Donate using PayPal

hesterkw

Photos

Showing items 1 to 84 from total of 84 items. Ordered by location # descending.

Location # Icon Video Photo Caption Categorisation
90705Photo #90705An example of the streetscape on the Science Park ringroad. There is plenty of space here for a wider pavement and a separate cycleway.Other:
Problem
general
90704Photo #90704Desire line shown in the grass. People walking or cycling to make a journey do not want unnecessary wiggles.Other:
Problem
general
90703Photo #90703The only connection directly between the Science Park and CRC. There is no pavement, and even fences on the grass to make it harder to walk on the verge for those who are able. This is a huge disincentive for people walking and cycling to use the facilities at CRC.Other:
Problem
general
90702Photo #90702A marked pedestrian and cycle route. However, if you turn the corner you find there is no pavement or cycleway.General sign/notice:
Problem
signs
90701Photo #90701One example of an issue which is almost universal on the Science Park: no pedestrian and cycle priority. The majority of people making a walking or cycling journey along this road have to give way to a minority of people accessing a car park at the end of their journey. It is particularly absurd that there are give way marking for cars at the road, even though this is a dead end for motor vehicles, but no give-way to people walking and cycling, when this is a through-route for them.Other:
Problem
general
90700Photo #90700If you miss the beginning of the cycleway, there are no dropped kerbs further up to allow you to join it, forcing you over this metal plate. This is potentially slippery when wet and cycles have very little surface area to contact the ground. The high kerbs discourage trying to go round the sides where you could clip a pedal, and tricycles and other large cycles would not have this option anyway.Obstruction:
Problem
obstructions
90699Photo #90699Too narrow for two-way segregated lanes. There is no colour difference between the two sides, and the cycle symbols are rarely repeated, making it hard for users to tell which side they should be on. To add to the confusion, it is contrary to convention to have the pedestrians closer to the road.Other:
Problem
general
90698Photo #90698Potentially dangerously ambiguous priority markings: the give way triangle is before the crossing, but applies to the lines where the roads meet.Other:
Problem
general
90697Photo #90697There is no path for easier walking and cycling access to the back of these buildings. There is plenty of space for a path, while still leaving greenspace.Other:
Problem
general
90696Photo #90696This provides walking and cycling access to building on the east side of the pond only. There should be a split here and have the path continue to the west as well, to provide safe walking and cycling access for buildings on the other side of the pond, many of which have their cycle parking adjacent to the greenspace.Other:
Problem
general
90695Photo #90695Loose gravel is a bad surface for cycleways, as it can create slips and falls and increase risk of puncture. Here we can see that it is also not very attractive, because it gets thrown out of the path and embedded in the ground next to it. Regular maintenance is required to top it up, which would be unnecessary if a solid smooth surface was used. The path is also not wide enough for walking and cycling.Other:
Problem
general
90693Photo #90693Obvious wheelruts where people are avoiding the fresh deep gravel. Loose gravel is a completely unsuitable surface for cycling. It can cause slips and falls, and increases the risk of punctures. It increases the difficultly of cycling for people who may already be struggling with heavy loads, as well as increasing resistance for wheelchairs. This should be a solid surfaced path, and it should be wider to reduce conflict for people walking and cyclingOther:
Problem
general
90691Photo #90691These bollards pose a hazard to people walking and cycling. In the winter it is dark when most people are leaving work, but the bollards are unlit and unreflective. The further bollard in this picture partially blends in with the shadows from the bushes. But mainly, there is no need for these bollards, and they add an additional obstacle at already narrow conflict points. See www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/bollards/Obstruction:
Problem
obstructions
90685Photo #90685The desire line to join the walk and cycleway is here, but there is no dropped kerb, and the space is given to car parking.Other:
Problem
general
90684Photo #90684Dropped kerb for the central walking and cycling path is set back a long way off the desire line. Have to walk or cycle through the car park to reach it.Other:
Problem
general
90627Photo #90627There is no pavement to access the Trinity Centre from the main road around the Science Park. The demand for walking access is clear from the wear on the verges.Other:
Infrastructure
general
90626Photo #90626The main entrance to the Trinity Centre, which provides the central facilities for the Science Park. There is no pavement to access the Trinity Centre by foot from this direction.Other:
Problem
general
90625Photo #90625Dropped kerb is far to the left off the desire line, and if used means up to 3 sharp turns. Hedge gives poor visibility with the car park entrance. Narrow shared-use path.Other:
Problem
general
90624Photo #90624Could an additional two-way cycle entrance be added here, just down from the existing pedestrian entrance? This would make it much easier to cycle in and out of the Science Park in safety, and would separate walking and cycling.Other:
Infrastructure
general
90623Photo #90623Narrow gate restricts access, hedges mean poor visibility with the connection with the busway. The gate is locked in the evening, so even though some people will still be working, they cannot leave by foot and bike this way. The main road access for cars off Milton Road is not locked.Other:
Problem
general
90622Photo #90622The busway is an excellent facility for walking and cycling, as it is off-road, direct, smooth and wide. The Science Park has therefore made it as difficult as possible to use this facility with the potential to really boost active travel, by having a narrow entrance and banning cycling. Not all people who cycle can easily dismount: some use cycling as a mobility aid, others will be cycling with large bikes carrying cargo or children which are hard to push and maneuver on foot. There is no dropped or flush kerb, so as well as cycling, this is a barrier to people with prams and wheelchairs. The hedge makes visibility dangerously poor at the junction with the road. There is plenty of space here to have a wider route with good visibility: instead they have put up a baffling number of no cycling signs, which do little to fix the problems.General sign/notice:
Problem
signs
90621Photo #90621One of very few pieces of traffic calming in the Science Park, and it affects far more people cycling than driving! The lack of a central gap means people are far more likely to cycle to the left of the hump, ironically increasing the danger that this is presumably intended to relieve: the fact that pedestrians are exiting on the left and visibility is poor because of the hedge. Cycles such as trikes, those with trailers with children etc would be unable to bypass, creating the most discomfort to non-standard cycle users.Obstruction:
Problem
obstructions
90620Photo #90620No pavement on the inner ring of the road.Other:
Infrastructure
general
90619Photo #90619If you have entered the Science Park via the main entrance shared-use route, as soon as you turn the corner there is no dropped kerb directly across the junction.Other:
Problem
general
90618Photo #90618Narrow central cycle lane mixes vulnerable cyclists close between lanes of moving traffic.Other:
Good practice
general
90617Photo #90617Crossing is off the desire line for people walking / cycling to/from the central path which starts on the left: people will often try to cross at the end of the path rather than walking/cycling further down and making awkward sharp turns. Setting back the crossing would not only meet the desire line better, it would provide valuable extra time to anticipate people turning off the roundabout, and would be safer.Other:
Problem
general
90616Photo #90616One of many junctions where there are no dropped kerbs, making it hard to cross with a wheelchair, pram, luggage or a bike. Unnecessary splay increases the crossing distance and encourages people to take the turning at speed.Other:
Infrastructure
general
90615Photo #90615Massive splay on this junction encourages drivers to take it at speed. It almost triples the distance people have to walk in the road. There are no pavements into the drive to the right. The poor road surface is an additional obstacle for people cycling: the pot holes could unseat a rider, and are a distraction at a junction when people need to concentrate on vehicles.Road environment:
Problem
road
90614Photo #90614Poorly laid cobbles are a problem for people on bikes: some of the gaps between the cobbles are big enough to catch a tyre, and this is much more jolting for people cycling over at low speeds than the intended use as traffic calming.Other:
Problem
general
90613Photo #90613Lack of dropped kerbs and way to turn right shown up by the obvious wear on the desire line to the right.Other:
Problem
general
90612Photo #90612The central pedestrian and cycle path through the Science Park ends here. There are no dropped or flush kerbs for cycles, wheelchairs or prams (there is a nursery just ahead). There is no way for someone cycling to join the correct side of the road if turning right.Obstruction:
Problem
obstructions
89066Photo #89066Stealth bollard at the end of Cheney Way. With #bonuscat. #absolutebollards @camcycle t.co/RtGFkQzTCHObstruction:
Infrastructure
obstructions
89061Photo #89061That's a primary school in the background, but local kids still need to go round the front of the school onto the much busier Arbury Rd, and if they do cycle this way they are faced with pointless chicanes. Also a problem for people in wheelchairs or parents with prams.Obstruction:
Problem
obstructions
88974Photo #88974Not really dangerous just useless. Outside St. Andrew's @camcycle #absolutebollards t.co/U5D4OynHUXOther:
Problem
general
88962Photo #88962@camcycle Similar ones on Fen road. The one on the left is particularly pointless. #absolutebollards t.co/uQQGtVebJLObstruction:
Problem
obstructions
88954Photo #88954This is how Cambridge University 'welcomes' cycling. t.co/qIMKzcpXyAObstruction:
Problem
obstructions
88953Photo #88953Only one bollard is necessary to prevent vehicle access here. This would create less conflict, as cycles and wheelchairs etc could pass simultaneously each side of the bollard.Other:
Infrastructure
general
88952Photo #88952Same design of bollard as www.cyclestreets.net/location/86397/ with a sharp flat top which can catch on flesh or bags and clothing, and short so not very visible. This is placed to create maximum conflict at the busstop, when users should be looking out for each other, not a bollard. This bollard does not seem to have a purpose to prevent vehicle access.Obstruction:
Problem
obstructions
82574Photo #82574Construction of new building finally completed, and Abbey Street cycle crossing still obstructed.The two cars on the left are on double yellow lines.Obstruction:
Event
obstructions
71285Photo #71285Installing cycle parking in undercroft of new building in West Cambridge.

A-frames: good for additional places to lock drop-frame and small bikes.

Look a little squashed, though, but hard to tell from behind a fence at the moment.
Cycle parking:
Infrastructure
cycleparking
66725Photo #66725Hard to see the point of this configuration. It's not a barrier to cycles (it shouldn't be, as there is cycle parking this side of the bollards).

It does create conflict by restricting the routes people can take, both on foot and on bike. It is incredibly ugly. It could pose a hazard in the dark.

It would take far fewer bollards just to exclude cars, if that is the intention.
Obstruction:
Problem
obstructions
66724Photo #66724Cycle parking on the Sidgwick site: this style of parking offers no support to bikes due to its short length. Bikes will tend to fall over.

The lack of lower attachment locations is also an issue for drop-frame bikes, or children's bikes (perhaps not an issue on a university site).
Cycle parking:
Infrastructure
cycleparking
66631Photo #66631Will be another bus-stop bypass on Huntingdon Rd. Island built, cycleway next.

I passed this on a bike while bus was in stop. Constant stream of 30mph traffic which I had to merge into. Certainly reminded me why the bypass is needed!
Roadworks:
Event
roadworks
66630Photo #66630Kerb close-up of segregated cycleway. Pavement on right of photo, island bus-stop on left. Angled kerb on left after bus-stop shows what hybrid join with road will look like.Dutch-style cycleway:
Good practice
dutchcycleways
66628Photo #66628Newly-built segregated cycleway. This narrow section will be bus-stop bypass, with island for loading on left of this photo.

Crossing is flush with cycleway for prams, wheelchairs. Not sure purpose of bollards.
Dutch-style cycleway:
Good practice
dutchcycleways
66627Photo #66627Segregated cycleway on Huntingdon Rd.Dutch-style cycleway:
Good practice
dutchcycleways
66626Photo #66626Start of the Huntingdon Rd segregated cycleway. Gentle merge with cyclists coming from Girton college, not the hard right-angle turn of original proposals!

Options for turning right are not good, but there is very little to turn right for. Girton college itself can also be accessed from Girton Rd, no need to turn right on Huntingdon.
Other:
Good practice
general
65641Photo #65641Cycle path on West Cambridge currently closed. Temporary diversion has a proper surface!

It's narrow and shared with pedestrians, but it is smooth, without transitions and solid.

Only issue was on signage: while there was a way through, it wasn't obvious from a distance. I initially thought route was closed and they hadn't created a diversion, but what was really needed was a 'yes! It is still open!.
Cycleway:
Event
cycleways
65588Photo #65588Unsegregated shared use, except where it isn't.Cycleway:
Problem
cycleways
65587Photo #65587Concerned new public bike pump outside Guild Hall already needs maintenance. One screw holding hose to pump missing, other loose. Pump head switch damaged.Other:
Problem
general
65080Photo #65080Pavement continuity across a sideroad in Zwolle.

Different types and colours of paving clearly demarcate the pavement and road, with the pavement continuing at one level across the road, and motor traffic and bikes have to rise up and then back down to cross it.

This means pedestrian journeys are uninterrupted, and cars and bikes give way to pedestrians.

Minimal use of signage and paint makes the layout attractive, while it is still clear what is pavement and what is road, and who gives way.

This minor side-road does not have separate cycle infrastructure, as it does not need it for low levels of access traffic. The main through-road that it joins does have cycle lanes (only paint ones, but segregation is introduced at the roundabout ahead. While not the best cycling environment, it does separate where danger is greatest, at junctions).
Road environment:
Good practice
road
65078Photo #65078Pavement continuity across a sideroad in central Groningen.

Different types and colours of paving clearly demarcate the pavement and road, while having a minimal kerb at all edges so it is easy for wheelchairs and prams, or just those unsteady on their feet, to get on and off at any point. However there is still some kerb, which should make it easier for partially-sighted people to know what is road and what is pavement.

Continuity across the side road means pedestrian journeys are uninterrupted while cars and bicycles turning give way.

The paving is attractive, and a minimal of signage and no lines are used. The curved end to the side-street was a common feature, and makes softer lines. There are even a couple of trees.

Note that while it uses pretty paving and minimal signage it is not shared space: what is pavement and what is road is clear. Low levels of through-traffic make it a pleasant place to cycle, so there are no cycling specific facilities here.

Shame that someone has dumped a load of equipment on the pavement just beyond.
Road environment:
Good practice
road
64993Photo #64993A new access to Churchill college, across a relatively recently improved shared walking and cycling route.

The access disrupts the continuity of the well-used walking and cycling route. It requires pedestrians and people on bikes to change level; the kerbs are dropped, not flush (i.e. not smooth transition). You can just about see in this photo how the angled kerbs at the transition reduce the usable width of the path by creating a pinch point for wheels (including wheelchairs and prams), while leaving the sides as a trip hazard for those on foot.

The wide sweeping path with angled kerb line ensures that vehicles do not have to slow down much to cross people on foot and bike.

Everything about this suggests that construction traffic has priority across the walking and cycling path, though access traffic is infrequent, and all the other driveways on this road have continuous pavement across them.

The first I was aware of this was when it was already there. What public comment was possible for Churchill to impair a public thoroughfare like this?
Cycleway:
Problem
cycleways
64992Photo #64992Other:
Infrastructure
general
64991Photo #64991On the left you can see a walking and cycling route signed. This directs users to turn right into Haymarket Road, which is two-way for all users. (Straight ahead is no entry for all, and is a one-way street).

However, the road marking and signage indicate all road users turn left.

So, is it legal for people on bikes to turn right here or not? Is there an 'except cycles' missing for the turn left, or is the route sign misleading?
Route sign:
Problem
routesigns
64740Photo #64740Decent quality cycle parking at the NorthWest Cambridge development offices (covered, close to main door, flexible design for different types of bike, visible).

Firstly, it seems like they need more: the two people who arrived after me on bike had to attach to fencing.

Secondly, someone has dumped a whole load of signage and rubbish in front of the cycle parking. There was plenty of space on the site to have left it elsewhere, such as just a few metres to left of this frame. It was precarious to climb over and rusty metal a particular danger if someone tripped over accessing bikes. This was taken during lunchtime, when people could easily have wanted to access bikes for a lunchtime trip.

How did anyone working on this development think that this was a good place to leave things?
Cycle parking:
Problem
cycleparking
64524Photo #64524Cycle parking for the materials science and metallurgy building.

Covered from worst of weather, but overlooked by offices.
Sheffield stands: flexible design, not too close together
Secure: behind a number-code pad (although door had been left open, which meant I could take picture)
Drainage channel
Directly connected with a wide traffic-free walking and cycling route, so conveniently located, and building access directly from cycle parking.
Cycle parking:
Good practice
cycleparking
64523Photo #64523Parking has been temporarily suspended on one side of Adam's Road in order to make it easier for two-way motor vehicle traffic that has been diverted due to Grange Road part-closure.

Has this had any detrimental impact? Some users have been asked if this could be permanent as it makes it easier for drivers to pass people on bikes properly rather than squeezing by.

It was certainly a lot more pleasant as a pedestrian not to be hemmed-in so closely by parked cars.

However, some would argue that it encourages higher speeds as less need to negotiate with other users.
Roadworks:
Event
roadworks
59287Photo #59287High capacity stands, but they been installed very wide apart.

This seems to remove the benefit of high capacity stands - why not just have Sheffield stands in the same position, which are also more flexible, and accommodate more different types of bikes and locks, and are accessible from all angles?

Or, hypothesising that perhaps the council have a job-lot of identical stands to use in different locations, why not put them close together as intended by design, and have more stands in total? All of this new cycle parking was full when I arrived during shopping hours (photo was taken as I left, when some had freed up).
Cycle parking:
Problem
cycleparking
59206Photo #59206Bus stop bypass on a segregated lane in Brighton. The cycleway comes up to meet the pavement as a crossing point, then goes back down again.

This is just off the Kingsway, which has one of the busiest cycle routes in Brighton.

The metal grating in the foreground isn't good in a cycle track: they can become slippery when wet.
Cycleway:
Infrastructure
cycleways
59202Photo #59202Cycleway behind bus stop on Green End Road. The segregation here is very poor, but there is a dividing line between the pavement and the cycle lane, with the lane going behind the bus stop.Cycleway:
Infrastructure
cycleways
58981Photo #58981Cycle lane between pavement and bus-stop.

I wasn't impressed with this facility, until I found myself using it the other day, travelling west-bound to Leisure park cycle racks. It only really has use for reaching / leaving Leisure park: all other journeys are better made on the road, and the facilities for re-joining the road are bad.
Cycleway:
Infrastructure
cycleways
57355Photo #57355Cycle cut-through opposite Shire Hall. This used to be a through-road, now blocked to motor traffic. The pavement was built-out on both sides to make it easier to cross on foot now the road was gone, but cyclists can still get through. However this is a bit narrow for two-way cycling.Other:
Good practice
general
56949Photo #56949This lifted flagstone has been re-seated after a complaint was raised. It no longer wobbles, but it is now not level with the rest of the paving.Cycleway:
Problem
cycleways
56946Photo #56946The university's attempt at wide attractive boulevards has finally succumbed to lining everything with double-yellow lines after persistant parking problems blocking the route.Road environment:
Infrastructure
road
56945Photo #56945Huge flare-out on road doubles distance pedestrians have to walk, and encourages fast turns by motor vehicles. This is a lab and office site only, so all the private vehicles arriving are ending their journey here. There is a bus route, but only to the right, and the flare seems excessive for that. Cannot understand why this junction has been designed for motor vehicles like this.Road environment:
Problem
road
56201Photo #56201Tactile paving slab on the Coton foot and cycle path has lifted, and wobbles when cycled over. It's at a junction so there's a lot to keep track of here, and some cyclists will be trying to turn on the slab from the Cavendish labs. Reported on fixmystreet.Cycleway:
Problem
cycleways
55984Photo #55984It's a tiny sweeper clearing debris from a cycle path! It is possible to maintain cyclepaths and keep them clear from problems such as leaves and broken glass, and this is how.Cycleway:
Good practice
cycleways
54341Photo #54341Construction of temporary bike racks on the New Museums site while building work is ongoing.Cycle parking:
Event
cycleparking
53883Photo #53883Shortly after the council have painted double yellow lines to stop parked cars creating a pinch-point at the bollards to the left of the photo, these bins have been installed on the pedestrian line, moving them into conflict with cyclists getting on and off the bridge. However the council assure us this is a mistake by contractors and they should be moved within the week.Obstruction:
Problem
obstructions
53830Photo #53830Existing shared-use on the west-side of Trumpington Road. Could the pavement be reduced in width if it no longer needed to be shared-use? However no examples of rescinding shared use are known. It may take a long time for people to adjust, and breaks the south-bound shared-use route from Fen Causeway to TrumpingtonCycleway:
Infrastructure
cycleways
53829Photo #53829The land on the left is suspected to belong to the council. Could it be reduced to provide additional width at the junction?Other:
Misc
general
53828Photo #53828Utilities access in the verge. There are more on the other (west-side) of the road as well. Moving them would be very expensive, and they would stop the laying of foundations sufficient to support the weight of motor traffic. However, could they be incorporated into a cycleway, which carries much less weight, therefore creating extra width? However, this would mean shutting the cycleway when access is required.Other:
Misc
general
53827Photo #53827Could this verge be reduced to create extra width? It is more-or-less level with the road at this point.Other:
Misc
general
53826Photo #53826This stop for 3 coaches needs to be retained in the new scheme in some location: it is used as pick-up for schools in the area going on trips, and as set-down for groups visiting the Botanic gardens. There is a 15 minute maximum wait time.

Width of bay stimated at 2.7m and could not be reduced.
Other:
Infrastructure
general
53825Photo #53825Although cyclists and pedestrians are encouraged to cross this side road here, neither can see the traffic lights for relevant motor traffic from the shared-use path, and therefore do not know when they can safely cross.Road environment:
Problem
road
53824Photo #53824Existing toucan is narrow for volume of pedestrians and cyclists using it. However, it may not be within budget of the scheme to change the islands at these lights.Other:
Infrastructure
general
53823Photo #53823The end of parking and start of the left-turn queuing lane. Suggestion is that at peak this is full, and would seriously affect junction capacity if removed.Other:
Misc
general
53822Photo #53822This bank cannot be touched by the proposed segregated cycleway. It meets the level of Hobson's Conduits and provides seepage for it. It would be extremely expensive to reduce, and therefore cannot be used for space re-allocation.Other:
Misc
general
53821Photo #53821Bus stop on Trumpington Road poses a problem for space re-allocation for proposed segregated cycleway.

Timetables suggest at least 10 buses an hour.
Other:
Misc
general
52440Photo #52440Close-up of dual use sign on path. Silver on a stone background - not very readible, certainly not at a distance.

This gravel path connects the Dept of Material Science with the Coton path.
Cycleway:
Infrastructure
cycleways
52439Photo #52439Not clear on this photo (there's a close-up posted too) but that sign in the ground shows this is a dual-use path. It connects to the Coton path directly ahead.

The sign is non-standard and hard to read, and people could easily believe from the feel on the place that cyclists aren't allowed here.

The gravel is not an ideal surface for bikes due to risk of punctures and grip.

On the other hand at the moment this is not a necessary route. You can go either left or right before this access to reach different bits of the Coton path and there is nothing in between except fields. This may change in the future.
Cycleway:
Infrastructure
cycleways
52438Photo #52438The cycle parking for the new Cambridge Uni Sports Centre.
I counted 90 public covered sheffield stands, plus 6 more in a lockable area, presumably for staff. A total 192 space for bikes, and it's only been open a week. Quiet so far, but term hasn't started.

There are 6 rows of 11 stands, plus 2 rows of 12 to make the round 90. However this means 2 rows are tighter on the spacing, albeit only a little.
Notice the covered roofs slope to a central gutter, channeling rainwater away from people going to their bikes.
Cycle parking:
Good practice
cycleparking
52437Photo #524376 sheffield stands next to the lake on the West site. Unused as yet, as there's nothing here people are likely to leave a bike for, but as you can see in the background, the site is still under construction. Good to see them going in as the site is developed, rather than as an afterthought.Cycle parking:
Infrastructure
cycleparking

We welcome your feedback, especially to report bugs or give us route feedback.

My comments relate to: *






Your comments: *
URL of page: * https://www.cyclestreets.net/users/hesterkw/photos/
How did you find out about CycleStreets?:
Your name:
Our ref: Please leave blank - anti-spam measure

* Items marked with an asterisk [*] are required fields and must be fully completed.