10 May 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Why should cyclists have fear for lives?
As joint founder and former coordinator of the Norwich Cycling Campaign, I would like to reply to Peter Hansen (EN, May 2) on the debate over HGVs using the Newmarket Road bus/cycle lane. Mr Hansen quotes John Stuart Mill in his argument ("the greatest good for the greatest number"). Well, I can do that too! In Mill's 1859 Dissertations and Discussions, he states: "When society has to be rebuilt, there is no use in attempting to rebuild it on the old plan." In this context, this means that if HGVs are being held up by traffic congestion, then the last thing you should do is go back to the "old plan", ie cyclists battling it out with two lanes of fast-moving cars, motorbikes and HGV drivers, most of whom have had no training on integration with cyclists. In fact, between 1999 and 2004 most cycling fatalities in London (especially to female cyclists) involved HGVs. This confirms an earlier British Medical Journal report that bikes and HGVs don't mix. (London Road Safety Unit c 2006).
Throughout the early 1990s the Norwich Cycling Campaign lobbied long and hard against an intransigent council for the right to use the bus lane; for safe cycle-friendly crossings across Newmarket Road; and for the cycle traffic-light crossing to Grove Road. Our premise was simple. Cyclists have the right to use any road except motorways. Therefore, as vulnerable road support rising even faster than the users it should be incumbent on planners to ensure we can do so in a safe, risk-free environment, whether it be on the Newmarket Road or, as Mr Hansen suggests, rat-running through the "more scenic routes" into the city If HGVs are being delayed by car congestion, it is the congestion that should be dealt with, not putting cyclists' lives at risk to save a few minutes on an HGV journey.
Les Hopkins
Norwich 

07 May 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
HGVs can join us in the queue
I am reluctant to write again about HGVs in the bus lane, but as sensible as Peter Hansen's plea for compromise might seem (Letters, May 2), the argument is not as simple as a turf war between bikes and lorries.
There is still no explanation from the county council why inert goods have to be whisked into the city up a priority lane intended for shifting people, instead of moving more patiently in the queue like other traffic. Nor is there any reason to believe there would be any long-term reduction in lorry numbers if the proposal were implemented. It looks more like commercial freight companies have persuaded officers to provide them with additional road capacity for just-in-time deliveries, tempting shops to convert more storage space to retail use. The uncompromising objectors are those who can see the dangerous precedent of taking away from cyclists precious safe space, frightening them back into cars, and thus causing a larger negative impact on congestion than any of the dubious claimed environmental benefits. Freight consolidation may well be a sound idea, but it certainly doesn't require having HGVs in the narrow bus lane.
M Williams
Consultations Officer
Norwich Cycling Campaign

30 April 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
NDR is Just an indulgence
It isn't at all surprising that a Norwich congestion charge for motorists inside the Outer and Inner Ring Roads would not. produce much revenue (EN' April 18). This is because there isn't much congestion. The amount of traffic crossing the Inner Ring Road heading for the city centre has fallen over recent years as a result of park and ride and bus' walking and cycling improvements, which include the St Stephens' Castle Meadow and Prince of Wales Road bus corridor scheme. It would be a shocking indulgence to spend £116m on building a Northern Development Route for reducing city centre traffic when cheaper small scale transport improvements would be far more effective and of more direct benefit to large numbers of people. City planners also need to cut city centre car parking that results in congestion at junctions such as Foundry Bridge. The NDR isn't about reducing congestion in the city centre. I believe Norfolk's politicians want to open up countryside around North Norwich on the back of a NDR for building thousands of new houses' retail superstores, warehouses and car parks.
Denise Carlo
Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group
Norwich

30 April 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Don't dismiss city cyclists
I write in response to John Rushton's letter (EN, April 21), supporting the Conservative-controlled county council and Labour-controlled city council's proposals to put some HGVs from a Freight Consolidation Depot at Snetterton in the Newmarket Road bus/cycle lane. He makes the disparaging statement that cyclists "bring nothing to the city other than their self righteous selves and contribute nothing to the economy of the country." This shows the contempt some have for cyclists who legitimately use road space allocated to them. These maybe youngsters attending schools and colleges or those accessing their place of work using the cycle as an alternative to the car and to keep healthy This bus/cycle lane is also used to promote-bus usage as another sustainable way to access Norwich. Are they too to be dismissed in this way? I wonder what action HGV drivers will take when the buses stop in the bus lane to collect and pick up passengers? The city and county council should be doing all they can to encourage cycling and bus usage and stop this crazy idea of allowing HGVs into this space. There is a railway line close to the Fright Consolidation Depot at Snetterton. A rail freight link into Norwich really would reduce the number of HGVs on the Newmarket Road into Norwich and therefore encourage more cyclists to use the bus/cycle lane as intended.
Judith Lubbock
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Eaton
Norwich

23 April 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Safety audit is inadequate
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, Norwich Cycling Campaign has obtained a copy of the county council's "safety audit" for the proposal for HGV use of the Newmarket Road bus/cycle lane. As we suspected, this token safety assessment was done in house and it is wholly inadequate. The most worrying oversight in the two-page document is the trite statement that the risks to cyclists would be no worse than at present because lorries are already allowed to use the bus/cycle lane out of hours. That comment is a serious misjudgment. The only point in HGVs being allowed to use the dedicated narrow inside lane would be to gain an advantage when the outer lane is jammed with vehicles during peak periods, and at these times an attempt to squeeze past a cyclist could prove fatal. It is time to question the effectiveness of the county council's safety assessment procedure in regard to cyclists. It is also time that the ill-advised plan to put HGVs in the bus/cycle lane is abandoned.
M Williams
Consultations officer
Norwich Cycling Campaign
Bethel Street Norwich

April 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
A commuter challenge
Norwich Cycling Campaign strongly oppose the county council's trial of HGVs in the Newmarket Road bus and cycle lane, as it would be a serious deterrent to cyclists, especially les confident ones. As the lane is not wide enough for an HGV to overtake, the remaining cyclists would have to tough it out, riding well out from the kerb to ensure they have safe road space. The consequent slowing down of HGVs would in any case take away any small advantage in journey time made on the 23 mile trip from Snetterton. We also feel that this trial may set a precedent to open up all such bus and cycle lanes to HGVs, which has been attempted before by Norfolk County Council. The bus and cycle lane on Newmarket Road is a particularly valuable route from the densely populated suburbs into and through the city To publicise the value of this route, Norwich Cycling Campaign is planning a Commuter Challenge, traveling from the Waitrose car park at Eaton to the railway station. A cyclist, bus passenger and car driver will each set off at a time they judge early enough to catch the 9am London train. We are confident this will show the superior speed and predictability for cycling on short urban journeys. It will also highlight the advantage given to cyclists and bus passengers by these dedicated lanes. We hope it will also demonstrate to our councillors the folly of deterring people from cycling by allowing HGVs to share these lanes. We will be publicising our Commuter Challenge when details are finalised. Whilst we have no major objection to the principle of a freight consolidation centre for Norwich, we see no valid reason to for the county council to give in to freight operators' desire to access these bus lanes and will continue to oppose this element of any trial.
Jeff Jordan
Norwich Cycling Campaign
Bethel Street
Norwich

27 March 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Michael Dale, Norwich, says plans to let HGVs use the cycle/bus lane in Newmarket will be bad for the city.
Cllr Adrian Gunson in his letter (EN, March 22) regarding plans to allow HGVs to use the bus/cycle lane in Newmarket Road has totally missed the point as to why this idea is so stupid. The point is that a HGV is a minimum of 2.6m wide and will be using a bus/cycle lane that is only 3m wide. Unlike the bus it travels faster and the driver is situated at a higher level than a bus driver. In major cities and towns Lorries account for 56pc of cyclist fatalities and only 5pc of traffic use. Not surprisingly most cyclists, myself included, fear being overtaken by a HGV more than anything else, not just at junctions but anywhere  there is restricted room to be overtaken.   Perhaps Cllr Gunson should try to see what a truck weighing anything between six and 42 tonnes does to a cyclist when it goes past at even a low speed when too close. The Department of Transport recommends that a minimum width of a lane where used by both cyclists and HGVs is 4.6m wide where the HGV is overtaking the cycle at 20mph and 5.1m where this is done at 30mph. Newmarket Road lane is 3m and the speed limit 40pmh.
Most cyclists, myself included, fear being overtaken by a HGV more than anything? Road frequently to get to places
I use Newmarket Road frequently to get to places in that side of Norwich and even more since the Unthank Road "squash a cyclist" scheme was brought in last year. I certainly won't be using it if this dumb idea proceeds. There are no records for the number of cyclists using Newmarket Road, as the county council has not bothered to record them, but St Stephens Street, in the inner ring road has approximately 1,000 a day and a good many must come from Newmarket Road. What if only lOpc of the cycle trips are abandoned and people decide to take cars instead? All the so-called benefits will be lost and congestion would have grown.

17 February 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Real danger of losing funding
Further to your report about Norwich Connect2 (EN, February 15), no one is saying the Whitlingham link is a simple project. That is exactly why it is necessary for Norwich City Council to sort out the project management, so that a start can be made. This project is about creating a real path on the ground, not just a pretty concept on paper. If recent experience is anything to go by, the city council seems adept at allowing things to drift for want of proper focus and support - to the point where there is a real danger of losing the funding altogether.
Those responsible should ask themselves why Sustrans has taken the precaution of having 20 projects on a national reserve list. There are local authorities in the Eastern Region who have got themselves organised and would be only too keen to push ahead with their Connect2 projects given the opportunity.
Matthew Williams
Chairman, Norwich Rivers Heritage Group

4 February 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Why are cyclists the ones being persecuted?
The persecution goes on: Either cyclists take their chances on the roads or on the pavements against the police who seem hell bent on making life difficult for them. Why is London Street pedestrian only when there are no prohibition signs at one end allowing cyclists to enter it? It's all very well taking this action but it's not dealing with the root cause of the problem. There is a complete lack of linked cycle paths in the city so cyclists use pedestrian areas for their own safety. I have lost count of the times I've almost been knocked off my bike by inconsiderate motorists. I have almost been flattened by a bus pulling out from a stand on Castle Meadow because the driver was talking to a passenger, so cyclists aren't the only guilty ones. Pedestrians are equally dopey, wandering along the pavement and just stepping off into the road in a completely random fashion, neither looking left, right or behind them for traffic despite often listening to i-Pods and music players. Cycles are silent and can be deadly but don't blame us if you don't use some common sense. And pedestrians think they are hard done by. When are the authorities going to get their acts together and properly promote cycling and create more cycle lanes? After all, they keep going on about being green. When will we see some evidence?
Steven Jefferson
Norwich

4 February 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
It's time to sort out this menace
I was delighted to read that action is being taken against the dangerous and thoughtless individuals cycling on pavements (EEN, January 31). Please could the police come and do the same around City College and the roads around it? We are plagued with cyclists tearing about at speed on narrow pavements. I have been sworn at and even spat at by young yobs on bikes cycling with no regard for public safety But it is not only youngsters; there are plenty of adults who should certainly know better who cycle on the pavement as a matter of course. It is simply wrong that cyclists can scare my dogs and try to run me over when I am going about my business as a pedestrian. Your efforts to highlight this abuse are appreciated.
Keith Farwell
Norwich

4 February 2008
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Drivers are the greater danger
I'm a regular commuter on a cycle doing a fair mileage most of the year round. I have a reflective coat and I'm lit up like Blackpool seafront. However on average I have one serious incident of poor driving a week, which could result in my severe injury. Some cyclists are irresponsible I agree but in comparison to the average car driver it is insignificant. The police should concentrate on car drivers who consistently endanger other road users., Mobile phone use is especially lethal, with one out of three incidents I have involving drivers who are simply not concentrating. The police need to get their priorities right and not pick on easy targets!
Chris Sugars Norwich

December 2007
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Get them on their bikes
In Japan, pupils aged 6 to 12 years living within 3 miles are expected to walk or cycle to school.   It is 4.5 miles if they are aged 12 to 15 years.   They are not allowed to travel to school by private car unless they are sick or disabled.   Could this work in this country? If not why not?
Phyll Hardie

21 November 2007
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Cameras are a necessity
As a keen cyclist and a car driver I am always pleasantly
surprised by the courtesy I am shown by the majority of car
drivers while I am cycling round Norwich.
These drivers give me plenty of room when overtaking and
seem to be aware that I am on the road.
It is disappointing, however, that many of the same drivers
have an inability to keep to the speed limit and it is
little wonder that so few parents allow their children to
cycle to school when the speed limit is flouted by so many
driver's so often.
"If you break the speed limit you are breaking the law and
deserve the punishment you receive"
I have never really understood the argument against speed
cameras and other measures used to slow car drivers down.
If you break the speed limit . you are breaking the law and
deserve the punishment you receive. I would be more than
happy to see speed cameras on all roads and an automatic
year's ban for anyone caught 20mph over the speed limit.
If this encouraged people to keep to the speed limits then |
this would also have the added benefit of a reduction of C02,
less accidents and hold ups and make the roads safer for all,
especially those who want to use two wheels rather than
four.
Tony Grimmer

03 October 2007
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Biking to work is cheaper...
Should Norwich have a congestion charge? (EN, September 22). Is Norwich congested? At peak times maybe, but hardly worth all the expense and paraphernalia needed to implement congestion charging. There are other softer measures which could be tried first. For example, cutting bus fares to make bus travel more attractive. At the consultation meeting with Norwich Cycling Campaign, lan Parkes, Norfolk County Council's principal transport planner, spoke of the proposal to charge ₤1 to ₤3 per peak times. This is hardly going to encourage a switch to bus use when a single fare between Thorpe St Andrew and the N&N Hospital costs ₤2.25. Perhaps the car drivers to be targeted are the commuters, the ones who make up the bulk of congestion at peak times. Some places have looked to employers to implement parking charges for their employees, perhaps diverting income to encouraging more to arrive at work by bicycle. Adult cycle training and subsidised bike purchase are two possibilities. The Department for Transport book "Walking and cycling success stories," gives many examples of successful schemes nationwide which we could use before even thinking of congestion charging. Why don't the planners consider these? It was very disappointing that the presentation to Norwich Cycling Campaign members barely mentioned cycling. Please think harder about the whole issue - we cyclists would be only too willing to be consulted.
Phyll Hardie

09 February 2007
To:  Letters Editor, Norwich Advertiser
A road building folly
Like Paul Farbon (Letters' January 26) I don't often find myself agreeing with Charles Clarke.   It is very very interesting to find him supporting green transport issues in Norwich, now that he spends more time in our fine city.
I hope that his efforts to persuade the county council of the sheer folly of continued road building, particularly in the guise of the ill-conceived Northern Distributor Road for Norwich, are successful. 
The amount of money saved by not building this road could not only transform the current woefully inadequate facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, but could be spent on a light rail feasibility.
I would be happy to support unitary status for the city if it means Norwich city councillors will decide to spend transport budgets in Norwich.
If the county council continues to provide useless cycle lanes, like the recently installed ones in St Williams Way down to Pound Lane, there is no wonder we don't see any cyclists negotiating the badly parked cars there.
When will planners wake up and realise that walking and cycling are means of transport for a compact city like Norwich?
Our continued reliance on the car will only be bad for the future of Norwich, Norfolk and the planet.
Richard Bearman

08 February 2007
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Why can't cyclists ride in pedestrianised areas?
So now city centre cyclists are being warned they could incur a ₤30 on-the spot-fine for riding on pedestrianised areas outside the times allowed (EEN, January30).   Why isn't cycling permitted in pedestrian areas?   Studies by the Transport Research Laboratory and backed by the Department for Transport have shown that there no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrian areas, as long as everyone knows about it.   At low flows cyclists and pedestrians mingle readily.   When pedestrian density increases cyclists behave accordingly by slowing down, dismounting or taking avoiding actions as required.
The areas concerned should be designated "Pedestrian Priority Zones" with the clear indication that cyclists and drivers should take full account of the needs of Pedestrians.   A code of Conduct for cyclists should be agreed, backed up by publicity and enforcement.
It is the anti-social tearaways that the police should clamp down on.
The police should be able to offer  day's cycle training as an alternative to a fine.   In fact adult cycle training should be available to all who would like it, and who better than the police, suitably qualified to give it?
so I call upon our councillors to re-think our pedestrian zones.   Go and see what's happening in Cambridge and in European cities and let us have a more sensible approach here by following DfT guidelines.
Phyll Hardie

30 January 2007
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
Perfect county for cyclists
Norfolk has been knocked off pole position as the best county for wildlife because of its "lack of mountains" (EN, January19).   It does however, come a good second best with its nature reserves, varied coastline and large areas of farmland.
As yet there hasn't been a survey to find the best county for cycling, but if there were, Norfolk would definitely come top of the list.   It is precisely the lack of mountains that makes it so.   Cumbria, winner of the wildlife vote, is good for walking and scrambling, but has few quiet lanes and plenty of "weather".   Norfolk, with its gentle contours and wide open skies, quiet lanes and small pleasant towns and villages, is perfect for leisure cycling and touring,   Also, its climate is far milder and gentler than that of the mountainous west.   So why don't we see more cyclists in the Norfolk countryside?   People don't realise what they're missing.
Phyll Hardie

30 January 2007
To:  Letters Editor, EEN
I was most concerned to read this article as it gave the impression that cyclists are often recklessly putting people in danger, although no-one was reported to have been injured.  The recent account  of Zak Carr's death show that cyclists are more likely to be killed or injured than to harm others.   Frequently cyclists are injured and their cycles damaged by pedestrians stepping out without care, causing collisions with cyclists who are riding legitimately.   Clearly cyclists should not ride on pavements, and should take great care
when riding in pedestrianised areas. If it is planned to fine cyclists who
cycle in these areas in the wrong place or the wrong time, then first the signs should be much improved to make sure that the restrictions are clear.   In many streets there are no signs, so how can cyclists know if they are breaking the law? This is confirmed by the details on warning letters given to cyclists in recent weeks.   It is not unusual to see cars driving through these pedestrianised areas, and Norwich pavements and cycle lanes are continuously obstructed by parked
cars. Pedestrians, including parents with pushchairs and walking with
children are often forced onto the roads.   Cyclists should not cause danger by riding on pavements, or in pedestrianised areas when not permitted, but it is important that these fines are not a serious deterrent to people cycling.   There are so many deterrents already, careless drivers, theft of cycles, fear of mugging in isolated situations, not to mention the cold and wet!.   We really need a healthy increase in numbers of people cycling to reduce pollution, improve fitness and tackle obesity, especially in children.   Speeding drivers are given awareness training, and cycle training for adults would be far more effective than fines.
I will post a copy of the warning letter given to cyclist for your
information.
Jeff Jordan

Cycling eases congestion
When will our county councillors and planners realise that walking and cycling are an essential part of the solution to congestion issue in Norwich?  For short urban journeys and for most people, walking or cycling for less than 30 minutes is the most effective way of traveling to virtually any destination in our fine city.   Not only will it help our personal fitness but also the environment.   While our decision makers continue to neglect cycling as a viable mode of transport, we are condemned to a polluted, bus-choked city centre, surrounded by ever-increasing rings of tarmac going nowhere.   Let's have some practical environmentally sound transport solutions.
Richard Bearman
Chairman
Norwich Cycling Campaign