Bromley Heath Viaduct Contraflow - "Deathtrap"

[mgarl10024]

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bromley-heath-viaduct-labelled-death-237090.amp

Interesting story, if a little sad.

As background, the Bromley Heath viaduct is made up of two almost parallel bridges, and one has been shut down for work for 33wks with the other being set up as a contraflow. (see http://www.southglos.gov.uk/transpo...adworks/bhviaduct/what-we-are-doing-and-when/).

For as long as I can remember, it has been well used by bikes and pedestrians who have in both directions shared a ~1m track next to a carriage way where lorries are doing 50mph. This has been widely seen as a 'deathtrap'. Part of this 33wk work is to really enhance the cycling / pedestrian facilities and this should improve things greatly.

While the works are ongoing, SGC has set up a contraflow path for the pedestrians and cyclists which seems about the same width as the old path, and is away from the traffic - so if anything, appears safer. However, SGC have felt the need to install "cyclist dismount" signs, and it seems to be these which are causing a lot of concern - including the link at the top.

I don't mean this to be a political post. I'm just more sad that in 'just' 33wks we'll get better facilities, and in the meantime we seem incapable of rubbing along with a situation which isn't ideal for anyone. Surely, the dismount signs are not needed, and as a cyclist you cycle along that path, slowing or stopping should you encounter a pedestrian? Same as most of us have been doing for the last 20+ years?

Seems unnecessary to run to the press and turn pedestrians and cyclists against one another.

Just interested in other thoughts.

(Posting in "commuting" as a popular commuting route)

 

[mjr]

Yes, but it's the Bristol Pest, which hates cycling almost as much as the Cambridge News.

I agree that the cyclists dismount signs are unnecessary. They're also explicitly discouraged in the legally-required Code of Practice on Safety at Street Works, which says it should only be used if the carriageway is closed and only a footway remains. I agree that cycles ridden responsibly take up less space, are out of the way sooner and are less likely to clonk other users with the far end of pedals or bars.

 

[Arjimlad]

Spot on @mgarl10024 - I don't cycle this way often but know the route & have tried making the point that a cyclist takes up a whole lot less space on the bike than off it.

 

[Lonestar]

[QUOTE 4896080, member: 45"]They're just information signs rather than giving an order, aren't they?[/QUOTE]

"Cyclists dismount" seems like an order to me.Although I guess a blue plate is not such an order as a red plate if you know what I mean.

 

[Drago]

Why have the council not make cycling provision, as required by the Safety at Street Works and Roadworks mandatory guidance?

 

[mjr]

Why have the council not make cycling provision, as required by the Safety at Street Works and Roadworks mandatory guidance?

Councils don't make provision because most cyclists only whine on forums instead of writing to their councillors, asking public questions at council meetings and other things more likely to help. There also seems to be almost no chance of the Department for Transport making errant highway authorities obey the law - Cameron called this "localism" but I prefer to call it by the proper name of negligence

 

[mjr]

It also doesn't matter whether or not they are an order. If non-cyclists read them as an order, and see cyclists disobeying it, they will draw the obvious conclusion.

I like the stickers that turn "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" to "CYCLISTS DO COUNT" but I don't know of a current seller of them or template for printing them. Or just putting a bag over the illegal sign. Both are technically criminal damage, though, but I don't know how bad the penalty would be for trivially reversible damage - the vandals who keep moving and removing cycle route signs seem far worse and I've not heard of them being punished either.

 

[Drago]

If I lived locally I'd use Fill That Hole to report the unlawful cyclist dismount signs at the roadworks.

 

[Drago]

They're unlawful because the statutory guidance that governs how roadworks are conducted prohibits them, regardless of whether they're square or circular.

 

[mjr]

They're unlawful because the statutory guidance that governs how roadworks are conducted prohibits them, regardless of whether they're square or circular.

I think it's not quite as strong as prohibits, but nowhere does it say they can be used instead of the correct signs. It says things like this:

"You must ensure suitable provisions are made for the safety of cyclists passing or crossing the works. Particular care is needed where cycle lanes or cycle tracks are affected by street works or road works because these routes may be especially popular with cyclists.

Cyclists might have to use other parts of the carriageway, a temporary cycle track, or an alternative route. You should consider whether access on the carriageway can be preserved for cyclists, even if it needs to be closed to motor vehicles. See page 70. Where the carriageway is closed but the footway remains open, a ‘Cyclists dismount and use footway’ white-on-red temporary sign can be used."

Page 70: "In certain cases the location or nature of the works being undertaken will make it impossible to achieve a safe working area and maintain traffic or pedestrian flows around the works. In these cases a carriageway, footway or footpath closure will be required. This option can only be considered if there is a suitable diversion route for the affected traffic or pedestrians, and under no circumstances should pedestrian access be denied to any property or premises."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-at-street-works-and-road-works

 

[mjr]

No we shouldn't, it would be better if the problem didn't exist in the first place though.

Especially better if councils don't act directly contrary to their transport policies by engineering conflict between cyclists and walkers.

 

[Tin Pot]

How dare people choose not to dismount? Killing is too good for 'em! I suggest amputating the hands and pouring itching powder down their backs.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Try to confiscate the signs one at a time, then re-write them with equally useless advice. "Motorists get out and push". "Pedestrians tie your shoelaces together and shuffle along slowly". That sort of thing.

Somebody called?

 

[Spartak]

@mgarl10024 you commented ....

" Part of this 33wk work is to really enhance the cycling / pedestrian facilities and this should improve things greatly. "

It's my understanding that cyclists will revert back to the original path with a barrier installed between them & the traffic.

This is a real shame & a missed opportunity as a few years ago when Bristol & South Gloucestershire were awarded a huge amount of money from central government to improve cycling in the area their was much discussion into the thought of a separate composite bridge being placed alongside the Bromley Heath viaduct purely for cyclists & pedestrians. Unfortunately the plans were shelved as now would have been a good time to fit a new structure over the River Frome to really enchance the cycling facility.

 

[mgarl10024]

@mgarl10024 you commented ....

" Part of this 33wk work is to really enhance the cycling / pedestrian facilities and this should improve things greatly. "

It's my understanding that cyclists will revert back to the original path with a barrier installed between them & the traffic.

This is a real shame & a missed opportunity as a few years ago when Bristol & South Gloucestershire were awarded a huge amount of money from central government to improve cycling in the area their was much discussion into the thought of a separate composite bridge being placed alongside the Bromley Heath viaduct purely for cyclists & pedestrians. Unfortunately the plans were shelved as now would have been a good time to fit a new structure over the River Frome to really enchance the cycling facility.

From what I've understood, there were two pots of money. One came from the government and this was for fixing the bridge (and was later topped up by West of England to get the timescales down to 33wks), and one came from the Cycling Ambition fund for the cycling works. The idea is to do both at the same time and get cost savings.

At the minute, the path has no barrier (it is too thin for one to be backed 500mm from the carriageway) and at ~1m wide is far too thin for the bi-directional cycling and pedestrian traffic (how there haven't been accidents I don't know). From memory it is built on a cantilever to the original bridge, and part of this works is to build a new larger cantilever to extend the track to about 2m wide with barrier. This sounds much safer to me, and not really the "original path" ?

http://www.southglos.gov.uk/transpo...adworks/bhviaduct/improved-cycling-provision/