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:
Created by Hugh McClintock // 1 thread
Comments welcome please on this consultation about barriers on rights of way.
Pedals believes that any kind of barriers should be avoided as far as possible, especially those of the A-frame design. If access controls really are needed they should take the form of bollards (or staggered bollards) rather than barrier.
Message of 22 Feb 2016 from John Lee, Nottm City Council
Morning all
Some of you will recall taking part in its preparation.
We are in the process of reviewing the attached Policy. The policy was in response to complaints about the design of barriers the council have used on rights of way to deal with motorcycles and users safety. Although barriers help deter illegal use some designs were causing problems for disabled citizens, mobility scooters, double buggies and cyclists. When deciding whether a barrier is the best solution for a particular problem/location, the policy has helped provide a consistent approach.
As part of the review do you have any comments on the policy, for example is there anything else the policy should include so the rights of way network is kept free from unnecessary obstructions and is accessible by all? Please forward onto any contacts who may have an interest.
Please could I have your comments by Monday 21st March.
Regards
John Lee
Public Rights of Way
Traffic and Safety
Development and Growth
Nottingham City Council
Loxley House
Station Street
Nottingham
NG2 3NG
Tele: 0115 8765246
Mobile: 07976 794880
www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/rightsofway
Pedestrians and cyclists at the toucan crossing where the busway meets Station Road, Histon have to wait a long time for the lights to change even if there is zero bus or road traffic.
This seems inconsistent with Highway Code rule H1 about the hierarchy of road users. Pedestrians should have priority over non-existent buses!
Created by Robin Heydon // 3 threads
There is a need for a link between the A14 Histon interchange with Ring Fort Path in Orchard Park.
Created by Paul L // 1 thread
This path is included in the Richmond Cycle Map and leads to a toucan and is a useful link from Hampton to the quietish Lower Hampton Rd towards Sunbury but is marked "No Cycling".
There is little pedestrian traffic but ideally it could be made wider.
Created by Sam Saunders // 1 thread
Cyclists travelling south west along Woodland Road and intending to turn left into Park Row are offered a continuous (advisory) cycle lane that is less then 1.2 metres wide and paved with cobbles for half of its width. It should be removed or else widened and considerable resurfaced.
Created by ken thomas // 2 threads
Installation of 17.5m single stack pole base station and associated works
Telcommunications Site Off Caldy Valley Road Great Boughton Chester Cheshire CH3 5PR
Application reference : 17/00266/TEL
No drawings or details are shown on the planning website.
A recent drawing seen for the project shows the cabinets blocking half the available width of the cycle/footpath. Such siting is not acceptable on a recently developed cycleway designed to specific standards.
Created by Lewisham Cyclists // 1 thread
Overview
The Mayor of London’s aim for 2041 is for 80% of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport.
LB Lewisham is working on initiatives to help reach this target by gearing towards a “Healthy Streets” approach as set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2017) which encourage people to use their car less. This will help reduce the amount of dirty air in London, encourage active travel and tackle congestion on our already clogged up roads.
(for more information on the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the Healthy streets approach follow the link below)
Mayor of London's Transport Strategy
As part of the Healthy Streets approach the borough is working on building a comprehensive “Quietway Network” so residents can choose cycling and walking as a convenient transport choice.
This consultation is seeking comment on proposals to upgrade the existing cycle route that runs through Blackheath Common as part of the TfL funded Quietway programme to encourage more people to walk and cycle. The proposals include three new crossings over:
All feedback from the consultation will be used to inform the final proposals ahead of construction works in Spring 2019. These improvements will form part of an extension of Quietway Route 1 which currently connects Waterloo and Greenwich
Created by Phil Lee // 0 threads
What to do about disgraceful decisions like this:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Driver-ran-Cambridge-cyclist-mistakenly-thinking/story-24555273-detail/story.html ?
Clearly, the magistrate erred seriously in matters of both fact and law - all the prosecution had to prove was that the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
Equally clearly, it did - nobody who could possibly be described as "competent and careful" would run over something the size of a cyclist without even being aware of it. He even admitted that he was talking on the phone at the time.
It staggers the mind to think what on earth the magistrates were thinking - or what with. Maybe they slept through the case, so didn't hear the prosecution, but were woken up for the defence (how there can be any defence for that is beyond me). Maybe they are dangerous drivers themselves, so sympathise with others of the same ilk instead of adequately discharging the responsibilities they are charged with? Mark Tyler also deserves complete contempt for not pleading guilty, and so preventing this gross miscarriage of justice. He should have been thanking his lucky stars that the police and CPS are so incompetent as not to pursue Dangerous driving, which it equally clearly was.
How can we get rid of incompetent idiots like Phil King (the lead magistrate in this case) who asserted that "there were “significant gaps” in the evidence". It is obvious to me that this dangerous idiot is perverting the course of justice by remaining in his position.
Presumably his colleagues on the bench conspired with him in this perversion - they could (and should) have over-ruled him unless they were parties to the conspiracy, surely?
The evidence was all there - there was a cyclist in front of him - whether the cyclist was upright or on the ground is irrelevant. Mark Tyler drove over him. Neither of those facts were in dispute. That is not the action of a competent and careful driver, and it should be beyond question that a person being in front of the vehicle is something which the driver should be expected to be aware of, which means the test in s3ZA of the Road Traffic Act is satisfied, and the accused is guilty.
The evidence also meets the test in s2A (Meaning of dangerous driving) so there is no excuse whatsoever for clearing him of even the lesser offence of careless driving. With driving like that, it is clear, beyond reasonable doubt, that he should not be in possession of a driving license, and the magistrates failed in their duty to relieve him of it.
As long as dangerous criminals like Phil King are allowed on the bench, the roads will never be safe for anyone.
As a footnote, from the report is appears that this dangerous character commutes from Whitchurch, Hampshire to Clifton Way, Cambridge. What length does that make his effective working day?
It's about 120 miles each way, so at least 4 hours driving (considerably more if in the "rush hour") on top of a full workday. It's utterly moronic to make a commute like that - when I worked anywhere near that far away, I commuted weekly. But this happened on a Wednesday.
Created by Andrew Woodward // 1 thread
Dear RCC - I have written because of a junction which is a frequent danger spot to cycle through. It is the junction where Dukes Avenue and Tudor Drive intersect with the A307 Upper Ham Road and Richmond Road.
1. The painted arrows in the middle of the junction suggest that turning traffic should pass on each other's left. This creates a serious blind spot for oncoming traffic and for the cyclist turning. Traffic code 181 suggests vehicles can pass either way but highlight that left to left is the more dangerous for this reason. 90% of the time motorists pass according to how the arrows are painted leaving a cyclist who is turning blind to oncoming traffic. The 10% of the time when a vehicle decides to turn right to right this puts them head on with a vehicle who may have decided to pass left to left. Very dangerous for a cyclist in either situation, there does't seem to be a safe way to tackle this junction as what ever you do.
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183
2. Recently I was waiting to turn right on this junction (left to left position) when a motorist behind me undertook me to place himself to my left blocking oncoming traffic to pass on my left and therefor forcing them to drive at me and pass on my right. Simply because he didn't want to wait behind me until the coast was clear that I could turn.
3. Needless to say the ASL's at this junction are almost completely ignored.
I hate cycling past and turning at this junction. Is there any way it can be improved to become safer for cyclists? A short head start (green light for cyclists) would be ideal but I doubt this will ever happen.
Google Streetview shows the problem nicely: http://goo.gl/maps/8gdo2
Created by Roxanne (Cycling Campaign Officer) // 1 thread
Huawei plans to develop R & D superhub at the 550-acre Spicer's Site in Sawston.
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
Fulbourn/Cherry Hinton Eastern Access is one of the five City Deal 'cross-city improvements' schemes.
"The growth of housing and employment sites in the Cherry Hinton and Fulbourn Road area, such as the expansion of the ARM headquarters will put further pressure on local roads. Improving the cycleways on Fulbourn Road would enhance cycle access to the city centre and contribute to the completion of the cycleway network in this part of south-east Cambridge."
Created by Gerhard Weiss // 0 threads
Superhighway 3 on cable street is also a rat run. Cell 1 marks the area bounded by 'logical' cell boundary streets. There should be no through motor traffic within this area
Created by North Devon Cycling Forum // 1 thread
Surface of Tarka Trail Braunton-Barnstaple needs replacing long-term; wobbly sections developing
Created by MB // 1 thread
TFL are thinkingof closing this 'rat run' to motor vehicles & have put out a consultation here:
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/coleparkroad
They are keeping it open to cyclists - but are proposing (I think) an awkward right- angled turn for cyclists to get in & out of the cul-de-sac. Can we suggest a better layout?
Consultation closes on May 10th 2013
Martin Lucas-Smith // 1 thread
Queen's Road is currently one-way for cycling - it would be good to remove this barrier.
Created by Shaun McDonald // 1 thread
Overview
Transport for London (TfL) is working with interested parties - including cycling and road safety organisations - to review and improve cycling provision at major junctions across London. Please see www.tfl.gov.uk/betterjunctions for more information.
Why We Are Consulting
As part of this work we have developed proposals to improve safety at the Waterloo (IMAX) roundabout at the junctions of Waterloo Road, Stamford Street, York Road and Concert Hall Approach.
What we’re proposing and why
Waterloo roundabout is a key junction for cyclists travelling between central and south London. Counts show that more than 5,500 cyclists use Waterloo roundabout each weekday, representing nearly a quarter of all traffic here.
Our review of the current road layout identified that early improvements can be made to allow cyclists better access to Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) on the roundabout, reducing the need for them to position themselves amongst fast-moving traffic. We’re proposing the following improvements:
New cycle feeder lanes leading into new longer ASLs will reduce the risk of collisions by helping cyclists to get ahead of other traffic. The new feeder lanes will mean that some sections of the roundabout will have three lanes for all traffic instead of four
Extending footways and traffic islands to reduce traffic speeds and provide more space for pedestrians.
Traffic modelling suggests that these changes would cause some increase in queuing on the roundabout and approaches at busy times, particularly on the approach from Stamford Street.
Proposed 20mph speed limit to follow in 2013
We are also proposing a 20mph speed limit at the roundabout. This would be introduced early in 2013. We will provide more information once these proposals have been developed further.
Please click here to see the map for further information on the proposals.
We are continuing to explore further improvements for cyclists and pedestrians as part of planned longer-term regeneration of the Waterloo area.
We intend to begin work at the roundabout on 21 November 2012. We will write to residents and businesses nearer the time to advise on the timing and impact of construction work.
Have your say
Please give us your views by completing the online consultation form by 14 November 2012.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/betterjunctions/waterloo-roundabout
Created by Charlie Halliday // 1 thread
Proposal by Hampshire County Council to increase the capacity of the roundabout.
Concerns that the carriageway would be even less appealing for cyclists and the shared used paths not an adequate alternative.
Decision to be made on 5 November 2013
Created by George Britton // 1 thread
The developer, Inland Homes, is preparing an application to build new homes on the roundabout site of the Ham & Blackbird pub.
Plans reported in the local newspaper talk of 62 units (1-bed apartments), with a cafe/bar commercial area.
This is an extremely busy junction, providing access between the centre of Farnborough and the station. The current cycling provision is poor/non-existent cycling in multiple sections.
Another significant factor is the big parking expansion underway at Farnborough Main station, which will release approx. twice as many cars onto the roundabout every weekday evening…
There is a public exhibition of the proposals.
Details:
Venue - St Peter's Church Parish Hall, 60 Church Avenue, Farnborough, GU14 7AP.
Saturday 22nd February 2014, 1130 am to 4pm.
Created by carlystevens1989 // 1 thread
There are a number of varying sized pot holes along the Cumberland Road leading up the traffic lights near the Mud Dock Deli, the side of the road with no cycle markings. They are mainly on the edge of the road, the largest being around 12 inches in diameter and are also in succession of each other. I would estimate around 10-15 pot holes in total.
Cars are often less than forthcoming when you have to move into the middle of the road to avoid them and therefore cyclists often cycle on the path in order to avoid them - although this path is wide enough to accommodate a cyclist it is not a shared path.
It would also be useful if this side of the road had cycle markings like the other side.
Created by Jon Warbrick // 1 thread
The County Council have a consultation running on "improvements along Cherry Hinton Road, Cambridge, to make it safer and more attractive for walking and cycling" between Hills road and Perne Road.
The consultation runs until Tuesday 18 June. There are two consultation events at Rock Road Library, 69 Rock Road, Cambridge on Tuesday 21 May and Tuesday 21 May.
Created by Dawes Jaguar // 0 threads
Cycling is banned on Victoria Common, but it represents the sort of environment in which people love to cycle. In the short term the paths should be made shared use, but longer term it would be sensible to create cycle paths through the park.
Created by Andy Allan // 1 thread
There used to be around 6 covered sheffield stands outside Tulse Hill station, tucked away around the corner from the Station Rise. But they've disappeared recently.
Are they coming back? Are there going to be replacements?
Created by Rob Earl // 0 threads
Better access to NEPN than through St Mark's Park which involves an uphill, narrowing road approaching a blind bridge. Requires stopping in traffic to negotiate parked cars and kerb.
Created by WilliamNB // 0 threads
When Chapel Street was recently renovated and resurfaced, new on-carriageway cycle lanes were painted. Sadly (predictably?) these lanes end just when they are most needed.
The fact that the lane ends, when cycling in a northernly direction, is in itself an annoyance.
The manner in which it ends is stupid beyond belief:
A yield sign has been painted at the end of the lane. This means, to remain perfectly within the law, cyclists riding in the lane must yield to traffic traveling in the same direction and may only proceed when there's no traffic approaching from behind.
It is legally possible to avoid having to yield by leaving the cycle lane before it ends and by riding on the main carriageway.
Created by Shaun McDonald // 1 thread
Overview
Transport for London (TfL) is working with interested parties - including cycling and road safety organisations - to review and improve cycling provision at major junctions across London. Please see www.tfl.gov.uk/betterjunctions for more information.
Why We Are Consulting
As part of this work we are developing proposals to improve safety at the junction of Tower Bridge Road and Abbey Street.
What we’re proposing and why
We are proposing to ban the left turn from Tower Bridge Road into Abbey Street to reduce the potential for conflict between cyclists and left-turning vehicles. Traffic counts show that fewer than 4 vehicles per hour make this turn at peak time.
We intend to ban the left turn towards the end of December 2012 and will advertise the changes to the Traffic Order in November.
Other planned changes at the Tower Bridge Road/Abbey Street junction
We are also developing proposals for more substantial improvements for cyclists and pedestrians at this junction, including improved pedestrian crossing facilities. More information will be available early next year, once these proposals have been developed further.
Earlier this year we marked-out Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) in green and put blind spot safety mirrors on the signals at the junction so cyclists are more visible to vehicles turning.
Please click here to view map for further information on the proposals.
Have your say
Please give us your views by completing the online consultation form below by 14 November 2012.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/betterjunctions/tower-bridge-abbeyst