Having problems with message search?
More on Bedford Road. Thanks to Vicky for taking this up. The more people who do the same, the greater chance that this will eventually be addressed.
regards
Alasdair
----Original Message----
From: alasdair_massie@...
Date: 28/09/2009 13:39
To: <david.billing@...>, <vicky.wyer@...>
Cc: <feedback@...>, <clare.body@...>, <judi_billing@...>, "Martin Stears-Handscomb"<mstearshandscomb@...>, <allison_priory@...>, <deepak.sangha@...>, <tony.hunter@...>, <richard.thake@...>, <john.booth@...>, <thomas.brindley@...>, <michael.muir@...>, <paul.clark@...>, <fiona.hill@...>, <david.kearns@...>, <alan.millard@...>, <marilyn.kirkland@...>, <nigel.brook@...>, <keith.emsall@...>, <Simon.Young@...>, "Roxanne Glaud"<roxanne.glaud@...>
Subj: Re: Proposed cycle provision in Bedford Road, Hitchin - contradicts stated policy and expert advice
Dear Councillor Ashley,
Once again, this is a very disappointing reply. Again you make the suggestion that if you re-arrange road priority to give a more equitable balance between "vulnerable" modes (walking and cycling) and motor traffic, that it will put those "vulnerable" modes at risk. It is just rubbish. Herts Highways need to start respecting the user hierarchy laid down in the Manual for Streets and Transport Act 2004, putting Cycling and walking before motor traffic.
This is just scaremongering.
It is very frustrating. If you read Manual for Streets, and your own Cycling Strategy you will see that this very issue (perceptions of safety) is raised and highlighted. I am including the quotes below. The Manual for Streets was produced by the Department for Transport to deal with this culture of marginalising walking and cycling and the erosion of quality of our street environment. It is time that organisations like Hertfordshire Highways started taking their responsibility to follow this guidance more seriously.
I have to ask, do you (councillors) have no ambition to make Hitchin a better place ? Is this the best that you think you can achieve for residents and visitors ? People on foot competeing for pavement space with people on bicycles while the traffic whirls past only inches away ? Where is your ambition ? We know it can be better to this, and what is more we have documented the steps that need to be taken in all planning documents over the past decade. Let's make Hitchin a better place - you won't do that by this sorry proposal.
All of the problems that you have raised are problems that have their foundation in the fact that you are going for a BOTTOM OF HIERARCHY solution (footway conversion). These are inherently DIVISIVE. Unless you have a lot of space and a creative designer, Bottom of Hierarchy schemes are inevitably unsatisfactory. They suit nobody’s needs well, forcing one user’s needs to be sacrificed for another’s, without actually providing a decent environment for either.
In contrast, a TOP of HIERARCHY solution (traffic and speed reduction) is inherently INCLUSIVE. It puts safety and quality of environment before the desire (as opposed to need) for people to drive around the centre of Hitchin on a road that isn’t even on their natural route. A top of hierarchy solution does not require the needs of people walking to be sacrificed for the needs of people cycling or vice versa. A top of hierarchy solution minimises conflict and minimises the danger of serious injury if conflict should occur.
Top of Hierarchy solutions are what you should be pursuing every time. That is what both your own, and national guidelines say. That is how you remove the dreadful blight that roads like the Bedford Road / Paynes Park gyratory create. There is nothing new or surprising in this, it is in the plans – ALL of the plans that relate to this area. All that Herts Highways have to do is work to those plans and their own guidelines. That is what democracy and consultation are all about.
Just for the audience, perhaps you could just highlight which of the CTC’s recommendations have been taken on board. As far as we are aware, the ONLY suggestion that has been incorporated is to extend a single dropped kerb. I’m afraid that such isolated “token” concessions do nothing to improve such a fundamentally bad scheme.
Whilst you are about it, perhaps you could explain how the crossing at the Oughtenhead Way junction benefits pedestrians. This junction requires pedestrians to stop and wait at 3 sets of lights to get across to the west side of Old Park Road, negotiating a “sheep pen” shared with cyclists who have to make two right angle turns without the space to do so. Is that what you consider to be an improvement for pedestrians ?
Let us be clear. This scheme brings no benefits to people walking. It brings no benefits to those people when they cycle (other than the rather dubious benefit of legalising existing pavement cycling). As an engineer I have to say that this is a dreadful scheme that makes no attempt to bring benefit for the investment. It is just a waste of public money. There really are much better ways than this to waste money, I really, strongly suggest that you just give the money to a charity instead so that it can at least be put to good use.
Back to safety, this is what Manual for Streets has to say. Recognise anything ? All you have to do is to read and apply the guidance:
Table 3.2 User Hierarchy:
Consider First: Pedestrians > Cyclists > Public Transport > Emergency services, Utilities > Consider last: Other motor traffic.
2.6.1 A major concern expressed by some highway authorities when considering more innovative designs, or designs that are at variance with established practice, is whether they would incur a liability in the event of damage or injury.
3.7.11 One area of concern with the existing system is that Road Safety Audits may seek to identify all possible risks without distinguishing between major and minor ones, or quantifying the probability of them taking place. There can also be a tendency for auditors to encourage designs that achieve safety by segregating vulnerable road users from road traffic. Such designs can perform poorly in terms of streetscape quality, pedestrian amenity and security and, in some circumstances, can actually reduce safety levels
4.2.9 If road safety problems for pedestrians or cyclists are identified, conditions should be reviewed to see if they can be addressed, rather than segregating these users from motorised traffic. Table 4.1 suggests an ordered approach for the review.
6.2.4 Cyclists are more likely to choose routes that enable them to keep moving. Routes that take cyclists away from their desire lines and require them to concede priority to side-road traffic are less likely to be used. Anecdotal evidence suggests that cyclists using cycle tracks running adjacent and parallel to a main road are particularly vulnerable when they cross the mouths of side roads and that, overall, these routes can be more hazardous to cyclists than the equivalent on-road route.
And the Hertfordshire Cycling Strategy says this:
CS20 Staff dealing with planning, highways and education may have no experience or training in providing for cyclists (or even riding a bicycle), with the result that they have unrealistic ideas e.g. that cycling is dangerous and provide facilities which actually make conditions more difficult for existing cyclists and fail to attract new cyclists.
CS31 Safety auditors should recognise the needs of all transport users. Since cycling is a ‘vulnerable’ transport mode, there is tendency for those undertaking safety audits to recommend measures that restrict or impede cycling, reducing its attractiveness by making it less convenient by introducing unnecessary delays or detours.
CS32 It is the role of a cycle audit to balance the five core principles – facilities should be: convenient; accessible; safe; comfortable; and attractive – to see whether a proposed scheme will work for cyclists and in doing so encourage more cycling. The evidence that more cycling results in a safer road environment for all users, not just cyclists, is a convincing one and should guide everyone involved in the planning, design and implementation of all highway schemes.
Cycle tracks will not be created through the conversion of footways, without a full assessment by reference to the hierarchy of solutions, a cycle audit and full consultation with all stakeholders.
The hierarchy of provision needs to be applied rigorously and consistently depending on the route and road involved. The common temptation to apply the hierarchy in reverse order, ignoring the first two solutions (which evidence suggests may also have the most impact on encouraging sustainable travel patterns) must be resisted.
There is a danger that highway authorities are taking an over-cautious approach to minimising perceived risks arising from design decisions. Properly documented design review systems are a better defence than simple compliance with standards;
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.
----Original Message----
From: david.billing@...
Date: 28/09/2009 11:43
To: <vicky.wyer@...>
Cc: <feedback@...>, <clare.body@...>, <judi_billing@...>, "Martin Stears-Handscomb"<mstearshandscomb@...>, <allison_priory@...>, <deepak.sangha@...>, <tony.hunter@...>, <richard.thake@...>, <john.booth@...>, <thomas.brindley@...>, <michael.muir@...>, <paul.clark@...>, <fiona.hill@...>, <david.kearns@...>, <alan.millard@...>, <marilyn.kirkland@...>, <nigel.brook@...>, <keith.emsall@...>, <alasdair_massie@...>, <Simon.Young@...>, "Roxanne Glaud"<roxanne.glaud@...>
Subj: FW: Proposed cycle provision in Bedford Road, Hitchin - contradicts stated policy and expert adviceDear Vicky
Judi forwarded your email. This is my email address now.
Allison Ashley has sent you a full response.
I wanted to add a few things. I, with Allison and other councillors, were present with Herts Highways and NHDC officers on 30 July to discuss the Bedford Rd proposals.
We went through the CTC suggestions and comments, as in Alasdair Massie’s 5 July letter, and compared these with the detailed plans. It is untrue to say that the CTC proposals were ignored – a number of detailed alterations to take some of these into account were put before us by Highways officers.
Unfortunately, not all of the CTC proposals were feasible for safety reasons, and we were given explanations of these reasons – for example HGVs or buses could not easily turn the corners if the Brand St junction had been altered as CTC proposed, putting pedestrian at risk. The meeting considered also various positions for the Toucan crossing to Waitrose, and located it based on pedestrian safety considerations. We also felt that the CTC proposed cycle route across the island at the Oughtonhead Way junction would put pedestrians at risk.
You may know that I am not generally an apologist for Herts Highways, but I assure you that we did argue with their officers on behalf of cyclists, but in the end were persuaded that the plans as amended by Herts Highways were safer than the CTC proposals.
Unfortunately I was not involved in the discussions of the plans for the other two sections of the gyratory.
On the more general issue of improving cycling routes, facilities and safety, you will know that several of us are on the member group for the review of the Hitchin Transportation Plan. Following the public meetings, which involved cycling interest groups, the consultants have identified about 100 proposals, and I am pleased to say that many of the highest priorities are cycling and pedestrian measures. We have another meeting with them before the proposals go out for public consultation – I think from November.
Best wishes
David Billing
From: vicky wyer [mailto:vicky.wyer@...]
Sent: 25 September 2009 14:31
To: feedback@...; clare.body@...; judi_billing@...; Martin Stears; allison_priory@...; deepak.sangha@...; tony.hunter@...; richard.thake@...; john.booth@...; thomas.brindley@...; michael.muir@...; paul.clark@...; fiona.hill@...; david.kearns@...; alan.millard@...; marilyn.kirkland@...; david.billing@...; nigel.agar@...; nigel.brook@...; doug.drake@...; keith.emsall@...
Subject: Proposed cycle provision in Bedford Road, Hitchin - contradicts stated policy and expert advice
Dear Mr Lilley and Councillors,
I am very concerned about the standard of cycling provision being proposed by Herts Highways on the Bedford Road Gyratory in Hitchin.
Despite being fully aware of the principles set out in the Hertfordshire Cycling Strategy and detailed advice given by expert engineers from the CTC, Herts Highways are ignoring both, and proposing a shared pavement scheme along Bedford Road. They are clearly pursuing a deliberate policy of putting cyclists on the pavement, in direct contradiction to stated policy. They are not considering any alternatives even when these have been identified in existing plans. They have blocked roads or made them one way without thought, introduced pinch points and barriers, and designed “cycle tracks” that emerge into the road with absolutely no visibility.
The Hertfordshire Cycling Strategy is a good document, and was produced for the purpose of achieving good practice on new schemes. The CTC are an expert user group who know what they are talking about and are representing the views of cyclists and those who wish their children to live healthier lives and be able to cycle safely and freely around their local area (which would reduce cars on the road making travelling safer for everyone). The question needs to be asked why Herts Highways are not heeding this advice and why they are contravening established policy.
- Please do not let this scheme go ahead in its current form – it is a gross misuse of public money and in direct contradiction of stated policy.
- Please investigate why Herts Highways are pursuing this course of action and bring them to account for their proposals.
- Please ensure that they follow stated policy and respect expert user group advice in this and all future projects
I look forward to hearing your response to my request.
Yours sincerely
Vicky Wyer
Car user, local journey cyclist and mother of three children who will not cycle to school because they do not feel it is safe.
23 Priory Way
Hitchin SG4 9BJ
Forget the rest, get the best - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/music
Forget the rest, get the best - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/music
Offline 
Send Email