'Weaving in and out of traffic'

Is there a phrase or term in psychology or sociology for a phenomenon whereby the mechanism by which a minority copes with a hostile environment created by a majority is as a result demonised?

I ask because I can't think of a better way of describing how people get so very angry about us 'weaving in and out' of traffic.

I mean its a constant complaint. You see it literally all of the time. And its a senseless, stupid thing to say. 

I'm addressing this mostly at you, motons. Here's the problem - there's traffic and it isn't going anywhere. Its probably not going anywhere at all, although its just possible that it just isn't going anywhere fast. And while I have a certain amount of sympathy for you stuck in the ceaseless, smoke belching, global warming creating traffic prisons of your own devising, I don't care enough for your problems suffer the same fate. I mean, yeah, I get it, you don't want to be there. I don't want you to be there either, what you're doing is delusional and irresponsible and you should be fucking ashamed. But I don't immediately get why that should be my problem.

So I'll go around the right of your car. If there isn't room on that side, I'll go around the left of your car. I mean I'd rather you all just got together and choose which side to leave us space on, but you stubbornly won't do that so I've sometimes got to go around on the right and then switch to the left. I should once again point out I can only do this when you're not (or at most barely) moving. Otherwise I can't do it, but then again if you're actually moving I don't need to. 

And yet, despite the fact that you, the motorists, created the problem, I mean you created the only problem here, the one you're suffering from, you're angry with me? I ask you, fairly and honestly, just whats fucking wrong with you?

There seems to be a set of unwritten rules among motorists that you're somehow all in it together and its the same for everyone. But for some reason you think it applies to those of us who aren't contributing to the problem? Why? Why is it you require, for your own happiness, that you drag us down into the same shit you're suffering with?

Is this just some fundamental principle of out-group psychology? I mean I can see parallels in how the coping strategies of other groups just looking to get by when people are giving them a hard time. Although here I think it might be different in that we aren't just surviving motons shit, we're doing better than them because they can't get their shit together. Because they've created a road environment that fucks everyone, but mostly themselves, and we're able to get through it, are they primarily angry out of sheer jealousy?

The truth is, I think, that they're angry and we're visible. We're a minority seen to be transgressing the rule that we've all got to be miserable as fuck and wasting time, money and resources polluting the planet and not getting anywhere.

In truth all motorists need to do in the situation where we're 'weaving in and out between traffic' is go and fuck themselves. Bluntly. They made the roads this way, all we're doing is making the world a bit better. 

Jumping Red Lights - when and why I do it

One of the constant bellyaches from cyclist haters and idiot victim blamers is red light jumping. The idea that in some strange way a Moron sees another cyclist who isn't you jumping a red light and that's why they give you a hard time when they see you afterwards. Its nonsense, as anyone who has read any psychology at all will be able to explain.

But at the core of this is the idea that we must not ever jump red lights. only an idiot would say that we should ignore traffic signals. But to maintain that we must never jump a red light goes beyond idiocy and into suicidal stupidity. From a cosy, closeted view that never sees the world without windscreen wipers and a rear view mirror in the way its easy to pretend this is an absolute principle but don't be fooled, it isn't. At some stage when out on a bicycle you too will jump a red light for a valid and fair reason. The road network is so given over to dangerous motorists that by obeying the rules we can be put into extreme danger if we don't.

I don't intend to produce an exhaustive list of reasons, I'm only listing those that come to mind for why I sometimes have to go through a red light. Feel free to add as many more reasons as you like in the comments. But I am going to go through the times and reasons I sometimes go through red lights. tl;dr version: because I don't want to die.

...because a driver behind is going to kill me if I don't

This is one of the most common reasons, and it will be familiar to many of you. You're heading down the road at a fairly decent lick, probably covering your brakes because there's a light ahead of you and it could change. It goes amber with plenty of time for you to stop at the red light. But there's a car accelerating behind you, and from the sound of it you know the driver isn't planning to stop. 

You've got two choices. Stop and hope the driver behind won't kill you, or keep going and know that he's not going to kill you. Go through the red light and survive or hit the brakes and, with any luck, the driver behind is aware enough to stop. 

I've lost track of the number of times I've run a red light this way. It must be dozens, if not hundreds of times. And on every single occasion the car behind followed through on red - I've never mistakenly gone through a red light to avoid being run over and for the car driver behind to demonstrate that no, he wasn't willing going to kill me.

I'm not going to die under someone's car wheels just to stubbornly be right about obeying the law.

...because its understood by motorists that I should

There are some junctions here where if I don't go through a red light and cross the road on my bike on the pedestrian phase, drivers waiting behind become positively hostile. The best local example is the junction of Arbury Road, Union Lane and Milton Road, a four way intersection with lights for all ways on and a pedestrian phase. And almost every cyclist held up at the lights goes on the pedestrian phase, if the lights haven't favoured them sooner.

Is this naughty? Sort of. Its harmless, the space to ride across is safe enough, but you're still jumping a red light. The question really is, why not wait for your own green phase? I invite you to try it. 

You see, the cyclists going on red aren't holding any of the motorists up. If you wait for green then anyone in a car behind you IS (in their flawed opinion) held up for a few moments while you get away. Whereas all the other cyclists who headed off before you, through the red light, haven't held them up. Which exposes the cyclist waiting for a green light to hostility from ignorant motons who just won't have it that they need to wait their turn to get through. I've had some horrendous encounters at that junction because I've obeyed the law. The end result? I'm not waiting at a red light just to put up with some half wit threatening me for doing so. I'm going off with the other cyclists who don't suffer the implicit threat of murder under the angry wheels of an idiot. 

...because the road is designed without regard to cycling

This is another one best shown by example. If you're riding on Victoria Avenue in Cambridge towards Mitcham's Corner, you will most likely find yourself wanting to get off the road and on to the cycle route and shared crossings across the junction. Reasonable enough, its a shorter, faster, and less hostile route that doesn't require you to take the very centre of a lane of traffic to prevent motons encroaching on you from both sides. You get to the red light, but unless you're lucky and the bike box doesn't have a car in it you're left on the left kerb needing to cross a stream of cars to get where you're going. And they've only got a short light phase to get into the junction, they're not going to stop and let you past. Its not bad if you hit the junction on a green light and can get straight through - but that never happens.

Your other option is to go around the outside of the cars, through the red light, and straight on to the off road facility. Yes, its designed so badly that without breaking the law the safer cycle facility is inaccessible unless you go through the red light.

I mean I could ignore the cycle route and ride in completely the wrong lane holding my right arm out to cross two lanes of traffic hoping someone lets me out (they won't) to go the long way around a hostile road junction, that for once motons will show the slightest bit of respect to a cyclist there (they won't). But for the sake of going through a red light and breaking the law for all of about a yard of distance, screw that. I'll go the safer way.

...because the bike box is full

We've all seen this one. You're passing a long stream of car traffic to get to an advance stop box for cyclists, but when you get there its full of car drivers. You have the choice of waiting to their left (and if they'll turn left through you, you'll die), on their right (if there's space, but there won't be - and if they turn right through you, you'll die) or in front of them on the other side of the white line. Illegal, but visible and safer. I mean yeah, I could just legally wait in a stupid place and die, but that's not going to happen is it?

...because a lorry has pulled alongside 

By far the biggest killer of cyclists is large vehicles turning left through them. Many savages in the press like to blame cyclists for this, but most often if you find yourself in this situation its because as soon as the cab of the lorry has pulled alongside you the driver just forgets you were there, and then you're in danger. 

If a lorry pulls alongside me at a red light, or even right up behind me to put me into his blind spot, I'm not going to wait there just to prove a point. I'm going to ride forward until I can comfortably make eye contact with the driver, and I'm going to make sure he's seen me. I'm not going to get myself killed just to win moton brownie points by not jumping the red light. I didn't design the road in such a way as to make it potentially lethal to me - you're going to have to put up with me adapting my behaviour to make myself safer. 

...because the sensor hasn't seen me

Thankfully this is less common than it was, but it still happens. You ride to a light that is meant to be triggered by a vehicle on top of it, and you wait. Maybe other lights change and other people get a phase, but you don't. And you realise that maybe its your alloy bike, or you've maybe not lined your ride up on the right part of the road sensor. So you shuffle about a bit, and the lights change for other people again, and it becomes apparent you're going nowhere.

I'm not going to wait there all night in hope. I'm going to wait until I can see its safe and I'll ride on. I don't see I've got any other choice.

...to make space for an emergency vehicle

A while back I was approaching the red light at the end of Bridge Street, with heavy traffic on the other side of the road blocking that lane all the way around the corner. I heard a siren, glanced back, there was a police car coming. I went past the knot of pedestrians on the pavement, through the red light, and hopped the bike onto a quiet bit of pavement I could see ahead before waving the police car through.

Amazingly someone on the other side of the road stormed out through the heavy traffic on the other side, waving a walking stick at me and yelling for going through the lights and being on the pavement. I think you'll agree it takes a very special kind of dick head to argue its better to block emergency vehicles than to go through a red light.

...because someone is threatening me

So you've had someone yelling abuse at you on the road, and there's a red light ahead. You don't want to face continued hostility, and you don't see any reason they should be allowed to project their own inadequacies via. the medium of a car engine and the relentless gleaming metal and glass box they're in. You get to the red light, they're stuck in traffic. Be honest - why the hell wouldn't you ride through and get out of their sight if you can? You aren't obliged to put up with someone abusing you and threatening you, and if you need to take the law into your own hands to escape them? I won't argue against that.

So there you have it - my short list of reasons I've broken the law and gone through red lights. I know, it is an inconvenient truth that on a hostile road network we are forced to sometimes bend or even break the rules to avoid being killed by the idiots who the rules are set up to control. But there it is - I'm not spending time recovering in hospital because I want to demonstrate how virtuous we can be, and I'm not having it that going through a red light in any circumstances where I'm putting myself at greater risk if I don't do so is wrong. 

Bluntly I suggest that anyone telling you otherwise should be invited to take a long walk off a short pier. You don't have to take their shit. 

Cambridge Transport Policy - How NOT to do local government.

Sadly I'm going to have to split this up into multiple blog posts. There's too much to absorb in one go, and its a developing situation changing very rapidly. A friend of a friend of a friend suggests that there have been some leaks from some of the authorities listed below that will be hitting the web in a few weeks time - so the state of things is currently fluid. Stick with me, please.

Cambridge is often heralded as unique in Britain, in that more people cycle here than elsewhere. And thats certainly true, although the numbers aren't as great as some would have you believe. In my view thats only one of the many ways this city is different to the rest of the UK. There is also strong evidence that we have the worst local government stratification in the country, and that this is completely ruining any hope of ever having an effective transport policy.

To explain why, one must look at the organisations involved. 

The City itself is operated by Cambridge City Council. Its currently Labour run although as things stand its hard to know whether that majority is safe going forward, especially with coming boundary changes. When you drill down into it you find that the local Labour party is as divided as it is everywhere else - we've got hard red Trots like Dave Baigent and Kevin Price (I can make a case for him being the second worst councillor Cambridge has ever had), essentially they're hard nosed Corbynistas, and we have notorious cyclist haters like Gerri Bird, all the way to pragmatic modernists like Carina O'Reilly. And this has bubbled over into petty deselections of councillors to apparently balance the wings of the party. The idea they might have a unified or intelligent transport policy is extremely far fetched.

But in a way that barely matters because the transport authority is the County Council. And that authority is made up of a few labour and liberal democrat councillors mostly from Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, but is dominated by a comfortable majority of red in the face Tory fruitcakes representing rural and fenland constituencies where a monkey with a blue rosette would win. So thats who they put up, the most frothing at the mouth, swivel eyed, nasty Tory who passes muster with the local associations seemingly more interested in the petty hurt they can inflict by executing Tory dogma than anything else. Until recently the only challenge they faced was UKIP, so now they're effectively unopposed. If they have any interest in Cambridge at all its how to fleece us for council tax to then spend giving immigrants a harder time in the Fens, and how they can maintain car access for hate filled geriatrics who had their souls sucked out by Thatcher. Suggestions to them that cycling and walking are important is likely to get you shot through the lungs. 

Then we have South Cambridgeshire. That was a Tory stronghold but spectacular mismanagement gave the Liberal Democrats a way in. So far they haven't done much - in itself sufficient reason for cynicism, and they've really flopped when faced with intransigent road engineers who are making a right royal mess of the arterial road through their area. But they're there. And thats as much as we can say for them.

And lastly there's East Cambridgeshire, a council so ineffective it fights over folk festival parades. Its a bizarrely run, car-centric place in which an unsustainable free parking in the historic city of Ely means that you can neither walk nor breath safely there. At least its Tory/Libdem contest, but as its a contest fought for control of a freakishly car dependent part of the county I hold out no hope of any improvement. 

So four different local government bodies all with their own transport priorities? Oh, no. We're not done. Not by a long way.

Because having at least two, even three layers of local government in each location wasn't enough, our local councillors agreed with central government to have a directly elected mayor who covering the needs of the frothing at the mouth UKIP fenlanders, the cosmopolitan and complex city of Peterborough, and the professors of Cambridge who can show mathematical proof of Plancks constant but if you boil carrots and potatoes in the same pan it blows their minds. Big ask - squaring the circle of a bus and train city, the nations cycling capital and a county that would render down their own children for another gallon of diesel.

The mayor is and will, as far as we can see, always be a Tory - which upsets the Labour/Libdem City of Cambridge. And because its so safe its very prone to cronyism, with the rate at which the mayor shovels cash into the coffers of his mates seemingly showing now bounds. They Mayor has plans for reforming our transport in the city, but he'll probably just blow all his cash on posh headquarters and severance pay.

And last, but oh my gosh no means least, because things weren't complicated enough and we weren't blowing enough cash on 5 layers of squabbling local government (district or city council, possibly a parish council area, the mayoral authority, county council and of course the elected police commissioner) we also have a massive body of good old fashioned quangos shoveling money into endless consultations but very little solid infrastructure work. It was called Cambridge Cit Deal but that became so toxic they renamed it Greater Cambridge - yeah, they say its because that was more inclusive, so at best the rebranding might seem convenient. And they have their own plans and views, and ever more absurd and peculiar ways of feigning democratic mandate for an entirely un-elected body.

Needless to say, this city doesn't have a transport policy, nor a coherent development policy. We're a hub for economic growth and in a very short time the city has grown beyond all expectations, and continues to expand. And at the top? More of a bun-fight than an authority. The Mayoral plan is different to Greater Cambridge, which isn't reflected by what the County wants, and the City don't agree with any of that. While the Districts have their own priorities too.

What a mess. What a pity. What a monstrous waste of resources, having endless overlapping consultations from needlessly repeated local government positions. 

I'll go on to detail how plans of the City Deal and the Mayoral authority differ (and indeed why each is, independently, pathetic) in future posts. But for now, I can conclude that there is no way that the current system can work. Strip away all but two of these layers of government, divide the total number of councillors by 3 and make that a full time job. It would be cheaper, faster, comprehensible, and might actually get something done. 

Arbury Road - Camcycles inexplicable love affair with Greater Cambridge?

In the last couple of years Cambridge Cycling Campaign (often quaintly and trendily known by their twitter handle, Camcycle) have been, on the whole, better than they were. While there has been the occasional weird outburst, and their rabid enthusiasm for the underwhelming eponymous trail remains peculiar,  they have at least no longer got a convicted child assaulter on the committee, and I've talked to Robin (still their chair, I believe) about the support Martin gave for the crap facility on Gilbert Road,and he didn't get it either. There are some excellent, committed, positive people there who deserve our appreciation.

So what the heck is he going on about here? Why did he choose this pooch to screw?

All I can think is that he didn't really know Arbury Road, or how people rode in this part of town, before the new lane was constructed.

Ocado delivery driver dangerous to cyclist and pedestrians

The background - Arbury Road is the oldest named route in the City, connecting Chesterton to Arbury Camp, which has had some occupation since the neolithic era. And since Orchard Park was built there the site has culturally reverted to that state. It is, like many roads derived from old drove ways, long and mostly straight, the result being that many choose to drive far to fast on it. The modern road can be divided into two main sections. South of Campkin Road it is fast, narrow, with parked cars all the way down one side and occasionally blocking the pavement on the other side too, essentially limiting it to two very close streams of vehicles with no room for safely overtaking cyclists. Not that this stops them. And North of Campkin Road, it isn't much wider but there is (and has always been) a hedge down one side and little parking on road on the other.

City Deal (sorry, that name had become so toxic they renamed themselves Greater Cambridge) has existed in a constant state of existential crisis since it was founded, needing to find ways of shovelling cash into schemes as fast as possible. Hence it has wasted no time in throwing money into shovel ready schemes and the black hole of consultation. And it noticed that building a cycle lane on the North end of Arbury Road would be relatively uncontroversial. So they did.

And... Well, where it is, it isn't bad. If you came at this without knowing this party of the city at all you might think this was great. You would look at the kids riding on this new lane and think its a revelation. But thats incredibly naive.

One of the multiple off road routes parallel to the new lane

The reality in Kings Hedges is that the estate was built at the end of the 1960s in a tremendously forward thinking, progressive way. It was made difficult to drive through the estate but easy to walk or ride, with the result being that a lot of journeys within the estate are made on foot or by bicycle. Conversely no attention was paid to this in much of the rest of the city, meaning that places like Kings Hedges that are great to ride around in are terrible to ride of to anywhere else. The result? You see plenty of kids riding to school within the estate, people riding or walking to the local shops or park, but the rate for commuting by bike is lower than in other parts of the city. 

And true to form Greater Cambridge ignored this. They ignored the simple means by which the same scheme could have been delivered cheaper, faster, with less disruption, with less ecological damage and with a better end result. Because that didn't fit the bill of spending enough money to secure the next tranche of government funding. And what we now have is a highly visible route that accomplishes next to nothing for those who live in Kings Hedges or indeed anyone else. 

Bus stop filled around one minute from every 10

In itself, it isn't bad. In parts. I mean if you ignore the fact that the two bus stops are used by a service that is due every 10 minutes, meaning that for about 10% of the time during the day its actively dangerous. And that there is no physical separation so that delivery vehicles are, all through most week days, blocking either the pavement or the cycle lane. But it doesn't take you anywhere. The primary school already had good provision, and the new cycle lane stops before you get to the part of the road thats most dangerous.

I would say that Greater Cambridges decision to build this white elephant of a scheme that will not increase the total uptake of cycling in the City but may in fact only get people out of the estate and on to the main road is deeply cynical, and that is clearly demonstrated by the fact that where you actually need protection the cycle route disappears. In theory you might turn right, head through the older estate and ride to town there, but of course if you're heading to the Beehive Centre or any of the shopping or employment locations on Newmarket Road the scheme is valueless. The truly terrifying part of Arbury Road has been left entirely untouched by this - no one who was dissuaded by the traffic on the North end of Arbury Road will be persuaded to brave the much worse traffic on the Southern half.

Cycle lane ends - at the worst possible place

Of course its possible that you might be heading North from Kings Hedges towards Orchard Park, or up on to the Guided Bus Route to go to the Science Park. Well, the latter is unlikely, as its the wrong direction and we've another more direct route (that could really do with an upgrade) if you work there. So you're presumably heading to the A14 bridge, going to Histon or Cottenham, or just up to the hotel on Orchard Park? Its an odd one but lets humour that idea. You ride up Arbury Road heading North and you see some good facilities - the new crossing, for example, is good... 

And then you end up at the end of Arbury Road, the junction with Kings Hedges Road. Where you're meant to do what, exactly? Well there's a shared use facility off to the Left there heading off up Kings Hedges Road. Its crap and gives way to the side roads without any sensible signage, of course. Or you can go straight across acres of hostile car dominated tarmac without any specific cycling provision at all. Its like someone vomited all the bad ideas they had on one junction, it has nothing to commend it. Or you could go right where there's a shared use route to cut the corner on to Kings Hedges Road which is, in that direction, lethally dangerous. I genuinely don't know what they have in mind that we should do here - are we just meant to disappear because there isn't a cycle route any more? Kings Hedges Road at this point has four hostile lanes for fast cars with motorists mentally preparing for or coming down from the 70mph high of the A14. They aren't looking for cyclists, few ever want to ride on or across it. 

End of Arbury Road. Well? Now what?

Robin old chap, you've done some good stuff with Camcycle. But if you think this scheme is good you've been suckered. Its a pointless scheme that won't get anyone new cycling, it'll just get some of the people who were already riding to ride on a slightly different route. It doesn't do enough to make whole journeys better, and by concentrating on the (relatively) good section of the road instead of the brutally hazardous end, this is merely a cynical way of digging holes to pour money into them. No one whose journey was bad has now got a good enough journey as a result of this cynical scheme. I lament that you've been taken in by this. You should know better.

Cambridgeshire Police - Don't Expect Them to Police Motorists

So this happened. I took this picture at about quarter past eight this morning.

You wouldn't get a pram down the side there, or any kind of walking aid. Frankly it would be hard to get down there with just a walking stick and anyone with any kind of visual impairment would be scuppered. It isn't OK to park like that - ideally they shouldn't be parked on the pavement at all, but if they really must then they need to leave enough space for people to safely get past. There are cars parked on the other side, but they're further on - here the police car could have been entirely on the road. It would take more care and time to park carefully behind another vehicle and on the pavement than to park on the road, so if this was any kind of emergency then parking like this is an approach that sucks.

I decided to call 101 and tell them, they told me maybe they're responding to an emergency, and I said yeah, clearly this wasn't how you'd park if there was an emergency, it would be much faster parking on the road. Then they put me through to whoever it needed to be and I queued, I waited, and got through to someone. They took the details down and said they're record it as a complaint against the Police. Which isn't right - I'm reporting a crime, I want it recorded as a crime, not a complaint. My reasoning was simple - if this was a plumbers van and I phoned the Police, it would be treated as an incident thats perhaps a crime, not as a complaint to the plumbing company. I don't think the Police necessarily have to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, but clearly they have to be held to the same standard. The officer said they'd put me through to someone else, the phone rang again, I went on hold, then it went dead.

I called back and basically had the same discussions again, which ended in the line going dead. Again. 

Long story short (too late, I know), they required that if I don't agree about this being a complaint against the Police rather than a report about a crime, then I need to raise a complaint about that. So I did, and was told they'd call me back about that. Thats four hours ago now. The line randomly went dead three times trying to get this done and multiple officers flat out refused to accept that this should be treated as a crime that needs investigating.

Bluntly all I'm asking for is for the Police to be treated exactly the same as anyone else. If they park a car blocking the pavement such that a visually impaired, physically disabled person or someone with a pram can't get past then thats out of line. Thats not a police complaint, its something that needs investigating and handling in exactly the same way as it would be if its anyone else.

The Police are not above the law. But in being the prime organisation jobbed with enforcing the law its very clear that they think they ARE above the law. I find that really very sinister - they think that the answer to this is to go and ask the officers in question for an excuse. That can't be right - can it?

Camcycle Local Election Survey (belated response) - Independent!

Sam Davies stood for election to Cambridge City Council as an independent recently, and did really well. With next years elections here being for all council seats, due to boundary changes, she's a very good chance of winning a seat next time round in Queen Ediths, so when she asked me to look through her responses to the Cambridge Cycling Campaign survey I was happy to do so.

I'm going to treat Sam the same as I've treated everyone else - with as much or as little bitchy sarcasm as I feel like. So, lets have a look at her responses...

Her experiences cycling here, those of her family, and fears for younger/older riders...

Where do I start? The adults in the family have been cycle commuters in the city for 30 years, plus enjoying cycle touring holidays in Europe, the USA, the Nullarbor Desert in Australia and the Sahara! Our children were on bikes early, for trips to school, fun days out and then racing - MTB, cyclocross, road and track, they tried them all. These experiences have given them a degree of independence and confidence which is fantastic to watch.

However, in terms of concerns about cycling with younger children, I have several: 
- the intermittent nature of infrastructure - for example, coming back to Queen Edith's from town there is a gap between the signalled crossing outside Highsett and the lane which starts after Station Road, and then another gap in the stretch leading up to the Brookgate crossing. That's pretty hairy when you're cycling with small children. 
- inadequate shared provision on high volume routes (eg Long Road, Brooklands Avenue). I lobbied the County Council in 2013 and got them to finance £155k of improvements to Long Road, but when you think that it provides the East-West access to Long Road Sixth Form College, CAST, the Biomedical Campus and Trumpington Community College, you quickly realise the quality is completely inadequate to the importance of the task it performs.
- the density of bikes. pedestrians and motorised vehicles competing for space in the city centre. Children are just not as aware of the possibility of pedestrians unexpectedly stepping off pavements or a car cutting in front of them at a crossing.

These and other factors can make it a bit of an ordeal when children are in the 'training' phase. It's worth persevering but it did involve quite a lot of nervous wear and tear on my part at times ...

Thats a really exhaustive answer and it touches on specific issues in her ward (Queen Ediths) and its all fair enough. I would only suggest that it all really comes down to one thing - infrastructure. Is there enough and is what there is good enough. Nothing at all to disagree with here - but maybe the answer to what the main problems are is just simpler than the candidate is putting her finger on.

Anyway, the next question - seeing as more people cycling is a good thing for all sorts of reasons, what would she do to get more people out on their bikes. And its another detailed answer:

I sometimes worry that we make the narrative around cycling rather too much focussed on the practical and the worthy (or worse still the hair-shirt) side of the equation, and not enough about enjoying yourself. Ever since I first joined CamCycle back in the 1990s, I've felt we've been missing a trick by not allying the organisation more closely with sports cycling groups. This is particularly true for young people - I honestly believe that if you can make cycling seem like a fun sport, then the bike handling skills, the heightened awareness of what's around them, and the willingness to just jump on a bike all pay dividends when it comes to the day-to-day stuff. And think about the galvanizing effect that bringing the Tour de France to Cambridge had. Bristol uses its annual 'car-free' event to host a morning of competitive races, followed by an afternoon mass-participation ride around the same route: https://www.bristol247.com/sport/cycling/looking-forward-day-cycling-car-free-streets/ We should be investigating these opportunities for cross-fertilisation more. Of course you need to then support this increased enthusiasm with the necessary infrastructure to provide a good experience for cyclists of all ages and abilities *and levels of experience*. Crucially you need to catch people as soon as they move to the city. We should encourage the estate agents who operate here to place much higher emphasis on cycling connectivity in their marketing materials, for example. We could also identify cycling 'champions' on new developments who could then help other new residents work out their best routes when they move in. There are lots of creative ways we could do this.

Lots to think about there, and I'll confess I'm rather taken aback by being made to actually think by reasoned, interesting views being put forward in response to this survey.

The only thing I'd really change there is I'd flip it around. We know from around the world that the only thing that leads to an increase in mass cycling is better infrastructure - thats the first message to get across, and I always worry when a candidate starts talking about soft measures to encourage before talking about infrastructure. I'm right behind the idea of car-free days and trying to inspire people with sport, but thats a supplementary measure. Heck, I can even get behind talking about cycling as a fun thing to do (not that you'd always know it from this blog).

On planing, I note that she gets that there's a problem here, and she supports what volunteers like the Cycling Campaign does. She supports having a full-time officer at the City Council, and rightly notes that much of the problem comes from the County. But whats missing here is a clear indication that she gets just how irrelevant a single or small number of councillors are when trying to block bad developments, and how dirty and unequal the fight between developers and councillors is. There's a need to level the playing field here by bringing public opinion to bear against bad developments such that we can get a structural change in how planning operates, and I don't know that she's up for that fight.

On cycle theft in general and at Cyclepoint in particular:

Security at Cyclepoint is a joke. I won't leave my bike there anymore. I can think of a couple of approaches (apologies if these have already been tried):

- City Council/Daniel Zeichner/CamCycle joint approach direct to the Police and Crime Commissioner, Jason Ablewhite
- adoption of cycle security at Cyclepoint as a policing priority mandated by councillors at Area Committee
- investigation of ways of tying security performance levels into the railway company's franchise agreement.

That covers most of it. Understanding that one of the key things that councillors can do is direct the Police to prioritise this via. the Area Committee is great. I haven't much to add to this - I'd suggest that understanding that a councillor badgering the Police on this subject carries more weight than us normal folk approaching them is the only thing missing.

There's a local question about pavement parking in Queen Ediths next, and again Sam hits most of the nails pretty hard. One thing perhaps missing is that there's already a bye-law in Cambridge where the City can put a ban on parking on grass verges merely by having a sign, and that this becomes a useful tool in conjunction with the other stated measures. I don't think she's missing much at all here though.

So all in all a very solid performance from Sam here - there isn't much missing, I would only question how much she's prioritising fully segregated cycle infrastructure over other measures. But this is a sound response - 9/10.

Camycle Local Election Survey - My Answers

Its only fair, after roasting local election candidates over their replies (some of which were great, some rubbish) that I should put my own views forward for criticism. Feel free to have a go at what I've said if you like.

Because when I open up the web page it goes straight to West Chesterton, I'll answer those questions. Enjoy.

What experience do you and your family have of cycling? Do you have any different concerns about younger or older family members cycling than you do for yourself?

Myself and my partner ride all the time, its our primary means of transport. Sometimes its for fun too - we're happy going on longer rides, thats normally on the faster road bikes, whereas commuting tends to be by chunky hybrid, and trips to the shops and the allotment are by the sturdy ex-posties bike with or without the trailer. Neither our families live here in Cambridge nor do any of them regularly ride - like most people, in most parts of the country, adverse road conditions put them off. And thats from childhood onwards - I don't blame my siblings from dissuading their kids from riding in places they live, which are all entirely car-centric and hostile to cycling.

But if I'm honest those concerns, while amplified for kids and the elderly (and those less able bodied), are the same for everyone and can be addressed the same way - safe infrastructure should be there for us all to ride on.

Camcycle believes that more people cycling has positive benefits for individuals' health and the city by reducing congestion and air-pollution. What is your vision to encourage more people of all ages and all abilities to cycle as a preferred mode of transport?

It isn't so much my own vision as it is the clear evidence of decades or research on transport choices - there's one game in town, and thats high quality, segregated infrastructure. I know people like to talk about educating cyclists, teaching drivers, good policing, places to lock bikes and in work showers but the impact of all of those measures combined pales into insignificance next to the provision of high class infrastructure.

So my vision is for all levels of local government in Cambridge (City, County, Mayoral and Greater Cambridge) to commit to installing said infrastructure at every opportunity. Our sister city, Cambridge in Massachusetts, has passed law requiring that cycle infrastructure be installed on every major road project. And thats the way we need to go - the provision of safe routes for whole journeys, not just where its easy to build. Restricting car access to the city centre is also a no-brainer - it should be a beautiful place but its choking with fumes, and that has to change.

People can quibble about that all they like - but there's no room for more cars, bus routes will always be slower and indirect and we're not getting any kind of underground Metro for decades. To free up road space, make our air cleaner and our city safer for everyone, dedicated cycle infrastructure is the only game in town. Anyone saying otherwise is demonstrably wrong.

Our volunteers spend a lot of time scrutinising planning applications for failures such as lack of secure cycle parking, poor access, failure to fund nearby improvements to make the roads safer, and so on. Many of these things get let through by officers and councillors in clear contravention of the Local Plan. The lack of a full-time cycling officer makes this situation even worse. What are your main concerns about the planning system, and how would you seek to make improvements?

I feel your pain.

The answer I think you want is that I'd push for a full-time cycle officer at the City Council. And yes, I would, and I'd make cost savings to employ one by trimming away some of the endless deadwood in middle management at City level. All too often the people that the Council employs to do work around the city are brilliant, but they're not enabled to do their jobs by managers who just get in the way. I have absolute confidence, from first hand experience, that plenty of savings can be made there to employ a full time cycling officer.

But thats only part of the problem - another part is that planning is ludicrously slanted in favour of developers and against councillors and residents. And with the best will in the world no one local authority can change that. What they CAN do however is use the media and activists such as yourselves far more effectively - while a depressingly dull planning meeting might not get the attention it needs, calling activists and the press in to hilight oncoming planning disasters is a weapon that few councillors seem willing to use. That has to change - if the law is stacked against sustainable transport in development then we must be willing to win in the court of public opinion first, and that eventually changes the system.

Cycle theft is a city-wide problem, and the greatest frustration is focussed on the Cyclepoint parking facility at the main Cambridge rail station. Official response to cycle theft at Cyclepoint has been subject to a breakdown of relationship between those in authority. When somebody tries to report their bike has been stolen they get a run-around between the railway company, the British Transport Police and the local police. What can the city council do to encourage the necessary co-operation between Greater Anglia and Cambridgeshire Constabulary?

Its easy to bottle out of this question by saying its not a councillor thing, its a police thing. But I won't do that. I've seen how it plays out when you report anything relating to crimes against cyclists in Cambridge - the cops want you to shut up and go away and they'll do whatever it takes (frustrating you by losing details, not taking reports, refusing to accept that dangerous driving can be a thing without a collision, etc.) to frustrate you. But then when you call in a councillor, or bellyache online and a councillor pushes it (as Oscar did once when I had footage of a dangerous driver in the city centre) then the Police take notice. Councillors don't have direct sway over policing priorities but their views carry way more weight with the police than the rest of us can manage. Bluntly, councillors in the city must collectively approach Cambridgeshire Constabulary and British Transport Police and tell them that we've had enough. We absolutely require that for each reported bike theft at Cyclepoint footage from CCTV is consulted and images circulated to catch the thief. And, likewise, across the city wherever there is camera footage it must be accessed.

Its hard to imagine the police being so blase about the theft of anything else - councillors at each local area committee must push the police to prioritise crimes against cyclists, including bike thefts, in every part of the city.

Protected junctions where walking and cycling traffic are fully separated from motorised traffic have been proposed by Cambridge Cycling Campaign for junctions being rebuilt by the Milton and Histon Road GCP projects. Which junctions do you think would benefit from similar safety improvements within the Cambridge area?

There was a recent discussion on Twitter about cycle junctions in Cambridge, and I think it was Al from Camcycle who asked whether there are any junctions in Cambridge designed well enough for cyclists. After some consideration the considered, all round response was 'no, not really'. This makes the answer 'well all of them' quite easy, but its (a) unhelpful and (b) glib. But starting with the developments on Milton Road, I'd take the simple approach of addressing each junction in the city in order of the number of cyclist injuries reported there. Lets not guess or blunder about - the data is available and is a simple, unambiguous guide to the action plan we need.

Ultimately no bike journey is better than its worst junction. The more junctions we fix, the better whole bike journeys will get.

 The eastern section of Arbury Road near Milton Road is narrow, filled with parked cars creating a cycle safety hazard, and speeding traffic far above the 20mph limit. How would you propose to create safe cycling conditions along this part of Arbury Road, for instance by extending the new cycle lanes?

To be honest I wouldn't have started the Arbury Road project without a plan to do the whole road. Its absurd that there's going to be a short stretch of reasonably decent cycle lane completely unconnected to anywhere else thats worth cycling - at one end there's the dogs dinner of the Arbury Road/Kings Hedges junction where we don't connect up with anything, and at the other the plan is for the route to disappear and we're apparently meant to ride all round the houses and keep out of the way of the car drivers on Arbury Road. Fuck that for a game of soldiers, its not going to encourage anyone to ride to work from, say, Orchard Park to the Beehive. We have to stop these delusional part-projects and stop planning officers patting themselves on the backs for shit like this, its just not on - the current facility being finished on Arbury Road represents a failure, not a success.

The South/East end of Arbury Road isn't even that hard to fix, I find it inexplicable that we didn't see a plan emerge before the work started at the other end of the road. I'd make it one way for driving, ban parking on one side, and install a fully segregated contaflow lane for cycling on the other side. If there is room I'd put fully segregated cycle lanes on both sides, if there isn't I'd install hard speed restrictions to tame motorists there (they treat it like a long, straight drag track right now)

And thats before we consider what should be done on Union Lane...