Author: Mark Record

It is believed that Chichester’s Pop up scheme is imminently threatened with removal over claims it that it is infrequently used by cyclists.

Meridian news recently ran a story titled “Cycle lanes: more harm than good? West Sussex scheme could be removed”

However, ChiCycle have run tests on the West Sussex County Council cycle counters and found they do not correctly measure the number of cyclists using the scheme!

It is a concern to ChiCycle that a significant amount of money has been spent on equipment that was supposed to monitor the use of this cycleway but it is failing to do its job. The falsely low count of cycle use is likely to be used to justify removal of the scheme.

On Thursday 05 October 2020 Mark Record invited Bill and Sarah Sharp to test the Eastbound Oaklands way Cycle counter. They took it in turns to cycle past the sensor. From 7:30:00pm to 7:35:00pm they made 17 passes of the counter riding on the left half of the cycle lane. From 7:35:00 to 7:40:10 they made 18 passes of the counter on the right hand half of the cycle lane.

With a total of 35 passes of cycles past the WSCC counter, zero cycles were counted!!!

These were not carbon race cycles that might be difficult for inductive sensors to pick up. Sarah was riding her Brompton, Bill was riding his Moulton and Mark was riding his Raleigh Chiltern. These are all steel framed bicycles that should be easy for inductive sensors to detect.

This raises some serious questions about the validity of the data from these sensors. It seems that a lot of money has been wasted on a useless system. We believe the company providing the sensors should reimburse the council for any taxpayers money spent because the system does not provide the data it was intended to provide.

Data recorded from the sensors is shown below

Site Number 00000086 Site Reference A0286100L01 Grid Ref 486230,105298 CHICHESTER, A286, OAKLANDS WAY, EAST OF BUS STOP Vehicle Count Report Week Begin: 05 October 2020 Channel: Eastbound Cycles
8th October 2020
19:00 – zero counts
19:05 – zero counts
19:10 – zero counts
19:15 – zero counts
19:20 – zero counts
19:25 – zero counts
19:30 – zero counts
19:35 – zero counts
19:40 – zero counts
19:45 – zero counts
19:50 – zero counts
19:55 – zero counts

The issue is not related to a GMT BST mismatch as the previous hour from 6pm to 7pm has only one single count. ChiCycle believe it is unlikely the recorded counts bear any relationship at all to the number of cyclists passing.

The traffic data can be accessed by applying for a user name from the following WSCC link

https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/traffic-management/traffic-counts/

Dear ChiCycle Supporter,

We have three news items this October.

Have your say in the Future of Walking and Cycling in Chichester

Chichester District Council have revealed their draft Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) and would like your comments on it. They have two categories where they suggest interventions that are either “Do Minimum” or “Do More” approaches. It is a lot to read through but a very welcomes sign that walking and cycling may be taken more seriously in the future in allocation of resources and in town planning decisions.

The District Council is inviting everyone to have a say, so please take the opportunity to participate in the CDC on-line LCWIP survey that runs between the 18th September and 19th October 2020, and complete whichever sections are of interest to you.

Cycling Without Age, comes of age in Chichester

Richard Turnbul of BrightRide contacted ChiCycle on 28th September with some very positive news.

BrightRide are starting a Cycling Without Age “chapter” in Chichester. Cycling Without Age (CWA) is an initiative that started 8 years ago in Denmark and has now grown across the world. Essentially, using a specially designed bike called a trishaw, volunteer pilots take elderly and isolated members of the community out for bike rides to get fresh air, a break from their care home or residence and a chance to reconnect with the community.

Richard explained, “Back in the summer I applied to the Chichester City Council for funding for the project through the New Homes Bonus Scheme. This was approved, but required further approval from the District Council which didn’t meet until last week. I’m delighted to say that they have also approved the full funding for the trishaw and the first years’ insurance!  This is great news, and we can finally bring the project to reality.”

The BrightRide trishaw is now on special order and will most likely take six to eight weeks to arrive, but in the meantime, Richard will be focussing his efforts on the volunteer recruitment and management, plus a solution to matching volunteers to passengers through the website.  He has a lot of work to do on various policies to ensure everything runs smoothly and safely for all involved – COVID obviously adds an additional dimension to this, but Richard believes it could be possible to offer COVID secure rides, and he will be researching this further.  Other Cycling Without Age (CWA) chapters are running across the country, but of course safety is a priority for everyone at this time.

Richard wants to update us all and give thanks for everyone’s support for the project so far.  Hopefully BrightRide should be out there bringing smiles to people’s faces in time for Christmas! If anyone has any thoughts or questions for Richard, please drop him a line on email:- admin@brightride.org.uk or phone:- 07821 810552

Don’t Let the Pandemic Restrictions stop you enjoying Chichester’s Pop-Up Cycle-way. Who will join our fancy dress charity sponsored relay bike ride on Sat the 10th of October?

Paula Chatfield and Liz McCallum have come up with an inspired idea to make more of our pop-up cycle lanes so people can raise money for a charity of their choice. Our new cycle lanes are often loudly criticised by motorists who fail to understand the need to transition towards more sustainable (and healthier) modes of transport. Raising money by cycling around the pop-up cycle lanes is a chance to create positive publicity for the cycle scheme which will be necessary to raise support for further walking and cycling interventions in our city. This is a particularly valuable idea now that concerns over the Covid pandemic have made it difficult for us to organise our Friday after work cycle-rides because of the current limit of only six people meeting.

We have clearly been told that we have to use these cycle lanes or we will lose them, so please get in touch if you are interested in participating in a charity fundraising sponsored relay bike ride on our Pop-Up Cycleway. This initiative could be a great way to use this asset constructively, to raise money for good causes, to keep people fit and keep people involved with the community. Covid is keeping us apart but we can still have some fun fundraising for charities like the Mayor’s Hardship Fund, the Air Ambulance, Stone Pillow or whichever charity you prefer to support.

Our current thinking is that it would be best to kick this off as a relay event where we have a number of charity riders (preferably in fancy dress) taking it in turns. The idea being to see how many laps of the cycle scheme riders can make safely in a one hour slot. Please let us know if you can join us to raise money for a charity of your choice on the morning Sat the 10th of October. We can’t have more than six people riding at once so we will aim to split people into three separate one hour slots starting at 9, 10 and 11 AM. A sponsorship form is available on this link.

Wishing everyone safe, confident (and convenient) cycling.

Mark Record (on behalf of ChiCycle)

This is the 2nd of our after work Friday bike rides on the Chichester Pop-Up Cycleway

Cyclists have been temporarily allocated extra road-space in Chichester through the new Pop-Up cycle scheme.

The Pop-Up cycle scheme has its imperfections but we need to show there is strong support in Chichester for road-space being set aside for safer cycling.

Here is a photo of us on the Northern Gyratory on Friday the 4th September

ChiCycle hope to promote walking and cycling between Chichester and Emsworth by encouraging our local authorities to find alternative routes for motorists other than the A259. We feel this could also lead to a considerable improvement in the area for the local community as well as making our fantastic coastline more appealing as a tourist destination.

We have created several illustrations showing what the street scenes may look like with significantly reduced motor vehicle traffic.

Click here to view or download image Fishbourne illistration-1

Click here to view or download image Fishbourne illistration-2

Adam Bell, raised questions on behalf of Regis Cycle Forum, over issues with Highways England plans to alter the Chichester to Emsworth Cycle route along the A259.

The Highways England reply skirts many of Adam’s issues by claiming the provision is for a share use Non Motorised Users (NMU) and not a dedicated cycle way. This categorisation allows national standards for cycling to be avoided and seems unlikely to provide a realistic alternative to cyclists continuing to use the road carriageway space.

The HE response followed by Adam’s original questions are below the horizontal line.

---

———- Forwarded message ———
From: A27 Designated Funds <A27DesignatedFunds@highwaysengland.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 16:56
Subject: RE: Chichester to Emsworth Designated Funds A27 Link Improvement Package Feasibility Study
To: Bognor Cycle Forum <bognorcycleforum@gmail.com>
Cc: A27 Designated Funds <A27DesignatedFunds@highwaysengland.co.uk>

Dear Mr Bell

Thank you for your letter on 1st September 2020 regarding the Chichester-Emsworth NMU (Non-Motorised User) project. Thank you for showing an interest into this scheme and conducting such a comprehensive analysis of the Feasibility Study.

I would like to reassure you that no decision has been made yet on a solution for the project. We are still in the process of reviewing the Feasibility Study recommendation against the new released guidance and testing its viability. The Feasibility Study is used as a baseline, but we are now working on taking thinks forward and identifying a solution that performs best in terms of space availability, adhering to all relevant best practices/guidance and offering the best value for money. Throughout this process, we are working in close relation with both West Sussex County Council, as the local highway authority and asset owner, and Chichester District Council, as the local planning authority, who are both supportive of our proposals.

The recent announcement of the Government’s new design guidelines for cycling infrastructure design (Local Transport Note 1/20) has necessitated a re-evaluation of the design process as you have rightly pointed. These guidelines refer to shared use as the ‘last resort’ solution but do quote some exceptions on where it may be appropriate, such as interurban routes with low pedestrian flow like the A259. We are mindful of this new designation but also note that shared use paths have been used widely for providing safe journeys for both cyclists and pedestrians across both the Highways England and West Sussex networks for many years. The existing network around Chichester includes popular examples of shared use paths such as Centurion Way and the path alongside the A259 between Chichester & Littlehampton.

The A259 road is not a trunk road and is maintained by WSCC, hence CD 195 isn’t mandatory although represents good practice. That is why the options proposed in the Feasibility Study applied the principles of CD 195 only where that was applicable given the constraints of the road.

As one of the initial activities in our design phase, we will review the feasibility report in light of the new guidance contained in LTN 1/20.  We will be conducting a series of early engagement meetings where we will be engaging with stakeholders from the local authorities (parish, district and county) as well as local and national cycling organisations to understand any concerns or aspirations they may have.  We will also be exploring what can be delivered in light of LTN 1/20, aiming for the highest possible safety standards within the space available, whilst still providing value for money and without affecting the need for the A259 to be a HGV diversion route in case the A27 is blocked. The main objective of the scheme is to enable a growth in journeys made by active modes along the A259, but with the corridor being the main diversion route for A27, reducing car use or lowering vehicle speeds would impact the corridor’s strategic importance.

With regards to the query on widths, we specified a 3.5m wide path where achievable which gives scope for inclusion of a formal 0.5m strip whilst maintaining 3m width as recommended in Table E/3.1. Paragraph E/3.5 CD 143 allows for a minimum of 2.0m width where flows are less than 200 users per hour, therefore a 0.5m strip could be achieved where path widths are 2.5m. Furthermore, where a hard strip is provided on the carriageway, it can be considered as part of the separation distance for shared use routes. Therefore, there is scope to achieve greater separation as the design is further developed in the future. This will be further assessed during the next stages of the design.

In relation to the Cycling Level of Service query, the assessment doesn’t specifically need the inclusion of driveways. With that in mind, pedestrians/cyclists have priority at driveways similar to the priority proposed at some side roads.

Our current focus is to procure a design partner and we are currently in detailed contract negotiations. We expect the design phase to commence this Autumn.

I would like to reassure you that we will be engaging with all stakeholder groups at key points throughout the design phase to ensure we can agree on the best deliverable solution for the corridor and gauge any feedback.

Thank you once again for contacting us and expressing your interest in this project. Please rest assured that part of the appraisal we are currently undertaking involves raising the exact same issues you have in your letter and we are looking into progressing the scheme in a safe and cost-effective way, adhering to all relevant best practice and guidance.

Kind Regards

Adriana Chirovici

Project Manager

Regional Investment Programme South and East

Mobile: 07712 407 985

Tel: +44 300 470 1468
Highways England | Bridge House | 1 Walnut Tree Close | Guildford | Surrey | GU1 4LZ
Web: https://highwaysengland.co.uk/

From: Bognor Cycle Forum <bognorcycleforum@gmail.com>
Sent: 01 September 2020 07:59
To: A27 Designated Funds <A27DesignatedFunds@highwaysengland.co.uk>; Elliott, Simon <Simon.Elliott@highwaysengland.co.uk>
Subject: Chichester to Emsworth Designated Funds A27 Link Improvement Package Feasibility Study

For the attention of Mr S Elliott

The need to improve NCN2 on the section westwards from Chichester has been recognised locally by cyclists for many years.  The fact that Highways England are looking at a package of measures to improve cycling facilities is welcomed.  The WSP Feasibility Study states that it would explore the options to create a consistent, safe route for pedestrians and cyclists.  

However, the Bognor Regis Cycle Forum have a large number of concerns about the methodology used and the numerous discrepancies and inconsistencies throughout the study.  In addition, despite the Study stating it conforms with the requirements of CD195, this is not the case.  All of these reasons mean the whole basis for selecting a mainly off-road shared use path (Option A) is incorrect and better, safer solutions need to be considered instead. 

Separate to this, nothing in the proposals makes any attempt to materially reduce car use, lower vehicle speeds or attempt to try and achieve modal shift to make cycle use the default for shorter trips, as required by the Government.

 Design Criteria

Page 3 refers to the West Sussex Cycling Design Guide (2019), and states “WSCCs aim is that these design standards become commonplace in all new schemes throughout the county” and page 12 confirms the assessment of the existing cycling facilities was examined in line with the core design principles set out on the DfT LTN 1/12, and the Sustrans Design Manual : Handbook for cycle-friendly design.  Page 64 states that design guidance for cycle provision set out in CD195 is used for assessing the 2 options.

 Q1.    CD195 states that it is for cycle only routes, not shared use paths and covers the requirements for trunk roads and the motorway network. The A259 is not a trunk road and the proposed option is not a cycle only route.  Therefore, why was this design manual used as the reference for the study?

 Q2.    Why were the design principles from LTN1/12 not used for assessing the 2 proposed options?

 Q3.    Bearing in mind the recent release of LTN 1/20 along with the “Gear Change” document from the Government, and the recent announcement from the Transport Minister that authorities must follow LTN 1/20, will the proposals be amended to reflect the changes required by LTN 1/20?

Page 65 states that Table E/3.1 (from CD195) was used to determine the required width for the proposed cycle infrastructure and that due to the speed & volume of traffic, the minimum provision is off road cycle tracks.

Q4.    For the majority of the proposed route, in the main, a 3.5m path is stated.  However, there is no mention of the separation strip as required by CD195.  A separation strip, by its very definition, does not form part of the useable path.  CD195 states an absolute minimum separation strip of at least 0.5m is required in 40 mph areas and 2m in 60 mph areas.  Why has this separation strip not been provided along any part of the route?

There are large sections of 2.5m shared-use path which go alongside many walls and hedges which are higher than 0.6m.  Table E/3.2 of CD195 requires an additional width of 0.5m to maintain the effective width of the path.

Q5.   Why does the proposed option not comply with Table E/3.2 of CD195 in providing the additional width required?

 Q6.   Why does the proposed option not comply with Table E/3.1 of CD195 in stating that the maximum length for any sections which are only 2.5m wide is only 100m?

CLoS assessment

 The scores look at each section as a whole both eastbound and westbound, when there may only be an issue creating a lower score in 1 direction only.  This factor doesn’t seem to have been taken into account.  The study tends to look at a journey from the west, heading east.  In addition, no differentiation is made between a side road junction into a cul-du-sac.  Therefore the whole basis of Table 5-1 on Pages 68-69 comparing the existing route with Option 1 and Option 2 is flawed.

 Link 1 Havant Road Emsworth.

It’s not stated in the report when the site visit occurred, but it’s implied it was early 2020.  That being the case, it’s odd that for the assessment of Link 1 – Havant Road, there’s no mention at all of the approx. 250m stretch of new shared use path which was in use from May 2019 on the north side of the A259, from Selangor Avenue up to where the existing section of NCN2 crosses from the south of the A259 to then access the off road section and tunnel under the A27. The shared use path does however appear in the Preliminary Design drawing in App. C.

Table 3-1 on Page 15 provides a score of 19% with one of the reasons being frequent side road junctions with conflicting movements not separated.  There are 9 junctions each on the north and 8 on the south side of the A259.  It also mentions the 30mph limit and high volumes of traffic results in a low score.  However, the assessment doesn’t take into account that some side roads might be a cul-de-sac with only 4 houses and would not therefore be generating large volumes of traffic.

Table 3-2 Emsworth High Street scores higher at 42% for safety despite no segregation due to traffic speeds and volumes being low.  This is not consistent with Table 3-1 when the traffic volumes must be the same.  The safety score would be improved due to 20 mph and also the toucan crossing at West Street, but this would only be of benefit for cyclists heading eastwards.

Page 68 For Link 1 Havant Road (Emsworth) Option 2 states the Proposed CLoS would be 70% for 1.5m on-road cycle lane due to improved light protection where possible.  However, for Link 4 Southbourne to Farm Lane, the similar improved 1.5m wide cycle lane for Option 2 only achieves 33%.

 Page 69 Link 6 Broad Road to Cutmill Creek.  Under Option 2, the improved 1.5m cycle lane has a CLoS of 36% and yet Link 10 Hillier Garden Centre to Salthill Road scores 41%

 The differences CLoS percentages between the various different Links does not seem at all consistent.

Page 64 States that Option A would be an off-carriageway 3.5m to 2.5m two-way cycle track (shared use path for some sections).  However, Page 66 only refers to a 3.5m to 2.5m bi-directional shared-use path and a two-way shared use path is also referred throughout Table 5-1 on Page 68, and shared use is used from then on. 

 Q7.   Is any of the route to be a cycle only track or is the entire route to be shared use? 

 Q8.   Are horses to be allowed on the route or part of the route? 

The CLoS assessment confirms that 8 factors are deemed to be critical and have a greater score.  This is one of the reasons Option A is deemed to be the most suitable option, as stated by the summary on page 66 “The removal of cyclists from the carriageway will also considerably lessen the risk of collision of cyclists with all types of motorised traffic”.  For the Personal Injury Collisions taken into account for this study affecting non- motorised users, 66% occurred at a junction, roundabout or side road.  Some of these are pedestrians, but the figure is similar to national data regarding road traffic incidents and cyclists. However on Page 88, for the section along Havant Road in Emsworth the study states ”Due to the conflicts associated with a shared use path facility and numerous private access driveways with restricted visibility, the option of off-road cycle provision was excluded for this section”.

In numerous places along the proposed route, there are large numbers of private driveways as well as side junctions.

 Q9.   Why does the CLoS assessment used not include the private driveways in respect of the “risk of collision with turning vehicle at junctions” criteria?

 Q10.    How can a feasibility study recommend as safe a shared use facility which has multiple private access driveways with nil visibility but elsewhere state such a facility wouldn’t be acceptable due to conflicts from driveways with limited visibility?

 If a shared-use path is provided, then as well as the large number of private driveways now being added to the list of junction hazards to be encountered by cyclists coupled with the zero or limited visibility for car drivers emerging from their driveways, to stop on the path, there is also the factor of limited visibility for cyclists when crossing many of the side roads, when they no longer have priority.  An example of this is in Link 5 Farm Lane to Broad Road, where due to the position of the crossing point across Broad Road, cyclists would be positioned round the corner and not have a good field of vision for checking back in the direction of Emsworth, and in addition would not comply with the visibility splay requirements stated in Table E/3.5 of CD195.  The recommended crossing point here does not comply with the bent-out crossing of a minor road as set out in E/4.7 of CD195, and this failure to provide an adequate and compliant crossing point occurs for the numerous times the shared-use path crosses a minor road.

Option Appraisal (Page 66).

There are discrepancies in the way this is worded as well as important safety factors not being taken into place, leading to an incorrect selection of a mainly off-road shared use path as the preferred route.

Section 5.2.2 states “the A259 is a relatively high-speed and highly trafficked link, with signposted speed limits exceeding 30mph in the entirety of all three sections” and “This guidance indicates that off-road provisions for cyclists are the most appropriate for this link”.

The study has 12 sections or links listed.  There are only 3 links with above 30 mph areas in the entirety, one of which is Link 7 Cutmill Creek to Old Bridge Road which is intending to use the existing off-road path anyway.  The option appraisal incorrectly uses the existence of above 30 mph in those 3 links as justification for off-road provision along the entire route.

Section 5.2.3. states that the shared-use path in Option A is able to meet desirable minimum requirements set out in Table E/3.1 of CD195 and retain 3.5m width for the majority of the route, with some small sections the width being down to 2.5m (the absolute minimum set out in the CD 195 guidance).

As stated above, there is no mention of the minimum 0.5m separation strip (rising to 2m where the national speed limit applies which would be needed for Link 7).

Section 5.2.4 states “The provision of a consistent, segregated route also meets the standards set out in WSCC design guidance, which states that on primary distributor roads, where speeds are greater than 30mph, off carriageway provision must be provided”. However, this omits the rest of the description which continues “(cycle tracks), preferably segregated”.

The proposed option A actually drastically increases the number of potential incidents due to the large numbers of entrances and side roads onto the shared use path.  This is flagged up as an issue in App. F  Road Safety Review, which states the number of private drives with no visibility to/from the shared use path.  It also states a number of side roads and field accesses have limited visibility.  All of these add a large number of potential conflict points with cyclists. 

Page 67 states “The initial design process for Option B related to the improvement of the existing on-carriageway cycle facilities along the A259. However, after further design considerations, this Option was discounted from the scheme due to identified constraints relating to the speed of vehicles between the A259 and A27 as well as a high number of PICs involving cyclists being identified along this route”.  As stated above, the vast majority of incidents occur at junctions or wherever a car might turn into a cyclist. 

In the analysis of the various options shown in Table 5-1 on Page 68, this shows Link 1 Havant Road Emsworth with mainly 1.5m cycle lanes currently has a CLoS of 33%, but this can be increased to 70% with the lanes amended to always be 1.5m wide and some light protection.  There has been no proper consideration of improving the cycling provision by looking to provide similar light protection on the existing cycle lanes.

There is no consistency in the treatment of the shared use path when crossing side roads.  In some places, cyclists will have priority, but in the main, cyclists will be expected to give way.  To have a mix of priorities will be dangerous and confusing for all users.  At a typical cycling speed of 12 mph, being required to come to a halt regularly will not satisfy the requirements for safety, directness nor comfort.  In addition, by being required to regularly accelerate away from junctions will not be conducive to encouraging cycling and will merely encourage some people to ride on the road.  By removing the existing cycle lane marking will therefore encourage vehicles to drive closer to any cyclists on the road and increase the likelihood of incidents.

In addition, in the various built-up areas, especially in the numerous long sections of only 2.5m width shared-use path, there is not adequate and safe width for two way cycling and pedestrians, and the design and use of such a provision is contrary to LTN 1/20 and does not even comply with the Highways England Design requirement for shared-use paths set out in CD143. 

The path will also increase the numbers of incidents between pedestrians and cyclists.  In addition, LTN1/12 highlights the fact that two-way cycle tracks on one side of the road can significantly increase the potential for conflict due to drivers being less likely to expect cyclists to come from both directions.

Overall therefore, the selection of a shared-use path for the entire route not only will be more dangerous for cyclists than the existing provision, does not comply with CD195, CD143, nor LTN 1/20, and will not satisfy the core requirements of a safe, consistent high-quality route which promotes sustainable travel.

Adam Bell

Chair

Bognor Regis Cycle Forum

After work on wed 26th August 2020 ChiCycle supporters tested out the Avenue de Chartres Pop-Up cycle lanes that only fully opened the previous day on Tues 25th Aug.

Sarah Sharp mentioned hearing that WSCC traffic counters were only reporting low numbers of bicycles using the cycle lanes. When ChiCycle previously tested out the northern sections of the Pop-Up cycle-lanes on Sun 16th Aug, we noticed the WSCC bicycle count was implausibly low considering the number of people that cycled the route. 

The traffic counts are publicly available if you apply for a user login with WSCC on this link.

While people tried out the new Southern section of the Pop-Up scheme an Wednesday afternoon, Laura Eccott, Sara Sharp and Mark Record made traffic counts as cyclist crossed the bicycle counter inductive sensors.

Our manual count showed that the sensors are more likely than not to miss passing cyclists without incrementing the WSCC traffic database database tally. A comparison between our manual counts and the WSCC automated cycle counts is shown below.

ChiCycle have now identified that both the Oakland’s Way counter and the Avenue de Chartres counters are reporting faulty data. We are curious to know it this is a wider issue with assessments of cycle usage throughout West Sussex that use similar counters mounted in grey boxes.

We will get in touch with the local authorities about this problem and update this page when we find out more about the issue. 

 

This is an independent initiative started by Harry but he is entirely correct about the safety issues and problems for cyclists. Our recommendation is for people to support him by signing his change.org petition available here.

Improve St Pancras / Needlemakers (A285), Chichester for cyclists & pedestrians

ChiCycle are interested to hear what local cyclists and residents think of the Chichester PopUp Cycle Scheme. This Sunday 16^th August evening at 5pm, we intend meeting up at Northgate car park near the Tennis Club. We advise anyone wishing to join us with a bicycle to wear a day-glow vest and a cycle helmet.

People may wish to try out the scheme for the first 20 to 30 minutes to develop initial impressions and so we can get some photos/video of people in the community using it. Please take a safety first approach and note it is not our intention for this to be a group ride where we all go around at once. It would be better if people try it out as individuals or in small family groups.

It would be helpful if some people could take photos and/or videos that they can share with us. It will be very helpful to have a media archive of people using the scheme for future ChiCycle publicity material.

At around 5:30 we hope to make some short video interviews to catch peoples first impressions of the PopUp cycle-way.

If you are a pedestrian or a motorist you will also be most welcome to tell us what you think. It will be best to bring a face mask and hand gel and please maintain a safe distance from others.

Sarah Sharp believes WSCC are doing the right thing relocating road space currently dedicated to motor-vehicles by changing its use for walking and cycling. She recommends viewing Mikael Colville Andersen’s work on arrogance of space available on the following videos and links.

copenhagenize.com The Arrogance of Space
The Arrogance of Space Mapping Tool