Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: simonp on 03 March, 2011, 10:57:06 pm

Title: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: simonp on 03 March, 2011, 10:57:06 pm


   Cambridge News | Latest News Headlines From Cambridge City & Cambridgeshire | National News By Cambridge News | Freewheeling joy in new cycle lane
 (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Freewheeling-joy-in-new-cycle-lane.htm)

I've ridden down this road for the first time since it was done.

Wow.

It's brilliant.  The cycle lane is now about twice the width it used to be, and the parked cars are GONE.

But why is it "controversial"?  Is it because it's now built to the recommended standard and they've stopped people parking all over it?  I don't know where all the parked cars have gone.  Much of it is probably not residents, but people parking then walking into town in the morning.

Oh, and while we're on Cambridge finally doing cycle schemes properly, this: Cambridge Cycling Campaign » Newsletter 89 (April/May 2010) (http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/89/article4.html)

I've ridden it in both directions now and it's transformed the experience of crossing the bridge.  My moanerist next door neighbour didn't like it.  Good.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Regulator on 04 March, 2011, 07:07:22 am

But why is it "controversial"?  Is it because it's now built to the recommended standard and they've stopped people parking all over it? 

^^^^
This.

All the controversy beforehand was over people not being able to park outside their houses.

Quote
I don't know where all the parked cars have gone.  Much of it is probably not residents, but people parking then walking into town in the morning.

Funnily enough, most of it was residents.  They couldn't be arsed parking on their driveways and used to park on the road.

There was some parking by commuters - but they weren't the ones complaining and signing the petition.

Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Alouicious on 04 March, 2011, 08:14:07 am
The 'controversy' will arise when the council don't send the road sweeper down it and it fills with broken glass.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Gandalf on 04 March, 2011, 08:33:20 am
Is that a scooter I can see in the photo?
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Morrisette on 04 March, 2011, 08:42:26 am
It's SO much better now.

All the houses on that road have (double?) driveways. This was a case of laziness pure and simple - residents wanted to be able to park on the road because it was too much trouble to turn the wheel and put the car on the acres of drive in front of the houses. Either that or they drive some stupid beast of a range rover and they can't fit two of those outside the house. Well there's an easy way around that.....

Well done to the council for pushing this through. A clear case of something that is better for the majority.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Greenbank on 04 March, 2011, 11:03:21 am
Is that a scooter I can see in the photo?

Yes, but without knowing what it is doing or where it came from it's impossible to say whether it's doing something naughty or not. HWC Rule 140, "unavoidable" and all that...

In situations like this I'd prefer PTWs to filter down the outside but I don't really care if they come up the inside as long as they don't end up blocking gaps that cycles can fit through.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Gandalf on 04 March, 2011, 11:29:41 am
I wonder what factors determine if a cycle lane ends up being designated as 'advisory' or not. 

I assume that as this one is advisory, due to the dotted line, there is nothing to stop motorists being arsey, should they so choose.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Greenbank on 04 March, 2011, 11:38:09 am
I assume that as this one is advisory, due to the dotted line, there is nothing to stop motorists being arsey, should they so choose.

Hence my comment about the word "unavoidable" in the HWC.

"
140

Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
"

Note that it's not "You MUST NOT driver or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line..." so there's no specific offence.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: simonp on 04 March, 2011, 12:03:36 pm
When I was there, there was little traffic and what there was stayed well clear, some even moving out to overtake, even though that cycle lane is actually wide enough that it's not really needed.

What generally happens in Cambridge is they paint a narrow cycle lane (because there's no space to leave a car lane if it's a good width) and you get pushed into the gutter.

The Gilbert Road lanes used to be this type.  Clearly, there is actually plenty space for wide cycle lanes.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Pancho on 04 March, 2011, 12:31:25 pm
I wonder what factors determine if a cycle lane ends up being designated as 'advisory' or not. 

I assume that as this one is advisory, due to the dotted line, there is nothing to stop motorists being arsey, should they so choose.

Lots of side roads and drives, usually - 'cos you need to access these by crossing the line. Gilbert Road has lots of drives.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Alouicious on 04 March, 2011, 02:50:14 pm
61

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.



Note "not compulsory".....
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: simonp on 04 March, 2011, 03:09:06 pm
61

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.



Note "not compulsory".....

Who, or what, are you replying to?  No-one has asserted that use of cycle facilities is compulsory in this thread.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: clarion on 04 March, 2011, 03:11:12 pm
Hey, simon, cut the ragged old bear some slack!  He misheard.  The acoustics under that bridge are a bit tricky. ;)
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Redlight on 04 March, 2011, 04:38:22 pm
Perhaps we should suggest that Southnd Council pay a fact-finding visit to cambridge to see how to do things competently
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Pancho on 04 March, 2011, 04:42:49 pm
I believe that the brotherhood of Cycle Towns is soon to be marked by a Cambridge to Southend ride. A chance to compare and contrast the transformation in each location.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: simonp on 04 March, 2011, 04:59:16 pm
Perhaps we should suggest that Southnd Council pay a fact-finding visit to cambridge to see how to do things competently

Like this?

Google Maps (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cherry+hinton&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=20.857001,67.631836&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cherry+Hinton,+Cambridge,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.187326,0.173721&spn=0.021048,0.066047&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.187604,0.173917&panoid=Z-xgnpC5qNtelUbOAex-_A&cbp=12,24.85,,0,10.27)

This:

Google Maps (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cherry+hinton&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=20.857001,67.631836&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cherry+Hinton,+Cambridge,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.211229,0.182917&spn=0.021142,0.066047&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.211245,0.18312&panoid=_Xf4H4d2GPQJVRxbtvKgxw&cbp=12,281.93,,0,8.86)

This:

Google Maps (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cherry+hinton&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=20.857001,67.631836&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cherry+Hinton,+Cambridge,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.203977,0.151577&spn=0.021146,0.066047&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.20388,0.151717&panoid=FUJLVEvZCKJbExTr-E2VwA&cbp=12,141.36,,0,13.25)

or this:

Google Maps (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cherry+hinton&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=20.857001,67.631836&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cherry+Hinton,+Cambridge,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.205383,0.105852&spn=0.021145,0.066047&z=15&layer=c&cbll=52.205383,0.105852&panoid=bq9-2xRqXwMxS9XabJy8vQ&cbp=12,170.03,,0,14.3)

Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Pancho on 04 March, 2011, 06:48:19 pm
I've always wondered what Cherry Hinton is like. It's one of those places you can go your whole life and never have a need to visit.

Am curious about some of those schemes; the solid line mandatory routes appear to render car parking areas and private drives inaccessible.

Of course, Cambridge has some shoddy facilities but, on the whole, it is leaps and bounds ahead of most of the UK.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: simonp on 04 March, 2011, 10:11:21 pm
I've always wondered what Cherry Hinton is like. It's one of those places you can go your whole life and never have a need to visit.

Am curious about some of those schemes; the solid line mandatory routes appear to render car parking areas and private drives inaccessible.

Of course, Cambridge has some shoddy facilities but, on the whole, it is leaps and bounds ahead of most of the UK.

It has Cherry Hinton Hall, where the Cambridge Folk Festival is held every year. It's convenient for the hospital, so a lot of medical types live here. It's next to the airport. Other than that, it's just a bit meh. People who think of Cambridge as beautiful have either never been here and only seen it on TV, or have only visited the historic centre, and somehow failed to notice the crap that surrounds it.

As for the mandatory cycle lanes, you are allowed to cross them to gain access. The example on Newmarket Roas by the P&R site (my second link iirc) is just comical. Cambridge is heavily blighted by crap cycling facilities.

The worst of the lot is Cherry Hinton High St. I really must video a ride down it staying in the cycle lane. Though I might increase my life insurance first.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Redlight on 04 March, 2011, 11:00:49 pm
I thought Cherry Hinton was a country and western singer. Not at all appropriate for a folk festival
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: mattc on 05 March, 2011, 03:44:33 pm
I thought Cherry Hinton was a country and western singer. Not at all appropriate for a folk festival
I assumed it was Simon's porn-star name.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: CrinklyLion on 08 March, 2011, 10:09:00 am
I used to live in Cherry Hinton.  About (counts on fingers) 13 or 14 years ago?  Rented house, and the gas got cut off in December because the landlady hadn't paid the bill, we had the bailiffs round because she hadn't paid the council tax and we had an infestation on pharoah ants.  So after a brief sojourn in Waterbeach we moved to a really nice rented house (with a view of the cemetry and a wheelie bin painted to look like a cow) off Newmarket Road.

I'd forgotten that.

Anyway, I remember then that it always felt like a reasonable place to ride your bike although I don't remember there a lot of cycle path nonsense then.  I would most definitely have been in the numpty utility cyclist camp at the time.  It'd be interesting to go back and see how much it's changed.
Title: Re: "Controversial" cycle lanes
Post by: Chris S on 16 March, 2011, 04:20:02 pm
Dear oh dear...

BBC News - Cambridge cycle route bridge 'too long' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-12759800)

 :facepalm:

The hits just keeeeeep on comin'...