Having problems with message search?
Dear David,
Thanks for your comments. Nice to see that these reflect many of
the points that I have already made to HCC.
To keep people in touch, yesterday I wrote to all of the
councillors on the Joint Highways Panel asking them to:
1.
Put an immediate halt on all conversions of roadside footways to
cycle paths. And:
2.
Review all highway schemes to see how improvements can be
incorporated for cycling.
I pointed out that this is already a requirement of the
Hertfordshire Cycling Strategy. Both would be relevant to Paynes Park.
A little more background….
I believe that the intention is to formally convert Elmside
walk into a shared use path. In fact I thought that it already was one. One
positive feature of this proposal is that the pavement conversion will allow
people to legitimately cycle against the traffic from Brand Street to pick up
the Elmside Walk path. The other positive feature is that it allows people to
avoid the Priory bypass roundabout.
It is because of those two points that we originally gave the
scheme our qualified support, as a temporary measure whilst a way to address
the root of the problem (the one way system) was investigated. We have since withdrawn
all support for the scheme as it has become clear that HCC have no intention of
even looking into the one way system.
Working on the assumption that HCC will probably implement this
scheme whether we like it or not, we will still be giving detailed comments. On
the issue of harassment / intimidation of cyclists who remain in the road, we
have recommended the use of cycle logos in the carriageway to remove any excuse
for road hogs to behave belligerently.
The issue of lane widths is a
difficult one. At present they are in the “critical” width range
for buses and HGVs (ie buses and HGVs can physically get past a cyclist without
leaving the lane, but there isn’t enough width to do so without
intimidating the cyclist). Narrowing the lanes will move it out of the critical
range for buses but into the critical range for cars. Neither is satisfactory
and we have said so.
Regards
Alasdair DV Massie CEng MIStructE
CTC Right to Ride Representative, North Herts
CTC is Britain’s largest
cycling organisation with 70,000 members. Formed in 1878 we have actively
campaigned for better, safer roads, locally and nationally since our inception.
We have a large and active
section for North Herts and Stevenage.
From:
Cycle_Hitchin@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Cycle_Hitchin@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of David Rossall
Sent: 23 March 2009 23:04
To: Cycle_Hitchin@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Cycle_Hitchin] Re: Paynes Park / Bedford Rd gyratory Proposals
from HCC
I'd agree that we need to be as positive as possible. On
the other hand, doing that is difficult because there must be worries. Some
thoughts:
* The proposed pavement path recognises that, in practice, many cyclists seem
to choose to use that as a place to ride even now, when it is illegal. The
proposal will meet that clear demand.
However:
* Cycle accidents mostly happen at junctions. Cycle paths often make the risk
worse, by moving cyclists nearer to hedges and fences, thus reducing sight
lines between cyclists and emerging motorists. They also put cyclists "out
of sight, out of mind" for motorists turning off the main road. It seems,
therefore, that the proposals will increase the chances of collisions at the
health centre car park, Elmside Walk, Christchurch car park and Grammar School
Walk, and reduce safety overall.
* As a confident cyclist, I am relatively happy on the road at present. A narrower
road will be more difficult for cyclists who choose to use it, as motorists
will try to squeeze past. Thus, the risks for on-road cyclists will also be
increased, whereas at present Bedford Road is easily the best of the three
sides of the one-way system.
* At the same time, a path may create conflict with drivers who expect cyclists
to use it, and resent their presence on the road.
* The path is very focussed on travel between Oughtonhead Way and the town
centre. In reality, cyclists come from and go to many places. What about
Westmill and West Hill, for example?
* There is no provision in Brand Street, but cyclists coming along the path
will probably be encouraged to continue on the pavement there.
Personally, I think I might ditch the entire proposal, and spend the money
instead on a route into the top end of Lower Tilehouse Street, using new toucan
crossings of Paynes Park and Old Park Road, plus an adaptation of Nuns Close.
Cyclists returning from town would need to be exempted from the no right turn
at the end of Sun Street. I'd also signpost a route along Elmside Walk and make
it formally shared use.
By the way, that's completely the opposite side of town from me, so this is not
self-interest ;-)
Offline 
Send Email