Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Agree about the two-tier cycle stands. When cycling to the station, I would tend to park my bike a short walk from the station in order to avoid using them. There are various bits of street furniture on nearby patches of grass that will do for the purpose, and it may add time walking to the station but it is worth it in order not to have to use those cycle racks. An alternative I’ve sometimes adopted is to take my bike on the train, even if my final destination is within walking distance of the other station.
Also agree about unused bikes. Bikes for occasional use only should not be in the most heavily used racks. We should have a policy whereby abandoned bikes are tagged and removed entirely, and that racks in higher demand areas are labelled up as being for use on the day only (hopefully self-enforcing but with security having the authority to remove bikes if well signed instructions are blatantly ignored). If someone has a bike for the occasional lunchtime ride up on the Ridgeway or whatever, then I would very much hope that it can be accommodated *somewhere* on site, but maybe in one of the less sought-after locations.
Without disagreeing with the principle that we should be able to cycle safely on the road between Didcot and Harwell, this seems like a suitable opportunity to mention about a possible route being opened up between Great Western Park and Cow Lane (which is the track that goes north-northeast from Harwell towards the A4130 – see https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1292135 ). There is currently a small gap of about 350 metres in what would otherwise be a route between Didcot and Harwell avoiding the area of the roundabout. The council’s intention is to legally create a public footpath to bridge this gap (extending an existing 200 metres of footpath). This would be followed by whatever actual works on the ground are necessary, although there is certainly some existing track already — hard to see exactly what as this area is fenced off at present. It was meant to be all done by last autumn, so there was already delay before the start of the COVID outbreak, and I don’t know the timescale now.
It would possibly not be tactical to push too hard for bridleway status before the footpath is legally created, in case somebody important to the process gets nervous, and it might also not be tactical to push for it before a decision is made about the roundabout if it’s seen as an easy get-out from doing the right thing there. However, particularly if do we end up in a situation where a footpath has thankfully been created already and the roundabout has regrettably been allowed in its proposed form, then the case for an upgrade to bridleway could become compelling. We are only talking about 500 metres or so, because Cow Lane itself is already a bridleway.
The total distance from Didcot Parkway to Harwell via this route — Lydalls Road, Brasenose Road and past the Boundary Park — would be about 500 metres longer than via Wantage Road.
I was told by RAL Estates that the reason why UKAEA fenced off the access via what is now the overflow car park near Diamond, which previously used to be accessible to staff via a card-controlled gate and indeed featured on one of the “healthy walks” routes promoted by Occupational Health, was concern that it could become a right of way, which could impact on any future building plans. This can happen if there is de facto public access for a period of time, but I really can’t imagine how they managed to conclude that there was a risk of this, given that the access was via a staff-only gate. But their land, their choice. So yes, I would concur… use the existing routes informally, and do not rock the boat by trying to talk up your case…
Were the bikes under the library bridge ever actually tagged to identify and remove abandoned bikes, as it was announced that they would be? The stand is often pretty full, and RAL Estates told me that they would not be buying another Sheffield stand. They provided one of the wheel rack variety instead, despite my drawing their attention to the advice against them at https://www.broxap.com/cycle-parking-guide-planning-completion/types-cycle-parking/ . So it would be worth ensuring at least that all the bikes parked at the Sheffield stand are actually in use. This can legitimately include occasional use at lunchtimes, so a bike can be in use but nonetheless always there overnight, but even so there is at least one that has been in the same exact spot for long enough to raise suspicions.
The zebra crossing should be left as it is. Even if a cyclist has to dismount to use it, it is still likely to be far quicker to than waiting for the lights to change at a toucan crossing.
We could also do with an additional stand under the library bridge, where there is high demand (to be placed near the existing one, but with comfortable space between them because capacity is lost if they are too close together).
No surprise to me at all that you didn’t have proper information. Here is my previous experience from using FGW (now GWR) cycle parking.
- They put a sign at Oxford station advertising that cycle racks would be removed, but positioned so that it was only visible when *leaving* the station, not when entering — which may be okay for regular commuters, but was useless for people making a one-off journey.
- They cut the locks of any bikes parked there over the weekend in question, taking the bikes into a store room.
- They then put an advert in the Oxford Mail telling people to retrieve their bike from the station office (which anyone who was actually missing a bike would do naturally, so all that it achieved was to draw the attention of people who weren’t).
- They then gave out the bikes to anybody who gave a more or less accurate description, without requiring any ID or keeping any records.
The result of all that is that I went away on the train for a weekend, only to lose not only the lock but the bicycle itself. (Oh, and nobody claimed to know anything about it when I returned on the Sunday evening, requiring another trip back during office hours.) And then they refused to compensate me, only finally backing down when I sent them a photocopy of a completed court claim form with an ultimatum.
This is who you are dealing with.
Sorry for delayed response (been on leave). It does sound like a section 4A public order offence may have been committed –
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4AWithout looking in detail at the content of the reviews on the page you linked to, the ratio of numbers of good reviews to bad ones seems to be adequate but not overwhelming…
If anyone can please add a map to illustrate the article, showing the locations of the new tunnel as well as the planned cycle routes referred to (including the existing unused bridge and the planned new bridge), that would be extremely helpful. Thanks.
@Didcotbob – if you are referring to the map at
https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/countrysidemap/
it would appear that the routes which are shown if you select “cycling” are simply based on the legal status (from the definitive map), and I guess that the site is not designed to accept any other source of data as input.
You will see at:
that parts of the Thames path are shown as recommended cycle route even though it is legally just public footpath, so the council certainly allow for this possibility, but I guess that the Countryside Access Map is not a place where this info can be displayed (short of a major redesign of the website).
Oh, and on the subject of legalities… *even* if the Winnaway does later get officially upgraded to a bridleway (and hopefully it will be), it is worth being aware that the law which grants cyclists a right of way on bridleways does so subject to an obligation to give way to pedestrians and horse riders:
It seems they’ve enabled my login so I can reply myself – thanks.
To ribble23, definitely please can you report this. Even if you don’t have the reg, it might make all the difference between an uncorroborated report and one they can act on. Please mention when you saw it. I won’t tell you the time myself, in order to ensure that it is your own independent report.
To Didcotbob, I see there is some discussion at http://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-on-footpath-trespass , and regarding the question of “reasonable use” which they discuss there, clearly given that the council have resurfaced it in collaboration with Sustrans with the very intention of use by cyclists, it *easily* passes that test. In any case, it is *at worst* a civil trespass (though note the distinction between “footways” and “footpaths” discussed there). Regarding motor vehicles, it is a criminal offence. s.34(1) Road Traffic Act 1988.