Hackney have released new visualisations of their dangerous redesign of Pembury Junction. The only times these designs have been publicly shown previously were at a few in-person events on the Narrow Way, and then buried in 100-page council decision documents. In a way, it is understandable that they have tried to hide this design. When looked at carefully, these visualisations show just how bad the junction design is, and these are idealised images and the reality will be a lot more messy.

First, a reminder, there are two junction design options available to officers and Councillors to choose from:

• the Council’s design which achieves an disqualifying 25% JAT score (a minimum of 70% is normally required for ATE to sign off on a scheme)
• a Vizion Zero compliant design that achieves a near perfect 95% JAT score.

This seems to be the most straightforward decision since Eddie Izzard’s cake or death conundrum… yet Hackney Council are determined to… well, not to eat cake.

At the recent call-in, the Chair asked the Lead Officer to conduct a JAT assessment and to include it in the forthcoming consultation documentation, which they agreed to do. So, unless they back out of their commitment, it will be interesting to see how they justify their design to the public while simultaneously admitting that it is an unsafe design for cyclists.

Let’s dive in and see how just poor the Council’s design is for cyclist and pedestrian safety by looking at each junction arm in detail. 

1)   Dalston Lane East going to Amhurst Road – left hook risk

The Council’s visualisation above shows a cyclist at the Advance Stop Line (highlighted on our image in the red box). There is no early release for cyclists in the Council’s design. Judging by their their position, the cyclist is going straight ahead to Amhurst Road West (red line). Most of the drivers behind the cyclist will be turning left into Dalston Lane south, and so will cross the path of the cyclist at some point creating a classic left hook risk.

This very obvious left hook risk was raised as a danger in the Road Safety Audit. Nevertheless, Hackney have decided to do nothing (apart from add a nearly-useless piece of paint) to mitigate this risk, despite being fully aware not just of the risk, but that it led to a serious injury in December 2023. At the recent scrutiny panel meeting, everyone was very nice to Claudia in expressing sympathy for the serious injuries she experienced due to the exact same left hook collision in 2023. But officers and councillors have ignored her request to actually address the problem, and they have decided not to remove the risk or provide any meaningful mitigation. I guess we’ll all just cross our fingers that no future injuries will occur, rather than actively doing anything to prevent them.

Most cyclists will use the left-hand lane (blue rectangle in the above image. If they’re lucky, they’ll get to the ASL when the lights are red, and so will have a bit of a few metres head start over the left turning buses. However, if they are riding along as buses are moving, the cyclist will have to decide whether to a) hope that the bus driver follows the Highway Code stops their manoeuvre until the left hand lanes are clear, or b) allow the bus to complete their manoeuvre despite the cyclist having priority. Either way, it’s a stressful position to put the bus drivers in, let alone dangerous for the cyclist. It’s a major left hook risk, and it’s a downright dangerous position to put cyclists in, just ahead of a left hand turn for large vehicles.

Perhaps less serious than the left hook risk, but it’s also worth considering how the cyclist in the red box in the image below managed to get to the ASL? Either they happened to be approaching the lights on a red without other vehicles ahead of them. More likely, they overtook the waiting vehicles (red line to get into the red box on Image 2). Some cyclists will be comfortable with that manoeuvre, but having to make these kinds of manoeuvre will exclude most users and most people who want to cycle but don’t due to lack of confidence. That is why ASLs are considered in national guidance to be the least effective type of cycle infrastructure.

Reminder: The Vision Zero design has no ASLs, and no left hook risks. 

2) Pembury Road – a left hook risk and a sideswipe risk

Judging by their position, these cyclists on Pembury Road going into Dalston Lane South have presumably taken advantage of the 4 second head start at the lights at Dalston Lane South and Pembury Road. Drivers will be catching up with the cyclist at just the point that the cyclist will arrive with a 4s head start. Will the driver wait until the cyclists moves or will they try to turn regardless? If they wait, will the (pink line) drivers behind the first driver overtake the blue waiting driver, and then cut in right into the path of the cyclist (who they may not have seen as they’d be hidden by the waiting vehicle)? So, that’s two nasty looking risks on one arm.

Reminder: The Vision Zero design has no left hook risks. 

3) Amhurst Road West – removal of a pedestrian crossing

The premise of the Hackney design is that it’s an improvement for pedestrians.

Hmmm.

The light blue arrows represent the current 2 stage crossing. The pink line is the crossing in the Vision Zero Design, which is 25 metres and on the desire-line. The Yellow line is Hackney’s new crossing. 40 metres, or 60% longer than necessary, and not on the desire-line.

People will obviously continue to cross Amhurst Road West on the desire-line, just that now they will do so without a crossing point. This was highlighted as a risk on the Road Safety Audit, yet Hackney have done nothing to address this known risk to pedestrians.

Reminder: The Vision Zero design creates a direct, desire-line, pedestrian crossing.

4) Amhurst Road West – a horrible left hook risk 

In Hackney’s visualisations, there are no cyclists in the ASL ahead of the left-hand lane. This is convenient, as a cyclist here would either be going straight ahead to Dalston Lane East or turn left into Pembury Road. Either way, they face a horrible left hook risk, as demonstrated by the HGV (represented in light blue on the image above) turning across them – an absolute classic left hook risk. Cyclists do not even have a 4s advance light here which might give them a fighting chance of avoiding the left hook risk. Nope, just the advance box, which is the absolute bottom rung of cycling provision, according to national guidance (LTN 1/20).

What if cyclists in the yellow box want to turn into Pembury Road? Well, unfortunately the turning circles mean that any HGV also making that turn has to enter the painted advisory cycle lane, as we’ve added onto the image above. Even Hackney acknowledge that this is a terrible design, as Hackney Officers have told us they think that this painted lane will be removed and replaced with just some painted cycle signs. Yep, you heard that right: a total redesign of a junction in 2024 with a multi-million pound budget cannot even have an advisory cycle lane because it is designed to have HGVs enter it. If this is not a BIG RED FLAG that should force an immediate stop and a total rethink, we really don’t know what is. 

Really, what’s the point of having direct vision HGVs, if we are then designing brand new junctions that are inherently dangerous and introduce deadly conflict between cyclists and HGVs? Hackney should be ashamed to even put this design forward, and TfL could demand better from Hackney.

Reminder: The Vision Zero design has no horrible left hook risks. 

5) Amhurst Road South – guaranteeing pavement cycling

Remember Hackney’s justification for their design is that it’s better for pedestrian comfort. Looking at the Amhurst Road South into Dalston Lane West. Yellow is what the Council think people cycling from Amhurst Road South to Dalston Lane West will do. Pink is what people will actually do. Before you think, ‘Well, cyclists shouldn’t be on the pavement’. Sure, we agree. But what would you advise your kids do? Follow the yellow line, risk a left hook from the buses behind, or just follow the pink lines and keep safe? Why put people in the unnecessary position of choosing between two bad choices? Why not just build a cycle track, which will also be beneficial for pedestrians as cyclists will be kept to these predictable paths? The Council’s design guarantees that pavement cycling will be an issue here, despite their idealised claims of putting pedestrian comfort first.

Similarly, cyclists will use the pedestrian crossings across all the arms of the new junction (just as they do with the current junction) because it’s safer for them to do so and so it’s an entirely rational decision. Yes, people will get annoyed at these cyclists. Yet the failure is with the junction designers who have failed to provide safety, not in the individual cyclists who value their own safety.

Reminder: The Vision Zero design keeps provides cycle tracks so that cyclists stay in designated spaces, providing predictability and comfort for all. 

6) Pembury Road into Dalston Lane East – the worst type of cycle track

The Council don’t like the Vision Zero design as it requires pedestrians to cross cycle tracks. However, they’re going to build this cycle track (highlighted with the pink line in the image above), one that is several times more likely to lead to ped/cyclist conflict than any of the tracks in the Vision Zero design. Downhill to ensure maximum cyclist speed? Tick! Generous turning radius, encouraging cyclists to take the corner quickly? Tick! No clear pedestrian crossing? Tick! Throwing cyclists out onto a busy road with no warning? Tick! 

Reminder: The Vision Zero design is planned to slow cyclists, and doesn’t throw them out onto Dalston Lane with no warning to drivers. 

7) Ah, the lovely Town Centre design and the wonderful pedestrian experience

The Council like to pretend that this is a Town Centre project. Look at all the lovely pedestrians here, stopping for a lovely chat at the side of a lovely new junction! We know that visualisations are idealised. But in the decision document, this idealised town centre vibe is the main reason that is given for refusing to build safe cycling infrastructure on this junction.

Yet, the facts remain that this junction will remain a complex 5 arm junction, with over 10,000 motor vehicles a day. That’s around the same vehicle numbers as at the Mare Street / Well Street junction, which we don’t think anyone would claim is a nice place to stop. No amount of pretty visualisations are going to make the new junction a picnic hotspot. Pretending that people will want to spend time on this junction, or that having 2 metre wide cycle track would destroy an otherwise scenic idyll doesn’t help anybody. In fact, it’s farcical. 

Reminder: The Vision Zero deals with the junction honestly, acknowledging that it is a major junction and its main role is to ensure a comfortable and safe passage for all users. 

Predictions:

There’s more we could say on this terrible design, but Hackney’s own visualisations show just what a terrible design they are progressing with. 

Active Travel England usually require a JAT score of 70% to fund a project. For technical reasons, Hackney don’t require either ATE’s sign off on this junction design, despite ATE now being responsible for the funds. If ATE did have the sign off (as common-sense suggests they should… it is their money!), they would not approve the design that Hackney are progressing with. Remember, whenever you hear Labour politicians say that they care about cyclist safety, that given the choice between a design with a JAT of 25% and a design of 95%, Hackney Council are choosing the one that will not keep cyclists safe.

From a political standpoint, by approving their design, Hackney are giving up any leadership on being a leading cycling borough, and any serious claim to wanting to achieve Vision Zero. if you can’t address the 6th most dangerous junction in the borough when you have £20m and a clean slate, when when will you ever do so? Please, no more mention of Vision Zero at future London Walking and Cycling Conferences; those words are now meaningless.

All of this unnecessary added danger for decades, and for what? Because they think it’s dangerous for pedestrians to cross a 2m cycle track.

Let’s finish with some predictions for how Hackney’s junction will play out if the Council go ahead with their deeply flawed plan:

Prediction 1: There will continue to be serious collisions and injuries

Serious injuries occur on Pembury Junction every 18 months currently. Given the current junction is so dangerous, the new design may be a qualified improvement, so perhaps serious injuries will reduce. However the diagrams above show that the new design includes so many dangers that by mixing 10k+ motors with 1500+ cyclists daily, that the chances of regular serious injuries is high. We sincerely hope we’re wrong. The Council are throwing away a golden opportunity to stack the odds in favour of eliminating serious injuries on this junction forever.

Prediction 2: Pedestrians will cross on Amhurst Road West that is being removed

Pedestrians will continue to use the desire line to cross, rather than walking 60% longer. They will be crossing a 3-lane road with no formal crossing. Good luck, people!

Prediction 3: There will be an increase in pavement cycling.

There will be an increase in pavement cycling and cycling on the pedestrian crossings, which will lead to calls for police to intervene (which they won’t have sufficient resources for). The Narrow Waywill also become busier with cyclists over time. Pembury Junction should be sharing the load of the cycling traffic currently on the Narrow Way, but the Council are throwing away this opportunity to improve the pedestrian (and cyclist) experience on the Narrow Way (which incidentally, will always be more of a Town Centre than Pembury Junction).

Prediction 4: People will refuse to cycle on this junction (and therefore this whole area), especially the young, women and older people.

The new Pembury Junction will convince precisely nobody that cycling is safe enough to take up. The junction will remain a barrier to more people cycling, and many people who otherwise would will just not cycle (or allow their kids to cycle). The Council’s design will act as a permanent drag on Hackney cycling numbers, therefore acting against its own policies. Of course, we won’t be able to prove this counterfactual point until our 5th prediction is fulfilled….

Prediction 5: During the 2030s, the Council will spend more money redoing the junction.

The type of junction that we’ve proposed for Pembury Junction is currently somewhat novel in London. It won’t be for long as councils who take cyclist safety more seriously build more such junctions. When the junction design concepts are commonplace, the Council will face increasing calls to improve the junction. 

Conclusion: A failure to learn from past mistakes

Sadly, the whole approach to Pembury Junction is a failure to learn from similar past mistakes. This whole process is a repeat of the design choices that Hackney Council made for Whiston Road in 2016 when the Council received £640k of cycling funds in 2016 to improve Whiston Road. 

We warned the Council about Whiston Road then, but they were determined to follow the outdated designs favoured by the same people as who now favour Hackney’s outdated design for Pembury Junction. We are now warning the Council again now regarding Pembury Junction: You are repeating the same mistake again, but on a bigger scale. 

The Council have now requested and received more TfL money to redesign Whiston Road again. We’re very grateful that the road is being looked at again. Tragically, it took a cyclist’s death to make the Whiston Road redesign happen.

At the protest ride for Gao Gao on Whiston Road in 2023, Hackney’s Labour Councillors promised that they would redouble their efforts to achieve Vision Zero. However, they are now making essentially the same decision as they made in 2016 on Whiston Road, even as they’re belatedly correcting the 2016 decision. 

So, a final message to Cllr Young and to Mayor Woodley: The Pembury Junction is the first real test that you’ve faced since that 2023 protest ride, and you’re set to fail miserably. It’s not too late to stop, think, and reconsider.