Worthing Cycle Forum proposes that the West Sussex Cycle Forum should vote on the following motion:
The cycling community in West Sussex calls on the Cabinet member for Highways & Transport – Pieter Montyn – to demonstrate an understanding of the specific safety issues that confront cyclists by making provision for members of any cycling organisation under the umbrella of the West Sussex Cycle Forum (WSCF) to report and have actioned potholes or other materials defects and dangers to them in the carriageway, which do not fall within the minimum threshold for action under government guidelines, where either :-
- that defect presents a clear, significant and immediate danger to cyclists on any road
- as above where the defect presents a potential danger to cyclists and displays clear signs of early deterioration, or
- where traffic volumes, speed and / or road conditions do not allow a cyclist to safely take necessary avoiding action
Geoff Farrell Chair of WSCF attended our March meeting and has now written to Pieter Montyn re our motion :-
March 10 2014
Cllr Pieter Montyn
Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport
West Sussex County Council
County Hall
Chichester
West Sussex PO19 8RQ
Dear Pieter
I trust all is well with you.
I'm writing with two purposes in mind. I considered telephoning, but on balance thought that a letter would be more appropriate in the first instance - we can talk or meet later, as we feel appropriate.
The first purpose is to say that I'm very much looking forward to the outcome of the conversation between you and Duncan Barratt regarding the document that the West Sussex Cycle Forum has put together. I understand that the meeting scheduled for January was postponed for business reasons and the meeting on 28 February was cancelled because Cllr Derek Whittington was unwell. Obviously I'm disappointed because time is passing by, but I understand that not everything happens as we'd like all the time. Nevertheless, I hope that the meeting can be rescheduled in the very near future. I have deliberately not spoken with Derek about the document because I understood that the meeting was an exploratory one, and to be between you and Duncan. However, do you think it would be helpful for Derek and I to talk it through before the three of you meet?
Secondly, one of the Cycle Forums in West Sussex has put an issue in front of me and asked that I formally put it in front of you. I feel it is a totally legitimate concern and is an important part of the strategy document. It would be inappropriate - and remiss of me - if I were not to present it to you.
It concerns the surface condition of the roads that directly affect those who cycle on the roads. In essence, it turns on the fact that cyclists' needs are significantly different to those of other road users; and that is because people cycle on narrow wheels along a space about 0.5 metre wide within 0.5 and 1.5 metres of the road edge, whereas vehicles spread themselves across most of the carriageway on at least four, relatively wide, wheels. Yes - I agree that is pretty obvious but it sets the context for the concern.
As we know, the road surface has significantly deteriorated in recent times - for a whole range of reasons. For a cyclist, any road surface deterioration is felt many times more acutely than for a vehicle. This is particularly so within 1.5 metres of the road edge.
The result of this degradation is that a cyclist is either tempted to cycle around the hazard/hole (whether technically a pothole or not), sunken or raised iron work, ridge, lump, or groove and therefore moves out into the carriageway or risks being unseated by the hazard. Either way this is high risk situation and potentially fatal.
With this in mind, Worthing Cycle Forum has submitted this proposal -
The cycling community in West Sussex calls on the Cabinet Member for Highways & Transport to demonstrate an understanding of the specific safety issues that confront cyclists by making provision for members of any cycling organisation under the umbrella of the West Sussex Cycle Forum (WSCF) to report and have actioned potholes or other materials defects and dangers to them in the carriageway, which do not fall within the minimum threshold for action under government guidelines, where either :-
• that defect presents a clear, significant and immediate danger to cyclists on any road
• as above where the defect presents a potential danger to cyclists and displays clear signs of early deterioration, or
• traffic volumes, speed and / or road conditions do not allow a cyclist to safely take necessary avoiding action.
One of the certainties of the current situation is that the rules that govern whether holes are repaired within the 2-hour, 5 day or 28-day parameters are relevant for vehicles and the level of risk that the hazard presents to them. For a cyclist, the criteria for labeling a hazard as a 2-hour, 5 day or 28 day are different. What is being called for is a revision of the rules to specifically take account of the environment into which a cyclist puts his/her trust when he/she ventures out. And of course the criteria above do not take account of potholes of less than 40mm on any road - they will not be repaired until possibly after the next routine inspection. However they affect a cyclist much more than a vehicle.
I realise that you have many pressing, and sometimes conflicting demands put upon you; and this is another. However, as the WSCF document details, there are significant and substantial benefits - personal, corporate, public, and economic - that flow from a viable and flourishing cycling infrastructure. Road surface condition is a key factor when people decide whether to use their bike or a car.
I hope that you will look positively upon this letter.
With best wishes
Yours sincerely
Geoff Farrell
Chair WSCF
cc Cycle Forums in West Sussex