- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cambridge_floating_bus_stopCambridge bus boss calls ‘floating’ bus stop plan “absolutely ludicrous”
The boss of bus company Stagecoach Cambridgeshire says plans to improve bike paths in Cambridge that include ‘floating’ bus stops are “absolutely ludicrous”.
Plans for a major overhaul of bike lanes in Cambridge include bus boarding areas on traffic islands, with a bike lane between the footway and the bus stop. A similar design has been included in the recent extension of London’s Cycle Superhighway 2 and is in common use in Europe.
However, artists’ impressions of the proposed design show the cycle lane passing between a bus shelter and the island, and this is worrying Stagecoach Cambridgeshire managing director Andy Campbell, according to Cambridge News’ Chris Havergal.
The proposed floating bus stop layout
Mr Campbell thinks people will be so excited at the prospect of getting on one of his buses they will leap, lemming-like, into the path of oncoming cyclists.
He told a meeting of the city council’s north area committee: “People, when they see a bus coming, will just walk towards the bus and they will be walking across a cycle path.
“To me that’s absolutely ludicrous. If you’re going to put a cycle lane in, put it behind the bus stop.”
.jpg)
Bus stop on London's Cycle Superhighway 2 extension (CC licensed image by diamond geezer/Flickr)
That’s how the floating stops on the recently-completed extension of London’s Cycle Superhighway 2 have been positioned. Bus stop and shelter are both on the island so bus passengers don’t have to cross the bike lane to board.
The plans show the bus stopping in the main traffic lane rather than pulling into a lay-by, which has raised fears of more queues on routes into the city.
Mr Campbell added that cutting down on road space to slow traffic down would only make congestion worse.
But Cambridge Cycling Campaign co-ordinator Hester Wells says the floating bus stop design is better for both buses and cyclists.
She told road.cc: “Andy Campbell of Stagecoach cited the difficulty of driving among the volume of cyclists in Cambridge. This design removes interaction with cyclists.
“Also, the bus just stops in the road. There’s no waiting to pull into the stop because of cyclists, and no waiting for traffic to pull out.
“Plus there’s the obvious point that congestion is what holds up buses. If cycling is perceived as safer, that can reduce car journeys.”
The plans were unveiled as part of a consultation exercise into new, segregated cycle lanes along Huntingdon Road and Hills Road.
A county council spokesman said: “The feedback of the bus operators as well as comments of hundreds of others has been very useful and will help us shape the final proposals.
“Floating bus stops have been used successfully by the Dutch for decades and have also been introduced in the UK. The idea of the stops is to improve safety for both the bus drivers and cyclists.
“In any detailed design of the stops we would look at the best ways to make them work for all users including where possible keeping traffic moving around stationary buses and the best way to help bus passengers.”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 4 sec ago
Looks like some Barton Hill residents don't want the Liverpool Neighbourhood or at least not Marsh Lane to be a no-through-road:...
- Pub bike 17 min 51 sec ago
Wasn't there a story on here a while back about some bloke fixing a puncture with some banana skins? In any case I can no longer find it.
- David9694 23 min 21 sec ago
Total demolition job in Maulden Some Before pictures for Woodthorpe: https://www.warmemorialsonline.org.uk/memorial/175683/
- David9694 47 min 45 sec ago
"After a two-hour long meeting, the panel voted 9-2 to resolve that the majority of the panel supported the introduction of the charges but was ...
- Rendel Harris 56 min 44 sec ago
Schrödinger's mizzle, where whether it is raining or not is dependent upon the observer.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 25 min ago
It's just easier to "negotiate" when both parties are much more similar in vulnerability, manoeuvrability, speed, width, etc. than those in motor...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 31 min ago
Done - caveat that a) the entire width wasn't used for the cycle lane and b) not in the UK....
- OldRidgeback 2 hours 9 min ago
Hmm, not a word about BMX bikes. My sons graduated in turn from the little Raleigh and went onto a BMX with an 18" wheel bought from (the horror)...
- Les Ed 2 hours 21 min ago
I've just read that is someone with 217 points.
Add new comment
48 comments
@levermonkey I think you're largely right, which is why I support the variant on these plans with a minimal curb between the cycle path and road/footpath.
That said there's not really a "narrowness of the cycle path" problem in these plans, the cycleway is going to be 2+m wide for the most part and 1.5m wide through bus stops. I'm not sure about your bike control, but I reckon I can steer around even the most gormless of pedestrians (and some of the school kids on Hills Road are frankly entirely oblivious even as they cross the road) in 1.5metres of space.
As anyone who has cycled down Kings Parade will know, we're quite used to avoiding collisions with gormless pedestrians in Cambridge. I don't think this will be any more taxing.
Regardless of which side of the cycle path these bus shelters are built, we should recognise the potential for conflict and just slow down. Road users, whether they are cyclists or drivers, should never place themselves in a position where the only "choice" is a collision.
Speed is irrelevant. It is often a case of whether you are expecting contact. Have you never seen two pedestrians bump into each other at walking pace? Often one of them, the one not expecting contact, will be knocked over by the impact.
I also notice that people think that 1.5m is generous. How wide are your handlebars, 50cm? If we give the pedestrian a width of 75cm as he will be mid-step or carrying a bag, you are now down to 25cm which is half your handlebar width.
Don't forget that you are hemmed in by kerbs.
Ah! But the pedestrian is not stationary is he? So, how much wiggle room do you have?
How long before signs start to appear saying "cyclists dismount"?
It'd have to be a very high kerb to not allow nearly half your bar width to overlap the pavement or island
Even assuming the kerb's too high to clear pedals (which would be daft) you can still put your wheels within, say, 15cm of the kerb. 25cm of bar sticking out the other way leaves over a metre for the errant ped. If it's a kerb at sensible height you can ride right up to it and win even more space.
I'm afraid speed is very important. You need to stop working out how much "wiggle room" you have, stop readying yourself for a collision, and maybe start thinking about just slowing down. Remember, how you ride affects how other people see cyclists collectively.
I take it you've not heard of brakes or a bell then. Just because you are in an area than* has the strong possibility of a pedestrian crossing over does not mean that we behave like the motorist and barge on through. Yes the pedestrian needs to learn to look. On the same token we need to be aware of their existence and behave accordingly. Otherwise we reinforce the image that pedestrians have of cyclists being louts.
* that
I'll stay on the road thank you. I'll take my chances moving with cars at the same speed as them rather than go from 20 -> 3 mph at every bus stop
@goggy I can't imagine why you'd be using the cycle lane in any of your three very expensive bikes. Unless they're your fleet of winter hacks, in which case I apologize.
The bus boss is completely right.
The proposed design needs to move the shelter onto the island just like the TFL design.
And from actually reading his comments, that's what he's proposing as well.
People waiting to catch the bus only see the bus...
This is my daily commute, to be honest I agree with him entirely, in fact I filled in the online consultation saying so just this morning.
Putting the cycle path between the bus shelter and where you mount the bus is quite simply daft. The problem is made worse by the several secondary schools/sixth form colleges along Hills Road, teenagers distracted by their music and phones crossing the cycleway is a recipe for disaster. The TFL/dutch bus-stop bypass design avoids this because pedestrians aren't distracted/under time pressure when crossing the cycleway and cyclists are slowed by the bend in the path.
A bus stop will always create some conflict because pedestrians, motor vehicles and cyclists have to cross each others paths, the proposed design will exacerbate rather than minimise the potential pedestrian-cyclist conflict.
Overall the plans are pretty good, either a 2.1m or a 2.7m wide cycleway each way, almost as wide as a road, plenty of room to overtake the yummy mummies on their cargo bikes.
What so many people seem to be ignoring is that the bus stops on the northbound side of Hills Rd ALREADY dump pedestrians into the path of cyclists on the shared-use, only there's no island to pause and crap visibility.
How is this not, clearly, incontrovertibly, an improvement?
Is there already an epidemic of pedestrian and cyclist injuries with the existing, inferior arrangements, even given the number of teenagers on Hills Rd? No. No there is not.
In addition, the plans will make it possible to remove the existing shared-use on Hills Rd. People are so keen to be afraid on the unfamiliar they're ignoring all the problems that are already there.
There are stretches like this in Sunderland on the A690, it works except for joining the main road at the end of the bus lane just before a roundabout.
Well, after reading that carefully I'm surprised I actually agree with him a little bit. He doesn't seem to be complaining about the island at all, just that they haven't put the shelter on the island.
The chap from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign didn't address that point in his reply.
I'm no expert on bus shelters, especially those in the Netherlands. Do they always put the shelter on the island or not?
In Copenhagen they're often like the artist's impression here. Cyclists give way to pedestrians getting on and off the bus and it works really well. That's in a country where there's a widely respected order of priority, though.
I hate to disagree... but that's just not true. The lemming quote from the bus boss isn't entirely accurate, but it is definitely a problem in Copenhagen when the bus shelter (or any other waiting area) is on the other side of the bike path from the bus loading area. The Nørreport area NE-bound on a bike (admittedly a temporary thing) is a particularly bad example of this.
In fact, there was an article in Politiken a while ago about this very problem: many Copenhageners don't know when pedestrians are supposed to give way to cyclists and vice versa.
There are also a few places where the shelter is on the correct side, like the new Nørrebrogade or the main train station.
I can see this point, people wait in the shelter and step straight onto the bus and it would be silly to make them cross the bike path at that moment I think!! So yes the shelter needs to be on the island, makes a lot of sense to me.
Nothing new there then
Pages