News RSS Feed Send your news


News coverage for York, North Yorkshire, East Yorkshire and Harrogate.


Calls made for York cycle route to be scrapped


FRESH calls have been made for a controversial cycling scheme on a York road to be ditched.

Plans to extend a joint path for cyclists and pedestrians along a stretch of Beckfield Lane in Acomb are now on hold after residents and groups representing elderly people and those with sight problems claimed it was unnecessary and dangerous.

York’s slice of Cycling City funding would pay for the £285,000 scheme, but now an Acomb councillor has demanded “serious consideration” is given to the idea of abandoning the project.

Coun David Horton’s motion opposing the segregated cycle path along the route between the junctions with Wetherby Road and Ostman Road was passed at last Thursday’s full meeting of City of York Council, where representatives from York Blind and Partially Sighted Society and York Older People’s Assembly outlined how they feared it could threaten pedestrians.

Coun Horton said: “My concern is that it has been developed as a first resort rather than a last resort.

“In engineering terms, it is fairly straightforward, so maybe it has been suggested because York needs to spend its Cycling City money by next April, but I don’t believe the risk to pedestrians has been properly assessed.

“There has only been one minor accident in this area in the last three-and-a-half years and that is not a good enough reason for spending this money – if it was council money, the scheme would never have seen the light of day.”

At the meeting, Coun Steve Galloway, the council’s executive member for city strategy, said: “At least 25 per cent of cyclists are already using the footpath to avoid what they judge to be a dangerous road – many are children.

“The footpath is currently too narrow for this relationship between cyclists and pedestrians to be comfortable or safe. I would expect that the realities of the new cycle path will be less challenging than some fear.”


Your Say YourPress

goangordon, india says...
12:38pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Ha' another negative reaction from a Labour councillor . Opposing cycle routes is like opposing the introduction of the clean air act, or the introduction free school meals for those in need. Ok some concerns were raised by local groups, therefore those concerns need to be addressed, and solutions found, but not the absurdity that Cllr Horton raised about “serious consideration” of rejecting the scheme. How can Cllr Horton justify such a stupid viewpoint? If there is a problem, or a potential problem, then you look at that, not throw the whole scheme out. York has a proud history of developing safe cycle routes, and I have to say, a lot of that was under a Labour administration, so come on Cllr Horton wake up to reality. Cycling is good for health, the environment, a reduction in road traffic accidents, by getting people out of car and lorry traffic.

sun seeker's, acomb york says...
12:52pm Sun 7 Feb 10

They don't use the cycle path thats already there!!!! Why extend something that wont be used?

Ghost of Oscar Deutsch, York says...
12:53pm Sun 7 Feb 10

They seek him here, think seek him there...

Wait for it, wait for it...

Ghost of Oscar Deutsch, York says...
12:58pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Sorry previous post should have said 'THEY seek him there' not 'THINK' ...Must lay off the cooking sherry *hic*

Vauxhall Viva, York says...
1:06pm Sun 7 Feb 10

If 25 percent of cyclists use the path down here Galloway, why not encourage the police to fine them. If cyclists are not competent enough to use the roads, then they are surely not fit to ride bikes. It is a total waste of money, and it doesnt matter if its from the council or from this silly cycle city York money, its still a waste.

Taken for a Mug, York says...
1:45pm Sun 7 Feb 10

"Coun Steve Galloway, the council’s executive member for city strategy, said: “At least 25 per cent of cyclists are already using the footpath to avoid what they judge to be a dangerous road

“The footpath is currently too narrow for this relationship between cyclists and pedestrians to be comfortable or safe."

So what is happening to the ones that are currently breaking the law...or are they safe whilst Galloway turns a blind eye?

Gresmit, York says...
2:35pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Good to hear that this ridiculous scheme may be shelved and let's hope that common sense prevails.
I am all for encouraging cycling, and the creation of cycle tracks where appropriate.
However, in this case, it seems like the council randomly chose a road in York without properly thinking about whether it needed a cycle track or not. Beckfield Lane is admittedly a fairly busy road, but it is fairly wide and no different from countless other roads in York which don't currently have a cycle lane.
There are many much more deserving cases, like Bishopthorpe Road for example, or Carr Lane in Acomb which has about twice the amount of traffic which Beckfield Lane has.

Go to Holland Mr. Galloway, and see how they create a cycling infrastructure which is the envy of the world. You may learn something.

petethefeet, York says...
3:26pm Sun 7 Feb 10

I don't like any shared cycle/predestrian path as it makes pedestrians feel vulnerable. The answer is t make roads a lot safer. That means mandatory 20mph throughout and new laws that protect cyclists at dangerous places like junctions. This'll never happen because of selfish and stupid motorists

Mullarkian, York says...
4:38pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Why do cyclists need a white line on a road to tell them where to cycle? What do they do if they deviate from the cylce lane to overtake a slower bike, do they need 'overtaking' lanes.
The whole concept is ludicrous, everyone managed before,
and as for putting them on pavements well!

Silver, York says...
5:10pm Sun 7 Feb 10

First of to all 9 commentors kudos to you all for beating pedalling paul to the post. Now Beckfield Lane when I've driven down there a few times I've seen one cyclist to every roughly at a guess 90 cars. Now I will concede that there is a school nearby so children will cycle to it. The problem though is kids are encouraged by their parents to cycle on the path anyway and they're also not known for obeying what figures of authority tell them too. Agree with the Bishopthorpe road idea a lot more as it makes a lot of sense.

Frodo Baggins, Acomb says...
5:20pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Gresmit wrote:
Good to hear that this ridiculous scheme may be shelved and let's hope that common sense prevails. I am all for encouraging cycling, and the creation of cycle tracks where appropriate. However, in this case, it seems like the council randomly chose a road in York without properly thinking about whether it needed a cycle track or not. Beckfield Lane is admittedly a fairly busy road, but it is fairly wide and no different from countless other roads in York which don't currently have a cycle lane. There are many much more deserving cases, like Bishopthorpe Road for example, or Carr Lane in Acomb which has about twice the amount of traffic which Beckfield Lane has. Go to Holland Mr. Galloway, and see how they create a cycling infrastructure which is the envy of the world. You may learn something.
Yes please go to Holland Mr Galloway and have a look. You will learn a lot, honestly, and don't worry about the cost, just take it out of the budget you have for Cycle for York. A bit less then to spend on any more of your stupid ideas.

King Edward, Taterville says...
8:38pm Sun 7 Feb 10

When I cycle I never use cycle lanes on the pavement, I'd rather use the road. Pedestrians are erratic as are dogs on leads, and neither seem to know which lane is which! People would be more sympathetic to cycling provision in the city if those who broke the law had their cycles seized and impounded till they demonstrated either a knowledge of the highway code, or turned up with a set of lifghts and a hiz viz waistcoat. If they can seize and crush vehicles for breaking laws, then the same can apply to other modes of transport.

Kynnersley, Huntington says...
8:54pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Mullarkian wrote:
Why do cyclists need a white line on a road to tell them where to cycle? What do they do if they deviate from the cylce lane to overtake a slower bike, do they need 'overtaking' lanes. The whole concept is ludicrous, everyone managed before, and as for putting them on pavements well!
The idea of a white line on the road is segregate cars from cyclists, however drivers block them when they can't get passed turning vehicles, drive down them and then have then cheek to complain about cyclists on the pavement (which I don't condone), and use them as the giveway line instead of the correct one. PS I am also a car driver

pedalling paul , York says...
9:02pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Frodo Baggins wrote:
Gresmit wrote: Good to hear that this ridiculous scheme may be shelved and let's hope that common sense prevails. I am all for encouraging cycling, and the creation of cycle tracks where appropriate. However, in this case, it seems like the council randomly chose a road in York without properly thinking about whether it needed a cycle track or not. Beckfield Lane is admittedly a fairly busy road, but it is fairly wide and no different from countless other roads in York which don't currently have a cycle lane. There are many much more deserving cases, like Bishopthorpe Road for example, or Carr Lane in Acomb which has about twice the amount of traffic which Beckfield Lane has. Go to Holland Mr. Galloway, and see how they create a cycling infrastructure which is the envy of the world. You may learn something.
Yes please go to Holland Mr Galloway and have a look. You will learn a lot, honestly, and don't worry about the cost, just take it out of the budget you have for Cycle for York. A bit less then to spend on any more of your stupid ideas.
If we had the same highway rules as Holland, then roadside cycle paths would be very quick and easy to use. Why? Because over there, drivers entering or leaving side roads and accesses must legally give way to cyclists on the roadside path. In this country, cyclists must give way at every side road intersection.
Not CoYC's idea, but silly rules made by the Dept. for Transport.
Visit Warrington C**p cycle lane website for an good exampleof UK worst practice, at http://homepage.ntlw
orld.com/pete.meg/wc
c/facility-of-the-mo
nth/September2007.ht
m
On-road paths are useful on commuter routes, where cyclists prefer to maintain momentum to minimise journey times.
Off road paths like Beckfield Lane, designed to UK rules, can still be helpful for trips that are not time-dependant eg travel to school, and also for less confident cyclists. Many of those will become confident with experience and training.

sheps lad, york says...
9:11pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Oh sorry P.P. did we wake you from your sunday afternoon nap or were you too tired after a 5 thousand mile trip around the cycle paths of britain?

Rhino's Wellies, says...
10:00pm Sun 7 Feb 10

£285,000 for a cycle lane? Who are we getting...Sir Chris Hoy?

Dee Bush, York says...
10:46pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Dear Pedalling Paul

Please can we talk about pedestrians for once.

Dear goangordon

I am NOT party political. I am interested in debating the social issues without any party line being imposed.

I can assure you that Councillor Horton has worked very hard to oppose phase 2 of the extension of the Beckfield Lane segregated pavement scheme, simply because of the number of Acomb pedestrians who have been upset by it - mainly the elderly and disabled and people with small children. The very people who in the past could rely on a kerbed pavement safe from bicycles; other than those riden by small children - who nobody wishes to see on the road.

Incidentally the average speed of a cyclist is 12 mph with the fittest achieving speeds in excess of 20 mph (government figures)

Whatever pavement type has been constructed by whichever party in the past -the current situation is that no segregated pavements should have been constructed in residential areas in York since December 2006 without a Disability Equality Impact Assessment being done.

That is the current state of the law www.dotheduty.org

York Council has stillnot bothered to do a Disability EIA regarding the pedestrian needs of York residents - politically convenient perhaps?

Common sense says that if pavement schemes are analysed in terms of best safety practices for the disabled, then ALL pedestrians will benefit.

Needless to say no social impact study was done before before a lot of public money was spent on phase 1 of Beckfield Lane.

In fact there was virtually no consultation locally.

Engineering reports alone are just not good enough. We need to consider how all groups of people are affected before public money is spent - a balance of needs should be the aim.

Phase 1 was not needed; not wanted by the majority of people affected and in my opinion in contravention of Disability Discrimination legislation and current Department for Transport guidelines.

Before you leap in Pedalling Paul I telephoned the DfT this week and spoke to a project manager - in short segregated pavements are now viewed as the worst option for residential streets in terms of added hazards for both cyclists and pedstrians.

I am sorry to go on and on at length but this has been a long 5 months of detailed research by some people; consultation with local residents and energetic argument with City Strategy and now the full Council.

Many Acomb residents are very grateful to Councillor Horton for listening to our concerns and for then trying to promote our case.

If only City Strategy had consulted the affected people in the first place and listened to their concerns.

I fervently hope that they do abandon the scheme and spend the £285+ on a cycling scheme that assists cycling safety but does not harrass our most vulnerable pedestrians who include the very young and the very old.

MarkyMarkMark, Dringhouses says...
8:10am Mon 8 Feb 10

"At the meeting, Coun Steve Galloway, the council’s executive member for city strategy, said: “At least 25 per cent of cyclists are already using the footpath to avoid what they judge to be a dangerous road – many are children."

So 75% of cyclists don't use the existing facility? Clearly that was money well spent, then. And also implies that 75% don't judge the road to be dangerous. Just who was consulted before creating the existing cycle track, then?

As other's have commented, cycle lanes where cyclists have to give way to traffic crossing them are really not a clever idea . . . .

@King Edward - I agree 100%!
Unfortunately you can't seize and crush people or their dogs when they commit random acts of idiocy - a bit draconian and messy, but tempting none the less . . .

pedalling paul , York says...
9:59am Mon 8 Feb 10

The current Dept.for Transport guidance to Local Authorities is contained in Local traffic Note 2/08 "Cycle Infrastructure Design" which was issued in August 2008 after extensive national consultation. More at
http://www.dft.gov.u
k/pgr/roads/tpm/ltno
tes/ltn208.pdf
Its contents are being increasingly reflected in the advice and recommendations that York's Transport Planners are giving to our elected Councillors. That same advice will be given, regardless of which Party rules at the Guildhall.

meme, skelton says...
10:55am Mon 8 Feb 10

Whether this is right or wrong/safe or unsafe needs to be decided an i cannot do this but how come it is going to cost £285000
No wonder there are budget defecits. I am in the building trade and frankly thses sorts of quotes are taking the mickey. Blossom st junction is even worse. Are we funding a secret establishment somewhere that we dont know about by being overcharged for smaller jobs? like Roswell or simlar

Dee Bush, York says...
11:10am Mon 8 Feb 10

Dear pedalling paul

You are misleading people by saying "current" Department for Transport guidance is contained in LTN 2/08. It is contained there and but also in a number of other documents.
.
I telephoned the Department of Transport last week and they say that their position on shared use pavements has not changed since Local Transport Note 2/86 Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians
www.dft.gov/pgr/sust
ainable/cycling/ltn2
86.pdf
.
This will be updated and republished in 2011 but it is anticipated that the advice will be to strongly caution councils against constructing shared use pavements in residential areas.
.
As far as segregated use is concerned the DfT referred me to paragraph 10.4.1 of LTN 2/08, which you quote.
.
Reports continue to come in from Denmark and Holland about the hazards to cyclists created by side roads which cross pavement cycle tracks.
.
"Current" DfT advice to councils is to take the pavement cyclists back onto the road before each junction and back onto the pavement again. Something which cannot be done on Beckfield Lane where a 2 way cycle track has been created on one side of the road.
.
So City Strategy have wasted public money on a scheme that has created extra hazards for cyclists.
.
Transport Planning should not be party political. It should be based on a balance of the transport needs and the problems of the various groups in the community.
.
However, let's not be naive. City Strategy dream up a scheme and order an engineering report that will implement their scheme. Engineers like any employee will be reluctant to express reservations if they value their job.
.
As well as engineering reports we need analysis of the social impact of pavement conversion schemes - a Disability Equality Impact Assessment is a legal requirement and it has not been done - so no surprise that large numbers of people have said that they are unhappy with phase 1 and that they do not want phase 2.
.
A proper social appraisal and an attempt at reasonable consultation in the first place would have saved public money and a lot of grief.
.
Now that "radical" suggestion is political.

Ben Guela, Tadcaster |Road says...
11:27am Mon 8 Feb 10

sun seeker's wrote:
They don't use the cycle path thats already there!!!! Why extend something that wont be used?
I fully agree with sun seeker. York Council waste too much of OUR money. Talk about cost-benefit analysis first.
Pedalling Paul should use some sense first he writes!

addynuff, york says...
11:57am Mon 8 Feb 10

here we go again with pedantic prat quoting government legislation to us.we know that all governing bodies are overrun by the cycling mafia and any chance of sensible discussion has long passed.the likes of d agorne and galloway profess to listen but then just do as they please whilst telling us,as all zealots do,that it is for our own good.how i yearn for the days when adults were treated as such and you had to ride a bike properly on the main road not be given your own little strip.

NTS, Heworth says...
12:46pm Mon 8 Feb 10

addynuff wrote:
here we go again with pedantic prat quoting government legislation to us.we know that all governing bodies are overrun by the cycling mafia and any chance of sensible discussion has long passed.the likes of d agorne and galloway profess to listen but then just do as they please whilst telling us,as all zealots do,that it is for our own good.how i yearn for the days when adults were treated as such and you had to ride a bike properly on the main road not be given your own little strip.
Tried parking near a primary school at around 8.45 am or 15.00? How many of the parents will use the excuse that cycling their children or letting their children cycle themselves to school is too dangerous because they have to use the road, which is made more dangerous by the numbers of parental cars on the road at this time? I assume Carr Junior is no different to any other school in York with this problem. Perhaps by provisionof this off road path might encourage more children/parents to cycle and reduce the numbers of cars in this area of York, thus improving safety and environment

Zebedee, York says...
2:55pm Mon 8 Feb 10

Here we go again. Let another case of something going to "consultation". We all know it will be fully implemented regardless of the opinion of the majority. Just like Rawcliffe Roundabout, Micklegate Bar etc etc. Democracy rules!!

Get-a-grip, says...
3:41pm Mon 8 Feb 10

Here we go again with pedantic prat quoting government legislation to us. We know that all governing bodies are overrun by the cycling mafia and any chance of sensible discussion has long passed. The likes of d'Agorne and Galloway profess to listen but then just do as they please whilst telling us,as all zealots do,that it is for our own good. How I yearn for the days when adults were treated as such and you had to ride a bike properly on the main road not be given your own little strip.

Good post

pedalling paul , York says...
8:26pm Mon 8 Feb 10

Get-a-grip wrote:
Here we go again with pedantic prat quoting government legislation to us. We know that all governing bodies are overrun by the cycling mafia and any chance of sensible discussion has long passed. The likes of d'Agorne and Galloway profess to listen but then just do as they please whilst telling us,as all zealots do,that it is for our own good. How I yearn for the days when adults were treated as such and you had to ride a bike properly on the main road not be given your own little strip.
Good post
Pedantic prat eh....I'll have to add that to my name badge, along with all the other epithets that have come my way.....
But when gridlock strikes in a couple of decades from now, history may be kinder to me than you are being today....

piaggio, york says...
10:53pm Mon 8 Feb 10

But when gridlock strikes in a couple of decades from now, history may be kinder to me than you are being today....


and?? who care.s

D_Dutch, York says...
12:40pm Tue 9 Feb 10

Ar, good to see i've not missed any 'real' news since i've been away for the weekend, and that the usual cyclist/pedestrian/m
otorist menage-a-trois continues.

chappers, rawcliffe, york says...
11:42am Fri 12 Feb 10

Hurrah for common sense!!

Comments are closed on this article.


Local Advertisers

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »