So I wrote in thus:
Thank you for your letter dated the 9th of July
We OBJECT to the proposed removal of the bus lane between Glenalmond Rd and the
junction with Psalter Lane and between Hunters Bar and Greystones Road
These proposals will create additional hazards for cyclists particularly at peak times, partly due
to the closer proximity of traffic but also due to the additional traffic created by the removal of
bus priority measures, which will cause more people to drive rather than catch the bus. It is an
absolute requirement that cyclists are protected from the council’s proposals to increase the
amount of private motor traffic using Ecclesall Road, which in themselves are in direct
contradiction with the council’s stated sustainability objectives
We hereby request details of the safety and environmental assessments you have carried
about before making this proposal.
We raised these concerns in a letter to John Bann on 13th March 2011, to which we have not
received a reply.
We therefore consider that Sheffield City Council is being negligent in its duty of care to
vulnerable road users in making these proposals and that a cyclist who is involved in a
collision due to these changes will have a valid claim against the council as well as the other
vehicle involved. We are therefore lodging a copy of this letter with our Solicitors, Russell &
Jones as evidence that you were forewarned of the potential dangers, in order to expedite any
claim our members may wish to make against you.
I received the following reply:
Thank you for your letter dated the 9th of July
We OBJECT to the proposed removal of the bus lane between Glenalmond Rd and the
junction with Psalter Lane and between Hunters Bar and Greystones Road
These proposals will create additional hazards for cyclists particularly at peak times, partly due
to the closer proximity of traffic but also due to the additional traffic created by the removal of
bus priority measures, which will cause more people to drive rather than catch the bus. It is an
absolute requirement that cyclists are protected from the council’s proposals to increase the
amount of private motor traffic using Ecclesall Road, which in themselves are in direct
contradiction with the council’s stated sustainability objectives
We hereby request details of the safety and environmental assessments you have carried
about before making this proposal.
We raised these concerns in a letter to John Bann on 13th March 2011, to which we have not
received a reply.
We therefore consider that Sheffield City Council is being negligent in its duty of care to
vulnerable road users in making these proposals and that a cyclist who is involved in a
collision due to these changes will have a valid claim against the council as well as the other
vehicle involved. We are therefore lodging a copy of this letter with our Solicitors, Russell &
Jones as evidence that you were forewarned of the potential dangers, in order to expedite any
claim our members may wish to make against you.
I received the following reply:
I attach for your information a copy of letters and drawings which will be delivered to properties along the relevant frontages of Ecclesall Road. I trust the details outlined are self-explanatory. (1)
We are aware of the concerns raised at various times by yourself and members of your Organisation with regard to highway proposals put forward by the Council that are potentially detrimental to cyclists. In order to address some of those concerns, in conjunction with the removal of the bus lane between Hunters Bar and Rustlings Road, we intend to promote a section of shared use footway, largely to accommodate less-confident cyclists, children and novice cyclists, all of whom are likely to be dis-benefitted by the loss of the bus lane rather more than the confident, frequent cyclist (who will probably continue to ride in the carriageway).
It is acknowledged that this arrangement is not ideal and I can assure you we are continuing to investigate a partially off-carriageway route via Endcliffe Park together with the utilisation of relatively quiet residential streets. However, in order to realise a scheme of this nature, it will be necessary to acquire land in third-party ownership, which is invariably a lengthy process. Hopefully, the shared use facility will at least go some way towards providing a realistic alternative in the interim.
I will be pleased to receive your written comments and those of your fellow cyclists in response to the TRO consultation by 5th August. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require clarification of any details.
(1) The attachments explain why it is necessary to shaft cyclists and pedestrians in order to maximise the free movement of motorised traffic up and down Ecclesall Rd.
I replied thus:
Thank you for your quick response on this occasion.
I am afraid that the proposals you outline fall far short of what would be required for me to withdraw my objection. While the current bus lane is not ideal, is does provide protection to both novice and experienced cyclists. The speed differentials between cyclists travelling uphill and motor vehicles make it highly likely that collisions between cyclists and motor traffic, already high on this corridor, are likely to increase while the cluttered nature of the pavements in this area make make collisions between cyclists and pedestrians more likely. So for cyclists it is a lose-lose situation, while increasing the volume of traffic and displacing cyclists onto the pavement will do those unfortunate people who live on this road no favours. A further dis-benefit is cyclists receive aggression from motorists when cycling on a road with an adjacent cycle facility regardless of the quality of the facility. Measures such as cycle roundels placed on the carriageway may help reduce this.
It appears that the wishes of drivers of private motor vehicles have been prioritised over those of users of more sustainable forms of transport. The fact that cyclists, motorcyclists and taxis are also users of bus lanes appears to have been ignored while cyclists as the most vulnerable of road users are being put most at risk. The approximate capacity of the section of Ecclesall Rd from Hunters Bar to Banner Cross is 60 vehicles - approximately one and a half bus loads - so this is an effective reduction in the capacity of the road not an increase. Ironically this is at a time when the use of the private motor car is decreasing.
The proposed introduction of a signed cycle route using the back streets of Greystones, whilst welcome, is not enough to ameliorate the effects of this. We believe that the following measures are needed:
- A segregated uphill cycle route on Ecclesall Rd from HB to Banner X
- Safe crossing from Ecclesall Rd to Rustlings Rd
- Bring forward 20mph default for the Greystones area (this should be next on the schedule for this area in any case) & upgrading selected gennels and short-cuts to shared use.
- A signed cycle route from Rustlings Rd to Bents Green (Potential Route Here)
- Additional Link from NCN6 Whiteley Woods to Highcliffe & Bents Green (see map link above)
- Safe crossing from Psalter Lane to Glenalmond Rd (also on map)
I appreciate that not all of these can be delivered as part of the Smart Routes project, but we would have to see Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-based and costed proposals for these before we would consider withdrawing our objection.
I write as a representative of a national organisation that over 150 years has collected a massive body of evidence and experience related to the benefits of cycling and the appropriate means to grow cycling as a sustainable form of transport, but I am also a resident of Greystones and use this corridor to commute on a daily basis. At the moment, uphill cycling on this section of Ecclesall Rd in the evening peak is barely tolerable because of the presence of the bus lane. Whereas I would prefer to use quieter back streets, certain journeys - such as trips to and from the Co-op store and nearby businesses - are not possible without using Ecclesall Rd. By removing the bus lane you are effectively excluding me and a large proportion of people like me who use cycles for local trips from Ecclesall Rd at the busiest time of day.
Unless you can assure me that tangible plans to put in the measures I have detailed above are in place I would like this matter referred to Cabinet Highway Committee and welcome the opportunity to discuss it with them.
Another option that is available to you is to withdraw the TRO and leave the bus lane in place until you can develop a scheme that meets the Council's objectives of encouraging sustainable, active travel.
Council's move...
