Cycling is being made “more dangerous by design”, claim campaigners after cyclists refused infrastructure and told to avoid busy junction by council

The council said there was “insufficient space” to provide additional infrastructure without introducing unacceptable levels of traffic
congestion

by ADWITIYA PAL
SUN, MAR 17, 2024 15:02

Norwich Cycling Campaign has slammed the council’s suggestion that cyclists avoid a busy junction which is not “designated as a pedalway” and instead stick to other routes, after it ignored cyclists’ plea for additional infrastructure in the wake of a new bus scheme, with fears that cycling is being made “more dangerous by design”.

A major change has been proposed by the Conservative-controlled Norfolk
County Council on the junction of Dereham Road and Grapes Hill in Norwich, which will see existing lanes altered and kerbs moved to help the flow of traffic, with the council also hoping to improve bus journey times through
this scheme.

However, cyclists have pointed out that this would mean that cyclists are
left even more unprotected than before, as the cycle lane along Dereham
Road is disjointed, stopping and starting at random without any
connectivity.

Peter Silburn from the Norwich Cycling Campaign told road.cc: “A number of schemes have gone out to consultation, all of which have been to the
detriment of cycling. We have raised this with council officers but they
have said that since they are bus schemes they do not need to take cycling
into account.”

He raised a question to the Infrastructure and Development committee last
week, asking if the council can ensure that the scheme also improves the
roads for cycling, in line with LTN 1/20, the government’s guidance on building cycle infrastructure.

However, he was told by the chair of the committee that “spatial
constraints exist when implementing schemes on existing highway corridors.”

Silburn told road.cc that the reference to ‘spatial constraints’ is “clearly a misnomer”. “Gear Change clearly states: ‘If it is necessary to
reallocate road space from parking or motoring to achieve this, it should
be done.’,” he said.

“There are schools and shops on this section of the road. Should people not cycle to these?”

At a Cabinet meeting earlier this month, Green councillor Jamie Osborn also questioned if the proposals would make an “already dangerous” junction worse for cyclists, highlighting issues with the existing cycle lane in
Dereham Road ending “abruptly”.

Graham Plant, the cabinet member for highways, infrastructure and
transport, replied: “This section of Dereham Road is not promoted as a
cycle route and does not have any designation as a pedalway.

“For those cycling into the city from the west of Norwich, the green
pedalway provides an alternative route using West Pottergate, and there is
a Neighbourhood route using Orchard Street and Heigham Street, both of
which avoid this busy junction.”

He added: “Unfortunately, there is insufficient space to provide additional cycle infrastructure without significantly reducing the capacity of the junction, which would introduce unacceptable levels of congestion and delay
for all users.”

In September last year, Plant had taken the decision to disband a committee
of councillors (link is external) which met publicly to discuss highways projects, replacing it instead with a steering group that will hold
meetings in private, as meetings of the Transport for Norwich joint
committee were all too often mired in controversy.

Cyclists had slammed the decision, calling it “outrageous” and that the perceived lack of transparency will “erode public trust”.

Cycling campaigners slam “outrageous” council plan to hold road scheme

meetings in secret, arguing it will “erode trust”

Following Cllr Plant’s recent statements, Silburn questioned if he was suggesting that the junction was a “no-go area” for cyclists. He said: “Dereham Road is a well-used route for people on bikes precisely because it’s the quickest way to the places people want to get to. There are
schools and shops on this section of the road. Should people not cycle to these?

“Mr Plant suggests cyclists instead use the Green Pedalway. The Pedalways cycle network is not intended to be the only streets that you can cycle on.
Its aim is to provide a coherent network of safe cycle routes that are especially useful for newcomers and beginners.

“There is nothing special about Dereham Road, it’s a normal road that the County Council has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe for all
users. We are therefore concerned that by design cycling is being made more dangerous.”

road.cc has contacted Norfolk County Council for comment.

=====

11 comments


Avatar
wycombewheeler | 48 min ago
1 like
Quote:
He added: “Unfortunately, there is insufficient space to provide additional cycle infrastructure without significantly reducing the capacity of the junction, which would introduce unacceptable levels of congestion and delay
for all users.”

I'm confused, don't bus schemes increase road capacity (in terms of
people)? After we are not prioritising how many metal boxes can go through
a space are we? Surely we are focussing on people? Right?

Log In or Register to post comments
Avatar
eburtthebike replied to wycombewheeler | 19 min ago
0 likes


Log In or Register to post comments
Avatar
eburtthebike | 4 hours ago
3 likes
".....but they have said that since they are bus schemes they do not need
to take cycling into account.”

AFAIK, highway authorities have a duty to make the roads safe for all
users, and cannot ignore that responsibility. If I was a councillor there,
I'd be worried about a very large sum being awarded in damages when I
cyclist is involved in a collision and the council wilfully failed to carry
out its duty. Maybe Graham Plant could offer to pay any such damages out
of his own pocket, but I'm sure he's only reckless with other people's
money. Actually, that's an interesting point: would the councillors who
passed this be personally liable?

“Unfortunately, there is insufficient space to provide additional cycle infrastructure without significantly reducing the capacity of the junction, which would introduce unacceptable levels of congestion and delay for all users.”

That isn't a problem, it's a feature.

We are seeing the party of the driver doing its worst, behind closed doors, failing to follow national policy and ignoring its duty to vulnerable road users.

Log In or Register to post comments
Avatar
chrisonabike replied to eburtthebike | 3 hours ago
2 likes
eburtthebike wrote:
“Unfortunately, there is insufficient space to provide additional cycle infrastructure without significantly reducing the capacity of the junction, which would introduce unacceptable levels of congestion and delay for all users.”

That isn't a problem, it's a feature.

Preach, Brother eburtthebike! If the (increasing) problem is "too many
cars"* then the answer must involve "fewer cars". That's because driving
is so space-inefficient - even more so when you consider on average those vehicles are less that half full **.

Politely asking people to drive a bit less or increasing the amount people
pay for this a bit (we're still subsidising some of the total costs of motoring...) doesn't seem to be working.

(The notion that we could improve things by getting more people into those vehicles is problematic because the idea of cars as private, personal
transport which takes us almost exactly where we want to go is ingrained.
Plus our built infrastructure - most designed in tune with a more car-happy vision - works against that.

I've doubts about the likelihood rich_cb's interesting "future seen from
the 1990s" vision of multi-occupancy autonomous pod-transport - although of course very mini buses / jeepneys (link is external) / songthaew (link is external) exist...)

* Or rather - too many journeys taken by car.

** Quick Google says 1.6 occupants on average nationally in 2018 for cars
and vans - the latter obviously bring down the numbers.

Log In or Register to post comments
Avatar
Hirsute | 16 hours ago
3 likes
What is a pedalway ?

Log In or Register to post comments
Avatar
HLaB replied to Hirsute | 16 hours ago
1 like
A place on the side of the road to leave your spds/ flats or the like ?

Log In or Register to post comments
Avatar
stonojnr replied to Hirsute | 15 hours ago
3 likes
in Norwich speak theyre quietways, why they decided to call them something different, dont know.

but if you were looking to travel in the direction of Dereham Rd, as I certainly wouldnt ride on it, youd pick the Earlham Rd 'pedalway' route,
via Pottergate and that takes you under Grapes Hill, before you head into
the city via St Benedicts.

I dont know why anyone would be advocating a need or want to ride Grapes
Hill or Dereham Road, especially when theres a reasonablish alternative. obviously traffic trying to avoid Dereham Road tends to use Earlham Rd too,
so its not traffic free by any means in parts.

but then I cant fathom what changes theyre proposing anyway, last time I
took a bus up there, the delays to the bus were caused by sheer volume of traffic blocking the lane the bus needed to be in to make the turn it
wanted, that and an apparant colour blindness and inability to read traffic signs, especially among taxi drivers.

Log In or Register to post comments
Avatar
Homebaker replied to stonojnr | 14 hours ago
1 like
Are the schools and shops on those side routes?

Log In or Register to post comments
Avatar
AidanR | 18 hours ago
6 likes
"We've put some paint on the roads in some places, designated them
Pedalways, and so you cyclists can stick to them and get off all of the
other roads as they're for motorists. If you put yourself in danger, you've only got yourselves to blame."

Log In or Register to post comments
Avatar
hawkinspeter | 18 hours ago
4 likes
Well, at least we know why they want their meetings to be secret - they're working to endanger the public.

Log In or Register to post comments
Avatar
mattw | 18 hours ago
5 likes
That stance is not lawful.

Since Disabled People and other protected groups are less likely to use
buses and mtoor vehicles due to innaccessibility (eg wheelchair space size)
and fewer have driving licences (60% vs 75-80% amongst adults), failure to provide equal alteratives is indirect discrimination.

It will need a big legal action to stop them, though. And they won't give a damn.

Log In or Register to post comments

=====

<https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-being-made-dangerous-design-claims-campaign-307333>

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)