Ian Cooper
Expat Yorkshireman
- Location
- Silver Spring, MD, USA
Oh, I don't think they're allowed to do that. I mean, people might get the idea that cyclists are allowed on the road.
Who is responsible for this dangerous cycle lane?
- Thread starter benb
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Oh, I don't think they're allowed to do that. I mean, people might get the idea that cyclists are allowed on the road.
So apart from ringing up the council, what can you do if you notice cycle farcilities being put into place that don't even come up to guidelines? Is there some govt body that'll turn round and say "put that right!"?
When I looked at one that had just been painted yesterday there were coppers passing in a marked car. They said they complained about shoddy lanes, but got nowhere and actually cited the instance I linked to above as one they've tried to bring to RMBCs attention previously.
When I looked at one that had just been painted yesterday there were coppers passing in a marked car. They said they complained about shoddy lanes, but got nowhere and actually cited the instance I linked to above as one they've tried to bring to RMBCs attention previously.
Got a response to mine
New 40mph dual carriageway markings, cycle lane 1.5m - I sent them the guidance that stated 2m minimum
"
Dear Sir,
The design of the new road marking layout for East Bawtry Road allows most vehicles to drive within their assigned lanes without encroaching into adjacent cycle or vehicle lanes. Hence, the cycle lanes have been installed at 1.5 metres wide. Were we to have opted for the 2m cycle lane, we would have introduced encroachment which tends to negate the whole purpose of the lining project. There is almost always a degree of compromise when designing such schemes.
It should be noted Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design is purely a guidance note for designers.
Kind regards
Richard
Suggests to me they want advisory lanes to segregate traffic, you in your lane, me in mine?
New 40mph dual carriageway markings, cycle lane 1.5m - I sent them the guidance that stated 2m minimum
"
Dear Sir,
The design of the new road marking layout for East Bawtry Road allows most vehicles to drive within their assigned lanes without encroaching into adjacent cycle or vehicle lanes. Hence, the cycle lanes have been installed at 1.5 metres wide. Were we to have opted for the 2m cycle lane, we would have introduced encroachment which tends to negate the whole purpose of the lining project. There is almost always a degree of compromise when designing such schemes.
It should be noted Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design is purely a guidance note for designers.
Kind regards
Richard
Suggests to me they want advisory lanes to segregate traffic, you in your lane, me in mine?
Oh, theres more 
quickly written, so may not 'flow' properly?
My reply
"Thank you for the response,
However I must strongly disagree.
It's only encroachment if you believe that cyclists shouldn't be outside the lane and drivers shouldn't be in it. As such I believe you misunderstand the guidance and use of an ADVISORY lane. Do you believe cycle lanes are there to segregate cyclists? Advisory lanes are better when they advise motorist where to expect cyclists. A minimum 2m lane would be more beneficial to a vulnerable user group. When there are 2 lanes for motorised transport, why must compromise be at the expense of vulnerable road users.
There are plenty of example out there of 2m+ cycle lanes on single lane roads.
On the downhill side of this road, I ALWAYS travel without pedalling well in excess of 30mph Riding within 1.5 metres of the kerb would be foolhardy. Please compare and contrast your layout with Highway code rule reference 163 and explain how a car is to pass and still remain compliant with this? Bear in mind looking at the type of road in the picture this is a 30mph area, not a 40mph area as Bawtry Road is. Encroachment will happen, you can't safely have 3 vehicles travelling in parallel in excess of 35mph Or is it your contention that because he's in a lane he can pass closer?
On this section of Bawtry Road I would be a minimum of 5ft away from the kerb, in a strong secondary or even primary position as taught in schools under Bikeability and in 'Cyclecraft' also by the Stationary office and derived from the Highway code.
Yesterday morning there were 3 solo commuting cyclists on this stretch. Not 1 wheel was inside the lane. We chatted at Whiston crossroads, at a red light. "Bloody useless" was the general opinion. What is the point in installing farcilities if they are going to be ignored for being inadequate?
Got this back
Dear Garry,
It should be noted that the scheme aims to make drivers more aware of cyclists by the introduction of lines and signs, but as stated in LTN 08 There is no legal obligation for cyclists to use cycle lanes or any other cycle infrastructure.
Thank you for your comments, they have been noted.
and my return of service
You'll understand, living in Maltby, with cycle lanes at best a metre wide and passing in the doorzone of parallel parking bays, I'm not confident that RMBC has any idea of cycling needs. Surprising with 147 bike spaces under the new council buildings?
I'm afraid my next port of call has already been my local councillors and will be the Advertiser.
Please note the conclusions
"It may be concluded that in circumstances where a cycle lane is insufficiently wide for
the speed of general motor traffic, drivers provide greater passing distances to cyclists
on stretches of road without cycle lanes"
http://ubir.bolton.ac.uk/index.php?...40cbee58bcc9c51f&filename=ce_journalspr-6.pdf
"Full width advisory lanes can be used on roads of any width, even the narrowest. Advisory cycle lanes should be thought of as indicators of the space cyclists need when they are being overtaken, not necessarily as exclusive space for cyclists."
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4703
------------
I just figured I need to be a right royal pain in the ass? I'm under no illusion that they're going to suddenly remove and repaint these. They're on quite a distance. However if no one does, then they'll just do the same next time. I can see from the email chains that this hasn't just got to one Assistant Engineer, it seems to have hit the Dept from 2 or 3 angles ( I phoned as well as emailed)
As I said, I've also contacted 3 Borough Councillors and sent in a sarcastic letter of congratulations to the local rag. Pointing out it won't be 'serious cyclists' who use them but the beginners and unsure cyclists (kids?) and to consider if deliberately ignoring guidelines is going to leave RMBC open to the possibility of contributory negligence, should the worst happen.
What I didn't say is details have been passed to 'Rotherham Politic', a website who make themselves a pain to RMBC, constantly calling for them to be accountable.
Think the next point of call might be the local CTC local campaign rep?
.
You know what....
.
I think this one might have really got my back up?
quickly written, so may not 'flow' properly?My reply
"Thank you for the response,
However I must strongly disagree.
It's only encroachment if you believe that cyclists shouldn't be outside the lane and drivers shouldn't be in it. As such I believe you misunderstand the guidance and use of an ADVISORY lane. Do you believe cycle lanes are there to segregate cyclists? Advisory lanes are better when they advise motorist where to expect cyclists. A minimum 2m lane would be more beneficial to a vulnerable user group. When there are 2 lanes for motorised transport, why must compromise be at the expense of vulnerable road users.
There are plenty of example out there of 2m+ cycle lanes on single lane roads.
On the downhill side of this road, I ALWAYS travel without pedalling well in excess of 30mph Riding within 1.5 metres of the kerb would be foolhardy. Please compare and contrast your layout with Highway code rule reference 163 and explain how a car is to pass and still remain compliant with this? Bear in mind looking at the type of road in the picture this is a 30mph area, not a 40mph area as Bawtry Road is. Encroachment will happen, you can't safely have 3 vehicles travelling in parallel in excess of 35mph Or is it your contention that because he's in a lane he can pass closer?
On this section of Bawtry Road I would be a minimum of 5ft away from the kerb, in a strong secondary or even primary position as taught in schools under Bikeability and in 'Cyclecraft' also by the Stationary office and derived from the Highway code.
Yesterday morning there were 3 solo commuting cyclists on this stretch. Not 1 wheel was inside the lane. We chatted at Whiston crossroads, at a red light. "Bloody useless" was the general opinion. What is the point in installing farcilities if they are going to be ignored for being inadequate?
Got this back
Dear Garry,
It should be noted that the scheme aims to make drivers more aware of cyclists by the introduction of lines and signs, but as stated in LTN 08 There is no legal obligation for cyclists to use cycle lanes or any other cycle infrastructure.
Thank you for your comments, they have been noted.
and my return of service
You'll understand, living in Maltby, with cycle lanes at best a metre wide and passing in the doorzone of parallel parking bays, I'm not confident that RMBC has any idea of cycling needs. Surprising with 147 bike spaces under the new council buildings?
I'm afraid my next port of call has already been my local councillors and will be the Advertiser.
Please note the conclusions
"It may be concluded that in circumstances where a cycle lane is insufficiently wide for
the speed of general motor traffic, drivers provide greater passing distances to cyclists
on stretches of road without cycle lanes"
http://ubir.bolton.ac.uk/index.php?...40cbee58bcc9c51f&filename=ce_journalspr-6.pdf
"Full width advisory lanes can be used on roads of any width, even the narrowest. Advisory cycle lanes should be thought of as indicators of the space cyclists need when they are being overtaken, not necessarily as exclusive space for cyclists."
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4703
------------
I just figured I need to be a right royal pain in the ass? I'm under no illusion that they're going to suddenly remove and repaint these. They're on quite a distance. However if no one does, then they'll just do the same next time. I can see from the email chains that this hasn't just got to one Assistant Engineer, it seems to have hit the Dept from 2 or 3 angles ( I phoned as well as emailed)
As I said, I've also contacted 3 Borough Councillors and sent in a sarcastic letter of congratulations to the local rag. Pointing out it won't be 'serious cyclists' who use them but the beginners and unsure cyclists (kids?) and to consider if deliberately ignoring guidelines is going to leave RMBC open to the possibility of contributory negligence, should the worst happen.
What I didn't say is details have been passed to 'Rotherham Politic', a website who make themselves a pain to RMBC, constantly calling for them to be accountable.
Think the next point of call might be the local CTC local campaign rep?
.
You know what....
.
I think this one might have really got my back up?
Ian Cooper
Expat Yorkshireman
- Location
- Silver Spring, MD, USA
I agree with this tactic. The whole point of a national standard is that meeting it is necessary to prevent the bike lane installation making a situation worse. Standards aren't chosen arbitrarily - they are the result of careful studies that measure the result of different cycle lane widths.
Having said that, I must admit I have yet to see a bike lane or bike path that I would consider to be as safe or useful as a standard road, so I advise all cyclists to ignore all bicycle facilities and just use the road.
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
Codswallop
Not seen how long since he buggerred off over t'pond. Could be right?
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
Yes, you're right, maybe that's itNot seen how long since he buggerred off over t'pond. Could be right?
HLaB
Marie Attoinette Fan
The first two examples are typical farcilities but alarmingly I've seen worse they at least have a buffer zone.
Ian Cooper
Expat Yorkshireman
- Location
- Silver Spring, MD, USA
An interesting rebuttal. Though lacking in focus, depth or intellectual complexity, it certainly has a certain unassailable quality. Sadly though, it doesn't really pose a counter argument.
The thing is, what's so bad about the road? It's nice and wide, its surface is usually better than bike paths and it's kept cleaner. Its only drawback is that it has motor vehicles on it. But once you get over the natural fear of such vehicles and use some simple techniques to control traffic, cycling on the road is a doddle.
All bike lanes are more dangerous than the road. This has been shown in study after study, ever since the 1987 Berlin police study and most lately illustrated in Reid's 2011 review. The belief that bike lanes and paths are features that actually increase safety is widely held, but it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. Bike lanes exist to calm fears about road safety - they make people believe they are safer. As Reid & Adams conclude in their 2011 review:
Stuart Reid and Simon Adams said:
Segregated bike facilities are really a propaganda tool to get people who see cycling as scary out of cars and onto bikes so that governments can (they hope) save on traffic infrastructure at a time when bridges and roads are crumbling and there's no money in the pot to spend on fixing them. Traffic engineers even admit this, when pressed. But most cyclists are so giddy at the thought of a new bike lane that they don't care to investigate why the government is so eager to get them onto pretty coloured ribbons of asphalt.[/quote]
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
Why thank you
Now here's the crux of the issue. You have, on more than one occasion, been presented with images and first hand accounts, by more than one individual, of cycle facilities which are quite evidently not less safe or less useful than a standard road. Yet you conveniently ignore these posts. I believe Ian that is you that is struggling to pose a counter argument.
There is nothing wrong with the road, there are very very few members here that would suggest otherwise and there are very few here that will not use the road under almost all circumstances, some of which are very demanding. However, a sweeping generalisation that ALL cycling facilities are dangerous and should be therefore be avoided is ludicrous. SOME cycle facilities are atrocious, dangerous and should be avoided at all costs, having not seen all of them it may even be a majority, what it is not is ALL and that is the thing.
No, they're not.
While cycling facilities in Glasgow are a bit hit and miss, I like what they have done with the A77 south of Eastwood toll on the way up to Newton Mearns here :
http://goo.gl/maps/nK2FZ
They have taken a 40mph dual carriageway, taken away one of the car lanes, put in a decent bike lane and given the cars a bit of wiggle room on the outside of their lane. Makes it a reasonably friendly place to cycle now.
http://goo.gl/maps/nK2FZ
They have taken a 40mph dual carriageway, taken away one of the car lanes, put in a decent bike lane and given the cars a bit of wiggle room on the outside of their lane. Makes it a reasonably friendly place to cycle now.
OMG, Got an email back from a local councillor.
" Whilst a 2m wide cycle lane is the ideal and would be designed in for any new road, this is often not possible when retrospectively installing cycle lanes on existing highways such as Bawtry Road. I understand that if a 2 metre lane had been installed it would have compromised the space remaining for vehicles which would negate the whole purpose of installing the cycle lanes. In such circumstances, a 1.5 m wide lane is considered to be adequate and most cyclists are able to remain in that space except where having to pass parked cars"
Retrospectively? They've got a blank canvas. A 20ft+ wide, newly resurfaced, dual carriageway.
response
I'm sorry you take this view. Whilst advisory lanes are not mandatory the research shows that if you can't put them in to standard a substandard one is more dangerous than none at all. Or does RMBC get central funds to install cycle lanes, so they take the view they'll be installed whatever?
I'm afraid I believe you have been subject to the same BS as I got from the transportation department. The guidelines don't have to be followed, true. But they don't state an ideal width, they state a minimum and with reasons.
I'm sure they thought they were designing an adequate facility when installing them at Maltby. Although they are clearly dangerous. I've had a conversation with a couple of traffic officers in the last week where, unprompted, they stated they highlighted Maltby High Street as something they've brought to RMBCs attention as dangerous in the past - to no avail. The lanes are too narrow and in the 'door zone' of parking bays. Riding in the door zone has killed 2 cyclists I know of in the last year.
Anyway, back to Bawtry Road.
If you can't install them when you've got a brand new, blank canvas, road surface of the width of Bawtry Road - where would you be able to?
BTW I've seen them installed at 6ft on a narrow single carriageway. As the CTC stated
"Full width advisory lanes can be used on roads of any width, even the narrowest"
One other point I'd like to make is the termination of these routes. Cyclists are taught to 'take the lane' at junctions. Explicit advice form all sources is DO NOT travel along the inside of vehicles at junctions. It kills. It puts inexperienced cyclists alongside wagons, right in the blind spot. As the wagons manoeuvre left, the nearside space decreases.
Its THE classic way that inexperienced cyclists, especially women according to a london survey, meet their ends. Crushed under an HGV.
Topically, the cyclist killed by a media bus at the Olympic park appears to have been killed with exactly this scenario.
This lane design runs right up to the junction, puts the cyclist at the left hand side of the lane and in their infinite wisdom they've even reduced the lane width to 1.2m at this point.
It will kill someone.
Better to stop the lane 30 yards earlier and indicate one left hand lane only at the junction?
Even better to get some of these designers out on a bike?
I'm under no impression that the department will suddenly repent, burn these off and replace them. I'll just have to wait till someone is injured....
However if I said nothing then maybe the next set of lanes, guidelines will again be ignored and they'll be put inboard of the yellow lines?
I'm sorry if I sound facetious. However my experience of RMBC actually listening hasn't been good. I complained for 2 years to Streetpride about parking outside schools, specifically Lilly Hall Road and Little Haynooking Lane. Nothing happened. It took a 2 year old getting hospitalised to see a ticketing presence.
I hope it doesn't get to that sort of scenario again
" Whilst a 2m wide cycle lane is the ideal and would be designed in for any new road, this is often not possible when retrospectively installing cycle lanes on existing highways such as Bawtry Road. I understand that if a 2 metre lane had been installed it would have compromised the space remaining for vehicles which would negate the whole purpose of installing the cycle lanes. In such circumstances, a 1.5 m wide lane is considered to be adequate and most cyclists are able to remain in that space except where having to pass parked cars"
Retrospectively? They've got a blank canvas. A 20ft+ wide, newly resurfaced, dual carriageway.
response
I'm sorry you take this view. Whilst advisory lanes are not mandatory the research shows that if you can't put them in to standard a substandard one is more dangerous than none at all. Or does RMBC get central funds to install cycle lanes, so they take the view they'll be installed whatever?
I'm afraid I believe you have been subject to the same BS as I got from the transportation department. The guidelines don't have to be followed, true. But they don't state an ideal width, they state a minimum and with reasons.
I'm sure they thought they were designing an adequate facility when installing them at Maltby. Although they are clearly dangerous. I've had a conversation with a couple of traffic officers in the last week where, unprompted, they stated they highlighted Maltby High Street as something they've brought to RMBCs attention as dangerous in the past - to no avail. The lanes are too narrow and in the 'door zone' of parking bays. Riding in the door zone has killed 2 cyclists I know of in the last year.
Anyway, back to Bawtry Road.
If you can't install them when you've got a brand new, blank canvas, road surface of the width of Bawtry Road - where would you be able to?
BTW I've seen them installed at 6ft on a narrow single carriageway. As the CTC stated
"Full width advisory lanes can be used on roads of any width, even the narrowest"
One other point I'd like to make is the termination of these routes. Cyclists are taught to 'take the lane' at junctions. Explicit advice form all sources is DO NOT travel along the inside of vehicles at junctions. It kills. It puts inexperienced cyclists alongside wagons, right in the blind spot. As the wagons manoeuvre left, the nearside space decreases.
Its THE classic way that inexperienced cyclists, especially women according to a london survey, meet their ends. Crushed under an HGV.
Topically, the cyclist killed by a media bus at the Olympic park appears to have been killed with exactly this scenario.
This lane design runs right up to the junction, puts the cyclist at the left hand side of the lane and in their infinite wisdom they've even reduced the lane width to 1.2m at this point.
It will kill someone.
Better to stop the lane 30 yards earlier and indicate one left hand lane only at the junction?
Even better to get some of these designers out on a bike?
I'm under no impression that the department will suddenly repent, burn these off and replace them. I'll just have to wait till someone is injured....
However if I said nothing then maybe the next set of lanes, guidelines will again be ignored and they'll be put inboard of the yellow lines?
I'm sorry if I sound facetious. However my experience of RMBC actually listening hasn't been good. I complained for 2 years to Streetpride about parking outside schools, specifically Lilly Hall Road and Little Haynooking Lane. Nothing happened. It took a 2 year old getting hospitalised to see a ticketing presence.
I hope it doesn't get to that sort of scenario again
