9 thoughts on “Sarah Sharp’s First Impressions of Chichester City new Covid Cycleway”

  1. Any improvement to the cycle lanes around Northgate roundabout are welcome and much needed but they needs to be uesable and safe looking at the video it seems to be just a wider version of whats was already there. I guess we just wait and see how it works when it finished.

  2. There’s no way this very limited set of unconnected bits of cycleway is going to encourage me back onto the road on my bike. As Sarah asks, what does the cyclist do inbetween these sections of wands? There is no point protecting a cyclist for 50m and then exposing them to dangerous traffic till they reach the next section of wands. I will be sticking to the pavement and facing the consequences. What a waste of ratepayers’ money.

  3. What on Earth this got to do with covid? Why have road lanes for cars been lost for bikes in an already very very busy area of chichester? The traffic will be so backed up it will cause drivers to have to drove through town more around priory park and north street to keep moving.

    1. Hi Nel,
      I believe this initiative is due to the acknowledgement that for there to be the desirable modal shift away dependence of private car use, then walking and cycling requires more space and motorcars require slightly less space. Forcing everyone who walks and cycles into restricted space is not a good way to promote healthy travel during a pandemic.
      Dependence on private motor car use is the very worst solution for solving sustainability-issues/resource-depletion/environmental-degradation/limited-inclusivity/air-quality/road-traffic-fatalities/climate-crisis.
      Initially we anticipate minor issues as the local community adjusts to the new initiative but as it becomes safe and easy for all local journeys to be made by walking, cycling or by public transport, then the traffic situation is likely to be significantly improved in the longer term.
      There is compelling evidence that this is a successfully strategy particularly from Dutch towns and cities. London is also following a similar transport policy transformation.
      The key to success is to ensure activities previously requiring motor car journeys can be carried out with similar ease by promoting other modes of transport.
      Getting the transformation right is not an easy task but there have been many lessons successfully learnt on the continent about how these changes can be made correctly. Lets hope our local authorities look to places that have made these ideas work when they seek advice.
      Best Regards,
      Mark Record

  4. There’s a lot to comment on, but my related comment is that I wish that cyclists would use the cycle lane when there is one. To be fair to CDC there has been an effort to join things up including, in my locality, the widening of the footpath on Stane Street so you can go from Boxgrove and Tangmere to the centre without having to dice it up with the traffic at all. However many cyclists, usually of the Lycra variety, continue to use the road way which regularly carries big HGV traffic to RollsRoyce and is restricted in width, not least because of the widening. That said there is nothing to indicate that it is a cycle path. Come on CDC. If this is going to work there must be signage

    1. Cyclists often avoid cycle lanes as they are so poorly designed as to be dangerous. This is particularly an issue when the cycle lane rejoins the main carriageway – usually at pinch points – in ways that are unsafe for both cyclists and other road users. Cyclist, whether wearing lycra or nor, have a right to use the roads.

  5. For two days in a row at different times traffic backed up all the way to Sainsbury’s right up to Northgate because of lane closure. The cycle track is very wide. Cyclists pay no road tax, no insurance, no licenses etc but it is ok to really inconvenience car drivers. Why cause such congestion for a few cyclists. Many of these cyclists have no idea of the rules of the road. Have had many near misses!

    1. Thanks for commenting Gillian,
      Vehicle Excise Duty or car tax is now linked to the level of CO2 emitted per km while driving it. My partner has a ten year old car and the car tax is only £10 a year. More up to date motor-vehicles with lower emissions have Zero car tax! However driving any motor-car has a far greater environmental impact than riding a bike-cycle or walking. It is hard to see why a taxation system aimed at penalising the least sustainable forms of transport would wish to disadvantage the road users creating the very least emissions of CO2.
      Very few car drivers are killed by cyclists running into their vehicles but unfortunately a significant number of cyclists are killed each year by motorists. The much higher risk to human life posed by motor-vehicles is probably why there is a legal requirement for cars to be insured.
      The intention of the scheme is to encourage cycling. The reason the scheme is necessary is because many people could cycle as an alternative to using motor-vehicles but they often chose not do so because of the very real likelihood of serious injury or death. By removing these risks the number of cyclists will rise significantly reducing the need for people to drive cars and thereby reducing congestion.
      I agree it would be better if there was more training of all road users but when a motorist makes a bad mistake, the outcome is usually worse than if a cyclist does something foolish. Sadly a few cyclists and few motorists give the majority of the considerate road users a bad name but fortunately the vast majority of road users are surprisingly co-operative in my experience.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *