Following a rise in complaints of anti-social cycling in Cambridge, residents have their say about what can be done about it

Numerous complaints have been made about anti-social cycling in Cambridge city centre, with one resident claiming that cyclists “don’t read signs”.

Now there is debate among interested parties as to whether an increase in signage will actually lead to a decrease in cyclists flouting the rules, according to the Cambridge News.

Residents are reportedly growing weary of the infractions, with complaints of incidents occurring on St John’s Street, Trinity Street, Market Street, Sidney Street and Petty Cury.

>>> Cambridge council cuts locks on commuter bikes while owners at work

Nicholas Halliwell told councillors: “There is a huge new ‘no entry’ written on the road [in Bridge Street] – and cyclists ride over it with aplomb. I think you’re wasting your time. We live in a university town – cyclists don’t read.”

Some residents believe extra signage will deter cyclists from travelling the wrong way down one-way streets, and not enter areas where cycling is forbidden, but councillors are wary of what impact this would have on the city.

>>> Cyclists on footpaths putting pedestrians at risk, says Cambridge MP

Cllr John Hipkin said: “The call for signage has to be set against the fact we’re talking about an historic city, a conservation area and the fact the city is already over-cluttered with signage.

“The way we say ‘yes, more signs’ does worry me.”

Cycling campaigner Jim Chisholm defended the need for more signs, however, saying cyclists are not the only ones to disobey regulations.

“There are always going to be people – just like there are drivers – who disobey the regulation,” he said. “But you need to have the signage clear enough so responsible people do understand them.”

  • Davydh Trethewey

    What is that picture of a mountain doing in Cambridge?

  • David Edey

    As a cyclist, I think clearer signage could help in places.
    Some cyclists view “No Entry” to just apply to cars. Perhaps a “No Entry” sign with an “(Including Cyclists)” below it would be beneficial. (I should add unless contradictory evidence appears, I take “No Entry” to mean no to cyclists too, but as indicated below this isn’t always what’s meant).
    In other places in Cambridge (eg, Garden Walk is one example), there is a “No Entry” sign with no additional clarification, but road markings (and the start of a cycle path) indicate that bikes *are* allowed to cycle that way down the street.
    Clarifying each “No Entry” sign to either allow/deny cyclists also would imo be a useful addition.

  • Jon

    I am guilty of the same thing though – I should have said “some students” don’t read signs 🙂

  • Mark Jones

    You are spot on there Jon and this is something that really annoys. I consider myself to be a cyclist, because I cycle regularly both commuting but also for leisure. If I see someone cycling round to the shops, then I wouldn’t consider them to be a cyclist. If someone gets mugged by some youths walking down the street, well if you follow the same principles this would imply that they were mugged by a walker (so I’d better watch out when walking up in the Welsh mountains!!). If some kids are having a kick around with a football are they classed as footballers? No!! It is the user group that is the problem and I have started to see the same myself as I cycle near to a university where I work. But only from a very small minority and I cannot help but wonder whether it would be worse in some university towns than others!!

  • Jon

    Students don’t read signs, and some of them happen to use bikes – by misidentifying the vehicle rather than the user group as the source of the problem, they reinforce the misconceptions of the belligerent anti-cycling motorists we all know and love.