Sunday 9 December 2012

Cambs Police arresting cyclists for trying to stay alive?

Apologies for a couple of 'empty' posts that appeared here - turns out I'm an idiot sometimes.

Allow me to introduce you to one of Cambridges most ill considered, hostile roads for cycling on. This is Milton Road.


View Larger Map



Whats bad about it? Pan left a few degrees. You're looking at the shared use cycle route on Milton Road, heading away from Central Cambridge out towards Arbury, Kings Hedges, the Science Park and Milton. This is a major artery into Cambridge. You can ride a bike or walk on that 'shared use' facility. Naturally, even though we've got raised cushions across some of the side roads we're still expected to stop and give way - heavens forbid cyclists on an arterial route are treated as equals with motorists. And of course there are no lines dividing pedestrian space from cyclist space, so you'll have people quite reasonably walking three abreast with baby buggies and wandering children. If you DO brave the shared use facility you'll be swerving back and forward with puddles, pot holes, the occasional illegally or antisocially parked car.

But thats okay, you're thinking. Look, there's a road. Okay. So look at it. Just... look at it. The above image from Google Maps is a pretty typical view - nose to tail traffic, each motorist seemingly more angry than the last at the sight of a cyclist eating up road space when they clearly should be on the pavement. Milton Road exists in two states - nose to tail constipated anger or speeding motorists paradise, in neither state is it cyclist friendly. Lets go a little further up the road and see what we can see...



View Larger Map

...and look, we've got a massively wide pavement, which of course is used (quite legally) to park cars OFF the road. Which means that there isn't room for segregated cycling - we've either got to share with the cars on the road (blandly blocking the lane entirely or speeding past pavement parked cars) or we've got to mix with the pedestrians (risking being knocked off at every concealed driveway and, likely as not, slaloming among pedestrians who are understandably hostile to this). I leave my readers to decide whether there is room here for full cyclist segregation.

The critical question now is where does the shared use lane stop? Lets go forward to that roundabout we're looking at and see the junction with Highworth Avenue (pic. courtesy of Richard Taylor, Cambridge local affairs guru).



I don't know what you're seeing there, but I see a bunch of signs, some at least saying there is a mixed use lane, and a clearly painted on route that I think looks like where they want me to ride.

In fact, there are no signs telling me that the cycle lane I'm on has ended. At all. When I come to the junction with Union Lane and Arbury Road, lets see what we find:


View Larger Map

We're looking up Arbury Road now. To the right you see the shared use facility continue up Milton Road as before, and you can see Arbury Road is narrow, congested, fast, basically the kind of road Paul Boateng specifically instructed the Police NOT to enforce pavement cycling rules on. There is no instruction to cyclists that there is no cycle lane there - there is no 'end of lane' sign. There is no guidance at all.

Why is this a problem? Well, Cambridgesire Contabulary have recently taken to staking out this junction to target problem cyclists. They've done so because local councillors have instructed them to nab cyclist in what looks like a vindictive, classic cyclist-hating polciy. Effectively, if you've reasonably continued riding where there it no evidence that the shared use facility has ended, and you're caught you have a choice between paying a fine and getting a criminal record - our local authorities, including our Police force, are colluding in what is no better than entrapping cyclists who are merely trying to survive, against the specific guidance given to Chief Constables alongside the powers to give out fixed penalty notices. In Cambridge, supposedly Britains top cycling city. Don't kid yourselves - our City and County Councils, together with our police force, are not merely failing us but appear to be colluding not only to discourage cyclists but to demonise us.

I leave you with an example of what the Police don't give a fuck about happening on Arbury Road. When I tried to report this I was informed that because there was no contact, there was no incident - after ten minutes discussion at the police station desk I couldn't even get an incident number. Instead they're trapping cyclists who have no reason to believe the shared use path has ended. Draw your own conclusions.


10 comments:

  1. I see your new Police & Crime Commisioner is Sir Graham Bright (Con, former MP and councillor.

    Not very encouraging, you might think, that he is a Tory, not a frightfully cycle-friendly bunch of Tufton Buftons at the local councillor level. But Bright was an MP so he might have a better perspective, after all at Westminster level thgere are probably as many pro-cycling Tories as there are Labour MPs.

    And there is this, the first few words of the first bullet of his statement on choosemypcc.org.uk

    "Meeting local needs. I will make sure that the police focus on the individual needs of each community, whether road safety initiatives or .....

    Got to be worth a try. Good luck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. for more on our local PCC, see Richard Taylors website (linked above). Its not entirely obvious he's doing -anything- yet. But I'll certainly be contacting him about this!

      Delete
  2. The Police are not quite colluding in the way you suggest. In the past Police were failing to deal with anti-social behaviour so the government introduced a policy to make them listen to locals and deal with lower level crime that was making people lives hell. I think this is labelled "Safer Neighbourhoods".

    Essentially the community can turn up a local meetings with the Police and set their priorities for a subset of the Police's time. There is more information on this process for Cambridge City here.

    What happens in reality is that those people who have time to attend these meetings turn up and set the priorities. Those people are - you guessed it - retired folk, and of course the priorities reflect their worries.

    I've never been to one of these meetings but the minutes suggest that priority setting is subjective and does not involve any objective process such as somebody calculating the relative effect of ASB on individuals or how many are affected.

    I have often thought that if enough of us got together and went to one of these meetings our numbers could outweigh the retired folk. Imagine setting a Police Priority to crackdown on Amber Gambling motorists, or close passing.

    The other problem revealed by a FOI request by rtaylor is that PCSOs can be used to hand out fines to cyclists, but not for motoring offences. There are traffic cops out there but they are often involved in bigger crime busts and traffic collisions so the amount of time cracking down on motorists is likely to be limited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While yes, the police were merely dealing with the local priority its clear they have a lot of leeway in how to enforce that. The idea of staking out precisely the kind of unclear and dangerous junction they shouldn't... Well, that can only be because its good for their numbers. If they wanted to make an impact more sensibly they could have picked, say, Metcalfe Road or Carlton Way.

      Delete
  3. Having understandably lost faith in the police and the council is there any option of trying the legal system? Surely the option of not paying the fixed penalty notice and going to court could conceivably result in a win?

    Maybe I'm being naive and the attempt would make things worse - IANAL - but given the home office guidance and the noted lack of signage to explain where you can and can't cycle I would have hoped any cyclist caught out would have a case? As you point out they really haven't done anyone any harm, cycling on a pavement where cars are allowed to drive and park for heaven's sake!

    And potentially, could a win not set a precedent and put a stop to this regressive police behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry just to clarify, I get the impression that you haven't personally been caught out for pavement cycling i nthis location, but this comment is aimed at anyone who might have been.

      Personally I usually risk the road...until I have my daughter in her bike seat, when I'm on the pavement if the road is at all busy, and stuff the consequences.

      Delete
    2. This chap went to court. And lost. It buggers belief really, all things considered; I have to question either the accuracy of reporting or the brains of his lawyer.

      Delete
    3. My experience of magistrates is that they will just rubber-stamp whatever the police tell them to do. Your evidence will amount to nothing. In this kind of case, I believe all that leaves you is to appeal to the crown court, but I doubt that would be allowed, and would anyway leave you with a bigger fine and, possibly, a criminal record.
      The only answer is to not stop when requested.

      Delete
  4. I have a brainwave. It's Drive to Work day tomorrow. It'll have sod all effect because in Cambridge the students are away meaning lower traffic levels than normal, plus its not that easy to just park at or near your workplace in a city.

    How about we show our support to the chap who got fined and have an Avoid Shared-Use Paths Day in the new year. (maybe a snappier name like FU SU)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never use that Shared Use path - maybe I should start using it so I can more credibly avoid it in future :)

      Delete