Operation Pedalo effectiveness (lights onto bicycles)

Lack of lights on bicycles in Cambridge has been a hot topic for as long as I can remember.  The city Police, local councillors and bottom half of the internet commenters have been absolutely certain that riding a bicycle without lights is a dangerous activity.

At Neighbourhood Policing meetings, locals get to specify issues that neighbourhood Police should tackle and targeting cyclists without lights is predictably in the top 3 priorities as we move into autumn. Policing appeared to go up when Cambridge Police began issuing Lights instead of Tickets (LIT) in late 2012.  This also coincided with the launch of Police and Crime Commissioners, a four year post filled by Graham Bright who has thrown his weight behind tackling cyclists without lights naming this Operation Pedalo.

Headlines tell us that a lot of Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) time has been spent in Cambridge on stopping cyclists without lights. After 3 years of big pushes we have enough data to measure the effect of the campaigns and decide if the scarce Police time is being used wisely.

Lets take a look at the raw number of cyclists being injured in Cambridge.  The graph below shows the numbers of cyclists killed, seriously injured and slightly injured.  This means any collision that emergency services were involved with.  Its showing 15 to 20 casualties a month from 2005 through 2014.

Another useful baseline is the amount of cycling casualties in each month of the year over the same 10 year period 2005-2015.  There are many effects to look out for.  Numbers of cyclists in Cambridge is less affected by season and more affected by University and College terms.  Winter months have more darkness which is relevant to Operation Pedalo and LIT.

The PCSO effort reached a peak in Autumn Winter 2012.  The most interesting story related to the efforts is "1000 Fined in Blitz on Bike Lights" (Cambridge News Jan 14th 2014)

The story shows the impact the PSCO efforts had:

Sgt Jayne Drury said the scheme had been so successful that nine out of 10 cyclists were now thought to be riding with lights. 

She told the city council’s west/ central area committee that the figure for nights back in August was believed to be six out of 10.

Such a significant change of light usage should show up in the road safety statistics for Cambridge cyclists.  Lets look closely.

The graph below looks at each month.  Within each group is the number of casualties sequentially each year.  The peak of PCSO activity is between Aug and Dec 2013, thats the second to last bar in each group.  It's hard to make out any clear pattern of lowering of casualties.

The STATS19 records indicate if a collision happened during daylight or hours of darkness.  Lets look at collisions in the dark only.  This should be a better dataset for measuring the effectiveness of more lights on bikes.

I cannot see any clear pattern of improved safety for cyclists as a result of Operation Pedalo.

I spent some time picking through the Cambridge News stories to find periods of increased PSCO effort.  See if you can match up the story to a point on the graph.

How not to fall off a bike

Cycling, mountain biking and motorcycling.  I'm pretty careful because that is a good list of bone breaking activities.  It took 41 years to catch up with me.

If you want to learn how to fall off a bicycle, then go off road riding.  When you fall its generally at a slow speed with soft-ish ground and there is no traffic to run you over.  I've fallen off my mountain bike so many times its become instinctive. Hands out superman through the air or just to the side, initiate a roll, dust self off, carry on riding.

Mid November, I left work on my motorcycle got to a T junction and stopped.  Looked both ways several times, all clear, revved engine to go, final check, saw cycle ... brake on, pull clutch in, stalled it - whoops - oh hang on the bikes leaning too much, can't hold it, ok initiate roll, oof, big mistake.  I've never thought about how to get off a toppling motorcycle but my instinctive bicycle roll is not the way to do it - you leave your legs behind. Fine when its a few kilo's of bicycle, but now 200 kilos of motorcycle are pinning me to the ground.  Passers by removed my motorcycle from me and helped me to my feet. My lower leg was very sore, much like stubbing a toe.  It'll be ok in minute.  I put a small amount of weight on it and it didn't feel right.

I was only a few hundred yards from work so on my instruction my aids turned my motorcycle around, put me on the motorcycle and I scooted it with my good leg back to work with them pushing.  I was wondering if I should just shake this leg pain off then ride home but a colleague and taxi were right there.  The pain told me to go get it checked.  A grimacing twenty minutes later I hopped into Addenbrookes A&E.

I was seen fairly quickly - obviously not too bad given I didn't arrive in an ambulance and the pain wasn't too bad while remaining still. My ankle was pretty swollen at this point.  I was taken for an x-ray, and while the radiology staff were looking at their computer I asked if they could see anything on the output.  They explained it was a low-resolution version, but no they couldn't see a break.  Now I'm feeling like a right pillock making such a fuss.  

Within the next hour I was told my ankle was broken. Annoying but slightly relieved I wasn't making too much of a fuss. My entire leg was was set in plaster after straightening then x-rayed again to make sure the bones were aligned ok and awaited sign off from the consultant.  I began to make pre-emptive reservations for a lift home assuming I'd get a pair of crutches and pain killers next.

The consultant came, spoking with an air of seriousness.  The nature of the accident was a crush injury and they wanted more detail. I was to be given a bed, awaiting a CT scan (3d x-ray). Within four hours of my arrival I was on a ward.

Once on the ward I had a settle into what I called hospital-time. All time moves into slow motion.  Upon arrival you expect everything will happen quick snap but the reality is you are always waiting for something. The routine of the day kept you entertained.  Blood pressure and temperature check every four hours, even through the night.  Medication rounds.  Breakfast, lunch, dinner, cups of tea.  Washing.  Visitor time. Swapping health stories with fellow patients.  Watching patients leave the ward for operations and return. 

After two nights I finally got a CT scan. This was exciting progress!  Half a day later the consultant visited and explained the complications of my fracture inside my ankle joint, and a partial fracture going up my leg.  The best course of action to save me from bad arthritis in later life was to pin my ankle back together and plate my tibia.

An operation - my first - was a pretty nerve racking prospect and you have plenty of time to worry in hospital. Nerves combined with nil-by-mouth and operation delays caused some patients to get pretty grumpy.  I didn't have too much time to worry in the end as a slot became available sooner than expected. My notification came before breakfast first thing in the morning, so nil-by-mouth was an easy and normal overnighter for me. I saw the anaesthetist and was off the ward within the next hour.  I didn't see the main operating theatre, I saw a few staff in an adjoined prep room, took a couple of puffs in a mask and awoke 5 hours later.

The next 24 hours were spent working out how I was going to live at home with one leg in a partial plaster.  I saw the physio, got crutches and plenty of pain pills.  I left hospital after a total of four nights.

I cannot praise enough every member of staff at Addenbrookes.  They truly made my stay as comfortable as possible.  And they weren't just doing their job, their attitude and banter and enjoyment really helped my morale.

It was great to be back home to begin my recovery.

Linking Cottenham to Cambridge Research Park

East out of Cottenham is Landbeach Road.  It is a useful route, linking to Landbeach and Waterbeach where there are many shops, a train station connecting to Cambridge and London. From Landbeach is a cyclepath heading towards Milton, then into Cambridge. From Waterbeach is Wicken Fen, plus the River Cam, a popular riverside and traffic free cycle route into Cambridge.  There are plenty of reasons to want to link Cottenham and Landbeach and parish councils on both ends are keen to see a cycle path built.

There is no significant money on the table to achieve a cyclepath so I wondered if an offroad route was viable.  In September 2013 I met with David Jenkins and Council Officers to see what might be possible.

The first idea I proposed was linking existing tracks in the fields south of Landbeach Road.  This route was difficult to achieve, needing at least a bridge, and negotiation with a large number of landowners.

My second idea links Long Drove to Cambridge Research Park.  It's certainly not direct or ideal but might provide a recreational route, and summer commute route to the research park.  This is currently inaccessible by bike unless you are prepared to cycle on the A10 trunk road. Some Cottenham residents work there. Plus it has a small nature reserve.

The pictures below show the current state of the route.

Gravel Pit Drove links Long Drove (white road) to the south side of Cambridge Research Park lakes. Link to OSM.

Gravel Pit Drove (highlighted)

The first section of Gravel Pit Drove from Long Drove is a reasonably surfaced track.  This gets you half way to the lake entrance. This is facing south-east.

Gravel Pit Drove as seen from Long Drove. Facing SE.

The next picture looks back from the end of the track north-west facing back towards Long Drove.

Gravel Pit Drove looking SW towards Long Drove.

From the same location but looking east, you can see that there is a field, separated by two different crops.  The track used to continue along here.

Gravel Pit Drove currently ends here. Facing SE.

In the previous picture there are trees in the distance.  This is the start of the nature reserve with water.  The next picture shows from the tree line, facing south-east.

Alongside the nature reserve (ex gravel pit). Facing SE.

Following the edge of the nature reserve joins you to an existing bridleway.  Turning left (now facing north-east), there is gate, with a track on the other side leading to the nature reserve entrance and research park.

Bridleway from Beach Ditch to Cambridge Research Park. NE.

Beyond the gate is an interesting surface which is used on many tracks in the local area.  It has a concrete base (or very hard packed gravel) which rolls very fast and remains mud free during winter. It blends in well with its rural surroundings.

Hidden concrete surface.

The following picure is a screen shot from Where's The Path.  It is showing OpenStreetMap on the left, centred on Gravel Pit Drove, with an old out of copyright Ordnance Survey 1:25k map (~1950?). It shows that the track used to be much longer, at least to where the gravel pit was (now a water filled nature reserve).

Comparing OSM to old OS 1:25k

My proposal is to effectively reinstate Gravel Pit Drove to its former length, joining Long Drove to the bridleway at Beach Ditch. From the end of currently tracked Gravel Pit Drove to the bridleway is ~400 metres. The total length is ~700m and would be better if the whole length was improved but not entirely necessary. A concrete base as pictured above would be ideal for recreational purposes and some summer commutes.

Floureon 18650 USB Phone Charger Box

Many cyclists are running lights with a 3.7V lithium battery cell standard known as 18650.  If you have those batteries and want a portable phone charger, here is a very brief review.

There are many different power packs available.  I searched for one that was small and light and reused my 18650 cells.  On ebay I found:

FLOUREON Power Bank pack PCB Case 18650 Battery Charger Box for Phone DIY Kit.

Without batteries the price is typically £12.99 for a UK stocked supplier. For about £3 more you can have a version that comes with 2 batteries.  Some come with a free USB light. 

Note that the spec sheet says it outputs 5V at up to 2.1 amps.  Take note, some power packs can only output 1 amp which may not be enough to charge the latest phones and pads. Check the labelling on your device's charger or plug to see what it outputs.

I've had some questionable quality cheap Chinese gadgets in the past. Floureon's website looks legit compared to some other come-and-go brands. That's not an endorsement though, I've only had this product for a few days. 

Unboxing reveals the charger box, a Micro-USB cable, instructions and mini USB powered light widget.  The plastic feels robust enough and not too thin.

On the case are two USB sockets. The larger standard sized one is for output. Surprisingly, the Micro-USB socket is for input, charging the 18650 cells.

There are three lights and a button. Pressing the button when no cable is plugged in reveals the capacity of the batteries inside the box by lighting an appropriate number of lights.  I discovered that the button is easily pushed while sitting in a bag and I couldn't bare the thought of wasting precious energy so inserted paper into the battery terminals so prevent the lights coming on when not in use.

Plugging in the cable, large end to the Floureon, micro end to my phone, the lights then animate like runway lights, one at a time moving towards the phone.  In the dark the lights are bright enough to be distracting so need covering or turning over.

Before buying, check the length of your 18650 cells. Only cells 67mm or below will fit. The cells I'm using in the picture are unprotected cells retrieved from a laptop battery pack. Consumer ready batteries with protection circuitry added are longer. This page on Candle Power Forum shows quite a few are longer than 67mm.

The box charges my phone with one OR two batteries installed.  I installed an Android app called Battery Monitor Widget so I could check the amount of mA/h being delivered to my phone.  The Floureon and the supplied cable matched that of my HTC supplied wall socket charger and cable. Apparently some cheap USB cables do not allow as much power down the cable but that's not the case here.

So far I have charged my phones 1500mA/h battery from around 15% charge to ~80% about three times. My two 18650 cells are 2000mA/h each.  With some expected efficiency loss, I'd expect two and a half full charges from two cells. Of course, with this format I can swap in extra batteries. The product works as expected and I'm happy with it for charging my phone.

I have not fully tested the input charging of the 18650 cells via the Micro-USB socket.  I plugged it into my desktop computer's USB socket and the lights animate in the reverse direction.  However, unprotected cells in particular need to be charged carefully so not to cause an explosion or fire. I'll leave that task to my dedicated charger.

St Ives crossing time allocation.

St Ives in Huntingdonshire is at the end of the Guided Busway that leads to Cambridge.

The Busway itself ends to the east of the town, with the final hop into the town centre on a bus only road that crosses the A1096. Cycle Streets has a good picture.

As reported in the Hunts Post:

Traffic light loophole may have been exploited by St Ives cyclists

The story is:  

Buses get priority traffic lights across the A1096, while pedestrians and cycles next to it do not. Frustrated with the crossing times, folk on bikes managed to trigger the bus sensors to get across with less delay.

The national theme here is that pedestrians and cyclists are treated as second class citizens and traffic light junctions and have to experience large delays compared to their overall journey times.

Since the Busway began, there have been many complaints about traffic queues building up on the A1096 whilst waiting at the red lights.

The Hunts Post story reports:

In 2012, the traffic was investigated by a transport and environment working group, made up of volunteers, which reported to St Ives Town Council that in the morning peak (7am-9am), the Harrison Way lights turned red every two minutes. The survey said each time the lights were red for an average of 21 seconds – creating a period of at least 23 minutes during the two-hour morning peak when vehicles were forced to stop.

23 minutes (of 120) is 19% of the time spent red for motor vehicles using the A1096.

Separately, the St Ives Transport Strategy says:

In 2005, approximately 73% of journeys in St. Ives town centre were made by car, 9% by bus, 3% by cycle, 7% on foot and 8% by goods vehicles.

[These are not figures for those using the crossing, but its the best snapshot I have to hand]

Adding bus, cycle and foot percentages together gives, well what a coincidence, 19%.  So 19% of the traffic gets 19% of the time.

That seems fair if you want to maintain the current proportion of traffic.  Unfortunately, 19% of time has been achieved by a loop hole now to be closed.  The question is, how much will pedestrians and cycles get screwed over to improve motor vehicle flow?

Cycling the Netherlands - reduce traffic volume and speed.

I've just spent two weeks holidaying in the Netherlands and managed to cycle around 100 miles of routes through cities, towns, villages and rural areas.  What a fabulous place to cycle - you can see why so many people choose cycling as a way to get about.  I'll split across a few posts what caught my eye.

When showing us how the Dutch cycle infrastructure works, it's the built features - eg separated cycle tracks, lanes, roundabouts etc - that get most of the press. But an aspect that's hard to grasp from photos that becomes immediately obvious when you cycle in The Netherlands is just how little traffic you ever have to interact with.

The infrastructure is the end result of a general ethos of creating a liveable and safe street environment and controlling the level of danger when vehicles and people have to mix.  From my observations, this boils down to:

• Reduce motor traffic through residential and shopping streets.
• Reduce motor traffic speed where it comes close to people (on foot, mobility scooter, bicycle)
• If traffic volume and speed is not reduced, keep people and motor vehicles separate.

In practice, cycling in the Netherlands involves using a lot of streets where you are not separated from cars and trucks, but because the traffic speed and density is low, it's not a problem.

Right in the heart of any town or city area are shopping streets.  In many cases, through traffic is not allowed using barriers.  

In the UK we'd be having kittens over allowing cycling here, getting the Police to ticket cyclists for riding here. It doesn't matter in the Netherlands as anyone cycling here would be going slow.  If they want to go fast, there will be a faster parallel route.

Moving around the local residential or shopping area of many Dutch streets you find one-way streets for motor vehicles with street design to keep speeds low, but cycles are allowed to go two-way.  

These one-way except cycles streets are very common even where the street is narrow making passing tricky. The low traffic volume plays a part here in this not being a problem.  Cambridge has a good number of one-way except cycles and they are proving successful in narrow streets.

Many villages we passed through, had a single high street where through motor-traffic had to pass.  You might see on road cycle lanes. 

On-road lanes?  We hate them with a passion in the UK especially when they still take you close to traffic. What makes a massive difference in the Netherlands is control of the traffic:  The density is low, you are not overtaken very often; due to less oncoming traffic, cars have time to make be careful about overtaking; and the traffic speed is very well controlled with road features.  The road above would is 20mph too.  

In the UK, our roads through villages are not well controlled and encourage through traffic.  In the Netherlands, it's harder for this to be a viable rat-run, and the major road network is superior.

My own village of Cottenham is a classic example. The high street is a 30mph B road, largely uncontrolled so anything from 30-50mph is possible. It has a parallel single-carriageway trunk A road but in peak hours carries an almost equal amount of traffic as the A road.

Here is another example of a cycle route.  A completely segregated cycle route joins this road for a while before reaching a roundabout and leaving the road.  It's an industrial area, with offices and a truck sales warehouse.

Again, it's a quiet road, and it shouts slow down to any motor-traffic.  The lane narrowing works, and even where when there is not enough room for vehicles the designers, albeit not perfect, have not given up with the excuse of not enough room.

And finally, when on main roads leading in or out of major areas, the traffic speeds and/or volumes go up and you'd end up on a segregated cycle path, more like the ones you're used to seeing.

David Hembrow has been telling us this for years.  I totally see why a study tour is essential for anyone involved in cycle infrastructure design.  Or, design for pedestrians, mobility scooters and safe liveable streets for that matter.  It really is hard to understand how all the different design aspects add up to make a great cycling experience.

A couple of relevant areas of further reading, can be found on David's site:

See The Grid and Unravelling of Modes

GPX Traces of Long Distance Routes

This post is personal reminder of how to extract GPX Track data from OpenStreetMap.


The UK is full of long distance routes you might want to follow using your GPS.  That could be anything from walking trails like the Pennine Way; parts of the National Cycle Network; or even bus routes.

The most reliable way to follow any recreational route on a GPS is to use a GPX Track. That is just a series of dots joined up with straight lines and drawn over the top of any base map your GPS might have.  Utilising a track instead of a route means your GPS doesn't try to do any clever routing like a car GPS would.

Track data can be tricky to find. But OpenStreetMap can come to the rescue.

OSM Data. A quick primer: 

OpenStreetMap is a database of:

• Waypoints - single positions with a precise location.
• Ways - a series of Waypoints that make up any path, road etc. Note that a single road might be split into multiple Ways.
• Relations - a series of Ways joined together to make a route. Eg Icknield Way. These would typically be over different roads.
• Waypoints, Ways, and Relations all have key=value pairs to describe what they are.

What I am describing in this page is taking a relation (eg Pennine Way) and converting its collection of Ways (that contain Waypoints) to a single continuous set of Waypoints that can be saved as a Track in a GPX file. Your GPS can then draw those Waypoints/Track as a line over your map for you to follow.

Finding a Relation

If you see a route (Relation) on OpenStreetMap you need to find its database number.  Here's an example, The Pennine Way. Its OpenStreetMap Relation 63872.

A very useful source of Long Distance Path data is in OpenStreetMap's Wiki: UK Long Distance Paths. The Relation number is in the fourth column. Click it to view in OSM.

Another way is on OpenStreetMap itself. If you know a path has a route going over it - lets say you've found a part of the Peddars Way - zoom right in as far as you can (example).  Click the Layers icon on the right hand side. Tick checkbox Map Data, and wait for the lines to be highlighted. Click on line you were looking at. A Panel on the left appears telling you about the line. Scroll to the bottom, and there might be a "Part of Relation ..." listed.  The number is the Relation number you are hunting for.  In the example I gave, that line has two Relations. Peddars Way (walking route) 77958 and Peddars Cycle Way 3144936.

Conversion Process

The overview of the conversion process is:

1. Get OSM data for one Relation (eg Peddars Way) with its Way and Waypoint data. 
2. Join the Ways into a single line.
3. Delete unnecessary key/value attribute data. Delete the Relation.
4. Save data and convert to GPX Track.

I use JOSM, a powerful OpenStreetMap editor written in Java to do this job. 

Using JOSM

Start JOSM with no data loaded. 

Load your relation data. Choose File -> Download Object.  

In Object ID type in the Relation number you were hunting for.

I leave "Download Referrers" unticked.  

It is important to tick "Download Relation Members".

Click the Download Object Button.

You should now be in the Map view with the shape of your Relation visible.  This normally consists of a number of separate Ways.  You can zoom in and click a line to highlight a single Way.  Note they have a direction - some ways will be pointing in the opposite direction.  We are going to join them together into one single continuous Way.

Highlight everything.  Choose Selection->Select All, or easier press Control-A. Alternatively, zoom out and draw a box around everything.

To make it easy to join all the Ways together. We'll delete the data attributes.  On the right is a Panel titled Tags / Memberships.  The second column probably says <different>.  Delete all the Tags.  You can do this one at a time; highlight the first then shift-click the last; or highlight one, press Control-A to select all, then Delete.

Now we'll check the relation for gaps and fix. One the right, find the "Relations" panel. Highlight the route, and click the pencil button.  This view shows the Ways that are in the relation. Note they are not always in the right order.  Scroll through the list of Ways, most of them will have arrows in the 3rd column, look for any with red squares. You can also highlight in one Way, right click and choose Select Next Gap to make this easier.

If there are any gaps, right click the row, choose Zoom To. In the Main map view, choose the draw line tool and click the squares at each end of the gaps to join. Press escape to stop drawing.  Go back to the Relation editor and repeat.

If you've got this far, you should consider learning how to make a real fix to the data and submit it back, it's not much more work.

If you are certain you've got a contiguous line.  Delete the Relation, highlight it in the panel and Delete.  This leaves just the Ways on the Map view.

Back in the main map window, we'll now join the Ways into one. Make sure all Ways are highlighted (Control-A).  Now join all Ways together, by choosing Tools->Combine Way.  If the lines were contiguous, you'll probably be asked to Reverse and Combine. Do it.  

If this fails, your line is not contiguous. If you get asked complicated questions about tags you didn't delete them, or you may have not deleted the Relation they belonged to.

You might want to change the direction of your Track. See Tools->Reverse Way.

You should name your Way (Track) at this point. Highlight it, in the Tags panel click add.  Key=name Value=<something>

Now export to GPX.  File->Save As.  Name your file <something>.gpx.

If your map data was only that one Way and no relation data it should have exported as a GPX Track which you can use in your GPS.

I like to check my tracks in using OpenRouteConverter.  This program will show multiple tracks, allow you to edit them, join them; and convert from GPX routes to tracks. 

Alternative Export using OSM Route Manager

There is one online tool that looks like it attempts to automate the above process.  I've found in practice it doesn't do a complete job and you have to fix the results in another tool. I use OpenRouteConverter to fix up.

Check out OpenStreetMap Route Manager.

It's fairly obvious how to use it.  Click the plus icon(s) before exporting.

The relation you want might come in (unjoined) sections.

• The sections are not nicely ordered so piece together in the right way. Each section might have a different direction. You can fix that in OpenRouteConverter.   
• Each section might have a different direction. OpenRouteConverter can fix this.
• You can use OpenRouteConverter to join the sections.
• I've found Route Manager exports as GPX Route. You can use OpenRouteConverter to make this into a GPX Track. 

A Cambridge Rider's Perspective on London Cycling.

I've just spent 24 hours of my weekend travelling around London by tube, bus, bicycle and on foot, but a few hours was by bicycle. Normally I ride commute in to, out of and around Cambridge, one of the UK's most cycled cities.  How does London stack up?

Every rider is different. Cards on the table ... I ride a lot and I can go fast, commuting on a touring bike, but I can also be found on a road bike, mountain bike, and motorcycle. I also spent a few years commuting in London in the 90's prior to the congestion charge. So this is the first time I've ridden London's roads in two decades.

We used Boris Bikes (TfL Barclays Cycle Hire). You can hire on the street without pre-registering and its cheap - can be as little as £2 for 24 hours if you complete each journey within 30 minutes. If you have an Oyster Card, the tube costs from £2.10 for a single journey capped from £7 per day;  buses costs are £1.40 a journey, capped at £4.40 per day.  It took us a while to get the bikes for the first time, just yank really hard after the green light.

Getting around

I've driven in London and know the roads are a dog-eat-dog kind of place so I tried to take us on quiet routes. If you visit the OpenCycleMap layer of OpenStreetMap you'll think you've hit the jackpot.

Central London has loads of quieter cycle routes. The local cycle routes are marked with a darker blue on OpenCycleMap.  But, just like Cambridge they are hard to follow and can be indirect meandering with many left and right turns.  I was armed with a Garmin GPS and a phone with OpenCycleMap and I was struggling. I'm not quite sure what the typical Boris bike user does.  

I also noticed some aspects of filtered permeability, i.e. no though routes for motor vehicles but bicycles and walkers can get through.  It works really well for short local journeys, keeping us well away from fast traffic. 

If I had one tip for London.  Get these local cycle networks really well signed. If you want to splash paint about, this could actually help.

Longer distance

Even following local cycle routes we found ourselves following major roads and crossing them.  I'm used to riding in Cambridge traffic but found the London drivers way more assertive. This is ok when driving, it seems to work, but on a bicycle I found myself unable to merge with traffic as easily as normal.  Part of the problem is that I was riding a slow upright bike. Merge into traffic with such as speed difference is like a leap of faith.  We quickly found ourselves making right turns not by crossing multiple lanes of traffic, but dismounting on the left and using pedestrian crossings. Safe but slow. It felt like a poor man's Dutch junction.  No wonder most commuters are males on fast bikes.

Thankfully I didn't have to cycle the CS2, but did see it from a bus on a Sunday.  I've seen it described as just paint and giving a false sense of security.  From the top-deck I could see there were so many parked cars in the bus and cycle lanes on a Sunday and that any rider would find themselves merging into traffic constantly causing conflict. 

We also passed a yellow Police sign asking for witnesses to a cyclist fatality I read about on the web, and realised we were not too far from Bow roundabout where there has been a three fatalities now. Pictures of CS2 can be viewed at Cyclists in the City.

The nearest you'll get to London's cycling environment in Cambridge are the dual carriageway sections of the ring road and Elizabeth Way, the bus lanes on Newmarket Road, and Queens Road for all its parked cars. Often in Cambridge there is a cycle path somewhere nearby. Traffic in Cambridge is far more easily controlled and rarely comes as close - when riding fast at least.

That day I found myself having to move out around parked cars to merge with fast approaching coaches on Grays Inn Road. I also watched a taxi drive very close behind my partner off the lights after we waited in an advanced stop box.

The worst mistake I made was at a traffic lit T junction near Limehouse (pictured below). The lights went amber as I crossed the line and I continued. Before I'd even made it to the first traffic lane I heard engines roar. There could have only been a precious second or two between light phases for vehicles to clear the junction - designed for vehicles at 30mph. Time limited for traffic flow over safety.

Conclusion

Would I cycle in London again?  On the local cycle routes, yes without a doubt.  Would I as a commuter?  I wouldn't want to on the more main routes, but faced with packed public transport, and as an experienced, committed and fast cyclist I would reluctantly learn how to survive. It's not for normal people.

London's Cycling Fatalities by Hour of Day

Fifth cyclist killed in nine days. HGVs and buses are disproportionately represented in cyclist fatality statistics and 2013 is particularly shocking with so many killed in a short space of time. The number of cyclists on London's roads is increasing, as are the resulting death and injuries.

One of the themes being discussed amongst cyclists ask if there is something immediate that can be done until better separated infrastructure can be built. Should HGV's (Tipper Trucks in particular) be banned from the rush hour when the most cyclists are commuting?

One site I read (memory fails me) suggested that London's night-time lorry ban caused HGV's to come onto the road just at the same time that cyclists are commuting. London does indeed have a Lorry Control that bans HGVs of 18 tonnes or more between 9pm-7am Monday to Friday, and from 1pm Saturday right through to 7am Monday. In 2011 Paris has had zero cyclist fatalities and people are now looking to emulate their HGV ban.

I have a copy of the government's STATS19 collision database and have the ability to query the data for myself. I decided to see if the data supports an immediate ban of lorries during rush hour.

A few things you should be aware of:

The graphs I show below are for fatalities only.

I initially pulled data for the Inner London boroughs where most of the cycling deaths that have hit the news have occurred. The numbers were too small for any reliable patterns to appear so I have expanded to greater London. The data below is for the 33 London boroughs shown on their map.

Again to get a acceptable amount of numbers I have used the years 2005-2012.

To see the raw numbers I have been working with. See my Google Docs spreadsheet.

Fatalities per hour of day

The first graph I have created summarises the fatalities by:

• hour of day along the X axis. 8 means 8am-8:59am.
• shows the quantity of each vehicle type stacked on top of each other (not all reaching up from a zero base) that were involved in fatal cyclist collisions.

At the bottom, dark blue shows the number of fatality collisions involving cars and taxis.

The orange colour shows HGV's greater than 7.5 tonnes. From 8-8:59am, there were twelve HGVs involved in cyclist fatalities.

Green are buses involved in fatal cyclist collisions.

We can see a pattern emerging - the morning particularly between 8 and 9am is bad.

Adjusted for number of vehicles

Ideally we would cross reference this data with the amount of cyclists and other vehicles on the road during each hour.  I haven't yet found a source for that data.  However, I have found:

TfL: Average daily traffic flows on major roads in London by vehicle type.
I used data from 2010, see table 2.

Vehicle Type	1000s	Percent
Pedal cycles	0.46	1.54%
Car and Taxi	23.7	79.24%
LGV <7.5t	3.55	11.87%
HGV >7.5t	1.34	4.48%
Bus and Coach	0.66	2.21%
Motorcycle	0.66	2.21%

The numbers tell us that 79.24% of the traffic on London's major roads are Cars & Taxis, with HGVs just 4.5%, and buses 2.2%.

To get a sense of how much danger each vehicle type is bringing to the roads, I have divided the number of fatalities by number of thousands of vehicles. For example, the 12 HGV's 8-8:59am divided by 1.34 equals 8.96 fatalities (over 8 years) per 1000 HGVs per day.

The effect of looking at fatality rate per vehicle type is that cars and taxis because there are so many almost disappear from the graphs.  

What immediately pops out is the amount of danger brought by HGVs 8-8:59am, and also a disproportionate amount of danger throughout the morning.

Bus danger also pops out, but not so consistently.  There may be some interaction with the number of cyclists on the roads at these times. It requires further investigation before any conclusions can be made.

Motorcycles are also bringing some danger during the morning and evening rush hours.

But overall, London does have a measurable problem with HGVs causing cyclist fatalities. Separating them by hour of the day could reduce fatalities and serious injury significantly.

Are unlit Oxford cyclists putting themselves at risk?

Oxford has just had a crackdown on unlit cyclists in the name of safety. It's good advice to use lights to maximise your chances of being seen but policy makers thinking unlit cyclists are putting themselves at much greater risk should think again.

The following numbers are the casualties in the years 2005-2012 from the government's STATS19 database.

For each casualty type, the table below shows a count of the number of casualties during daylight, and in darkness.

casualty_type	light	dark	total
Car occupant	976	456	1432
Pedestrian	421	140	561
Cyclist	953	272	1225

The numbers below show for each casualty type, the split of their accidents between light and dark. As a proportion, cyclists are safer than the other travellers in Oxford. Significantly safer than motor vehicle occupants at night. The same effect is seen in Cambridge.

casualty_type	% light	% dark
Car occupant	68.2%	31.8%
Pedestrian	75.0%	25.0%
Cyclist	77.8%	22.2%

Why cyclists are proportionately safer at night is a mystery.  Could it be that Oxford cyclists travel less at night compared to other road users?  This doesn't appear to be the case in Cambridge. A theory I have for Cambridge is that unlit cyclist realise their increased vulnerability and move away from roads to cycling on pavements, away from motor vehicles. It's an effect known as risk-compensation, also seen when using safety gear.

Operation Pedalo 2

Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner Graham Bright made an appearance on the Andie Harper show on BBC Radio Cambridge on 1st November 2013.

The entire 3 hour show is available for the next few days (ends 8th Nov?), here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01jq7vh

The introduction (starts 37m00s) is from a window cleaner who has been hit for the second time by a cyclist. He describes the cyclist getting up and leaving the scene. He also explains that there was CCTV nearby, he reported it to the Police but they were not interested.

At 38m05s the introduction to Graham Bright begins.

Andie: How do you define anti-social cycling? What did you crack down on originally? 

GB: We cracked down on people being reckless, and in particular people riding in the dark without lights. [states Operation Pedalo 2 will start next week]
We are going to have mostly the Specials out, looking for people riding without lights, putting their own lives in risk, and obviously giving motorists a nightmare, but also those that ride on the pavement; those that jump red lights; those that ride through the pedestrian shopping area; those that just don't care, and that's what anti-social cycling's about.  

And of course, now we've got a new issue. Now that we've got a 20mph limit in the city, it's more than possible, infact I've seen it myself, by driving at 20 you get cyclists overtaking you. We've just got to get the cyclists to understand they have to obey the law like everyone else does. Cyclists texting on their phones when they're riding is not good news and its absolutely dangerous and if a car driver does that and I've asked my level best for the Police to start pulling that in and they are, pulling in drivers who are texting. It's all anti-social behaviour. 

[discussion of Police manpower. About to have a concentrated effort, a 'blitz']. 

It's not just cyclists, its cars aswell.

My first concern is that our PCC appears to be on a personal crusade by ignoring evidence of danger compared to use of lights. It is illegal to ride without lights, but he is misguided and playing politics to use the word reckless to describe unlit cyclists. It is simply not true, infact the opposite is true, Cambridge cyclists are safer at night, despite so many being unlit.

Secondly he mentions those who ride on the pavement. We've already had a Police Sargent report that the signage is a mess. It is very hard for Cambridge cyclists to stay 100% legal whilst following shared use paths in Cambridge.  If the priority is that woolly, too many innocent people will be caught and fined.

It is unbelievable that Graham Bright has started to think about targeting cyclists who cycle at more than 20mph when we have had so much inaction on 20mph for motor vehicles. For anyone who walks around the city it is very clear where priorities should be on 20mph. What we have here is a throw away comment to try to garner some support. Realistically it would be a waste of Police resources because: few Cambridge cyclists can cycle over 20mph for more than a few seconds; and there is no general speeding law that applies to cyclists. The Police would have to ticket for an alternative offence that would require some evidence.

Again, to ticket cyclists who are texting or using their phone, because it is not illegal, officers will have to gather supporting evidence.

Outside broadcast from Peterborough.

A later set of clips from Peterborough shine a light on the thoughts of the general public, how they view cyclists, and are likely to be how they get complained about to our PCC.

1h37m42s Outside broadcast from Peterborough begins, voiced by Jonny D.

JD: I'm at Bridge Street, Peterborough, a hotbed of anti-social cycling ... [describes sign indicating no cycling during the day]
See Google StreetView of Bridge Street. 

Gentleman: We've got those cyclists who are responsible and get off their cycle and we've got those I'll describe as Lycra Louts who really do cause the problem, so I think something needs to be done. 

First up, Lycra Louts is a term the public use to cast cyclists as an out-group.  I know many road cyclists who dress in lycra, it is rare for someone who enjoys racing their bike to attempt to do this in a shopping centre. More truthfully, the people observed on bicycles near shopping areas are everyday people in normal clothes. As proved by the next line:

JD: I've seen 4 in the last 5 minutes go past and I admit to you, not very fast. Look there's another one behind me now. He's on a mountain bike not going very fast, I'd say he's in control of his bike, he shouldn't be on it should he?.  

Gentleman: No, no, it does cause a danger to everybody in the pedestrian area and at this time of year when we're getting a high incidence of pedestrians both adult and during the school holidays they are a danger. 

Jonnie D has just described a cyclist going slowly and in control, yet he is still described as a danger. When Graham Bright talks of reckless cyclists, this is the sort of rider who will be caught by the Police. Technically they are breaking the law, but doing any harm? Well, it is not said how busy it is but nobody in the clip is alarmed by the cyclist's behaviour. Risk appears to be low. But on the ground, Police would have to ticket this cyclist and we have seen that happen. We should not forget that cyclists are used to sharing pavements with pedestrians on shared-use paths, often footways made into shared-use by a TRO and putting up signs even if not very appropriate.

JD: Does it mystify you that laws are made, regulations are made but there's nobody to police them? 

Gentleman: I think it's a matter of priorities. The Police have different priorities, but I think it's nuisance value to the general public. 

Spot on. If prioritising, this is low level in Peterborough.

JD: Do you know anyone who's been injured along Bridge Street?
Gentleman: To the best of my knowledge, no, but I would say its only a matter of time before it does happen.

Confirmation that there have been no injuries witnessed by the Gentleman. I'd question why we've gone from nuisance value to injuries being only a matter of time. It's a mixed message.

A second selection of clips from Peterborough includes:

1h51m10s [discussion of no-cycling sign] 

JD: Do you see a lot of cyclists along here? 

Female 1: Yes 

JD: So they are ignoring it, aren't they? 

Female 1: They are very annoying. And its dangerous when you've got young children. 

JD: Have you had any near misses, close shaves? 

Female 1: Not personally, no, not yet anyway. 

JD: Seen any? 

Female 1: I have actually. 

JD: You've seen anyone knocked over? 

Female 1: Not yet. 

JD: Only a matter of time. 

Female 1: Yeah.

Again, confirmation of no injuries witnessed. This time, the lady has witnessed a near miss. Unfortunately we learn nothing about the circumstances that lead up to this or the type of person or their age. Without that, the out-group of cyclists will be blamed.

1h51m48s
Female 2: No bikes between 9 and 6. 

JD: What are we now, about 10 o'clock. 

Female 2: Everyone's cycling. 

JD: Everyone's cycling. 

Female 2: And they knock us down, and do everything. 

JD: Have you been knocked down. 

Female 2: Not really, but nearly. Because I can't hear properly and they don't have a bell on their bicycle. 

Male: They come flying out. 

JD: They come flying out, do they? 

Male: They come flying out of here. Then they come flying out of Rivergate.

There are some genuine concerns here from vulnerable and timid pavement users.  I doubt that the complaint applies just to the shopping area. These are a class of user who suffer when cyclists are shifted inappropriately from road to shared-use on many routes, typically where there is little room to pass each other.

Thankfully, they knock us down is interrogated further and we discover it is not true. Unchallenged anecdotal stories are very common in the press and spread prejudice.

Their description of flying [fast] cyclists, if true, does sound like anti-social cycling without due consideration to others. Worthy of a ticket.

JD: So I've got a gentleman who's actually riding a bicycle along Bridge Street. So I've stopped you here.  Did you realise what you were doing?  Because you're breaking the law technically. 

Male Cyclist: I rode the bike up to here. You can ride the bike up to the other bit there, to the Square I think, then I came here, and I just realised there was no cyclepath with all these people and I looked around and though yeah I'm doing wrong.
[short exchange about hearing BBC Radio Cambs were on location here]  

Male Cyclist: I was just daydreaming basically.
[discussion of £30 fine he would receive] 

JD: You've got an argument, you weren't going at a fair speed. 

Male Cyclist: No, I was going slow, in-fact when I was up there I saw somebody with children and they was running around, and I was barely staying on my bike because I was going that slow. I was going round them.  

JD: You could argue the case, it's a big wide area, 50ft across. 

Male Cyclist: As I said I was just daydreaming ...

This is a description of a normal person on a bike who is not doing anybody any harm, quite the opposite. He drifted from shared-use into a pedestrian area. This is very easy to do but doesn't change how carefully someone looks out for others.  If he received a ticket, he would not be able to challenge it.


I support ticketing anyone who endangers others, but when it comes to Policing cycling on pavements, it requires discretion. Ticketing pavement cycling by technicality is not a route to happy safe communities.

One of my concerns is how motoring offences are rolled into general every day policing, but cycling issues are dealt with by means of very public crackdowns. It's a political football that gives the impression of cycling being far more harmful than can actually be observed or proved. When you get on a bicycle and others see you as a scofflaw - even if you are not - it breeds contempt, a justification for treating you badly on the roads. We saw this with the slowly dying [mythical] Road Tax argument.

And for the window cleaner who was hit by a cyclist who then left the scene, it doesn't matter to me if it was on a pavement, shared-use or on the road, if you hit an easy to see stationary object you were careless, possibly dangerous. It's worth noting that the complaint about not being able to identify the cyclist is also true of pedestrians who injure, and also of vehicles - the plates are difficult to read at speed, try it.  I have sympathy with his attempts to get the Police to investigate, they do that with all but the most serious of cycling incidents too.

Perne Road Roundabout proposal

Cambridgeshire County Council are consulting on safety improvements at Perne Road / Radegund Road roundabout in Cambridge.

The proposals can be viewed here.

Perne Road is also the A1134 Ring Road. All of the Ring Road roundabouts are statistically bad for cyclists' safety and the council want to fix this. That is not in dispute.

The proposals involve moving cyclists onto shared use paths which cross the arms of the four junctions of the roundabout where they would have to give way crossing the arms of the roundabouts.

Just off the plans, the busier north and south arms of Perne Road already have pedestrian signalled crossings about 40 metres away from the centre of the roundabout. The online proposals do not mention upgrading these to Toucan so people on bikes can legally use them.

Cyclists would have to choose using the shared use pavement for safety, or remaining on the road. Shared use is popular with cyclists when uninterrupted, but disliked for the amount of give-ways and hold ups they introduce. Vulnerable pedestrians do not like to share pavements with cyclists, and is a source of constant complaining.

The Dutch have solved many of the issues of two-tier provision, with a three tier provision in busier locations,  clearly separating pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.

One of the arguments against three-tier provision in the UK and Cambridge is that it requires a lot of space, but that is not the case at this roundabout. Below I make a crude comparison of size with a roundabout from Groningen in Holland.

The following pictures are taken from Google Maps at similar zoom levels, rotated for easy comparison.

Google StreetView links:
Perne Road / Radegund Road, Cambridge.
Bakboordswal / Loefzijde, Groningen.

Perne / Radegund Roads, Cambridge

Bakboordswal, Groningen, Holland

Both images combined. Similar sized roundabouts.

I will hold my hands up and say, I do not know if the Dutch roundabout works in practice. I believe the Groningen roundabout is is what cycling campaigners want. It is a subtle change from shared use but has very clear separation. A big question is will the road markings across junction arms work in a UK context on a Ring Road? See the view of a roundabout exit (note driving on right)

My reading of Dutch design is that filtering of traffic is a big part of what they do and cannot be captured from Google Maps.  My gut feeling is that the Dutch route has far less traffic than the Cambridge Ring Road.

The two-tier proposed solution is commonly used in Cambridge and can be safer if you are prepared to stop at side roads and look very carefully but its inconvenient. I find myself unable to use safe facilities for cross city journeys - it just takes too long - and as a result I find myself switching to car or motorbike when I am not in the mood or don't have the legs for fast highly assertive riding required to keep me safe on direct routes.

I'd label shared-use with Safety through Inconvenience. If we could fit in a working Dutch roundabout we could have safety AND convenience. Solutions like this make more journeys viable by bike.

If Cambridge really wants to improve cyclist safety and traffic growth, it needs to be braver with its junction design.



Responses to the Perne Road roundabout proposals have also been made by Cambridge Cyclist and RadWagon.

Pavement Cycling fines in Cambridge

A local newspaper has published some data from Cambridgeshire Constabulary on tickets issued to cyclists found to be Cycling on a Footway.

I have made a Freedom of Information request to get the data, but until then the only source I can find is via the newspaper.

Issuing tickets to cyclists by crackdowns and local Police priorities is common in Cambridge.  Some of those tickets will be justified but others will not.  I have previously argued that simply ticketing cyclists in Cambridge for being on the footway is not a sound strategy. Councillors should be looking to understand the root cause of footway cycling and its level of harm in a particular location.

To learn something, I have combined three datasets for a very rough correlation.

• Cycling on Footway tickets. Three years.
• Amount of collisions pedestrians and cyclists are involved in. Note, the majority of these will be cars colliding with pedestrians or cyclists. Three years, STATS19 data.
• Speeding tickets, mostly from automated cameras. Unspecified amount of years in the FOI.

Footway cycling tickets vs no. of collisions affecting pedestrians or cyclists vs speeding FPNs issued.

Road & Desc	Tickets	Collisions (ped or cycle)	Speeding FPNs
Arbury Road	29	12
Mill Rd	24	68
Milton Rd/Arbury Rd junction	9	(repeat data?)
Milton Rd	7	47	1757
Huntingdon Rd	6	33 est	350
Sidney Street, Petty Cury, Histon Road	4	Histon Rd=19	Histon Rd=583
Magdalene Street, Round Church Street, Silver Street, Jesus Lane, Burleigh Street	4
East Road, Mount Pleasant, St Andrew’s Street, Trinity Street, Union Lane	2	16 est
Panton Street, Parkside, Regent Street, Warkworth Terrace, Northampton Road	1

Comments

• Arbury Road - hostile rat run, riding feels like you are on a motor racing track. Start/stop shared use paths.
• Mill Rd - congested busy, hostile road, particularly at rail bridge where cyclists are slowly ascending. Aggressive taxis.
• Milton Rd/Arbury Rd junction - shared-use paths join here. Unclear signage led to cyclists being unfairly ticketed. Busy A road, artery into the city. Very common for follow through Red light jumping cars. Cyclists sharing pedestrian phase
• Milton Rd - Mostly shared use with a few gaps where timid cyclists will have to move onto arterial roads.
• Huntingdon Rd - Major artery, speeding traffic. Pinch point traffic islands. Popular quiet cycling routes cross this road via staggered routes. Tempting to cycle to nearby pedestrian crossings help get across safely, eg near Storeys Way. Illegal to cycle to?
• Sidney Street - part of the awkward city centre one-way system.
• Petty Cury - no excuse, clearly a pedestrian shopping zone.
• Histon Road - frightening bus corridor with dangerous 1.0m cycle lanes.
• Magdalene Street - scenes of conflict all round. Student rush often brings cyclists ignoring direction priority but also taxis and buses driving aggressively at cyclists.
• Round Church Street - part of the awkward one-way system but also part of the bus routes.
• Burleigh Street - part time cycling restrictions.
• East Road - Can be hell for cycling. Its an inner ring road threaded though a shopping area, past Anglia Ruskin University, with some of it dual carriageway.
• Other locations are unremarkable. Tickets here a low in number.

Cycling related Police priorities at the Cambridge North Area Committee.

Richard Taylor filmed the North Area Committee Meeting on October 3rd 2013.  I have attempted to summarise and partly transcribe the sections relevant to cycling.  

The Neighbour Policing is lead by Sgt Wragg and refers to a document made available prior to the meeting:

Police Neighbourhood profile update - Cambridge North Area

Section 5. Recommedations:

• Prevention and enforcement work to reduce cycle theft.
• Combat dangerous / no lights cycling as autumn / winter approaches.
• Tackle drug dealing on the North area.

0h29m34s Police report starts, interrupted.

0h30m33s: Member of audience explains she is sight and hearing impaired tells councillors of her concerns getting navigating around the city. Starting with new on-street bicycle parking, then street clutter, including an anecdote of a specific thin path near a cafe where her problems also included pedestrians overtaking from behind and tripping over her cane due to restricted pavements, and two cycles coming towards her and her 90yr old mother.  She refers to Catholic Church and Regent Street, areas. She ends reiterating her concern is pavements littered with obstacles and street cafes.

[note: Catholic Church and Regent Street are outside of the North Area neighbourhood]

0h36m51 After other councillors respond, Cllr/chair(?)  adding to responses to audience member: This committee has, in the past, set Anti-Social cycling as a priority for the reasons you've outlined. I don't think cyclists realise how scary it can be for various groups of people to have someone on the pavement with them.

0h37m31s Sgt Wragg restarts the Police Priority section.  Starting with statistics showing cycle theft has reduced from 177 last year to 115. Two cycle thieves have been locked up.

0hr44m25s Sgt Wragg talks of working with Cllr Manning on improving conflict/complaint areas involving combinations of pedestrians/cyclists/drivers, improving junctions to make them safer for all road users. Specific example, Milton/Gilbert Roads. 

0h58m45s Film maker Richard Taylor reminds cllrs of anti-social cycling priority one year ago, causing him to report unclear and missing signs and road markings where not even Police could tell what was legal. Much nodding from Sgt Wragg. Also says he would rather see priorities based upon cost or injury, something about burglary.

1h00m06s Cllr/Chair? Comments/asks if Burglary is a still city wide priority.

1hr00m50s. Sgt Wragg: ... we remain very even handed, we've got a fair degree of discretion ... to achieve greater safety on the paths and the roads.

1hr01m35s Where he uses the phrase "walking round the corner into on-rushing cycles" I think he's saying they won't ticket in areas of confusing signage.

1h02m00s Sgt Wragg The priority of anti-social cycling was pretty much city wide at the time [1 year ago]. We had to send a strong message, we've now moved back away from that, if we have to ticket again to achieve our goal we will, we try to police in a proportionate way.

1h02m50s Female Cllr (O'Reilly?) Proportionate and reasonable to focus on cyclists without lights.

1h04m20s Sgt Wragg shares an anecdote of cyclist observed circumventing a red light, by switching from road to pavement [pedestrian crossing] forcing a pedestrian out of the way then back onto the road. "Very brazen, right in front of a Police vehicle, danger to a pedestrian, he did everything wrong. That's the sort of person who could expect to get a ticket".

1h04m57s Sgt Wragg: Cycling with no lights is a massive, massive problem this time of year and a lot of people who get hit by cyclists don't report it ... I'm aware colloquially that it does happen ... And the majority of them will be getting away with just a warning.

1h06m00s Male Cllr tells anecdote: "I stopped at a red light at the Milton/Gilbert Road junction as someone on a bicycle went straight past me, dodged the cars [going around gesture], onto the pavement presumably because she thought it safer, blatant disregard, a very clear sign red light, [others laugh] that you shouldn't be on it. I cycle backwards and forward to work everyday and I see it a lot. I gave up the car a year ago. I see a lot of bad and dangerous cycling".

1h09m52. Cllr Ward adds agreement with [3 other councillors]. Something about time of year, "educating incoming cyclists without lights and about skipping through a red light on the pavement at the same time and I think that's a reasonable and proportionate thing to do".

1h10m18s. Sgt Wragg responds: And just to add to that, we do pick up stolen bikes while we are stopping people with no lights, and sometimes drug dealers too ... its a very good way of practically policing. If you give us an excuse to stop you, expect scrutiny.

1h14m45s. Cllr Manning: "I'm not very comfortable with the 2nd one, dangerous seems a very nebulous word, hard to define. No lights is very easy to define. Why are we concentrating (coming back to Mr Taylors point) on dangerous cycling and not dangerous car driving ... The hard a dangerous driver can do is far greater than the harm a cyclist can do, that's not to say cyclists don't do harm ... if doing things proportionately ... I'm uncomfortable with the mashing up of dangerous and no-lights.

1h15m55s. A lot of the time the dedicated fascilities are not there for the cyclists, there's a shared use path or cycle path on the road but that is not a dedicated fascility for cycling ... and we've got to take that into account and if we're going to set something, lets set something we can clearly define. I do not understand why we are setting and priority of dangerous cycling and not setting a priority of dangerous driving".

1h18m52s Cllr Gerri Bird:  "And the recommendations, combat dangerous cyclists yes please, they are some of them are so ignorant they don't care who's on the pavement, they knock people over, ok sometimes cars are involved. I don't ride a bike [films shows her sitting in a wheelchair], I'd like to have a go you know just see what its like, probably fall off. But cyclists need to understand pedestrians are on them pavements, to get off their bikes and walk their bikes would be fantastic.

1h19m24s My other big problem is Parkers Piece when we have the events and we've still got cyclists on pavements with children running about, I can't understand why cyclists are allowed to use them areas when events are on. And it would be nice to see more police around there then.

[note: Parkers Piece is outside of the North Area neighbourhood]

1h19m44s Cllr Fiona Onasanya: on combatting dangerous cycling, I think its important to note that [Sgt] Jason [Wragg] said it will be reasonable, proportionate and evidence based. If those factors are taken into account I don't have major concerns with it, however I do understand that it can be a bit concerning if you just say dangerous, its quite vast and its not very specific, but if you consider it in light of the three things then I think that its actually very reasonable.

1h24m24s. Cllr Manning proposes changes two suggestion to changes to dangerous priority. 1) Changing to combat dangerous for all modes of transport. Or 2) Striking the word dangerous from combatting dangerous cycling.

1h25m44s Sgt Wragg: ... perhaps dangerous is the wrong word, a dangerous word, but the anti-social cycling, the going through red lights, lets face it I say colloquially we've all seen it all the time. I seldom see a car going through a red light ... 

[interruped]

Cllr? I beg to differ on red lights, the Cambridge rule 'the first one doesn't count' applies at some junctions.

[Sgt continues]

...spoken eloquently about, cycling on paths the issues that causes, students returning, we can hopefully make a difference for residents. But, dangerous is probably the wrong word to be using.

1h26m37s. Chair Introduces voting. Interrupted to take a point from Cllr Sales sitting in the audience (to avoid being filmed).

1h26m43s Mr Bond from audience. I would like to point out that dangerous applies to the cyclist themselves. I've had one off, I've very nearly had another off. [positive nodding from Cllr/Chair verbally says he agrees].

1h27m17 Voting for inclusion of the word dangerous. 14 for, 1 against (Cllr Manning). 

Please attend Cycle Safe debate. Response from Andrew Lansley MP.

On the 22nd August I wrote as a constituent to Andrew Lansley MP for South Cambridgeshire asking him to attend the Cycle Safe debate. I received a reply on the 2nd September.

Dear [my name] 

Thank you for contacting me about the 'Get Britain Cycling' debate, taking place on 2 September 2013. 

Unfortunately, due to other pressing commitments in my diary, I will not be available to attend this debate. However, I fully agree that we need to get more people cycling.

I can also assure you that the Government is already doing a great deal to help increase safety for cyclists in the UK. For instance, in the last 12 months Ministers have allocated £107m of new money to support safety and community links that encourage more cycling. This is over and above the £600m Local Sustainable Transport Fund where 94 out of the 96 projects contain a cycling element.

There has also been the introduction of measures to make cycling safer, including flexibility for Local Authorities to introduce 20mph speed limits in residential areas and a process for applications for further rural 40mph zones. It has also been made easier to install Trixi mirrors to improve the visibility of cyclists at junctions.

This has been part of a cross-departmental effort by the Department for Transport to promote cycling, in particular with Defra and the Department of Health. For example Transport and Health Ministers shared a platform at the Leicester Active Travel Conference in November to promote better working between public health and transport planners. There are now plans to take this further by establishing a project team involving more departments and stakeholders.

Finally, you will be pleased to know that the Government is working on making the UK's towns and cities more cycle friendly. In January it announced The Cycle City Ambition Grants and has invited cities outside London to bid for a share of a £42m grant. The guidance requires cities to demonstrate local leadership and set out a 10 year ambition for more cycling.

Successful bids will receive a cycling budget equivalent to £10 per head, which is the level of support the 'Get Britain Cycling' report recommends. The £42m grant will also benefit National Parks who have also been asked to develop schemes to improve cycling facilities to help support the message that cycling is normal and fun. Successful bids should be announced later in the summer.

I do hope that this information helps, and thank you again for contacting me about this issue.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew Lansley

On hearing I had written to Andrew Lansley, a Twitter user responded with:

I wrote to James Paice (SE Cambs) but he will be unable to attend due to "prior commitments". Copied-in govt spiel.

Cambridge City is a Lib Dem area, surrounded by the two constituencies, South Cambs and South East Cambs. Both Andrew Lansley and James Paice use the same office in Hardwick as their point of contact. Both have "prior commitments" and copied in government spiel.

The areas surrounding Cambridge City have high cycling rates compared to the rest of the country. They may be able to offer some valuable knowledge and experience to the Cycle Safe debate.