tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post6441095637232537560..comments2023-10-31T08:49:14.757+00:00Comments on Cambridge Cyclist: Catholic Church Junction - Failure PlannedCab Davidsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-17427090511153348712013-03-12T16:05:08.149+00:002013-03-12T16:05:08.149+00:00Good stuff. Keep us all posted as to how you get o...Good stuff. Keep us all posted as to how you get on with that. Has Huppert commented at all on plans for junction?Cab Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-3415470681015063922013-03-12T11:56:09.433+00:002013-03-12T11:56:09.433+00:00I have written to Huppert to ask how I can petitio...I have written to Huppert to ask how I can petition the DfT against the use of cycle safety funding for this project.Hesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786445447447946710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-30511163171117351442013-03-08T16:05:10.637+00:002013-03-08T16:05:10.637+00:00I agree, the basic assumption is all wrong. The th...I agree, the basic assumption is all wrong. The thinking that lots of traffic flowing through the city is good for a city is faulty. That instead priority should be given to those modes of transport the least burdensome for a city is apparently still way too radical. I suppose that is because indeed tinkering on one place would mean revising larger parts of the grid. But just because something is hard to do should not mean that is an excuse not to do anything at all, is it?Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17409336272282919407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-34314353932671851662013-03-08T07:52:04.122+00:002013-03-08T07:52:04.122+00:00Ah yes, the thought that journeys by car must be m...Ah yes, the thought that journeys by car must be more 'important' will creep in again. What's needed, I think, is to redefine based on stress for those who live in the city. Pedestrians give the lowest stress on the city, and heavy motorized traffic the highest. Hence the goal should be on livability, not on motoring efficiency. This would take a paradigm shift, of course, the oil tanker turnaround. Luckily it has proven to work out alright(in the long run)for all parties concerned.<br />The arse wiping clearly shows how good intentions easily revert back to the status quo. Hopefully, with London recently setting the example, change will now be considered properly?Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17409336272282919407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-90119452120859635222013-03-07T15:15:45.771+00:002013-03-07T15:15:45.771+00:00You've either got the wrong guy, or you've...You've either got the wrong guy, or you've seriously misunderstood my opinion.<br /><br />Six years ago <a href="http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/73/article23.html" rel="nofollow">I wrote an article for the Camcycle Newsletter making exactly the point that you just have</a> !<br /><br />The Kings Hedges paths are indeed "pretty good considering" but they don't link properly to other places in large part because other places have been designed almost specifically to avoid doing so.<br /><br />The slightly longer version of the same article on my own website includes a map which makes <a href="http://hembrow.eu/cambridgecycling/kingshedges.html" rel="nofollow">the point about not joining up</a>.<br /><br />And yes, I also agree that Arbury Road is horrible to cycle on.David Hembrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14543024940730663645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-82630479212122854182013-03-07T11:24:51.242+00:002013-03-07T11:24:51.242+00:00David, its because we've discussed this before...David, its because we've discussed this before, specifically with reference to some of the cycle routes within Cambridge; my position is that, say, the shared use routes within Kings Hedges are for the most part pretty good considering the fact that they're quiet and open - these routes don't act as a disincentive for cycling, but even a few metres on Arbury Road puts the most dogged of us off. You've disagreed with me regarding my stance on the shared use :)<br />Cab Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-71760200010205410682013-03-07T09:07:07.887+00:002013-03-07T09:07:07.887+00:00Cab, I don't know why you think I disagree wit...Cab, I don't know why you think I disagree with you regarding "as pleasant as its worst junction". That's very much the point of my argument.<br /><br />It's a mystery to me why you think we disagree because I don't see the source of the disagreement. I have always been quite clear that cycling provision does not always mean cycle-paths. A range of measures are necessary.<br /><br />You'll find many posts on my blog which show <a href="http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/segregationwithoutcyclepaths" rel="nofollow">how cyclists are separated from motor vehicles even without cycle-paths</a> in the Netherlands. A very deliberate policy of <a href="http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/unravelling" rel="nofollow">unravelling of cycle routes from driving routes</a> has lead to a vast proportion of the total road network being unused by motor vehicles except for access by residents. Rat-running has virtually been eliminated because <a href="http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/residential%20street" rel="nofollow">residential streets</a>, both old and new, no longer function as through routes.<br /><br />It's not perfect here. There remains work to be done. However, there are very few unpleasant junctions in the Netherlands for cyclists. So few that they tend not to be noticed. If there were common as they are in the UK then the Dutch would be a lot less keen on cycling than they are.<br /><br />As for Cambridgeshire planning, yes they are incredibly unambitious. It seems the powers that be are happy to sit on their laurels and pretend that what Cambridge has is somehow due to them. It's not good enough.<br /><br />If the city became proactive, I agree with you that Cambridge could lead the entire world in cycling. The city has the most amazing demographic advantage over pretty much anywhere else. Cycling comes easy to Cambridge and with the correct investment Cambridge could vie with and perhaps beat Groningen.<br /><br />Groningen, btw, also is a little too complacent about their place in the world. However, a difference between Groningen and Cambridge is that campaigners in Groningen <a href="http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/12/groningen-not-fietsstad-2011.html" rel="nofollow">complain loudly about it</a>.David Hembrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14543024940730663645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-19957173369948635292013-03-06T12:06:54.935+00:002013-03-06T12:06:54.935+00:00I agree that we need to make our cycling provision...I agree that we need to make our cycling provision better and more continuous; as you know the main area I disagree with you is while thats a major part of what we need, we also need to address how unpleasant the roads themselves are. No journey will be entirely off road - we have to make connection to and from cycle infrastructure rideable too. I see that as equally important - a cycle trip is only as pleasant as its worst junction. <br /><br />But for me this hilights a greater problem in Cambridgeshire planning. By UK standards of course Cambridge is way ahead for cycling, and thats with next to no funding and, fundamentally, mostly crap infrastructure. Where is there the ambition to turn Cambridge from being good by British standards into the global leader for cycling that it can and should be? Why are our County and City councils prepared to sit back and achieve next to nothing for cyclists when we could quite credibly lead the world? How can they possibly be so lacking in vision?<br /><br />The answer is simple enough - our councillors, especially at county level, see the world as motorists. Rural Cambridgeshire County Councillors see Cambridge purely as somewhere to drive to, to park at, and to shop in. They see cyclists as an inconvenience, as parasites. They see us as something to plan around rather than plan for - they'd be happier planning us out entirely. And if you think the councillors are bad, look up our new police commissioner...Cab Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-57233605036984261622013-03-06T12:00:11.105+00:002013-03-06T12:00:11.105+00:00They tore that up and wiped their arses on it. Qui...They tore that up and wiped their arses on it. Quite simply thats meant to be a nice bit of paper to show us all they care while blatantly planning solely around drivers :(Cab Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-21003439947085868862013-03-06T11:59:13.362+00:002013-03-06T11:59:13.362+00:00That reasoning is based on the simple assumption t...That reasoning is based on the simple assumption that journeys made by motorists are of greater value than those made by cyclists and pedestrians. When it comes down to it the convenience of drivers has been given greater value than the lives of cyclists. Anything else is simply rationalisation of simple car-centric prejudice from the County Council - they despise us, as is evidenced by the fact that there is not one single example of them getting cycling provision right in the county.Cab Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09019615820672574343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-18256402365257014092013-03-06T08:28:53.683+00:002013-03-06T08:28:53.683+00:00The reasoning seems to be that they can't do s...The reasoning seems to be that they can't do something radical here as it would upset traffic flow at other locations, and they don't have a plan for how to deal with that. To which I respond WHY THE HELL NOT? It hioghlights that there's a need for a detailed plan of what a pro-pedestrian and cycle road network could be for the whole of Cambridge- so that it can be implemented. The lack of such a plan has just been used here to do basically fuck all.Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06817806128052425511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-19809045452346258122013-03-06T03:05:17.266+00:002013-03-06T03:05:17.266+00:00But... but... but Cambridgeshire County Council...But... but... but Cambridgeshire County Council's Local Transport Plan clearly puts walking and cycling at the top of their 'user hierarchy' -- and private cars are at the bottom. <br /><br />Surely you're not suggesting that the Council would ignore their own policy, are you? This must all be lies. Lies, I tell you! <br /><br /><a href="http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/81A57E02-48D8-4C24-862F-B42A900F70D8/0/LTP3PoliciesandStrategy.pdf" rel="nofollow">See figure 4.2 here.</a> Or maybe I'm reading it the wrong way round, and the lowest priority users are at the top?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4031352915519488668.post-80183675684498938132013-03-05T16:47:48.605+00:002013-03-05T16:47:48.605+00:00Ah yes, that junction. It was on my commuting rout...Ah yes, <i>that</i> junction. It was on my commuting route for several years when I lived in Cambridge. Horrid by bike, and as you point out, the council does indeed seem committed to doing nothing like enough to fix the problems that occur there for cyclists.<br /><br />As you probably know, we've been organising <a href="http://www.hembrowcyclingholidays.com/studytour.html" rel="nofollow">study tours</a> for many years. Unfortunately, no-one from the planning team in Cambridge and no councilors from Cambridge have ever been able to attend. Diaries always seem to be full, even when we have offered in the past to do an extra tour on any date of their choosing.<br /><br />Overall, Cambridge is a nice place. It is a crying shame that road design plays such a part in what is wrong with the city.<br /><br />The roads in Cambridge degrade the quality of life of everyone who lives in the city. It's not only "cyclists" who are affected, but also parents who have to work as unpaid taxi drivers because they can't let their children travel alone, those same children who would like more freedom but who don't get it because they're not allowed out on their own, people who live on a "rat-run" and wish they did not, and also the everyday driver who doesn't see an alternative but to drive because nothing else feels safe but for whom it's not a stressful experience.<br /><br />The offer is still open. I'd be very pleased to show a group of planners and councillors from Cambridge what genuine state of the art infrastructure looks like, how it is contiguous and comfortable to use and how this changes the way in which people behave.<br /><br />Cambridge could be a genuine beacon for cycling within the UK, instead of being largely an anomaly resulting from a lucky demographic accident. However, to get to this point requires a real change in the way that things are done, not just more business as usual.David Hembrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14543024940730663645noreply@blogger.com