View from the Handlebars: Cycle dreams
As Hull’s Local Cycling and Walking Strategy (LCWIP) finally goes out for consultation, CycHull-ist Graham G imagines his dream cycling city … then wakes up in Hull
Graham seeing how many different types of tarmac he can spot between Spring Bank and North Bransholme
If you were to think of a dream cycling city, what would it be like? Flat? Compact? Not too wet?
Well, I’m here to tell that, if you live in Hull, you’ve hit the jackpot. You have all this! Yes, even the weather is dryer (comparatively) on this side of the country!
Oh, hang on. What’s that about needing good active travel infrastructure? You mean the sort that lets you get from A to B comfortably without being put into danger by motor vehicles? No, we haven’t got that, I’m afraid. Or nowhere near enough. Years of under-investment and neglect have seen to that.
Still, we make do. What choice is there? When I was growing up in the city, there wasn’t a route I wouldn’t cycle. Having moved back to Hull recently, I thought I’d try it again – see how easy it was to get from my house near Spring Bank to an appointment on north Bransholme. Google said 20 min by car (chortle!) or 25 min by bike – it was a no-brainer.
I’d followed details of the network ‘improvements’ since 2020 but not really used them yet. It had always been apparent that the council had mainly aimed these at commuters from the edge of town to the centre. None of the ‘new’ routes did anything for people trying to get around town generally or running errands – the kind of trips that really gum up the road network by car. Could I run such an errand by bike? Could I stitch enough bits of Hull’s patchy network together to get me where I needed to go?
The route itself was fine. In fact. I was surprised at how direct it was, more direct than going by car, and only 4.5 miles: Stepney path through to Bankside - Stoneferry briefly through to the old railway route - old railway route through Sutton Fields to Sutton Road - across Bransholme to Holwell Road - up Holwell Road and across to Wawne Road. And, on the whole route, I was never on the road for more than 100 yards in one stretch.
But… the Stepney path across Bankside and through to Stoneferry should be great except it uses Foster Street. A quiet dead-end, sure? But one where you’re sharing road space with HGVs! Literally the last type of traffic you want to mix with. But hey, it’s only a leisure route; no harm, no foul, right?
And that’s just one thing in a catalogue of annoyances and inconveniences that would be enough to put off anyone but the most determined. First, there were the simple things:
- Litter and glass everywhere.
- Years of vegetation overgrowth that make the paths scarcely wide enough for one-way traffic, let alone the intended two-way use.
- Signal timing. I waited for two rounds of traffic lights at Stepney to cross Beverley Road. Eventually I got bored of the drunks and took my chances in the traffic, which was almost at a standstill and wouldn’t have been inconvenienced by a more regular cycle light sequence.
- Near non-existent wayfinding signage, not even at major route split points. Has no one checked these since the 1990s?
And then the less simple things:
- The lack of cohesion. Each route has dozens of changes in surfaces, kerbing, barriers, bollards, junctions. If there’s no signage or it’s incomplete, you need at least to know you’ve stayed on the same route because it looks and feels the same. Is a city-wide active travel branding needed? Probably. Could we at least start by getting it right ON NEW ROUTES? You’d hope so.
- The junctions. A skilled trials rider would have trouble making some of the 90 degree turns required to access or exit some of the paths. And spoiler, none of the new ones are LTN 1/20 compliant. Again, the signage and design are way out of whack with each other, even when done at the same time. This bit of the route is ok, and 250 yards away that bit is ok too…then WHY IS THIS BIT LIKE THIS? Why did that one get a continuous height parallel crossing and that one didn’t? These things only work if they are properly connected; why is this so hard to understand?
- Barriers. The Council can’t have got the memo that obstacles on paths actively designed to keep people out 1) don’t keep the people out they’re designed to keep out; 2) keep out the people who should be allowed through. This is unacceptable. I was lucky I was on a standard bike, if I’d have been on my cargo bike…not a chance. Trike, mobility scooter, etc? Not happening. Bollards are the answer, but not the randomly designed and spaced ones the council likes to deploy.
- The surface. At least this was consistent – consistently awful: the active travel equivalent to using a medieval torture device on your derrière.
The first few points are easy, cheap changes to make. The latter are more expensive, complex infrastructure projects…but still only amount to a bit of resurfacing, that wouldn’t even be blinked at for the comfort and convenience of drivers.
And here’s the real kicker – the council know all of this. My gripes are all accounted for in the Hull CC Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, or ‘LCWIP’, that was first drafted in 2019 and has finally gone out for consultation now. So who knows, we could be heading for cycling utopia, after all.
We can only dream.
—
Consultation on Hull’s Local Cycling and Walking Strategy (LCWIP) is open until August 8, 2025. To find out more and to take part, click here