Now this is bleedin' dumb

[Domeo]

Often when cycling on rural roads, I come across a bit at the side that is part of the road but is outwith the road markings and isn't anywhere big enough to be a hard shoulder.

They mark the edge of the maintained highway.

 

[Amanda P]

Often when cycling on rural roads, I come across a bit at the side that is part of the road but is outwith the road markings and isn't anywhere big enough to be a hard shoulder.

Are these unofficial cycle lanes?? 'cos that's what I use them as - keeps me out of the way of the passing traffic and I actually quite like them as I can take advantage of the road surface.

What are these?? are they just the result of the road being laid slightly wider than needed, are they for pedestrians and people like me, or are they really for cars to pull over on??

The Highways Agency call them "flank lanes". Technically, if there's a solid white line demarking them, you're not supposed to cross into them. It's true that they don't maintain the surface outside the white line. Partly they're there so that heavy traffic doesn't come too close to the edge of the tarmac and damage it - that's where it usually starts breaking up.

Oddly, they've ground off the white lines demarking the flank lanes on much of York's northern ring road (B1237). I wonder why?

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Thankyou, most appreciated! I had never thought of them making the road look narrower to make drivers go slower.

I certainly like them as it gives me my own private lane (and it also means vehicles don't have to swerve as much <if at all> to get round me, therefore causing less agro) ...until it stops and I have to go back onto the road proper again until I find the next bit or I have to turn.

By the way, maybe I've just been cycling on relatively newly re - surfaced roads, but they, by and large look fairly good, and provide me with the same quality of surface as the rest of the road.
Hopefully they don't get TOO mashed up!

I hope they become a regular feature of our roads - some of the larger bits are almost the width of a small pavement!

Well, it's official, I'm right Flanker!

 

[ianrauk]

Lewisham Council have now removed the offending signs as in my original post above.

 

[Lurker]

Cost of installing signs + Cost of removing signs + Cost of re-installing signs where they indicate (but don't obstruct) the cycle route  


Worth a question to Lewisham Council from a friendly councillor about how the lack of thought and poor contractor control represents, or rather doesn't represent, value for money?

 

[martint235]

Cost of installing signs + Cost of removing signs + Cost of re-installing signs where they indicate (but don't obstruct) the cycle route


Worth a question to Lewisham Council from a friendly councillor about how the lack of thought and poor contractor control represents, or rather doesn't represent, value for money?

Why waste time trying to find a councillor (friendly or otherwise), just put in a Freedom of Information request.

 

[StuartG]

As a Lewisham Council Tax payer I object.

A mistake was made and rectified. No doubt a few red faces and admonishments were tended. Now why should *I* pay the cost of of an FOI which is unlikely to change anything - just satisfy someone's curiosity?

 

[ianrauk]

Stop it Lee..... The signs have been moved to the side of the cycle path
[QUOTE 1149929"]
Has removing the signs made the area 'safer'? Surely as a cyclist one can ride around the hazard and now as a motorist I am ignorant to what the sign was saying/informing/warning.
[/quote]

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

[QUOTE 1149931"]
Seriously Ian, granted there should have been better planning when first positioning the signs but would it be to much just to leave them where they were?

Having said that (and having time to think) all you need is some cyclist having a face plant on one. Then it's the Council that gets sued, the council tax going up and the sign being moved anyway.

Glad the issue has been sorted.
[/quote]

I would have thought the point is to highlight the issue and cause not only the repositioning of the signs in THIS instance but hopefully (perhaps optimistically) lead to more considered positioning for any future street furniture. Doing it right first time = cost saving. That's after all what they are REALLY interested in...

 

[martint235]

As a Lewisham Council Tax payer I object.

A mistake was made and rectified. No doubt a few red faces and admonishments were tended. Now why should *I* pay the cost of of an FOI which is unlikely to change anything - just satisfy someone's curiosity?

Lurker was talking about getting information from the council, I just suggested rather than find a friendly councillor (who remember will charge you for turning up and asking your question) that a FOI request would get the required information.

Don't worry though I'm not a Lewisham council taxpayer so I'll put the FOI in without a worry for you......

 

[DrSquirrel]

Often when cycling on rural roads, I come across a bit at the side that is part of the road but is outwith the road markings and isn't anywhere big enough to be a hard shoulder.

Are these unofficial cycle lanes?? 'cos that's what I use them as - keeps me out of the way of the passing traffic and I actually quite like them as I can take advantage of the road surface.

What are these?? are they just the result of the road being laid slightly wider than needed, are they for pedestrians and people like me, or are they really for cars to pull over on??

I hope they become a regular feature of our roads - some of the larger bits are almost the width of a small pavement!

Sounds like marking the edge of the "road" to keep cars away from crumbling the verges.

I rarely see these on rural roads, though I guess you mean smaller A roads / larger B roads.

You see them often on by-passes/dual carriage ways and I used to use them - although they're mostly fully of gravel and glass (no cars clearing it away as they drive etc) and bridges etc take up the space - yet noone seems to see that you need to "re-join" the road - hence not a good idea to use them.

Considering these "lanes" are not uniform (not cleared, get narrower wider, bridges, disappear suddendly etc) i'd not like to see them more, or see anyone use them. I did stop using them for a while but would "be nice" to large lorries and busses by moving into it... problem with that is you get boxed in by a tail back of cars none of them about to let you in... whilst you're craning your neck looking around for a space to move out slowing you down overall. If you have all this space... I'd cycle on the proper side of the line, but just a bit closer... although being near in might promote more close passes (being inside the lines does the same too imo).

As a Lewisham Council Tax payer I object.

A mistake was made and rectified. No doubt a few red faces and admonishments were tended. Now why should *I* pay the cost of of an FOI which is unlikely to change anything - just satisfy someone's curiosity?

You don't always have to pay for FOI, fill it and see if they request payment etc.

 

[martint235]

You don't always have to pay for FOI, fill it and see if they request payment etc.

No unfortunately he meant that as a council tax payer, he has to foot the bill for the council answering FOIs.