Friday 16 August 2013

Objections to new "No Entry" restrictions

I've just sent off objections to three proposed Traffic Regulation orders:

1) Park Road

"I object to the proposed order in so far as pedal cycles are excluded from lawful passage from Park Road to Quinton Road.

I have no objection to pedal cycles being excluded from lawful passage from Quinton Road to Park Road. Whilst legalising such a manoeuvre would be a useful improvement to the cycle route from Parkside to Park Road, the council would probably consider the turn too hazardous without alterations to the road layout. 

The ground for this objection is that Park Road provides a direct route for cyclists from the railway station to the Gulson Road area of the city. Experience from London and other cities shows that even where a cycle route does not have a high level of perceived safety (e.g. the ring road) it will generate cycle traffic if it is convenient. Using the ring road to cycle from ring road junction 5 to Gulson Road is far more convenient than a route past the Council House. Coventry Council does has a policy of encouraging cycle use to both relieve traffic congestion and improve public health.

Allowing lawful passage for cyclists from Park Road to Quinton Road would need no civil engineering measures, merely the addition of a word to the sign indicating that taxis are exempt from the entry prohibition. Without the exemption some cyclists may be tempted to cross the footway, creating a hazard for pedestrians."

2)  Lammas Road

"I object to the proposed order in so far as pedal cycles would be excluded from lawful passage from Holyhead Road to Lammas Road. 

I have no objection to motorists being prevented from using Lammas Road as a "rat run" to avoid the traffic lights at the Moseley Ave. / Holyhead Road junction. Cars are noisy, polluting and are usually driven at an inappropriately fast speed on "rat runs", posing a hazard to other road users. Pedal cycles, in contrast, make no noise and move relatively slowly. Use of the road legally by cyclists would be a way of promoting cycling as a means of transport to drivers waiting in the Holyhead Road traffic queue. Coventry Council has a policy of encouraging cycle use to both relieve traffic congestion and improve public health.

Allowing lawful passage for cyclists from Holyhead Road into Lammas Road would need no civil engineering measures, merely the addition of a sign below that showing "No Entry" indicating that pedal cycles are exempt from the entry prohibition. Without the exemption some cyclists may be tempted to ignore the prohibition which would reduce the standing of cycling in the public mind which would in turn create difficulties for the council when it wishes to improve conditions for cycling by means of measures which mildly inconvenience other road users.
"

3) Little Park Street and various Roads

"I object to the proposed order in so far as it applies to pedal cycles. 

The proposal will lead to increased cycling on the footways of those roads included in the order. This will be a hazard to pedestrians. We already see much cycling on the Hales Street footway as a result of it becoming one-way.

Little Park Street, Much Park Street, Earl Street and St. Johns Street form a shape which is approximately a square. There will be little incentive to cycle against the main flow of vehicular traffic for those people wishing to travel between diagonally opposite corners of the square . But the following movements will be much shorter if the cyclist travels contrary to the main flow of traffic, on carriageway or footway:
  1. Gosford Street (and thus the whole Coventry University area) to Broadgate.
  2. Broadgate to New Union Street (and thus to the Friargate area and the railway station)
  3. New Union Street to the Much Park Street / Short Street subway (and thus to Coventry University's Technocentre)
  4. Much Park Street / Short Street subway to the Herbert Art Galley (and further to the Cathedral and Priory Street)"

Friday 2 August 2013

Exempting cyclists from "No-Entry" restrictions


If we are to achieve more cycling, to cut congestion and to improve public health, cycling needs to be more convenient as well as less frightening. The high cycling levels in central London show that even with a cyclist hostile road system, plenty of people will cycle if it is significantly more convenient than the other forms of transport. The low level of cycling in places like Stevenage and Milton Keynes show that even when people can cycle free from cars, they won't if it's inconvenient. In the Netherlands, where 27% of journeys are made by bike, cycling is both comfortable and convenient.

Some people seem to think that there's no need to bother with the "except cycles" sign as cyclists will ignore the No Entry sign anyway. Well, despite the propaganda in some sections of the media, not all cyclists disobey traffic signs and the more that cyclists feel that they are accepted as legitimate road users (rather than nuisances getting in the way of the real traffic) the more respect they will give to signage. In the meantime the idea that cyclists are habitual lawbreakers justifies, in some people's minds, the harassment of cyclists by motorists. It also makes it more difficult for the council to get public acceptance of road changes which benefit cyclists but inconvenience other road users.

Recently proposals to erect no entry signs on Lammas Road and Park Road have been published. I'll object to both on the grounds that cyclists should be exempted from the traffic ban. In other words the new signs should have "except cyclists" on them.

Lammas Road proposal


Lammas Road is currently a rat-run for motorists on Holyhead Road wishing to turn left into Moseley Ave. Using Lammas Road avoids the traffic lights. Hence the proposal to put a "No entry" sign at the Holyhead Road end. This is reasonable, rat running is anti-social behaviour. But why include cyclists? No noise and pretty slow, residents wouldn't notice them. What a good advertisement for cycling - cyclists using a shortcut while motorists have to wait in a queue.

Park Road proposal


Currently there's a wall along the side of Quinton Road to stop motor vehicles crossing between Quinton Road and Park Road. The idea is to knock down the wall and move a lamp post to allow taxis from the station (at the other end of Park Road) to access the ring road, via Quinton Road. Clearly if all types of traffic were allowed to exit Park Road, there would be an unacceptable increase in Park Road's traffic. But, as with Lammas Road, what's the problem with cyclists using the exit?

As I live just off the Binley Road, I always use Park Road when cycling home from the station. I often see other cyclists cutting across the pavement between Park Road and Quinton Road. Joining the ring road at junction 5 to reach Gulson Road might be too scary an experience for many would-be cyclists, but it is a lot more convenient than using a route past the police station and council house. Some cyclists use Park Road, cross Quinton Road and Mile Lane and then cycle along Parkside using the subway system to reach Gulson Road.

Money is being spent on improving taxi access between Friargate station and the east of the city, why can't some be spent on improving cycle access?