Show us your Daft, Pointless or plain hard to use cycle lanes.

[Glow worm]

This is how we deal with 'Cyclists Dismount' signs hereabouts

 

[theclaud]

Is this a wind-up? That bollard presents more of a hazard.

They unpleasant at best, and a hazard at worst, especially when wet. Swansea Council have just removed some, which were positioned on a bend around the war memorial, where the bike and pedestrian sides, idiotically, swap over. Their main effect on me is to make me veer over to the pedestrian side, so they do the opposite of what they are intended to do. They are the epitome of half-baked design ideas.

 

[mjr]

As LCC really should know, that particularly egregious example of a bike lane (which was a bodged solution to what was, in fairness, a tricky problem) has been replaced by a far more sensible, if still experimental solution

I'm sure they know. The page I linked is from four years ago and has other examples. Still, someone actually built that insane switchover. I even rode through it. Once.

Nice to see some of them get fixed, isn't it? Hopefully it'll become permanent.

 

[MontyVeda]

Fine, put a tactile indicator on the side intended for foot traffic ...

it needs to cover the entire width if it's to be of any use to visually impaired peds.

We don't put tactile indicators on motorable lanes.

Don't they? Ever noticed those bumpy slabs by crossings and the kerbs lining the roads?

 

[mjr]

Don't they? Ever noticed those bumpy slabs by crossings and the kerbs lining the roads?

I'm well aware of them, but I've never seen the bumpy slabs covering the entire width of the carriageway, so does that mean they're not any use to "visually impaired peds"?

Another problem with the current UK tactile guidance is that bar tiles are used in other contexts to warn of a hazard, with the bars aligned across the edge to avoid - for example, across the top of a flight of stairs or along a platform edge, with the bars parallel to the edge:

(photo by moonpointer on Flickr, CC-By-SA licence)
...so the current bar tiles on footways next to cycle tracks mark the footway entrance as a hazard or step down, which seems odd. I feel it would be better to use blister tiles across the footway ends and treat the cycle track as if it were a restricted carriageway, unless pedestrians are banned from walking on the cycle track, which is very rare.

 

[TheJDog]

Not sure if I can use this image linking thing properly

But that is the entirety of that bike lane.

 

[Profpointy]

Not sure if I can use this image linking thing properly

But that is the entirety of that bike lane.

Could be worse - I bet someone knows of a similar one with the arrow the other way !

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

It's a new month! So there's a new entry on the Warrington Cycle Facility of the Month site: http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/

 

[winjim]

Could be worse - I bet someone knows of a similar one with the arrow the other way !

There's this one which is close.

The intention is to put you on the pavement so you can cross at that toucan and go the wrong way round the one way system which is to the left of the image. I have to say that I'd lived here for about five years before I even noticed it and I always go round the one way system on the road anyway.

 

[Profpointy]

There's this one which is close.
View attachment 149980
The intention is to put you on the pavement so you can cross at that toucan and go the wrong way round the one way system which is to the left of the image. I have to say that I'd lived here for about five years before I even noticed it and I always go round the one way system on the road anyway.

Was about to guffaw at that one, but reading your description it may actually make reasonable sense - allowing road cyclists to bale out onto a bit of a short cut.

 

[winjim]

Was about to guffaw at that one, but reading your description it may actually make reasonable sense - allowing road cyclists to bale out onto a bit of a short cut.

Yes, it's not actually as silly as it looks.

 

[mjr]

Was about to guffaw at that one, but reading your description it may actually make reasonable sense - allowing road cyclists to bale out onto a bit of a short cut.

Yeah, I do the same at a couple of points around town, although without any cycle lane marking in front of the island, including one where it allows me to avoid some traffic lights and crossing an 8-lane A road twice.

 

[MontyVeda]

I'm well aware of them, but I've never seen the bumpy slabs covering the entire width of the carriageway, so does that mean they're not any use to "visually impaired peds"?

...

Why would the the bumpy slabs cover the width of the road? They're to mark where the crossing points are on the pavements. But the case in point is the tramline paving on shared use paths. They're there for a reason, yet you appear blind to their purpose (pun intended).

 

[mjr]

Why would the the bumpy slabs cover the width of the road? They're to mark where the crossing points are on the pavements. But the case in point is the tramline paving on shared use paths. They're there for a reason, yet you appear blind to their purpose (pun intended).

I don't know why they'd be in the road. You're the one who gave them as an example of "tactile indicators on motorable lanes" and suggested that tactiles need to cover the full width to be useful. I've never seen them on the motorable lanes - only on the footways.

The same blister tiles should be used in the same style to mark the points where pavements cross cycle tracks too. People need to move past the bull shoot term "shared use paths" and realise that they're legally and practically cycle tracks which may have footways alongside, because it's that flawed "shared use path" concept which has led to a lot of the worst problems being built.

 

[MontyVeda]

... You're the one who gave them as an example of "tactile indicators on motorable lanes" and suggested that tactiles need to cover the full width to be useful.

....

No I didn't. What I said is that the tramline slabs need to cover the entire width of a shared use path, marking one side as foot traffic and the other as cycle traffic... which was a response to your suggestion that they should only be on the pedestrian side.