cycling on Fen River Way

[Gadari Baba]

A friend of mine who will be visiting the area is interested in
doing some cycling. I wanted to suggest a trip from Cambridge
to Ely. I wondered if it's possible to do this just following
the towpath along the river. I know there is a footpath along
the whole length but are there any (physical or legal) impediments
to cycling all the way? Any information appreciated.

GB.

[Mike Causer]

A friend of mine who will be visiting the area is interested in doing some
cycling. I wanted to suggest a trip from Cambridge to Ely. I wondered if
it's possible to do this just following the towpath along the river. I
know there is a footpath along the whole length but are there any
(physical or legal) impediments to cycling all the way? Any information
appreciated.

It's possible and legal. Will probably involve something like 5-15km of
pushing the bike through long grass and nettles though, depending on
whether you choose east or west banks. I've only tried the east bank,
maybe the west bank is in better condition -- but I don't see any reason
for that.

The Sustrans route from Cambridge to Ely is good surfaced [1], although
probably twice the direct distance.


[1] Planned to be.... I'll be trying out the new part from Barway to
Ely soon.


Mike

[Alan Braggins]

Post by Mike Causer

A friend of mine who will be visiting the area is interested in doing some
cycling. I wanted to suggest a trip from Cambridge to Ely. I wondered if
it's possible to do this just following the towpath along the river. I
know there is a footpath along the whole length but are there any
(physical or legal) impediments to cycling all the way? Any information
appreciated.

It's possible and legal. Will probably involve something like 5-15km of
pushing the bike through long grass and nettles though, depending on
whether you choose east or west banks. I've only tried the east bank,
maybe the west bank is in better condition -- but I don't see any reason
for that.

http://www.fenriversway.org.uk/ says
"The Fen Rivers Way is now reported to be fully open. All paths have been
cut recently and there are no reported problems."
But the report is undated.

It appears to be a footpath not a bridleway though.

[Mike Causer]

Post by Alan Braggins
http://www.fenriversway.org.uk/ says
"The Fen Rivers Way is now reported to be fully open. All paths have been
cut recently and there are no reported problems."
But the report is undated.

I've had a look at a section of it this evening (east bank from 518666 to
531687) and it was mown or cropped by animals all the way. The surface
wasn't too rough, but knobbly tyres would be an awful lot better than the
Stelvio Slicks I was on :-( If that section is representative, expect
to lift the bike over one or two stiles per kilometre on average.

At the speed I was managing, and allowing for the stiles and gates, I
expect Clayhithe to Ely would take two and a half hours.

Post by Alan Braggins
It appears to be a footpath not a bridleway though.

Can't comment, but there were bicycle tyre tracks there already.....


Mike

[Vince Bowdren]

Post by Mike Causer

Post by Alan Braggins
It appears to be a footpath not a bridleway though.

Can't comment, but there were bicycle tyre tracks there already.....

True, I did a stretch of it a few weeks ago and there were definitely
signs saying that it was a footpath only. The several stiles were a bit of
a giveaway as well. Unfortunately I had already ridden down it for several
miles before seeing this sign, so just pressed on anyway.

[dot cix dot co dot uk (Richard Meredith)]

*Date:* Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:12:39 +0100

Post by Alan Braggins
http://www.fenriversway.org.uk/ says
"The Fen Rivers Way is now reported to be fully open. All paths have been
cut recently and there are no reported problems."
But the report is undated.

I've had a look at a section of it this evening (east bank from 518666 to
531687) and it was mown or cropped by animals all the way. The surface
wasn't too rough, but knobbly tyres would be an awful lot better than the
Stelvio Slicks I was on :-( If that section is representative, expect
to lift the bike over one or two stiles per kilometre on average.
At the speed I was managing, and allowing for the stiles and gates, I
expect Clayhithe to Ely would take two and a half hours.

Post by Alan Braggins
It appears to be a footpath not a bridleway though.

Can't comment, but there were bicycle tyre tracks there already.....

IME (and I've walked all of it several times) there are stretches where it
can get pretty overgrown and slippery if it's been wet; I wouldn't care to
do it on a bike on some of those stretches when it's like that, it can be
tedious enough on foot.

The main problem is the lack of detours and opportunities for escaping if it
does become practically impassable; for much of its length there are no
parallel roads within a reasonable distance and few river crossings
anywhere, and quite a long stretch with none from Bottisham Lock to
Stretham - and that stretch does seem one of the worst for undergrowth, at
least on the western bank.

IMO it really is strictly a footpath, and it's narrow enough that walkers
won't be impressed by cyclists.

[Alan Braggins]

Post by dot cix dot co dot uk (Richard Meredith)
The main problem is the lack of detours and opportunities for escaping if it
does become practically impassable; for much of its length there are no
parallel roads within a reasonable distance and few river crossings
anywhere, and quite a long stretch with none from Bottisham Lock to
Stretham - and that stretch does seem one of the worst for undergrowth, at
least on the western bank.

Clearly what you want is an amphibious bike: http://www.shuttlebike.com
http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/2505/

A couple of inflatable floats, and a framework that attaches to clamps
on the bike, which folds down to fit in a baackpack (or pannier).
A roller and flexible shaft take power from the rear wheel to a propellor
(and, before you put it in the water, an air pump to inflate the floats,
the framework holding the wheel off the ground like a cycling trainer).
The propellor unit is steered by the front wheel.

(Alternately, I've seen photos of a canoe on a recumbent tandem trike.
Fitting the trike in the canoe might be trickier, even though it does
come apart into a pile of pieces.
http://tricolour.net/photos/2001/2001-11-11/09.html
http://tricolour.net/photos/2002/2002-01-31/36.html )

[Al Grant]

Post by dot cix dot co dot uk (Richard Meredith)
The main problem is the lack of detours and opportunities for escaping if it
does become practically impassable

This can be a problem even on foot. Distances in the fens are
large, paths are exposed and there is not the network of paths
typical of most of the English countryside. Even with permission
from farmers to go cross-country across their land, there's no
guarantee you can physically do so in any sort of direct line;
you may have to detour to look for farmers' bridges across drains
or resort to wading them. There is not much 'off piste'.

Post by dot cix dot co dot uk (Richard Meredith)
; for much of its length there are no
parallel roads within a reasonable distance and few river crossings
anywhere, and quite a long stretch with none from Bottisham Lock to
Stretham

Anyone ever got a lift across on a cruiser? The river pubs
(Fish & Duck or the Five Miles from Anywhere) might be good
places to try.

[Nick Wagg]

Post by dot cix dot co dot uk (Richard Meredith)
IMO it really is strictly a footpath, and it's narrow enough that walkers
won't be impressed by cyclists.

Splash! Bwahahahaha.

[Gadari Baba]

Post by Mike Causer
The Sustrans route from Cambridge to Ely is good surfaced [1], although
probably twice the direct distance.
[1] Planned to be.... I'll be trying out the new part from Barway to
Ely soon.

I had a look at www.sustrans.co.uk. I take it you are referring
to their National Route 11. Their map shows this as complete only
from Cambridge to Waterbeach and "proposed future route" for the
rest of the way to Ely. Do you have more up to date information?
I also note that the stretch up to Waterbeach and the bit from Barway
to Ely actually do follow the river.

GB.

[Mike Causer]

Post by Mike Causer
The Sustrans route from Cambridge to Ely is good surfaced [1], although
probably twice the direct distance.

I had a look at www.sustrans.co.uk. I take it you are referring to their
National Route 11. Their map shows this as complete only from Cambridge
to Waterbeach and "proposed future route" for the rest of the way to Ely.
Do you have more up to date information? I also note that the stretch up
to Waterbeach and the bit from Barway to Ely actually do follow the river.

The route through Waterbeach depends on a bridge over the Cam near Upware,
which is not even agreed yet, let alone built. So, to be able to declare
NCN-11 open in time for the "10 in 10" celebration this week and next,
Sustrans have built a temporary route that follows NCN-51 as far as
Burwell, then goes through Wicken Fen to Barway and along the Fen Rivers
Way from there. As Alan Braggins says, this is marked on the 25,000 map
as a footpath, on which cycling is not permitted.


There are formal definitions, and a description of what needs to be done
to convert a footpath into a cycle track here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_localtrans_028709.hcsp


Mike

[Alan Braggins]

Post by Mike Causer

Post by Mike Causer
The Sustrans route from Cambridge to Ely is good surfaced [1], although
probably twice the direct distance.

I had a look at www.sustrans.co.uk. I take it you are referring to their
National Route 11. Their map shows this as complete only from Cambridge
to Waterbeach and "proposed future route" for the rest of the way to Ely.
Do you have more up to date information? I also note that the stretch up
to Waterbeach and the bit from Barway to Ely actually do follow the river.

The route through Waterbeach depends on a bridge over the Cam near Upware,
which is not even agreed yet, let alone built. So, to be able to declare
NCN-11 open in time for the "10 in 10" celebration this week and next,
Sustrans have built a temporary route that follows NCN-51 as far as
Burwell, then goes through Wicken Fen to Barway and along the Fen Rivers
Way from there. As Alan Braggins says, this is marked on the 25,000 map
as a footpath, on which cycling is not permitted.

Al Grant pointed out that it isn't permitted _without the permission of the
landowner_. Being part of a Sustrans marked route might reasonably lead
a cyclist to assume that such permission had been granted.

Post by Mike Causer
There are formal definitions, and a description of what needs to be done
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_localtrans_028709.hcsp
Mike

[J. Chisholm]

Post by Alan Braggins

Post by Mike Causer

Post by Mike Causer
The Sustrans route from Cambridge to Ely is good surfaced [1], although
probably twice the direct distance.

I had a look at www.sustrans.co.uk. I take it you are referring to their
National Route 11. Their map shows this as complete only from Cambridge
to Waterbeach and "proposed future route" for the rest of the way to Ely.
Do you have more up to date information? I also note that the stretch up
to Waterbeach and the bit from Barway to Ely actually do follow the river.

The route through Waterbeach depends on a bridge over the Cam near Upware,
which is not even agreed yet, let alone built. So, to be able to declare
NCN-11 open in time for the "10 in 10" celebration this week and next,
Sustrans have built a temporary route that follows NCN-51 as far as
Burwell, then goes through Wicken Fen to Barway and along the Fen Rivers
Way from there. As Alan Braggins says, this is marked on the 25,000 map
as a footpath, on which cycling is not permitted.

Al Grant pointed out that it isn't permitted _without the permission of the
landowner_. Being part of a Sustrans marked route might reasonably lead
a cyclist to assume that such permission had been granted.

The fact that it is shown as a FP on the 1:25 000 maps does not meant
cyclists cannot use it.
The fact that 'permissive' paths for walkers and cyclists are shown in
the ledgend? of the map does not mean that any that exist are so marked

This is a issue I raised over 5 years ago

The County Council, which has records of all such permissive paths does
not hand the data to the OS because being 'permissive' the landowners
has the right to withdraw them.

Hence there are numbers of permissive paths for walkers and cyclists but
finding out where they are is difficult.

Jim Chisholm

[Nick Wagg]

the ledgend?...

legend.

[Al Grant]

Post by Alan Braggins
Al Grant pointed out that it isn't permitted _without the permission of the
landowner_. Being part of a Sustrans marked route might reasonably lead
a cyclist to assume that such permission had been granted.

E.g. the path up the west side of the Cam from Cambridge to Clayhithe
is such a permissive cycle path. Such paths are usually marked with
signs, appear on maps, stiles have been replaced by grids etc., and
there may be some protection against erosion from bike tyres.

There is no evidence 'on the ground' that the east side path north of
Cambridge is a permissive cycle path, and (circumstantial) evidence to
suggest it isn't, such as the stiles. So the default assumption from
the OS maps should be that it isn't.

[Al Grant]

Post by Gadari Baba
the towpath along the river. I know there is a footpath along
the whole length but are there any (physical or legal) impediments
to cycling all the way? Any information appreciated.

There are plenty of stiles you would have to lift your
bike over. Also horses grazing at some points. Your
friend would have to be quite an experienced and fit
cyclist, with a good off-road bike. In wet conditions
it would be even more tricky.

As for legal impediments, cycling on a footpath without the landowner's
permission is a civil trespass, not a criminal
offence. Some cyclists think that makes it acceptable.

[Gadari Baba]

Post by Al Grant

Post by Gadari Baba
the towpath along the river. I know there is a footpath along
the whole length but are there any (physical or legal) impediments
to cycling all the way? Any information appreciated.

As for legal impediments, cycling on a footpath without the landowner's
permission is a civil trespass, not a criminal
offence. Some cyclists think that makes it acceptable.

IANAL, and I wouldn't want to turn this into a legal discussion,
but my understanding is that it is civil trespass only if the
landowner has put up a notice forbidding cyciling (which they
are within their rights to do if it is only a footpath and not
a bridleway). So, my question about legal impediments was partly
asking whether people knew of any such notices (or traffic regulation
orders in the case of public land) along the way.

Thanks,
GB.

[Al Grant]

Post by Gadari Baba
IANAL, and I wouldn't want to turn this into a legal discussion,
but my understanding is that it is civil trespass only if the
landowner has put up a notice forbidding cyciling (which they
are within their rights to do if it is only a footpath and not
a bridleway).

I'm 100% sure this has never been the case for horse riding,
and I've never heard of it being the case for cycling. Where
did you get the idea that it is?

Are you thinking of "no intention to dedicate" notices on
permissive routes?

Post by Gadari Baba
So, my question about legal impediments was partly
asking whether people knew of any such notices (or traffic regulation
orders in the case of public land) along the way.

A TRO could stop horse/cycle use on a bridleway (and then if
there was no notice to that effect, you'd have a good defence)
but these aren't bridleways to start with.

[Gadari Baba]

Post by Al Grant

Post by Gadari Baba
it is civil trespass only if the
landowner has put up a notice forbidding cyciling (which they
are within their rights to do if it is only a footpath and not
a bridleway).

I'm 100% sure this has never been the case for horse riding,
and I've never heard of it being the case for cycling. Where
did you get the idea that it is?

To be honest, I'm not sure I can cite a source for the idea.
This was my impression from some dimly remembered conversations
but I have not researched it and I could very well be confused.

Post by Al Grant
Are you thinking of "no intention to dedicate" notices on
permissive routes?

Possibly, but I don't know what these are.

Thanks,
GB.

[David]

Post by Gadari Baba
A friend of mine who will be visiting the area is interested in
doing some cycling. I wanted to suggest a trip from Cambridge
to Ely. I wondered if it's possible to do this just following
the towpath along the river. I know there is a footpath along
the whole length but are there any (physical or legal) impediments
to cycling all the way? Any information appreciated.
GB.

I have cycled the FRW from Midsummer Common, Cambridge to somewhere about 5
miles north of Waterbeach using the west bank. I had to lift my bike over 1
gate. I opted to turn back where I did due to a large herd of cows
(including some bulls) and a rather imposing selection of black clouds (no
wet-weather gear onboard!).

It was a very easy ride. There is track up to Waterbeach and beyond that
there is longish grass. Worth having an off-road bike to handle the terrain
and provide some grip.

I'm quite keen on doing the full Camb to Ely sometime, so do report back....

[meles]

Post by David

Post by Gadari Baba
A friend of mine who will be visiting the area is interested in
doing some cycling. I wanted to suggest a trip from Cambridge
to Ely. I wondered if it's possible to do this just following
the towpath along the river. I know there is a footpath along
the whole length but are there any (physical or legal) impediments
to cycling all the way? Any information appreciated.
GB.

I have cycled the FRW from Midsummer Common, Cambridge to somewhere about 5
miles north of Waterbeach using the west bank. I had to lift my bike over 1
gate. I opted to turn back where I did due to a large herd of cows
(including some bulls) and a rather imposing selection of black clouds (no
wet-weather gear onboard!).
It was a very easy ride. There is track up to Waterbeach and beyond that
there is longish grass. Worth having an off-road bike to handle the terrain
and provide some grip.
I'm quite keen on doing the full Camb to Ely sometime, so do report back....

Last year, in a moment of midsummer madness, I cycled from Ely to
Cambridge on my Brompton, along the A10. All I can say is watch out if
you choose this route, and get a bike with bigger wheels.

[Ben Hutchings]

meles <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>

Post by meles
Last year, in a moment of midsummer madness, I cycled from Ely to
Cambridge on my Brompton, along the A10. All I can say is watch out if
you choose this route, and get a bike with bigger wheels.

I tried that on a normal bike, and quickly decided it wasn't safely
practical. Most of the traffic is going at ~60 mph and the road isn't
wide enough for a vehicle to leave much room when overtaking a bike if
there's traffic on the opposite side - but that doesn't stop them
overtaking anyway. I found myself pulling to the side of the road
repeatedly to get out of the way of a vehicle about to pass me. Not
recommended.

[Gropius Riftwynde]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:09:32 +0100, Ben Hutchings

Post by Ben Hutchings
<snip>

Post by meles
Last year, in a moment of midsummer madness, I cycled from Ely to
Cambridge on my Brompton, along the A10. All I can say is watch out if
you choose this route, and get a bike with bigger wheels.

I tried that on a normal bike, and quickly decided it wasn't safely
practical. Most of the traffic is going at ~60 mph and the road isn't
wide enough for a vehicle to leave much room when overtaking a bike if
there's traffic on the opposite side - but that doesn't stop them
overtaking anyway. I found myself pulling to the side of the road
repeatedly to get out of the way of a vehicle about to pass me. Not
recommended.

Yes. Bikes and modern roads don't mix. I wish cyclists would
understand this. I have nothing against cyclists as such - I have a
cycle - it's just that road conditions have changed considerably over
the last 100 years or so, and cyclists seem to find this offensive.

GR

[Ben Hutchings]

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:09:32 +0100, Ben Hutchings

Post by Ben Hutchings
<snip>

Post by meles
Last year, in a moment of midsummer madness, I cycled from Ely to
Cambridge on my Brompton, along the A10. All I can say is watch out if
you choose this route, and get a bike with bigger wheels.

I tried that on a normal bike, and quickly decided it wasn't safely
practical. Most of the traffic is going at ~60 mph and the road isn't
wide enough for a vehicle to leave much room when overtaking a bike if
there's traffic on the opposite side - but that doesn't stop them
overtaking anyway. I found myself pulling to the side of the road
repeatedly to get out of the way of a vehicle about to pass me. Not
recommended.

Yes. Bikes and modern roads don't mix. I wish cyclists would
understand this. I have nothing against cyclists as such - I have a
cycle - it's just that road conditions have changed considerably over
the last 100 years or so, and cyclists seem to find this offensive.

I do find it offensive that many roads that could be useful cycle
routes are dangerous for cyclists because for no obvious reason
they're not wide enough. Even US roads are better for cyclists in
this respect.

[Meldrew of Meldreth]

Post by Ben Hutchings
I do find it offensive that many roads that could be useful cycle
routes are dangerous for cyclists because for no obvious reason
they're not wide enough.

They aren't wide enough because it's more expensive to build them wider.

Post by Ben Hutchings
Even US roads are better for cyclists in this respect.

Partly because their roads are wider to start off with. But I've heard
tell that many cycle lanes alongside US roads are there because it
releases some funding, not because they ever expect (locally) any
cyclists to use them.

[Andrew Mobbs]

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
Yes. Bikes and modern roads don't mix. I wish cyclists would
understand this. I have nothing against cyclists as such - I have a
cycle - it's just that road conditions have changed considerably over
the last 100 years or so, and cyclists seem to find this offensive.

Bikes and modern roads mix very well; the surfaces are usually very
good, they're well lit near junctions and well signed. Bikes and the
expectations of modern drivers however mix less well.

[A Plagued Lighthouse Keeper]

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:09:32 +0100, Ben Hutchings

Post by Ben Hutchings
<snip>

Post by meles
Last year, in a moment of midsummer madness, I cycled from Ely to
Cambridge on my Brompton, along the A10. All I can say is watch out if
you choose this route, and get a bike with bigger wheels.

I tried that on a normal bike, and quickly decided it wasn't safely
practical. Most of the traffic is going at ~60 mph and the road isn't
wide enough for a vehicle to leave much room when overtaking a bike if
there's traffic on the opposite side - but that doesn't stop them
overtaking anyway. I found myself pulling to the side of the road
repeatedly to get out of the way of a vehicle about to pass me. Not
recommended.

Yes. Bikes and modern roads don't mix. I wish cyclists would
understand this. I have nothing against cyclists as such - I have a
cycle - it's just that road conditions have changed considerably over
the last 100 years or so, and cyclists seem to find this offensive.

Er you show your bias - /cyclist/motorist/

[Gropius Riftwynde]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:23:15 GMT, A Plagued Lighthouse Keeper

Post by A Plagued Lighthouse Keeper

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
Yes. Bikes and modern roads don't mix. I wish cyclists would
understand this. I have nothing against cyclists as such - I have a
cycle - it's just that road conditions have changed considerably over
the last 100 years or so, and cyclists seem to find this offensive.

Er you show your bias - /cyclist/motorist/

Actually I'm a pedestrian nearly all the time. I suppose I spend about
an hour a week in a car.

GR

[g***@pobox.com]

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
Yes. Bikes and modern roads don't mix. I wish cyclists would
understand this. I have nothing against cyclists as such - I have a
cycle - it's just that road conditions have changed considerably over
the last 100 years or so, and cyclists seem to find this offensive.

You tell cyclists to get off the road. And then you have the cheek to
suggest that it's cyclists' fault that they find this offensive. Of
course
it's offensive! It's offensive when it's shouted in plain language out
of the passenger window of a car, but it's much more offensive when
you try to wrap up the same sentiments in mealy-mouthed fake
politeness.

[Gropius Riftwynde]

Post by g***@pobox.com

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
Yes. Bikes and modern roads don't mix. I wish cyclists would
understand this. I have nothing against cyclists as such - I have a
cycle - it's just that road conditions have changed considerably over
the last 100 years or so, and cyclists seem to find this offensive.

You tell cyclists to get off the road. And then you have the cheek to
suggest that it's cyclists' fault that they find this offensive. Of
course
it's offensive! It's offensive when it's shouted in plain language out
of the passenger window of a car, but it's much more offensive when
you try to wrap up the same sentiments in mealy-mouthed fake
politeness.

My viewpoint was simply based on the fact that the modern road system
is necessarily designed for the car, and that motorised traffic being
what it has become, is inimical to cyclists. Now, as a cyclist I could
be offended by the way this bias on the roads has been allowed to
develop over the years to the gross disadvantage of cyclists. Or I
could take the view that this development was inevitable, and that is
some places, such as Cambridge, it is difficult and sometimes
impossible for the two modes of transport to occupy the same space. It
is, and always has been, difficult for pedestrians to share space with
cyclists is some places, hence the restricted cycling areas. I am not
telling cyclists to get off the roads. I am just suggesting that there
is little point in remaining angry about the current situation when
there is little chance of tweaking it any further. It is of course
possible to remove traffic from the centre of town, but that could
have a negative economic effect on the urban economy unless the public
transport system, and people's transport preferences, are changed
radically.

My own personal solution in Cambridge was never to drive in the centre
of town, to avoid cycling in the centre, and to walk as much as
possible. I hardly ever take a bus - they rarely go from where I am to
where I want to go.

GR

[Duncanwood]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 07:46:25 +0100, Gropius Riftwynde

Post by Gropius Riftwynde

Post by g***@pobox.com

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
Yes. Bikes and modern roads don't mix. I wish cyclists would
understand this. I have nothing against cyclists as such - I have a
cycle - it's just that road conditions have changed considerably over
the last 100 years or so, and cyclists seem to find this offensive.

You tell cyclists to get off the road. And then you have the cheek to
suggest that it's cyclists' fault that they find this offensive. Of
course
it's offensive! It's offensive when it's shouted in plain language out
of the passenger window of a car, but it's much more offensive when
you try to wrap up the same sentiments in mealy-mouthed fake
politeness.

My viewpoint was simply based on the fact that the modern road system
is necessarily designed for the car, and that motorised traffic being
what it has become, is inimical to cyclists. Now, as a cyclist I could
be offended by the way this bias on the roads has been allowed to
develop over the years to the gross disadvantage of cyclists. Or I
could take the view that this development was inevitable, and that is
some places, such as Cambridge, it is difficult and sometimes
impossible for the two modes of transport to occupy the same space. It
is, and always has been, difficult for pedestrians to share space with
cyclists is some places, hence the restricted cycling areas. I am not
telling cyclists to get off the roads. I am just suggesting that there
is little point in remaining angry about the current situation when
there is little chance of tweaking it any further. It is of course
possible to remove traffic from the centre of town, but that could
have a negative economic effect on the urban economy unless the public
transport system, and people's transport preferences, are changed
radically.
My own personal solution in Cambridge was never to drive in the centre
of town, to avoid cycling in the centre, and to walk as much as
possible. I hardly ever take a bus - they rarely go from where I am to
where I want to go.
GR

Whilst I can vahuely see an argument that cycling on the A10 is not very
compatible with cars cycling in the town centres easy.

[g***@pobox.com]

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
My viewpoint was simply based on the fact that the modern road system
is necessarily designed for the car, and that motorised traffic being
what it has become, is inimical to cyclists.

It is your viewpoint, widely held though it may be, that is inimical to
cyclists, not the roads themselves, nor the mixing of different types
of
vehicle.

There is plenty of room on the roads for cyclists and motorists to
coexist happily -- but not when people like you believe that cyclists
do
not belong.

[Gropius Riftwynde]

Post by g***@pobox.com

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
My viewpoint was simply based on the fact that the modern road system
is necessarily designed for the car, and that motorised traffic being
what it has become, is inimical to cyclists.

It is your viewpoint, widely held though it may be, that is inimical to
cyclists, not the roads themselves, nor the mixing of different types
of
vehicle.
There is plenty of room on the roads for cyclists and motorists to
coexist happily -- but not when people like you believe that cyclists
do
not belong.

There are lots of places where cyclists co-exist with motorists,
without undue danger or inconvenience to cyclists. Cambridge is not
one of them. Berlin, for example, is.

GR

[Andrew Shires]

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
There are lots of places where cyclists co-exist with motorists,
without undue danger or inconvenience to cyclists. Cambridge is not
one of them. Berlin, for example, is.

And a major part of the way this is achieved is that cyclists ride on
just about any pavement, with little regard to cycle path markings,
ringing their bells insistently to move pedestrians out of the way. I
don't particularly mind it, but it is hardly utopia. Some pedestrians
here in Cambridge, I am sure, would consider people riding up from
behind and ringing bells at them to get out of the way, as if they
have God-given priority, to be pretty rude.

[Al Grant]

Post by g***@pobox.com
You tell cyclists to get off the road. And then you have the cheek to
suggest that it's cyclists' fault that they find this offensive. Of
course
it's offensive! It's offensive when it's shouted in plain language out
of the passenger window of a car, but it's much more offensive when
you try to wrap up the same sentiments in mealy-mouthed fake
politeness.

I have to agree with Gropius. I have cycled to places like
Ely, Brandon, Saffron Walden, Royston etc. but found myself
thinking that what I was doing was not only unsafe but also
anti-social. Cycling on minor roads and some (but not other)
B-roads is fine, but the A-roads are generally just not
suitable. They are too narrow and often the surface at the
edges is dangerously pot-holed. The dual carriageways feel
safer (even the A1!) because so much wider, but there are
different risks there.

[Richard Kemp]

Post by Al Grant

Post by g***@pobox.com
You tell cyclists to get off the road. And then you have the cheek to
suggest that it's cyclists' fault that they find this offensive. Of
course
it's offensive! It's offensive when it's shouted in plain language out
of the passenger window of a car, but it's much more offensive when
you try to wrap up the same sentiments in mealy-mouthed fake
politeness.

I have to agree with Gropius. I have cycled to places like
Ely, Brandon, Saffron Walden, Royston etc. but found myself
thinking that what I was doing was not only unsafe but also
anti-social.

I agree that Gropius has a point about how the roads have developed. I
disagree that this is inevitable, unchangable, or necessarily
acceptable. It's also blatantly obvious that many drivers are completely
unaware of their obligations (as described in the Highway Code) towards
cyclists.

[Alan]

Post by Richard Kemp
I agree that Gropius has a point about how the roads have developed. I
disagree that this is inevitable, unchangable, or necessarily
acceptable. It's also blatantly obvious that many drivers are completely
unaware of their obligations (as described in the Highway Code) towards
cyclists.

I would go as far as saying that many road users are completely unaware of
the obligations full stop.

[Gropius Riftwynde]

Post by Richard Kemp
I agree that Gropius has a point about how the roads have developed. I
disagree that this is inevitable, unchangable, or necessarily
acceptable. It's also blatantly obvious that many drivers are completely
unaware of their obligations (as described in the Highway Code) towards
cyclists.

Well, there's the nub of the matter. If neither contestants are
prepared to obey the rules to the point where they are practicable,
then there is something wrong with the rules. You are not going to
change the people, so maybe the rules should be changed? Obvious,
innit?

GR

[Richard Kemp]

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
Well, there's the nub of the matter. If neither contestants are
prepared to obey the rules to the point where they are practicable,
then there is something wrong with the rules. You are not going to
change the people, so maybe the rules should be changed? Obvious,
innit?

I believe you started off, particularly, talking about the faster A
roads as examples of roads unsuitable for bikes. I have been beeped
cycling along the A1307 (Babraham Road), on the left, in good
visibility, at ~20 mph. I'm not sure what I did to aggravate the
motorist, other than simply being there.

Unless you are shifting the goalposts to include the sort of bad cycling
behaviour seen in town (jumping traffic lights, going the wrong way up
one-way streets, cycling on pavements etc.), what "disobedience of the
rules" have you observed by cyclists on fast A-roads that makes you make
the statement that "-neither- contestants* are prepared to obey the
rules" (my emphasis)?

(*Not a competition...)

[Nick Wagg]

Post by Richard Kemp

Post by Gropius Riftwynde
Well, there's the nub of the matter. If neither contestants are
prepared to obey the rules to the point where they are practicable,
then there is something wrong with the rules. You are not going to
change the people, so maybe the rules should be changed? Obvious,
innit?

I believe you started off, particularly, talking about the faster A
roads as examples of roads unsuitable for bikes. I have been beeped
cycling along the A1307 (Babraham Road), on the left, in good
visibility, at ~20 mph. I'm not sure what I did to aggravate the
motorist, other than simply being there.

The motorist may have been using the horn as it is intended to
be used, i.e. to signal that "I am here", rather than as a signal of
aggravation or even intimidation.

Are you sure that you were the intended target or victim?
Perhaps the driver was rather thoughtlessly greeting a friend.

[Al Grant]

Post by Richard Kemp
I agree that Gropius has a point about how the roads have developed. I
disagree that this is inevitable, unchangable, or necessarily
acceptable. It's also blatantly obvious that many drivers are completely
unaware of their obligations (as described in the Highway Code) towards
cyclists.

The Highway Code tells one (somewhere, I'm sure) not to
obstruct traffic without good reason. The drivers may consider
that cyclists on narrow A-roads are unaware of this obligation.

It's sad that cyclists are effectively losing access to some
A-roads but this has long been the case for walkers and horse
riders. Surely anyone but a fanatic would argue that it is
inevitable and acceptable that horses are effectively unable
to use the A14, even though they are legally entitled to do so
and drivers would have the same legal obligations as they would
towards cyclists.

[Richard Kemp]

Post by Al Grant
The Highway Code tells one (somewhere, I'm sure) not to
obstruct traffic without good reason. The drivers may consider
that cyclists on narrow A-roads are unaware of this obligation.

I think that might be interpreted that way by sensible people if it were
two cyclists abreast, someone in the middle of the lane, someone cycling
consistently slower that traffic on a very busy road when there was a
good cycle lane available, etc.

Otherwise, what right has the driver to assess the reasons for a cyclist
cycling along a road, and judge them good or bad?

[Duncanwood]

Post by Richard Kemp

Post by Al Grant
The Highway Code tells one (somewhere, I'm sure) not to
obstruct traffic without good reason. The drivers may consider
that cyclists on narrow A-roads are unaware of this obligation.

I think that might be interpreted that way by sensible people if it were
two cyclists abreast, someone in the middle of the lane, someone cycling
consistently slower that traffic on a very busy road when there was a
good cycle lane available, etc.
Otherwise, what right has the driver to assess the reasons for a cyclist
cycling along a road, and judge them good or bad?

Well Rule 145 says you shouldn't hold up a long queue of traffic behind
you.

[Al Grant]

Post by Richard Kemp
Otherwise, what right has the driver to assess the reasons for a cyclist
cycling along a road, and judge them good or bad?

I can only suggest (again), replace 'cyclist' by 'horse rider'
and see if you think your argument is still convincing or has
started to look (to anyone with common sense) silly and misguided.

If you concede it is silly and misguided to make the same argument
for horses then you need to work out what is fundamentally
different for cyclists. It certainly isn't the speed difference
between them and motor traffic, and in terms of visibility to
traffic approaching at speed from behind, they are probably in
a worse position than horse riders.

[Richard Kemp]

Post by Al Grant
I can only suggest (again), replace 'cyclist' by 'horse rider'
and see if you think your argument is still convincing or has
started to look (to anyone with common sense) silly and misguided.

The difference is that a horse rider is on a horse, a large and
easily-startled animal.

[Al Grant]

Post by Richard Kemp

Post by Al Grant
I can only suggest (again), replace 'cyclist' by 'horse rider'
and see if you think your argument is still convincing or has
started to look (to anyone with common sense) silly and misguided.

The difference is that a horse rider is on a horse, a large and
easily-startled animal.

But people ride horses on rural roads with 60mph limits
all the time, and drivers know what to do. Horses which
get startled by drivers passing at the appropriate speed
aren't taken out on any roads at all.

The question is, is it reasonable to mix the same horses
and the same drivers on the A10 and expect the drivers
to take the same actions and be prepared at all times
for that possibility? If you concede this is silly, and
that use by horse riders would be an abuse of rights,
and they would be responsible for the consequences, why
could not the same be true for cyclists - if not on the A10,
then on the A14?

[Richard Kemp]

Post by Al Grant

Post by Richard Kemp

Post by Al Grant
I can only suggest (again), replace 'cyclist' by 'horse rider'
and see if you think your argument is still convincing or has
started to look (to anyone with common sense) silly and misguided.

The difference is that a horse rider is on a horse, a large and
easily-startled animal.

But people ride horses on rural roads with 60mph limits
all the time, and drivers know what to do. Horses which
get startled by drivers passing at the appropriate speed
aren't taken out on any roads at all.
The question is, is it reasonable to mix the same horses
and the same drivers on the A10 and expect the drivers
to take the same actions and be prepared at all times
for that possibility? If you concede this is silly, and
that use by horse riders would be an abuse of rights,
and they would be responsible for the consequences, why
could not the same be true for cyclists - if not on the A10,
then on the A14?

Your piont, presumably, is that the expectations of drivers on the
A10/A14 are different to those of a driver on a rural road - i.e. they
don't (reasonably) expect to encounter horses on the former. I disagree
that horses-riders are the same as cyclists, though - which seems to be
another major part of your argument. A horse would not be happy, for
example, on a narrow strip of road alongside people doing 60mph. A
cyclist might not be -exactly- happy either, but could in full knowledge
choose to use that cyclepath.

A driver passing a horse -has- to slow right down and give it a wide
berth. A driver passing a cyclist, on the other hand, can overtake at
60mph, assuming there is sufficient space.

[Al Grant]

Post by Richard Kemp
Your piont, presumably, is that the expectations of drivers on the
A10/A14 are different to those of a driver on a rural road - i.e. they
don't (reasonably) expect to encounter horses on the former. I disagree
that horses-riders are the same as cyclists, though - which seems to be
another major part of your argument.

It isn't. My point is that for one category of user entitled
to use the roads is obvious that at some level of traffic
volume, average speed etc. the "they have a perfect right to
be there and it is none of your business why they are there"
loses out against "but common sense says it is very foolish".

Once you concede that, you can no longer argue from principle,
only from what is generally felt to be reasonable.

[Richard Kemp]

Post by Al Grant
Once you concede that, you can no longer argue from principle,
only from what is generally felt to be reasonable.

Right. And I consider it unreasonable to hold the attitude that Gropius

Post by Al Grant
Yes. Bikes and modern roads don't mix. I wish cyclists would
understand this. I have nothing against cyclists as such - I have a
cycle - it's just that road conditions have changed considerably over
the last 100 years or so, and cyclists seem to find this offensive.

That is, cyclists are excluded from "modern roads", and should not
object to this. The solution is, perhaps, to ensure that future work in
places where cyclists might wish to use such roads should make
consideration for them - a matching well-maintained cyclepath, maybe. As
it is, cyclists - if they wish to get to where they are going without
making enormous detours - occasionally end up on major roads. To claim
that it is unreasonable for them to be there, that they should accept
this, and that that is the end of the matter is an offensive attitude.
If decent provision was made for cyclists, along with such "modern
roads" there would be no need for this argument. Is it any wonder that
cyclists complain?

[Mike Causer]

Post by Richard Kemp
A driver passing a cyclist, on the other hand, can overtake at
60mph, assuming there is sufficient space.

s/can/will/
s/assuming/whether or not/


Mike

[g***@pobox.com]

I have cycled to places like Ely, Brandon, Saffron Walden,
Royston etc. but found myself thinking that what I was
doing was not only unsafe but also anti-social.

Why do think it anti-social? I've cycled along these A-roads
and never thought to consider it anti-social -- I wasn't
getting in anyone's way or causing a queue to build up. So
maybe you have something else in mind?

[Al Grant]

Post by g***@pobox.com

I have cycled to places like Ely, Brandon, Saffron Walden,
Royston etc. but found myself thinking that what I was
doing was not only unsafe but also anti-social.

Why do think it anti-social? I've cycled along these A-roads
and never thought to consider it anti-social -- I wasn't
getting in anyone's way or causing a queue to build up. So
maybe you have something else in mind?

You cycled to Ely without anyone overtaking you?

[Richard Kemp]

Post by Al Grant

Post by g***@pobox.com

I have cycled to places like Ely, Brandon, Saffron Walden,
Royston etc. but found myself thinking that what I was
doing was not only unsafe but also anti-social.

Why do think it anti-social? I've cycled along these A-roads
and never thought to consider it anti-social -- I wasn't
getting in anyone's way or causing a queue to build up. So
maybe you have something else in mind?

You cycled to Ely without anyone overtaking you?

Have you never been overtaken whilst driving? Did you consider you were
"in their way"?

[Chris Brown]

Post by Al Grant

Post by g***@pobox.com
Why do think it anti-social? I've cycled along these A-roads
and never thought to consider it anti-social -- I wasn't
getting in anyone's way or causing a queue to build up. So
maybe you have something else in mind?

You cycled to Ely without anyone overtaking you?

If you find a cyclist on the A10 to be so inconvinient, perhaps you should
reconsider whether you should be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. I just
overtake them when a suitable opportunity arises. I find this far less
inconvinient than someone driving at 40 in the NSL zone for no good reason.

[g***@pobox.com]

I have cycled to places like Ely, Brandon, Saffron Walden,
Royston etc. but found myself thinking that what I was
doing was not only unsafe but also anti-social.
Why do think it anti-social? I've cycled along these A-roads
and never thought to consider it anti-social -- I wasn't
getting in anyone's way or causing a queue to build up. So
maybe you have something else in mind?
You cycled to Ely without anyone overtaking you?

No. Many cars overtook me. There was plenty of room for them to
do so safely. No-one was held up in their journey.

I'm still not sure what you're getting at here. Please explain.

[Al Grant]

Post by g***@pobox.com

Post by Al Grant
You cycled to Ely without anyone overtaking you?

No. Many cars overtook me. There was plenty of room for them to
do so safely. No-one was held up in their journey.
I'm still not sure what you're getting at here. Please explain.

We may just have different subjective ideas of what is safe
and what counts as an unreasonable hold-up on an A-road.

In particular I would hesitate to call any overtaking
manouevre by an HGV or horse box on the A10 as safe, at
whatever speed, and if you got to Ely without being
overtaken by either, I think you were just lucky.

[g***@pobox.com]

Why do [you] think [cycling on the A10 and other A-roads
around Cambridge is] anti-social? I've cycled along these
A-roads and never thought to consider it anti-social -- I
wasn't getting in anyone's way or causing a queue to build
up. So maybe you have something else in mind?
We may just have different subjective ideas of what is safe
and what counts as an unreasonable hold-up on an A-road.
In particular I would hesitate to call any overtaking
manouevre by an HGV or horse box on the A10 as safe.

This doesn't really answer my question. I understand why
you think cycling on the A10 is unsafe. But why do you think
it's anti-social?