- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist on Hills Road Bridge in Cambridge (copyright Simon MacMichael).jpegMake Cambridge cyclists pay congestion charge, says transport expert
A transport expert has recommended that cyclists, as well as motorists, should be subject to any congestion charge introduced in Cambridge – the British city with by far the highest proportion of people riding bikes for everyday journeys.
Cambridgeshire County Councillor Roger Hickford made the revelation today at a meeting of the Greater Cambridge City Deal, of which he is vice-chair.
Local campaigner and citizen journalist Richard Taylor was present, and relayed the councillor’s comments on Twitter.
Cllr Hickford says one expert has said cyclists should pay a congestion charge as they use road space too. @gccitydeal #live @camcycle
— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) December 17, 2015
At present, the identity of the expert, who apparently made the recommendation during the consultation process, is unknown; road.cc has looked through the responses that have so far been made public but we have been unable to find any such reference.
Another county councillor, Noel Kavanagh – who is Cambridgeshire County Council’s cycling champion – described the suggestion as “ludicrous.”
Idea of charging for cycling into Cambridge "comes into the category of ludicrous" says Cllr Kavanagh in short diversion from main debate
— Camb. Cycling Cam. (@camcycle) December 17, 2015
Jon Vale, politics correspondent for the newspaper Cambridge News, was also at the meeting, which he described as both “fascinating and bonkers.”
A congestion charge for cyclists would involve registration and tracking of the city's cyclists. Illiberal. Intrusive. @JonValeCN @camcycle
— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) December 17, 2015
Mr Taylor also made his views on the issue clear.
A congestion charge for cyclists would criminalise children who don't pay. @JonValeCN @camcycle
— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) December 17, 2015
A congestion charge for cyclists would involve registration and tracking of the city's cyclists. Illiberal. Intrusive. @JonValeCN @camcycle
— Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) December 17, 2015
The Greater Cambridge City Deal, established under a government initiative to invest in the regions, covers the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council areas.
Focusing on innovation-led economic growth, issues it is addressing include provision of housing and other services for a part of the UK that is expected to see some of the strongest population growth over the next couple of decades, plus how people will move around to get to work and places of study.
Part of that has included consultation on whether Cambridge should join London and Durham in introducing congestion charge, and if so, which model should be adopted.
As to the issue of which mode of transport is most responsible for congestion, an iconic photograph commissioned by the German city Münster in 1991 (see Bikehub for the background) reveals it isn’t those who travel by bicycle or on the bus.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 15 min 52 sec ago
Any suggestion that the birds were placed there by one rider to handicap his rivals is just a vile canard.
- Clem Fandango 49 min 59 sec ago
Crying lefties. There's that famed morality and compassion from the non lefties at work again.
- mark1a 1 hour 8 min ago
That's not quite true, the driver once charged is free to go once they give a clear breath test (after a day or night in the cells). They're free...
- matthewn5 1 hour 39 min ago
Funny this rule never seems to apply to gravel bikes...
- David9694 2 hours 27 min ago
I don't subscribe, I run Adblocker on my main device, but not on my 'phone from which the site, like so many others, is all but unusable.
- OnYerBike 3 hours 22 min ago
Some of the "defined" contraflow systems are little more than a sign at the end of the road. They make it legal to cycle in the other direction,...
- OnYerBike 3 hours 26 min ago
You could have the first e.g. £500 of a bike VAT free. This would be the biggest benefit to people buying relative cheap bikes but more than enough...
- OnYerBike 3 hours 42 min ago
Chains will need replacing eventually, but a good lube can easily pay for itself in reduced wear: https://www.omnicalculator.com/sports/lubricant...
- ROOTminus1 4 hours 21 min ago
A core principle within engineering is something known as the hierarchy of risk protections. It lays out a framework for the order in which...
Add new comment
30 comments
They need to add another 5 buses to represent the fact that buses generally operate at 20% occupancy. And knock about 30% of the cars off the street to account for the average occupancy of the cars.
Well, probably should charge for walking, riding a bus . . . extra fee for strollers. They take up space.
One might have hoped that in a town hosting one of the most prestigious universities in the world, "expert" would mean someone with considerable knowledge of the subject, not ignorance best described as blissful.
I'd love for Beaufort to explain their thinking rather than just lobbing a 'comment grenade' in and driving off.
As to the tweets "Illiberal. Intrusive. Criminalising" I think they're missing the point.
How would any scheme work ? How do people register ? How would they be tracked ? How would they be charged ? How would making it less attractive to cycling make congestion better ?
I bet the expert is made up. The councillor should be pushed to reveal his source.
Idiotic idea AND totally unenforceable, unless we start putting number plates on bikes!
I think we need to go back to understand what the purpose of congestion charges.
If we go back to the Smeed report (that first considered congestion charging) the purpose was as a "car user restraint" as it was reconginsed that central areas were far too congested. The reasons were two fold, to minimise the enironmental impact of the congestion and to try and enable the cars that aren't discouraged to flow more freely. The spin off would be to generate income that should be ploughed back into the public transport systems that enable people to use public transport and for that to be better (so you have the carrot & stick).
Anyone who cycles into central business areas (city/town centres) at peak times will know that they travel as fast (if not faster) than the cars around them, so in and of themselves they do not contribute to congestion. Indeed proper cycling infrastructre would mean that cycling itself shouldn't impede the progress of cars (and vice versa).
If the problem is the volume of traffic then you need the carrot and the stick. The stick is to make life more problematic for those who choose private vehicles, so creating pinch-points restricting capacity, slowing down the traffic so that it becomes less desirable to drive, that and hitting people in the wallets. The "carrot" is to make alternative methods better and more desirable, so a better funded public transport network, nicer buses. Bus lanes which enable buses to travel without being held up by private vehicles. Decent cycling infrastructure so the perception of cycling danger is diminshed.
Ultimately, cycling slowly does not cause anyone any harm, driving slowly is producing dangerous emissions that do have an impact on people's health.
Name and shame.
As any sane person will recognise (who clearly isn't prejudiced by an agenda) cycling is something we desperately need to encourage throughout the country.
Any individual who believes cycling is adding congestion to our roads is quite plainly a village idiot who has no claim to expertise in anything and certainly should not be influencing transport policy.
Freedom of information request should do it I would think, this is all a matter of public interest and public record...lets see who this moron is and examine their hidden interests.
Wasn't there some anti-cycling councillor or something in Cambridge a while back, and it turned out that their register of interests had a load of things about the motor trade (in which he had worked for many years) on it? Could this be the same person trying to hide behind an "expert" guise?
Don't get too worked up. There is no chance the 'idea' will be implemented.
A truly stupid idea.
Sounds like Roger Hickford felt he had hide that this was his idea by saying an 'expert' had come up with it.
Pretty sure that "expert" was Keith Peat
A large amount of the cyclists in the city centre will have some affiliation to the University, which does have (at least did have when I was there) a bike registration scheme, albeit to try to address the problems of abandoned bikes.
Hardly a great problem abandoned cycles compared to cars, easily 10 bikes to the foot print of 1 car
The image at the top of the header demonstrates how much space cars take in comparison
Having done voluntary work in Cambridge for a few summers in the past, I can believe that abandoned (not parked) bikes are a serious problem. Bike parking was really hard to find at times, and I would imagine that it would be *far* worse in term time. Given that the average value of a Cambridge bike compared to a Cambridge car, the number of abandoned bikes is likely to be orders of magnitude higher than abandoned cars, even if they do take up less space!
See this article for other issues with bike parking in Cambridge:
http://road.cc/content/news/143306-cambridge-cyclists-complain-station-b...
If you've travelled through Cambridge at rush hour then this is not a ludicrous idea. If you have not then I suggest you might want to try it before offering your opinion.
Congestion would get better or worse if those cyclists switched to cars or taxis? The point is everyione who cycles is acting to reduce congestion, if cambridge is congested despite this it is a sign the road infrastructure is in no way near enough for the number of people using it, and it wouldn't even function at all if large numbers of people were not on bikes.
It is even sillier than that.
Central Cambridge is effectively closed to motor vehicles other than those with a specific need to be in the centre, eg because they have a parking space.
The congestion is on the ring road.
Unless the road pricing covers Cambridge outside the ringroad, it will have no effect on motor traffic at all. And if it covered bikes too, manifestly the congestion would get worse.
The obvious thing to do (that is obvious to anyone who isn't suffering from delusio internalcombustio) is to encourage more people onto bikes from outer Cambridge, not fewer.
I'm from Cambridge (although I don't live there now), and it is ludicrous.
who the heck drives through Cambridge in rush hour... it's well served by major roads that go around it... they must be an absolute masochist to use the 'inner' ring road around the center...
As another reader who has both lived and worked in Cambridge in the past, I'm sorry Beaufort, but it is a rediculous idea.
I travel through Cambridge at rush hour every day and it is a totally ludicrous idea. What's also totally ludicrous is travelling through on anything but a bike. The place would gridlock if we all did.
You are the archetypal village idiot and ICMFP!
And FWIW I ride into central Cambridge from St Ives everyday for work and pass line and lines of stationary traffic from Milton to the centre. I do not encounter ANY cycle congestion. Your comment shows you know bugger all about the causes of traffic congestion or cycling in Cambridge and how to improve it.
It's finally happened, we've hit peak bikelash!
I think Cambridgeshire hit peak with this splendid story - http://road.cc/content/news/81887-ukip-cambridge-candidate-if-everybody-...
Now what did happen to him, maybe Peter Burkinshaw has become some sort of "transport expert".
How about pigeons?
Clue is in the name - C O N G E S T I O N.
What causes congestion or the usual name - traffic jams? Cars, lots of them, mostly to be seen with only one person inside with a mobile phone glued to their ear or palm.
And they cause pollution, bad pollution.
Its the bloody car tax winge by another means.
As a cyclist, If I were made to pay a 'congestion charge' to use the roads, I ain't going to cycle in the gutter....
True. If cyclists ever have to pay congestion charge or licence fees or bicycle excise duty, whatever, then we have to start riding in primary position all day every day, surely?
I wonder if or when this anonymous transport expert will ever put their head above the parapet and admit publicly that it's their idea. Because, for the avoidance of any doubt, it's a truly stupid idea.
may as well charge pedestrians too. I mean they use up road space when they have to cross the road, right?
Stay off the drugs cllr Hickory. Drugs are bad, o'kay.