Review of Dangerous Cycling Law?

Well yes, we knew this was coming didn't we? 

And in itself I really haven't got a problem with asking the question - do we need to review the law with regard to cycling and the risk posed to others? I mean, in principle, who could possibly object to that? Its just asking the question, right?

And in a purely rational world, none of us would object. But that isn't the world we're in, and the rather scathing response to this on road.cc sums up much of the cynicism you'll see from cyclists. Yeah, we're cynical that years into a supposed review on ridiculously lenient sentences for criminal motorists who have, in that time, killed thousands, we're instead shifting government focus onto cyclists who kill fewer than die in trouser donning accidents.

I don't wish to belittle the importance of any individual tragedy - which is why my instinct is to point out the many, many trivial sentences passed down to motorists who were indisuptably in the wrong. My issue is not that we don't have harsh enough punishments available to deter dangerous behaviour on the roads - the possibility of prosecution for death by 'wanton and furious' or death by 'dangerous', or even manslaughter, is very serious indeed. My problems are two-fold - that we're not prosecuting for death by 'dangerous driving' or 'manslaughter', and that when we do, we're giving absurdly lenient punishments that, in context, make the Alliston sentence look positively draconian.

The result of this is simple enough - go on, click through the links there. One driver there had 140 previous convictions. Another killed a child who was on the pavement - he didn't 'lose control', he drove onto a pavement with a child on it, and killed her. Both walked free from court. These are not isolated incidents or rare times courts were strangely lenient, this is the norm. 

Two fifths of killers on our roads aren't jailed. The average sentence is four years. 111 people convicted of death by dangerous driving between 2006 and 2015 walked free from court. The police and our courts are not acting as a deterrent - cases of dangerous driving were up 26% in 2016. The result of this is that motorists are killing, frequently, and brutally. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling announced a review of sentences back in 2014 but this has seemingly become vapourware - it hasn't happened, it isn't happening, and despite thousands of deaths resulting from bad driving we're caving in to ill-conceived demands to target cyclists. Even on the pavement you are 150 times more likely to be killed by a driver than a cyclist. 

No one wants dangerous cyclists. They can kill (but, because they're lighter and slower than motorists, that is thankfully extremely rare). But our police and courts actively condone dangerous motoring by refusing to prosecute even when evidence is clear. This guy wasn't prosecuted. None of these folk were. By not dealing with hazardous and illegal acts we allow that to become entrenched behaviour - and the result is that people die. I don't fear this review because I want dangerous cyclists protected. Far from it - I fear this review because its not coming from a rational appraisal of what causes most harm on the roads. This doesn't smell of seeking justice - it smells like collective blame.

Charlie Alliston Verdict and Sentencing.

It has been reported widely already, of course. To the point where its almost hard to want to read about it again. So here's the tl;dr version.

Guy on a fixie has only got fixed gear as brake, so his bike is illegal on the road. His stopping power will be limited - but not necessarily that limited, that will depend on gear ratio. But he's legally in the wrong.

A lady steps off the pavement looking at her phone*, approx. 6m in front of him. He's doing 18mph. His thinking distance at that speed is 5m - so before he can brake, before he can react, he'll be within 1m or not far from. He won't be able to stop, no matter what brakes he's got. At 18mph he's moving a shade over 8 meters per second - the whole time for the incident is therefore in the region of three quarters of a second. The time he's got to do something after around the 5m it takes for him to be able to react is the time it takes to travel 1m - at 18mph thats an eighth of a second.

He tries to swerve, he moves away from the traffic to try to go behind her. Obviously at the last minute when she sees him she jumps back too. The result is a tragic collision, and her wounds kill her.

He's prosecuted for manslaughter and killing by wanton and furious driving. He's found not guilty of manslaughter, guilty of wanton and furious, and is sentenced to 18 months. Being a fan of alleycat cycling vids, being tattooed, and going online and being unrepentant played badly for him.

 The details of the event as I've put them are not, I think, contentious - indeed that's pretty much as accepted by both sides in court. So the questions arising are (1) could he have avoided the crash, (2) has justice been served and (3) within the context of other sentences, how does this fit?

So in order...

Could Alliston Have Avoided the Crash?

Well, maybe. Its very easy to sit here and say he didn't have any chance of missing her, she stepped out in front of him going way below the speed limit, so close that even with the best brakes in the world he'd have hit her. So he tried to swerve - she'll always go one way or the other when she sees him so its a fifty-fifty chance. And yeah, that might be true. But its not that simple.

If she's visible on the pavement he should, perhaps, see her. And in a complex city environment with multiple hazards to track on and off the pavement its fair to argue that no one should be going at a pace beyond which they can't track all of those hazards. Which, of course, means that people should be cycling and driving much more slowly than that. But we never see prosecutions for motorists hinging on 18mph in an urban area being too fast, so I don't think that can be used here. Was she, therefore, visible and about to step off the pavement? On Old Street? Probably not. 

I can't sit and claim its impossible he could have ridden differently to avoid the crash. I can say with certainty no one riding or driving at that speed, in that environment, would be considered in violation of the law. So in that context, its very hard to see how he could have avoided the collision.

We can say with certainty that better brakes wouldn't have helped a great deal, if at all. He's got 1m to brake after 5m thinking time - he can only go on instinct so he's got to try to swerve. If he's got a front brake and brakes hard at that speed AND swerves he'll go straight over the top and probably hit her anyway. 

So, tragically, we can't claim that he could have avoided this collision. His brakes (or lack of a front brake) are not the issue - and I suspect thats why he was not found guilty of manslaughter.

But I should add that I don't get how his version of events is meant to have happened. Apparently he shouted a warning. In 6m? In under a second? Or in 1m, in around an eighth of a second? Well you might get a grunt out. Yes, people are entitled to remember things differently (and thats just how things are, we know this happens) and they will put their own slant on what happened. But if she stepped out, without notice, 6m in front of him (and that seems to be accepted) then the chain of events we're told about seems implausible. And I'd call his account, where he claims to have shouted to warn her twice, completely implausible.

Has Justice Been Served?

He was quite unrepentant, and that won't have helped. Comes across as a nob if I'm honest, but that's no crime. Our prisons would be awfully full if it were. Should that lack of repentance impact on the sentence? Yes, I think that's probably fair. Is the prosecution just in context of whether he could have done anything to avert the collision? No, I don't believe it is. If you kill someone with your car which later proves to have an unrelated fault, you're not prosecuted for that death on the basis of said fault. If you run someone over but it turns out your brake light wasn't working, you may be prosecuted for killing someone but the brake light won't be an issue in that prosecution. So in context of what happened, and whether he could have avoided it? I don't see it. I don't get how this is just.

Is the Sentence Proportionate?

Yes, and no. A death on the road is a serious matter and if someone is found guilty of killing another person I'm of the view that the sentence should reflect the magnitude of what has happened. 18 months sounds light in comparison.

Here's a guy who to kill a child with his delivery van had to actually drive on to the pavement. And was cleared to drive home from court.

This guy killed two pensioners with his lorry. He was going above the speed limit and had at time in which to see the pensioners and react, but didn't. He wasn't concentrating and as a result smashed the skulls of two blameless old people, and they died. OK, he wasn't allowed to drive home, but he wasn't jailed. The family of the two pensioners said that he basically got away with it.

In the context of how motorists are regularly sentenced for killing? Nope. Its not proportionate. In almost all instances where motorists kill cyclists, they walk free.

I am uncomfortable with this prosecution considering the simple physics of the case. I'm uncomfortable with the sentence given out - not within the context of how serious road deaths are, but in the context of how lax punishments for other killers often are. Yes, to me, this Alliston chap seems like a smeg head - his reaction to the accident was awful. But if he'd done the same thing in a car? Its doubtful he'd even have been prosecuted and, if he had been, found guilty.

We need consistency in law - and this verdict is not consistent with other similar cases, where the prime difference is the vehicle used. It does look like his treatment was more harsh because he's killed with a bicycle. I find this worrying - and I fear the backlash being aimed at all of us now.

I'm not able to say that the courts decision is wrong, of course, I wasn't there. But I find the lack of explanation of the chain of events, the fact that we must believe an implausible sequence of events to have faith in this verdict, deeply troubling.

*Alliston changed his mind about this - some accounts say the phone was found next to her. Its hard to know whether this is true. But in itself this doesn't change the physics. Regardless of whether she's on her phone, he's got the same distance and time to stop.

Richard Madeley, Cyclist Hater? AHA!

Alarmed to discover that one of the key proponents of Alan Partridgism, Richard Madeley, is still a thing. I seem to recall he was on some telly thing when I was a student, but whatever it was seemed so banal that even then I couldn't watch it. I used to occasionally catch it in one of the telly rooms on campus between lectures, and hope that Madeley would shut up and let his wife (Judy Finnegan was it?) talk, but that rarely ever seemed to happen. You know the show I mean, with the weather map with the disgusting child molester strutting around on it.

But anyway, this Madeley. He ought to understand that sometimes there's a delay on a line when you're interviewing, but he apparently doesn't. As you can see from this.

So, yeah. Madely, you just cannot be that much of an idiot. I don't accept that someone with as much experience in broadcasting as you can't understand how thats a guaranteed way to mess up an interview. You know how delays work and you know that if you keep yapping on and on rather than sticking to a question then anyone who hasn't got decades of experience on camera will struggle to answer you clearly. Because you're not being clear. You know that, and you knew it when you conducted this interview. You jumped about from one question to another - he was asked about accountability and he was answering about accountability. Your insistence that he's avoiding answering a question he's not been asked (about insurance) is facile and rude. What point were you trying to make other than throwing your weight around to denigrate cyclists?

But lets answer you anyway. Why is it cyclists aren't required to have insurance, (presumably from your stance that motorists are)? Because we're many, many orders of magnitude less harmful. We can analyze this in any way you like - we can look purely at kinetic energy if you want, where we can easily demonstrate you're comparing bullets (cars) with tennis balls (bikes). We license guns,we don't license tennis rackets. Because the former is orders of magnitude more hazardous than the latter.

Or we can look at fatalities due to road traffic if you prefer - drivers directly kill over three orders of magnitude more people than cyclists, and indirectly kill four to five orders of magnitude more. Not three times more, not four or five times more, but many thousands of times more. And, of course, proportionally the number of injuries caused is likewise huge in comparison.

Cycling harms so few people, in fact, that if you join a cycling club or campaign group you'll probably get insurance as a freebie. If you've got personal liability as part of your home insurance then that may well cover you too (all such policies I've inquired about have done so). Insurance for cyclists is so ridiculously low risk that it is effectively free. The case for compulsion for insuring low-risk groups is very weak indeed - tragedies happen but they're absurdly rare. And against any (marginal) benefit from that we've got to answer what the cost is. And the cost is to those who benefit from cheap, healthy, fast, easy, quiet, clean transport. Which is, incidentally, everyone. If you don't cycle but instead drive, you benefit from everyone else who does cycle (freeing up space, not polluting, and not endangering you). There is no compelling argument to dissuade cycling by demanding compulsory insurance. And never has been - rather like there isn't an argument for licensing.

What you've got to do Richard is step back from your identity as a motorist and ask whats best all round. The constraints put upon you due to your own choice to utilise a hazardous and polluting class of vehicle only reflect upon you, and not upon those of us who choose a less harmful, non-polluting transport option. That you resent having to do something to mitigate the (actually severe) hazard your decision imposes upon others does not mean that someone doing something colossally less hazardous should pay the same cost. 

Nobody defends dangerous cycling. But you are more likely to be hospitalised in a trouser donning accident than by a cyclist. Get a sense of perspective.

It. Is. Not. All. About. You. Richard.

So the cops response to yesterdays van driver...

Chatlog from their online reporting thing when telling Cambridgeshire Constabulary about this before it (mysteriously) went dead.

tl;dr version - the cops don't give a crap unless there's blood on the ground.

2017-08-24 11:21:16 Operator: Hello, you are now chatting with a Police Control Room Operator, how may we help you today?
2017-08-24 11:21:27 CAB_Daidson: Hello. This incident was at about half past nine this morning. Are you guys interested? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45FM4ZRMI-c
2017-08-24 11:22:04 CAB_Daidson: Wider context is here: http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2017/08/how-do-you-use-cycle-lane-with-vans-in.html
2017-08-24 11:23:19 CAB_Daidson: Scenario is - the red tarmac there is a cycle route. Van pulled out from a driveway and turned towards me - could have gone all the way on to the road but didn't, turned to drive at me.
2017-08-24 11:23:39 CAB_Daidson: I had nowhere really to go - on a heavy step through frame so had to dismount (can't 'straddle' such a bike and keep it upright).
2017-08-24 11:24:14 CAB_Daidson: When he moved aside sufficiently for me to go through, I went. I would contend his driving wa s unacceptable. What do you want to do?
2017-08-24 11:25:48 CAB_Daidson: Hello? Anyone actually there?
2017-08-24 11:26:24 Operator: Please excuse me for a few minutes I will come back to you shortly
2017-08-24 11:26:32 CAB_Daidson: OK.
2017-08-24 11:26:40 Operator: I need to look at the footage
2017-08-24 11:26:48 Operator: and I will be back with you
2017-08-24 11:26:54 CAB_Daidson: OK
2017-08-24 11:33:03 Operator: So I have seen the footage it doesn't appear that the van is driving at you 
2017-08-24 11:33:49 CAB_Daidson: Please look at the wider context -the link under the youtube one.
2017-08-24 11:34:19 CAB_Daidson: He's turned out of the driveway, reversed out and the van is pointing at me in that photo - I dismounted, took that image, then took the video.
2017-08-24 11:34:33 Operator: Yes I have also seen that 
2017-08-24 11:34:40 CAB_Daidson: He's clearly reversed o n to the bike route, he's started driving down it, he's stopped because I'm there.
2017-08-24 11:35:10 Operator: Unfortunately the evidence isn't strong enough to suggest he is doing anything wrong, I have also got my supervisor to look at this
2017-08-24 11:35:45 CAB_Daidson: Its wrong to drive on the segregated bike route. Thats illegal. He's reversed out and on to it, not over it (there's a drop kerb opposite the driveway to allow that)
2017-08-24 11:35:50 Operator: but if he is trying to get to a driveway that might be his only option?
2017-08-24 11:35:54 CAB_Daidson: Reversing round on to it is illegal.
2017-08-24 11:36:28 CAB_Daidson: There's a drop kerb that takes him through the cycle route and on to the road. He's chosen not to use it and to drive down the cycle lane.
2017-08-24 11:36:57 Operator: the van doesn't look like he is driving at you though 
2017-08-24 11:37:02 CAB_Daidson: I'm faced here with a van driving at me, on a route he's no business being on, with a clear and safe option allowing him to remain within the law and he's chosen not to.
2017-08-24 11:37:25 CAB_Daidson: Look at the picture of his van in the post. He's pointing his van straight at me on a cycle route he's got no legal basis to be in.
2017-08-24 11:39:13 CAB_Daidson: Road Traffic Act 1984 makes driving in a mandatory cycle lane illegal. Highway Code rule 140 makes it very clear too. He's pointing his van down a cycle lane he's driven into, on photo, and on video. What do you need?
2017-08-24 11:40:19 CAB_Daidson: It really, genuinely seems like you're looking for excuses for this driving.
2017-08-24 11:42:42 Operator: I have spoken to my supervisor about this it only looks like he is trying to get onto the driveway 
2017-08-24 11:42:55 Operator: maybe you should discuss this with the council?

How do you use a cycle lane with vans in it?

Water Lane in Cambridge should be a good little cycling route. Its well off the road and protected by kerbs, you can validly criticise the design for being way too short of course, but in itself it should be great. Decent width and fully segregated.

But it is always full of cars and vans. Every time I'm there.

Once in a while I've taken a photo of this, such as these ones this morning...

Now I was going to use those photos to highlight that I believe efforts by campaigners and local councillors to get parking enforcement there have backfired spectacularly - rather than block the cycle lane the van driver there is blocking the pavement almost entirely. Look at the top picture - you MIGHT get a wheelchair down the side of that but you probably wouldn't. You certainly shouldn't have to fear not being able to get where you're going because of parking like that.

Anyway, after I took the second picture I mounted back up and started to ride... for no distance at all before this happened: 

Yes, thats right, a van reversed out of a driveway in front of me and rather than going in to the road he the driver decided to drive at me. I stopped, dismounted to one side (old posties bike today so its a step through frame - you can't straddle it and support it you have to get off and hold) and got the phone back out. Thats when the driver temporarily stopped shouting obscenities at me. 

I video'd the next bit. 

So he wants to get off this guys driveway - by driving down the bike route. He doesn't want to go out on to the road he wants to exit by driving at me. I can't fit down the side of him, I'm on my monster old Posties bike and I can't hop up on the pavement on the left to get out of his way very easily (and that would be illegal). So what the hell does he want me to do? 

I stopped filming to go on, he pulled a little back on to the driveway and continued shouting obscenities at me. 

I'd report this to the Police but they routinely refuse to deal with far, far worse. Parking enforcement isn't working - clearly the mototists who park there don't give a damn. And if we try to use the bike lane we risk being driven at by motorists breaking the law. 

What the hell is the point?

Full FOI re. Arbury Road.

Full responses to FOI request.

Rather rambling set of emails.

Strangely small survey of the site.

I don't really want to go through this in great depth because, well, its all there. But in summary - in Winter and Spring they cast a glance at the hedge and missed out a lot of varieties that were present - cherry plum, gean, greengage, elder, etc. They decided it was mostly hawthorn (which is true) so jumped up on that as a reason they could do more or less what they liked. 

They were advised that a shorter hedge with younger plants would establish better, more cheaply, faster. This is standard wisdom in such planting schemes, so shouldn't be surprising. 

Officers appear to have rejected that advice in favour of (presumably) much more expensive, larger trees. This wad done at the very end of the planting season, in it seems a considerable hurry (when, of course, options for buying are constrained). Because the smaller tree specimens offered by Elveden were rejected, a different species mix was obtained (one not discussed with the tree specialist at the City Council) at the eleventh hour from another company - upon receiving my advice that at least two of the species in this new mix were unsuitable the team sought advice from said tree person at the City Council and were told that yes, this was correct, they are poor trees to plant. Also because of the size of the trees planted, the advice was to water for years (not months). 

So as I said, the wrong trees were planted, at huge expense because they were really rather big, massively increasing the cost for maintenance during the first years of them being in, and planted at the wrong time of year (both ecologically and economically). This was done in great haste after a very poor survey that smacks of just having assumed what was on-site - they hadn't even looked at the trees in leaf to or closely enough for a full species survey. They cut it back without really knowing what was in it.

And then we get to the perplexing and infuriating winky smile at my list of species lost, and a reply to that was, thought not technically incorrect, entirely missing the point. No, it isn't a countryside hedge, and thats the problem - species can't re-establish when you've dug it up (twice!) in Spring, killing many seeds off, and then mulching over the top. There is no remaining seed bank to re-establish from when you kill whats underneath what you've planted and then pour tarmac either side of it. This was a remnant of an agricultural hedge with a species diversity resonant of that, which you've basically bland-scaped and made re-seeding very hard by mulching and allowing very dominant, spreading species to thrive (by wiping out all of their competitors by digging them up, twice, and mulching!). Yes, one can refer to many such wild plants as 'weeds' or 'scrub' - and such scrubby weeds of colossal importance to urban wildlife, they're the basis of why a hedge is of greater ecological worth than specimen trees. They are the whole point of why a hedge is so valuable. I just don't see any need for this skepticism when I'm not listing anything very odd here, nor do I see any reason why saying this is important should be contentious.

So, ultimately, I was (and am) right - the advice on trees I offered was correct (and confirmed by tree specialists) but ignored. And specific advice on hedge ecology seems not to have been sought at all - hence ecological concerns for the undergrowth of the hedge have been completely ignored. It was a battle royle to get them to cut holes in there to let hedgehogs through - they don't care for our ecology one iota. A tree specialist isn't a hedge specialist.

Any read through of these documents ought to give huge reason for concern at the way officers have acted - they spent a colossal sum (that isn't revealed here - but another quote that is is £20k+) on the wrong shrubs planted in an ecologically insensitive way, ignoring opportunities to plant more cheaply, effectively, ecologically sensitively and sustainably. This must surely be sufficient for anyone to doubt the competence of said officers.

I am now in discussions to get some native plants re-planted back in to the undergrowth - with the mulch as it is and bindweed/cow parsley having taken over, thats really the best approach now (rather than re-seeding) - although seeding select patches with some mulch pushed aside won't hurt in addition to that. But I'm left thinking that all of this could have been avoided - so very easily. And I'm left worrying that further schemes (to get cycle facilities we really, really need) are at risk - residents won't stand for this kind of nonsense in the more affluent, more involved parts of Cambridge.

Response to Arbury Road FOI

Response to my request for any documentation re. ecological survey of Arbury Road has come. I won't (yet) upload the whole lot (wondering if its automatically posted somewhere, and haven't found it yet), but it is, if I'm honest, a little bit of a mess.

Its like I'm dealing with robots who are only concerned with an overall bigger picture, but just don't care for any local ecological concerns at all.

We need a good cycle facility on Arbury Road and the hedges along much of the road could easily have been retained while still delivering that. But even if the hedge was to be removed, it would have been better to do so in Autumn (and yes, that was the intent - as is still shown on the City Deal web site, and this is acknowledged in advice in the FOI response). Thats better both for removal and re-planting. And it also seems that my advice re. species selection for the hedge (cornus and buckthorn aren't suitable there) was checked with a professional and found to be correct. Didn't help, though.

But the problem here is shown in a single line:

"This isn’t a countryside hedge on Windsor Castle grounds."

No, its something far harder to replace than either. In Windsor Castle or out in most countryside areas there's a significant seed-stock around the site from which any disturbed ground can recover. It WAS an agricultural hedge, but it now has tarmac on either side of it, so any recovery of the site can only come from seed stock right beneath where its been replanted. And as that replanting was done very, very late, many seeds that were germinating already would have been killed twice if not three times (when the hedge was removed, when the site was dug, and when the site was re-planted). If you keep disturbing germinating seeds they die - thats why gardeners use a hoe regularly, to kill off the germinating seeds we don't want. If you kill most of them off in this way in a site that is now very isolated it can't recover very well. And that is especially true if you then mulch the site with wood chips - the whole point of that is to prevent anything growing.

So no, nationally, this isn't something of pristine worth - but in terms of our local ecology in Kings Hedges it really is a big deal to have done this, and the lack of any historical context or any in-depth review of what species were present in the hedge (its like they glanced at it and just said 'oh its hawthorn') really mean that they didn't give a toss about what they were doing there. And therefore the opportunity to get it right has been missed. No, we've lost nothing thats nationally scarce (although some of those species are locally unusual), but thats not the context for this - the context for this is whats present nearby, what the local ecology is. And locally we've lost something increasingly rare here.

I note a certain air of skepticism in the FOI response regarding my list of the species we lost from the site. Great. Thanks guys. Please, give me some credit - if I was going to make something up do you not think I'd go a bit more imaginative than this? Why would I lie, and if I did why the hell would that be the list I'd come up with? If I was going to make some shit up do you really think thats what I'd make up? See some sense. I made that list from memory, I'll vouch for each species listed there as having been present, and therefore any that are no longer present are on you. You did that. You may not care, but before dismissing this I invite you to show me where else in the neighbourhood we've got the same species mix - we haven't retained many sites like that and this loss is one that matters. I can list the fungal species I've found in and along the line of that hedge since moving in to the neighbourhood too, if you like, although again it will be from memory so probably incomplete (Marasmius oreades, Agaricis bitorquis, Agaricus silvicola, Agaricus xanthodermus, Agaricus campestris, Agaricus bernardii, Macrolepiota procera, Macrolepiota hortensis, Lepista saeva, Lepista nuda, Bovista plumbea, Hypholoma fasciulare, Pholiota squarrosa, Coprinus disseminatus, Boletus chrysenteron, Trametes versicolor, Polyporus squamosus) but I didn't list the fungi because I didn't think anyone would care, and its not like you can re-plant them anyway. You see, thats what happens when an amateur naturalist goes past the same hedge every day for years - they pick up a really good idea whats there. And look, that mushroom species list is made up of completely mundane species, there is nothing unusual or exciting there (except arguably Agaricus bernardii - you might think that Agaricus xanthodermus is an odd one but it is absurdly common locally) - but please try to get that local species diversity is not the same thing as national or even regional species diversity. I've found Pholiota squarrosa precisely twice in Cambridge - do you not think its a shame that we've just wrecked one of those locations? Were it feasible to reintroduce it (it isn't) wouldn't you say yeah, actually, that'd be nice?

There is now some agreement that maybe they'll re-plant some species we've lost, which is good. But that City Deal/County Council turned this in to a barney from the outset by moving the hedge removal forward by 6 months with no chance of response, and that isn't ok. We're still short of many woody species we lost from the hedge (dog rose, bramble, cherry, cherry plum, elder, privet, greengage) that in their own way harked back to how the land was used here before the housing estate was built. We've got a hedge that hasn't got the character of a North Cambridge hedge - half a kilometer of history has been messed with, and it could have been done better.

What I'm hoping now is that local species diversity becomes something City Deal, going forward, give a damn about. But if its the same County employees? Thats going to necessitate a massive cultural change. What are the chances?

I invite you, City Deal, to discuss -now- what species are present in hedges and verges on Milton and Histon Roads. Lets do this, and lets do it from now. Lets get the next schemes right while doing what little can be done to restore some of what we lost on Arbury Road. Are you up for it?

Arbury Road was poorly surveyed and no historical context was taken, nor was any consideration shown for how to preserve any species diversity on the site. Shall we do the next schemes better? Are you up for it?