All posts by Mick

news

Is it worth reporting incidents?

Leave a comment

Is it worth reporting incidents?

Do many of you think its not worth reporting incidents where you have been harassed or endangered by bad driving? The police don’t seem bothered, nothing seems to get done about it, and drivers’ behaviour is so bad you would never get to work if you reported everything you thought threatening.  Well it may just be that it is worthwhile around Sheffield.

One of Sheffrec’s club members, Nick Downham, had a can of fizzy drink chucked at him from the passenger side of a passing car on Sugworth Road (near Strines Reservoir) in November, though he was not injured as a result. He managed to get the car registration number, reported it, and was amazed at how seriously SYP treated the incident. They came round to his house the following morning (Sunday) at 8am to take a statement, and traced the driver who was a 17 yr old who had only been driving for three months.

The police went to the  driver’s house, watched as his mum gave him a right telling-off, and then issued him with a seizure order, meaning that if the vehicle or driver is involved in any form of anti-social driving in future the car will be destroyed or sold (1).  And they then followed the incident up by provided full feedback to Nick on their actions.

Sheffrec were really impressed with the police’s attitude and speedy and resolute actions and have sent a letter of appreciation. to SYP.  So Sheffrec advise, please do report any aggression towards you if on a bike. It gets results.

CycleSheffield posted advice on reporting incidents where you felt threatened or put at risk by driving.  Please use it and share your experience on the list.

(1) Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 concerns Vehicles driven in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

 

 

news

Space for Cycling. Our next BIG Campaign

Leave a comment
Hi Folks, Pls read and respond to this initial post on what we are planning as our next BIG campaign.
If you’re a member then pls respond on the email list – thanks

Space for Cycling

What is it?

  • The London Cycle Campaign (LCC) started the Space for Cycling campaign.

  • CycleSheffield has joined with LCC and other local campaign groups, including the CTC, across the country to make this a national campaign.

  • The campaign groups are collaborating and cooperating on this.

  • The aim of the campaign is to exert political influence at the council elections in 2014.

  • We want to put safe space for cycling on the agenda on all the political parties in Sheffield and the councillors standing for election in May 2014, and this will be happening across the country.

  • We are saying that Sheffielders need streets that are safe and inviting for everyone to walk and cycle

  • Sheffield councillors are responsible for Sheffield’s streets and urban space.  Asking them for their views on, or support for, our demands during the election campaign will ensure that cycling is on the political and action agenda.

  • Creating safe space for cycling will make cycling a genuine transport choice for Sheffielders.

What do we want?

  • We want to make specific demands of the parties and councillors at next year’s elections

  • Over the next couple of months we want all of us to discuss this on this list (we are all members on this list).

  • We can finalise the list at the end of Jan and finally agree them at our Feb meeting.

  • We may share some of these demands with other cycle campaign groups and some may be specific to Sheffield.

  • We think we should have 5 or 6 demands that are sufficiently concise that all can understand them quickly.

  • So here is a list of demands – there’s probably too many and you may have others you want to add and the number order is not significant at the moment; remember its got to be things local councillors are in charge of

Space for Cycling in Sheffield needs

  1. The needs of vulnerable road users put first in all planning and highways developments.

Pedestrians, people in mobility scooters, and cyclists are vulnerable road users and all planning and development in Sheffield must start with a walking and cycling audit.

        2. Protected space on main streets and through major junctions*

Sheffield needs to install segregated cycle paths on major streets with fast and/or high volumes of traffic.  Major junctions that leave cyclists vulnerable should be redesigned.

  1. Removal of though motor traffic from minor streets*

Minor streets should not become rat-runs.  Most residential streets are minor streets and cutting out through motorised traffic would make them much safer.  There should be permeability for pedestrians, mobility scooters & cyclists.

  1. Quicker implementation of 20 mph speed limits*

SCC has a policy of installing 20mph zones but the speed of installation is too slow.  At the present rate of seven zones a year the remaining 110 zones will be completed within another 16 yrs, by which time we want at least 10% of trips on bikes.  Some smart thinking about how this can be incorporated into Streets Ahead or, like Manchester, use money from public health budgets needs  action NOW.

  1. Safe walking & cycling routes for schoolchildren and students*

Every child in Sheffield should be able to safely walk or cycle to school or college.  SCC  has trained 1000s of schoolchildren to cycle safely on the road.  But they won’t do it because: parents think the roads are unsafe; schools have inadequate safe & secure bike storage.  Cycling to school or college should be safe and secure; bike storage should be available.   This will reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, raise youngsters’ levels of health and well being, and ensure that young people learn good road sense and have autonomy to move around without them, or their parents, being fearful.

  1. Safe cycling routes through and around the city centre and suburban centres*

Sheffield needs a coherent cycle network with direct routes to encourage and support much more cycling to, in and out, and around the city centre and suburban centres, eg Hillsborough, Bradway, Darnall.  The network needs to be clearly signed and properly cleaned & maintained; it would have a positive benefit to cost ratio.

  1. Safe cycling routes through parks and green spaces*

CycleSheffield has qualified support for the SCC’s Green Routes strategy.  Planning for the growth in cycling should take account of cycling to shops, work, rest or play.  We support ‘green’ routes that provide direct, lit, cleaned, and maintained paved routes but think that leisure routes should be funded from Leisure and Tourist budgets and not be ‘double counted’ as everyday or commuter routes.

  1. Practical cycle awareness training for all drivers working for SCC and it’s contractors.

People are put off cycling by drivers’ behaviour.  CycleSheffield thinks that Sheffield Council should set the example for all businesses and enterprises in Sheffield by ensuring that all its drivers have practical cycle awareness training.  It should ensure that all its contractors have this written in as part of their contracts.  Veolia has this training for its drivers in London boroughs so why not here? Amey, the Streets Ahead contractor, should do the same. Developers should have it as part of their contractor’s drivers training. The Council needs to lead the way.

* all these are consistent with the London Cycling Campaign, The LCC is encouraging its members to prioritise these borough by borough (all London councillors are up for re-election) and delete/add as they see fit.

What can you do?

  • Read the list above.

  • Comment on it this website, discuss it with your friends, colleagues and family

  • If you’ve got a demand you would like to add please do by posting it  with a few words about the issue.

We will build up a list of what we could demand before

  • in the New Year we can ask all of members to rate them in order of importance

  • and know what we should demand.

  • and finally agree it at our meeting on Mon 3 Feb 2014

Over to you!

If you want to help with the graft of campaigning then let us know

news

The Cycling Economy in Sheffield

Leave a comment

The Cycling Economy in Sheffield

This is a start on gauging the cycling economy in Sheffield.  CycleSheffield’s argument is that cycling is a small but not insignificant part of the UK’s and hence Sheffield’s economy.  Most politicians and business people understand that cycling is not just a recreational or transport option that some enthusiasts may take part in but that it is an activity that is increasingly being taken up because not only is it personally economical, but also it is attractive because it avoids and reduces congestion, increases health and wellbeing, and helps improve air quality and the environment.  What they are often not aware of is the Gross Cycling Product (GCP) – the value of the market created by sales, servicing, accessories, promotion and training, tourism, and cycling events, and all the jobs and wages that go with that.

We have started to estimate the GCP by scaling down and interpreting national data to ‘fit’ to the size of Sheffield.  Our next step will be to undertake a survey of local businesses to gauge whether these figures are approximately correct.  The stage after that is to formally present these figures to politicians and business people in Sheffield to demonstrate that cycling is a serious business.

Cycling is of local economic benefit and they should take it seriously and support it, not just for all the usual reasons but that there is a business case to support cycling.  And the stage after that will be to work with other groups and agencies across Sheffield City Region because that is the region which will be bidding for transport, including cycling, grants.

Background

In 2010 an authoritative report (1) stated that the Gross Cycling Product (GCP) in the UK had a value of approx £2.9b.  This is the market value of all the goods and services associated with cycling in the UK that the report could get reliable data for. The UK GDP in 2010 was £1.48t (2) so cycling is a very small but not insignificant part of the total economy.

In 2010 cycling took up no more than 2% of all trips made but targets of 10% of all trips by bike by 2025, and 25% of all trips by 2050 have been recommended (3).  This will put participation in cycling in the UK on par with cycling in countries like the Netherlands and Germany and most of Scandinavia.

If these targets are met, and if one factors in the projected increase in population (4) then the GCP  will expand at least by a factor of 5 in the next 12 yrs and a factor of 10 in the next 40 yrs.

The GCP in 2010 in the UK was made up of

£1.62b from bike sales

£0.85b from servicing and sales of accessories

£0.5b in wages (and £0.1b in taxes & NI) in sales, manufacturing and infrastructure.

Giving a total for the UK GCP of £2.9b

This calculation does not take account of

  • the money, other than wages, spent on constructing cycle infrastructure (benefit to cost ratio of 4:1)

  • the annual absentee cost saved through frequent and regular cycling (estimated by the report’s author at approx £128m pa)

  • the health cost savings for cyclists who tend to be healthier, slimmer  and happier (no reliable data) and every bike trip reduces air pollution (500 deaths pa in Sheffield can be attributed to poor air quality which in turn is mostly attributed to exhaust fumes (5)).

  • the market generated by cycle tourism and recreational cycling especially off-road and touring activities, and cycling events (cf 2102 Olympics, TdF Stage 2 in Sheffield in 2014) for which there was no reliable data.

What does this mean for Sheffield?

Sheffield, with a population of 500k, can be considered as a “0.8%” city, in that its population is 0.8% of the UK population.  Its key economic indicators should be approx 0.8/100 of the national figures.  This assumption would indicate that the current GCP for Sheffield is of the order of £23.2m pa.

Absentee cost savings in Sheffield would be in the order of £1m pa.  The health cost savings of cycling are in terms of the better general health and well-being of frequent and regular cyclists and the reduction in deaths currently caused by poor air quality have not been estimated.

Total UK sales of bikes was £1.62bn of which 0.8% is £13m pa notionally spent on buying bikes in Sheffield. 0.8% of the servicing and accessories figure is £6.8m so the notional total for sales of bikes and cycling servicing & accessories in Sheffield would be approx £19.2m.  (NB many bikes and accessories are bought on the web).

The total national employment in cycling in 2010 was 23, 415 people, earning approx £500m.  Scaling this to 0.8% would give a total of £4m in wages put into circulation in Sheffield via the bike business.  It would also mean that approx 190 people are employed in Sheffield directly through cycling.

Add the last two figures in bold and the total GCP for Sheffield is of the order of £23.2m.

3.7m bikes were sold in the UK in 2010, which would give a notional total for 29,600 bikes bought pa in Sheffield.  (NB this includes all bikes incl children’s bikes and approx 40% of the UK population claim to own a bike).  Approx 650,000 people in the UK cycle for all of their journey to work (6). 0.8% of the national total gives a notional Sheffield total of 5,200 cycling to work every day.  The 2011 Census recorded 4,374 Sheffield people stating that they cycled to work – this check means that we are in the right order of magnitude and that assuming Sheffield is a 0.8% city may be a reasonable assumption for gauging the GCP in Sheffield.  Sheffield also has a very healthy sport and recreation road and off-road cycling scene and the sales of bikes to this market tends to be high-end, high value bikes and accessories. (In 2010 it was estimated that a new entrant enthusiast cyclist spends approx £2500 on bike and kit, a new entrant commuter cyclist spends approx £500).

So are the figures a reasonable estimate of the Gross Cycling Product in Sheffield?

Let’s go and find out.

If you want to help with this survey or have figures you can give or ways of doing this or suggestions to make about this project then leave a comment and/or email mick.nott@googlemail.com.  Thanks.

(1) http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/publications/the_british_cycling_economy

(2) http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy#data

(3) http://allpartycycling.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/get-britain-cycling1.pdf

(4) http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/06/uk-population-increase-births-migration

(5) https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/caresupport/health/director-of-public-health-report-2013.html

(6) http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/ctc-cycling-statistics

 

news

What is the CycleForum and what are CycleSheffield Matters?

Leave a comment
The Cycle Forum is a place where SCC can formally meet with people who have an interest in cycling, ‘stakeholders’ would be the word.  This blog explains who and what the Forum is and at the end are the CycleSheffield Matters for the next CycleForum.
It is formal, it has an agenda, minutes and all the stuff that regulates the conduct of meetings and business.  It is the place where every couple of months SCC can listen to concerns and suggestions about both cycling policy and practice and also be asked to account for their own policy and practice.  For example it was the forum at which CycleSheffield formally challenged SCC about the lack of cycle audits and brought this issue to the attention of councillors, along with the campaign we ran asking our members to lobby their councillors.  A subsequent Cycle Forum was dedicated to this topic and installation of cycle infrastructure.  We use the Cycle Forum to monitor progress with these issues.  The Cycle Forum’s business has grown and as a response to cyclists’ requests to see highway developments at an early stage it is going to form a sub-committee that will look in fine detail at particular highway developments with respect to design for cyclists.  It does mean that developments like the redevelopment of Ecclesall Rd from Hunters Bar to Rustlings Rd will now be scrutinised by cyclists at the design stage and their advice considered and logged.

 

It’s  convened and serviced by an SCC officer and chaired by a Councillor.  Any organisation can be represented at the Forum (maximum of two people), provided the organisation has an interest in cycling and the Chair of the Forum agrees to the organisation’s presence.   If anybody wish to take part in the Forum, you would need to represent an appropriate organisation.  There are members of the Forum from cycle shops, both universities, various health organisations, large employers (e.g. Meadowhall), CycleSheffield, CTC, the Passenger Transport Executive, CPRE, SYP etc.  Members of the public are allowed to ask questions in the first 20 minutes of each meeting (need to give 24h notice) and all the meetings are open to the public for observation.

 

As you can see, the number and type of organisations represented is wide and varied.  If one has a stakeholder’s voice or interest then you would be invited.  SCC officers attend as well and these staff are authoritative about their field.  So if you are a CycleSheffield member who works for a company where a lot of people cycle or there is a BUG or you are involved in a residents’ or community group you may well want to represent their interests.  Ask for an invite!

 

This constitution means that no-one group can pack the meetings out, as a group could at the overarching ‘open’ transport forum, Sheffield on The Move, if it chose to do so.  It also means that a range of organisations get to be invited or heard and in the messy world of democracy it’s quite a good model.  We think that the motorists forum and the walkers’ forum is similar in constitution to the cycle forum and we presume the Access Liaison Group is invite only.  There is also a motorcyclists’ forum but we are not sure how that is convened, perhaps we should ask.

The tricky thing for councillors, who decide policy, is listening to these voices in a way that all forums feel consulted and heard – but also have to accept that they may not get what they want.
Another problem for SCC is the compilation and re-presentation of these views – so all the different forums know what each other is saying, although all the agenda & minutes are on-line.
It may be that SCC should consider if there is a proliferation of forums or that the staff who convene them should collaborate more or that members from one forum should sit on others and so on.
CycleSheffield recognises that all these bodies are for consultation not negotiation. Decisions in a representative democracy  must rest with councillors and officers.  What we do is present an agenda of CycleSheffield Matters that are for information, for comment and for discussion.  These items are discussed at our monthly meetings and on our email list or arise from our campaigns.  We see it as a place for both a political and a practical dialogue.  Whilst we are forthright we also want to be seen as an organisation that has got worthwhile opinions and valid knowledge about cycling matters.  It was good to see a SCC officer come to talk frankly with us at our last meeting about the Green Routes strategy.  Let’s hope this kind of initiative continues.

Please find below CycleSheffield Matters for the CycleForum on Tue Nov 19 2013

Many of these items we think are for information, clarification or comment from members of the CycleForum and a couple may generate longer discussion e.g. the sub-committee terms of reference may need clarification of intention and mode of working.
Mick

CycleSheffield matters for CycleForum Tue 19 Nov

1. CycleSheffield appreciate SCC actions with respect to

  1. the installation of cycle lanes through Frecheville to Birley Moor with a width of 1.5m even through pinchpoints and can report that motorists seem to cope with this and we have heard very positive feedback from cyclists.

  2. the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route;

  3. the current work of the Scrutiny Committee;

  4. the campaign against the withdrawal of bus lanes on Ecclesall Rd between Hunters Bar and Rustlings Rd;

  5. the support for the carriage of bikes on light-rail;

  6. TdF legacy.

2. Bikes on light-rail

  1. CycleSheffield note that the ITA did not vote for the carriage of non-folding bikes on light-rail and feel that an opportunity may well have been permanently lost and will be to the detriment of any further roll-out of regional and national light-rail.

  2. The vote was close and CycleSheffeld feel if the full complement of Sheffield Councillors had been present then the vote may well have been in favour of a trial, which would have been politically significant.

  3. However, CycleSheffield recognise that whatever the democratic decision was it would not be binding on the operating company, Stagecoach Supertram.

  4. CycleSheffield feel that SYPTE did not conduct an effective consultation on this issue, leaving it far too late to compile and evaluate the pros and cons and we will produce a critique of what we consider to be a very low quality report on the issue for the consideration of the ITA.

  5. The successor to the ITA, from April 2014 the Sheffield City Region Combined Authorities Joint Transport Committee, will bring new challenges for transport strategy as this body will involve nine local authorities and as we understand it be the body that will bid for national grants and tenders for transport schemes across SCR (cf LSTF as a bid across SY).

  6. CycleSheffield recognises that it need to improve its liaison with other cycling campaign groups across this region and within Yorkshire.  We would value discussions with SCC cllrs and officers on this point and the issues of collaboration and cooperation across a much wider area.

3. Green Routes

  1. CycleSheffield members have been fully consulted on this topic and many comments have been posted on an interactive map  https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=znpDYfI6F6SM.kj2hJTXnnNBg that SCC are welcome to consult.

  2. We were pleased to welcome Paul Sullivan from SCC at our last meeting to discuss this project.  We trust that he found the experience worthwhile.

  3. CycleSheffield realise that the green routes project is not the sole strategy that SCC have wrt the development of cycling but we would like to hear what the others are;

  4. We have concerns about the green routes strategy, some we think may work as good transport links but others are best considered as leisure routes, e.g. maintenance, lighting, lack of links to work, rest and play, two-tier cycling provision, indirect rather than direct, some better funded from a Parks and Open Spaces budget;

  5. We advise SCC that we are open for consultation and advice before ideas or considerations are turned into plans and drawings – there is no need to be strangers.

Cycle Schemes sub-committee

  1. SCC and CycleSheffield have worked on drafting terms of reference for a Cycle Schemes Sub-Committee of the CycleForum.

  2. This draft is appended and will be presented to the CycleForum for discussion, revision and approval.

Cycle Audits and cycle facilities at the bottom of the Moor

  1. CycleSheffield believes that cycle audits for highway schemes costing more than £50,000 have not started yet – other than for Streets Ahead Opportunities, which may be installed.

  2. It is now seven months since the CycleForum where it was agreed they would start ‘soon’ and it is seven years  since they were set as a target in the City’s Cycle Action Plan 2006-2011.

  3. We politely ask again, when are they going to start?

  4. CycleSheffield believes that the latest facilities installed at the bottom of the Moor demonstrate a lack of training and professional development with the planning and installation of cycle facilities.  Our report on this contraflow cycle lane is at http://www.cyclesheffield.org.uk/2013/11/08/scc-carry-on-installing-crap-cycle-lanes/

  5. The APPCG report, Get Britain Cycling, recognised that initial education and training professional development of UK highways engineers was not strong on designing for cycling.

  6. We politely ask what steps are being taken by SCC for the professional development of its own engineers?

Regret over the ending of the city-centre Cycle Paramedic service

  1. Last month was the last shift of the cycling paramedic in Sheffield city-centre and it has been discontinued by The Yorkshire Ambulance Service.

  2. CycleSheffield regrets the loss of this service and would like SCC to note that the cycling paramedic:

  3. had response times that were better and certainly no worse than that of car responders;

  4. did a lot of first-aid, even for city ambassadors, that meant that people did not need to go and increase congestion at A&E or walk-in centres;

  5. acted as a ‘barefoot doctor’ with people who ‘lived on the streets’ and was able to monitor, advise and get help for this community’s health, working alongside others like the city ambassadors.

  6. CycleSheffield believes that the service to public health was highly beneficial and would value discussing with SCC and other interested agencies ways in which a service of this kind could be re-instated even only for a trial period and with the aid of public and private grants.

CycleSheffield liaison with SYP (Sheffield District)

  • CycleSheffield met with the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire in September 2013.  The purpose was to make progress with SYP to discuss cycling matters in general rather than particular incidents.

  • As a result of this meeting we met with an Inspector in Sheffield District during September and started a discussion about these issues.

  • Consequently, POs have volunteered to liaise with us on issues, e.g. traffic flow and cycling in the city centre and bike security.  We have other issues such as enforcement, reporting and following up harassment or collisions involving cyclists that we would like to bring into this discussion as this initiative develops.

  • We hope that in the future liaison can provide substantive items for discussion at CycleForum.

Appendix

CycleForum Cycle Schemes Sub Committee

DRAFT Terms of reference for information and consideration at SCC CycleForum 19.11.13

Background

  • Its become clear that the number of highway schemes and the need for consultation with cyclists are too much for detailed consideration at CycleForum in addition to its other business

  • This sub-committee is to look at the detail of highway development schemes wrt cycling including those promoted through planning applications and proposals not on public highway, but available for public use (e.g. parks), i.e. anything and everything that is not private.

What is the subcommittee going to do?

  • This sub-committee aims to look at the details of highway scheme developments wrt to cycling.

  • The details to look at will be the

  • scheme proposals in words and/or drawings

  • details of cycle audits and road safety audits for the schemes

  • relevant reports & comments from other organisations/ individuals e.g. RSAs, SYP, etc.

  • opinions of road users especially cyclists

  • It is anticipated that schemes can be looked at from inception to final signing off.

  • This will involve iteration through meetings and email discussions.

How does its agenda get set?

  • Items will be referred to the sub-committee by the CycleForum/SCC/cycling organisations.

  • Its deliberations will be communicated back to the relevant SCC departments and/or cycling organisations either directly by those attending or through the CycleForum

  • Summary reports of progress and deliberations wrt schemes will  be given at appropriate CycleForums

Who is on the sub-committee?

Membership will be

  • One person representing cyclists elected from CycleForum or their alternate

  • The SCC cycling officer or her/his alternate

  • One Highway Engineer from SCC in order to provide technical expertise, or her/his alternate

  • Other officers, engineers, cyclists and police officers to be coopted according to the schemes being considered

Where and when will it meet?

  • The number of meetings will depend on workload, it is suggested to start at a frequency of once a month.

  • Dates and times will be agreed in advance by the sub-committee

  • It will meet at premises arranged by SCC

  • Its business can also be done on email


Mick Nott
news

SCC carry on installing crap cycle lanes

14 Comments

In March 2013 CycleSheffield had a full and frank discussion with SCC and we think it was agreed that cycle audits would start ‘soon’ and forthwith cycle lanes would be painted to the DfT recommended standards (i.e 1.5 m wide) except where this was not deemed possible; in which case we would be consulted.

In late October/beginning of November 2013, SCC have painted a contraflow cycle lane on Cumberland St at the bottom of the Moor.  It runs from the junction with South Lane (corner with The Moorfoot Tavern) up towards Moore St and peters out just past Bishop St (at the back of Wickes).  At least if you won’t be able to cycle on the Moor then you can cycle across it.

1425716_749772688372601_1118779268_n
The photo above shows how it starts. Note that you have to cycle over a drain because the island used to hold up the pole is so big. Notice that the white line is inside the width of the pinchpoint – intelligent, thoughtful work, eh?

At the start you have to cycle through a 1m wide pinchpoint (which has been there a while) onto the newly painted cycle lane. Note the cross hatching to guide oncoming drivers away from the island forming the pinchpoint(!)  Also note that the solid white line starts less than 1m from the kerb presumably to ensure that you are hugging it.  The photo below shows that the width of the lane to the solid white line is 0.92 m at this point.   (NB bike training guidance is to ride a metre from the kerb).

1452182_749772328372637_673571910_n
1454637_749772488372621_1314919036_n
This is the signage at the entrance.  Although it is double yellow lines loading can take place before 8 and after 6.30.  There are no signs on poles to show it is a contraflow cycle lane and that bikes can enter but a bike sign is marked on the floor.
The width doesn’t change much until you get to where the Moor intersects with Cumberland St. There is a pinchpoint here so that pedestrians only have a single lane of road to cross. I presume that cyclists are allowed to continue on this newly laid asphalt surface (see picture below) and will share it with pedestrians who will be walking across your direction of travel in both directions.
1455184_749772018372668_447120591_n
Note in the photo above the uneven nature of the surfaces and the slope, a reverse camber, on the black asphalt. Shouldn’t cycle lanes be level-ish?
1453398_749771968372673_600651552_n
The black bit of pavement is 1.7 m wide to the kerb (see picture above). The cycle lane is at most 1m wide and the ball bollard at ground or wheel level must be there to guide you away from veering onto the road and ensuring you don’t take up more than 1m of width of the black asphalt, although you are more likely to collide with it whilst keeping an eye out for peds. Neat looking job eh? What a showcase of cycling facilities that will welcome cyclists to the redeveloped Moor and the opening of the new market!
484742_749771835039353_1811451778_n
As you go across the black asphalt at the pinchpoint you are guided by the second ball bollard at wheel level and re-enter the contraflow cycle lane on the road (photo above)
This cycle lane looks as narrow as the other one on the other side but is in fact 1.03 m from the kerb to the start of the solid white line (photo below). You’ve gained 11 cm of space but it’s still not 1.5m wide
1451414_749771748372695_325569317_n
Just after the YMCA the cycle lane, still against on-coming traffic, is marked with dashed lines so it becomes advisory because vehicles will need to have access in and out of the National Tyres depot and vehicles will be need to be able to come out of Bishop St and turn left into the path of cycles to go along Cumberland St to Moore St or turn right to go onto the on-coming cycles and into the tyre depot.
And there is a solo motorbike parking bay between the two entrances of the tyre depot on the left hand side of the cycle lane so they will need to go across the cycle lane in order to park and leave.
The cycle lane ceases just past Bishop St and you can make your way onto the Moore St cycle lane or take a right across oncoming traffic on Cumberland St to access the on-pavement cycle lane. See the map which shows a bus parked across it. This means, once you have cycled over the bus, you can use the toucan crossing to get across Charter Row to access Fitzwilliam St, if you can figure out which lane to use on which island.

What this cycle lane shows is:

  • a lack consultation with cyclists before it was put in;

  • a lack of of clear thinking about hazards, e.g the safe width of a contraflow cycle lane, lane markings for a contraflow cycle lane, the low-level bollards, the unevenness of the path at the ped pinchpoint, lack of adequate signage for cycle lane entry or for oncoming traffic to indicate a contraflow cycle lane

  • no conformity with DfT guidance (contrary to promises made by SCC);

  • poor workmanship – it looks crap as well as it is crap and carries the meaning that cycling can be treated like crap;

  • promises made by SCC at CycleForum are not worth a thing and/or there is no clear leadership at SCC of what ought to take place and no management or monitoring of what is taking place.

The hazards do not stop there.  The main oncoming traffic is buses and taxis.  When I went to survey it, on Thursday 7 Nov, a bus had stopped to set down and pick up passengers.  But the driver had stopped the bus away from the kerb (for no apparent reason, the car illegally parked behind did not prevent him pulling in.)  Note that he is more ‘out’ of the marked bus stop (the yellow dashed line) than ‘in’ it.

1455152_749771585039378_1061046933_n

This meant that buses and taxis overtaking his bus went into the cycle lane (visible on the left of the photo) even though it is marked with a solid white line.  Has anybody told the bus companies what has been installed on this road?

CycleSheffield requests that the person who designed this cycle lane comes to the next CycleForum (Tue 19 Nov 2013) to explain the rationale behind this design and discuss the principles of designing cycle facilities.  The proposed Cycle Schemes Sub Committee could look at a redesign as a matter of urgency.

And 7 months after what we thought was a ground-breaking CycleForum to agree to collaborate – cycle audits have not started either ….

Mick Nott

Chair, CycleSheffield

7 Nov 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

news

CycleSheffield campaigns in the news

Leave a comment

CycleSheffield have fought two campaigns recently that have both received news and some success.

We reported on this in the last newsletter. In summary, we fought the removal of bus lanes on Ecclesall Rd and the plans for the removal of bus lanes between Rustlings Rd and Hunters Bar roundabout have been put on hold.  New plans must be developed in conjunction with cyclists and must provide adequate alternatives for cyclists end.

This story got a balanced report in the Sheffield Telegraph

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/bus-lanes-removal-rethink-after-pressure-from-cyclists-1-6157912

and was followed up along with other Sheffield stories about Sheffield CycleBoost and the TdF in Sheffield in the national cycling newsblog road.cc

http://road.cc/content/news/96867-plans-scrap-sheffield-bus-lanes-shelved-after-protests-cyclists

CycleSheffield has also fought a campaign to get the recently-opened access gates at Virgin Active on the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route closed and we reported on this in the last newsletter.  Since then we have learned that SCC has written to Virgin Active’s local manager and the company’s HQ requesting they close the gates.  The Star ran got the story from our newsblog too and the next day the gates have been closed; and we hope are closed all the time

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/cyclists-fears-over-sheffield-gym-short-cut-1-6158768

Press releases and newsblogs are all part of these campaigns along with the emails, meetings, monitoring and representations that go on.

These two stories show the victories we get and the compromises we have to accept.

However small each struggle it all starts to add up

Come to the next meeting Monday 4 November and join in!

 

 

news

CycleSheffield's submission to SCC's Cycling Inquiry

Leave a comment

CycleSheffield’s response to the Call for Evidence from the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee: Cycling Inquiry

Cycling more than doubled in Sheffield between 2000 and 2011

1. What specific actions have helped the city achieve this growth?

  • SCC have promoted and supported through the use of Government grants and SCC monies cycle training schemes in workplaces, schools, and for individuals who work or live in Sheffield. Thousands of schoolchildren and hundreds of adults have been trained to ride bikes confidently and competently.

  • In some places SCC has ensured that cycling infrastructure (i.e. paths and lanes) , e.g. the inner ring road has got an extensive cycling ring route.  In other places the picture is not coherent see section 2 below.

  • SCC has used LSTF monies from SY ITA bids to support cycle routes, e.g. the new cycle path from Meadowhall to R’ham, Sheffield CycleBoost scheme which is part of the Inmotion! project in SY.

  • SCC has a Cycle Forum which has kept negotiations and discussions with cyclists going and is now moving up a gear so that it’s discussing policy as well as practice and is to introduce a systematic way of consulting cyclists about highways developments.

  • The work of the voluntary sector, e.g. 5WW Trust, Sustrans (separate report from Sustrans being submitted).

  • The growth of bike shops for retail and servicing is a response to the interest in cycling and is necessary to provide choices of bikes to buy and own and the infrastructure to service bikes. To our knowledge, there is also one business going into bike hire in Sheffield, the target audience will be visitors.

  • There has been an active promotion of cycling resources/information/benefits by SCC and other organizations, including CycleSheffield, through a programme of Dr Bikes and/or attendance at local events/fairs etc.

  • There have been good examples of support for cyclists. For example, The NHS Trust and other enterprises have supported cyclists through a cycle to work programme, the formation of Bike Users Groups, and provision of Dr Bikes.   The University has used monies raised from car parking permits to fund and subsidise a programme of selling students refurbished second-hand bikes, regular Dr Bikes for staff and students and the recent introduction of a full maintenance service with a Bike Hut.

2. What specific barriers prevent people from cycling or from cycling more frequently?

2.1 Cycling infrastructure

  • can be incoherent. It doesn’t link up or just disappears. We realise that this is linked to development monies but is still very confusing and frustrating for all cyclists.

  • is very vulnerable to abuse and neglect, e.g. the recent problems with the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route and its links, parking on cycle lanes and paths, maintenance of vegetation that impinges on cycle paths.  All of these stop people from cycling or force them to take routes with fast-moving traffic; lack of maintenance and enforcement is a deterrent to cycling.

  • is hampered by uncooperative land owners or businesses, e.g. extension of the Blackburn Valley cycle route to Chapeltown, sections of the Penistone Cycle route

  • is hampered or destroyed by planning decisions, eg. the new market being built over a cycle route with no consideration for a good alternative being provided, the banning of cycling on the Moor.

  • has inconsistent rules wrt permission to cycle: the projected Steel Route from Castlegate to Moorfoot has key sections where cycling is not allowed, eg pedestrianised Fargate, pedestrianised The Moor whereas the Gold Route has unbroken cycling access from Sheaf Square to the University including shared use pedestrian/cyclist routes on Howard St to Surrey St.

  • such as secure cycle parking is a necessary requirement by shops, leisure outlets, workplaces and homes. SCC provides a map online of where cycle parking stands and parks are located in the city-centre; SCC has pushed a bike parking scheme (http://www.parkthatbike.com/), the stands used in the city centre are a good example of form over function, not the optimum shape for locking bikes too and sometimes sited too close to walls or paths, some car parks provide cycle parking. The Moor MSCP entry on Eyre St, exit on Eyre Lane has exemplary secure, covered 24/7/365 bicycle parking.

2.2 Perception of cyclists’ safety on the roads is a barrier to people taking up cycling.

  • There is evidence of poor driver behaviour which on narrow and busy roads deters cyclists;  SCC’s own submission to the DfT wrt Section 6 of the RTA affirms this view

  • The condition of the roads is generally poor/awful but it is improving with Streets Ahead.  Streets Ahead has an opportunities programme and our first attempt to have cyclist-suggested or cyclist- friendly opportunities implemented has been unsuccessful.  The PFI contract may not encourage retrofitting of cycle facilities or experimentation with road design and road markings.

  • Even experienced cyclists find some of Sheffield’s roads especially junctions hazardous to negotiate.  The design and development of roads does not sufficiently consider cyclists unless it is an afterthought, e.g Spital Hill.  Cycle audits, an essential requirement of designing for cycling as well as other road traffic for all Highways schemes over £50k (which will be most of them) as specified as part of the Cycle Action Plan 2006-2011 were never implemented.  This is a real failure of management of implementation and monitoring of intentions.  They have now started but concentrating on the Streets Ahead Opportunities Scheme (with which CycleSheffield collaborates) but these have not seen the light of day yet.

  • Speed limits. There is a need for 20mph limits in all districts and on all routes where people could and would, if conditions were more conducive, use cycling as a significant means of everyday transport for commuting/school run/shopping and social journeys – see latest DfT guidance (DfT 01/2013 Setting Local Speed Limits). A 20mph limit should apply to the city centre (inside the inner ring road).  The faster that motor vehicles can move in relation to cyclists, the more is the need for segregation of cyclists (and pedestrians) from them.  20mph zones in Bristol led to 25% increase in walking and cycling.

2.3 Enforcement

  • We have already noted that driver behaviour, abuse and negligence of cycle facilities can hinder cycling.  Enforcement of issues that deter cycling involve the police and different departments of the Council.  Who is responsible for what is confusing and in our view can involve buck passing.  The result is that nothing may be enforced.  CycleSheffield have been dogged in pursuing this at the CycleForum and with the relevant agencies.  We have just started discussions with SYP (Sheffield District) about cycling matters.

2.4 Integration of transport

  • Ideally bikes should be integrated where possible and segregated where necessary with the road network.

  • The carriage of bikes is mandatory on heavy rail.  We believe, as do SCC, that the carriage of bikes on light-rail should also be mandatory.  We also believe that it should be mandatory on the tram network and there is plenty of evidence from overseas that the carriage of bikes on light-rail and trams is not problematic.

  • The carriage of bikes on buses is allowed on some services.  This service could be extended.

  • There is a need for adequate secure bike parking at all transport interchanges.

3. What evidence is there from other large cities or towns (in the UK or abroad) on broadening and increasing participation in cycling, with a particular emphasis on improving the economic, health and environmental impacts?

  • Cycling England (a body established under the former Labour government and abolished by the present Government) set up Cycle Demonstration Towns and Cities and funded a variety of aspects of cycle promotion, from infrastructure to health promotion, working with children, inclusive cycling and so forth. Sheffield was not chosen to participate in this programme. All the participating towns and cities showed increases in cycling but the ones that invested in training, infrastructure and promotion – that is, had an integrated approach with interventions across a number of different areas working together had the greatest increases in cycling.

  • British Cycling/LSE published a report The British Cycling Economy, 2011.  It showed that the cycle industry has a GDP of £3bn pa across the UK.  As a rough rule of thumb Sheffield, with a population of 500,000 is a ‘1% of the UK’ town so that could mean a bike GDP of £30m in Sheffield.  Some of this will be spent on the internet, but you can’t view a bike on the net and you certainly can’t get a bike fixed or serviced on the internet.  If the APPCG recommendation of 10% of journeys to be by bike by 2025 and 25% by 2050 is to be realised then there is a need for a city-wide network of businesses to sell & service bikes.  Plenty of opportunities here.

  • The benefit-cost-ratio (BCR) for cycling is cited as anywhere from 4:1 to 13:1 depending on the nature and range of the investments and interventions and their co-ordination.  The BCR is better the more integrated the interventions.  The benefits are both personal, e.g better personal fitness, health, savings on fuel, fares and medicines, and social, e.g. such as better air quality, less noise, reduced health services costs, less absenteeism.

4. What in your view are the top three actions that would broaden and increase cycling in Sheffield?

 1. SCC should

  • continue with its programme of bike training and promotion of cycling in/for schools, workplaces, residents and Sheffield based workers

  • continue with the evolution of the Cycle Forum as the place where SCC and other agencies can discuss and consult with cyclists and their interest groups on the development and practice of cycling matters.

  • maintain the post of Cycle Champion, which is assigned to a senior officer in the Council, to ensure that reforms and policies are pushed through

  • ensure that a Cycling Officer is appointed as soon as possible and that this post is not junior or marginalised

  • introduce cycle-awareness training for all its drivers and ensure that its contractors. e.g Veolia, Amey, also have programmes of cycle-awareness training (Veolia do this in London boroughs)

  • ensure when it introduces schemes such as CycleBoost that it informs and involves local cycling businesses who will have to tolerate subsidised bikes being sold to scheme participants and will have to supply the bike maintenance business generated when the scheme finishes.

  • ensure that there is a programme of professional development training for council staff in: council policies wrt cycling and what that means for their work in health promotion, environmental work, eg air quality, noise etc, and highways.  There has been no worthwhile training of staff in doing cycle audits or including cycle audits in the procedure for highway developments and staff have not kept themselves up-to-date on designing for cycling

  • be planning, at both councillor and officer level, for how it will work with the other 9 LAs in the Sheffield City Region.  Transport grants will be allocated to this region (as opposed to solely Sheffield LA) and it is important that this body has policies on cycling, and why and how it wants cycling to develop.  Officers across the SCR will need to have shovel-ready cycling projects prepared for as and when monies get released (Sheffield failed to receive Cycling City Ambition Money because there was no preparedness within the SCR with schemes applicable for the magnitude of grants and/or cooperating across the LAs).

2. Internally there is a need for joined-up thinking and action at SCC through

  • at the most senior level ensuring that intentions and policies are transformed into action by executive and across departments.  For example, the Leader of the Council has signed up to the Times’ campaign, Cities Fit for Cycling, but, apart from the appointment of a Cycling Champion this manifesto has no manifestation within the actions or policies of the Council.  Other examples are below.  There are too many silos, not enough smart thinking, monies being wasted and good intentions confounded. There do not seem to be any clear procedures or processes by which policy is transformed into action wrt cycling at a grand or a basic level.

  • some creativity and imagination to start thinking outside the box, e.g. Greater Manchester is supporting 20mph zones through its health budget as the resultant increase in physical activity and reductions in injuries (or worse) have a BCR greater than 1 wrt health benefits.  SCC needs to be looking for what is possible and stop looking for what is impossible.

  • ensuring that Cycle Action Plans are kept current and that there is proper monitoring of targets/outcomes set, evidence: the last cycle plan went out of date in 2011.  There appear to be no internal systems which flag that important guiding docs are going out of date and need renewing. Although the targets wrt to raising the number of people cycling were met, absolutely no progress has been made in highway design and cycle audits of all new highway developments – see professional development below. That and the fact that the council’s agreed policy to implement Cycle Audits is only now being implemented in 2013, and in a limited fashion, suggests that proper internal monitoring of targets/outcomes (and policies) has not been happening.

  • planning, development & highways being far more integrated at the initial stages of urban planning, and road design, Our evidence: the current city centre master plan was very weak in its knowledge of the current cycle routes network, The Moor has been re-developed with no consideration for cyclists or cycle access, cycle routes to places are more like by-passes than direct routes and clear links don’t exist, e.g. the 5WW, ‘sold’ to cyclists as the route to Attercliffe, has no clear signed cycling links to Attercliffe (unless you go on a muddy, unpaved, undefined  path through the old churchyard between the vicarage and The Kings Head which is inadequate and unsafe as a (cycle) path)

  • competence and thoroughness with monitoring that planning conditions are complied with, and enforced if necessary, e.g. the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route and VA and U-Mix. SCC are making expensive and confounding mistakes.

  • competence and thoroughness in following the little amount of procedure that is agreed. Our evidence: there has been a lack of consultation with the CTC R2R rep wrt some TROs and poor service standards with responses, cf SCC Customer Charter.  These are now improving but only because CycleSheffield has made a lot of noise about getting agreements followed and replies sent.

  • a sound review by SCC officers and councillors responsible for business and economic development and regeneration of what is possible through the bike ‘business’, e.g. frame-making, retail (new and second-hand), servicing and repair, selling accessories, cyclist training, providing rides, cycle tourism both on road and off-road.   It was telling that, whilst there were highways briefings and health briefings, no officer was able to brief the Scrutiny Committee on the economics of cycling in Sheffield yet SCC has expressed such earnest intentions for it.

  • Lower traffic speeds in appropriate areas should be implemented as soon as possible.  It would be most readily/cheaply/effectively achieved by a default 20mph speed limit city-wide, with higher speeds considered the exception on appropriate ‘arterial’ routes.

  • SCC should ensure that all commercial, retail, leisure, residential and workplace developments (including all new car parks) have adequate if not more-than-sufficient  access for bikes, access to bike ‘trunk routes’ and covered, secure bike parking as part of their planning conditions.

Webliography

Reports on various aspects of cycling in Sheffield at

https://sites.google.com/site/cyclesheffieldmembership/reports

The European Network for Cycling Expertise (www.velo.info) has pertinent and concise briefs on issues to do with cycling

The All Party Parliamentary Report (2013) Get Britain Cycling

http://allpartycycling.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/get-britain-cycling_goodwin-report.pdf

(This report stimulated CycleSheffield to ask SCC to do something similar on a local scale, hence this inquiry)

CTC Vision

What does an ideal cycle town look like?

Examples here https://www.ctc.org.uk/cycletopia

Advice for cyclists/campaigners https://www.ctc.org.uk/cycletopia/how-to-create-cycletopia-in-your-town

Economics and Cycling

The economics of cycling (and also not-cycling!)

https://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycling-and-economy

Sky/British Cycling/LSE 2011 The British Cycling Economy

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/38063/

The European Network for Cycling Expertise has a briefing on http://www.velo.info/Library/Cycling_Economics.pdf.

Cycling England Archive

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110407094607/http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/

Health and Cycling

Cycling and health is detailed here https://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/health-and-cycling

DfT 01/2013 Setting Local Speed Limits

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits

CycleNation – the federation of local cycle campaign groups, has briefing papers here on the impact of cycling on health and the safety/risk of cycling

http://www.cyclenation.org.uk/resources/winning.php

Environment and Cycling

Cycling and climate change is detailed here https://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/climate-change

Road design and cycling

Many!

but the main one we have asked SCC to use and ensure that consultants for developers use is

Local Transport Note 02/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3808/ltn-2-08.pdf

This has recently had a supplement Local Transport Note 1/12 Shared Use Routes for Pedestrians and Cyclists (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9179/shared-use-routes-for-pedestrians-and-cyclists.pdf)

 

news

Procedure for reporting cycling related incidents to the South Yorkshire Police.

Leave a comment

A fuller explanation of this advice is below this “print, cut and out and keep” advice.

CycleSheffield advises members to take out personal 3rd Party liability insurance.

CycleSheffield members can get this by affiliating to the CTC (and get other services as well) for £16 p.a. This is a very inexpensive insurance policy.

Contact membership@cyclesheffield.org.uk if you want to do this.

You may wish to become a member of the CTC as well, join at www.ctc.org.uk

Procedure for reporting an incident not involving injury (101)

As soon as possible after an incident

  • Note the registration, make, model, colour of the vehicle
  • Note a description of who was driving it.
  • Get the details of independent witnesses.

As soon as you can describe the incident and write it down.

  • When did it happen?
  • Where did it happen?
  • Who was involved?
  • What happened?
  • How were you affected or put at risk?

Call 101 and state you wish to make a formal complaint about driving that you thought was anti-social, or careless, or dangerous and has put you at significant risk.

  • It is essential to get an incident number
  • Do retain the record you made at the time.
  • The police will make an appt to interview you and take a statement, either at a police station or at your home.
  • Witnesses may make a statement but not in your presence or other witnesses.
  • The PO should contact you at a later date to tell what action has been taken.

CycleSheffield October 2013

 

Procedure for reporting cycling related incidents to the South Yorkshire Police.

An ‘Incident ‘ is a situation where another road user has put you at significant risk, the gravity of which you judge warrants you making a report to the Police, with a view to the driver subsequently being subject to their attention.

This attention could be anything from an advisory  phone call, through to a prosecution (e.g. for careless/dangerous driving).  Often just a phone call has a deterrent effect.  (Prosecution is unlikely if the evidence is solely one person’s word versus another – see advice about independent witnesses below).

Another purpose of reporting is to get incidents logged so that the information they contain progress to inform future policing, transport planning/maintenance etc.

Procedure for reporting an incident

As soon as possible after an incident (ie within mins ideally, maybe by sending yourself/other a text, which will have the time on)

  • Note the registration of the vehicle and its make, model, colour.  Nothing much can be done without a reg plate number.  If the incident involves a taxi then the taxi licence plate number can be used.
  • If you can note a description of who was driving it.
  • If you can get the details of independent witnesses. The advice is they are worth their weight in gold. If an incident occurs, most will be witnessed by somebody, e.g. approach people stood at the bus stop, by the side of the road etc. and simply ask them if they’d help. Most people would if asked, the same people who would happily walk on past if not approached directly. A name and a phone number to pass to the police would be very helpful. If they refuse, so be it, but most people will help if asked (believe it or not). Scribble down a car’s number plate if it was obvious the occupants saw what happened, the police may be able to trace them and ask them if they’d like to help.

As soon as you can describe the incident and write it down.

  •  When did it happen?
  • Where did it happen?
  • Who was involved?
  • What happened?
  • How were you affected?

Then call 101 and state you wish to make a formal complaint about driving that you thought was anti-social, or careless, or dangerous and has put you at significant risk.

If asked ‘What do you want to be done about it?’ or ‘What do you expect me to do about it?’

then the reply is to repeat

‘I want to make a formal complaint and for you, the Police, to take the appropriate action please…’

It is essential to get an incident number (a number followed by the date of the report)

Do retain the record you made at the time – this is very important as more weight is given to this rather than later info/recollections.

By stating the request in this manner, you should trigger a process whereby the police will make an appt to interview you/take a statement.

If you go to a police station to make a statement then there is no reason why a friend/colleague cannot accompany you whilst you make the statement but they cannot be a witness to the incident. Witnesses may make a statement but again not in the presence of the complainant or other witnesses.

You may take your written statement to submit and as a prompt for you talk through with the PO taking the statement.

After the statement has been taken the PO will more than likely seek advice from colleagues as to what course of action to take and should contact you to tell what action has been taken.

More serious incidents

Your bike is damaged or you have damaged a vehicle

If you have been in a collision and there is damage to you or your bike then record reg plate, make & model of vehicle.

If the driver has stopped then get her/his insurance details.

A driver may want to counterclaim against you if you have damaged their vehicle and you are obliged to give your name and address and your insurance details.

Get the details of any witnesses.

If this is an incident where you think the driving was at fault then ring 101 and follow the procedure for reporting an incident above.

If you’ve been physically hurt or injured (999)

If you have been in a collision and you are hurt or injured then ring 999 (if you can).

Get witness details if you can.

Record vehicle reg plate, make, model, description of driver if they have driven away.

 

If a driver has hit or manhandled you (e.g road rage) then ring 999 and record as much detail as you can as quickly as you can – see advice above

 

SYP have a website which details the service standards you should expect and the advice on reporting incidents, however trivial

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/

 

news

CycleSheffield is talking with SYP (Sheffield District)

Leave a comment

CycleSheffield has been talking with South Yorkshire Police (Sheffield District) about cycling matters in general.  The report of our meeting with Chief Inspector Richard Lambert is below this email.  We have three officers who are keen to liaise with us or work with us in some way and topics like movement of cyclists in the city centre and bike security have been suggested as topics.  We also have an officer who is willing to act as the SYP liaison on the city’s Cycle Forum.

This is good news; we have got past discussing specific incidents and can now build a relationship with the police.

We will discuss these developments and our next steps at the next meeting on Monday 4 November at the monthly CycleSheffield meeting.

All welcome

============================================================

Background: CycleSheffield wanted to talk with the police in Sheffield about cycling matters in general.  We couldn’t get past talking to police provided unless we had a specific incident number.  So we wrote to the SY Police and Crime Commissioner to ask if he could broker a meeting and explained that we had matters that covered a range of issues and not all the issues could be tagged to specific incidents.  He was sympathetic to our arguments and said he would raise it with SYP (Sheffield District).  We reported on this meeting at http://www.cyclesheffield.org.uk/2013/09/16/meeting-the-south-yorkshire-police-crime-commissioner-sypcc/

Consequently, CycleSheffield were invited to meet Chief Inspector Richard Lambert at Attercliffe Police Station on Monday 14 October.   These are the issues that we wanted to discuss and that we had already flagged with the Police Commissioner.

Police attitudes to harassment of cyclists: We stated that we had spoken with officers from Safer Neighbourhood teams and their advice was to to report incidents where cyclists are harassed on the road including near misses using the 101 number. The SYP website also asks that we all report incidents no matter how trivial.  However our members’ experience is that the consequent responses from PCs who pick up these reports can be dismissive.  We understand that 101 data is aggregated and used by SNT to identify issues to target so we are confused by encouraging advice and discouraging responses.

Logging incidents by type of incident, location, and time create intelligence data that can could be used in identifying things like locations that cyclists find hazardous, or the types of driving that are problematic, or registration plates that keep recurring in incidents and so on.  From this meeting we understand that, at the moment, if an incident report is not followed up with a statement that makes a complaint and/or if no action is taken then the incident is logged but the information in it may not progress and the data gets ‘lost’.  Inspector Lambert saw this as a systemic issue of logging harassment, and said he would look into whether the information in these incident reports went through to crime analyses so that they could be used by SNTs in identifying where to target resources.

There is also the issue of making a statement that complains about a driver’s behaviour and the evidence that one has to support the statement.  Lack of evidence other than one person’s word against another puts police in a difficult position wrt follow-up and consequent action.  However that does not mean that one should not complain; it may mean that the consequent action would not lead to prosecution.  We said we understood that and we felt that people wouldn’t necessarily be looking prosecution but in many cases we felt our members would appreciate it if a driver was rung up and notified that they had been cited in a complaint and the nature of the complaint.

We sought advice on how to effectively make such a report and it is at the end of this post.  We had an interesting discussion about what kind of remediation could there be for persistent offenders and the idea of cycle awareness training (analogous to the speed awareness training that drivers currently get instead of a fine and points) was suggested.  One for further exploration, we think.

Police attitudes to cycle facilities: We acknowledged that the police no longer park on the cycle lane outside Snig Hill.  Incidents of police parking on cycle facilities can still be reported.  The issue of police directing away supporters coaches to park on the Asline Rd cycle path still needs some follow up.  Have the police spoken to the Council? Nobody knows.

Police advice on road design:  We talked about the example of the junction of Minna Rd (side road) with Burngreave Rd (main road) has recently been redesigned.  The police comments were: We believe that the inclusion of a short section of cycle lane across the mouth of the junction which ends at the rear of the bus stop, could result in cyclists coming into conflict with vehicles as they pull out to re-join traffic.  I believe the thinking behind this short section which does not join any existing facility was to make it safer for cyclist to cross the junction, but as you are closing the junction down and taking out the slip road, I believe this already reduces any existing risk there was to pedal cyclists, and there does not appear to have been any incidents in this area to justify this.

We stated our case that we thought the officer writing this believes that cyclists (on the main road) will come into conflict with vehicles (coming out of the main side road) and that we thought the premiss of the situation is that cyclists on the main road have right of way and drivers of vehicles coming out of the side road are obliged to give way to all traffic on the main road, i.e. vehicles will come into conflict with cyclists.  Our advice was contrary to the officer’s as we believe that a cycle lane would provide some infrastructural support for cyclists cycling up hill whilst having to negotiate a route with traffic both overtaking and waiting to come across the give way lines.

Inspector Lambert felt that police officers first thought is to reduce harm and that the people most likely to be harmed are the cyclists.  Therefore the police comments would focus on the person likely to be harmed.  We could see that but still felt that the focus was on victims not perpetrators.  We were re-assured to be told that the police are now trained to refer to collisions and not to accidents.  Road Traffic Accidents are now RTCs, Road Traffic Collisions.  We were curious about how police officers keep themselves up to date with road design and cycling issues which is a hot topic in the UK right now.  We also enquired about what kind of cycle awareness training there is for all officers, not just those that do cycle patrols.  These are topics that we can return to.

Police not participating in democratic meetings: We explained that Sheffield City Council has a Cycle Forum, which is seen by the Council as the place where substantive issues of policy and practice, to do with cycling in Sheffield, can be openly discussed and progressed.  The police have a standing invitation to this Forum but generally do not attend and that their advice and participation would be welcome, especially when the matters directly affect the police or could do with informed advice from the police.  We stated that we would appreciate a consistent police presence at, or contact with, the Cycle Forum.  This point was noted and will be followed up.

Police response to hit and run:  We stated that we were concerned at the reports of police officers’ advice to pedestrians (and we presume cyclists) to wear bright, reflective (eg hi-viz) clothing to avoid collisions with vehicles.  Our concern is that the stress is all on what the victim of a hit and run collision needs to do to avoid being hit by unsafe and negligent drivers.  See http://www.greatgasbeetle.com/south-yorkshire-police-a-new-low-in-keeping-pedestrians-safe/

Again it was noted that the police advice would concentrate on those likely to be harmed and we said that we would like to see advice for the perpetrators as well.