cycling as an issue. And his answer on cycle theft demonstrates that he doesn't understand the role of our elected police commissioner, the relationship between Cambridgeshire Constabulary and British Transport Police, the role of the provider of protected cycle parking, or that of councillors in setting policing priorities at an area level in Cambridge.<br />
<br />
And on physical barriers to cycling? He's just wrong.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">This is a tricky balance between the requirements of walkers and cyclists to have full access, but safely, without the risk of rogue motor cyclists using unsuitable routes. There is no excuse for not having full access for pedestrians, but it is more difficult to see how larger bikes can be accommodated and still deter motorbikes. Technical innovations might provide an answer in future, perhaps something like a low style that allows you to lift over a three wheeler, or other larger bike and trailer, which would be possible for them, but not heavier machines, although this is not an ideal solution, it might be some improvement in the present situation</span></blockquote>
I don't want to sound uncharitable but... Ok, lets be honest, I don't care if I come across as uncharitable, nor am I going to mask what I'm about to say by putting 'with respect' in front of it. Alex here is an idiot and basically wrong about most things. 0/10 for turning up and not being actively hostile to cycling - like I'm just glad I don't have to give you a negative score.<br />
<br />
Now we've been mooching abut North Cambridge with all the responses so far and frankly I'm bored, so we'll go and look at what Manas Deb has to say in Queen Ediths.<br />
<br />
His experience of riding and concerns for more vulnerable riders?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">I cycle with my little boy in weekdays for his school run and with family in weekends. My son has passed level 3 in cycling year before and we send him for cycling courses arranged by his school from time to time. Last year I have purchased an advanced multi gear cycle with a carrier for my son to use for his school journeys safely.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Addenbrooke’s round about and Queen Edith’s Way round about is unsafe for cyclist and pedestrians due to the absence of zebra crossing and unfortunately elected Lib Dem Councillors are doing nothing to improve situation. Children should be taught about road safety at early age and I have made my child aware of few unsafe cycle paths and he cycles on his own using Queen Edith’s Way round about and Hills Road.</span></blockquote>
Oooh. A bit of politics. Well, yeah, that roundabout is crap. But (1) libdems aren't in power in the City, thats Labour which is what this election is for, so can do little there and (2) the transport authority is the County, they're really best place to take action here, and thats Tory, thats your team. So yeah, I get your frustration and share it, but your political point scoring here backfires spectacularly when we analyze it.<br />
<br />
On to what Manas would do to increase cycling:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Cycling is certainly a good exercise to keep one physically fit. Cycling increases cardiovascular fitness, improves joint mobility, decreases stress level and strengthens bones. Motorised transport is noisy, while its emissions reduce air quality and add to the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. Cycling can also reduce congestion and the journey times of other road users, particularly in Cambridge City.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">My vision to encourage more people of all ages and all abilities to cycle is to first Improve safety and perception of safety, providing infrastructure that encourages active transport, such as creation of direct or shorter routes for cyclists and pedestrians. Encouraging a culture of active transport, understanding that the barriers are different for different populations.</span></blockquote>
One of the things that New Labour learned from the Tories was that sometimes a simple message said simply is better than a more verbose one. Infrastructure, infrastructure and infrastructure. Just say it dude - everything else, the cycling culture, the respect that people get when they're no longer treated as an out group, it all follows from that. You're right to look at safety and subjective safety - thats done through infrastructure. You're right that this is a different threshold for different populations but <i>all</i> of them are addressed by infrastructure.<br />
<br />
His answer on planning is enthusiastic and clear that he wants to make improvements, but perhaps a little thin on how he'd change things. Tough, nuanced question, and while Manas here has avoided an own goal here he hasn't cleared the ball away.<br />
<br />
On to bike thefts...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Cambridgeshire has been hit by a wave of bike thefts. Police data shows a total of 4,296 bikes were recorded as stolen by police in 2017/18.That works out as an average of 12 every day. The figure is up by more than 500 from the 3,793 bikes stolen the previous year. It is the highest it has been since 2010/11, when there were 4,374 bike thefts.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Lib Dem Councillors have failed to raise this bike thefts issue with local police seriously. If elected as Councillor, I would work with City Council to introduce cycle marking initiatives and continue to deliver the message that people have to lock up their bike safely and take the time to security mark their bikes and register the details of their bike with Bike Register. I will also work closely with Police & Crime Commissioner to allocate additional police resources dedicated to reduce cycle thefts.</span></blockquote>
He doesn't like the Liberal Democrats, does he? I don't really go in for the squabbling between party candidates and I just wish they'd all just fucking grow out of it, but there you go, I'm an idealist. He's well informed as to what the problem is, but not really getting just how little resource is needed to make an enormous impact here - that the difference between looking at footage of cycle thefts on CCTV and not doing so is literally expending 5 minutes of time digitally chopping to the point of theft. Bike marking isn't the issue here, the Police giving this zero priority and actively making it hard to report crime to keep their numbers down, in a way that the Commissioner must surely be fully aware of, is the problem.<br />
<br />
There's a Queen Ediths specific question on verge/bike lane/pavement parking next and while he's right in his desire to combat this he's missing out on a handy local bye-law that would stop parking on verges overnight. Right spirit here, needs a bit more information to get in and fix it.<br />
<br />
So... Hard to grade this one. He's spot on in so many ways but seems to sacrifice making a good point to make a political one as often as not. 7/10 - some excellent moments, and he gets what the needs are, and he's someone campaigners can work with and, I do hope, influence favourably.<br />
<br />
That gives us an inelegant 3.5/10 average for the Tories. Slightly more shit than Labour.<br />
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-1099656847842889082019-04-29T12:34:00.002+01:002019-04-29T12:34:49.699+01:00Camcycle Local Election Survey 2019 - The Green TeamAs the Green party are the nearest thing we have to a third party in Cambride, in that they have a councillor and the Tories and UKIP don't, lets do them next. Although their chances of still having a seat after the election are up in the air, they're still (for the moment) ahead of the blue and purple teams.<br />
<br />
So... The local candidate Angela Ditchfield hasn't answered (I've often said of her I think she's a good egg but I'm never sure her heart is in the whole 'getting to be a councillor' thing).<br />
<br />
So I've got to cross in to Arbury where I find Stephen Lawrence. On his own experience cycling and what should be done for those more vulnerable:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Lifelong cyclist.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Yes - those with either a more cautious approach or a lower level of energy need to be catered for specifically</div>
</blockquote>
Catered for how, specifically old chap? And is it really true that they need -specific- help or is it more the case that helping cyclists out, all of us, is of disproportionate value to the most vulnerable?<br />
<br />
On how to get more people to choose to cycle...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Sort out the dozens of "dodgy locations" that subconsciously say "cyclists are not form of transport worthy of consideration".</span></blockquote>
You know Stephen, I'm beginning to think you aren't taking this seriously. Sort out <i>how?</i> You're going to make them appealing to cyclists by doing <i>what?</i><br />
<br />
His answer to planning issues and cycling is more or less a complete non-entity. He didn't grasp it.<br />
<br />
Nor, really, are his answers to the other questions worthy of consideration. Sorry to talk all interwebby, but I just can't even.<br />
<br />
1/10. Thanks for turning up.<br />
<br />
I'm now bouncing around wards to find one where another green candidate has answered, and eventually I'm stopping at West Chesterton where Shayne Mitchells first answer on his(?) own experiences cycling and needs of vulnerable cyclists is brilliant and needs repeating word for word:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">I've cycled all my life, and everyone in the family cycles, mostly as a way of getting around. I love cycling - you feel free and alive - and I can't imagine living without it. I've been lucky to live and cycle in Rome - which was never frightening like Cambridge, as you knew you could trust drivers to (a) notice you and (b) be careful around you.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">But following a back injury some years ago, my balance and strength are not what they are, and I have become very aware of how scary it can be. Cambridge is far from being the cycling paradise it is popularly believed to be - too many people drive fast and aggressively and with disregard, even contempt, for cyclists and pedestrians.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Our daughter has a short cycle ride to Parkside Sixth. I find it depressing that I am glad she is not at Hills Road/Long Road/Impington, simply because getting there by bike involves unpleasant junctions/motorway roundabout, and the like. Simply because the cycling infrastructure is quite inadequate.</span></blockquote>
Likewise his answer on what should be done to get more people cycling is exhaustive and detailed, but I would take issue with some of his priorities...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Yes, it is dispiriting how few, relatively, people cycle. And what a narrow demographic it is.<br />While waiting for the bus in Northampton Street, I often pass the time counting vehicles and bikes. The usual ratio is around 1:7. This despite its being a main route for cyclists.<br />1. A 20 mph limit throughout the city, following on from the successful 20 mph limit in side streets. (If you are throwing up your hands in horror at the prospect, and think it unworkable, remember how so many people threw up their hands in horror at the proposal of a 20 mph limit in side streets - and how it's mostly happened effectively with no kerfuffle.)<br />2. Decent WIDE cycleways on the road on main roads - Milton Road, Elizabeth Way, Chesterton Road, etc - on the lines of the cycleways on Hills Road.<br />3. Advance cycle stop lines at all traffic lights.<br />4. Cycle crossings and pelican crossings - rejig the controls so that they give priority to cyclists/pedestrians crossing the road. At present, they prioritise motor traffic, leaving us waiting in the rain/wind/cold twiddling our thumbs waiting ages for green crossing light.<br />5. Park andRide - better facilities for cyclists. Normalise it.<br />6. Use images of older people/women to encourage cycling. Cycling used to be a normal means of transport among middle-aged women in Cambridge. It isn't now - people say they used to, but are discouraged/frightened.<br />7. Decent bike parking WITH COVERS to keep your saddle/child seat/paniers dry. You don't expect to get into a wet seat in a parked car, so why a bike?<br />8. Buses and taxis - encourage them to give "cycle awareness" training to drivers. Get the drivers to go out on a bike and see what it's like when buses and taxis pass too close.<br /> </blockquote>
Well I can't agree with all of it, ASLs aren't all they're cracked up to be if you can't safely reach them. But there's a heck of a lot there to work with. Its just a but <i>broad</i> and I worry that the prime message, the one thing we know works, which is good quality infrastructure, is lost in among the noise. I'm left thinking its all a bit Andy Preview - all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.<br />
<br />
On planning I think his is the best answer I've read, I hope Shayne and the folk at Camcycle don't mind me cutting and pasting so many of his responses but its worth it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Employ (again) a full-time cycling officer.<br />Planning system - look at best practice in other places to improve how we, the public, are informed of planning applications. Eg put the site notice on a bright colour and put "This will affect you" in large letters.<br />Lack of transparency in planning system - can the local newspapers be persuaded to cover applications/meetings more?</blockquote>
There's an element of wanting to bang heads together in the response regarding cycle thefts, which I share. And on which junctions should be modified such that cyclists and pedestrians get better protection from motorists, the answer 'all of them' followed by a few examples seems heart-felt and at least thought out. I don't disagree with much there.<br />
<br />
The last question is a really interesting one restricted to this ward:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">The eastern section of Arbury Road near Milton Road is narrow, filled with parked cars creating a cycle safety hazard, and speeding traffic far above the 20mph limit. How would you propose to create safe cycling conditions along this part of Arbury Road, for instance by extending the new cycle lanes?</span></blockquote>
And the response, extending cycle lanes further down Arbury Road, restricting car parking in front of the shops on Arbury Road, all sounds good but rather shows that the candidate is a little behind the curve on this issue. There's a proposal to make the South end of Arbury Road one way (hopefully only for motoring - it would be absolute murder to stop cycling there), and thats a game-changer.<br />
<br />
So all in all, a lot of passion and some in-depth thought from this candidate, but its a little bit of a muddle in places. Still, very good - 7/10.<br />
<br />
That gives the Green team an average of 4/10 - as ever, their candidates are a real mixed bag.Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-76620660298642291992019-04-29T11:51:00.004+01:002019-04-29T12:01:59.340+01:00Camcycle Local Election Survey 2019 - the Yellow TeamHistorically there used to be three parties had a hope in Kings Hedges. I was talking to an ex-LibDem councillor yesterday and he told me that they always treated the ward as a three way marginal because there's a persistent Tory vote that never seems to go away. But getting real for a moment, its a long time since the Tories did anything but belly-flop here, and the only real opposition is the yellow team.<br />
<br />
We've got two candidates for the two seats (which is a mistake guys - why wouldn't you want to maximise your chances of getting one candidate into office?) I'll pick one of them to review and look or another in a neighbouring ward. Tossing a coin I'm going to consider Luke Hallams responses.<br />
<br />
On concerns for older and younger cyclists, and his own experience cycling...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I mainly travel on foot and I do not currently own a bike. I only cycle occasionally when I borrow a bike from friends. I am therefore not confident riding on roads but I am currently looking into going to a Bikeability course to improve my knowledge and confidence. From my perspective, better cycle routes, with segregated bike lanes (that don’t suddenly disappear onto a busy road) would really encourage me to cycle more and I think would really help younger cyclists as well.</span></blockquote>
Luke, if you're reading this, firstly, thats spot on. Well done. Secondly, give the guys at Outspoken a call and talk to them about what training options are available. Its not the be all and end all, but it won't hurt. And thirdly, get in touch with me, we'll see if one of our spares in my garage can be fitted to you, and come out for a ride with me and my other half - it sounds like the biggest thing you're lacking is confidence, and thats best obtained by riding with people who do this, here, every day. Failing that you've got a whole lot of yellow team cyclists, surely one of them has a spare bike and can ride out with you?<br />
<br />
On how to get more people out on their bikes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Increasing the number of cycle lanes is one way to make people feel more comfortable about taking up cycling. I believe there is value in shared cycle schemes, working with robust public transport to ensure that there is always an alternative to car use. Our wider anti-idling campaign will help draw attention to the environmental cost of vehicles, and will encourage people to cycle instead.</span></blockquote>
Well thats most of it covered. Infrastructure is the biggie - although some reference to policing (total lack thereof with regard to motoring) would be appreciated here too. But on the whole... Good.<br />
<br />
Regarding planning and council work, he's supportive of having a full-time cycling officer, and raises a fair concern regarding the new developments coming to the ward. Perhaps an acknowledgement that councillors could themselves do more could be there too, but, again, nothing to disagree with here.<br />
<br />
On cycle theft his suggestion of getting reps from Greater Anglia and the Police in the same room is fair, and the acknowledgement that police resources are stretched is reasonable. Although frankly I've never heard anyone say 'well you know, investigating (theft of something that isn't a bike) isn't going to be a priority because of resources'. And I would have hoped that he'd have understood his role as a councillor would put him on North Area Committee, giving him a vote to instruct local Police officers to prioritise cycle theft.<br />
<br />
And on specific barriers to cycling in the ward? He's picked some of the major constrictions and told us how he'd solve them. Top marks.<br />
<br />
I'm giving Luke 9/10. I know. I'm as surprised as you are. He's nailed most of it, he just needs a tiny bit more attention in some answers.<br />
<br />
So we went off to Arbury last time when looking at Labour, lets drift south into Chesterton and see what we find there. I see that Owen Dunn is standing. <a href="https://twitter.com/gnomeicide/status/958427935668568064" target="_blank">In fairness</a> beating <a href="https://twitter.com/RTaylorUK/status/1004295321399316481" target="_blank">the Labour</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/gnomeicide/status/580677212623499264" target="_blank">candidate</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLGf1ovqCgI" target="_blank">Gerri Bird</a> on cycling issues isn't hard. Whats his experience riding and whats the problem for more vulnerable riders?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Cycling is my main mode of transport. I cycle 30-50 miles a week commuting around Cambridge, mainly on the road but also using some off-road cycle paths. I sometimes use a bike trailer to do large shopping trips.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I also cycle for fun and do 100km-200km rides with Audax UK (http://www.aukweb.net/)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I'm a fairly confident cyclist and usually cycle on roads, but many younger or less confident cyclists and those with disabilities find on-road cycling too scary. They benefit from having segregated cycle routes which are protected from motor traffic, and I'm keen that the city's network of segregated routes grows (and connects!)</div>
</blockquote>
So he's pretty serious about his bike. I've seen him on two wheels, not seen him out with the trailer, but have no reason to doubt that. And he's spot on about cycle facilities - although I'd say maybe an acknowledgement that they'd be good for him too would be worthwhile.<br />
<br />
Regarding getting more people riding, I can't disagree at all:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">We need to make it easy and pleasant to get around by bike. This means:</span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
* continuous segregated cycle routes which are well signposted and don't just disappear<br />
* more bike parking on more streets, and sufficient bike racks in business and residential developments<br />
* more permeable development so that cut-throughs make local journeys much easier by bike<br />
* encouraging businesses to provide showers and changing facilities<br />
We need to take action on air pollution so that getting around the city is feasible for those with breathing difficulties. Measures such as monitoring air quality, reducing engine idling, and tree planting will contribute to this.</blockquote>
I would only suggest that this needs to be clearly ordered - work showers won't help at all unless there's safe access to ride there. The only game in town that really works is infrastructure, everything else follows as a result of more people riding.<br />
<br />
On planning his desire for a full time cycling officer is fair, and his desire to work with officers to hard-wire cycling into planning responses is worthy. I also think there's a party line emerging here - you guys want a full time cycling officer? Brilliant. So do I. Whats your costing for it? How much will it cost and how will you pay for it? Can you, for example, tell me which other post you're going to cut or reduce to part-time to pay for it?<br />
<br />
The next Question in Chesterton is about Nuffield Road and basically how its a motorist dominated death trap. He doesn't fluff it, and provides a fairly detailed response and I actually appreciate how he holds back from going for the political jugular by not talking about how the previous consultation was fluffed when only residents rather than the school and medical centre were asked. His answer is considered and fair, acknowledging a clear need to protect pedestrians and cyclists by physically stopping cars getting on the pavements and providing a protected cycle route.<br />
<br />
Regarding physical barriers to cycling, he lists the kinds of barriers that are a problem without listing the locations of where they are in his ward or (confusingly) in Kings Hedges which the question asks about. Take the trailer on a jaunt around the ward Owen, you'll find a few.<br />
<br />
But on the whole? Splendid from Owen. 9/10<br />
<br />
This means the Libdems have scored an unprecedented 9/10 - both of their candidates are on message, rational, fair, and simply know what they're talking about on cycling issues.<br />
<br />
<br />Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-31479702780820799242019-04-29T11:12:00.001+01:002019-04-29T11:58:29.184+01:00Camcycle Local Election Survey 2019 - The Red TeamAs the team thats currently winning in Cambridge, having a majority on the City Council, lets do Labour first.<br />
<br />
Kings Hedges, the ward I live in, has two seats up for grabs this time after the death of one of the Councillors (a Labour councillor and mayor). So some parties are standing two candidates, which should give us a lot to choose from here.<br />
<br />
Sadly only one of the candidates from Labour has responded so far, which is unsurprising because as far as I can tell Kevin Price doesn't particularly give a shit and is a fine example of how Labour think any old buffoon with a red rosette can win here. But another, Alex Collis, has replied.<br />
<br />
Collis has form talking about cycling before, <a href="https://twitter.com/gnomeicide/status/684335287695196160" target="_blank">and I'm afraid it isn't good form as you can see from this thread</a>. Her tendency to generalise about cyclists and specifically concentrate on negative stereotypes speaks volumes, but lets not hold that against her. Well, not much. Lets see what she says in response to the survey questions...<br />
<br />
The first question is a bit of a warm up effort:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">What experience do you and your family have of cycling? Do you have any different concerns about younger or older family members cycling than you do for yourself?</span></blockquote>
And her response...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I do not own a car, preferring to either walk or cycle as often as possible. Half of my family still lives in Cambridge and all are regular cyclists; my own son is now an adult but I do have concerns about my younger nieces and nephews' safety when cycling, particularly on main roads such as Newmarket Road and Histon Road where there is such a high volume of traffic. Although they see/learn good cycling practice from their parents, they are inevitably more vulnerable and less able to judge situations or assert their position as cyclists.</span></blockquote>
Call me picky but I worry when someone is asked about their experience cycling and they respond with their motoring status first - from a strictly identitarian perspective its worrying. You weren't being asked about whether you drive, you were asked what your experience of cycling is. Its fair to comment that some roads are busy and thats a problem, but I'm worried about how this response immediately places blame on the more vulnerable younger cyclists for being less able to judge their surroundings or assert their position than other. She's immediately shifting responsibility to groups bringing so little risk to others that it can hardly be measured and away from motorists who bring all the risk. Worrying. Very worrying.<br />
<br />
The second question is an opportunity for candidates to really open up about what positive steps they might favour for cycling. Thus:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Camcycle believes that more people cycling has positive benefits for individuals' health and the city by reducing congestion and air-pollution. What is your vision to encourage more people of all ages and all abilities to cycle as a preferred mode of transport?</span></blockquote>
And here the candidate immediately crashes and burns. When asked how you'll do things positively for everyone in the city, because we all benefit from less pollution, noise, road danger, etc. she immediately becomes an apologist for motoring. The question doesn't set cycling advocacy against motoring, but the candidate immediately does:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I haven’t owned a car for over ten years, getting rid of it as a conscious decision on environmental grounds. Even then, Cambridge was horribly congested and the air quality noticeably deteriorating. Not everyone is going to feel similarly or choose cycling (over driving) as a mode of transport so a diversity of approaches will be needed. Information on health and environmental benefits of cycling will need to be freely available and well publicised, but will not work on its own. Action is also needed.</span></blockquote>
Thats your plan? Accept people will drive but tell them it would be nice if more people cycled? There isn't a single person who doesn't know that doing a bit more exercise and burning a little less fuel makes good financial sense, good ecological sense and a great deal of personal fitness sense. But she goes on about cycling advocacy and soft measures to encourage. This is nonsense - research going back decades shows a single measure works to increase cycling uptake, and thats the development of safe cycling infrastructure to cover whole journeys. No commute by bike is better than its worst junction - you can't whisper in peoples ears that cycling is good for them if their lived experience is the murderstrip cycle lane on Kings Hedges Road. Epic failure from the candidate here.<br />
<br />
Question 3 is much mure nuanced and subtle than I suspect any of the candidates are going to realise (were you being a little too clever here Camcycle or am I reading more into this than you intended?)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Our volunteers spend a lot of time scrutinising planning applications for failures such as lack of secure cycle parking, poor access, failure to fund nearby improvements to make the roads safer, and so on. Many of these things get let through by officers and councillors in clear contravention of the Local Plan. The lack of a full-time cycling officer makes this situation even worse. What are your main concerns about the planning system, and how would you seek to make improvements?</span></blockquote>
So basically its a question loaded to put the blame on councillors in all sorts of ways. They haven't chosen to give a cycling officer time or remit to go through planning in detail, they haven't instructed planning officers to fully prioritise cycling in planning. and councillors themselves are waving through dreadful planning applications that enormously under-deliver on cycling. The clever response would be to address all three issues and explain how the candiate would push to do better. Does Collis give that clever response? No, not really, apparently officers and councillors need better training and something about cars being at the centre of planning. Again, its not about doing things for cyclists, its about not doing everything for motorists so, again, she's playing us off against motoring in an absurdly uneven fashion. Not good enough.<br />
<br />
The next question is about cycle theft across the city but with specific reference to Cyclepoint. And the candidate, rather than demonstrating an understanding of the problem (police flat out refuse to look at CCTV footage citing the frankly insultingly stupid notion that they must look at 8 hours of footage, spending 8 hours, to find an image of when a cycle was stolen rather than repeatedly look at half way points to find a view the culprit inside of a minute) the candidate talks about stakeholders and basically waffles. The issue isn't lack of work from 'stakeholders', it is purely a regulatory and policing one. Nil points.<br />
<br />
The next one is about permability and physical barriers to cycling in the ward and across the city. Bit of a banana skin question this one - you can immediately tell whether someone cycles in and around the ward by whether they've found the insane and frustrating routes blocked to cyclists for no apparent reason. And does she get it? No. I mean she's only just now talking about cycle lanes, and she has't picked out any of the specific locations in the ward that are a problem. And I'm sorry, if your argument that narrow cycle lanes are bad because they're physically harder for disabled cyclists you're missing the point more profoundly than I know how to address.<br />
<br />
So, all in all, I'm going to give Collis an absurdly generous score of 1/10. I don't think her head is in the right place on cycling at all, and even though she says she rides a bike its obvious that many of her answers have come out of a 'not a motorist' place rather than that.<br />
<br />
Looking further afield, lets hop over the road and look at the now well established candidate Carina O'Reilly.<br />
<br />
She doesn't really answer regarding experiences of younger and older cyclists, but does highlight that she rides here and abroad. Ok, but half an answer.<br />
<br />
Regarding getting more people cycling because it benefits us all in so many ways:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I think the priority for encouraging cycling is to provide safe and segregated cycling facilities. Cycling among traffic is very intimidating for new riders.</span></blockquote>
Pretty much nailed it, although I'd go further and say that safe facilities are brilliant for all riders. But with specific reference to the question, she's spot on.<br />
<br />
On the planning question she's perhaps a little pessimistic, but like most pessimists I suspect Carina would say she's a realist:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">The planning system as a whole is under-funded and planning decisions are very restricted by law. There is very little systemic change that is possible at City Council level; we are limited by the law and by losing 40% of our budget in the last few years. Unfortunately, until there's a change in government, we are more reliant on good work done by citizens and volunteers than anyone would ideally want.</span></blockquote>
While thats all true, many of the changes to planning applications needed to make things a whole lot better for cycling aren't that great, and there are clear things that the City can do to make this better (which perhaps if I get time to write my own responses to these questions, I'll elaborate on). But all in all, she's speaking from an experienced, grounded perspective here - reading this I don't see any silly ideas or misunderstanding of the problems and it makes her come across as someone cycling advocates could work with.<br />
<br />
On the cycle theft question she's again clear this isn't a city power, but acknowledges that working towards a clear reporting system would help. I am however surprised that she's missed out the simple thing she as a councillor (and the labour group as councillors) could do, which is instruct local police to treat cycle theft as a 'local priority' via. the city Local Area Committee system. Bluntly, if for example the Police come out with nonsense about not looking at cctv footage because it takes too long at a public meeting, Councillors are in a position to publicly and vocally call them out on this shit. But instead the NAC on which she sits has frequently empowered bellyachng about cyclists rather than policing for them through its police priority decisions. Hit and miss answer there I feel.<br />
<br />
Now the fifth question here is a ward specific one, namely:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">How will you work with the GCP to improve walking and cycling proposals in their Histon Road scheme, in particular with regard to children cycling to school at the Mayfield Primary School, crossing Histon Road near Carisbrooke Road, and within the narrow section of road from Aldi south to the junction with Victoria Road?</span></blockquote>
And her answer...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">We have already submitted proposals for a crossing in this area and are hoping to make progress on this this year. I use this area regularly for cycling and I am keenly aware of the difficulties and dangers for all cyclists here.</span></blockquote>
Well the whole Histon Road thing is going to be a fight over the next couple of years and I fully anticipate that its going to run and run. I would have liked to see some more detail of the proposals here, there's not enough to judge the candiate on this answer really.<br />
<br />
Question 6 is about improving cycling on Carlton Way, and she replies that she'd like dedicated cycle routes there. I agree entirely, and its almost that simple - the question should reasonably be extended to 'and then what?' when you get to either end, as there's huge potential to turn this into a major North/South route for cycling in the city incorporating Stretten Avenue, and linking Roxburgh Road, all the way along the route already there (but terribly surfaced and poorly laid out) to the Science Park. But a good, clear, simple, fair answer.<br />
<br />
Carinas answer to number 7, about junctions separating walking and cycling from motorised traffic, concentrates mostly on Mitchams Corner and Chesterton Road - perfectly fair to hilight those places because although they're not in the ward they're unavoidable for those living there and clearly need addressing.<br />
<br />
So for Carina O'Reilly, considering the whole body, there are a couple of places where I'd like to see more detail and hear a bit more about what she's proposing, but whats there is all positive, reasonable and sensible. I'd rate it 7/10.<br />
<br />
So for those two candidates, I'm giving Labour an average score of 4/10. Which isn't great if I'm honest, but we've seen worse.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-3760790140028526872019-04-29T09:57:00.002+01:002019-04-29T13:39:13.610+01:00Camcycle Local Election Survey 2019 -SummaryIt has become something of a tradition here that the <a href="https://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/2019maydistrict/" target="_blank">local cycle campaign group surveys candidates for views on cycling issues in the run up to elections</a>. But its more of a niggling bad habit that I go through those responses and praise, mock or pour 'meh' all over them.<br />
<br />
As ever, thanks you Camcycle for doing this. Its a worthwhile on occasion hilarious exercise.<br />
<br />
So here's the deal. I've gone through them party by party, picking a couple of candidates from each. I've always picked a candidate from my own ward (Kings Hedges) if I can, and go further afield for others, until I've been through at least two of each party. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2019/04/camcycle-local-election-survey-2019-red.html" target="_blank">Labour</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2019/04/camcycle-local-election-survey-2019_29.html" target="_blank">Liberal Democrats</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2019/04/camcycle-local-election-survey-2019_96.html" target="_blank">Conservatives</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2019/04/camcycle-local-election-survey-2019_15.html" target="_blank">Greens</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2019/04/camcycle-local-election-survey-2019_36.html" target="_blank">UKIP</a><br />
<br />
This year is, as always, a mixed bag.<br />
<br />
Got to say that I'm always surprised by how poorly the Greens come across in this - its like they're struggling to get good candidates or motivate themselves to try at all. Shame. If you look closely at your green candidate it might be the case that you have a cracker, but don't assume it. And this pains me - my instinct is to vote Green, but on the strength of their responses here, I'm not convinced to do so at all.<br />
<br />
The Labour and Tory parties suck - averaging 4/10 and 3.5/10. Be very careful voting for either if cycling matters to you - some candidates are much better than others but on my sampling I'm unimpressed.<br />
<br />
The LibDems have excelled themselves. I'm not saying that if I'd gone in another direction for my second candidate I was guaranteed to find another as good (is it Tim standing again in Arbury? Always touch and go on cycling). But on the strength of these two candidates, both being pretty close to spot on, I'd give other candidates my attention on this subject. Its just a shame that there has been a complete lack of any contact from the LibDems, at all, ever, over this or any other subject in this local election campaign. No calls, knocks, campaign literature, anything. Shame, there are a couple of points I'd like them to clarify on other subjects before voting for them.<br />
<br />
At least UKIP have fucked off into the sunset.<br />
<br />
<br />Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-64770277577574139082018-11-16T13:04:00.001+00:002018-11-16T13:04:19.151+00:00Greater Cambridge Hates Everyone<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've complained about the Greater Cambridge Partnership before. But I find myself looking in at some of their gibbering stupidity and needing a better way of explaining their actions than just plain ineptitude.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, I agree, never ascribe to malice that which can be better ascribed to incompetence. But we're way past that - they're not merely incompetent, they're willing and able to weaponise that incompetence with the sheer bloody mindedness of civil servants in a way that isn't just officious, its petty minded, mean and callous. Seriously man, they're fucking Vogons.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, you think I'm over stating things? <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/search?q=hedgehog" target="_blank">They planted a hedge that produces toxic spindle berries in front of a primary school and were too bloody minded to send the wrong fencing material back and order the right stuff, making the fence impassable to hedgehogs for no reason at all.</a> There has been much historic discussion in the UK as to whether this institution or that is 'institutionally racist' (an issue that is very much still alive), but I put it to you that after reading this blog post you'll be left with the view that the City Deal (a term that became so toxic they re-branded themselves to Greater Cambridge Partnership) is something new - it seems to be institutionally sociopathic. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How else can you explain the fact that <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2017/04/green-end-road-city-deal-wheels-falling.html?q=green+end+road" target="_blank">they believe this is a good idea</a>. Yes, now you ask, they did say that would be a safe cycle lane, and then they <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2017/07/compromise-means-cyclists-always-come.html?q=green+end" target="_blank">fucked us over when they built it and made it actively dangerous to ride</a>. A cycle lane with parked cars on a bend. I know, its delusional, isn't it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As for their plans for Milton Road, they've manipulated an extended 'consultation' process for years now, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds fannying on without doing a damn thing on the ground, <a href="https://citydeal-live.storage.googleapis.com/upload/www.greatercambridge.org.uk/transport/transport-projects/Section%205%20Updated.jpg" target="_blank">producing artwork that flat out cannot be replicated in real life</a> (show me a canopy forming, lollipop like tree growing happily in around a foot and a half width of grass verge, next to a busy main road, perfectly symmetrical and not lopped off on one side). Taking residents for suckers with deceptive depictions while <a href="https://twitter.com/MiltonRoadRA/status/1054285637766053890" target="_blank">hoping we don't notice that they're effectively doing fuck all to fix a dangerous, life threatening roundabout other than hoping cyclists will ride on the pavement</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But its not just Arbury Road, Green End Road, and Milton Road that the seem intent on squandering scant resources on to fuck up beyond all recognition for at least a generation, they are also in the process of making sure that no one would choose to ride on Histon Road either. Literally no one who has to use them likes shared use facilities, as all of the feedback they received told them. Such a facility frightens pedestrians, is often completely ignored by cyclists at the expense of being bullied by motons who see the shred use path as a tool to keep us the hell out of their way. We've even got a name for that here in Cambridge, its so common, <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2015/10/bad-cycle-facilities-milton-road-effect.html" target="_blank">we call it the Milton Road Effect.</a> So rather than give us safe, fast, easy, direct, conflict free cycle routes where there is ample space <a href="https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cycling-histon-road-final-plan-15399819" target="_blank">they've chosen to funnel us into a narrow space full of pedestrians</a>, presumably to make sure that no bugger dares intrude into their car-centric dystopia. This isn't good for cyclists, its not good for motorists, its not good for pedestrians. But, heck, at least they can take comfort in the fact they failed cyclists and pedestrians more than they failed the drivers.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lets be honest, we must by now all suspect that there are four problems the Greater Cambridge Partnership. Firstly, its basically looks like a tool that the County Council is using to funnel money into programs that are otherwise going to stall <a href="http://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/cambridge/cambridgeshire-county-council-appoints-strutt-parker-to-sell-shire-hall-1-5762465" target="_blank">because it is so hard up it is selling the family silver</a> and <a href="https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/grinch-council-forces-workers-take-15244648" target="_blank">like the Grinch trying to cancel Christmas</a>, and that they're using the same employees who have been employing the same failing methodologies that<a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2013/09/hate-to-say-i-told-you-so-catholic.html" target="_blank"> haven't given us quality cycle facilities for decades</a>. Secondly, don't you think that those in charge of the project are more interested in spending money fast to get their next fat stack of cash than they are in creating quality cycling facilities? Which is why they're inordinately interested in 'shovel ready' or 'easy win' projects for cycling, and why they spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on endless consultations and <i>still</i> keep coming back with exactly the same dangerous mistakes like horrific roundabouts and hostile shared use. Thirdly, lets be honest, they're motorists - no one else would spend money on cycle lanes that people are allowed to park in. And, lastly, they're one of a plethora of quasi-democratic bodies with competing interests. The new Mayoral authority wants very different things to the County (Tory), City (Labour) and South Cambs (LibDem) authorities, and the body overseeing Greater Cambridge is a schizophrenic chimera of councillors from all three with interests represented by the University and Business hurling their own self-interest paint bombs in. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cambridge City Deal wasn't ever meant to create facilities for people in Cambridge, its there to unlock infrastructure to turn Cambridge from a small to a medium sized City. But they can't say that outloud because no one wants to hear it. And at stake here is what the very soul of that city will be about - sustainable, healthy transport for people who care about where they're passing through? Or a nasty, congested, increasingly polluted town full of people who must of necessity be selfish to even get to the local shops? City Deal have the latter vision. I don't. Where do you stand?</div>
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-40653380712691591032018-07-02T14:12:00.001+01:002018-07-02T14:12:26.287+01:00Gilligan and Cambridge Transport - What does it mean?<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've a lot of time for Andrew Gilligan. I don't agree with him on everything but he usually speaks a lot of sense on transport, so it is always worth listening to him. And today he's lit the fuse on a stick of dynamite and hurled it into the Cambridge transport debate. What fun.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now to explain this we have to go into a little background. The delivery of transport infrastructure in Cambridge isn't so much fractured as fucked up beyond all sense. Much of the City itself is run by the City Council - so, for example, <a href="http://www.hembrow.eu/cambridgecycling/kingshedges.html" target="_blank">many of the the cycle routes through Kings Hedges</a> are on routes that are not 'adopted', so not maintained by the highways authority. They're maintained and operated by the City. But the highways authority is the County Council, they're the ones who make decisions about the roads (cycle lanes etc.) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But then there is Greater Cambridge, formerly known as Cambridge City Deal but re-branded after that title became associated with the toxic legacy of some of their earlier projects. They've got the devolved authority to spend money from Central government. But City Deal is overseen by chosen representatives from industry, the University, and councillors from South Cambs (libdems), Cambridgeshire (conservatives) and Cambridge (Labour). It is slow, it is inefficient, it creates projects that are great if you're a committee but bad if you're actually any kind of user. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And then there's the Mayors office. By offering a big pile of social housing money (which won't happen) outlandishly gullible Labour City councillors were duped into accepting an overall directly elected Mayoral authority with a wider diaspora than just the City. So wide in fact that it seems almost infeasible that it won't be forever dominated by the blue-rinsed swivel eyed loony Tories if the fens. And the Mayor, a chap by the name James Palmer, is an unashamed representative of those loonies - the City didn't vote for him, they did.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So here's where we are - its an open secret that the Mayor doesn't like where City Deal are going. He's been so much opposed to it that the whole <a href="https://www.lgcplus.com/politics-and-policy/devolution-and-economic-growth/mayor-on-collision-course-with-ministers-over-400m-city-deal-cash/7024997.article" target="_blank">scheme is now on the verge of collapse</a>, and it wouldn't be too tin-foil-hat to suggest he might just be ok with that. Like we're looking at the thick end of half a billion pounds being withdrawn here.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Mayor wants an underground or Metro or some such and he's (quite erroneously) convinced that building wider roads fixes things.<a href="http://publicsectorblogs.org.uk/2017/03/mayoral-candidate-loses-faith-in-county-transport-officers-a-dragons-best-friend/" target="_blank"> He doesn't trust the officers employed by the County but working with City Deal to deliver projects</a>. And if you don't think the way he managed to avoid scrutiny of his positions <a href="http://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/fears-over-serious-contempt-of-scrunity-committee-1-5578745" target="_blank">looks suspicious</a> I've got to ask you what its like having been born just yesterday. City Deal wanted to extend the Guided Bus and are adamant that their cycle provision schemes are great (brief version: they vary from terriyfing and crap through to better than mediocre, but mostly are a mishmash that aren't linked together in any meaningful sense so don't encourage anyone to ride) and they've got a range of other schemes that they have subsequently had to put on hold while they sort their differences with the Mayor out. The District council don't like extending the Guided Bus route any more because they're no longer Tories and have suddenly become Liberal Democrats. And the City are, well, who even has the energy to keep following...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And with all this going on, <a href="https://www.nic.org.uk/publications/running-out-of-road-investing-in-cycling-in-cambridge-milton-keynes-and-oxford/" target="_blank">in comes Gilligan</a>. And with almost laser like precision sights the nail and smacks it firmly on the head. Invest in cycling, stupid.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Look, we might get an underground one day but I'm old enough to remember the Tyneside Metro opening - and that kind of build is long, slow, disruptive and astonishingly expensive. Going under the city is difficult and it isn't going to solve anything soon. Building wider roads isn't going to get people to anywhere other than the next bottleneck slightly sooner, it won't make journeys better or shorter. But there's a simple, quick, cost effective, clean, healthy answer that only fails in one way - it doesn't provide the phallic support that big-ticket infrastructure does. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Gilligan is right - if you want to free up road space and facilitate faster, better transport for everyone then the low-hanging fruit is cycle provision. And not two-thirds of Arbury Road here and a wide, out of the way Eponymous trail connecting goodness knows where with somewhere else via nowhere anyone wants to be. Safe, high quality, visible, on-road direct and radial routes within and to the outside of the City. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If what you want is an improved transport network for everyone in Cambridge then what you want is a genuine, complete cycle network here. If you think you want transport improvements but don't want that, then you're wrong. Its that simple.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-22349336891284399062018-04-25T15:21:00.003+01:002018-04-25T15:21:54.569+01:00Cambridge Cycling Campaign Election Survey - SummaryMost years I find myself saying its a mixed bag, but one party or another stands out as best in their responses to the Cycling Campaigns election survey. This year? Nope. Nothing much to choose between Greens, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.<br />
<br />
Looking more widely than the two I picked out from each party, things don't improve much. <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2018/04/cambridge-cycling-campaign-election.html" target="_blank">Labour</a> are obviously the most polished local party operation - there is, as there always is, a discernible party line here. It looks almost as if they're discussing this on an internal party mailing list. They're full of platitudes but when you strip down what they're saying, it is both tentative and uninspiring. We don't need to continually test out solutions proven elsewhere - we need to install them here. And Labour are just unwilling to do so - they're not, at core, a cycling friendly party.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2018/04/cambridge-cycling-campaign-election_24.html" target="_blank">Liberal Democrats</a> also talk a good game but really have little to offer us. Again, they talk a good game but when it comes down to it what is on offer is very poor indeed. Scanning through other candidate responses in other wards there are some who are a little better, they're certainly more variable than Labour candidates, and perhaps if you question yours closely you'll find something worthwhile there.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2018/04/cambridge-cycling-campaign-election_38.html" target="_blank">Greens</a>. Oh, Greens. I don't get how you're not all enthusiastically for cycling. Is your heart just not in it? Some of the candidates are great, some others? I wonder what they've been smoking. And I'm heart-broken to say that, as I am, by instinct, a Green.<br />
<br />
And the <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2018/04/cambridge-cycling-campaign-election_30.html" target="_blank">Tories</a> are shit. They vary between pointless, hostile and just nasty. There are a couple who seem to get it - but if cycling matters to you, don't vote for them.<br />
<br />
Other than Cambridges two other candidates (one UKIPper, one Libertarian - the former a regular cyclist hater and the latter so wrong on nearly everything he says its all comical) that's your lot - the most disappointing group of local election candidates I've yet reviewed. I could go looking for the better ones (e.g. Jamie, down in West Chesterton, is better for the LibDems than most of the others, Phil Salway is rather less crap than the other Tories) but thats not the point of this.<br />
<br />
If cycling is the main concern you have in our local elections then I suggest unless you've got a really good candidate you should chewing up your ballot paper and spitting it out again. Its that bad.<br />
<br />
Maybe next year. But I doubt it.<br />
<br />Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-16755340736283683612018-04-24T20:57:00.000+01:002018-04-24T20:57:00.824+01:00Cambridge Cycling Campaign Election Survey 5: My Responses<div style="text-align: justify;">
Part 5 was about to be UKIP and the new Libertarian Party. But they've got one candidate each and they're so abysmal they're not even funny.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last time round Al at the Cycling Campaign challenged me to give my own answers. So I did. And it would seem uncharitable not to do so again. Here goes. Here are my answers to the Kings Hedges questions.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">What experience do you and your family have of cycling? Do you have any different concerns about younger or older family members cycling than you do yourself?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Its just me and my partner. We both cycle, pretty much everywhere. What on depends what we're doing - might be the big ex-posties bike with a trailer for big stuff. Might be the road bike for going a distance. Might be the chunky hybrid down to the shops. Depends. I've always ridden, wherever I've lived.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Concerns for the elderly and the young, and for those who don't get around so well, are largely that its just so damned hostile. If you're quick and assertive thats easier - but thats no way to run a road system. The litmus test for whether we're getting cycling right is really whether there are children and old-fogeys riding. That we've relatively few of each tells you what we're doing wrong. Add to that the fact that many cycle facilities here are practically inaccessible for those on non-standard bikes (especially important for the disabled) and it shows we've a long way to go. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">A key aim of our organisation is enabling more people to cycle, by the provision of protected space for cycling away from traffic, not shared with pedestrians, thus reducing traffic and providing transport choice. This best-practice is outlined in our guide, Making Space For Cycling, endorsed by all national cycling organisations. Do you support these principles, and if so, where could they most effectively be applied in your ward?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I support Making Space for Cycling. We should be building high quality cycle provision pretty much everywhere, every time we modify a road. We should be doing this on Arbury Road, along the whole length, Campkin Road, Northfield Avenue, Kings Hedges Road, and Milton Road - we should be looking to have direct routes between where people live and where they work, so this should extend out of the ward down Union Lane, Campkin Road, to the Science Park, etc.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Safe use of the roads is a major issue. Our view is 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. What are your thoughts, and where would your priorities be?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Flip that around. Would I favour policing based on opinion, belief, hunch, prejudice and guesswork? No. Obviously not. No one would. Would I therefore rather base policing on evidence or risk and relative harm? Yes. The evidence is, in Cambridge and across the UK, that it ain't cyclists causing the problem. <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2016/01/cyclists-are-just-as-dangerous-as-cars.html" target="_blank">Thats just physics.</a> Motorists kill <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2015/04/fair-and-proportionate-road-safety.html" target="_blank">in such huge numbers relative to cyclists</a> its not even something to see the bright side of, there's not even a good laugh to be had here, its hideous.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And if the evidence shows that cyclists are causing specific problems in specific places? Yeah, sure, address it - give that the policing priority based on the level of harm caused. Someone claiming they were 'nearly killed' by a cyclist riding past them isn't going to be a high priority when people are -actually- killed by motorists. If you believe otherwise your sense of perspective is seriously fucked up.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">We are keen to see more children being able to cycle safely to school independently. Ideas from our members to assist this include protected space for cycling, parking/pickup bans 200m of schools, cycle parking. What measures would you suggest?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Great starting points. More and better bike locking spaces at schools. Quality cycling infrastructure connecting where people live with schools. Bike maintenance groups visiting schools. Medals for kids who cycle. Ain't rocket science - make cycling appealing and safe and it'll happen, that'll make kids healthier, happier, and the environment they're in cleaner and safer. There are no down-sides to this.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Our volunteers spend a lot of time scrutinising planning applications for failures such as lack of secure cycle parking, poor access, failure to fund nearby improvements to make the roads safer, and so on. Many of these things get let through by officers and Councillors in clear contravention of the Local Plan. The lack of a full-time cycling officer makes this situation even worse. What are your main concerns about the planning system, and how would you seek to make improvements?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sadly fixing our planning system (which is absurdly uneven, slow, expensive, and inaccessible) is beyond the powers of a councillor - but putting cycle friendliness at the core of what officers are expected to do IS within that remit. I agree that there needs to be a full time cycling officer at the City Council, although planning is only part of that job. And I think its a nonsense that this stuff is left to Camcycle to do - you guys do a good job of this despite opposition from councillors (and it IS opposition - look at how Councillor Sarris acted, his criticism of the campaign was disgusting). So, I'd be looking to give cycle accessibility and appropriateness equal weighting with car access. If it ain't good enough to ride to, you can't build it - just like we currently have for car access. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">Protected junctions where walking and cycling traffic are fully separated from motorised traffic have been proposed by Cambridge Cycling Campaign for junctions being rebuilt by the Milton and Histon Road GCP projects. Which junctions do you think would benefit from similar safety improvements within the Cambridge area?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think you've called it pretty well with what you want on Milton Road. There's a fight to be fought still there - and I think that the trees issue hasn't yet gone away there. I'd dump the bus lane in favour of a tidal route, I'd have a single row of truly interesting trees rather than two narrow verges of crap ones. Likewise Histon Road needs full segregation, but I'm not sure about how I'd design that yet.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Other junctions needing safety improvements - well, lots of them, but there's not a one size fits all answer. For example, Mitchams Corner needs taming, as does the min-roundabout at the end of Lensfield Road (one of the worst in Britain for cyclist safety!) but they're very different and need different approaches. I'd start with listing those with the lowest cycling rates and the highest rate of cyclist injury and work from there - low rate of cycling here means people are scared off the road, high rate of injury is a self explanatory problem.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">What will you do about pavement parking in King's Hedges, for example, on the roads off Northfield Avenue?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Two problems here, road and verge parking. Verge parking is easy - we already have a bye-law where its illegal if you put a sign up. So put the signs up. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pavement parking is beyond the jurisdiction of City councillors - you can pester the police at area committees to treat it as a priority but we all know that means the expenditure of around 2-3 hours of police work on that priority over the course of a year, and that the exercise is police PR achieving nothing of any value. The County can police pavement parking but they're never going to - there are no votes in in for Tory county councillors helping our residents in the LibDem/Labour City. Parking enforcement powers can only be used if the City gets control of them from the County - so thats where we should start. The alternative - street by street TRO's with consultations for each one, will take forever. My rule would be if you can't push a double buggy past, the pavement is blocked, you get a ticket.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "Open Sans", serif; font-size: 15px;">How would you improve permeability and accessibility for walking and cycling through King’s Hedges, especially with regard to the inaccessible barriers that block access to larger cycles such as tricycles, cargo cycles and adapted cycles for disability?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dig up the barriers. If you can't get a bike through with a trailer its not a bike route. I don't see why this is even questioned. There are still too many left. Actually Kings Hedges is really pretty permeable for cycling already, if you know your routes. Problem is they're badly signposted - but when you know your way through the estate its pretty good. I'd label those routes better both on official maps and on signposts. I'd also look to improve routes such as the back way into the Science Park (which is dreadful, that chicane is truly a thing of evil) and the through-route to the Science Park along Roxburgh Road connecting to Arbury Road via. Nicholson Way could be massively better.</div>
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-47491439365461266352018-04-24T18:53:00.002+01:002018-04-24T18:53:36.923+01:00Cambridge Cycling Campaign Election Survey 4: Greens<div style="text-align: justify;">
While still a minority party here, the Greens do at least have a city councillor and they've had others. And they're fielding a good number of candidates so its worth putting their answers under the same scrutiny as the other parties. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sadly our local Green candidate hasn't responded, so I've got to go further afield. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/2018maydistrict/arbury/">Lets go over into Arbury and see what Stephen Lawrence has to say. </a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
His own experience of cycling and fears for others of different ages? </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Cycled since a young lad. Only wasn't able to cycle when I succumbed to a nasty bout of Glandula Fever</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ok. So he's got a bike. Thats not really an answer though.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The 'Space for Cycling' question, about cycle facilities and quality thereof...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">We have a particular problem at my residence (built 1976) with complete lack of sufficient cycle parking (10 spaces for 13 flats). There must be many other residences like this.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thats not an answer to the question.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On 'evidence based policing' and does he support it? </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">"Levels of Danger perceived" seems more relevant. So cycling courses to increase self-confidence - and these will also raise awareness of where real sources of danger are. It is interesting that "road breakdown-assistance" has provided funding for a very effective pro-car lobby. Would the same help cyclists?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm beginning to think he's not taking this seriously. Should we base policing on evidence of risk brought to others and should there be more road policing? No comment but lets train cyclists not to be frightened. What a load of bollocks.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He agrees with examples suggested by Camcycle as to how to help kids ride to school but hasn't got anything else to add. And he hasn't grasped the question about planning and Camcycles filling in for Council staff at all. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the plus side he does have a short list of places where silly barriers exist on cycle routes, but isn't clear how he'd improve them. And regarding his junction that he'd improve (Mere Way/Arbury Road/route to Roxburgh Road) he's presumably missed the fact that most of that is about to be dug-up and re-done actually much better (I'll give Greater Cambridge stick where they deserve it, but they're taming that junction and not a moment too soon). And his last response where he says he'd 'arrange to ride with groups specified' to work out what to say about a Greater Cambridge deal sounds good while being completely non-committal. You'd think the Greens would be all-over the cycling ticket but these responses have been woeful. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lets go down to <a href="https://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/2018maydistrict/westchesterton/">West Chesterton and see what Shayne Mitchell has to say.</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regarding own cycling experience and that of family...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
I've cycled all my life as my only or mains means of transport. Cambridge originally, London for some years, Italy (Rome far more pleasant and safe to cycle than Cambridge, believe it or not), Cambridge again.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
When I lived in northern Italy (Ferrara), the younger members of the family I stayed with, aged ten or so, could easily and safely cycle to their grandmother on the other side of town BY THEMSELVES. Quite impossible here. But it needn't be.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
It is an indictment of Cambridge transport policy that a major concern for us in our child's choice of sixth form was the danger or otherwise of getting there by bike (e.g. Impington = intimidating roundabout to cross over motorway).</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well there's a strength of feeling expressed there thats immediately appealing, and I applaud that. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And the Space for Cycling question?</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
Yes, support it. Shared space is intimidating and unpleasant for pedestrians and small children, especially if your balance isn't as good as it used tone - somebody coming up unexpectedly makes you jump. Also, alas, too many cyclists cycle too fast and too close to pedestrians.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
Milton Road is the obvious place. Why not "do a Hills Road" on it - decent wide cycle lanes, narrower car lanes in middle, which automatically slow traffic.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
Chesterton Road also needs decent wide cycle lanes, especially between Mitcham's Corner and the big Chesterton roundabout. (It could be a beautiful Continental-style boulevard. Trees down the middle?)</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, ok. Thats all fair enough - although I can think of other roads that need such an approach too!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Does he support evidence based policing? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Agree. Would particularly like to see the police do something about the many moped riders who zoom around especially in the evening, without silencers and accelerating hard around circuits in the town. Somebody is going to get killed. From what I have read (hopefully changed?), the Police at most "talk to" those found doing this.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Lights - would like to see the many car-drivers with only one headlight working fined!</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Taxi-drivers. Unfortunately there seems to be a culture of dangerous, aggressive taxi-driving (and parking) in Cambridge. This needs addressing urgently, both in education and enforcement. A role for the City Council taxi-licensing department.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Fully support the Police campaign to stop drivers overtaking too close. Was grateful to Cam Cycling Campaign for pushing for this.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From a cycling perspective this all sounds good - from an evidence based policing its a little shady. Where is your evidence that the things you allude to deserve more 'evidence based' policing? My own instincts say the same - I don't argue thats evidence based. I do know that there is plenty of data available on relative harm caused by different kinds of road user and I do wonder why it is that none of the candidates seem interested in looking that up for themselves. Like, would 10 minutes googling it be too much to ask?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On children cycling to school he's agreed with Camcycle suggestions and added banning driving on to School premesis and talked about dry bike parking. Thats sensible. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And on planning...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
Reinstate full-time cycling officer.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
Planning system opaque and biased in favour of applicants. Needs better and clearer publicity about planning applications at the site they are being made for. The existing system - a boring small A4 cryptic sheet with small print, attached obscurely near site - seems designed to avoid notice.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Best answer to that yet.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And which junctions need improving? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">All of them!</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Roundabouts are particularly problematic and scary. Better replaced by traffic lights.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Interestingly (and counter-intuitively), it wouldn't necessarily "impede traffic flow". I am ancient enough to recall the roundabout which used to be at the junction by Parkside Swimming Pool. Because so many cyclists and pedestrians had been injured, it was replaced by traffic lights. Intriguingly, it actually got quicker and easier to use the junction - there was much LESS of a queue! (I lived near there, and used it every day before and after.)</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well at least its ambitious. I'm not sure 'all of them' is quite the right answer, but I'd certainly accept hat we should be looking at them all, based on accident and cycling rates - if the former is high and the latter low you've definitely got a problem. And his response on pavement and residents parking approaches perfection. I'm repeating it all here because it is, frankly, superb.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
I loathe parking on pavements. It impedes or blocks progress for pedestrians, is ugly and dangerous (cars driving on and off pavements, often some distance, fast, along the pavement), and trashes our beautiful paving stones, where they survive. It also gives out the clear message that cars are more important.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
We need a system like London, where pavement parking has been illegal for decades. (Government has just announced proposal to gather evidence on possibility of extending London system to rest of country - great.)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
What is particularly objectionable and dangerous is the officially condoned and sanctioned pavement parking in Romsey, which makes using the pavements difficult to use for everyone, and impossible if you have a buggy/wheelchairs. It needs to be gradually removed, changing the parking back to one side only, as it was until quite recently.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
In West Chesterton, the official pavement parking on Milton Road pavement, from Mitcham's Corner to the roundabout, created some six (?) or so years ago, is crazy. In places it makes the pavement about a foot wide (east side near roundabout). It blocks visibility. It looks hideous. It is dangerous. It creates a lawless feeling, a sense that it's fine parking on the pavement anywhere. It's quite unnecessary - nearly all the houses along there have space for at least one car in the drive. (And in the odd place there isn't, since when has there been an automatic right to park outside your house?)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
Residents' parking. I am not convinced by the argument that it should be introduced in order to stop commuters parking. The raison d'être of residents parking seems to have completely changed. The point until now was to give residents in Victorian and older streets, with no off-road parking, which were being completely taken up by commuter parking, a chance to park. It seems strange to introduce residents' parking on streets where houses have driveways or space to park one or more cars, and residents don't need to park on the street.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
It also seems needlessly divisive. The people who are commuter parking might well like to live in Cambridge, and not have to drive in, but they may well have had to live outside Cambridge because houses are less expensive there. They might prefer to use public transport - but it may well not be good enough, so they have no choice but to drive.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
Those of us who live in Cambridge, in the streets proposed for residents parking, are already fortunate to be able to live close to the centre, and close to bus routes/railway We probably have space to park at least one car in our driveway, and don't even need the residents parking.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
It is the public highway, after all, not the private domain of those of us who live here.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
His response to making the bottom end of Arbury Road safer is a little too tentative - you can't remove the parking that prevents us having cycle lanes gradually, but you need to look at where those cars will go, what kind of parking options can be offered elsewhere. This is solvable, but needs some courage. His answers on Mitchams Corner are ok too, but I'd like more detail on what he'd do.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So thats the Greens. And I'm... Stuck. One great candidate, one rubbish. I'd rate one at 9/10 and the other at 2/10. Maybe 6/10 on balance - but if you've got a green candidate all I can say is look very closely at what they say - you might have a cracker, you might have a stinker.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-80558809307809157842018-04-24T18:52:00.003+01:002018-04-24T18:52:46.565+01:00Cambridge Cycling Campaign Election Survey 3: Conservatives<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lets be honest, in Cambridge the Tories are about as popular as a bacon and egg sandwich at a vegan convention, but they might just surprise us with a council candidate win if they had just the right candidate in just the right ward. But thats not the point - they're still part of the local democratic discourse here....</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But not so much in my ward, Kings Hedges. Where Annette Karimi always stands, always loses. And doesn't answer this survey or indeed respond to anything else. She's a paper candidate and everyone knows it - no one even knows what she looks like. There are also no Tory answers in East Chesterton or Arbury. So the first I've found is down in West Chesterton, a chap called Mike Harford.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, what are his (and his families) experiences of cycling and how does that shape his views?</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I do cycle about town. I enjoy seeing families cycling together and exercising as people of all ages. However I am very aware of safety. My wife as a pedestrian and also a good friend have had injuries due to irresponsible cyclists . This area must be addressed . Cyclists with impunity cycle through banned areas. I would have local laws using traffic wardens to fine those whom break the law and endanger others which covers other cyclists and especially those with toddlers aboard.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well that's a great start isn't it? Someone was hurt due to 'irresponsible cyclists'. What, some kind of pile up of 'irresponsible cyclists'? Is that what you mean? Or was someone hurt by one other person and you're for some reason holding us all responsible, and you're going to blame us all for it and seek to punish us by stopping us from 'banned areas'? Such as where, Mike? Sorry, but this is a terrible first impression.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Does he support 'Space for Cycling'?</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I fully support the idea of separate cycling zones and equally safe walking areas. All this should be structured in the upcoming environmental plans. Obviously this must be done within reasonable financial resources. So I do support your objectives.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dude, we're spending £1.5bn + on the A14 - we can afford a few notes for cycle facilities.There is no financial restraint on road spending when its cars, don't ask us to beg for scraps. And I take issue with the fact that you feel the need to specify this is something only supported alongside safe walking zones - no one interested in good cycle infrastructure opposes that, why are you trying to play cyclists off against pedestrians? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Does he support evidence based policing?</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I enthusiastic endorse this view as already outlined. I was a County Councillor on Highways some time ago. Safety must always be a priority . I may not be popular by saying that motorists should not always take the blame.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Errm... What? Who said they should? Sorry like, but on three occasions in your first three answers you've had a little quiet dig at cyclists. I don't get it - do you just think we're too thick to spot that, or can you just not help yourself?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But wait, it gets better. What measures would support kids cycling to school? </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Absolutely agree. I used to cycle to school. This is a health issue . Prevention of obesity comes to mind for a start. Loads of Chelsea Tractors clogging up roads is not good. However I think children could form small groups going to school together. I think parents have concerns about sex offenders and maybe a reason they don't cycle?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So its pretty obvious he doesn't like cyclists (from his first three answers). But he also doesn't like people in the wrong sort of car. And its potential rapists that stop children cycling, not drivers or lack of facilities. This is swivel-eyed stuff of epic proportions. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regarding planning and the load that falls on Camcycle to spot whats wrong with applications...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I understand what you say but any planning must take account of all interested parties. To have a separate cycle planning officer would not help you. You already are lobbying well as are others. It is important to have good Councillors and officers to make good judgements. Unfortunately the quality of all these is often lacking.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, it does have to take account of all parties - including cyclists. A cycling officer doesn't just do planning, they do a lot more than that - and its not the job of charities to fix problems missed because we don't fund the necessary scrutiny. You haven't really given any kind of answer here Mike - you just don't get it at all.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regarding Histon and Milton Road junction plans and other junctions that need work...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I agree with your campaign. Anything that keeps cyclists and pedestrians away from motorists is preferable especially in Cambridge.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. WRONG.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cycle lanes aren't to keep cyclists away from motorists. They're not. Thats not the point of them. The point of them is to provide fast, direct, safe routes to travel - if you start from the premise of keeping cyclists away from motorists you always end up with unrideable, indirect, badly thought out, poorly designed routes that no one uses. The point isn't to keep us out of your way, its to provide routes to encourage more people to cycle. Gosh but so far this is a train-crash of a response from Mike.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For that ward there's a really interesting pavement and commuter parking question, thus:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">All-day free parking by commuters on residential streets increases traffic on already congested roads. This has an impact on cycle safety. Many times cars are parked on pavements or across dropped kerbs, making access difficult for people with disabilities or pushing prams. How would you solve this problem?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And his response... </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I am very strong on this. I used to live in Kensington where parking is very restricted between residents and paid parking. I would have this in all areas in Cambridge. Off Mill Road London commuters park there to avoid paying at the station. Parking on pavements is a difficult one to prevent. It is reasonable for people who live in the area to have space for a car.i In the same way I support your idea to have one space in every street for cycles. Unfortunately the area was not built for cars. However on a positive note in the future car ownership will seriously reduce due to new motorised technology so in time all will gradually get better.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Errm... What? You would have more paid parking? But you don't really care enough about disabled people to stop pavement parking? Dude I don't get the problem here - parent with a buggy, or person in a wheelchair, versus someone with a 'Chelsea tractor' as you put it dumping their private property in their way? Who do you favour? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's also a direct question on Arbury Road in this ward...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">The eastern section of Arbury Road near Milton Road is narrow, filled with parked cars creating a cycle safety hazard, and speeding traffic far above the 20mph limit. How would you propose to create safe cycling conditions along this part of Arbury Road, for instance by extending the new cycle lanes?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And his answer is crap. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Some parking restrictions seems the best way.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is one, and only one, workable answer. A quality cycle lane on the whole length of the road. I should point out that none of the candidates just come out and say this, although the Green and LibDems come closest.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And the last question, about Mitchams Corner, he just bottles. Honestly, I don't think Mikes heart is in it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ok. So far so crap. Lets go find another. <a href="https://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/2018maydistrict/romsey/">Martin Keegan is standing in Romsey.</a> Experiences cycling and concerns for him and other family members?</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
I have never learnt to drive a car, thus I get around by cycle, train, Uber, planes, taxis and buses.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
I was seriously injured in an accident on the Chisholm Trail last year when I fell off my own bicycle, and saw Stewart Milne on the ground as the ambulance arrived at the site of the crash that killed him, just a minute or two from where I now live. I can't imagine what it was like for his family.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
These incidents have given me an even greater awareness of the importance of cycle safety. Having become able to cycle again a few weeks ago, I am now much more careful about the routes I take.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
I live alone; if I had kids, I'd try to ensure they were risk-aware enough to be able to cycle independently, as I did from about the age of seven.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And again, I've got that sinking feeling. Notice its not about the risk presented by lack of or bad facilities. Its not about the risk posed by motorists mixing with cyclists (such as the collision that killed Stewart Milne that Martin refers to). Its about cyclists choosing safer routes - which, of course, if said route isn't taking you where you need to be, is nonsense. Oh, dear.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And does he support 'Space for Cycling'?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I am a big believer in segregating cycling space from traffic and pedestrians, less so in reducing traffic per se. Transport choice is partly a matter for the private sector and partly the state: the Conservative government recently introduced the Bus Services Act 2017 allowing more local government involvement in organising bus services.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">In terms of actual road infrastructure: motorists have been the principal beneficiaries of design decisions for several decades; this has influenced current attitudes and the cost of new measures. I do not approve of the "creepy demand management" measures that seem to crop up to try to coerce transport users' behaviour, in particular any congestion charging scheme that would undermine personal privacy.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Until recently, I lived on Great Eastern Street in Romsey, which is basically a pedestrian-unfriendly car-park and occasional building site. Workmen would literally use the road outside my bedroom for preparing building materials, and there were often considerable difficulties parking bicycles in a manner which didn't interfere with pedestrian access given the very narrow pavements.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">The speed-bumps and other anti-car infrastructure in the heart of Romsey make life difficult for cyclists as well. Romsey has unusual arrangements for car parking and traffic; measures clearly designed for facilitating cycling, like those little single-lane cycle paths too often end up benefiting no-one as they're used for parking wheelie bins and otherwise obstructed.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So.... Errrm... Does he? He supports letting the free market decide rather than influencing behviour with policy, but that policy largely favours motorists and doesn't work for cycling, such as the examples he's given? Seems to me that free-market ideology matters most to him, and everything else has to be shoehorned in around that. His answer here is nonsense.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now his answer to the next question is even worse. The question is the old 'evidence based policing' one, namely:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Safe use of the roads is a major issue. Our view is 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. What are your thoughts, and where would your priorities be?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
His answer:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">The question doesn't distinguish between the cost of harm, the probably of harm, and the costs of preventing or mitigating harm.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, no, because the question isn't about harm, its about evidence and policing. I note that this candidate seems very concerned about 'costs' and not at all about 'values'. It isn't clear whether he's interested in 'evidence' or even 'policing' from this answer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As for kids cycling to school, this question: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">We are keen to see more children being able to cycle safely to school independently. Ideas from our members to assist this include protected space for cycling, parking/pickup bans 200m of schools, cycle parking. What measures would you suggest?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He replies with...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I don't have kids, and am not an expert. I grew up in a different era, in a city much more conducive to safer cycling by children. The types of measures contemplated in the question don't strike me as likely to be practical in making a difference. There is probably a way of changing the culture, but it should be done gradually and by consent.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You can't change culture by just wishing for it. No city, anywhere in the world, has achieved mass cycling or improvements in cyclist safety by wishing for some nebulous concept of cultural change to just happen. This is complete nonsense - safe cycling facilities and changing how parents get to school by requiring cars park further away has been proven to work. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regarding planning:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
The planning system is not fit for purpose. It's a very complicated problem that can only really be solved by Parliament, but the last few decades have presented numerous legislative opportunities to all the major parties, and the Liberal Democrats. Conservative councillors such as Chris Howell were vocal in opposing the Station Square catastrophe. We are less likely to take an indulgent attitude to the officers, and we need to get back on the city council to resume this spirited opposition.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Again, thats just weird. It doesn't acknowledge the problems as discussed in the question and it doesn't really answer the question other than saying 'vote Tory'. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This ward has a local Mill Road question, which is...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Mill Road is one of the premier high streets in the country. It is also an important cycle route since it crosses the railway. But it is also covered with badly-parked cars and plagued by speeding motorists who disregard the safety of people walking and cycling. During the Mill Road Winter Fair we get a glimpse of an alternative Mill Road, one that provides an amazing public space that people can really enjoy. For the rest of the year, how would you like to see Mill Road improved so that it can be a better place for people living there, shopping and visiting?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is an excellent question - Mill Road is loud, congested, polluted and absolutely hostile to cycling. And the response is...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
My phones' image galleries are full of badly parked cars on Mill Road, albeit the bit that's in Petersfield, but the tailbacks that can be caused by a single illegally parked car can stretch all the way to Romsey (I had a photo of this too somewhere).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
As it happens, I am not a big fan of closing roads for the Winter Fair and I don't agree with the premise that it provides an amazing public space. Some people don't feel welcome and I am one of them.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Mill Road traders have recently had a tough couple of years but it must be possible to improve the way deliveries are currently handled.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm struggling to express how little I understand this response. Mill Road Fair (and the Winter Fair) attract many thousands of people who spend lots of money in the shops, stalls, and cafes there. Its a colossal success enjoyed by, well, a colossal and diverse array of people. I've never heard anyone say they feel unwelcome there - this 'some people' would appear to be this guy. He's also failed to give us any credible suggestions for fixing the problems on Mill Road - yeah, illegal parking, thats one thing. What about the buses? How about the extra traffic that housing developments are bringing? What about pollution? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
His answer on pavement parking and fly-parking shows he hasn't understood the problem or what powers the City Council has. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's another hyper-local question regarding Mill Road bridge, and its a good one:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Overtaking on Mill Road Bridge is highly dangerous and scary for many people who cycle, from parents with children to very experienced people. The police response so far has been extremely limited. Instead, we would like to see high-profile, concerted action resulting in prosecutions. What are your views?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Martins answer is stupid. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I have always advocated crowdfunding private criminal prosecutions where the police and the CPS are letting crime get out of hand and the community needs to act, though I don't expect the Cambridge Cycling Campaign to share my radicalism in this matter.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thats not radical. Its unworkable. Individuals can't identify perpetrators of illegal overtakes, we haven't the resources. You aren't being radical by advocating a dumb idea, you're just being dumb.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He has replied to whether some street space used for car storage (a term he gently takes issue with) by complaining bikes get stolen outside in the last question. And, thats it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thats our two Tory candidates looked at. And I've got to say, I've rarely encountered a more pointless bunch. What a load of total crap. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
If cyclists being treated with respect is important to you, don't vote Tory. Zero out of 10. Just don't bother. </div>
</div>
Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-22537724498350055712018-04-24T18:51:00.002+01:002018-04-24T18:51:52.375+01:00Cambridge Cycling Campaign Election Survey 2: Liberal Democrats<div style="text-align: justify;">
LibDems are the main opposition in Cambridge right now. Its not impossible that by the end of NEXT years election cycle they'll be in control of the city council, but its a big ask. Still, that means that the views of this years candidates really matter - it isn't at all impossible that they could end up putting some of these views into practice.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As ever, I'll start with Kings Hedges. Daniele Gibney is their candidate. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regarding her experience and that of her family...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<table class="lines questions" style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; border: 0px; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 1.2em 0px 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; width: auto;"><tbody style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<tr class="kingshedges_libdem" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><td style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(233, 233, 233); border-image: initial; border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 1em 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 6px 4px 2px; vertical-align: top;"><div style="border: none; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I grew up in the Netherlands, and so have been cycling from a very early age. I’ve never owned a car, and aside from a period of 1.5 years when I commuted by train, cycling has always been my primary mode of transport. Since moving to Cambridge, I’ve always been lucky enough to work locally and have a pleasant cycle commute. My partner is also a cyclist.<br />
I don’t have either younger or older family members locally, but in general I’m worried about more vulnerable cyclists. That’s not limited to children or older people – several young adults I know are unsure on a bike. I was amazed when I moved to Cambridge to see how often cyclists are required to share road space with buses, and in general are given little protection on busy roads. I know people who are less confident can be put off cycling in such circumstances.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That all seems fair enough. I share her concerns. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second question is the 'space for cycling' one...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">A key aim of our organisation is enabling more people to cycle, by the provision of protected space for cycling away from traffic, not shared with pedestrians, thus reducing traffic and providing transport choice. This best-practice is outlined in our guide, Making Space For Cycling, endorsed by all national cycling organisations. Do you support these principles, and if so, where could they most effectively be applied in your ward?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And her answer is pretty strong, as far as it goes:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Yes, I support these principles. For Milton Road, I support the proposals for segregated cycle lanes with priority over side roads. On King’s Hedges Road, I’ve long been bemused by the cycle lanes that hop on and off the pavement. Linking from King’s Hedges Road to the cycle lane alongside the busway is very confusing – the interchanges have no clear route through and signage is poor. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">There are a lot of off-road cut-throughs in our ward – which is excellent, but some are narrow and have blind spots, and are used by both cyclists and pedestrians, leading to potential conflict. It would be good to see improvements made, though possibilities in each case will naturally depend on available space and balancing the effects on our green spaces. The cut-through between Woodhead Drive and Hawkins Road is an example of dedicated space done well, though with a very awkward dog-leg at one end.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thats fine. But the elephant in the room is Arbury Road - do you support extending protected cycle lanes all down the length of the road, to connect Kings Hedges to other parts of the city via. a quality cycle facility? Or do you not? Its a simple choice - residents parking or cycle lane, which do you support?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regarding 'evidence based policing' I was just starting to cheer her on when she dropped a clanger...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I fully agree with taking an evidence-based approach. Not just in terms of relative danger, but also in terms of the amount of impact that can be achieved – e.g. is it possible to ‘nudge’ behaviours to make big differences. I’ll be interested to see the outcomes from ‘Operation Close Pass’, and whether the same techniques have any effect on other behaviours such as using mobile phones while driving. Some larger vehicles can pose a particular danger to cyclists, particularly if their mirrors leave areas unsighted. The London Safer Lorry Scheme is interesting – requiring e.g. all heavy vehicles to carry appropriate mirrors to be able to see cyclists and pedestrians. I’d like to see similar ideas adopted in Cambridge.</span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I think cyclists also need to take responsibility though. When I learned to drive, I was stunned by how hard it is to spot unlit cyclists in the dark, and I get nervous when I see people using phones while cycling. These cyclists put themselves in danger, but if there’s a collision drivers and others can also get hurt. Cyclists should always be considerate around pedestrians in shared use areas.</span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
Policing approaches should be about education, not just sanctions. Education campaigns can operate more widely though, for example advocating the ‘Dutch reach’ – I’ve been doored in the past so I’m very keen on that one.</div>
</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So you believe in evidence based policing except where you instead prefer your own beliefs? You're emphasizing the cause of around 2% of cyclist KSI (and thats a generous over-statement) caused by poor or no bike lights alongside the 70% or more caused by motorist inattention? I think Daniele is great in how she's proposing we should look at evidence - but I think she needs to go further in formulating her own opinions based thereon.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The schools question:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">We are keen to see more children being able to cycle safely to school independently. Ideas from our members to assist this include protected space for cycling, parking/pickup bans 200m of schools, cycle parking. What measures would you suggest?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Her answer is...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">These sound like good ideas. Also engage with schools (we have quite a few in King’s Hedges) to get a sense of any particular issues affecting the routes their students use (or would use, but feel they can’t). It would also be worth engaging with parents, to understand and, hopefully, address their concerns.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thats close to spot on, but I do think she could have picked out the obvious fact that what makes a transport environment better for kids makes it better for everyone. Still, I can't disagree with what she's said there.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Question 5 is this one:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Our volunteers spend a lot of time scrutinising planning applications for failures such as lack of secure cycle parking, poor access, failure to fund nearby improvements to make the roads safer, and so on. Many of these things get let through by officers and Councillors in clear contravention of the Local Plan. The lack of a full-time cycling officer makes this situation even worse. What are your main concerns about the planning system, and how would you seek to make improvements?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And I must say I'm disappointed with Danieles response:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
As I’m not currently ‘on the inside’ I don’t have full insight into the system. However, I do share your concerns about cycle facilities not being catered for appropriately, or indeed being watered down as plans are implemented. The CB1 development is a case in point. I’d want to understand better how these issues arise and where controls can be strengthened. I’m sure the Cambridge Cycling Campaign would be able to suggest some recent examples that would be worth looking into.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Look, I get it. A great response for a local politician when faced with a hard question is to compliment the questioners knowledge and act like you'll learn from them. Once in a while a prospective councillor will say this and actually even mean it. But here I can't help but think that the right answer is 'yeah, you know what, having volunteers doing the work of council officers isn't the best idea, lets look at it' would be a better answer. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But question 6 about junctions is a strong recovery - she has hilighted several that need improving and clearly does get the need to improve the Milton and Histon Road junctions. Top marks there. But then on pavement parking Daniele completely blows it:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">There are a few options for managing something like this, such as a traffic regulation order or physical barriers on the pavement, and each comes with pros and cons. As a party, our preferred approach is to consult with residents locally to find an approach that carries support, and arrange the appropriate applications. The best option may differ from one street, or set of streets, to the next.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Nope. Pavement parking is always a problem - yes, the degree to which it is a problem in different places varies but the idea of spending -years- (and it takes that long) consulting on each individual space? Of pitching cyclists against residents again, and again, and again? Come on, no. You know this isn't going to solve anything. Pavement parking endangers cyclists, it endangers pedestrians, and its a huge problem for the disabled. There are city-wide solutions - why aren't you supporting that?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the last question, on barriers on cycle routes, I think she's knocked the ball out of the park:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I understand that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign has had their LHI bid supported to review the barriers in King’s Hedges and Arbury, so hopefully improvements are already in store. There are some that simply need to go – on the cut-though between Campkin Road and Ramsden Square for example, which is almost impassable for a normal cycle, and completely impossible for larger cycles (or indeed wheelchairs and mobility scooters). The gates on the Northfield Avenue underpass, and elsewhere, are really awkward for cyclists with trailers and other longer vehicles. Where necessary, it’s possible to use bollards that will still deter motorised traffic, while giving sufficient space for larger cycles.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yep. Rip them out. If you really must have one to stop idiots driving through spaces they shouldn't be in they have to be permeable to cyclists.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ok, so much for Kings Hedges. Up and down but more up than down. We went to Chesterton for a second candidate last time so this time lets head West and <a href="https://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/2018maydistrict/arbury/">see whats happening in Arbury</a>, where veteran beard Tim Ward is having a bash at getting re-elected.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
His families experience of cycling and how it relates to recognised problems... </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I and my family routinely cycle both within Cambridge and beyond, including daily commuting. There are various hazards, with the worst at the moment being the proliferation of potholes which distract attention that should be spent on situational awareness, along with the perennial illegally and antisocially parked taxis, and completely oblivious pedestrians stepping out in front of cyclists without looking in the city centre. One of which led to a broken wrist (and destroyed bike) in my family since you asked this question last year.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm slightly surprised he hasn't mentioned the big problem being motorists passing closely really scares the wits out of people, but otherwise thats reasonable. Regarding 'Space for Cycling' I'm disappointed though:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I support the principles, but as there is essentially no unused land available for new development in Arbury the use cases would be largely restricted to "street renewals". The recent work at the top end of Arbury Road is interesting, but even this has its downside, making the right turn into St Alban's Road that much more challenging now that both lanes of traffic are no longer slowed down by the mini roundabout. The poor GCP proposals for Histon Road show the difficulties of satisfying the demands of cycling as well as those of preserving trees and front gardens where available land is severely restricted, but at least, following representations I made last year, the proposal to ban cyclists from turning right into Warwick Road has now been dropped.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, yes, almost all relevant road schemes, everywhere, are renewals. And we're in the middle of the biggest road renewal project in the history of the City right now, thats a big component of City Deal. Thats not a negative, its a big opportunity. And I'm disappointed that Tim has touched on Arbury Road without mentioning the elephant in the room - its only going to go down half of the length of the road. People living Arbury won't have a safe route down the whole length of the road. Sorry Tim, this is lacklustre - and you're failing the residents of your ward here.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As for 'evidence based policing'...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I agree with your view. My priorities would go with the evidence, following the accident record, in addition to listening to Camcycle and local people via the Area Committee, and addressing any behaviour patterns that emerge as problematic.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, yay for evidence based policing! I take issue with his focus on the Area Committee - almost no bugger goes to that, the last one I went to had two attendees who were not part of a political party group, a residents (otherwise known as 'parking') association or <a href="http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/">Richard Taylor</a>. Thats probably the worst forum imaginable for judging relative needs in the community. The average age of attendees was, by my reckoning, around 200 years old. It should and could be valuable but it isn't.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And getting kids riding to school..</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
The measures already suggested seem a reasonable starting point, along with perhaps some more police priority (see Q3) given to things like parking in the new cycle lanes on Arbury Road outside St Laurence School ... but perhaps this has already been actioned, as I have seen less of it recently than used to be the case.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
The city wide 20mph project which I led whilst a councillor was in part aimed at encouraging higher rates of cycling to school.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yeah, ok. Can't argue there - but, again, I do wonder that none of the candidates have spotted that what works for kids works for everyone. Children riding bikes are a barometer for whether we're getting road management right. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regarding the problem with planning and the work Camcycle do being better done by council staff, Tim gives a trademark boring answer that seems entirely fair and correct - and is at least being proactive in a way other candidates I've looked at so far haven't.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">This is a bureaucratic process question, so I'm afraid I am going, of necessity, to give a bureaucratic process answer. I could guess where improvements might be effective, but it's quite easy to guess this sort of thing wrong, so I'd take an "issues and options" approach. I would commission an investigation into the scope and scale of the problem, perhaps by the Internal Audit team, to identify the root causes of recent problems ("issues") and suggest remedial measures ("options"). These can then be evaluated and the most effective measures chosen for implementation.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'd only say that I don't believe that the City Council is capable of introspective self criticism - they'll find excuses rather than improvements. I get what Tim is saying here but my experience of the City Council doesn't suggest this will work. Still, its at better approach than we've seen from other candidates so far.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
His response re. barriers on bike routes is proactive and fair. But then his answer on junctions just seems weird. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
Whilst it would be of value to many cyclists, I would not like "fully separated" to be compulsory - for example in the proposed "improved" version of the Milton Road / Elizabeth Way junction I would probably go straight on along Milton Road westwards in the main carriageway rather than be held up on the segregated cycle path, and the animation fails to demonstrate such behaviour and thus might give an overestimate of motor vehicle speed and thus capacity. Cambridge Cycling Campaign has in the past been supportive of "confident cyclists" who use their right to use the main carriageway as well as those who prefer segregated facilities, and I hope they will continue to be so. As always, the right balance must be struck.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: none; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans", serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.6; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
One thing I would seek to do is carry out an audit of controlled junctions which don't have advance stop boxes for cyclists, and find out why they don't, and campaign to add them where it is physically and legally possible (even if it might reduce junction capacity for motor vehicles). A relatively straightforward improvement for segregated movement for cyclists, albeit not segregated road space, might then be to add more "cyclists go first" phases to some of the traffic lights.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'd have expected Tim to know that cycle facilities aren't compulsory. Fully separated routes give us safe space that almost all cyclists will choose to use, but your're not legally compelled to do so. A confident cyclists doesn't have to - but if that route is good enough then said confident cyclist will. I don't get that there is a 'right balance' between safe cycle facilities and, well, not safe cycle facilities. Tim here is simply wrong. And ASL? They're no use at all if you can't get to them. I'm rather afraid that Tims approach is the approach of the 1990s - and that didn't work. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As for Histon road, this is a great little question...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #fafafa; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">How will you work with the GCP to improve walking and cycling proposals in their Histon Road scheme, in particular with regard to children cycling to school at the Mayfield Primary School, crossing Histon Road near Carisbrooke Road, and within the narrow section of road from Aldi south to the junction with Victoria Road?</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
...with Tims worst answer yet:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">The Histon Road scheme was aimed at improving bus times along Histon Road, which always struck me as being rather a big ask as, whatever was done along the road, buses would continue to get held up at the junctions at the ends. The original proposals seemed to be more aimed at car drivers than anyone else ("hey look, they've put in a bus lane, which takes all those pesky buses out of my car lane, so I'll drive more often"): they certainly didn't look good for cyclists, or trees, or owners of front gardens, or people living along the several rat-runs that would have been created. After I and others, including the Histon Road Area Residents Association, made representations a number of the worst features of the original plans have been dropped, and the plan then spent some time on the "too difficult" pile making no visible progress. However it has recently been revived and we're awaiting the next set of "final" proposals: the feeling at the moment seems to be that the plans will end up delivering a small net benefit for cyclists, albeit at vast cost.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Personally I cycle along Histon Road most weeks and don't usually have any problems apart, of course, from the potholes - perhaps the GCP money could be better spent fixing the potholes on Histon Road, so that cyclist can have some attention to spare to watch the traffic?</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">Particularly in the narrow section from Victoria Road northwards motor traffic, in both directions, is in my experience usually well behaved towards cyclists, and indeed drivers are only too pleased when they can actually drive as fast as the cyclists! The only manoeuvre that I sometimes find difficult is turning right into the passageway through to Borrowdale, through traffic accelerating away from the Gilbert Road traffic lights. But that's a wide section of road that does already have a cycle lane, and it's not obvious that there's any sensible intervention that would be proportionate for the limited number of people making that turn.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Tim is making the cardinal error of assuming a cycle facility is there for someone who already cycles, someone how put off by a hostile road environment. Tim, you're the last person to ask about whether its safe, you already ride it, you need to talk to the people who don't ride it because they don't feel safe there - and there are obviously many. Stand there at commuting time and count the cyclists, then stand on Hills Road where the new bike lanes are and count them. Cycle facilities are about facilitating more riders, not trivially helping out those who ride already. I'm very disappointed by this - Histon Road is savage and needs taming.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As for how he'd improve cycling on Carlton Way...</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "open sans" , serif; font-size: 15px;">I wouldn't have started from here - I wouldn't have put in the current scheme. The illustrated route appears to me to be a failed attempt to provide a segregated facility at any cost, no matter how poor the result (I cycle on the main carriageway there but appreciate that not all cyclists will want to). My recollection is that this was part of a scheme which, bizarrely, seemed to be designed to ADD space for parking for children to be driven to school! - I did question how the scheme was supposed to comply with the County Council's priority of "walking and cycling first" but didn't get a straight answer from them. In improving that area I would look at whether we really need to allocate road space for driving children to school, but as the current scheme was put in so recently I can't imagine the County being happy to spend money tearing it out again just yet.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thats not an answer. Its an evasion. The question isn't 'what would you have done' its 'what would you do now'. <a href="http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2014/01/the-great-cycle-route-that-isnt-part-3.html">The answer to fixing Carlton Way is a doddle</a>, and I don't see why Tim doesn't get it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I don't know what to say. Its a roller-coaster looking at the LibDems, they vary from spot on to just awful. Would I feel confident that, between them, they'd support a better environment for cycling? No. Do I believe we'd see some support for small improvements? No. Is that good enough? No. 5/10. Do better. </div>
<br />
<br />Cab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.com0