This scheme is quite visionary. Merton Cycling Campaign has a vision beyond this scheme, that is to remove the Wimbledon one-way system altogether. By and large urban one-way systems are now discredited and are gradually being removed from London, e.g. the gyratory system at Shoreditch. We think that the Hartfield road one-way system should revert to two-way use, which would allow for a car free Broadway between the Theatre and Wimbledon Bridge.

However, given that at this stage the Broadway will remain part of the one-way system, we are particularly pleased with the contra-flow cycle lane proposed along this section.

This scheme is above all else about improving pedestrian and cyclist access and safety in Wimbledon town centre, and I urge councillors to see it from this perspective.

I want to briefly mention some relevant targets which have been set both at the national and local levels, which aim by 2010 to:

• Cut by 40% the number of adults killed or seriously injured in road crashes
• Cut by 50% the number of children killed or seriously injured in road crashes
• Cut by 40% the number of vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) killed or seriously injured in road crashes.
• Triple cycle use

In order to achieve that latter target, we must aim to get more people on bikes for short local journeys. And to achieve that, clearly we must address the road safety issue with some urgency!

Merton Cycling Campaign is just about to publish a survey [now published] based on 900 questionnaire responses from cyclists and non-cyclists in the borough, which will reinforce the widely known message that until the safety - and the perceived safety - of cycling can be improved, we will not meet these targets. Over 200 of the 900 responses we received in our survey were from non-cyclists. The main reasons they gave for not cycling were safety-related.

Real road safety is not about admitting that roads are dangerous places so children should not be let out anywhere near them. It is not about admitting that roads are dangerous places so cyclists should wear helmets and dress up like Xmas trees. It is not about admitting that roads are dangerous places so we should all buy the meanest looking 4x4 urban challenger vehicle to cocoon our kids on the school-run.

Real road safety is about reducing the road danger at source.

That means no longer tolerating roads as dangerous places. Local roads are not only for cars. They belong to all of us who live, work, shop and play here. They should be safe enough for us all to use and enjoy, whether we are walking, cycling, in a bus or in a wheelchair. Dare I say it, they should even be safe enough for children - who do childish things like run out into the road after footballs. Should our children die for this? Or should we tame the traffic?

Real road safety is about taming the traffic. We need to cut both traffic levels, and traffic speeds. This scheme will help towards achieving both.

Current traffic levels in Wimbledon town centre are high, and so are maximum speeds achieved by some drivers between traffic lights. Let us consider each in turn, and how this scheme addresses the problem:

The traffic engineers can tell you how many vehicles pass through per hour. As a high street shopper I can tell you that my personal view is too many! I also understand that 2 out of every 3 cars are simply passing through. They are not in Wimbledon to shop or work. Much of this traffic is quite long-distance, and should probably be on the M25 or the A3, not trundling through a local shopping street. A scheme such as this will remove highway capacity, and if past evidence is anything to go by, some of the through traffic will "evaporate". You may smile, but that is the technical term, and it has been documented around the world. Wimbledon town centre will be a much pleasanter place for all of us if we could get rid of 2/3 of the traffic.

Narrowing the carriageway is a very effective traffic-calming tool. And traffic calming works, that is indisputable. Traffic speeds are cut, and so are crashes resulting in death and serious injury, by up to 67% in some studies by TRL.

I should say that we have been critical of some aspects of the scheme at the various planning meetings to date. Many of our concerns have been addressed. One which has not is really a concern for the Pedestrians Association, but in their absence, and as a frequent pedestrian myself in the Broadway I will make it on their behalf.

That is that despite the principal stated objective of the scheme being to improve access and safety for pedestrians as well as cyclists, the pedestrian crossing opposite the station will remain staggered.

So when I want to cross the road here, I must push the button, wait a bit, then cross half-way, enter the pig-pen, then push another button, wait again, then finish crossing… by which time I have forgotten why I wanted to cross in the first place!

I have been told by the traffic modellers that this is to do with motor traffic throughput and flows at the nearby Alexandra Road junction. Which begs the question: who is this scheme meant to prioritise? Tough choices!

I would favour a straight across zebra crossing here, with an island in the middle. No buttons, no pig-pens, no waiting. That would be true pedestrian priority, which is what this scheme purports to be about. This is a people's street. Cars and lorries rightly have priority on UK trunk roads and motorways. Local shopping and residential streets belong to local shoppers and residents. I urge councillors to give them the priority they deserve on our local streets.

Richard Evans, Merton Cycling Campaign

21^st January 2003