PEDAL POWER: How to make Northwich cycle friendly - with video

Steve Hall has been filming the difficulties of cycling in and around Northwich.

Steve Hall has been filming the difficulties of cycling in and around Northwich.

First published in News
Last updated
Northwich Guardian: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

PEDAL Power readers agree that more needs to be done to make Northwich cycle safe and cycle friendly.

A number of readers have written to the Guardian following last week’s article about a new group, which Pedal Power has joined, set up to investigate Northwich’s cycling infrastructure and make it better.

Calvin Yates, who cycles regularly in Europe in his work for a cycling holiday provider, said: “Northwich is a long way behind a lot of towns in its use of cycle paths.

“I heard recently that they had funding to pave the canal path, that would help but lots more needs doing to make Northwich a cycle friendly destination.”

He cycles between Rudheath and Castle using cycle paths along the A556, the River Weaver and Hunts Lock but said the surface of the A556 cycle path needs a lot of work.

He also said purpose-built cycle paths in fairly new developments were not convenient.

He said: “It would be quicker and shorter to go through Kingsmead but the cycle path there is a joke it should be along the road, every road you pass you have to veer away from the road and cross over when no traffic is passing.”

Mum-of-two Sandra Higgins had a number of suggestions for improvements including cycle lanes on wide main roads like Chester Road and Darwin Street in Castle, and Middlewich Road, in Rudheath.

She said: “Loads of roads have enough room for cycle lanes but instead just badly parked cars – Darwin Street for example.

“The new swing bridge by Northwich boat club is brilliant for cyclists, it's made the school run easier as it avoids Castle and should be promoted as a way for cyclists to get from town to Greenbank/Hartford “To do the school run from Royle Street to Hartford pulling a trailer with six-year-old on his bike they do in 25 minutes.

“This would be 20 minutes if we could go over bridge at Royle Street and avoid hazards Middlewich Road, Victoria Road, Vicarage Road – it is quicker than a car!”

She also suggested a need for a safer route to Carey Park and Marbury Park from Northwich town centre, a sentiment echoed by reader Ann Brazier.

“The one way system bisects the two and I am not confident enough to brave the one way system!

“Any route suggestions gratefully received.”

Mike Hornby, from Weaverham, said he was concerned about what cycling provision was planned as part of this town centre gyratory system and added: “Cyclists need to be consulted on what is needed.

“Cycle lanes drawn up by motorised council officers are often worse than useless, sometimes positively dangerous.”

A video has been put together highlighting just some of the obstacles cyclists face in and around Northwich.

Steve Hall commutes to work by bike between Appleton and Gadbrook Park.

He can use quiet country lanes to and from Marbury Park but the video shows his attempts to find a safe route through Northwich town centre avoiding busy main roads, roundabouts and junctions.

The video highlights how disjointed current cycle provision is, with no easy way of travelling between Old Warrington Road and the Sustrans route from Northwich to Rudheath.

It also shows the problems of riding on popular shared use cycle and footpaths which are well used by walkers and cyclists alike.

In one hair-raising section of the video Steve attempts to cycle along the Trent and Mersey Canal, which would provide a direct link between Rudheath and Marbury Park but it is muddy and overgrown and leaves him cycling precariously on the edge of the water.

“There are too many hazards for everyone,” he said.

“I feel uncomfortable and feel unsafe but I want to cycle to work because it keeps me fit and I want to do it.

“It doesn’t feel safe on the roads – it’s a very vulnerable place to be.

“You come out of Carey Park and suddenly there’s nowhere to go.”

• We still want to hear from cyclists or people who would like to cycle more around Northwich. We want to know what you think is good and bad about current cycle provision and what would make your routes easier to navigate. We hope to draw up a comprehensive wish list that would make Northwich cycle friendly, including both short term easy wins and long term ambitions. Send your suggestions to gbebbington@guardiangrp.co.uk.

 

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:57pm Wed 30 Jul 14

fishsta says...

4mins 3secs... ignoring the "No Cycling" sign?
4mins 3secs... ignoring the "No Cycling" sign? fishsta
  • Score: -1

3:02pm Wed 30 Jul 14

northwich_cyclist says...

fishsta wrote:
4mins 3secs... ignoring the "No Cycling" sign?
There are actually quite a few places in the film where Steve uses paths and crossings that are restricted. Joining up the few bits of cycle path we do have requires such tactics.

Yes, it's illegal. Also seen in the film are cars illegally parked on footways, pedestrians using clearly marked cycle paths, and inconsiderate motorists, cyclists, children and dog walkers. Nobody is perfect.
[quote][p][bold]fishsta[/bold] wrote: 4mins 3secs... ignoring the "No Cycling" sign?[/p][/quote]There are actually quite a few places in the film where Steve uses paths and crossings that are restricted. Joining up the few bits of cycle path we do have requires such tactics. Yes, it's illegal. Also seen in the film are cars illegally parked on footways, pedestrians using clearly marked cycle paths, and inconsiderate motorists, cyclists, children and dog walkers. Nobody is perfect. northwich_cyclist
  • Score: 1

8:16pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Spuddle says...

northwich_cyclist wrote:
fishsta wrote:
4mins 3secs... ignoring the "No Cycling" sign?
There are actually quite a few places in the film where Steve uses paths and crossings that are restricted. Joining up the few bits of cycle path we do have requires such tactics.

Yes, it's illegal. Also seen in the film are cars illegally parked on footways, pedestrians using clearly marked cycle paths, and inconsiderate motorists, cyclists, children and dog walkers. Nobody is perfect.
"Yes, it's illegal"

Then why do it? I cycled there today, got off my bike and walked through the gates. only takes 20 seconds.
Very hypocritical to complain about drivers, and walkers etc when you are in the wrong yourself.

"Nobody is perfect"

Too right, glad you included yourself there. Let he who is without sin and all that
[quote][p][bold]northwich_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fishsta[/bold] wrote: 4mins 3secs... ignoring the "No Cycling" sign?[/p][/quote]There are actually quite a few places in the film where Steve uses paths and crossings that are restricted. Joining up the few bits of cycle path we do have requires such tactics. Yes, it's illegal. Also seen in the film are cars illegally parked on footways, pedestrians using clearly marked cycle paths, and inconsiderate motorists, cyclists, children and dog walkers. Nobody is perfect.[/p][/quote]"Yes, it's illegal" Then why do it? I cycled there today, got off my bike and walked through the gates. only takes 20 seconds. Very hypocritical to complain about drivers, and walkers etc when you are in the wrong yourself. "Nobody is perfect" Too right, glad you included yourself there. Let he who is without sin and all that Spuddle
  • Score: -1

10:34am Thu 31 Jul 14

Mike Cooksley says...

CWAC has produced a cycling strategy that says that in line with actions set out in the strategy planning obligations and conditions will be used to make sure that new developments possess a high standard of facilities for cyclists however the latest gyratory system in Northwich appears to have no cycling provision!
CWAC has produced a cycling strategy that says that in line with actions set out in the strategy planning obligations and conditions will be used to make sure that new developments possess a high standard of facilities for cyclists however the latest gyratory system in Northwich appears to have no cycling provision! Mike Cooksley
  • Score: 1

11:28am Thu 31 Jul 14

northwich_cyclist says...

Spuddle, sadly, I cannot claim, nor have I ever claimed, to be holier than thou. I simply observed that there were other illegal, antisocial, inconsiderate, and dangerous behaviours in the film besides those exhibited by the cameraman.

You ask the complex question "Then why do it?" I think in most cases it's simply because while it is known to be against the rules, it is not seen as immoral, or even particularly antisocial, so long as it is done with care and consideration for other users.
Spuddle, sadly, I cannot claim, nor have I ever claimed, to be holier than thou. I simply observed that there were other illegal, antisocial, inconsiderate, and dangerous behaviours in the film besides those exhibited by the cameraman. You ask the complex question "Then why do it?" I think in most cases it's simply because while it is known to be against the rules, it is not seen as immoral, or even particularly antisocial, so long as it is done with care and consideration for other users. northwich_cyclist
  • Score: 1

1:06pm Thu 31 Jul 14

fishsta says...

My point was more that you can't complain about the inaccessibility of an area for cyclists if that area has a sign saying "no cyclists".

I notice at 7 minutes the cameraman cycles through the pedestrianised town centre during the day. Since this is something the police are supposedly clamping down on, I'm guessing they'll be in touch with him soon?
My point was more that you can't complain about the inaccessibility of an area for cyclists if that area has a sign saying "no cyclists". I notice at 7 minutes the cameraman cycles through the pedestrianised town centre during the day. Since this is something the police are supposedly clamping down on, I'm guessing they'll be in touch with him soon? fishsta
  • Score: -2

5:51pm Mon 4 Aug 14

nicksey says...

northwich_cyclist wrote:
Spuddle, sadly, I cannot claim, nor have I ever claimed, to be holier than thou. I simply observed that there were other illegal, antisocial, inconsiderate, and dangerous behaviours in the film besides those exhibited by the cameraman.

You ask the complex question "Then why do it?" I think in most cases it's simply because while it is known to be against the rules, it is not seen as immoral, or even particularly antisocial, so long as it is done with care and consideration for other users.
That's just the problem, It is anti social but cyclists like yourself are too inconsiderate to think otherwise.

The video just shows the problems caused by cyclists. Pedestrians are forced to step out of the way as cyclists who by the nature of being on a bike are travelling much faster than them, dart past them.

It's quite simple if there isn't a designated cycle route then cyclists should either dismount or ride on the road. It is anti social to do otherwise. Pedestrians including children and the elderly should not be either put at risk or frightened just because a cyclist is to selfish to keep off pavements and paths intended for pedestrians.

By all means enjoy your cycling but not at the expense of pedestrians. I notice, for example, that quite a few employees of the Morrisons distribution centre go to work by bike. That's fine but they ride along the pavements to get there. many times I have seen them riding so quickly that cars exiting driveways have to brake suddenly to avoid them running into the side. Drivers expect relatively slow moving pedestrians to be there but not a fast moving cyclist rushing to work.
[quote][p][bold]northwich_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Spuddle, sadly, I cannot claim, nor have I ever claimed, to be holier than thou. I simply observed that there were other illegal, antisocial, inconsiderate, and dangerous behaviours in the film besides those exhibited by the cameraman. You ask the complex question "Then why do it?" I think in most cases it's simply because while it is known to be against the rules, it is not seen as immoral, or even particularly antisocial, so long as it is done with care and consideration for other users.[/p][/quote]That's just the problem, It is anti social but cyclists like yourself are too inconsiderate to think otherwise. The video just shows the problems caused by cyclists. Pedestrians are forced to step out of the way as cyclists who by the nature of being on a bike are travelling much faster than them, dart past them. It's quite simple if there isn't a designated cycle route then cyclists should either dismount or ride on the road. It is anti social to do otherwise. Pedestrians including children and the elderly should not be either put at risk or frightened just because a cyclist is to selfish to keep off pavements and paths intended for pedestrians. By all means enjoy your cycling but not at the expense of pedestrians. I notice, for example, that quite a few employees of the Morrisons distribution centre go to work by bike. That's fine but they ride along the pavements to get there. many times I have seen them riding so quickly that cars exiting driveways have to brake suddenly to avoid them running into the side. Drivers expect relatively slow moving pedestrians to be there but not a fast moving cyclist rushing to work. nicksey
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree