Local cyclists in Cambridge have welcomed the opening of England’s first “Cycle Street” that gives cyclists right of way over drivers, though some are concerned by the scheme’s value for money.
The Adams Road upgrades have seen the street narrowed to encourage slower driving, whilst drivers will no longer be able to overtake cyclists or pedestrians on the road along the renovated stretch of road, that local bodies say already attracts 3,000 cyclists at peak times. Pavements have also been widened and resurfaced, whilst further road markings will give pedestrians priority at certain junctions.
The Cycle Street is part of the Comberton Greenway project that aims to link the city of Cambridge to surrounding villages with 150km of infrastructure suitable for walking, wheeling and cycling.
Adams Road resident Juliette Jackson told the BBC, “because it was an ordinary road, often the cars didn’t really pay much attention to the cyclists, and some of them are students – and they’re not very good at cycling, and they don’t have lights and they wear black clothes, and it’s quite hard to see them.
“The cars are [now] encouraged to sort of treat the road slightly differently.”
Anne Strauss told ITV Anglia, “It’s much smoother, that’s really nice. You don’t have to think about people opening their doors, so you don’t have to try and make sure you’re centring yourself around that. You’re not worried about the things that are will juct cone out of nowhere at you.
“I feel much better on the road as cyclist than I did before.”
When the roadworks began on Adams Road in October, South Cambridgeshire Councillor Brian Milnes said “This project is about putting people first – making every day journeys safer and easier for everyone.
“We’ve heard too many stories of cyclists being knocked off their bikes and car doors suddenly opening into their path, while elderly and vulnerable residents have to step into the road just to get around bins or parked cars. That shouldn’t be the reality on one of Cambridge’s busiest cycling routes.”
To tackle the issue, the number of car parking spaces has also been reduced along the road, although some residents were sceptical of both the impact of the upgrades, and the £2.4 million spent on the project.
“I’ve cycled up and down this street for decades I’ve never had any trouble, any problems with cyclists. So what have they actually changed? They’ve spent an awful lot of money, the result of which is that cyclists can cycle up and down the street just as well as they always could,” one resident said.
“The potholes need far more attention than this kind of operation. Basically I think it’s a waste of money,” added another.
Whilst Thomas Fitzpatrick, Transport Programme Manager at the Greater Cambridge Partnership that was behind the Greenways project, was being interviewed, he was heckled by a passing cyclist, shouting “it’s a bleedin’ waste of money” as he rode by.
Defending the project, Fitzpatrick told ITV, “This scheme has gone through all the suitable, Department for Transport business case appraisals and it has a very high benefit-to-cost ratio. It’s here to support the growth that is happening in the West of Cambridge.” He added he expected the estimated 3,000 cyclists who use the road to “expand significantly”.

27 thoughts on ““You’re not worried about the things that come out of nowhere”: Cyclists broadly support England’s first ‘Cycle Street’ but some concerned by £2.4 million “bleedin’ waste of money””
Well I suppose they might be burning fewer calories in nervous energy without having worry about cars so much…
I have used it before and after. It is a good change.
It was a good thing, worth doing well. It should establish the standard. Streets built this way should be cheaper over all.
“priority” klaxon!
I don’t know what the parameters which were set to decide this *could be* a cycle street (in NL I think it’s speed / volume of motor traffic versus numbers of cyclists). Certainly the volume of cyclists is hopeful for this actually working by itself. And it connects other cycle infra.
From a quick streetview I suspect that in NL this would not be seen as *needing* to be a cycle street! The area simply looks like a (mostly) residential LTN. Ergo it should have no motor though traffic. (I don’t know when the continuation of Wilberforce Road at Clarkson Road was filtered to essentially do this though).
The quirk here (from streetview) seems to have been vast amounts of on-road parking, presumably connected with the multiple sports facilities this seems to serve.
I wonder what if anything has changed about that? Have they forced the colleges to build parking on their property, or restrict those who can drive there? Will this become a one-way only loop for motor traffic?
I’m suspicious because at least in Edinburgh we still see the building of “Dutch-a-like” stuff.
Things have improved: usually the designs are no longer terrible in isolation (albeit all have flaws). But they’re usually misplaced and/or pointless due to lack of contextual- understanding of where the particular infra designs are suitable for use.
So eg. West Shore road in Muirhouse here got a genuine bi-directional separate cycle path – on a short, very traffic-light dead-end street! Massive overengineering – the street could simply have been narrowed / parking removed, made with street brick etc.
Currently if we do build we build where we can, not where we need.
@chrisonabike
I walk down this street regularly, the reason I walk down it far more regually than I cycle has nothing to do with the street itself which was far better than every other street on my route for cycling before any work was carried out. In fact, I don’t think it would have made even the long list of roads that needed improvement.
What has changed, other than resurfacing both the road and the footpath, is it is now really clear where parking is permitted.
A lot of the cars you see parked there previously were actually parked on extremely worn and barely visible double yellow lines, since there was no parking enforcement whatsoever, they were just routinely ignored.
The road has been made narrower on the corners, which does make crossing the road at that point easier, but actually is slightly worse for cycling as now if a driver decides it is a good idea to overtake you on the corner, it will result in a close pass and there is nowhere to go if there is another vehicle coming in the opposite direction.
Not that crossing the road was a huge issue before, but I think a pedestrian crossing a few meters away from the corner would have been a better and probably cheaper solution.
The footpath is now wider in places. It is still very narrow where the parking spaces and rain gardens are, but there are now places where you can pass people, so if someone is coming from the other direction with a pushchair for example, you no longer have to step into the road.
I’ve not looked into how this has been funded, mostly because I would be furious if much of it had come from an active travel budget, when there are so many other areas in and around the city where it is desperately needed.
I have mixed feelings about the project, it has made what was already a very nice area even better, but it very much a case of general improvements for everyone, especially the residents, rather than specifically benefiting cyclists or active travel.
“now if a driver decides it is a good idea to overtake you on the corner, it will result in a close pass”
I understood from the article that overtaking is not permitted on the renovated stretch – but not clear if that means “prohibited by law” or just “made difficult by design” (and of course, recognising that “prohibited by law” is of limited effect anyway).
@quiff From what I’ve witnessed so far it hasn’t changed driver behaviour. I don’t think I’ve seen a single driver wait behind a cyclist and not overtake.
@quiff I don’t know but would suspect not – haven’t heard about law changing (can this be done with byelaws?). I doubt drivers would understand the UK “no overtaking” includes cyclists (and isn’t there always a “can overtake if cyclists going less than 10mph” exception?)
Interestingly other places vary. In NL the “cycle street” sign doesn’t signal legal restrictions. I don’t think this itself prevents overtaking. I think street narrowing and centreline treatments are supposed to discourage that.
However in Belgium I believe the sign has legal meaning AND it means it’s illegal to overtake.
Overtaking (including bikes) is already a “should not” in traffic calmed areas – rule 153. Observed in the breach.
@Sedis thank you for the local info!
@chrisonabike the modal filter of Wilberforce Road at Clarkson Road has been there for many years – it’s there in the earliest Streetview imagery which is in 2008.
I don’t think much of the parking is necessarily related to the sports facilities. My recollection is that Adams Road was one of the closest options for free, unrestricted parking to the city centre, and therefore a popular location for long-term parking for students and other city-centre residents with no access to private car parks, or even just knowledgeable visitors.
But yeah, it was basically already a de factor cycle street, with very little motor traffic. I haven’t seen the new design in person – I suspect it’s fine, but very much a case of doing it where it was easy to do so, rather than improving trickier locations that are far more needing of improvement!
@OnYerBike Yes, the university has loads of parking closer to the sports facilities.
As you say it is mostly people using it for free parking as it is less than a mile from the city centre.
Word seemed to have also got around that it was a suitable quiet place to stay over night in a motor home. There were regularly camper vans with foreign plates there, with the occupants casually having breakfast when I walked past just before 9am on a Saturday morning, particularly over summer.
Some useful context about cycle streets: what they are not:
When a cycle street treatment failed (more like a road) in NL and why it now works:
Well it’s a definite improvement, and highways schemes do cost a lot of money.
And I had to identify about 300 crosswalks on Google reCaptcha in order to log in to this website to make a comment, so I’m now an active travel expert.
“….drivers will no longer be able to overtake cyclists or pedestrians”
Seems unlikely they won’t be able to overtake pedestrians
@quiff Overtaking (including bikes) is already a “should not” in traffic calmed areas – rule 153. Observed in the breach
Quotations from the Highway Code and associated legislation are irrelevant – in the UK, it’s the police and their institutional cyclist-hostility which makes the law in practice. No matter what the ‘official’ law is about overtaking on this street, I have no doubt that any video-verified complaint to the police would be immediately binned without comment under the ‘too busy’ dodge, just like any complaint about ‘cyclist or pedestrian’ hierarchy of priority over a driver would be binned with a police snigger (or any complaint about RLJ, handheld mobile use while driving, daily criminal offending by driving without MOT etc. etc.). Such offences are legalised by police obstructive attitudes
@wtjs The positive response rate from Cambridgeshire Police has improved considerably over the last few years when reporting via the online portal.
If I send a video, I generally get an email saying they will take some form of action.
Whilst I have no doubt this is normally going to be a letter with ‘words of advice’ that will likely go straight in the bin, things are at least moving in the right direction.
‘Should’ in the HC is guidance, rather than ‘must’. If you ignore it and cause an incident then it’s evidence of careless / dangerous driving, but not an offence in and of itself, as I understand it.
Indeed, there is one ‘should’ in the HC that I routinely ignore, that of giving way to pedestrians waiting to cross at a junction when I’m turning into that road. That’s because I’m far more concerned about some impatient numpty rear-ending me, which is far more serious than a 3 or 4 second delay for the pedestrian. Bicycles don’t routinely have brake lights of course.
@Jakrayan I suggest your concern of being rear-ended is illusory. I regularly give priority to pedestrians waiting to cross (whether I’m in car or on bike) and it hasn’t happened to me yet. Has it to anyone else?
I always give priority when I’m driving. However I have had horn blasts from the driver behind for doing so. Plus when waiting patiently to overtake a cyclist safely due to oncoming traffic.
Not only that, there was a recent post on a local Facebook group from someone imploring other drivers not to stop as she had personally witnessed 3 rear-end collisions so far this year at a particular junction. Amazingly, totally contrary to the usual cesspit of comments on a local FB group, every single person pointed out she was wrong and that pedestrians have priority here.
So if there have been 3 collisions at this one junction this year due to drivers tailgating, not paying attention or not knowing the HC changes, or more likely all 3, I would be confident in stating that my concern is most definitely not simply illusory!
A horn blast indicates ignorance of the rule and/or impatience, but doesn’t necessarily mean you were close to being rear-ended. I haven’t had any issues – take primary, signal while slowing and often I don’t actually have to stop, I just create the time for them to cross as I’m slowing down to turn.
@Jakrayan always best to get out & check with the drive behind to ascertain the problem, before continuing. 😉
Driver ! Grrr still no edit
‘Should’ in the HC is guidance, rather than ‘must’
Again, irrelevant because of the attitude of the idle, useless, bent tossers in the police. I think that we can all agree, outside Lancashire Constabulary, that red traffic lights are a mustn’t
ttps://upride.cc/incident/sc21zsx_niro_redlightpass/
Correctly reported, and ignored
I’ve given up reporting close passes to Kent Police. Even the white van driver who overtook me as we arrived at a T-junction (we were approaching from the I not the — so had to stop), so stopped fully in the right lane where traffic coming from the right is hidden by vegetation:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/khCUvhqNWpRMr52L6?g_st=ac
There’s a reasonably steep down hill just before the junction, so I’d actually dropped him, hadn’t held him up in the slightest.
When I checked the MOT had expired several months before, the van had been SORN’d and of course there was no insurance in place. Reported to the police and the DVLA – even went into the local police station as one of those offences (no insurance fro memory) can’t be reported online. At least, not at the time in Kent, don’t know about now.
Follow up? Zero, presumably meaning no action was taken.
Reported to the police and the DVLA…
Which are the two organisations in the UK least interested in VED evasion, or any other offences committed by drivers. Just to see how good AI is, I asked Google about reporting to DVLA, and still it sends you to the their page which states this:
If you see an untaxed vehicle on a road, you can report it. Your report is anonymous and will be investigated.
No it won’t, it goes straight in the bin, even if it’s reinforced by a letter from your MP to the immensely hopeless Lilian Greenwood, minister at DVLA. See BF64 TGE and HY66 ZZB which have MOTs, and HN21 VXB which doesn’t. As if to emphasise the utter ineptitude at DVLA, I just tried to check those before posting, and ‘service unavailable’ was displayed, as it has been numerous times over recent weeks