A Camden Council committee yesterday evening voted through plans for a protected cycle lane on a road that Conservative councillors had claimed was “too steep” for many cyclists, including children.
Success! The Haverstock Hill lanes have just been approved by Camden’s Scrutiny Committee, 5 to 1. No further hurdles – the scheme will go ahead. pic.twitter.com/HtEMqU9wcT
— Camden Cyclists (@camdencyclists) August 26, 2021
Tory councillors in the Labour-controlled borough had called in the scheme, but the council’s culture and environment committee voted it through by a majority of five to one, with the news welcomed by London’s walking and cycling commissioner, Will Norman.
I’m delighted that @CamdenCouncil approved the Haverstock Hill cycle lanes last night, dismissing this nonsense that the route is too steep. Protected lanes are even more important on hills because of the speed differential between cyclists & motor vehicles. ??@adamdkharrison https://t.co/kXLkYI8o7h
— Will Norman (@willnorman) August 27, 2021
Our original story published yesterday appears below.
Conservative councillors in Camden want plans for a protected cycle lane in the borough scrapped because they claim the road it is on is too steep, saying that among other things, schoolchildren won’t use it – even though four local schools back the plans.
The Camden New Journal reports that the Conservative group on the London council have called in the route on Haverstock Hill, meaning that it will be scrutinised by Camden’s culture and environment committee at a meeting this evening.
Under its powers of call-in, the committee can approve the original decision, ask for it to be reconsidered, refer the issue to the full council for a debate, or require more information or that further work be carried out.
The cycle lane runs a little over a kilometre from the junction with Prince of Wales Road, just north of Chalk Farm tube station, up to the junction with Pond Street, where the Royal Free Hospital is located, and passes through Belsize Park on the way.
Councillor Oliver Cooper, leader of the Conservative Group on the council, described it as “one of the most daunting climbs in London, and that won’t change with cycle lanes.”
In fact, it has an average gradient of 3.5 per cent, with a short stretch nudging 5 per cent early on through a section of Haverstock Hill that has become known as Steele’s Village, and there is no shortage of much tougher climbs in the capital – not least, Swain’s Lane in nearby Highgate.
Construction is due to start in October under an 18-month experimental traffic order, with a full public consultation held after 12 months to decide whether or not to make the changes permanent.
Publishing the results of a consultation into the 18-month trial earlier this month, Camden Council said the route had been backed by four local schools, and the charity Wheels For Wellbeing, which campaigns on behalf of disabled cyclists, has also endorsed the lane.
But Councillor Cooper claimed: “Children will not cycle up it, new cyclists will not cycle up it, and elderly people will not cycle up it.
“Yet Camden’s model has expressly assumed that everyone – whatever their age and whatever their disability – could cycle up and down that hill,” added Councillor Cooper, who described the scheme as “detached from reality.”
Labour holds 43 of the 54 seats on the council. The Conservatives are the largest opposition party with seven seats, while the Liberal Democrats have three and the Green Party one.
A Camden Council statement said: “During the consultation, older and disabled residents told us that the lack of protected cycle lanes is one of the biggest obstacles when wanting to take up cycling.
“For example, one said the plans will ‘allow disabled people who might have been too fearful to use active transport greater confidence to do so’. The disabled cyclists charity Wheels for Wellbeing also wrote in to support the plans.”
When the results of the consultation were announced earlier in August, Councillor Adam Harrison, the council’s cabinet member for a sustainable Camden, said: “Last year we began making changes to enable greater social distancing and provide non-polluting alternatives to public transport during covid. There were also big benefits for quality of life in Camden in the form of keeping more people safe from road danger, improving air quality and cutting carbon.
“In Camden, more than two-thirds of people do not have a car, and already more than 8 in 10 trips made by Camden residents are made by public transport, walking and cycling. But we know this can rise further if we make our streets as safe and as welcoming as possible.
“I have been contacted on many occasions by parents asking for much safer travel for their children. With numerous schools on or close to Haverstock Hill, segregated cycle lanes are designed to allow more kids to ride a bike to school, improving their health and making Camden a more family-friendly borough.
“For that reason, I am pleased that four local schools have supported the proposals, along with the Royal Free Hospital. We should also not forget the new pedestrian crossings that this trial will introduce, making it a much better environment for people who want to walk in the area. I am also pleased to be introducing extra disabled parking,” he added.
Tonight’s meeting begins at 6.30pm and beforehand Camden Cyclists will be holding a demonstration outside the venue, the Crowndale Centre, Mornington Crescent.




















47 thoughts on “Camden cycle lane voted through despite Conservative claim road was “Too steep” for it”
Best demonstration would be
Best demonstration would be to get local cyclists to spend an hour cycling up and down said hill.
That consellors consider most children in their borough too unfit to cycle up a small hill should be seen as a shocking comment on the inaccesibility of sports and recreation activities to those children. Certainly not an excuse to poison them a bit more with exhaust fumes or helping them get even more corpulent through being driven everywhere.
Or explain to them how gears
Or explain to them how gears work.
Surely they need to remove all pavements along there and replace them with escalators as pedestrians can’t walk up a 5 % gradient.
Councillor Cooper, who
Councillor Cooper, who described the scheme as “detached from reality.”
It would appear that councillor Cooper is rather more detached from reality than the scheme. I rode up hills steeper than that every school day from the age of 11 to 15.
Is there some sort of competition going on between tory councillors for the most absurd, ridiculous, plain daft reasons for opposing cycling infra? Maybe we could start a league, with tables, spreadsheets and a points system for each idiot excuse they trot out.
Does anyone else get error 403 trying to read the newspaper report? Try this link http://camdennewjournal.com/article/haverstock-hill-climb-is-too-steep-for-elderly-and-kids
Not sure if he’s yet a black belt gammon, but he’s definitely well on the way.
This is the steep bit. So the
This is the steep bit. So the Tories are ok with the school kids, old people and anyone else who actually do want to cycle up it at 5-10mph to be over taken at multiple pinch points and parking spots rather then continue the current cycling lane past the lights in some way.
Point of order – Tories don’t
Point of order – Tories don’t give a shit about school kids, old people or anyone else – period
Zebulebu wrote:
Yes they do; the ones at Eton.
Call that steep?
Call that steep?
Quote:
“I see from our bulging postbag that we’ve recieved an enormous letter from a Mr O. Cooper-Trellis of North Wales, who begins ‘Dear Boris’…”
A variation on why cyclists
A variation on why cyclists don’t use a cycle lane !
If only there were bikes that offer some sort of assistance to cycling up hills.
Apparently it is also too cold and too wet to cycle there and sometimes too windy…and too hot.
Indeed. Somebody tell
Indeed. Somebody tell Councillor Cooper about these new fangled ebikes.
https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/news/over-half-of-brits-are-thinking-of-getting-an-e-bike-and-subsidies-could-tip-the
even without e bikes, strava
even without e bikes, strava heat maps reveals this road is already extensively used by cyclists. Clearly the demand is there, and the fact that cyclists will be travelling slowly makes the cycle lane nore neccesary, not less.
“In Camden, more than two
“In Camden, more than two-thirds of people do not have a car, and already more than 8 in 10 trips made by Camden residents are made by public transport, walking and cycling.”
“Business owners on the route have warned that removing car parking spaces will likely lead to lower numbers of customers, and affect the viability of their businesses. Owner of restaurant Tish David Levin warned it could lead to the loss of 60 jobs.”
Does this mean only drivers use the restaurant ? Tricky business model if you rely on only drivers coming.
This nonsense about customer
This nonsense about customer’s needing parking spaces really annoys me. Global evidence is that if you increase provision for active travel and improve aesthetics by reducing traffic the footfall increases. People stay longer and spend more. This is also exactly what DfT says as well. Why are idiots allowed to spout their ‘received wisdom’ unchallenged.
In my experience, hills like
In my experience, hills like that ought to be a key target for segregated infrastructure. It’s simply not true that it’s too steep to cycle up. Far more accurate would be to say it’s too steep to cycle up without feeling intimidated by aggressive drivers. I like to think I’m a fairly confident cyclist, but even I don’t like going up hills in urban areas. The slower you go, the more you feel uncomfortable if there is traffic behind you (no-one wants to be an inconvenience to other road users), and the more likely it is one of the drivers will get fed up and overtake dangerously.
Put in a segregated cycle lane and cyclists can pootle up in peace at whatever speed is comfortable.
Although I got my ebike for
Although I got my ebike for longer recreational rides, it is very useful on urban hills as I can go a bit quicker and feel I am holding up drivers less, so a more comfortable experience.
Chances are you’re not really
Chances are you’re not really holding them up on Haverstock Hill though, because they’ll only end up in the permanent traffic jam of their own making in Hampstead and you’ll pass them again at the lights.
I could not agree more.
I could not agree more. Edinburgh council recently installed segregated lanes on Drymbrae north. It’s over 12% in places. No doubt for this reason. One complainer in the local paper said “no one in their right mid would cycle there”. Can’t hang around , off to be assessed.
The only thing that’s steep
The only thing that’s steep is the value of the bungs the councillors receive
Obviously this doesn’t sound
Obviously this doesn’t sound steep to a group of people choosing to read road.cc, but it may well be unappealing for new cyclists. I don’t know what the applicable design criteria are, but I have found a Sustrans manual suggesting a preferred maximum of 3%, with 5% being acceptable for a short burst of 100m – this sounds like it breaches that. However, on balance it can only be more appealing than cycling the same hill without a cycle lane. Would be interested to know the gradients on the near-ish hill up Archway Road which has a well used cycle lane.
quiff wrote:
welcome to this delightful segment on NCN route 57
https://www.strava.com/segments/29047629
as short distance from here NCN 57 becomes a mud track suited only to mountain bikes. I wouldnt fancy riding a 13kg mountain bike up this hill.
Elderly cyclists might want
Elderly cyclists might want to remind the honourable Councillor about the existence of e-bikes and triple-locked pension income to fund them with …
not to mention that gears on
not to mention that gears on a bike mean its more efficient than walking
And a free pass bus means you
And a free pass bus means you dont have to bother doing either & let the bus take the strain
Awavey wrote:
Only if there’s a convenient bench halfway to the stop (hmm – now there’s an idea…).
“Elderly people will not
“Elderly people will not cycle up it.”
Oops, there’s a Strava segment. Elderly people seem to be doing okay on it.
https://www.strava.com/segments/4320798
Mr T is in 3rd place with a
Mr T is in 3rd place with a very high heart rate for an over 75
I pity the fool who tells me
I pity the fool who tells me the road is too steep for me to cycle up.
maybe it’s an East Anglian
maybe it’s an East Anglian thing but I think I’d struggle with it for the whole length 🙁 ive seen middle aged cyclists give up on far shorter hills than that and certainly most young kids would baulk at riding up it the whole way.
I dont think they highlighted some completely outrageous point even if in of itself shouldn’t preclude there being a cycle lane installed, and there arent a whole lot of ways to get around it,just dont expect it to deliver as much gain for all demographics would be my take.
Yes because clearly people
Yes because clearly people who have signed up to a fitness app that records all their cycling activity and who may even be paying an annual subscription for it, are totally representative of their age group in the general population.
What was it that famous septuagenarian film star who cycles abit once said in a movie, it’s not the years, it’s the mileage.
Vast numbers of people, of
Vast numbers of people, of all kinds of ability levels, use all sorts of fitness and activity tracking these days. It may not be entirely representative, but the idea that people on Strava are only the super-fit / cycling obsessed is pretty wide of the mark.
In any case, whether they’re representative or not (in one sense they’re obviously not – they’re all riding bikes) isn’t necessarily the question. Over 6k people have recorded a time on that segment – even if no-one who isn’t on Strava ever cycles it (unlikely), that still seems like enough people to dismiss the suggestion that it’ll be a white elephant because hardly anyone will want to cycle up there.
If they were debating whether to spend the money on this or another scheme, then raising questions as to whether it offered proportionately less benefit to certain groups might be more relevant, but I suspect the argument that’s being made is just that they shouldn’t spend the money at all.
5% is hardly anything. And
5% is hardly anything. And even if it was, the existence of a hill is even more reason for a cycle lane because you might be wobbling about. And if you have to get off and walk you need separating from the traffic even more!
This is a clear case of
We Don’t Want No Cycle Paths Here https://t.co/WQqYYLXvZs
Nice plug there, Judy
Nice plug there, Judy 😉
my thoughts exactly
my thoughts exactly
Not even a mention in the
Not even a mention in the also rans
Great news. They have just
Great news. They have just approved the lanes at the council meeting. The Tories’ sociopathic grandstanding has come to nothing.
This is basically the same as
This is basically the same as the story about benches the other day. What those councillors actually mean is “I know that I wouldn’t cycle on that slight incline, therefore i believe that nobody would!”.
brooksby wrote:
It’s not even that good. They know people use cycle lanes. They just want to own all the public space for their wank panzers
just looked up the strava
just looked up the strava segment for haverstock hill
3.5% ffs, how can this possibly be too steep to cycle?
Interesting that Camden
Interesting that Camden council recently put a cycle Lane up Archway Road despite its steep profile
Agree, that’s a good
Agree, that’s a good comparison for gradient, but technically I think that one is on Islington and Haringey’s patches rather than Camden. Also, a lot of the uphill route is (or at least was, when I used to ride it regularly, pre-covid) just in a bus lane rather than segregated, and parts of the downhill route are a bit tight considering the gradient on approach, so they’re not necessarily a shining example of cycle lane design, though better than nothing.
I think you’re right, it’s
I think you’re right, it’s just outside Camden. Have you been there since the roundabout was removed, it’s not too bad – segregated cycle Lane from the bottom until just before the bridge, then use the bus lane. Coming down is better now there’s a massively wide bus lane and seperate lights for bus and traffic
Yep, I commuted through there
Yep, I commuted through there every weekday since ~2012, so used it regularly both before and after the changes. Haven’t been to the office since March 2020 though(!), so haven’t seen anything they might have done to it since then. TBH, personally I never really found Archway gyratory or Highbury Corner that intimidating, but appreciate they wouldn’t have been particularly welcoming to new cyclists. The revised layouts are much friendlier. My gripes above about the Archway lanes are just nit-pciking really – though I dislike the way the segregated lane ends and throws you into the bus lane, uphill, just before a bus stop. I rode single speed up there, so wasn’t happy if a bus pulled in in front of me! I think that was the first roundabout scheme Islington implemented, and the Highbury and Old Street schemes seemed more coherent.
I reckon we need one on Swain
I reckon we need one on Swain’s Lane too …
OllieB wrote:
Speak for yourself – I need the whole width of the road for zigzagging!
Well done Camden Cyclists!
Well done Camden Cyclists! Fight the dimwit Tory Panzer drivers, although I suspect most of them would rather be in a Tiger crunching over the skulls of cyclist untermensch, like the Machines in Terminator 2
Interesting to read some of
Interesting to read some of the post decision comments
How do you deliver sheets of glass to a glass shop if you have to cross a cycle lane?
How do you get a wedding dress and get on the bus to go home with it?
How do they get the glass through the traffic and onroad parking?
How often do the same people get married in Camden? Do they not have taxis or ubers in that area? How do the 2/3 with no car and the 80% who use foot/bike/public transport get on with doing anything ?
hirsute wrote:
Carefully?