CycleSheffield Matters for CycleForum Tue 18 Mar 2014

Reps from CycleSheffield will be presenting the itemm below to the next bi-monthly CycleForum

These items may receive some discussion and/or be passed on to the best people to deal with it in SCC or elsewhere

We post these to all on the CycleForum list about a week before the meeting – and already a Police Inspector has got back to us to say he would like to come and talk to the Forum about the parking of football coaches on the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route at Asline Rd.

We report back on the responses at our monthly meeting (next one Mon Apr 7) and start to build up our agenda for the next CycleForum (Tue May 20) which will be finalsied at our May meeting (Mon May 12)

CycleSheffield Matters for CycleForum Tue 18 Mar 2014

1. CycleSheffield would like SCC to note:

  1. our response to the DfT consultation on parking;

  2. our appreciation of Greg Challis from the SCC AQAP team coming to the meeting to discuss the Smarter Travel Choices aspect of AQAP 2015;

  3. our recent meeting and discussion with the SCC Cycle Champion, David Caulfield to discuss cycling issues;

  4. the Cycle Expo meeting in Leeds May 1 & 2 2014  – CycleSheffield is sending a delegate and we would appreciate SCC sending one too;

  5. our thanks for a successful initiation of the sub-committee to look at making highway schemes better for cycling;

  6. our thanks for works being done to make small improvements within the Streets Ahead opportunities programme, eg dropped kerbs on Duchess Rd at one end of SVCR and the excellent work being done on Upper Hanover Way.

 

2. Cycle Audits It is now one year since the Cycle Forum meeting in March 2013 where we were led to believe that cycle audits would start.  We understand that some cycle audits have started wrt Streets Ahead opportunities but we do not believe it is the case that is part of the general practice in SCC for highway design or improvements.

  1. It could be argued that the Cycle Forum’s sub-committee is a part of this process.  We think this sub-committee is important but we believe that cycle audits (and walking audits) should be part of the design ‘flow-chart’ – an institutionalised part of the process.

  2. When are cycle audits to be incorporated into the planning and design process as a matter of course?

  3. Has a programme of professional development and training on designing for cycling been established for staff?

  4. Is there a reason for why, one year on, that it feels like very little has been done?

3. SYP and Cycling CycleSheffield met with the Police Commissioner last year to discuss SYP’s response and policies wrt cycling and treatment of cyclists and cycling facilities.  We have had cordial discussions with officers but we do not feel we have got any real engagement.  In some events we feel we have not got anywhere and never will get anywhere.

  1. The evidence collected for the Inquiry into Cycling showed that one of the main reasons that people do not feel able to choose to cycle is because of the behaviour of other road users either when travelling or when they abuse cycling facilities.  Lack of enforcement means that this poor behaviour on the road will continue and deny people the right to cycle.

  2. SYP continue to park football coaches on the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route at Asline Rd and do not seem to be able to locate or be willing to locate alternative locations. This parking blocks the path for every SUFC home game with neither SYP or SCC defining a suitable alternative for cyclists.  This parking creates the impression that it is OK to park on this cycle track.

  3. SYP admit that policing road safety or traffic enforcement is a low priority yet we have at least one yellow box that regularly fills up with traffic blocking a cycle lane across the junction.(Behaviour that SY LAs, and agreed by SYP, noted as common in their submission to DfT on Section 6 of the Traffic Management Act)

  4. SYP will not take action with vehicles parked in cycle tracks as they deem it a parking offence, we deem it obstruction of a cycle track. (See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/21). SYP officers are still parking their vans in the cycle lane on Castle St whilst attending Snig Hill police station.  We believe that these obstructions are hazardous to cyclists and threatens their safety.  SYP will not do anything about this parking on Castle St.  They claim parking coaches on Asline Rd cycle path is for the public safety.  This is obviously a complicated area as SCC have officers who enforce parking regs.  There is a SYP Safer Neighbourhood Team, does SYP talk to SCC about these matters under this umbrella or the Road Safety Partnership that exists between them?

  5. We recognise that SYP officers have treated threatening behaviour towards cyclists on the road with seriousness but we also recognise that officers haven’t done this and in fact cyclists have been harrassed when trying to make statements.  We believe that there is little training for officers in dealing with incidents where cyclists have been put at risk and no consistent policy or practice with abuse of cycling facilities or incidents likely to put cyclists at risk.

  6. SYP would like cyclists to report incidents and to attend Safer Neighbourhood Team Consultations which may be done through Ward meetings.  However we do not believe that this will satisfactorily address the issues above when an advocacy/campaign group is addressing city-wide issues that may affect the whole of SYP and certainly its Sheffield District.  We would value SYP attending the May or July CycleForum to discuss:

  7. the priority given to the enforcement of road safety and poor road behaviour;

  8. the parking of football coaches and police vans;

  9. the guidance or training officers receive to deal with incidents where cyclists are put at risk.

6. Taxis The hope was that when Castlegate market was closed that the number of taxis at the taxi rank would reduce and taxis would no longer park in the contraflow cycle lane.  We can report that this is not the case.  Taxis still park in this lane.

  1. We want Parking Services to increase their monitoring & enforcement  and POs to warn taxis of obstruction of a cycle track

  2. We want the licensing committee to treat this offence (or multiple offences by taxi drivers) more seriously and consider and change the current disciplinary policy.

  3. Our colleagues in Leeds are taking part in a LCC consultation about the ‘fit and proper persons’ criteria for taxi drivers in Leeds with a view to granting 3 yr licences.

  4. Are people with criminal convictions allowed to be taxi drivers in Sheffield?  

  5. Are there Sheffield taxi drivers who have convictions for criminal motoring offences?

7. Castle St The design of Castle St with the contraflow cycle lane and the bus stops means that buses have to cross the solid white line on the mandatory contraflow cycle lane to pass stationary buses.  We need help here with interpretation.  We think this is hazardous and not legal unless the TRO says it is.  The TRO as far as we can see does not say that crossing the solid white line is permissible.  The Highway Code Advice is: 140 Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

  1. We want Sheffield Bus Partnership to discuss this matter at the earliest opportunity, something is very wrong here and the city inner ring cycle route is compromised.

8  Five Weir Ways and Towpath

  1. Last CycleForum (Jan 2014) we raised out concerns about the construction of the Bus Rapid Transit Northern Route that went to Cabinet on Wed 20/11/13.

  2. The 5WW from Weedon St to Meadowhall South tram stop has been closed and is being dug up and used as the route for the district heating pipes.  (We hope that whilst this disruption is concurrent for the BRTNR construction on Meadowhall Way).

  3. The Meadowhall to Rotheham towpath is now closed at Tinsley – for NINE months – for construction of the BRTNR onto Sheffield Rd.  Access is not available again until Bessemer Way leading to Brinsworth Lock (at which point you may as well carry on Sheffield Rd to R’ham).  No alternatives (‘safe’ or otherwise) have been provided for cyclists.  Members who use these routes are appalled thatno warning appears to be given or that no altreantives seem to be have been considered by EoN, SCC or RMBC.

  4. This follows the fiasco of the recent disruptions to National Cycle Network Route 6, where no warning was given and no diversions have been posted (other than by volunteer rangers) We request that the following measures should be put in place.

  5. Sustrans to be notified of all works on NCN routes at least one month before they begin.

  6. Diversions to be agreed by Rangers and posted.

  7. Where there is space (as on Meadowhall Way) an alternate walking and cycling route to be marked out by temporary barriers, so that the option of a traffic-free route is preserved.

9 Glossop Rd & Clarkehouse Rd cycle lanes.

  1. We understand the position re Clarkehouse Rd, where it is difficult to prosecute people who sit in their cars and drive off when parking enforcement officers approach,

  2. But we ask SCC to note that people are getting away with parking outside the shops on Glossop Rd at Urban Clearway times.   (We note that Parking Services had a recent enforcement campaign on Carlisle St outside Tesco.  Sometimes these issues are resolved not as a matter of road design but of enforcement)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.