Forum topic: Cycle Enfield discredited

This is probably not the right place to post but this is all new for me and probably much too late.

I am a cyclist. I have lived in Enfield for 40 years. I've commuted to work, usually in central London but sometimes up to 40 miles, for over 30 years in all weather. Each year I ride 5-10k and drive 12-15k miles. I'm hospitalised on average at least once a year, the majority of incidents are on local roads within 2 miles of where I live, with fractures and stitches etc but it hasn't put me off, yet. The bike is my prefered form of transport. It saves me money and I have about 6 of them. I'm a tourist not a racer. Also I have 4 jobs and therefore very little available time to spend on these issues.

I was at a meeting that Andrew Gilligan attended at the Civic centre some months ago following Enfield's sucessful bid. He said then that rather than turn Green Lanes into a SuperCycleHighway they should perhaps find ways of improving cycle facilities and making this more a more attractive option throughout the borough.

I recently picked up copy of brochure CycleEnfield have produced. Its More Than About Cycle Lanes.

The centre page show existing and proposed cycle routes through Enfield, there aren't many of them. It shows an existing Main Road route with dedicated space for cycling along the A10 from North of the M25 to South of the North Circular.

At weekends I often cycle along the A10 and over the M25 and have never noticed this cycle route. So I took a couple of hours off work to expore this Key Cycle Route immediately before last week's meeting in London Road.(I gave up and went home in disgust before the end of the meeting)

Be Advised, The info put out by Cycle Enfield is patently untrue and totally misleading. This is most definately not a dedicated cycle route and in areas is very unsafe for cyclists. Quite simply it is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.

1. The cycle route runs alongside the east side only of the A10

2. The cycle lane comprises no more than a strip of tarmac with dotted lines, stop signs and bike logos painted at intervals.

2. There are many side roads that filter into the A10 southbound. These roads have priority, and motorists concentration is looking to their right for a gap in the traffic on the A10, certainly not to their left for northbound cyclists on a poorly defined cycle route.

3. The are are at least a dozen CYCLIST DISMOUNT signs along this dedicated cycle route

4. There is a long section of cycle track with no separation from the A10 apart from 200mm kerb dropping to the A10. Imagine a toddler with stabilsers dropping a wheel off this kerb and falling into the nearside lane of the A10 !!

5. In two or three areas there is no cycle track but only a shared?? space (for pedestrians, cyclists and people waiting for buses) which no more than say 4 foot wide. If more than half dozen people are waiting for a bus it is necessary to drag any bike over kerbs and into the bus lane recess to continue.

6. The 'cycle route' uses one way service roads with either no, or completely inadequate signage.

I could go on and on, and I haven't checked the route at night for lighting etc.

This existing dedicated cycle route is A WORK OF FICTION, and there is nothing to encourage me to use this rather than the main and side roads I have enjoyed on my bike for many years.

Moreover there are NO PROPOSALS WHATSOEVER on the CycleEnfield website to improve this Existing Main Road Cycle Route.!!

All CycleEnfield appear concerned about at the moment is destroying Green Lanes as we know it to create green spaces and new dedicated cycle lanes. How much money have they spent on themselves and consultants working up schemes that are alien to most residents? Including 2 way traffic along Cecil Road, and dutch roundabout replacing historic Palmers Green Triangle ?

As a cyclist My simple suggestion would be for Enfield to spend a fraction of their £41m on improving their existing cycle arrangements which must include

1. DEDICATED cycle lanes along both carriageways of the A10

2. Providing plentiful bike stands throughout the borough for people to lock bikes up to. I have no option but to use railings and street furiture

3. Making proper use of the New River and integate this in any improvements to cycling facilities. (An excuse for not pushing this that it was owned by Thames Water !)

In view of their dis-information I cannot trust anything that CycleEnfield say, moreover their knowledge of cycling appears extremely limited.

Very many apologies for posting incorrectly. Perhaps someone could point me to a more appropriate place / forum.

Klem, I agree that the A10 route, the A1055 route, the A406 route, and the existing A110 route are complete garbage - I told them to not include it in their 'existing' routes as it dilutes the idea of a route.

Frankly, many of the A105 designs are simply not good enough, but SOGL does not care about the quality of the routes either, they just don't any built on Green Lanes or they want the money sent back. That is not an option I'm willing to accept. Instead, I'm doing everything in my power to make sure these routes are up to scratch.

You mention 'a fraction' of the budget to improve the A10. Let me tell you, it would cost far, far more than that. Light segregation, although not ideal, is acceptable on the A105. On the A10, it is out of the question. We would essentially have to redo the entire road and every single major junction. This would cost tens of millions of pounds most likely.

As has been said for the umpteenth time, the New River path is unworkable. It has no lighting, it is too narrow in various locations, it isn't where people want to go, it doesn't have good social safety, and it has 12 crossing points with bad sightliness that would make things dangerous or inconvenient.

1 hospitalisation per year sounds far higher than the average person - even in the horrible conditions people must cycle in.

You can still look at the proposals and give your comments on the Cycle Enfield website.

Spend money on fixing the A10 cycle lanes. Where did this come from as a heading. You have missed the point. I suggest CYCLE ENFIELD DISCREDITED would be more appropriate.

CycleEnfield brochure clearly shows the a dedicated cycle route along the A10, which is patently UNTRUE, In sections this route is highly dangerous and CycleEnfield have no proposals to improve this.

Mr Mellor has confirmed the A1055 and A406 existing routes are also garbage.

So CycleEnfield's map showing existing dedicated cycling routes through Enfield is confirmed asTosh. Just who are the people putting out this rubbish.

A good job there is GLA investment behind the identified necessary moves to get a significant minority of London’s shorter journeys onto feet and pedals as it would seem previous ad-hoc has not produced satisfactory outcomes. As part of that it’s helpful when existing cyclists positively assist with the challenge we all are facing. I doubt anyone would put their hands up and say major change is ever easy.

Sorry, Klem. You said yourself you'd probably posted to the wrong discussion, so I moved it to a new discussion and gave it the title "Spend the money on fixing the A10 cycle lanes". After all, you did say:

I agree that the A10 cycle lanes are totally unsatisfactory. They are an example of the old, pretty useless way of doing cycle lanes, which is unfortunately common throughout the country.

The whole point of Mini-Holland is to provide proper cycling facilities, and not just for keen cycling commuters such as yourself, but so that a much wider range of people can cycle safely to their local shops or cafes, or just visit auntie a couple of miles down the road. The A10 route is for cyclists who want to travel longer distances at speed - a different thing altogether.

Basil, I don't really agree on your ''fast routes'' and ''slow routes'' distinction. Although we have variable speed limits, in practice most through routes have a minimum of 20mph. This is likely much higher than the 85th percentile speeds of cycling, so we should be able to design for cycling speeds like this. Now, it is true that in some locations it would be ill advised ( or even impossible) to cycle at such speeds, particularly in areas with many pedestrians or many people cycling, such as high streets, but in general Dutch tracks are designed to accommodate fast cycling speeds. Most, of course, do not cycle that quickly.

So, the A105 should serve all its users, the same way we do not have different through route roads that are designed with different 'types' of car driver. We have a uniform network, and for cycling it should be the same. A route on the A10 could serve people cycling into the centre, but it could just as well serve kids who cycle to the many schools along it.

The reason this should be the case is that, if you are not designing for fast speeds, it usually means that the cycle track is badly done so you must artificially reduce the speed of people. This slows down everyone. As an example, because of the badly designed bus stops on the A10, there are barriers put in place. This obviously is annoying, but for others that could mean they are unable to cross the barriers because they are using a mobility scooter, a different kind of bicycle, or perhaps a wheel chair. If they are towing something, then they would also not be able to use it.

This puts it more eloquently than I could: aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/do-you-have-a-problem-with-fast-cyclists-or-with-bad-design/

And this: aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/lets-get-vehicular/

I totally agree with Klem-klem.

The A10 has a very wide central reservation. This may have been a necessary safety feature when it was built in the 1930s. Now, It only needs a double band of Armco barrier to keep the carriageways apart. The extra space could be used for decent segregated cycle lanes on either side of the road.

And, if the New River path is preferred, or used as a further cycle route, it could be illuminated.