The Council is proposing measures to improve safety along Clerkenwell Road from the
junction with Laystall Road to the junction with Farringdon Road by providing improved facilities
for pedestrians and cyclists.
Clerkenwell Road is located west of Farringdon Road and is highly populated with office
buildings. There is a market on Leather lane, which is located east of Clerkenwell Road. Hence
Clerkenwell Road has a high pedestrian activity and is also heavily used by cyclists.
During the period between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2004, there were in total 21-
recorded accidents (5 serious and 16 slight). The majority of these accidents were the result of
vehicles trying to overtake right turning vehicles with pedestrians and cyclists being casualties.
The Council is therefore informing you of its proposals for improvements along Clerkenwell Road
as shown on the attached drawing. The proposals include the following:
• Carriageway narrowing on the southern side of Clerkenwell Road between its junctions
with Vine Hill and Hatton Garden.
• Cycle lanes along both sides of Clerkenwell Road.
• Widening of the islands on both sides of the Leather Lane junction
• A new zebra crossing with island on Clerkenwell Road between its junction with Back Hill
and Hatton Garden, with the bus stop in front of St Peter’s Church being relocated
eastwards towards the Herbal Hill junction.
• A new island on the west side of Clerkenwell Road junction with Hatton Garden.
• Re-location of the existing zebra crossing on Clerkenwell Road east of the junction with
Herbal Hill to west of the same junction.
CCC Response
Camden Cycling Campaign believes that overall the changes are beneficial. However we believe that the speed limit on this road should be reduced to 20 mph. One of our members states the following: “I cycle along this stretch of road every day and it can often be an alarming mix of fast-moving vehicles, pedestrians trying to cross and buses stopping”
We support the proposal to move the east-bound bus stop further east down the hill, which will remove the danger point where the bus stop conflicts with vehicles turning right onto Hatton Garden. Currently, cyclists and cars move out into this lane to get around the buses, and this puts them into conflict with anyone going right, because both are happening at the same point.
Cyclists find it difficult to move round parked cars, particularly when travelling west, which is steeply uphill. We see that yellow lines are proposed on both sides of the street. Although I enquired about the hours for which they apply, Mr. Owoyemi’s reply was “Parking/loading restrictions will remain as at present.”. It is essential that the parking should be prevented in the uphill cycle lane at all times, leaving the new cycle lane free and also in the downhill lane during busy times.
The road narrowings are a good thing for everyone concerned.
Although it is outside the study area we have a concern about the junction at the bottom of the hill with Farringdon Road. One of our members reports that this has a short spur of cycle lane which is blocked with a pedestrian guard rail. This seems incredibly dangerous because it has nothing to show that the lane is shut, and at night one could ride into it. Please would you report this to whoever is responsible either in LB Camden or at TfL. Photos illustrating the problem sent to the officers and Dave Stewart on 21st October
Response from Ralph Smyth (coordinator of City Cyclists)
the following was sent separately as it arrived too late to be incorporated into the CCC response
SUMMARY
• Carriageway narrowing on the southern side of Clerkenwell Road between its junctions with Vine Hill and Hatton Garden. The carriageway realignment is very good. a constant width helps cyclists,
discouraging drivers speeding up on the wider sections or squeezing cyclists
when it narrows. however because much of the carriageway is zig-zags or bus
stop, the cycle lane will be the only places taxis and loading vehicles will
stop in. So cycles will still be squeezed.
• Cycle lanes along both sides of Clerkenwell Road.
Not good: too narrow, segmented and lacking in priority. This is a major
commuter /courier route and these proposals will impede particularly these
sorts of cyclists. Research shows
that good cycle lanes do not increase safety but bad ones actually decrease
it. It’d be better just to have a high quality cycle lane going up the hill
and let cyclists ride with the traffic (all cyclists can go at reasonable
speed due to the incline) downhill.
• Widening of the islands on both sides of the Leather Lane junction
Bad: unnecessary and will reduce the space for cyclists to pass stationary
motor traffic
• A new zebra crossing with island on Clerkenwell Road between its junction
with Back Hill and Hatton Garden, with the bus stop in front of St Peter’s
Church being relocated eastwards towards the Herbal Hill junction.
New zebra is good as it has a traffic calming effect but bus stop position
will cause problems due to new pinchpoint between the kerb buildout and new
island immediately beyond.
• A new island on the west side of Clerkenwell Road junction with Hatton
Garden.
Good in principle but due to other aspects of design will cause cyclists to
be squeezed (see above).
• Re-location of the existing zebra crossing on Clerkenwell Road east of the
junction with Herbal Hill to west of the same junction.
Surely the other way round with east & west or is drawing wrong? See above
about problems with general bus stop location.
EFFECTS ON SAFETY
The scheme will increase not decrease danger for pedal cyclists, who already
make up half of reported collisions. The proposed cycle lanes are
particularly poorly thought out and will considerably increase conflict
between cyclists and other road users as:
• they stop and start: cycle lanes are only useful if continuous.
• 1.5m is too narrow. even for low flows lanes of this width reduce safety.
however cycle flows here are some of the highest in London. It’s very
worrying that the designers seem not to have observed existing cycle
movements: many cyclists currently ride well away from kerb, often with the
rest of the traffic. Indeed both TfL publicity and cycle training advises
you to ride well away, 1m, from the kerb. A 1.5m cycle lane will encourage
cyclists to ride nearer the kerb.
• lack of enforceability: many motor vehicles will still be able to stop in
the cycle lane such as vans, taxis making the cycle lanes more dangerous
• many cyclists would have to come out of the cycle lanes to pass parked
vehicles or slower cyclists leading to conflict
• the location of the westbound bus stop and kerb build out by the new pinch
point created by the island would lead to cyclists being squeezed into it by
buses pulling out to pass the new build-out
The hierarchy of consideration (contained in LCDS, LTN 01/04 on Walking &
Cycling etc) states that traffic calming should be considered first with
cycle lanes the least favoured option due to their mixed record. It seems as
if the designers of this scheme have ignored the key principle of designing
for cycling.
Separation of cycle and motor movements has a very negative effect on safety
unless it can be done to a high degree of quality. Stop-start narrow &
non-enforceable cycle lanes are about the lowest quality separation possible.
If the council want to improve safety they need to encourage cyclists and
drivers to merge at least downhill. This needs to be done by reducing the
speed differential, i.e. a 20mph zone. Cyclists going eastbound will be
going downhill so will want to travel at speed (20-35km/h), making a narrow
cycle lane with a low design speed even less attractive.
WAITING & LOADING
The south side (westbound) generally has no waiting except for one metered
parking place and either no loading or it is restricted 8.30am-6.30pm. The
north side has single yellow lines and unclear, possibly no (or rather no
enforceable) loading restrictions.
Loading needs to be moved into bays in the side streets though one new
loading bay at pavement level could be provided in the extended kerb line
just east of Leather Lane.
Tthe whole road should be no waiting at any time: double yellow. there are
plenty of side streets to park in however this road is busy 24/7.
new yellow lines should be the minimum width possible to preserve streetscape
character. in particular those on Laystall Street are superfluous as it is
access only and should be removed.
STREETSCAPE ISSUES
The measures proposed seriously degrade the streetscape of a historic and
attractive area. rather than improving driver behaviour, the mess of
coloured surfacing would lead them to pay less attention to cyclists: TRL
report on cyclists & driver behaviour suggests that cycle facilities of poor
standards are worse than nothing at all.
it would be better to help the significant numbers of people walking, cycling
and driving, plus of course visiting the market and shops, mix safely by
changing the cue from traffic space to mixed social space with a traffic
function. “Less is more”: too many markings confuse people, having fewer
combined with an attractive streetscape makes people more cautious.
the kerb realignment around leather lane should be combined with a raised
junction to give the feel of a new square.
ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS
Extend Hatton Garden 20mph zone to include this section of Clerkenwell Road.
This would join up a large area including that under Roseberry Avenue. It
would have a negligible effect if any on average journey time.
Cycle parking on the area created by new kerb line plus a bench or two.
Gentle junction tables at Leather Lane/ Eyre St Hill, Herbal Hill, Safron
Hill (including relocated zebra crossing)
increase loading/waiting restrictions 7am-7pm waiting min, at any time on
south side.
two zig-zags only either side of zebra crossings, this is possible in 20mph
zone and where increased loading/waiting restrictions.
An eastbound (downhill) cycle lane would be problematic in light of the
conditions however a westbound cycle lane could be of help to those cycling
up the hill as long as continuous, mandatory and 1.7m min. green sections
should only be used where the lane passes side-streets as per the advice in
the LCDS.
Rather than having hatching in the median and ugly green cycle lanes plus
stop-start anti-skid surfacing, use beige anti-skid surfacing to mark a 3m
motor vehicle path in each direction then leave the central median and kerb
strip (about 1.5m) in original tarmac black. if funding permitted the
central strip should be paved: this is common on the continent. this is
subtle way of doing the same as proposed with little difference in legal
consequences except that cyclists over taking parked vehicles or slower
cyclists do not have to give way to drivers.
Cycle symbols should only be marked at junction mouths, i.e. only where they
help cyclists, specifically reducing danger. the 20mph proposals above would
allow cycle symbols at side roads where there currently unnecessary zig-zags
are proposed.
The real need for cycle lanes here is at the junction with Rosebery Avenue
and Farringdon Street (in LB Islington). The former is being dealt with as
part of the Route 38 project while the latter is being delayed by waiting
for bridge strengethening work, despite a half completed cycle facility
being there for two years now. ICAG have raised this rightly as needing
urgent attention as part of the A201 CRISP.