Forum topic: Petition against Hertford Road cycle lanes

You can put in cycling infrastructure when it doesn't harm everybody else, as the A105 Green Lanes scheme has done.

I could write a thesis on the trip hazard orcas (I suppose my 3 year old niece tripping and slamming her face into a car, or an elderly family friend falling over, are "better" than what we had before?), the unnecessary loss of residential car parking spaces via the installation of bays that mean we now have to fight for parking when we didn't before, the cyclists zooming up to cars with their doors open and acting surprised when there's a person there too, the removed crossings so that we now have to dodge two lanes of traffic in one go to get to the busy River Avenue junctions, the zebra crossings where drivers can't see you until you step out, the new traffic lights that pedestrians can't see so you have to guess at the traffic flow and hope you don't get hit, the removal of flower beds, the fact that bins were removed so now there's more litter on the streets, the removal of benches that weren't replaced for months, the pavement just past Compton Road junction they left too narrow for a wheelchair so they come back and had to tack on a few extra paving stones thereby digging up the road again, the New River scheme which has been delayed by over a year and means we've lost a local green space for months...

Oh, and did I mention the dangerous Hedge Lane/Bourne Hill junction which was left without road markings for months, and then when they painted the road markings back on they painted the turning arrows on *backwards*?

I walk along parts of Green Lanes most days - I don't own a car - and every day I wonder why this deeply flawed and dangerous scheme was forced on us. Go forth, Hertford Road people, and give Cycle Enfield what for. I've certainly been trying.

Weird how people find it so easy to trip over large obvious well marked orcas but successfully step over kerbs and climb steps etc.

Streetscape is massively improved along green lanes now. New planting, more open, less clutter, more aesthetic design. None would happen without EMH as the money only came from central London gov't funds (not Enfield) so otherwise we'd be left with the same dog we've had for decades.

FYI, it's a criminal offence to open your card door without looking and endangering safety, there's been convictions for it. So there's a reason why other road users might be a little shocked and unhappy about negligent law breaking...

A tremendous amount of bluster, Katy, but largely lacking in substance. There's more attractive planting along green lanes now then any time in the last 10 years I've lived here. There's plenty of safe crossings I've used, I've no idea which the new traffic lights are you complaining people can't see (?!). The New River scheme plans look gorgeous, again we've got the same issue - either retain rubbish to take a shot at improving to something nicer. As for Hedge Lane/Bourne Hill, blame lies with the utility companies - the scheme and junction itself is no way a failed design.

I must say that Philip can certainly churn out words. And I'm not going to challenge most of them because he knows the Hertford Road far, far better than I do. He also has lots of ideas to improve things locally that I can't contest in this context. On the other hand lots of people trained in the field have worked on the Hertford Road designs so probably they do work, or could be made to work, even if more efficient non-road schemes could found using Philips different fundamental approach.

In any case this a scheme to prioritise cycling which is a good thing for its own sake because bikes take up much less room than cars, are safer for pedestrians, encourage and promote exercise, and the cycle lanes are now there playing their part. And, if the Council's approach is sound, they will ultimately reduce air pollution.

Where I really want to challenge Philip is in wanting to make cyclists take to secondary roads rather than direct routes. In town and cities cyclist must have at least the same status is drivers, and be entitled to choose the best route for them. Which for commuting cyclist is the fastest, most direct, most convenient one.

Cycling takes up little room, it's good for most people's health, it's social where space permits, it does next to no damage to roads, you can do short errands on a bike and carry quite a bit; you can pick your bike up and carry it. May Philip's scheme for buses thrive if it's a good scheme; but cycling has to have an equal status in the mix.

I’ve been intrigued by the comment aimed towards active travel supporters “..who do not stop to ask what real local people want”
I presume this is the same “real people” Nigel Farage talked about before being reported as zipping off to his secure, real people excluding, VIP enclosure immediately post the Brexit referendum result, but am otherwise at a loss just who is “unreal”.
There were huge volumes of similar such ……people don’t want … re the A105 cycle lanes, being claimed as hard fact. Yet when it came to the real tests it didn’t stand up:

Two independent candidates stood in the Local Elections directly against the cycle lane plans and came 11th and 7th. That was not a ringing endorsement.

We later had a then-MP sponsored “referendum”, or rather a household survey, mixing up voters and local business as well as necessarily any differing views across a household, as well as ignoring a / the key target of cycling (ie non adults / children). MP credibility was unquestionably stretched and I would suggest numbers simply ignored it. The General Election campaign had cycling as a core theme; and the seat was lost.

The same anti-active travel theme ran through the subsequent Local Council Elections, being given significant weight from the blue party, supported by the Lib Dems. The area however pretty much turned totally red. (With the exception of Bush Hill Park, where the resulting three Conservative Councillors are however now only one.)

I see a trend here.

I imagine that’s the risk of “bubbles”: mix with others who share the same views and it becomes the known world view, of everyone. Putting active travel strategy aside (that argument was determined in the previous London Plan and will be driven home further in the draft currently undergoing due process) there’s surely a lesson about listening and seeking to understand a little wider than may feel otherwise comfortable.