Letter: If Cycling Is Seen To Be Safer More Will Cycle

Published on: 15 Jan, 2024
Updated on: 15 Jan, 2024

From: Helen Skinner

In response to: The London Road Plans Are 100 per cent Better Than What We Have

Those of us who cycle regularly around the rest of Guildford avoid the cycle lanes on London Road because they are not safe.

I commute 3.5 miles daily with my daughter on the back for nursery, I use a mixture of 40mph country roads, 30mph semi-urban roads, residential roads and bespoke cycle/shared infrastructure. I do this in all but the heaviest snow or rain when the roads are ungritted, or like recently under 2ft of water.

I avoid London Road because the painted white line encourages car drivers to pass too close and the appearing and disappearing cycle lane is conflict-inducing. If I, a confident middle-aged mum, am not prepared to cycle on it currently, how can I ask a young teenager or a less confident cyclist to do so? It is the equivalent of them swimming across a fast-flowing river.

Also, someone who finds a route safe on a summer day may not feel so safe in the dark. The reduced number of cycles in winter is often more about perceived safety on the roads than it is about comfort, once you’re cycling, the cold is not so much of an issue.

As for active travel only being important to a minority – maybe the majority would also like to have reliable, known journey times, cheaper transport costs and better health but feel too intimidated to even consider it as an option. Maybe if we build some safe routes and they see others out and about, safe, happy and saving money, they might also consider it a viable option. That is after all what happened in London, Oxford, Cambridge and other cities and towns.

Responses to Letter: If Cycling Is Seen To Be Safer More Will Cycle

Jim Allen Reply

January 15, 2024 at 1:54 pm

Ms Skinner says I avoid London road! (But still cycles 1.75miles each way)

A cyclist knows and admits good that there are other better safer routes than London Road!
Roy Darkin Reply

January 15, 2024 at 2:00 pm

This argument doesn’t hold water. The London road is a busy road which will become even more congested should the active travel plans be implemented as in London.

I’m a cyclist as are some of my friends all of whom think the cycle lanes are adequate.

When one gets to Stoke Park there are cycle lanes next to the park. There is no need to cycle on the road.

Personally I think it’s irresponsible to ride with a child on the back on busy roads. It’s an unacceptable risk in my opinion
- Keith Reeves Reply
  
  January 16, 2024 at 1:53 pm
  
  Along with previous correspondents, I beg to differ with Roy Darkin and his friends in their belief that the current London Road cycle lanes are adequate. They are little more than token white lines which motorists often feel at liberty to straddle.
  The London bound side of London Road currently has a very short cycle lane beyond the long length designated for parking. The route parallel to the road, within the park, leaves much to be desired in terms of joint use with pedestrians given the limited width, lack of lighting etc.
- Helen Skinner Reply
  
  January 29, 2024 at 4:50 pm
  
  Thank you Roy for completely ignoring and belittling my lived experience based on you and your friends’ opinions. How I feel when I cycle down London road is not up for debate.
  
  If it’s too dangerous to ride with a child then it’s to dangerous for me to ride without. Getting home safely to my family is as important as keeping my family safe. Thankfully most people are lovely when they see us out cycling, give plenty of room and we get waves and smiles from our locals who now recognise us as regulars. I wonder how many people can say the same of their experiences driving?
- Sophie Gordon Reply
  
  January 29, 2024 at 6:25 pm
  
  “Personally I think it’s irresponsible to ride with a child on the back on busy roads. It’s an unacceptable risk in my opinion.”
  
  This sentence illustrates exactly why we need the protected cycle lane. Helen Skinner doesn’t want to cycle along busy roads with her child, and she shouldn’t have to. But it’s the route she has to use to get to nursery. A separate cycle lane will solve that problem and make her feel safe with her child – as well as all the kids who attend the various schools along that road but would be too nervous to cycle along London Road as it currently is. Anyone should feel able to safely cycle their child to nursery, it’s not too much to ask!
Sam Peters Reply

January 15, 2024 at 2:10 pm

Well said. The fact that even supposed highways engineers seem not to understand that a lack of safe options does not mean lack of demand is frankly staggering – and presumably one of many reasons our walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure is in such poor shape.

Thousands of children go to schools up and down this route and just off it. Even a fraction of these and other journeys being done without cars will not only hugely benefit all individuals and families who feel empowered to get out of the car, but everyone who still has to or wants to drive too – as safe active travel infrastructure has been shown time and time again to reduce traffic and congestion on vehicle lanes (not to mention cutting air pollution, and countless other benefits).

Sam Peters has stood as a Green Party candidate in local elections.
David Roberts Reply

January 15, 2024 at 6:51 pm

Cycling should be encouraged for health and environmental reasons. But cycling enthusiasts need to get real. Some people will never cycle, no matter how safe it is. A significant “modal shift” from 4 to 2 wheels is a fantasy for all but the most able.

People who are unlikely to get on a bike include very young children, the elderly, the disabled, the overweight and obese, the nervous, the unfit, the infirm, people with heavy shopping or pets or luggage, those who’ve too far to go, those who can’t change or shower at work, those with nowhere to keep a bike at home and people (like me!) who simply can’t cycle.

I’d say that’s about 80 per cent of the population. So let’s scrap the cycling evangelism. As car transport is decarbonised, much of the bike’s moral superiority will evaporate anyway. Cycling, like horse-riding, is destined to remain overwhelmingly a recreational pastime.
- Keith Reeves Reply
  
  January 16, 2024 at 1:38 pm
  
  What’s wrong with a bit of evangelism? It always seems much easier to find a reason not to do something. However, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, as the proverb reminds us. Let’s also remember that nobody is being forced to take up cycling against their will, or use a bike for every journey.
  Use of the ‘I/other people can’t cycle because of {insert one of a long list of reasons}’ trope for suggesting that cycling is next to impossible for all bar leisure always strikes me as odd. Who is expecting very young children to cycle? What percentage of journeys involve heavy shopping, pets or luggage? Not all disabilities preclude being able to cycle. At what point does being overweight, rather than obese, stop someone cycling? If you are unfit a few cycle rides will soon make you fitter. As for the lack of changing facilities or showers at some workplaces, I cycle two to three miles to work at a modest speed and don’t need a shower or change of clothes.
  The evaporation of a perceived moral crusade in favour of cycling, as ‘car transport is decarbonised’ is another interesting point. Perhaps we’ll stop burning fossil fuels, however, the alternatives, e.g. nuclear are not without issues. The production of cars and the provision and maintenance of the associated infrastructure will continue to consume significant amounts of non renewable resources no matter how much they are decarbonised.
- Joe Taylor Reply
  
  January 16, 2024 at 1:53 pm
  
  It’s interesting how “some people” ends up being “80 per cent of the population” by the end of your comment.
  
  Young children can and do get on bikes, as shown by the annual Kidical Mass cycling event that takes place in Guildford. Good cycling infrastructure also serves parents who have larger cargo bikes which they can use to take small children to/from school, that’s one less car stuck in traffic during the morning/evening rush hours.
  
  The elderly & disabled stand to benefit from shorter journey times due to less car traffic on the roads.
  
  The overweight & obese have greater opportunity to take up cycling as a form of exercise as segregated lanes feel safer, removing a deterrent from before. The same applies to nervous and unfit people, the prospect of cycling on the road is less daunting and more accessible.
  
  Heavy shopping/pets/luggage, some of this can be done on a bike too, but nobody is suggesting 100% of journeys will be replaced by cycling and in some cases it isn’t practical but a net reduction in journeys taken by car is still a reduction.
  
  I think it’s disingenuous to argue that the majority of people are unable to cycle. If they choose to or not is fine, building cycling infrastructure is not a mandate to stop driving, but it does present a more attractive alternative. Cycling infrastructure stands to benefit local communities the most by helping to facilitate alternative methods of getting about and in turn reducing congestion.
  
  For a lot of people it is both recreation and a means of getting about, often these go hand in hand.
- Sylvia Flanagan Reply
  
  January 20, 2024 at 1:15 pm
  
  I agree with David Roberts and add that cycling might make us fitter but our lungs will suffer from car fumes.
  
  How many little kids are in pushchairs or walking along main roads being poisoned by fumes? I cannot imagine that all vehicles will be electric any time soon. Has anyone heard of an electric lorry?
  
  Another reason people are put off cycling is the weather. Who would cycle in the rain, snow, ice or very hot weather when they can drive and have air con?
  
  We drivers like to be in our own little space with music playing and warmth even if the journey takes as long as someone cycling. Parents drop kids at schools on their way to work partly because it’s safer knowing they are there at the school gate.
  
  I do have a bike ride when my grandson comes to stay but it’s away from roads and safe. Cars will always rule the roads.
  - Helen Skinner Reply
    
    January 29, 2024 at 4:37 pm
    
    Interestingly cars do not always come off better – studies have shown that all but the most expensive have a higher toxicity inside than out when sitting in traffic. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/12/children-risk-air-pollution-cars-former-uk-chief-scientist-warns
    A quick google will show you that there are electric trucks from all the big manufacturers now.
    Maybe I’m unusual but getting out from behind a screen, enjoying the fresh air regardless of weather is one of the best parts for me. Like most dog owners will tell you, having a reason to get out each day is very beneficial to mental health and I missed it terribly when I was on maternity leave.
- Helen Skinner Reply
  
  January 29, 2024 at 4:42 pm
  
  So, because some people can’t, I shouldn’t be allowed to cycle safely?
  
  What about all the people who can’t drive, should we therefore stop all the drivers? Of course not.
  
  Cycling is one of the most efficient transport methods over short distances. Enable it, normalise it and reduce the number of car journeys. Other countries do this and somehow they don’t have all the issues everyone seems to point out, maybe it’s because it’s not really about the issues, maybe it’s because some people don’t like the thought of cycling and don’t want others to do it and show them that it’s viable.
  - John Perkins Reply
    
    January 30, 2024 at 4:35 pm
    
    Nobody has suggested that people shouldn’t be allowed to cycle safely or stop all cyclists.
John Lomas Reply

January 16, 2024 at 1:47 pm

David Roberts meentions cars becoming more decarbonised, this means there are also more and more SILENT killers among us.
Derek Payne Reply

January 16, 2024 at 4:01 pm

I would like to ask Sam Peters how he can evidence reducing traffic congestion and air pollution if the London Road Scheme goes ahead. The SCC Modelling Report shows a circa 30% increase in motor traffic congestion, so longer journey times and circa 28% increased air pollution (based on 2023 stats of 4% of vehicles being electric or hybrid). Government stats show an anticipated uplift of cyclists to be 50-70%, so from 230 to 390 per day at best. And their stats also state a modal shift of circa 11%, thereby reducing motor vehicles by less than 20 (of circa 16,000 to 19,000 motor vehicles every day). So while this may work in some areas, London Road just does not feel like a good fit. Happy to be corrected.
Sabrina Chang Reply

January 19, 2024 at 10:28 am

Ms Skinner is cleary correct, but it doesn’t matter. Guldford is where you come to smell fumes and sit in cars in traffic jams. No one will allow this to change – the car must rule everything here.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

January 20, 2024 at 8:01 pm

The arguments for making cycling safer on Guildford roads are complex. Where roads are narrow, there is not the room for creating safer cycle lanes. The answer could be, where possible, creating alternative routes for some of the traffic and thus freeing up road space for cyclists and pedestrians.

For London Road, where the section is narrow in places between Boxgrove roundabout and the next roundabout to its north, it could be made one-way northbound and one lane wide. This should free up enough width for safer cycle and pedestrian routes. If this were done, there would be no motorised access to Guildford centre from London Road.

In order to allow access for traffic from London Road to Guildford centre, it would be necessary to create a southbound on-slip to the A3.

There is an emergency southbound access to the A3 at Clay Lane and this could be modified to create this on-slip with co-operation of National Highways. However, exit slip road traffic lights at Stoke Road junction would also need to be modified to increase flows.

Maybe Surrey County Council could explore the ideas described in Section 8 that I have on keepandshare website document on ‘New Solutions to Gfd traffic Revised 13 June 2022.pdf that could be found by searching the internet.

As for replacing Boxgrove roundabout with a Dutch-style one, there have been a lot of discussions on its safety. Please see https://guildford-dragon.com/letter-i-thank-niels-laub-for-his-well-researched-letter/#comments

The grade-separated modified Dutch-style roundabout is shown in https://guildford-dragon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-24-at-22.42.33.png
Bibhas Neogi Reply

January 23, 2024 at 1:47 pm

The arguments for making cycling safer on Guildford roads are complex. Where roads are narrow, there is not the room for creating safer cycle lanes. The answer could be, where possible, creating alternative routes for some of the traffic and thus freeing up road space for cyclists and pedestrians.

For London Road, where the section is narrow in places between Boxgrove roundabout and the next roundabout to its north, it could be made one-way northbound and one lane wide. This should free up enough width for safer cycle and pedestrian routes. If this were done, there would be no motorised access to Guildford centre from London Road.

In order to allow access for traffic from London Road to Guildford centre, it would be necessary to create a southbound on-slip to the A3.

There is an emergency southbound access to the A3 at Clay Lane and this could be modified to create this on-slip with co-operation of National Highways. However, exit slip road traffic lights at Stoke Road junction may also need to be modified to increase flows.

Maybe Surrey County Council could explore the ideas described in Section 8 that I have on keepandshare website document on ‘New Solutions to Gfd traffic Revised 13 June 2022.pdf that could be found by searching the internet.

As for replacing Boxgrove roundabout with a Dutch-style one, there have been a lot of discussions on its safety. Please see https://guildford-dragon.com/letter-i-thank-niels-laub-for-his-well-researched-letter/#comments

The grade-separated modified Dutch-style roundabout is shown in https://guildford-dragon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-24-at-22.42.33.png
- Mark Percival Reply
  
  January 29, 2024 at 7:21 pm
  
  The arguments are not complex, if the roads are too narrow as the road probably predates the motor vehicle, then we should restrict cars on them.
  
  I pay huge amounts in tax and want to see it spent on making our town a nicer place for *everyone*.
  
  So many other towns manage this and SCC need to stand up and make these changes.
  - Alan Judge Reply
    
    January 30, 2024 at 3:08 pm
    
    Mr Percival writes: “…if the roads are too narrow as the road probably predates the motor vehicle, then we should restrict cars on them”. What an odd reply.
    
    What about the multitude of roads that are wide but have narrow bits? Should we restrict cars on country lanes too?
    - Mark Percival Reply
      
      January 31, 2024 at 2:54 pm
      
      There is nothing odd about the comment. We have been doing this for decades, it is not a new thing. One will often see signs stating a road / lane is “unsuitable for” or a vehicle width restriction sign.
      
      One example seen in several places in Guildford are restrictions vehicles over 7.5T (lorry symbol with 7.5T in a red circle).
      
      There are dozens of vehicle restrictions and you probably go through some most days without realising.
      - Alan Judge
        
        February 1, 2024 at 9:18 am
        
        You said restricting cars though.
  - Bibhas Neogi Reply
    
    February 1, 2024 at 12:35 pm
    
    The design or alterations to an existing road should comply with the national standards that the counties also follow. Departures from standards are permissible but mitigation measures are necessary to ensure safety is not compromised.
    
    Where physical constraints make it not possible to comply wholly, mitigation could be a combination of measures. For example, speed could be reduced to 20 mph permanently or time-related, roads could have in addition sleeping policemen or chocolate boxes, roads could be made one-way or could be made one-way tidal flow provided of course there are alternative viable routes available in the opposite direction. So, not quite so simple a decision.
    
    What I have suggested above is an option that SCC could explore. Yes, better solutions may cost more. Some Dragon readers have accused me for offering reasonable but unaffordable solutions elsewhere, but cost is also a decisive factor in achieving the objective. A fatality costs something like £4m in the cost-benefit analysis of a solution.
jim allen Reply

January 30, 2024 at 3:37 pm

I think everyone has now ‘lost the plot’ about London Road. (both sides of the argument!)
In 2020 I wrote to SCC reference a potential cycle lane in Burpham and Said 6m is too narrow and unsafe, now three years on they have effectively agreed 6.5metres is the narrowest width. While insisting on the 6m width for 2 plus years on all the paperwork is going to be the road narrowing effect for ‘the road which is remaining the same width’ as of the September 2023 letter sent to 4,000 people.
During the Forum survey in 2012 not one person of the 2,500 people ‘demanded’ or even mentioned a cycle lane in Burpham. In Fact, while the original plan had secure cycle storage in all the new homes built- this was removed by GBC /the Examiner because there was no need!
The Sustainable movement corridors of Guildford Document of which London Road was SMC 6 has been quietly dropped because the roads are simply not wide enough to install bus only lanes with additional cycle lanes pedestrian walk ways and through routes for cars noting we are a Gap Town and many vehicles pass through as well as arrive or depart we are not insular fenced in 15-minute town.
The community has been manipulated into believing the impossible –
Cycling like walking as a method for travel is ‘not fit for purpose’
For young families with multiple children going to multiple school locations, multiple miles apart.
For travelling in the cold and wet when other options are available
For pensioners making 14 journeys in 2 months 5 miles to get prescriptions unfilled at previous journeys.
It is not fit for people arriving for work or travelling via the M25 or A3 from Petersfield
In short, the reality of Work from Home, Face Mask, Gain of function virus has coloured reality of everyone, we have all lost the plot!
Community cohesiveness is what is needed not diversity of travel methods for we need to think of everyone, not just ourself when making decision for the community. Which is why I say – 6.5m may work, Blind spots on Roundabout cycle priorities are dangerous, 43% joint cycle ways (as I get older give me personal concern) and working to minima is very bad practice they are minima for a reason not a target to achieve!
Some time in the future we will know the result of the decision and the effect it has on Community life. What that will be is for the future.