All posts in the topic Cycling to Oxford (Short link)
Summary
- There are 14 posts — by 9 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Noam Bleicher at Nov 18 21:14 UTC
I'm a careful cyclist. I usually cycle to town and back which is good exercise.
Unfortunately the roadwork and temporary side barriers on the London Road
create a serious hazard for cyclists because of the protruding feet and reduced
width. At the same time, Cuckoo Lane, though I think probably an ancient
bridleway, is signed as a no-go route for cyclists. I can't understand why it's
OK to cycle across the University Park where there are lots of people and
cycles happily co-existing) and not down Cuckoo Lane which has very few
pedestrians. It would be a much (much) safer back route to town for cyclists
than the London Road and, provided they are careful and courteous, would not
affect people walking. Alternatively, opening the old 'refuge' area behind the
fence in Cuckoo Lane which was used as an escape route for exiting football
crowds as a bike lane would be a very safe and sensible alternative to the
London Road.
And whilst I am at it, I saw students walking UP Headington Hill in the cycle
lane recently because it was quicker to get from the Plain to the bottom of
Cheney Lane that way - but this is a lethal practice and ought to be stopped
before it becomes fashionable. Imagine what might happen if a bike going down
encounters students coming up in low light when a bus and lorry is also going
down. I did yell at them (I was going up the hill thankfully) but the sight of
a grey bearded man on a bike puffing heavily and wearing a funny yellow helmet
yelling 'what you are doing is very very dangerous' merely resulted in a
carefree toss of the head and the comment 'we are only going to the Cheney Lane
turning'. That turning also raises the issue of people crossing from the
'proper' up footpath to the Cheney lane entrance (or vice versa) without using
the bridge further up - there are no warning signs for cars to beware of
pedestrians there. I have also seen people cycling down the footpath very fast
- which is not good either.
Can we raise this very real and foreseeable peril with the Brookes Hall of
Residence and discourage the practice before someone is killed?
David Clover
!0 Kennett Road
Actually, this raises a number of issues...
There was supposed to be a cycle route retained through the hospital
site which would take cycle traffic from Osler Road to Sandfield Road
and then onto Cuckoo Lane. The green stretch of Cuckoo Lane between
Woodlands and Pullens Lane is supposed to be part of the cycle route
from Headington into town, but the lower part of Cuckoo Lane from
Pullens Lane to Marston Road is NOT supposed to be part of the cycle
route. Something I've long been badgering my local councillors (!)
about...:)
The route was supposed to turn right into Pullens Lane and along about
100m to the "Back Lane" into Morrell Hall opposite Plater College (now
EF) and thence down John Garne Way zig-zagging across Marston Rd into
Ferry Road and then along through the parks. The legal agreement was
never tied up to secure an licence over that private part of Pullens
Lane but I am assured by members of the PLRA that it would not be a
problem.
The lower Cuckoo Lane is just too dangerous and busy to have cycles
and pedestrians and whatever happens that practice needs to be
curtailed somehow. Headington Hill Park is also no cycling so there's
actually nowhere people can legally go down that part of Cuckoo Lane
except onto Marston Road - so may as well sue the "proper" route.
On the hill itself, there were various things proposed for the hill at
the time of the Cheney Student Village development, and from which
over a hundred thousand was taken in S106 payments which don't appear
to have contributed to any improvement, and as you say, particularly
to the safety of people wanting to cross into Cheney Lane. One was a
suggestion for a pedestrian crossing there - between the Dairy Lodge
gate of Headington Hill Park and Cheney Lane. Another was a cycle
"escalator" going up the hill to take weary cyclists up.
I think a pedestrian crossing would be fine (I would use it every day
on my lunchtime constitutional) - but it's not going to stop people
returning from the Cowley Road area - ie along the bottom of Morrell
Avenue - from wanting to skirt South Park without crossing and
recrossing the main road.
Maybe councillors could get a breakdown on what S106 money from Cheney
Student Village and related developments was actually sepnt on. No
doubt it will be out of date now and returned to the developer if not
spent, but it's difficult to see what it has been spent on, given
there are still parking problems in Cheney Lane directly related to
occupancy of the halls, no new pedestrian crossing and no cycle lift.
So the main thing for me to ask again is - "can Brookes students at Cheney
Village be somehow exhorted NOT to use the 'down' cycle lane on Headington Hill
as a short cut footpath to and from the Plain?"
How many people does the Council say have to be killed or badly injured before
the behaviour that leads to this entirely foreseeable hazard on a very busy
road is formally discouraged?
David Clover
I saw what was nearly a nasty accident today. A child was standing on the
pavement in the London Road, opposite the junction with Gladstone Road. He had
just got off a bus, and it was about five o'clock, already very dark. As he
stood there a cyclist came hurtling towards him along the same edge of the
pavement which is unfortunately designated as a cycle route. He was dressed in
black with no lights and no reflective gear at all. Somebody shouted and he
veered off just enough to miss the child by inches, cursing roundly. If they
had collided, one or both could have fallen into the road in the path of a car.
The trouble is that it is one of those makeshift cycle lanes along the pavement
and people are just not expecting a bike to come along.
Pavement cycle lanes are dreadful. They are poorly marked and not straight, and once they are up on the pavement some cyclists stay there. Anyone with views on cycling in Headington ought to come to the North East Area Committee meeting on Tuesday (18 November 2008) at 6pm at Sandhills School, as "Cycling in the North-East area of the city" is on the agenda. City and county officers will be present. Full agenda here: http://www.oxford.gov.uk/council/meeting-diary.cfm/document/22277/
I will try to get there but have a late afternoon meeting on Tuesday. I would like, if possible, for someone to raise the issue of the route from Headington Hill to Town via the Marston Road. When I first arrived at Morrell Hall the bit of Cuckoo Lane that goes down the hill next to the Headington Hill Hall wall was sign-posted as not for cyclists. And that's as it should be - the path for much of the year is too narrow even for two pedestrians to pass easily and has blind bends where cyclists hurtling down the hill can be on top of people before they even see them. Additionally, there is theoretically nowhere to go down that route - Headington Hill Park is no cycling (though observed mainly in the breach rather than the observance) and similarly the barrier at the top of the entrance to Morrell Hall ought to make clear that it is not meant for cycling though the same applies about the observance of that rule. Below Morrell Hall the path is actually more or less impassable for most of the year and narrows considerably. When the Transport 2000 project was running which I think was trying to create a network of cycle routes throughout the city they decided that the far better route would be to continue along the private bit of Pullens Lane for about 100 m to the second entrance to Morrell Hall just before what is now "The Vines" and Plater/EF Language Schools. But I don't think all the legal agreements were ever tied up to formalize that. However somewhere along the line the "No Cycling" sign from the corner of Pullens Lane and Cuckoo Lane by the allotment gate got mislaid or something and so it is now quite common to be buzzed by cyclists on that lower part of Cuckoo Lane. Would the please try again with the legal agreements for access over the private part of Pullens Lane and get on with properly signing the route from Marston Rd/John Garne Way via Morrell Hall passed the nursery and "M Block" and onto Pullens Lane via the more easterly exit from Morrell Hall and replace the no cycling signs on that lower part of Cuckoo Lane! As I say, I will be there if I can but I hope someone will take this issue up if not. It's really quite dangerous and one of the most heavily used bits of footpath in the city I would think. Jock On 13 Nov 2008, at 18:03, Stephanie Jenkins wrote: > Pavement cycle lanes are dreadful. They are poorly marked and not > straight, and once they are up on the pavement some cyclists stay > there. > > Anyone with views on cycling in Headington ought to come to the > North East Area Committee meeting on Tuesday (18 November 2008) at > 6pm at Sandhills School, as "Cycling in the North-East area of the > city" is on the agenda. City and county officers will be present. > > Full agenda here: http://www.oxford.gov.uk/council/meeting-diary.cfm/document/22277/ > > > Stephanie Jenkins > Headington, Oxford > Info about Stephanie Jenkins: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stephaniejenkins > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5vTGX40QANQXX7o1uUpi9v
I am one of the many people who cannot come to a meeting at that time.
If they were occasionally held on a Friday or a bit later on another evening,
more people might be able to get to the meetings.
For a start, Sandhills is a long way from Headington (as has been previously
mentioned!)
"There was supposed to be a cycle route retained through the hospital
site which would take cycle traffic from Osler Road to Sandfield Road
and then onto Cuckoo Lane. "
But there IS a cycle route through the hospital grounds! -quite clearly
marked- it goes between the Osler Rd entrance of the John Radcliffe, alongside
the road then turns left parallel to Cuckoo Lane, then joins the roadway which
goes past the nursery and emerges right next to the Sandfield rd end of cookoo
lane. There's also a branch of track that goes round the Manor surgery and into
the Manor hospital complex.
I guess it's a couple of hundred metres longer than going straight down
Couckoo lane but not far on a bike!?
In between Cuckoo Lane and the Hospital grounds there is a reserved area which
was used in the days of the Football ground to allow a safety overflow for
'away' crowds coming out of the Cuckoo Lane gate. This area is still there but
padlocked off. It wouldn't take much imagination or work to reinstate that area
as a cycle lane parallel to and separated from the (lightly used) footpath
itself.
David Clover
That sounds like an excellent idea. But who owns the land?
One of the issues that David raised in his original post on this was the way
that the County was handling the temporary pathways while the work was being
done on Headington/London road.
Have others noticed the new approach on London Road up by the Dial House and
Pickwicks? Now the whole path is closed and pedestrians are being sent across
London Rd to walk along – except, of course, they’re not. So now we have
pedestrians walking in the narrowed main road. The signage explaining this is
woefully short of actual explanation, so it’s understandable why people are
taking the chance to walk along. If this is going to take as long as the other
works, then the County will have to do something about either the signage, or
their cavalier approach to closing the footpath.
The whole London Road Corridor Improvement Programme as the County Council
grandiosely call it is nothing short of scandalous, overpriced, unneeded,
totally unnecessary and a huge waste of taxpayer money. We don't need more bus
lanes, but less actually, even better would be none at all, and we could do
with less traffic lights as well while we are at it. All Road Signage has to
comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, if it
doesn't comply with those rules and laws I would advise you to complain. From
what you describe it makes me believe the signage does not comply.
Just a point of clarification please Nicholas.
Are you the same Nicholas Fell who posted here on October 23rd "So this will be
the last post from me on this website" or a different one?
I take it you don't use the bus very often Nicholas. Bus users don't contribute to traffic congestion, so why on earth should they be forced to endure its consequences? People who choose to use a form of transport which makes a highly efficient use of road space should at least be rewarded with short and predictable journey times.Regards Noam BleicherBus Users UK Oxford Branch 078 1847 1655 www.bususers.orggroups.myspace.com/bususersoxfordFind us on Facebook too!> To: <email obscured>> From: <email obscured>> Subject: Re: [HMNF] Cycling to Oxford> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:57:04 +1300> > The whole London Road Corridor Improvement Programme as the County Council grandiosely call it is nothing short of scandalous, overpriced, unneeded, totally unnecessary and a huge waste of taxpayer money. We don't need more bus lanes, but less actually, even better would be none at all, and we could do with less traffic lights as well while we are at it. All Road Signage has to comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, if it doesn't comply with those rules and laws I would advise you to complain. From what you describe it makes me believe the signage does not comply.> > > nicholas fell> Royal Borough of Headington, City of Oxford> Info about nicholas fell: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/nicholasfell> > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4TK241ibRtr1f8B8mkMSHE>