Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cambridge residents try to block junction improvements for cyclists

'We don't need more cycle lanes' say locals...

The council is coming up against opposition from residents as it tries to tackle an accident blackspot for cyclists in Cambridge.

Proposals to revamp Queen Edith’s Way, improving the road and making junctions safer, residents say are ‘madness and not fit for purpose.’

There will be an orbital cycle lane which ‘allows cyclists to travel separated from traffic and have priority over the arms of the roundabout’ at Fendon Road roundabout.

The works would need the removal of roadside trees and verges.

Dara Morefield, Queen Edith’s Way Residents’ Association chair, told Cambridge News: “With a road which is only 5m or 6m wide, large vehicles will have to use the cycle lane.

“We ratepayers, voters and those likely to be most affected by the scheme - and who have most knowledge of the issues on this road – were not consulted by the council.

“Queen Edith’s Way works perfectly well at the moment and there is no need for any cycle paths.”

During the past five years there have been 33 accidents along Queen Edith's Way, with 25 involving a car and a cyclist – the council said.

The majority of these accidents have been at side road junctions and the Fendon Road roundabout.

Vanessa Kelly, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Cycling Project Officer, said: “We initially consulted residents in 2015 asking whether they had issues when using Queen Edith’s Way and where improvements should be made.

“Many concerns were raised about the dangers for pedestrians and cyclists at the Fendon Road roundabout.

“Using this information, we developed proposals which were consulted on this summer.

“The results showed that 99 people who live on Queen Edith’s Way supported the roundabout proposals, whilst 36 opposed them.

“We believe the roundabout proposals will improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists at what has long been an accident blackspot in the city.”

For more information on the proposals, visit the council's website here.

Add new comment

32 comments

Avatar
TomAlmere | 7 years ago
0 likes

reality of putting kerb protected lanes onto a 14m wide street is this:

Avatar
cammackmartin | 7 years ago
0 likes

Agree with above that those are all good options. I guess for my own part what I like about CS2 is that it recognises the value of a barrier between car and cyclist with a curb where possible. It's interesting along CS2 that there are stretches with no barrier at all or some with plastic bollards. It's a dynamic design based on the needs of every bit of the road such as access to a building by emergency vehicles like a hall of residents.

With regards to my view in relation to other members of QEW RA, I think there are a range of views as you'd expect from do nothing to do a great deal. What is universal is don't do what they are suggesting as its not safe. For me, and I truly feel this, the road is going to change and I can wear that as long as you can look out and say it's made it safer for the users we have now. It's incredible that the secondary school, Netherhall, that has 1078 students has, according to the school, 750 kids each day cycling to and from the building. That's remarkable. I'm sure anyone would wish to conserve this. We certainly don't want them getting the bus because they don't feel safe cycling anymore or alternatively as we know happens, they'll go on the pavement anyway that'll be really narrow by that point and likely result in kids hopping on and off the pavement which is probably the worst thing possible.

What would be nice in this instance would be a truly open discussion of what we might achieve as an exemplar of what can be done. It won't be perfect as it's unlikely to be able to do everything that everyone wants. But we could do a great deal better than what is proposed. This isn't an exercise in finger pointing or point scoring. It's an exercise in trying to communicate, to get the point across that the current suggestion isn't the right one.

Avatar
Al__S | 7 years ago
0 likes

(and it is clear that you don't agree with the QEW RA that "do nothing" is a sensible idea)

Avatar
Guanajuato | 7 years ago
0 likes

Overall the proposals are a step in the right direction. The dotted line cycle lane is the biggest sticking point here it would seem - its the worst in terms of cyclist safety.  Even if its a solid line, it'll just get ignored by the tin box brigade.  Why not make the grass verge a little narrower and have it separating the cycle lane from the road? That would prevent all but the most unsafe, obnoxious drivers using it.

Avatar
cammackmartin replied to Guanajuato | 7 years ago
0 likes

Guanajuato wrote:

Overall the proposals are a step in the right direction. The dotted line cycle lane is the biggest sticking point here it would seem - its the worst in terms of cyclist safety.  Even if its a solid line, it'll just get ignored by the tin box brigade.  Why not make the grass verge a little narrower and have it separating the cycle lane from the road? That would prevent all but the most unsafe, obnoxious drivers using it.

Exactly. It's not rocket science is it? I started to get interested in the issue simply because I looked at the plans and couldn't  figure out why they weren't doing simply what you suggest?

Avatar
P3t3 replied to cammackmartin | 7 years ago
2 likes

cammackmartin wrote:

Exactly. It's not rocket science is it? I started to get interested in the issue simply because I looked at the plans and couldn't  figure out why they weren't doing simply what you suggest?

 

If the motor part of the road isn't actually wide enough then I can appreciate the concerns you have, it'll actually end up with a very expensive version of the status quo because more timid cyclists will still use the footway.  You might want to present an alternative though, at the moment you could be interpreted as suggesting "do nothing because I don't like it". 

The road looks like it could be a bit narrower in order to win proper segregated space AND retain the verge to be honest.  

Avatar
cammackmartin replied to P3t3 | 7 years ago
0 likes

P3t3 wrote:

cammackmartin wrote:

Exactly. It's not rocket science is it? I started to get interested in the issue simply because I looked at the plans and couldn't  figure out why they weren't doing simply what you suggest?

 

If the motor part of the road isn't actually wide enough then I can appreciate the concerns you have, it'll actually end up with a very expensive version of the status quo because more timid cyclists will still use the footway.  You might want to present an alternative though, at the moment you could be interpreted as suggesting "do nothing because I don't like it". 

The road looks like it could be a bit narrower in order to win proper segregated space AND retain the verge to be honest.  

I agree with both of your points. I think the alternative is to leave the road the width it is, generate separate cycle and pedestrian strips along the side of the road with right of way given to the cycle track at side junctions. Side junctions should have the recommended traffic calming layout with a reduced radius at the corners plus a raised table at the end of the side road. This is similar to the selected side road features seen on CS2 in London and shown to be an effective method of reducing risk at side junctions. I've attached a photo of a CS2 side junction below.

Avatar
Al__S replied to cammackmartin | 7 years ago
0 likes

cammackmartin wrote:

I agree with both of your points. I think the alternative is to leave the road the width it is, generate separate cycle and pedestrian strips along the side of the road with right of way given to the cycle track at side junctions. Side junctions should have the recommended traffic calming layout with a reduced radius at the corners plus a raised table at the end of the side road. This is similar to the selected side road features seen on CS2 in London and shown to be an effective method of reducing risk at side junctions. I've attached a photo of a CS2 side junction below.

Absolutely with you, though I'd rather see something like this, or, for a London version from the reworked bits of CS7, this.

Camcycle has been trying depserately to get these sort of side road treatments used but Cambridgeshire County Council are... not keen.

Avatar
TomAlmere replied to cammackmartin | 7 years ago
0 likes

cammackmartin wrote:

I agree with both of your points. I think the alternative is to leave the road the width it is, generate separate cycle and pedestrian strips along the side of the road with right of way given to the cycle track at side junctions. Side junctions should have the recommended traffic calming layout with a reduced radius at the corners plus a raised table at the end of the side road. This is similar to the selected side road features seen on CS2 in London and shown to be an effective method of reducing risk at side junctions. I've attached a photo of a CS2 side junction below.

[/quote]

Hi Martin,

sorry if I've seemed harsh, but suggestion is that you really need to give up on the idea of bi-directional shared use footways.  Realistically the only possible solution that gives you what you want (kerb protected lanes) is one which removes all of the street trees and all on street car parking.  This I'd suspect is where you would part company with a lot of other local residents, hence the problem.  What would probably fit is unidirectional kerb protected tracks, like this only without the trees:

Unidirectional tracks have some issues for kids as it means crossing the road, but if there are points in the road that are wider and could take traffic islands then that helps.  As someone else above said, Cambridge haven't yet got this side road treatement right but they are edging towards it.

But, if keeping the trees and keeping the opportunity for the odd bit of loading in the bike lane is what residents want, then I'd suspect that you'd end up back with what the council has put forward.  The designers involved aren't daft, they just have a brief they are designing to which assumes that there will be a strong body of opinion in this direction.

Not an easy one to deal with but dropping the suggestion of shared use paths and dealing with the issue that without these there is probaby not common ground amongst residents is something you may have to deal with.  

Avatar
P3t3 | 7 years ago
2 likes

Normally when I read comments on here I can understand what people are arguing about.  In this instance I really can't see what the specific agruments are one way or another.  Is it a good scheme or not?  After a quick glance at some of the proposals it looks to me like it might work very well but it depends on the specific nuances of the scheme;  e.g. is the scheme really a white line painintg excersise because the road is so narrow that cars are going to have to habitually enter the cycle tracks to pass one another?

The roundabout design looks like a step forward... again, if they get the details right.  

Avatar
cammackmartin replied to P3t3 | 7 years ago
0 likes

P3t3 wrote:

Normally when I read comments on here I can understand what people are arguing about.  In this instance I really can't see what the specific agruments are one way or another.  Is it a good scheme or not?  After a quick glance at some of the proposals it looks to me like it might work very well but it depends on the specific nuances of the scheme;  e.g. is the scheme really a white line painintg excersise because the road is so narrow that cars are going to have to habitually enter the cycle tracks to pass one another?

The roundabout design looks like a step forward... again, if they get the details right.  

 

yes it's a white line painting exercise.

Avatar
darrylxxx | 7 years ago
0 likes

"We ratepayers, voters and those likely to be most affected by the scheme - and who have most knowledge of the issues on this road – were not consulted by the council."

followed by

 Cambridgeshire County Council’s Cycling Project Officer: “Using this information, we developed proposals which were consulted on this summer. The results showed that 99 people who live on Queen Edith’s Way supported the roundabout proposals, whilst 36 opposed them."

So the Queen Edith’s Way Residents’ Association is talking  bollox? Who'd have guessed.

Avatar
Al__S replied to darrylxxx | 7 years ago
0 likes

darrylxxx wrote:

"We ratepayers, voters and those likely to be most affected by the scheme - and who have most knowledge of the issues on this road – were not consulted by the council."

 

It's this weird implication that people cycling along here- it's a major commuter route to the Hospital and research institutes there- are somehow not council tax payers or voters and don't understand the safety issues on a road they're using twice a day every day. Utter codswallop. But very common.

 

Avatar
cammackmartin replied to Al__S | 7 years ago
0 likes

Al__S wrote:

darrylxxx wrote:

"We ratepayers, voters and those likely to be most affected by the scheme - and who have most knowledge of the issues on this road – were not consulted by the council."

 

It's this weird implication that people cycling along here- it's a major commuter route to the Hospital and research institutes there- are somehow not council tax payers or voters and don't understand the safety issues on a road they're using twice a day every day. Utter codswallop. But very common.

 

 

Hi both. This sort of argument is typical of these issues and I think is a question of "entitlement". We get sucked into arguments on this type of issue as part of a fight between different factions attempting quite understandably to enforce their rights or entitlement to fair use. We are all entitled to a fair deal. That said, there is a recognised hierarchy that applies to decisions over priorities in these situations and they are based on need, vulnerability, numbers and environment. In this situation we have a majority group numbering 1500  to 2000 child journeys a day during the week, who are the most vulnerable and least safe as cyclists on any road, who currently use the infrastructure safely and securely. They cannot and should not be deliberately and knowingly put in harms way. In addition, shouldn't we argue about the facts, not how this all pisses us off?

It should be noted here that the council proposals as they stand will put all cyclists at risk not just kids, due to the nature of the road layout and the advisory cycle lanes. How can you make the argument that there is a problem when cyclist and cars interact yet put more cyclists on the road interacting in a narrower shared space where the vehicles most likely to stray into the shared cycling space will be the biggest and most dangerous due to the impaired view of the space around the vehicle for the drivers. How can you say the issue is junctions then fail to implement any of the measures designed to reduce risk to cyclists at side junction in the plans you intend to implement. The problem here is poor planning.

Avatar
TomAlmere | 7 years ago
3 likes

This campaign has similarities to a situation we had up in the North East.  Residents presented with a cycling scheme that meant some quite significant changes to the street they lived on.  Reacted badly, set up an oppositional campaign which they tried to brand as being about "safer cycling".  Fundamentally what they wanted was no change from the current layout and if anything was to be provided for cycling it would be shared use pavements.

Eventually these "concerns" were quite rightly ignored and the scheme was built.  Many involved will have been left with very negative feelings about the place that they live.  What could have been done better is that residents should have been confronted earlier with the fact that their manufactured concerns would not result in changes to the scheme.  

People need to understand that a council will take their real and genuine concerns seriously but will ultimately ignore concerns which are manufactured as being all about "the kids" (this is very transparent and does not make them look good).  Yes they are no doubt clever people who can read MfS and Sustrans manuals but they need to understand that the complex web of argument that they are weaving will cut no ice if the end result is "shared use" and "no change".

If the main problem with the project for some people who live on the street is that it will remove the cherry trees then they need to be up front about this,  and try and get the layout and appearance changed so that it is less objectional.  But accept that in 21st Century Cambridge nobody is going to sign off on shared use footways as cycling infrastructure.  Carrying on down the path they are on will just result in unhappiness and mean that they miss their chance to influence the scheme in more minor achievable ways.

Avatar
cammackmartin replied to TomAlmere | 7 years ago
0 likes

TomAlmere wrote:

This campaign has similarities to a situation we had up in the North East.  Residents presented with a cycling scheme that meant some quite significant changes to the street they lived on.  Reacted badly, set up an oppositional campaign which they tried to brand as being about "safer cycling".  Fundamentally what they wanted was no change from the current layout and if anything was to be provided for cycling it would be shared use pavements.

Eventually these "concerns" were quite rightly ignored and the scheme was built.  Many involved will have been left with very negative feelings about the place that they live.  What could have been done better is that residents should have been confronted earlier with the fact that their manufactured concerns would not result in changes to the scheme.  

People need to understand that a council will take their real and genuine concerns seriously but will ultimately ignore concerns which are manufactured as being all about "the kids" (this is very transparent and does not make them look good).  Yes they are no doubt clever people who can read MfS and Sustrans manuals but they need to understand that the complex web of argument that they are weaving will cut no ice if the end result is "shared use" and "no change".

If the main problem with the project for some people who live on the street is that it will remove the cherry trees then they need to be up front about this,  and try and get the layout and appearance changed so that it is less objectional.  But accept that in 21st Century Cambridge nobody is going to sign off on shared use footways as cycling infrastructure.  Carrying on down the path they are on will just result in unhappiness and mean that they miss their chance to influence the scheme in more minor achievable ways.

Hi Tom. I assume it is Tom. This isn't a game with the excuse of saying it's all about this kids. It really is about the kids and in addition to all users. However, the numbers of children you are talking about make them a majority of this user group and a vulnerable group at that. Over 80% of them choose to cycle off the road which is in line with national opinions on cyclists choice of where they'd rather cycle - on or off the road. This added to the fact that the pavements as they are would be wide enough to generate separate pedestrian and cycling areas for most of the road if it was required although there is a great deal of evidence to support shared space and history locally showing how safe it is. This is not about resisting change for the sake of it, it's not about stopping trees being moved, it's about preventing a majority vulnerable group being put in a more dangerous situation than they currently are. These proposed plans, irrespective of whether you can read evidenced based internationally recognised guide lines on the safe implementation of cycling infrastructure, is completely nuts. It's easy for people to roll out the usual accusations to try to discredit someone raising questions in the face of the establishment, but sometimes the questions are valid, pertinent and appropriate. On this occasion, although I understand the reasons for your opinion, you are way off the mark.

Avatar
brooksby replied to cammackmartin | 7 years ago
2 likes

cammackmartin wrote:

...

I've been lurking, reading along the comments on this story.  Have to admit, I'm now most interested to know who is cammackmartin and what is their relationship to the story.  They clearly have a very personal interest in it, reading their comments...

Avatar
cammackmartin replied to brooksby | 7 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

cammackmartin wrote:

...

I've been lurking, reading along the comments on this story.  Have to admit, I'm now most interested to know who is cammackmartin and what is their relationship to the story.  They clearly have a very personal interest in it, reading their comments...

I live on the road. I have 4 kids who are 11,9,6 and 3 all who go by bike to one of the primary schools like many others. I road cycle as in done London 100 and Tour of Cambridge, commute on bicycle too. Last, I'm a consultant anaesthetist at Great Ormond Street Hospital. So to put my views in context, I live here and know how the road gets used, I've done census on the road to observe the use and capture current data, my family use the road and I drive a car too. I guess I appreciate keeping kids safe and the consequences of not. Ive lived and commuted by bike in London so appreciate the safety issues and the work done to make cycling safer. Lastly, as for all of you, I have a brain, use it and read stuff to attempt to find out the reasons for things.

 

that all said I've got better things to do than have to post here or try to get the local council to just do their job for gods sake!! If they'd done a thorough assessment of use and need they'd have realised there was a problem.

 

simply put, does anyone, seriously anyone, on here reading this think that making up to 1000 kids aged mainly 12-18 but plus down to 4/5 y olds with families, ride on a 5m wide road with advisory 2m cycle lanes either side, is a good idea? Would you want your kids doing it? Do you think it is safer than what they do on our road currently. This is the point. I don't care if they change our road as long as it safer than what we have.

Avatar
Al__S | 7 years ago
0 likes

The main innacuracy with this story is that even the Queen Edith's Way Residents Association (a splinter of the wider Queen Edith's Residents Association) aren't (as far as I understand) opposed to the improvements to the Fendon Road/Mowbray Road roundabout and that that element is likely to be approved for construction next Wednesday.

Avatar
fixit | 7 years ago
0 likes

cycle lanes and the local rich and famus... what is cycling? 

Avatar
cbrndc | 7 years ago
1 like

I would treat the numbers on Crash Map with caution as not all collisions are included making the numbers lower than they should be.  Two collisions in the last 3 years that I have been involved in are not shown on the map (not this location).

Avatar
cammackmartin replied to cbrndc | 7 years ago
1 like

cbrndc wrote:

I would treat the numbers on Crash Map with caution as not all collisions are included making the numbers lower than they should be.  Two collisions in the last 3 years that I have been involved in are not shown on the map (not this location).

 

I agree. The claimed council figures are not dissimilar and it is generally accepted that not all incidents are reported anyway. One would think any major incident should get reported however.

Avatar
cammackmartin | 7 years ago
0 likes

The council didn't consult competently with regards to the road. They sent out a questionnaire regarding users' opinions, then ignored the results. A majority of 61% of users said they feel safe or indifferent to conditions along the road and the majority over 60% said they'd be happy for the council to move trees etc in order to provide segregated cycling (see the blog). They then went on to say people feel unsafe using the road As an excuse for their planned changes and additionally decided to offer plans for the changes that include on road unsegregated cycling space. 

The stats on safety are different depending on the period over which you report them but generally they show a clear picture. The roundabout needs fixing and there is consensus. The disparity here is that they are deliberately making a statement about the roundabout and by talking about junctions which relate again to the roundabout they are trying to imply they are talking about the whole road. If you actually read the council comment about Queen Edith's Way in Cambridge News where they are trying to respond to criticism of the road plans not the roadabout, made by residents, it is quite revealing. In reply the council aggressively defend the plans for the roundabout but don't even mention the plans for the road.  This is telling I think, but unsurprising as which politician in their right mind could defend putting children in harms way? It is indefensible.

I believe there was no census of users and traffic performed to gain information about weight of traffic, cyclist numbers and pedestrians as part of the planning process. As a result they had not realised what the users needs were or that there was such a large vulnerable group in the form of schoolchildren cycling along the road. The end result is a plan that puts these hundreds of schoolchildren in harms way.

Following a FOI request, we managed to gain evidence the council has conducted the type of census they should have done only now that questions are being asked. This would mean they are fulfilling their obligations with regard to due diligence in hindsight.

Avatar
SNS1938 | 7 years ago
0 likes

@cammackmartin - So the council is lying when they said they consulted the public in 2015? And they've created false cycle accident figures? If true, then there is corruption within the council and heads must roll.  (although given the level of incompetence seen in the guided bus way and lack of heads rolling for that, I doubt any will roll).

Having lived in Cambridge and seen first hand how the council sand bags on spending money on cycle infrastructure (they almost always seem to make the foot path shared use rather than spending the money to add actual cycle lanes),  it is very odd to me that they would falsify data to spend money on a project that according to the local objections, is on a road that ''... works perfectly well at the moment and there is no need for any cycle paths.''

 

Avatar
Leviathan | 7 years ago
2 likes

What are these 'Rates' he is paying?

Avatar
kevvjj | 7 years ago
0 likes

you've gone awfully quiet Road CC...

every now and then Road CC should grow a pair and admit how stupid they have been.

bet they won't though.

Avatar
cammackmartin | 7 years ago
0 likes

Apologies for following on from my own reply but one other thing. This is the second article almost verbatim on both road cc and Cambridge News. One of you is being really lazy. Or perhaps someone is feeding you this stuff. On this occasion its road cc plagiarising as this article was in the Cambridge News paper and on their website a day or so ago. Someone gets paid for this?

 

This article we are commenting on posted today 30th Oct 2016

Article next line Cambs news posted 28th Oct 2016:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/council-hit-back-cla...

Carbs news article posted 25th Oct 2016:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/floating-bus-stops-m...

Road cc Article on floating bus stops Posted 26th Oct 2016:

http://road.cc/content/news/209357-floating-bus-stops-improving-safety-c...

 

so looks like road cc plagiarising. Except the floating bus stops article being completely inaccurate is now subject of an IPSO formal complaint as it reports a study as suggesting something it specifically says it can't. So not a good subject to copy really. Conspiracy theories are attractive, freedom of the press is supposed to be a right. This all looks either lazy or someone is being a stooge for someone with a vested interest trying to flex some media inches.

The readers here might disagree at times but they've always struck me as intelligent. You read the articles and decide for yourself. The blog is large, there's no smoke and mirrors, no spin, it's all there in black and white, but if you have time, again, you decide for yourself don't swallow the crap that's being spoon fed - www.qew4kids.wordpress.com

 

Avatar
cammackmartin | 7 years ago
3 likes

Road cc - seriously? In all the years I've been a fan I've never seen the site swallow hook line and sinker such an amateurish piece of political spin! First, let's address the indignation bit. Nearly all residents are cyclists and pro cycling. The issue here is partly the proposals not fitting the needs as the process of gathering user data was not carried out properly, and partly becase the planned changes will push some 750 plus school children that travel along the road twice each and every day to one secondary school and 2 primary schools, off the shared walkway and onto the road. A road that currently is 6m but the council intends to narrow to 5m which isn't wide enough to allow 2 buses that travel on the road as a main bus route, to pass. The only reason they will be able to pass each other is that there will be 2 cycle lanes, one either side, of 2m each that the buses and HGVs can move in and out of at will. Obviously if some of the hundreds of school kids happens to be in this space then they'll just get run over.

The safety figures the council refer to? From website crash map you will see in the last 5 years there were 13 accidents at the roundabout separating the West end of the road from the East end. 2 of these were serious and required hospital treatment. The rest were slight and all 13 involved adult cyclists. On the West part of the road there were no incidents in 5 years. On the East end there were 8. 4 serious and 4 slight. There were only 2 incidents involving child cyclists and these both took place when the child was cycling on the road or was pushed onto it. There were no reported incidents involving all of the hundreds of kids on the shared pavement with other cyclists, pedestrians or cars coming out of driveways.

So, forgive us for questioning the wisdom of decisions based on no census data for users of the road, that as a result have completely missed a massive majority group of the most vulnerable. As a result of this reckless planning, or not planning, all of these kids rather than being protected from large vehicles in a segregated area that has been shown to be safe as they are now, will be moved onto an unsegregated area where it is planned for them to share their space with buses, HGVs and cars. This is the essence of the concerns expressed by the residents. They are happy with the planned roundabout upgrade. It is the rest of the grossly inappropriate plans that are cause for concern. A concern which simply put is based on being pro cycling at the same time as being anti putting children in harms way due to ignorance.

The whole sorry issue is summarised comprehensively with all the facts and supporting evidence here:

www.qew4kids.wordpress.com

The internet is a wonderful anti spin device, but only if those reading it or more importantly writing on it bother to dig for facts then read them rather than swallowing the garbage those who should know better would like to feed them!

Avatar
Jitensha Oni | 7 years ago
4 likes

What about the horses?

Avatar
damo567 | 7 years ago
5 likes

"We ratepayers, voters and those likely to be most affected by the scheme...." Because cyclists don't fall under any or all of these categories???

Pages

Latest Comments