Lamp post in way "design error"

[tom73]

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...dle-down-to-design-error-says-council-3909037

Here we go yet again funding by tick box and cycle Infrastructure on the cheep.

 

[Oldhippy]

I'm amazed there hasn't been a my bike in front of dumb cycling infrastructure photo thread. There probably has at some point I guess. In Gillingham, Kent there is a cycling path with a bus stop straddling it, lamp posts, trees, sudden dead ends all over the shop.

 

[mjr]

I'm amazed there hasn't been a my bike in front of dumb cycling infrastructure photo thread.

Why not in front of good infra? That'll be more inspiring... and, sadly, more of a challenge in the UK.

 

[mjr]

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...dle-down-to-design-error-says-council-3909037

Here we go yet again funding by tick box and cycle Infrastructure on the cheep.

At least the council spokesperson accepted it was an error and said they'll fix it. The "errors and omissions on the design drawings which should have been corrected during construction" is a bit rich, though, blaming the builders for not spotting the designers' mistake. That rarely happens. To be blunt, the people with shovels don't have the overview to spot and correct most of these errors.

A more likely cause of this problem is that lampposts are not usually shown on consultation plans and added later by lighting teams who mainly care about lighting carriageways, not avoiding cycleways.

 

[Vantage]

I'm amazed there hasn't been a my bike in front of dumb cycling infrastructure photo thread. There probably has at some point I guess. In Gillingham, Kent there is a cycling path with a bus stop straddling it, lamp posts, trees, sudden dead ends all over the shop.

This'll either make you laugh or cry...

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/book.htm

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I find it amazing round here that we have a lot of great cycle paths - which are destroyed by one or two little things thta were not though about from a bike point of view

Like a path from Warrington towards Widnes along the main road - great path in one direction - clearly a bi-directional path
From the other direction there is exactly zero indication that it is even there - and no easy way to even get to it without going over the dual carriageway and - in theory - pressing 3-4 buttons and waiting for green lights!

and lots that are fine until you realise that it is getting rather narrower and the slopes at junctions and entrances have disappeared - there is no indication that it is no longer a cycle path
and other ones where you are work out for yourself how to get off the cycle path and onto the road - possible via a slope 30 yards behind you!

a bit of thought could improve things no end!

 

[classic33]

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...dle-down-to-design-error-says-council-3909037

Here we go yet again funding by tick box and cycle Infrastructure on the cheep.

It's more a case of the various departments not talking to each other. There's Highways, street lighting and then the safer cleaner greener team. All with their own points to prove and plans to implement.

 

[Badger_Boom]

At least the council spokesperson accepted it was an error and said they'll fix it. The "errors and omissions on the design drawings which should have been corrected during construction" is a bit rich, though, blaming the builders for not spotting the designers' mistake. That rarely happens. To be blunt, the people with shovels don't have the overview to spot and correct most of these errors.

A more likely cause of this problem is that lampposts are not usually shown on consultation plans and added later by lighting teams who mainly care about lighting carriageways, not avoiding cycleways.

Agreed, but when I worked on site (admitedly in another field) I always made the necessary "are you sure thats wise" phone calls before committing us and/or our client to a potentially costly or embarrassing mistake.

 

[classic33]

At least the council spokesperson accepted it was an error and said they'll fix it. The "errors and omissions on the design drawings which should have been corrected during construction" is a bit rich, though, blaming the builders for not spotting the designers' mistake. That rarely happens. To be blunt, the people with shovels don't have the overview to spot and correct most of these errors.

A more likely cause of this problem is that lampposts are not usually shown on consultation plans and added later by lighting teams who mainly care about lighting carriageways, not avoiding cycleways.

The street lights have been moved back from the road edge as the old sodium lighting has been replaced with LED lighting.

The light was there long before the crossing that's mentioned. Which is soon to be removed as part or road upgrades.

 

[tom73]

It's more a case of the various departments not talking to each other. There's Highways, street lighting and then the safer cleaner greener team. All with their own points to prove and plans to implement.

Then throw in an elected mayor who has little clue and believes the only way to prove you need one. Is by trying to be TV every week and shouting the loudest. You've a right recipe for a total mess.

 

[Solocle]

I'm amazed there hasn't been a my bike in front of dumb cycling infrastructure photo thread. There probably has at some point I guess. In Gillingham, Kent there is a cycling path with a bus stop straddling it, lamp posts, trees, sudden dead ends all over the shop.

And of course these:

 

[classic33]

Then throw in an elected mayor who has little clue and believes the only way to prove you need one. Is by trying to be TV every week and shouting the loudest. You've a right recipe for a total mess.

The councillor mentioned in that piece has a record of jumping on things like these. He's no viable alternative to offer to most of the "faults" and refuses to recognise that the initial problem was the crossing in this case. One which had the pavement built out to try and slow traffic down.

 

[youngoldbloke]

This'll either make you laugh or cry...

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/book.htm

I was sad when 'cycle facility of the month' stopped appearing, always looked forward to viewing another 'you couldn't make it up' shocking example. April 2017 is a gem!

 

[mjr]

And of course these:
View attachment 667286

Unlike most, that shoot is intentional, standard practice from the Highways Agency's 1990s manual. Not allowed new since 2016(?) but still no order to remove existing ones.

 

[tom73]

The councillor mentioned in that piece has a record of jumping on things like these. He's no viable alternative to offer to most of the "faults" and refuses to recognise that the initial problem was the crossing in this case. One which had the pavement built out to try and slow traffic down.

The good few councillors i've work with and know have been doer's or enablers. They just get on with the job so have no worry about voting time. Sadly the mass of the rest are nether and only have an eye on keeping in power. The higher up the tree they go the more they believe in pet projects, big shiny things and photo opps. Normally all they leave are 1/2 baked idea and rusting wrecks.