The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) are currently considering a set of improvements to encourage active travel within the region. Proving opportunities for people to reduce their private motorcar trips by making local journeys by foot or cycle. There are a wide set of benefits to making this change. Reduced car use lessens congestion, which helps buses and taxis get around. Reduced demand for parking helps those who cannot switch to active or public modes. Reduction in fossil fuel car use reduces carbon emissions to assist with the region’s climate crisis response. Reduction in motor-vehicle use improves air quality (not just emissions from combustion vehicles – brake, tyre and road particulates come from electric and combustion vehicles alike) and reduces road maintenance cost. Incorporating gentle exercise into daily route by taking to active modes improves physical health and mental wellbeing. Safe cycling provision provides independence to children and that frees parent’s time from providing lifts. Being in the open can connect you better with nature. Businesses benefit from a higher average spend by people arriving by active modes. Broadly, research shows and policy makers are starting to understand, shifting driving to walking or cycling is a very good thing.

The GCP commissioned transport consultancy WPS to look at the existing cycle network in the region and identify corridors for improvement. Considering both connections that are currently missing and existing links that have insufficient capacity to deliver the level of cycling targeted. They produced a report, variously known as ‘Gap Analysis’, ‘Missing Links’ and ‘Active Travel Study’ which proposes 13 corridors that could see significant improvement for cycling.  Excitingly two of these are within Histon and Impington. With another rebrand to ‘Cycling Plus’ the proposals are now out for consultation with the public.

Before looking at the details of the schemes, the budget needs a discussion. Though the report identifies each of the 13 corridors as a key gap in the cycle network the £20m budget is only enough to tackle two or three of these. Getting one (or both!) of the local schemes to happen will need a strong positive response to the consultation. Missing out would be a huge shame given the benefit they would provide to our community. I can easily imagine a future where residents, having seen the benefit of similar improvement elsewhere, are ask for the same here, but the central government money will have been used and the local council/parish will struggle to achieve the budgets needed for such transformative changes.

Impington to Milton

This corridor connects connect Milton to the Histon via Butt Lane, Impington Land and New Road. Improving the connection between these villages. Supporting trips to the Park & Ride site and employment area planed nearby. GCP frequently focus on commuting trip, this route is very important for education too as it would provide connection to IVC for pupils in Milton via Butt Lane and Orchard Park via busway and New Road.

Following the proposal roughly from left to right.

New Road (South) Proposal: resurface route. 

This road is has an existing mode filter so already low traffic. The surface is currently poor so resurfacing is welcome. I’d like to see the footpath included in the resurfacing, perhaps widened too, as is poor for walking currently.

New Road/Bridge Road Junction. Proposal remove crash barriers and improve visual appeal of existing modal filter.

Welcome improvements to make an urban looking part of the village more appealing. I think the flared junction could be squared off to give the Toucan crossing more space to separate cycling and walking. This would tie in well with the next proposal along New Road.

New Road (North) Proposal: shared use footway on eastern side, using grass verge to widen it to an acceptable width. Tighten side road junction radii. Replace speed cushions with cyclist-friendly traffic calming. Where physical constraints mean that an acceptably wide shared footway is not possible, implement horizontal traffic calming (give way to oncoming vehicles) with bypasses for cyclists. Risks: shared use footways provide a lower level of service for cyclists and there may be additional risks associated with horizontal traffic calming measures proposed.

I think improvement for cycling is welcome here as many pupils who arrive to IVC by cycle on this road. There is a lot of conflict between drivers and cyclist on the road and between pedestrians and cyclist on the pavement.  Getting a wide shared use route would be a good solution here. It would provide a clear route for riders to use away from traffic. With sufficient width, it can allow pedestrians and riders to share effectively. There is the rub; it does need to be wide to work as a shared path. This may require narrowing the main carriageway to achieve. The report suggests ‘horizontal traffic calming’ of the road to achieve this – narrowing the road to single track in places. This feels like a good compromise as New Road would remain passable in both directions and it would gain traffic calming to lower speeds.  Tightening the side junctions is good as it allows safer crossings of these by the proposed cycle route. I’d like to see this include continuous pavement over the side junctions, making active modes the priority. Having the shared use on east side of New Road ties in well with the crossing of Bridge Street as this arrives to the east side also.

Impington Lane / Clay Cl Lane / Burgoynes Road / New Road junction. Proposal: tighten geometry and add raised table to lower traffic speeds and make a safer junction for cyclists to cross.

Excellent, this is a busy junction with many movements for IVC. Tightening the junction lowers turning speed and gives space for the shared use path. It gives the shared path on New Road opportunity to cross Burgoynes Road directly into Clay Close Lane for an excellent active travel connection away from Burgoynes Road. I’d like to see it go further with the crossing being the priority – either with giveway markings or a toucan crossing.

Give way markings and a raised table give this active travel route priority as it crosses a road.

Clay Cl Lane Proposal: improve surfacing and lighting on this section to provide a more suitable route for cyclists.

A very simple, low risk improvement to make this the obvious active travel connection. It will keep riders and walkers away from the part of Burgoynes Road without footpaths. Low-level LED lighting have been successfully installed elsewhere to address light pollution concerns.

Milton Road / Clay Cl Lane / Burgoynes Road junction Proposal: change priority such that Burgoynes Road is the minor arm of this junction

This is great as it prioritises the mode that needs to be encouraged. A direct safer straight on for cycles on Milton Road to access Clay Close Lane. Driving around Burgoynes Road will need a right turn over the cycle route out to Milton. Similarly driving into Impington from Milton Road requires a left turn over the cycle route to get into Burgoynes Road. Maneuvers that drivers are used to reading from the road markings. I’d recommend a mode filter on Clay Close here to reinforce Clay Close as access only via the previously discussed junction for motor vehicles.

Milton Road / Butt Lane. Proposal: add modal filter to the west of the junction with the Recycling Centre to reduce traffic on this road and create a safer environment for cycling. Consider lowering speed limit and additional traffic calming measures. Risk: the importance of this link when there are traffic problems on the A10/A14 may mean that a modal filter here wouldn’t be possible, or would need to be removable under certain circumstances.

This is a tough one. With Butt Lane running parallel to the A14 there is a strong case that it shouldn’t be taking regional traffic. However, keeping access to the recycling centre, P&R and soon the Police Station from both ends is justified.  Therefore, a complete model filter is not a great solution in my view. We might come up with a clever technological filter. For example an automatic number plate reader (ANPR) gate at either end – like those at Addenbrooke’s Hospital – could be used to identify trough trips, verses those that turned around after visiting the recycling center or spent a long time between the ANPR gates. However, this adds enforcement and maintenance issues.

I would rather see the existing cycle route significantly widened and maintained. It’s currently so narrow and often so overgrown that cycles cannot pass each other. This forces some to take to the road where they face aggression from drivers expecting them to be on the cycle path. To get this extra width space must be taken from somewhere else. One option is to culvert the ditches around the fields and place the cycle lane on top – this method is uses by GCP for the new cycle route between Oakington and Girton. Where that isn’t possible it must come from the main carriageway. Traffic calming restrictions where needed for the cycle lane feels like a reasonable trade off to keep full through motor-vehicle access.

The bridge over the A10 is the elephant in the room for this corridor. Steep ramps, narrow deck and sharp corners make it unsuitable for cycling over.  Its omission is likely due to upcoming A10 proposals. Ideally, the active route should remain at grade, with the road raised over the top. This gives cyclist the easiest gradient to traverse and reduces the overall height since lorries are taller than bikes. Otherwise, any replacement bridge needs to have shallow approach gradients, gentle curves, higher parapets and a wider deck.

Histon to Histon Road

The route through the centre of Histon along the B1049 and over the A14 junction, selected as a key route to overcome the severance between Histon and Cambridge caused by the A14. The proposal is a little cagy; recommending 2.2m lanes, but suggesting narrower (1.7-2.2m) may be acceptable. We would need to see detailed designs if the proposal were taken forward to properly asses this. Thankfully, the report recognizes that paint only lanes are unsuitable for this type of road according to the latest DfT guidance (LTN 1/20).

Following the proposal roughly top to bottom.

Water Lane (north) Proposal: wide advisory lanes in both directions, removal of centre line and narrowing the carriageway where necessary to reduce speeds Risks: advisory cycle lanes are a lower level of service for cyclists which may not be suitable for the level of traffic in central Histon.

This is the area around the Rose and Crown. It is a very constrained space so against the guidance they are only suggesting wider advisory lanes. This may not provide sufficient improvement required for the target levels of cycling.  Separation of modes may need to come from light timings rather than separate space on the road. An all-ways green cycle scramble maybe a solution here. This would formalise the behaviour already seen at peak times where riders from all arms use the pedestrian phase to cross through the junction, negotiating a path between each other within the road space. Creating a specific phase for this would reduce the conflict between riders and pedestrians as they currently use the crossing space in different directions.

Water Lane (central) Proposal: convert mandatory cycle lanes into Cambridge kerb segregated cycle lanes, reallocating space from hatching, right turn pockets, grass verges, central reservations as needed. Risks: potential utilities clashes, high cost.

A big improvement over the current narrow paint only lanes. ‘Cambridge kerb’ is the small up-stand seen at the edge of the Huntingdon Road cycle lanes. The raised lip helps to deter drivers from straying into the cycle lane. Yet is shallow enough to allow cycles access into and out of lane when needed to turn, or pass an obstruction in the cycle lane.

A ‘Cambridge Kerb’ separates the cycle lane from the main carriageway on Huntingdon Road.

Chequers Road / Water Lane junction Proposal: tighten junction radii, provide bypass feature for southbound cyclists staying on Water Lane, remove left hook risk for northbound cyclists. Could consider cycle gates. Risks: potential utilities clashes.

Tightening the junction here will complement the refocus of Station Road on local trips only as it will reduce turning speed, which increases safety for those on foot or bike and makes the route less attractive for cutting around any congestion. From this perspective no changes to the war memorial junction is a stark omission.

A southbound bypass for the Chequers lights is interesting. Since there is no conflict with traffic joining from the right here, it allows riders to keep their momentum though the junction when on red for motor vehicles. A similar arrangement is at the junction of Milton Road and Gilbert Road in the city.

Riders heading straight on at this T-junction aren’t actually interacting with the junction. So there is no reason to hold them at the red light. The bypass allows them to do this legitimately.

‘Remove left hook risk for northbound cyclist’ means to protect ahead cyclists from collision with a vehicle turning left across them. This is typically by taking the cycle lane off to one side so that it crosses the side street at a point where motor vehicles have already turned. By making the angle of crossing 90 degrees (or close) rider and driver have better visibility to each other. Drivers can see and give way to ahead cyclists, cyclists can see and stop for drivers who have not given way. Construction of this layout is currently underway the Gilbert Road junction on Histon Road.

Right hook (as this is Dutch example) risk is reduced by taking the ahead cyclists slightly into the side road. This improves visibility between users.

Water Lane (south) Proposal: convert mandatory cycle lanes into Cambridge kerb segregated cycle lanes, reallocating space from hatching, right turn pockets, grass verges, central reservations as needed. Risks: potential utilities clashes, high cost.

Ditto for Water Lane (central).

New Road / Bridge Road junction Proposal: see Impington to Milton route

I discussed this route earlier in the blog.

Station Road Proposal: add modal filter is possible, to create a parallel quiet alternative route Risks: modal filter may require extensive stakeholder consultation to avoid opposition

I have blogged about the rationale behind a filter on Station Road many times. This is interesting as it’s further south than proposed by the County Council – in the Chequers Road to Holiday Inn section.  Both could complement each other well in keeping though traffic onto the main B1049, which has greater potential for segregating cyclists from motorists. Or it maybe a better location, allowing the bus to continue to visit the Baptist church, doctors and dentist before returning to Bridge Road. This would miss the stops outside the Vision Park and through lower Impington, but those could be moved onto main road using the pedestrian connections through The Coppice to access the new stops.

Interestingly this is a potential alternative route, not a potential alternative scheme. This is in line with the DfT guidance and the practice in the Netherlands. The whole road network should be looked at with a critical eye for active travel. Separation of modes must be added to roads that are wide enough. On narrower roads, improvement for active travel must come from reducing the number of vehicle trips and reducing vehicle speeds.

Bridge Road Proposal: convert mandatory cycle lanes into Cambridge kerb segregated cycle lanes, reallocating space from hatching, right turn pockets, grass verges, central reservations as needed. Risks: potential utilities clashes, high cost.

Similar to the Water Lane proposals. However, with the available space here I think it is unambitious. With more space available a greater level of separation should be considered. For example, the verge separated lanes on Hills Road could be used here. By providing more space to the uphill sides of the overpass riders of different speeds will have space to pass each other.

Bridge Road / Cambridge Road junction. Proposal: tighten junction radii, rework junction to accommodate segregated cycle facilities on the northern arm. Risks: junction has been reworked in the recent past and so improvements may be harder to justify financially.

The southbound path east of this junction is a narrow shared used path that undulates over many different surfaces. Improving this corridor without addressing this section would be a shame.  The northbound cycle lane jumps up and down from shared use pavement to painted cycle lane in several locations. Neatening this up with a clear segregated cycle lane would be very welcome. Woodworking has a phrase ‘measure twice, cut once’ that I frequently think it has relevance to highways. Perhaps by planning for active measures when the junction was reworked a second round of expense would have been avoided. This is most pertinent when discussing the final section.

Roundabout over A14. Proposal: improvements to shared use footway and crossings for cyclists. Risks: shared use footways provide a lower level of service for cyclists.

During the A14 improvements the poor quality of the cycle provision at junction 32 was raised many times. Sharp turns to come from the crossing onto the shared use paths. Poles for the lights placed right into the cycling desire line. Insufficient space to accommodate bikes waiting to cross. None of these concerns were listened to by Highways England, and so the new facilities continue to be complained about. One of the four crossing has seen a later improvement – moving the pole and extending the dropped kerb – an expense that should have been avoided by getting it right first time. A fresh evaluation with respect to latest LNT 1/20 is required.

I’m disappointed that no discussion is given to the link south of the A14. The junction with Kings Hedges Road is very poor for active modes and is a barrier for connecting with the GCP improvements on Histon Road. Multiple crossing stages add delay to walking and cycling alike. Staggered, fenced in pens on the islands are difficult to navigate by cycle. The outline permission for Darwin Green adds more of the same for northbound trips. The whole area needs a rethink to prevent it being the weakest link in this cycle corridor. The new Histon Road junction with Gilbert Road gives a good template for this; a clear set of cycle lanes around the junction, with signals to cross the road arms and pedestrian crossings over both the cycle lanes and main carriageway.

It is also disappointing that the proposal does not head north along Glebe Way from Rose and Crown towards Cottenham, especially with the concerns on traffic around the new Park Primary School. Like the Water Lane sections I think carriageway narrowing and removal of the central hatching would provide a wider Cambridge kurbed lane to replace the paint only northbound cycle lane. Alternately, combine the pavement, painted lane and hatching for a new shared use pavement on the west to match the existing one on the east of Glebe Way.

I think both schemes offer a great improvement to the villages. Especially the Impington to Milton route for access to IVC.  Any rough edges will be worked through as they go through detailed design. I’m hopeful our community will chose to say ‘yes please’ to their benefits, rather than ‘where’s ours?’ once improvements go to neighboring communities instead.

Cambridgeshire County Council are currently considering a range of changes to roads across the region to encourage active travel. In other words reducing private motorcar trips by making local journeys by foot or cycle. There are a wide set of benefits to making this change. Reduced car use lessens congestion, which helps buses and taxis get around. Reduced demand for parking helps those who cannot switch to active or public modes. Reduction in fossil fuel car use reduces carbon emissions to assist with the region’s climate crisis response. Reduction in motor-vehicle use improves air quality (not just emissions from combustion vehicles – brake, tire and road particulates come from electric and combustion vehicles alike) and reduces road maintenance cost. Incorporating gentle exercise into daily route by taking to active modes improves physical health and mental well-being. Safe cycling provision provides independence to children and that frees parent’s time from providing lifts. Being in the open can connect you better with nature. Businesses benefit from a higher average spend by people arriving by active modes. Broadly, research shows and policy makers are starting to accept, shifting driving to walking or cycling is a very good thing.

While the consultation has a range of suggestions throughout the county, I want to look at the Station Road, Histon proposal as that affects my local patch.  Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the issues on this road already. Which is unsurprising as anyone looking at the villages’ existing road network with a critical eye for cycling improvements would quickly identify it for changes. It is a mostly residential street running parallel to the main B1049. It is important for local trips to nursery, doctors and dentist. Though the infant school has been relocated, it’s hoped that the vacant buildings will soon find their way back to community use. Yet the increase in motor-traffic during peak hours shows it suffers from through traffic. These are drivers from the main B1049 diverting along Station Road to skip any queues. In many places parked vehicles reduce the width such that it is dangerous to pass cyclists but this does not stop people trying. Especially as they tend to be the sort of driver who are unwilling to be patient for the lights on the main road in the first place.  Eliminating the through traffic has huge potential to create a pleasant street for walking and cycling, for relatively little cost.

Proposed layout for a modal filter on Station Road

Which is exactly what the county council are proposing. Plans are for a physical filter at the Station Road junction near the war memorial.  Motor vehicles will be unable to turn into Station Road past the Baptist Church. Whereas gaps allow cycles to continue through this junction. The plans show water-filled barriers for the physical restriction, as this avoids reengineering the road and kerbs to keep costs low. However, similar schemes elsewhere have planters in the road, which work just as well, still avoid expensive and disruptive reworking of the road and are much more attractive with well-chosen plants. Please ask for this in your responses.

Planters can be used to avoid expensive and disruptive reworking of road surface and kerb lines.


When thinking about the issues on Station Road I’d always started with a filter somewhere on the northern section between the Boot and the war memorial. Simply because this is the narrowest and most parked on section it tends to be the worst for conflict between cycles and cars, and so filtering the through traffic would have the biggest impact here. However, I can see the proposed filter still having a benefit; it does remove the end-to-end through traffic (Boot to Holiday Inn) and limits the attractiveness of other sections as a cut through, since only the northern (Boot to war memorial) or southern (Chequers Road to the Holiday Inn) parts are available. It still has the benefit of moving through trips onto the B1049, keeping Station Road as a quieter street for local motor traffic and active travel. In the longer-term additional filters might be added to fully enforce the local/through separation between the two routes.

Three sections of Station Road. Boot corner to the war memorial, war memorial to Chequers Road and Chequers Road to Holiday Inn (includes some of Cambridge Road). Running parallel to the main B1049/Bridge Road.

My other reason for placing a filter between the Boot and the war memorial is that is does not affect any bus routes. This is an issue for the consultation since this filter blocks the current City 8 route. A need to move the route is noted on the plans, though worryingly there are no details for the alternative. We might reasonably expect it to turn into Station Road at the Chequers Road instead with stops moved accordingly. A bus gate could allow buses access through the filter to maintain the existing route. However, this needs some means of enforcement that would increase the costs of the scheme and add lots of street furniture. Likely very ugly compared to planters filled with flowers.  

The proposal will be criticised as a road closure. This is a misrepresentation. Since the restriction is at a single point on Station Road all properties and businesses will remain accessible. The worst-case detour – from one side of the restriction to the other – is only 600 meters. Which should not be a significant proportion for trips that are reasonably driven. A removable bollard is included for to allow emergency vehicles direct access through the filter.

The effect on businesses is another concern. I’m not convinced that loss of ‘passing trade’ is a factor in this location. I think all the businesses on Station Road are destinations. People know about them before heading out and make a specific trip to visit them. I doubt that much income comes from passers-by stumbling upon them by surprise.  This is particularly true of the dentist and doctor on the section where through traffic would be removed – you have an appointment to attend, rather than popping in after spotting it on the way by. Regardless, access will be kept to all properties. Sadly, The Geographer, the café on this stretch of Station Road, has recently closed. Should another hospitality business move into the location the quieter street would offer opportunity to extend seating into the carriageway. Extra seating would be a way to counter any impact from the filter.

How do disabled or their carers cope with the changes? The Station Road scheme is a relatively small intervention. In the worst-case scenario of driving from one side of the restriction to the other only adds 600 meters to a journey. As such, it’s not likely to be a huge issue in this instance. However, it deserves consideration in the context of the counties wider changes for cycling. No one calling for more cycling is advocating for everyone to cycle every single trip that they make. There will be many reasons, including disability or caring responsibilities, why some trips need to be made by motor-vehicle. Surveys regularly show that many people would like to cycle more, but currently do not. Making changes to enable more of those people make the switch has many benefits, including to those who cannot make the switch – such as reduced congestion.

Overall, a filter on Station Road has great potential to improve the villages. I’ll be responding to the consultation favourably and I’d encourage others to do the same. However, there will be many wary of it as changes to Station Road have been tried and failed in the past. These modal filters are placed onto the existing road, with little or no engineering changes to the road or kerbs.  This temporary nature makes them easily removed if they prove to be awful. I am hopeful that this will not happen; that once people see it in practice they will understand the benefit and be keen to keep it.

Whether for or against I would encourage you to add your thoughts to the consultation, which is open until midnight 24 August.

I’d like to introduce you to a controversial road layout change coming to my village as part of the government’s Covid-19 response. Briefly, for audience members who are not active travel advocates, through the DfT the government has released a large pot of money for local authorities to make rapid, temporary changes for walking and cycling (active travel) in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Changes to give more space for social distancing when walking and provide safe routes to enable cycling. All with a view to improving post-lockdown mobility where public transport capacity has been slashed and we risk a substantial increase in private car traffic.  It is worth noting that authorities have been advised that schemes that do not substantially change the status quo will not be funded.  As emergency measures these schemes are to be installed quickly under ETROs, Emergency Traffic Regulation Orders. Consultation coming from feedback once they are on the ground.

We are due to get one such scheme within my village. Two roads within the older part of the village Winders Lane and Bell Hill are to get ETROs to make them one way. In each case the one way will run downhill, away from the main road. An exception will allow for contra-flow cycling. I assume these roads have been picked as they have no pavement. The thinking being by reducing through trips they will become safer and so more attractive a route for walking (and cycling). This is particularly important for Bell Hill as it is the most obvious route by foot to the parish church.  Already I’m concerned that this is the wrong solution to any issues here. Though traffic continues to be allowed, making it one way will tend to increase speed with drivers new expectation of no oncoming vehicles and will increase aggression towards any contraflow cyclists.

TRO coming to Winders Lane and Bell Hill

To me it feels like a tokenism effort to have something in the DfT Covid response, yet do the least impactful thing possible to minimise complaints from those who can only ever imagine driving. Comments on local social media readily demonstrate this! All the usual complaints at having to drive the long way round, council looking to increase congestion, more roadworks causing delays, ridiculing the idea of giving pedestrians space for social distance can be found. Yet all that is proposed are two tiny sections of one way – they are not even filtered, you can still drive all the way along them – and people are up in arms. From experience it must be 10-20 seconds to drive around the ‘long way’. If that’s a significant delay, maybe just maybe, a car was the wrong choice for that trip?

I think it should have been done as modal filters at one end of each street. Implemented simply and attractively with an on-road planter. There would be no need for new one-way signposts cluttering an old and attractive part of the village. Incidentally, issues sourcing the correct signs has already delayed the start of this scheme. Planters would be less invasive than any new signpost, reducing the cost and making removal easier if the scheme is not successful. Filtered access only for motor vehicles avoids the issues with faster through drivers expecting to be unopposed or causing conflict with contra flow cycles.

Simple, but effective, planters filter through traffic from residential street.

That said, the real controversy is how these few loud detractors and an overly cautious approach from the council prevent the village from having the solutions it needs. There are amazing things happening all over the country; high streets turned over to walking and outside seating, car lanes turned over to cycling (leaving once shared use pavement fully for walking), modal filters to eliminate through traffic on residential streets. Here we have two tiny sections of one way of such limited merit I, even as a trustee, cannot convince the local cycling campaign to support.  Remember that schemes which do not substantially change the status quo clause? I genuinely think the council runs a risk of being out of pocket for this scheme.

Residents should be angry that the council is proposing so little for the village! For a low through traffic area around Bell Hill/Winders Lane there should be a modal filter on Cottenham Road. Use a bus gate to keep the current City 8 route, but prevent other through motor-traffic. It was great in early days of lockdown to use this road so easily by foot or cycle, but that positive change is being lost. Planters on Bell Hill and Winders Lane, along with a scattering of others through the nearby Greenleas estate, could remain part of this wider scheme. Note that as a resident of that estate I’d have to go the long way round for many of my driven trips. I’d be happy with that, because it would be making the village I live in better. I’ve included a map to illustrate this low traffic neighbourhood for Cottenham Road and the Greenleas estate, locations are indicative only and could be refined if this were taken forward by the council.

Bus gate to enforce no through route for private motor vehicles.
Indicative placement for bus gate and modal filters for a low traffic neighborhood on the Greenleas estate/Cottenham Road.

Have your say on the TRO by writing to the Policy and Regulation Team via email to policyandregulation@cambridgeshire.gov.uk or by post to Policy and Regulation Team, Highways Depot,Stanton Way, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE29 6PY.

Or online at https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/roads-and-pathways/traffic-regulation-orders/experimental-traffic-regulation-orders

First published in Camcycle magazine 145 (Winter 2019)

Suggestions for improvements to roads for cycling are frequently countered by the impact it will have on people’s ability to drive. Indeed, media exposure of Camcycle’s ideas is often met with accusations that we are anti-car. Is there any truth to this?

The Netherlands is held as the gold standard for cycling culture. In the UK, cycling advocates frequently call for Dutch-style infrastructure or hold ‘Go Dutch’ campaigns. So taking the view that transport choice is a zero-sum game one might assume this cycle-utopia is hell-on-wheels for motorists.

Yet, this doesn’t appear to be the case. Data from 2016 show car ownership in the Netherlands to be comparable with the UK: 579 cars owned per 1,000 people in the UK, versus 559 cars owned per 1,000 people in the Netherlands. If cycling makes car driving so difficult it’s odd that so many Dutch retain ownership of one. Kilometres per head driven tells a similar story: using 2015 data 13,177 annual km per capita in the UK, as against 13,022 annual km per capita driven in the Netherlands. This difference is so slight we might write it off as statistical noise.

It’s not just numbers: Dutch drivers themselves tell us they are happy. In 2016 the route-finding app Waze conducted a driver satisfaction survey, yielding a score out of 10 for 38 countries with more than 20,000 monthly active users. Highest in that ranking with 7.54 out of 10 was the Netherlands, with the UK down in 17th place with 5.73 out of 10.

Image as described adjacent

So how does Dutch cycling culture work with driving? Why is it not, as the fear mongers suggest, anti-car?

With cycle routes away from the motor vehicle carriageway, drivers experience far fewer interactions with cyclists along the same road space – typically just the start and end of a journey, where residential or retail streets are too narrow for full separations. This means there is less opportunity to be held up behind a slow rider. Drivers are rarely inconvenienced by cyclists for very long, which reduces frustration. Where it does happen it is in a context where lower vehicle speeds would be expected anyway.

This is also true for trunk roads between urban areas. The prevalence of long-distance cycle routes alongside trunk roads keeps the drivers and riders separate. When driving you are not held up behind slower riders. Frequently these paths are of a standard suitable for agricultural vehicles to use too – obviously taking care around cyclists – not being held up behind tractors is a further benefit to motorists.

Of course the ease of making trips by cycle allows many to leave their car at home. Keeping trips off the road makes them less congested for those who still drive. When they do drive the Dutch employ other congestion-busting measures. Issues on strategic routes are clearly communicated to drivers on the road: not with the often cryptic (‘Closed at junction 9’) overhead messages on our motorways, but with digital maps clearly identifying the location and highlighting alternative routes.

Merges are frequently designed out of Dutch roads. At roundabouts or large intersections each direction has a single entry and exit. Moving to the correct lane for a destination can often be done before a junction is entered. This separates a driver’s mental load for navigation from negotiating the junction. On exiting there is no squeezing of multiple queuing lanes back down to one that can easily add to a UK driver’s stress level. On roundabouts we hear of this design as ‘turbo roundabouts’, a Dutch design for efficient movement of motor-vehicles, not as cycling improvement as suggested for Bedford’s poor version of this idea. Cyclists are kept safe on separate crossings of the arms away from the circulation of the roundabout, or by grade separation on busier roads; using a flyover or underpass places cyclists on a different level than the motor-vehicle carriageway.

Image as described adjacent

In the UK, ‘they came out of nowhere’ is a frequent complaint from drivers at seemingly wayward riders. This is no surprise when junctions are commonly designed with drivers’ needs first, and occasionally some pedestrian facilities at the margins. With no clear design for cycling, there are multiple strategies for riding through motor-vehicle junctions. Many drivers are unable to anticipate every strategy. Contrast this to a Dutch junction where cycling is designed in. With clear cycle routes there are fewer riders using alternative strategies, so drivers know what to expect. Ultimately, junctions are lower-stress experiences for all users. Though a spectacular set-piece, Eindhoven’s Hovenring (above) – a suspended cycle roundabout – is a good example of the Dutch general approach to major junctions. To achieve the safety levels required for walking and cycling with signalised crossings would have caused long delays for motor vehicles. One might imagine a British engineer shrugging their shoulders and moving on, leaving the route only suitable for the most assertive, brave or foolhardy riders. The Dutch, however, grade-separate walking and cycling from the motor carriageway. Though expensive the facility is justified, not for cycle safety, but for efficiency of motorvehicle movement. Delays are removed by eliminating the pedestrian and cycle crossing phases.

Dutch towns tend to have smaller, more numerous local supermarkets so that shopping by bike is closer and easier. Cycle parking is right by the store entrance for greatest convenience. However, driving is not forgotten. Parking tends to be placed on a store’s roof, or within a basement. Lifts, or travelators, to get a shopping trolley to your car make it similarly convenient. Drivers will probably get in and out without queuing, as many other people are walking and cycling to the store. Ugly expanses of tarmac and parked cars are removed from the street, creating a pleasant environment for everyone, while those who need to drive have not been neglected.

The P-route is another useful feature of many Dutch towns: a signposted road loop around the outskirts past each of the multi-story car parks. Available spaces are shown on digital displays as you pass, to help choose one without a queue for access. The loop avoids the complexity of negotiating the narrower streets of the older town centre while simultaneously looking for parking, and keeps the centre traffic free for a pleasant experience once you arrive at your destination. Overall, the mental load of navigation is removed from driving into town, providing a low-stress arrival before enjoying shopping or sightseeing.

Image as described adjacent

Larger towns and cities have widely available P&R facilities adjacent to public transport hubs. Generally, these have a significant discount on parking when public transport is used for an onward trip. This makes it easy to visit by car without driving through the central areas. It’s clear that for the Dutch riding vs driving is not a zero-sum game. With cycling or public transport options they are not tied to their cars. Their cars are still available for longer journeys or heavier loads, and when they do drive it is with less stress and fewer delays.

The Issue

Some of my worst experiences cycling in Histon & Impington have been along Station Road.  While I could fill a whole blog post describing the issues, I’ll give a brief outline for those unfamiliar with the area; Station Road connects the villages’ Infant and Junior schools, so is a key route for families moving between the two locations. The Infant school is off a side street that suffers from parents driving as close as they can before parking, restricting the access for everyone. Station Road itself runs parallel to the main B1049 so suffers from drivers seeing a queue towards the light controlled cross road at the green and diverting along Station Road to avoid them. Parked vehicles reduce the width to the point it is dangerous to pass cyclists – but does not stop people trying. Especially as they tend to be the sort of driver who was unwilling to be patient for the lights on the main road in the first place. Indeed, it can even be unpleasant to drive along with opposing drivers competing for the same limited space – deadlocks frequently get resolved by mounting and driving along the pavement. In short I think improvements here have huge potential to improve active travel within the villages.

StaionRoadMap

Solutions

So what are the options for better cycling on Station Road? Please note I don’t intend any single suggestion here to be the solution, they’re a selection of existing ideas to get people thinking.

I suggest that the available width is insufficient for segregated cycleways, on carriageway cycle lanes or (boo, hiss) shared use pavements. So the next option in cycle improvement toolkit is a reduction in through traffic.

Traffic Regulation Order

The simplest option would be a TRO – Traffic Regulation Order. There is an example outside the Junior school which has a motor vehicles ban during drop off and collection time. With no road engineering to enforce the restriction it relies on drivers being honourable. Sadly this means it is ignored by a minority of drivers. In these cases the presence of the restriction gives people the courage to speak to those ignoring the restriction – some who may simply be unaware. A non-physical restriction is less likely to show on GPS routing so might be missed by occasional visitors. This simple step would be a useful demonstration of the principle, with later engineering solutions becoming easier to obtain if the TRO proves insufficient.

HighSt.png

School run motor traffic restriction by Histon green.

Part Time Restriction

Placing a gate, or removable bollard, within the street or at either end. These can be moved into position when restricted traffic is required – for Station Road timed with the walking and cycling movement to the schools. I’d suggest something manually operated instead of automatic rising bollards, with their associated maintenance cost and noisy machinery. (Indeed, rising bollards are being removed elsewhere for these reasons.) Though this does require member of staff from school, or a local volunteer, tasked with its operation. Similar schemes have been successful for creating school streets – removing motor traffic while children are arriving or leaving – in London.

HackneyFilteredStreet.jpg

A filtered street in Hackney, London. Motor vehicle through trips are removed.

The majority of issues on Station Road are associated with the school runs so these time limited options are appealing, however, a complete discussion of possible solutions shouldn’t exclude full time options.

Full Time Restrictions

Adding a physical restriction to through trips along the street. By using a very narrow gap residents can choose to leave via either end of the road, and visitors have access to businesses throughout, but it becomes unappealing as a shortcut compared to staying with B1049. The gates on Cromwell Road in Romsey are a local example.

CromwellRoad2.png

Narrow gap to reduce motor vehicle trips on Cromwell Road, Cambridge.

Making a single point closure in the middle of the street. This allows residents full access to properties – some exiting via Boot corner, some past the war memorial. In this setup through traffic shortcuts are physically prevented, rather than made unattractive. The GPS routing issues of previous suggestions are resolved with a full-time physical barrier. Locally an example can be seen on Gwydir Street, where restricted access by motor-vehicle has not forced closure of The Alexandra Arms – adjacent to the restriction – nor businesses on nearby light industrial estate. Deliveries can still be made, just from the correct side only. Gates can be designed to swing open for emergency service access.

GwydirSt.png

Through traffic filter on Gwydir Street, adjacent to The Alexandra Arms.

Gateway Features

Another options is adding gateway features; designing the entrance to a road so that the transition from through route to residential street is clear. For Station Road this would be a redesign of Boot corner and war memorial entrances to Station Road so that the transition into a residential street is clear. New Road provides good local example, though it no longer connects to the B1049, a single lane is given for access through a bollard protected area to a handful of properties.  With a little imagination Boot corner could have a similar arrangement. Full access is available to residents and businesses, but the narrow entrance reduces its appeal as a quick cut through to avoid lights at the green.

NewRoad.png

Bollard protected pedestrian area New Road, Impington.

HomezoneBristol

Gateway feature to a residential street in Bristol.

Blended Crossings

Blended crossings (also known as Copenhagen crossings) are a key part of indicating a quiet side street. This is where the pavement is continued at the same level across the side street. Driving in requires a ramp up and over the pedestrian space, making it clear walking has priority; drivers enter as guests. Tenison Road gives a local example, others are planned as part of the Milton Road and Histon Road redesigns.

Copenhagen-1024x597

Temporary Measures

Many of these options need not be expensive reworking of the street. Temporary measures such as planters, benches or cycle stands can be used to trial proposals without the expense of moving utilities, realigning kerb lines and laying tarmac. Then moved, removed, or replaced with permanent features depending on feedback.

planters2.jpg

Planter used to trial quieter street scheme in London.

 

First published in Camcycle magazine 143 (Summer 2019)

There will be no disagreement amongst Camcycle readers that riding a bike is a great skill to teach children. Getting children out cycling provides them with a wide range of benefits: a healthy activity, independent mobility, a connection to their community and environment and many more. But how do we teach this skill? I’m going to take a look back at the steps taken to get my eldest cycling. I hope it will be a good refresher for teaching his sister and will provide advice for other parents approaching the same task.

Image as described adjacent

Initial investigation showed that the approach my parents had taken with me (and in fairness to them by most parents in the UK at the time), first to get a child pedalling on a stabilised bike and then teach them to balance once they were mobile, is falling out of favour. Now, a child is first taught to balance, with other riding skills tackled afterwards.

Getting started

Once walking, both my children started out on a Toddlebike, at around 18 months for my son and 24 months for my daughter. This bike-like toy from Lena Toys has four narrowly spaced wheels, making it ideal for very small children to get used to the movement of a balance bike, without the need for much balance. Most children, mine included, initially straddle the ‘top tube’ pushing it along as a walker toy. As they get taller they’ll move onto the seat to scoot it along like a balance bike, while benefiting from the stability of the four wheels. The plastic used is light enough for a toddler to carry it on their own, yet thankfully very robust – my daughter has thrown it down skate ramps a number of times without it coming to harm, and it has seen use with both our children and been lent to others in between.

Finding a balance

At around 30 months my son moved onto a balance bike. With two wheels, but no pedals, these are scooted along like the Toddlebike toy, but balance is required to keep it upright. We opted for the German-designed FirstBIKE. It has a fibreglass/nylon composite frame which is both lightweight and hardwearing, ideal for a small child to move on their own and not an issue if left out in the rain between play sessions. It also introduces the idea of braking, with a drum brake on the rear wheel. An optional lowering kit is available to extend its range to younger children. Start a child out walking it along, then gently encourage them to lift both feet for a short moment after each scoot. Finding a gentle downhill slope can help to extend the distance travelled with feet off the ground. My son soon got the point of building speed by scooting before lifting his feet to enjoy coasting along, clear that he’d mastered the balance. We played some practice stop games to get him used to using the brake – saving his trainers from scuffed toes.

Image as described adjacent

While small enough for each of these toy bikes my children travelled on my bike in a rear seat. I think it’s worth a little aside to note that I was able to bungee-cord each toy bike to the back of the seat, which meant I could take car-less trips to fun places to practise. We’re not quite a car-free cargo-biking family, but I expect a cargo bike would be more suitable than our setup! Whether on a seat or in a cargo box, these rides with small children on your own bike are a great opportunity to talk about things to look out for when cycling. Have them spot dogs, other riders and street signs and get them to help out: little children love to wave at passers-by and enjoy copying your signalling.

Progressing to pedals

With the balance mastered, my son received his first pedal bike as a fourth birthday present. I’ve heard of many children making this transition much younger, so do try when yours seem interested in a proper cycle but don’t force the issue if they’d rather stick with a balance bike. Up till this point my teaching had been largely hands off, simply providing the toy for him to play on. However, starting with pedals needed some assistance. In our case a gentle hold while he started to move and got going with the pedals. Save your back and give your child a better sense of their own balance by holding them higher up their back or from the shoulders, rather than from the hips as many people default to. However, with the skills learnt on the balance bike this assistance shouldn’t be needed for long. It was a magic moment for my son – and a proud one for me – when he was able to ride a ‘real’ bike the same day as receiving it, then starting unaided within a few more practice sessions. Very different from the many practice sessions I recall transitioning away from stabilisers on my first bike.

I think part of the success is in choosing a good bike that is designed to a child’s proportions with high-quality parts to keep the weight manageable. We chose an Islabike – it was the first brand to make bikes for children of this kind, but Dawes, Frog, Hoy and many others have since moved into this space, reducing the price to customers through competition.

My son has since moved onto a larger bike from the Frog range of children’s bikes. When moving up to a larger bike it is generally recommended to skip a size since there is enough overlap between different-sized bikes to maximise the riding from each. It can be expensive to buy each bike new, but the value in a high-quality kids bike is well recognised, so there is a good second-hand market which can help reduce the cost or recoup investment. Alternatively, there are now bike clubs where a child bike can be hired for a monthly fee and swapped for a larger one whenever it is outgrown.

The larger Frog bike adds the challenge of learning to move up and down gears to make his ride easier. The increase in speed enabled by gears makes it viable to take utility trips with him riding independently, so I have recently been building his strength and stamina with increasingly long rides. These are mostly traffic-free rides along the Busway, helping to build his confidence without the stress of interacting with drivers. However, we also take rides together around our village to learn about road positioning and navigating junctions. As we go we talk about things we can see which helps to build hazard awareness and learn about road markings and signs.

Throughout all of this there are occasional mishaps. As a parent you can’t help but worry when your child falls off their bike, but I’ve found it’s important not to lose confidence by ending on a low point. So we’ve always made a point of getting him back on his bike and riding soon after a tumble, even if it’s just a quiet loop of the housing estate. This makes it much easier to get out on the bike next time.

So far he seems to have the cycling bug; he loved being part of September’s Social Ride and has just enjoyed the first Reach Ride in which he rode independently on his own bike!

First published in Camcycle Newsletter 139 (August – September 2018)

If ‘children in my day’ social posts by my generation are anything to go by, there is a general consensus that children spend less time playing out in their neighbourhood streets than did their parents or grandparents. Sometimes the posts come with concern over screen-time, or a warning about stranger-danger; however, high on the list of causes must surely be the increases in size and number of private motor vehicles over the years.

Playing Out is hoping to reverse these trends. It is a parent- and resident-led movement restoring children’s freedom to play out in the streets and spaces where they live, for their health, happiness and sense of belonging. The main focus is on helping parents and residents to organise Playing Out sessions on their street or spaces close to home. Where necessary this may include a formal road closure to ensure the safety of participants, or marshals to supervise drivers passing the session.

Why is play in the street so important? Children need ample space to play energetically. Many homes do not have gardens, or in cities gardens tend to be small. Many children can’t get to parks and other open spaces easily, whereas the street is instantly accessible. The street is a blank canvas, allowing for child-led free play, providing important social and learning opportunities as opposed to structured, organised activities in designated spaces. Playing in the street allows for ‘semi-supervised’ play. Parents can get on with housework or looking after other children in the house while allowing children to play outside. Children are far more likely to play outside frequently if allowed to play near their home, rather than relying on parents to take them somewhere else, like the park. Finally, the street is the ‘starting point for all journeys’ (Tim Gill). The ability to play independently in their home street is a first step towards greater independent mobility around the neighbourhood – to visit friends, go to the park or walk to school.

The Playing Out website (playingout.net) provides regular blogs with advice to help make playing out as easy as possible, as well as suggestions for small, personal actions that can have a big impact. For example, taking your cup of tea or newspaper to the front garden or pavement and greeting passers-by. Or simply leaving your door open while in during the day, signalling to neighbours and passers-by that you are at home and that there are ‘eyes on the street’.

One Camcycle member has been enthusiastically supporting a session on his street. ‘I’d say that last weekend we probably [had] 40 children playing in our road. We are starting to get families coming from nearby roads as well. I think it’s been a really good initiative.’ It bodes well for future members too: ’the next day my three year old – who has just learnt to ride his bike, and spent the whole hour pedalling up and down the road – asked “is the road closed today as well?” in a hopeful voice.’

Would you be able to help more of these sessions take place? The county council wants to encourage residents to start these Playing Out sessions by finding Playing Out Champions. They are offering a free one-day training course in marshalling. As a trained event marshal you will be able to advise residents on a local traffic plan for their event, and on the day supervise where to place the ‘road closed’ signs and cones, and guide drivers in and out. It is also an opportunity to earn Community Time credits – if you spend one hour helping your community, you will earn one time credit, which can be exchanged for a variety of things, from exercise classes to cinema and theatre tickets. For more information please contact Paul Connelly (Youth & Community Coordinator) at Cambridgeshire County Council by email: Paul.connelly@cambridgeshire.gov.uk or mobile: 07966 042609.

First published in Camcycle Newsletter 139 (August – September 2018)

The Department for Transport has awarded £550,000 for the construction of a fully Dutch-style roundabout at Fendon Road. The county council’s successful bid from the government’s £7 million 2018-19 Cycle City Ambition safety programme was announced in early June. With the remainder of the scheme’s estimated £800,000 costs already met from Section 106 developer contributions, the construction work is due to begin early in 2019.

Image as described adjacent

Image: Cambridgeshire County Council

The roundabout will be the first in Britain built according to a Dutch-based design giving priority to walking and cycling. It aims to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. The design includes slower and safer entering and exiting speeds for drivers, by using narrower carriageways with sharper turns. A central overrun ‘skirt’ allows longer vehicles to travel through the junction at low speeds, while its rough texture discourages misuse by drivers of smaller vehicles. On three of the four arms, there will be a ‘parallel zebra’ crossing (like the one on Huntingdon Road), where pedestrians on the traditional stripes and cyclists on distinct red bitmac all have priority over motor traffic entering or exiting the roundabout. Belisha beacons will show that both usages are within the protected crossings. Setting these crossings back gives visibility between users and space for motorists to give way at both the entrance and exit of the roundabout.

There is a previously-built ‘Dutch-inspired’ roundabout at Radegund Road. It has been criticised, however, because its only special feature was its compact design intended to reduce vehicle speeds. No priority crossing or segregated cycleway were provided, leading to confusion, with some cyclists using the road and others the poor quality shared-use pavements. Even so, it has been highly successful in reducing collisions in the area in the years since its construction, thanks to the lower speeds. It has also proved to British highway engineers that the radial approaches and compact circles of Dutch roundabouts can be built and used successfully in the UK without causing problems and while remaining fully navigable for large lorries. That step improvement has provided support for advancing the latest proposed roundabout, which adds protected, segregated cycleways and priority for people walking and cycling.

Image as described adjacent

Camcycle has long campaigned for Dutch-style infrastructure in Cambridge (see, for example, Newsletter 128 article ‘Making roundabouts safe for walking and cycling’). Studies have shown how feeling unsafe on the road is a significant barrier to cycling for all age groups. We’ve particularly pushed the county council to use these Dutch design features at Fendon Road, helping to bring in the Dutch Cycling Embassy as consultants (see image above) to refine its design. We’ll continue to be involved as details are developed ahead of construction and hope that it will set a trend for better and safer roundabouts across the country.

First published in Camcycle newsletter 136 (February – March 2018)

The headmaster of the Perse School has recently decreed that everyone who cycles to his school must wear high-visibility clothing and helmets. Headmaster Ed Elliott and his staff carry out spot checks on pupils cycling to the school. Breaking these rules means a letter to parents and repeat offences an hour’s detention.

 

Image as described adjacent

My son enjoys cycling during a visit to the Netherlands.

Helmets and high-visibility clothing are often contentious issues and where children are involved the discussion becomes highly emotional. The Campaign has discussed a response to this headmaster’s actions and it was evident that no overall consensus would be reached. I can only hope to set down some of the arguments and give my own personal thoughts on the matter.

My own son, now aged six, attends a different school within Cambridgeshire, where my daughter, now 18 months old, will join him in a couple of years. Our school runs are a mix of walking, cycling, scooting and driving depending on how the day is going and other activities scheduled around school hours. When cycling he wears a helmet. This is our choice and not something demanded by the school. Regardless of our choice I’d be hesitant to support the school in adding such rules. There are others at the school who have made different choices, and I’d sooner see them continue to cycle than risk putting them off and potentially turning them back to their cars.

And this is the risk. Helmet laws in New South Wales have demonstrably lowered cycling trips; one study puts this at a 36% reduction for children [1], with no clear evidence that it has reduced head injuries [2]. On a small scale these school rules will do the same. Swapping these journeys back from bikes to cars increases the danger to everyone.

I don’t see his helmet as a requirement for cycling. We’ve had day-long rides on holiday in the Netherlands enjoying the sunshine without a hot, sweaty helmet on. I’ve no problem with our helmets coming off once we get onto car-free routes like the Busway. So it seems over the top to punish him for the occasions where a helmet is mislaid or forgotten. The danger comes not from riding a bike, but from riding with motor vehicles. However, we’re also aware that there comes risk from not riding; I don’t want to set him up for a sedentary life tied to our car, unable to make journeys without someone else to drive him there. While acute injuries are visible and distressing, chronic disease from inactivity and poor air quality and mental illness from restricted freedom should also be a concern for parents.

That helmets are only a mitigation, not prevention, of the dangers posed by car traffic is well recognised. Health and safety rules for dangerous workplaces acknowledge this in the Hierarchy of Controls [3]; personal protective clothing is on the lowest, least-effective rung. While I don’t doubt for a second that the wellbeing of the pupils is the motivation behind these rules, focus on the least effective measure could be at the expense of investigating others. Measures higher up the Hierarchy of Controls such as eliminating the hazards, or separating staff from hazards, are far more effective. My son’s school has taken welcome steps in this manner; a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) restricts motor vehicles outside the school during drop-off and collection times, and negotiation with local businesses has gained use of their parking spaces for parents at the school, partially distributing the school-run traffic to make a safer, more pleasant environment near the school gates. Separation of transport modes is what leads to our helmet-free riding while on holiday and the high rate of cycling to school by Dutch children [4], few of whom would regularly wear a helmet for such journeys.

So it seems misguided to me to spend scant school resources on creating and enforcing these rules, particularly when state schools might follow the Perse’s lead. The decision should be left with parents and pupils. With obesity and diabetes increasingly prevalent among UK children [5], we should be lowering the bar to active travel to school, so I’d personally assist anyone fighting unnecessary rules that will discourage cycling. Physical and behavioural measures to reduce traffic danger are far less contentious, so at Campaign level I know we’d be happy to assist any parents or schools looking to make safety improvements for their children. These might be rules to prevent access and anti-social parking near school gates, or safe segregated routes for cycling to school. Please get in touch with ideas for your local schools.

  1. https://www.cycle-helmets.com/nsw-participation.html
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_controls
  4. http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/09/school-buses.html
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/child-obesity-rising-again-nhs-report-reveals

First published in Camcycle Newsletter 136 (February – March 2018)

The cycle barometer in Parker’s Piece reached the mark of one million cyclists on about 7 December. We estimate that this is a week earlier than for 2016. This indicates a clear increase in the number of cycle trips taken in Cambridge over the year. The cycle barometer is near the bend where the cycle path alongside Gonville Place joins Regent Terrace and records all cyclists going past on the cycle path in either direction. It was installed in 2014, just in time for the stage of the Tour de France that started there on 4 July. Placed within view of the often congested inner ring-road, it is a great example of the potential for cycling to unclog the city. Here’s to hitting a million trips even earlier in 2018! Is it time to increase the maximum count, so that it can show the total for a full calendar year?

Image as described adjacent