Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

New protected bike lanes will benefit both cyclists and businesses, Camden Council says

“We might lose some business, but we will be able to save more lives,” said one local trader

A Camden councillor says that recently installed protected bike lanes in the borough will benefit both businesses and local cyclists.

The new segregated cycle lanes, which run for just over a kilometre on Haverstock Hill and Rosslyn Hill between the junction with Prince of Wales Road and Pond Street, were installed this summer as part of an 18-month trial.

The experimental traffic order was passed by Camden Council in August last year, despite a group of Conservative councillors opposing the plans because the road in question (which has an average gradient of three percent, with a slight nudge up to five percent on a section of Haverstock Hill) was deemed “too steep” for many cyclists to use, including schoolchildren.

In fact, four local schools, as well as the Royal Free Hospital and Great Ormond Street Hospital, backed the scheme, which passed through the Labour-dominated council’s culture and environment committee with a majority of five to one.

> Camden cycle lane voted through despite Conservative claim road was “too steep” for it 

Despite the strong support for the pop-up trial, the recently-installed bike lanes have encountered a mixed reception from local business owners.

In interviews conducted this week by the Hampstead and Highgate Express, a handful of local traders criticised the lanes, which they believed made it impossible for customers “to park in the entire area where the lane is built”.

Café owner George told the newspaper: “[The trial has] affected our business very badly due to the lack of parking facilities.

“The customers are not coming as they used to. They don’t have the space to park now, and they have plenty of other options as well.”

However, not all business owners are opposed to the lanes.

“Being myself a cyclist, I completely support the cycle lane,” says juice bar owner Didi.

“We might lose some business, but we will be able to save more lives. It will make cycling safer in London.”

Didi’s view was echoed by a number of local cyclists.

“The more cycle lanes there are, the better,” said 55-year-old Paul, while teenager Leo argued that the scheme “make a big difference. It makes cycling safer. Most of the drivers in London overtake and cut the space of cyclists which makes it super difficult for the cyclists to manoeuvre around the cars in the traffic.”

Councillor Adam Harrison, cabinet member for a sustainable Camden, says that the pop-up cycle lanes will result in benefits for cyclists and business owners alike.

“The five new pedestrian crossings and cycle lanes being trialled on Haverstock Hill and Rosslyn Hill are absolutely vital for helping people travel more safely around Camden, whether it’s switching from car to bike for some journeys or walking to the shops and restaurants of Belsize Park and Steele’s Village," he said.

“As well as contributing to our vision of zero casualties on our roads, they are part of our collective effort to cut the carbon out of transport, and slash air pollution on our way to World Health Organization standards.

“I understand this means some changes to the area, but I believe businesses, residents, visitors and local stakeholders will find it a real benefit. I am also pleased that four local schools, the Royal Free Hospital, and Great Ormond Street Hospital backed the new walking and cycling changes.

“The trial scheme is now substantially complete with remaining elements, such as the zebra crossing at the northern end being completed this month. We will welcome feedback from businesses and all other stakeholders, throughout the trial, ahead of a final decision on whether or not to retain, amend or remove the trial scheme.”

Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

12 comments

Avatar
simonaldridge | 1 year ago
1 like

These new lanes are MORE dangerous for cyclists then the road was before. I live on this route and use it almost every day on my bicycle, and they are so dangerous that I have decided to not use them and simply cycle in the car lane. The problem is that these dedicated lanes take choice and options AWAY from cyclists - options that can be life-saving if you find the cycle lane blocked by a child, dog, bus, pedestrian or debris.

When turning it is much safer to ride in the middle of the road so that cars can't overtake you and cut you off - but I can't do that if I'm in the cycle lane. Again, more dangerous, not less.

At a bus stop it is much safer to ride around the bus on the road, instead of on the inside where people are getting off the bus - what idiot thought that was a good idea?

What's the solution? Funding traffic police mounted on bicycles would help a lot more than wasting money on these lanes. I'm in favor of lower speed limits (20mph) and plentiful pedestrian crossings. After that let everyone share the road. Don't segregate cyclists - as a cyclist I want to ride ALL the roads.

Don't buy into the hype that more cycle lanes are always better. More cyclists is better on all roads, not cycle lanes. And by the way, 55% of people in the area didn't want this pilot scheme at all.

 

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to simonaldridge | 1 year ago
0 likes

You are "Café owner George" and I claim my £5.

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to simonaldridge | 1 year ago
1 like

simonaldridge wrote:

At a bus stop it is much safer to ride around the bus on the road, instead of on the inside where people are getting off the bus.

I'm in favor of lower speed limits (20mph) and plentiful pedestrian crossings. After that let everyone share the road. Don't segregate cyclists - as a cyclist I want to ride ALL the roads.

Personally I totally agree with these points for myself but I suspect these types of lanes are aimed at people who would otherwise not cycle due to (real or perceived) danger from traffic or are happy to amble along while avoiding pedestrians.

I don't see why drivers should have the most direct and convenient route to their destination but I'm stuck in a lane that is barely wider than my bike and gives me zero extra protection at every junction I pass. Of course the downside is I have to deal with incompetent drivers all the time instead of just at junctions but the 20mph limit would go some way to improving things.

 

Avatar
Owd Big 'Ead | 1 year ago
3 likes

Am I missing something?

The article states that it is a protected cycle lane. If that is it in the picture then it's hardly protected, just a painted white line with the odd bollard.

Just another example of crap infrastructure.

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to Owd Big 'Ead | 1 year ago
1 like

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

it's hardly protected

It's not very 'hard' segregation - but it will deter obstructive parking and lane indiscipline, both of which aren't the case with a mere painted line.

Semi-protected?

Avatar
steaders1 | 1 year ago
2 likes

Cyclists like cafe's but it sounds like George dosen't want our type in his? I don't know the street but maybe it's a drive through and that's why he's complaining? 

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 1 year ago
5 likes

Research shows that bicycle lanes increase customer numbers, not reduce them. Who the hell drives to Camden to shop?

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to OldRidgeback | 1 year ago
3 likes

Not many, particularly to 'local' shops (which, as readers of a certain age will know, are for local people). I wish councils would have collect some specific data to skewer these arguments though - it wouldn't take much to do a few street surveys of how (and how many) customers get to these places. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to Dnnnnnn | 1 year ago
4 likes

Dnnnnnn wrote:

Not many, particularly to 'local' shops (which, as readers of a certain age will know, are for local people). I wish councils would have collect some specific data to skewer these arguments though - it wouldn't take much to do a few street surveys of how (and how many) customers get to these places. 

There's nothing for YOU here!

Avatar
Jenova20 | 1 year ago
10 likes

Roads are for travel, not the storage of cars. In many parts of the US vehicle parking is mostly a responsibility for shops to provide on their land, not for the city to provide for them.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 1 year ago
7 likes

"Café owner George told the newspaper: “[The trial has] affected our business very badly due to the lack of parking facilities."

That's odd; in every such installation I've heard of, footfall increases and local businesses, thrive, especially cafes.  Maybe George needs to look at his business model; if he's telling the truth.

Avatar
ktache replied to eburtthebike | 1 year ago
7 likes

He should try and get some secure bike parking outside his shop, sponsored maybe, make it easier to pop in.

And you can fit in a lot more bicycles in the space a car would have taken up.

Less illegal parking too, I think we all know how common that is on many high streets, and the congestion it causes.

Latest Comments