Barnes Residents want 20mph
A community consultation 'The Barnes Ponder' in October 2013 has show strong support for making Barnes a 20 mph neighbourhood .
“20mph is plenty enough speed on the roads!”
This section lists issues - problems on the street network and related matters.
Issues always relate to some geographical location, whether very local or perhaps city-wide.
You can create a new issue using the button on the right.
Listed issues, most recent first:
A community consultation 'The Barnes Ponder' in October 2013 has show strong support for making Barnes a 20 mph neighbourhood .
“20mph is plenty enough speed on the roads!”
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
The Cambridge News sadly reports that a 16-year-old cyclist is dead after a crash on Milton Road.
Created by Heather Coleman // 4 threads
I'm creating this as a general "issue" in the hope that people will put different threads here for problems they have with building sites, generally associated with deliveries. Listing those problems and any action or complaints they've taken personally, and also asking how further complaints can be made.
I can't help feeling we should be talking to the council about making it a condition of planning permission that deliveries that either require "odd" movements of HGVs eg, reversing and taking ages doing so, or parking on the street eg while delivering scaffolding, should not take place during "rush hour", especially on roads that are busy and are major cycle routes.
Created by MJR // 0 threads
http://www.bromptondock.co.uk reports that their docks are offline for upgrades until January 2014. I don't know why or when in January they will return. People with bikes out have just had to keep them until January (free of charge I think).
Created by Heather Coleman // 2 threads
The members' list has just had a post from a Tess Jones saying:
> FYI
> I wasn't able to go to the exhibition, but proposals are here:
>
> http://cambridgeforumconsultation.com/
I've replied that as someone who works on site, this is the first I've heard about this. There are various implications, that need looking at, before we decide if and what we need to say in the consulation.
Created by MB // 0 threads
The cycle (and pedestrian) path between the Telegraph pub & Tibbetts corner needs repair & maintenance. Undergrowth has grown over it, narrowing the path, there are cracks & ridges where tree roots or wear & tear have deteriorated the path & the path markings are no longer clear.
In addition, the route through the car park is often strewn with broken glass and pot holes.
If the path were widened back to its original width, resurfaced & remarked, there would be less conflict between pedestrians & cyclists.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 1 thread
The route on the east side of the A167 past Crossgate Moor and Framwellgate Moor crosses a number of roundabouts. The cycle-path leads you across the roads very close to the roundabout, via the central refuge in the middle of the road. Some of these roads have two lane entry to the roundabout. Crossing both lanes at once is tricky as you have to have an eye on whether the traffic is about to move out onto the roundabout. If you have a longer vehicle, such as a bus, waiting, then the route to the refuge is blocked. There are no road markings to warn motorists that cyclists might be expected.
The route is probably going to be improved as part of the Great North Cycleway. If these roundabouts are to be made safe enough for children to use, major alterations will be required. (The route goes past Durham Johnston School so should be available to children.) The route should cross further from the mouth of the roundabout, preferably on a different-coloured surface, maybe raised.
Created by Matthew Phillips // 1 thread
There is a demand for access to the University from Belmont and areas to the east of Durham. Creating a route across the playing fields towards Old Durham would shorten journeys and give a mostly off-road route.
It would require a new bridge and a tarmac surface. Note sure if there would be issues of potential flooding. Not sure if the University would co-operate with route across its land.
Created by MJR // 2 threads
There is a group of councils and others (including the RAC) calling itself A47 Alliance with a website at http://www.a47alliance.co.uk/ calling for a road upgrade.
The A47 is a significant barrier to cycling in many places, such as the single-carriageway stretch from Tilney All Saints near King's Lynn to Swaffham that blocks several desired east-west cycle routes - it is narrow with much heavy HGV traffic, so it's a challenge to cross and feels no fun for most people to ride along. It is possible that any upgrades could be "cycle-proofed" (to use current jargon) to unblock these routes.
KLWNBUG has asked if CycleNation and CTC groups can be be invited to join the alliance.
Created by MJR // 2 threads
There was a Heritage Lottery Fund stage 1 project hoping to progress to stage 2 and work for 5 years from June 2014 to regenerate the "old town" around the Saturday Market Place. The initial draft contains no cycle measures but does mention cycle access policy, so may be persuaded to reinstate lost public cycle parking in places like opposite the old Post Office and might even be a way to fill in the missing link in National Cycle Network Route 1. The consultation papers are online at http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=26919 and open until 16 December.
The key cycling problem in this area is the difficulty of accessing Saturday Market Place without passing through the poor junction at its east end and the lack of signs telling cyclists to use Priory Lane to reach SMP.
Created by MJR // 0 threads
This is Norfolk county matters application http://eplanning.norfolk.gov.uk/PlanAppDisp.aspx?AppNo=Y/2/2013/2013 due to be heard in a meeting starting Fri 6 Dec 2013 10am at County Hall, Norwich. 7 cycle parking spaces were proposed. I objected for KLWNBUG on the grounds that 26 should be provided. Norfolk County Council Highways suggested 14 spaces and a Standard Highway Condition (27 I think) which would leave it to the Borough Council to enforce, who don't have a great track record on that in my experience. The Borough Green Infrastructure Officer didn't comment on cycle parking. Norfolk Police seem OK with the final revision. NCC planning officer suggested that if the 14 are used then it could be expanded without further application and confirmed that as a county development, there's no scope for section 106 funds for building cycle tracks to neighbouring villages.
Created by Caroline Page // 1 thread
Significant domestic car parking in the advisory cycle lane of westbound lane combines with heavy traffic jams to obstruct/block westbound passage to cyclists in rush hour. Generally there is a section of this route where pavement pushing is unavoidable
Created by WillC // 0 threads
Road narrows at pedestrian island; pavement cut away but insufficient and not usable because of surface. Creates danger as it suggest to vehicles that there is more space than there is. Passing cyclists is dangerous.
County Council is building a cycleway that will run for a mile from Boxworth End in Swavesey to Buckingway Business Park and over the A14 to Cambridge Services. This will also be available for horse riders, as it links to bridleways in the area.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
Cycleway being built by the County Council - will run for a mile-and-a-half between Wandlebury Country Park and Babraham Research Campus, a major science development hub.
Created by George Coulouris // 7 threads
This issue is intended to act a repository for material that can be used to back-up the LCC's 2014 Local Election Campaign 'Asks'. There are 6 'asks' that were finalised and agreed at the LCC's AGM on 19 October 2013:
1. Safe routes to schools
2. Areas without through motor traffic (AWTTs)
3. Protected space on main roads/major junctions
4. Safe cycle routes via parks and canals (Greenways)
5. 20mph speed limits
6. Liveable town centres
so we'll have 6 threads under this Cyclescape issue where we can collect explanations, discussions and most importantly concrete illustrations of what is meant by each ask.
Created by Heather Coleman // 1 thread
Sorry, being a bit tongue in cheek here, but this just made me cross. And no-one has to follow this issue if they don't want to!
website here
http://www.zizzi.co.uk/venue/index/cambridge-benet-street
I've been "in touch" and left these comments:
"Your Cambridge Bene't St restaurant is allegedly "inspired by the huge cycling community". Therefore how come, in the "get directions" bit of the page, the only transport options are "car", "walk" or "train"? I know how to get from my place of employment to Bene't St by bike and even that there's a large underground cycle park just around the corner but, frankly, this is poor, and your marketing people need a rocket.
I will be posting the url of the restaurant and these comments on Cyclescape to see what the rest of the huge cycling community think."
I'll see what reply I get from their "customer experience team" and post it here as a thread when I do hear back from them.
Created by Jose Ferraro // 1 thread
As the cycle lane on Twickenham Road only goes into Park Road you need to leave the cycle lane to continue along Twickenham Road. At these two roads split there is a very deep crack that almost threw me over my handlebars as my front wheel dropped down it.
This must have been there for quite a while as it is visible on google maps at the allocated point!!
Created by Andrea Casalotti // 1 thread
Here is an ambitious plan for a Bicycle Boulevard from Shoreditch to Fitzrovia, along Old Street, Clerkenwell Road and Theobalds Road, open only to bicycles, buses and motor traffic for local access only.
a. It is now the most cycled route in London, showing that it is the desired EW route.
b. It is of variable width, therefore trying to accommodate bikes, buses, and through traffic in a consistent and safe way is impossible. In other words, a compromise will be a botch job.
c. There will not be mixing of buses and bicycles: bicycles will have a dedicated two way cycle lane on the South side of the street.
d. The Boulevard stops being a mega- EW-rat-run. Motor traffic will have to use Pentonville/City Road.
More details here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yw9mkHhGZaVBKYJs6FxyhC1Z4nNYVl-IFH-aR1ScK9U/pub?start=false#slide=id.p
Campaign for a 300m section of the unguided busway between Milton Road and the pedestrian and cyclists access at the end of Nuffield Close to be built as a road, providing a more direct access for lorries and cars to the trading estate.
Nuffield Road’s residential section should then be cut-off for motorised through traffic just past Discovery Way, turning the first part of Nuffield Road into a residential close.
Petition: http://iitm.be/ChestertonTrafficReduction
Picture Gallery: http://iitm.be/NuffieldRoad
Created by Andrew Clegg // 2 threads
The majority of motor traffic turns right from Union Road to head north on Radcliffe Road, and vice versa. Radcliffe Road is a home zone southwards of this junction, with associated streetscaping, and NCN 23 follows the length of Radcliffe Road.
The main problem is when heading North, where some nice streetscaping prevents drivers having a good view of any traffic exiting the home zone. A lesser problem is when heading South, where motor vehicles often pull out in front of you (presumably because they think that everyone will be turning left).
The most obvious quick fix would be to put a stop sign at the end of union road.
Area Committees are a joint meeting attended by both city and county councillors. They decide on planning issues in the area, but also have a role in the allocation of community development money from S106 contributions. They offer an opportunity to engage with multiple councillors at once, through the Open Forum section and speaking on specific Agenda items. The East Area's website is here: https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/east-area-committee
Speaking at these meetings is a good way of making your feelings on matters the councils control public.
Area Committees are a joint meeting attended by both city and county councillors. They decide on planning issues in the area, but also have a role in the allocation of community development money from S106 contributions. They offer an opportunity to engage with multiple councillors at once, through the Open Forum section and speaking on specific Agenda items. The North Area's website is here: https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/north-area-committee
Speaking at these meetings is a good way of making your feelings on matters the councils control public.
Just wondering if a decision has been made about the future of the junction.
If you look on Crash map http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search there is a pattern of accidents on Countess Crescent pre-closure near the school. In fact it looks like an accident hotspot!
During the closure I was happy for my children to cycle up to the co-op to access the high street to go shopping, meet friends, etc. Not now! We live south of the railway line. When the closure was in place Countess Crescent became by accident a Cycling Boulevard. You can see from the dates on crashmap that it worked perfectly well as a Cycling Boulevard and was extremely safe (no accidents), so no trial would be required to determine if it is safer as a Cycling Boulevard as it has already taken place.
The junction would be the ideal place to be part of a Cycling Boulevard type infrastructure to gain access to the high street and perhaps up to the swimming pool via Parsonspool. Cars would still have easy routes to the high street and swimming pool with a cycling boulevard system in place and cyclists/pedestrians would also have a safe and enjoyable route. That would be a safe and fair compromise for all road users, as all users would have safe and suitable routes.
Currently it is not safe for adults or children by bike. Bit of a time bomb going on the crashmap site data. A positive change made for cyclists/pedestrians will benefit people locally in a safe and healthy way.
To make restrictions only during school hours would be very short sighted, as this route is a main artery for all south of the railway to access all the clubs/shops/swimming north of the railway and vice versa for the children visiting hallhill or friends south of the railway. Basically children use this route at all hours not just in school hours. We should not compromise on child safety. The swimming pool is free all summer to the kids...what then?
As a byproduct of a cycling boulevard, perhaps safe access for cyclists from the south of the railway line would encourage more people to visit the high street and shop, enhancing the local economy.
Please can you let me know of any developments.
For your info, a Bicycle Boulevard in Holland is a 'Woonerf', a living street:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/9086705/Why-woonerfs-will-change-how-we-drive.html
Created by Richenda // 1 thread
Apparently TfL commissioned "...to explore the opportunity of a pedestrian river crossing ....". They may not think bikes should also be included, but they should!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/4162/a-garden-bridge-across-the-thames.html
http://www.gardenbridgetrust.org/index.html
This map shows all issues, whether points, routes, or areas:
The most popular issues, based on the number of votes:
There is a campaign to get Google (who are currently building their new HQ in the King's Cross development) to provide this much-need bridge for pedestrians and cyclists. See http://googlebridge.kccp.org.uk/ .
Created by Andrew Woodward // 1 thread
The bridge between Dean Rd and Longford Close is currently a pedestrian only bridge, marked no cycling. Coupled with other improvements, provision of a decent facility here that could be used by cyclists with minimal conflict with pedestrians would open up a decent quiet route from the schools in Hampton (Hampton Academy, Hampton Boys, LEH) to the A316 cycle route.
Hamish F // 0 threads
There are no contraflow signs when entering Devonshire Rd from Adermans Hill. Cyclists have reported hostility towards them as they ride "against the flow". The markings are correct as the cyclist enters Devonshire Rd from A105 but of course the drivers do not see that.
Created by PurpleSue // 2 threads
I watch in wonder and amazement as the new cycle lane alongside the A41 from Mostyn lights to the zoo is completed - with lamposts in th emiddle of the path - not to mention a three legged road sign which I am sure will make passage impossible.
I will investigate more and take photos....
Created by SamGW // 1 thread
The Road between Great Wilbraham and Fulbourn is very well used by Cyclists, runners and walkers throughout the year. It is a single track road with a 60 MPH speed limit. A bicycle path here would encourage more people to cycle to Fulbourn and Cambridge. The path would significantly improve safety for cars, pedestrians and cyclists.
Created by Paul James // 1 thread
The cycleways along the Thames Path and along Ducks Walk are not connected with the south/east side cycleway across Twickenham Bridge and only to the north/west side cycleway via a long detour through Old Deer Park or along The Avenue.
A ramped way down from the bridge would create a useful route for people into and out of Richmond town center that is currently only possible by using two flights of steps.
Meeting with Leeds City Council to discuss possible remedial works due to high casualty rates.
Created by Mark A // 1 thread
A dropped kerb at this point would improve the route that people can take to cycle between Bear Flat and the city centre - making it easier to use Calton Gardens to avoid the section of footpath on the alternative via Holloway and St Marks Church.
Created by chdot // 1 thread
Longstanding issue about 'optimum' design, particularly to reduce conflict caused by vehicles turning from Teviot Pl due to signal phases.
Created by Paul James // 0 threads
All the sideroads between Richmond Circus and Manor Circus are a danger to cyclists on the cycleway.
There is no warning to motorists that there will be crossing cyclists and the building angles make it hard to see if anything is coming.
Turning traffic from the A316 can have an obscured view of the cycleway due to foliage.
Decrease corner radii.
Make road hump more pronounced.
Make cycle surface colour continuous across roadway.
Add markings across roadway.
Add warning signage.
Move give way lines back to before cycleway or add additional give way lines.
Where the quite good segregated cycle lane joins The Ride, DfT advice was certainly NOT followed. As per DfT advice, when cycle lanes are merged with the carriageway, it should be done via a length of dropped kerb that is flush with the carriageway and the cycle lane shouldn't be joined at a 90 degree angle to the road.
Here, the cycle lane runs parallel to the road for a short distance before it loops around a large boulder specifically placed to force cyclists around and then finally joins the road at a 90 degree angle.
The kerb, though dropped, is far from flush and creates a risk for cyclists joining the track from the road.
This junction between the road and the track should be scrapped and redone according to DfT guidelines.
Created by timlennon // 1 thread
Initial quietway consultation from Richmond. This is a thread to build RCC's response
Over the past couple of years of regularly cycling between Waterbeach and Cambridge on NCN11 I have noticed that the path between Waterbeach and Baits Bite Lock is in really bad repair and is getting gradually worse. I have been in touch with the council to ask them to repair it, and they told me that as far as they are concerned the path is only a footpath, and they have no obligation to maintain it to a standard suitable for bikes. Sustrans tells me they have no responsibility for maintaining that section of the route, and that the council should be responsible for it.
It seems absurd to allow the path to fall into total disrepair, but at the moment it doesn't seem like anyone recognises any obligation for its upkeep.
I am happy to go out occasionally with some secateurs and chop off the more annoying bits of greenery, but the path needs resurfacing and that feels a bit beyond me!
Does anyone have any experience with this sort of problem? Have they come across it on other sections of the NCN?
Created by Ned Harrison // 1 thread
Holywells Park has a section of cycle route 51 running through it, linking South East Ipswich to the centre with a pleasant and safe route down to the waterfront.
During Winter, the park is closed at dusk, sometimes as early as 4, meaning that just when the roads are most dangerous (dark and wet) cyclists are forced onto steep and busy routes either along Cliff Lane or up Bishops Hill.
The closures are largely at the request of the Park Friends group. I've spoken to them, and their concerns seem to be largely about what might go on after dark. It's not clear that there is any evidence for this, nor that the current situation of locking the main gates but leaving others would do anything to deter misbehaviour.
Keeping it open as a cycle route would ensure a legitimate presence in the park, and help provide less confident cyclists in the area with a safe route to and from town.
I'd propose either locking later, or for a trial period leaving the park unlocked.
Despite the number of bridges that link Newcastle and Gateshead, there is not a single route across the Tyne that throws bike users in to conflict with either high volumes of motor vehicles at high speeds or that uses shared paths that create potential conflict with pedestrians.
Due to the amount of people who already cycle between Newcastle and Gateshead and the potential for this to grow, there should be at least one high level crossing that gives bike users there own space when crossing the Tyne.
Created by Paul James // 0 threads
West side the cycleway terminates at the Manor Rd zebra crossing.
East side it vanishes 20 meters from the junction at the Lower Richmond Rd zebra crossing.
Path between is not shared use and is very narrow due to excessive road width on roundabout due to dedicated turning lane and large roundabout center.
The service entrance to the motorway services now has priority over the shared use path which runs parallel to the main road.
I have contacted both Hampshire County Council and Test Valley Borough Council about this change in priorities, but neither has responded beyond a cursory "we have received your email".
This is yet another example of through traffic being de-prioritised simply because it is on a cycle (or shared) path, rather than on a road.
Created by Dylan // 1 thread
There is a fairly good cycle lanes from Kingston towards Richmond up until you reach the Richmond Council border where Richmond Road (A307) turns into the Upper Ham Road (A307) and eventually Petersham Road (A307). At traffic lights along this route there are reserved areas for cyclists but along the roads there is nothing to remind drivers that cyclists share the road especially when the road narrows after Sandy Lane through Petersham. The road surface here is terrible and the speed bumps are pointless because some driver sprint between the bumps.
The best solution would be to remove the cyclists from this route altogether by upgrading the Thames Path to create a proper cycle path along the River Thames towards Richmond that currently stops at Teddington Lock. If a cycle/foot bridge linking Ham with Twickenham was built over Eel Pie along this route it would create an obvious link for those want to reach Twickenham.
Created by Shaun McDonald // 0 threads
The traffic lights at Eagle Street were timed such that travelling eastbound you would always get caught at the second set unless you were extremely fast setting off. After discussions with the council and it brought up at the Sustainability Forum by Cllr Smart, it was fixed to increase the length of time that those lights were green, and was great as you always knew you could get through the second set of lights without having to wait unless you just went through the earlier ones just before they went red.
However over the past few days the signal timing has changed back to the older timing where the probability of getting through the second set is virtually nil. In an ideal world they would be phased such that the first set would go green, then the second set would go green several seconds later at the point where you would be arriving at them, rather than having them change to green almost at the same time.
Created by Matthew // 2 threads
On 1 January 2026, historic routes in England that aren’t properly recorded will be lost to the public forever. We are looking for people to volunteer their time to help us identify and register these routes before it is too late.
Created by Roy Russell // 0 threads
This is a good location for "No Entry except Cycles".
The existing Traffic Order allows cycling past the No Entry sign.
The existing "cycle bypass" over the footway, which was rarely used, has been obstructed and largely destroyed by the adjacent building site.
The simplest solution is to add a supplementary plate "Except Cycles" under the No Entry sign.
Created by Shaun McDonald // 1 thread
Many cyclists won't cycle to Harwich International from the Ipswich direction due to the roads. There really should be a high quality cycle route for this to continue the cycle journey from The Netherlands, where you can ride of the ferry and on to quality cycle infrastructure. The fact people choose the train is not a good sign.
This issue is the overall goal, and needs to be broken down into smaller sub issues of smaller more specific projects or improvements that can work towards this goal.
Created by TonyBeaumont // 1 thread
Out side the royal orthopaedic hospital up top 30 cars are parked in the cycle lane every day. Cyclists are forced out into the traffic lane of the A38 over a distance of about 1/4 mile.
Created by Stephan Matthiesen // 1 thread
The chicane at the west end of the Magdalene Glen path interrupts the flow when going uphills, particularly unpleasant for people with weak knees. It also forces cyclists uphills often to stop and start when there are other people going through, as it's not wide enough to pass.
It doesn't serve any useful purpose at it is on the top of the slope where cyclists are very slow anyway. As it's uphills, there is little danger that e.g. kids run out onto the wide pavement of Duddingston Pk South. Cyclists from the West are slow at this point anyway as they turn into the path.
Created by WilliamNB // 0 threads
When cycling north-bound along Tavistock Road, there is a cycle lane in places. Once out from under the Crownhill Road bridge the lane turns sharply left, forcing cyclists to yield to traffic joining Tavistock Road from the left.
The Highway Code states you should yield to traffic from the right and this junction is very dangerous to cyclists. It would be far better to simply continue the cycle lane straight ahead and erect yield signs to traffic joining Tavistock Road