Your taxes at work.

[Punkawallah]

From Facebook:

 

[fossyant]

Don't..... A colleague mentioned what's going on in our local village with a new bike lane. The council haven't consulted anyone, as usual, and all the cyclists on the 'village' facebook page have said they won't use it. Basically, the road can't be widened as it's narrow, so they are painting the pavement - the cycle lane will run past a 'bar' and a supermarket - so puts cyclists in direct path of pedestrians. It literally runs for about 150 yards. It's a total waste as it's a short stretch of road that's too narrow to be altered, and then it links into some back roads (which I use sometimes) which is a cycle route, although you have to get back onto the road anyway for another 300 yards as there is a narrow railway bridge. Far safer to be on the road as traffic isn't moving above 20 mph.

PS I didn't know about the road works as I avoid the village at most times, even in the car. Too busy !

 

[Drago]

Don't..... A colleague mentioned what's going on in our local village with a new bike lane. The council haven't consulted anyone, as usual, and all the cyclists on the 'village' facebook page have said they won't use it. Basically, the road can't be widened as it's narrow, so they are painting the pavement - the cycle lane will run past a 'bar' and a supermarket - so puts cyclists in direct path of pedestrians. It literally runs for about 150 yards. It's a total waste as it's a short stretch of road that's too narrow to be altered, and then it links into some back roads (which I use sometimes) which is a cycle route, although you have to get back onto the road anyway for another 300 yards as there is a narrow railway bridge. Far safer to be on the road as traffic isn't moving above 20 mph.

PS I didn't know about the road works as I avoid the village at most times, even in the car. Too busy !

And when someone gets hurt its cyclists who'll cop the blame instead of eejut planners.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

It’s a cycling lay-by for breaking long journeys up.

 

[PeteXXX]

From Facebook:

View attachment 787655

These bits of paintwork are often so that cyclists cross a slip-road at right angles rather than being vulnerable to high speed vehicles leaving a main road when they're riding along the main carriageway.
Similar, but mirror image markings, are at the other end of the junction where vehicles are entering the main carriageway, often at speed.

 

[Time Waster]

That's kind of what I thought. It's not to travel along the road but to position the cyclist to cross the road. However, they are usually a bit longer than that and deeper to the side so you can turn and get straight for crossing over.

We have a few short cycle paths in the town I work at. The cyclist is on a path on the road behind pole markers, then at a junction there's slight detour to the left to go on the pavement. It either goes straight around the corner to a pedestrian and cyclist crossing or it goes around the bend and back onto the road behind those pole markers.

They are just simple paths to direct the cyclist round the potentially dangerous stretch of road or junction in a way in a way that's safer.

 

[tyred]

It’s a cycling lay-by for breaking long journeys up.

If that's the case, they've forgotten the picnic bench and a pub.

 

[mjr]

That's kind of what I thought. It's not to travel along the road but to position the cyclist to cross the road. However, they are usually a bit longer than that and deeper to the side so you can turn and get straight for crossing over.

It depends when it was built (newer ones are more likely to be deep enough that cyclists can re-enter the carriageway at right-angles) and whether the designers and builders had a farking clue what they were doing. All too often, the initial design is OK (probably copied from a manual) and then someone objects to the amount of land being tarmacked or the cost or something and "we can't go all the way for cycling this time" (really? When did most councils ever?) or "the budget means we have to make compromises" (really? What tiny fraction of the motor transport budget has cycling got?) and it gets cut-down and botched like this. If the auditors are worth their salt, the stage 3 audit will then flag what's been built as unsafe, it'll be scheduled for remedial work at some future date and left to rot because they decide there's no point resurfacing or even spraying weedkiller on something that they might dig up in 3 months. Grrrrr!

 

[mjr]

Don't..... A colleague mentioned what's going on in our local village with a new bike lane. The council haven't consulted anyone, as usual,

The council probably have consulted someone. One person. The cabinet member for transport, which is usually a councillor with strange ideas about transport from some faraway place appointed by the council leader, who probably has strange ideas on transport and is elected by the councillors, most of who have strange ideas on transport.

While there's loads of good advice telling councils to consult the public on highways changes, it's rarely legally required by the Highways Acts... and even if it was, sometimes the only way to get legal requirements to be followed is to have enough thousands behind you to be able to make a realistic threat of taking them to court.

It would probably be better if any road project over a certain length had to go through the usual planning permission process, which is imperfect but better than the Highways Act processes that happen basically in secret with only some documents escaping into the public domain as a side-effect of other processes and laws. But both current and previous governments have seemed determined to cut planning permission processes down (and it's undeniable that it is possible for people to abuse the process both ways: both to delay developments without much reason and also to build rubbish that will hurt people) so there seems little prospect of adding more planning permission requirements any time soon.

and all the cyclists on the 'village' facebook page have said they won't use it.

Well, that annoys me. Firstly, it's irrelevant and will be dismissed because the council can say that this is to get more people cycling, not to please the hardnuts willing to put up with the current rubbish road designs. But more because it would be better to say what they should be doing, not just say no-no-no.

Basically, the road can't be widened as it's narrow, so they are painting the pavement - the cycle lane will run past a 'bar' and a supermarket - so puts cyclists in direct path of pedestrians. It literally runs for about 150 yards. It's a total waste as it's a short stretch of road that's too narrow to be altered, and then it links into some back roads (which I use sometimes) which is a cycle route, although you have to get back onto the road anyway for another 300 yards as there is a narrow railway bridge. Far safer to be on the road as traffic isn't moving above 20 mph.

If the traffic isn't moving above 20mph, then it sounds like it would make more sense to put a 20mph limit and wide advisory (dashed) cycle lanes on both sides of the road. Is anyone suggesting that? And if the road is narrow, they should also remove the centre line.

I'm surprised the pavement on a narrow road is wide enough to be converted to a cycleway or that putting two crossings in (for riders using the opposite side of the road) in 150 yards is safe and considered worthwhile. Are you sure there aren't plans to change the railway bridge, which might be Network Rail rather than the council highways department?

 

[ktmbiker58]

Don't..... A colleague mentioned what's going on in our local village with a new bike lane. The council haven't consulted anyone, as usual, and all the cyclists on the 'village' facebook page have said they won't use it. Basically, the road can't be widened as it's narrow, so they are painting the pavement - the cycle lane will run past a 'bar' and a supermarket - so puts cyclists in direct path of pedestrians. It literally runs for about 150 yards. It's a total waste as it's a short stretch of road that's too narrow to be altered, and then it links into some back roads (which I use sometimes) which is a cycle route, although you have to get back onto the road anyway for another 300 yards as there is a narrow railway bridge. Far safer to be on the road as traffic isn't moving above 20 mph.

PS I didn't know about the road works as I avoid the village at most times, even in the car. Too busy !

The problem around here is that any infrastructure project that requires breaking new ground requires: archeology survey, ecology survey, environmental impact assessment, flood risk analysis, bat survey etc. on top of any traffic survey/analysis and a raft of compliance checks. It's probably much cheaper to modify existing bits - just need a stencil, white paint and the odd sign or at most some different coloured tarmac and the council can tick another box.

 

[Drago]

The problem around here is that any infrastructure project that requires breaking new ground requires: archeology survey, ecology survey, environmental impact assessment, flood risk analysis, bat survey etc. on top of any traffic survey/analysis and a raft of compliance checks. It's probably much cheaper to modify existing bits - just need a stencil, white paint and the odd sign or at most some different coloured tarmac and the council can tick another box.

It might be easier to modify existing bits, but in many cases it'd be safer for us bicyclists if they'd just left alone.