From: Alasdair Massie <a.massie@...>
Subject: RE: [Cycle_Hitchin] Re: Paynes Park / Bedford Rd gyratory Proposals from HCC
To: "'Cycle_Hitchin@yahoogroups.com'" <Cycle_Hitchin@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, 24 March, 2009, 10:30 AM

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 We have since withdrawn all support for the scheme as it has become clear that HCC have no intention of even looking into the one way system.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@yahoogro ups.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 ;-)