"New Cycle Lane a Death Trap"

[ferdinand]

Whilst I know nothing of he specifics of this scheme, I imagine that the construction details would not have been the responsibility of Green (or other) elected Councillors. I suspect it would have been the Highway Authority to designed and commissioned the scheme - so probably a bit unfair to be critical of Councillors.

In fact, it probably reflects well on the Councillors that cycle facilities were built - and it shows how little Highway Authorities appreciate the needs of cyclists.

(But that is my supposition).

Ian

I'd say not.Brighton in a Unitary Council with the road maintenance responsibilities of County incorporated. They cannot dodge the bullet that way.

Even if it was an officer who made the mistake this has gone through enough councillors, consultants and committees that they should have done it properly. And I'm not sure hiding behind the minions would play well politically. It's also running on the Green Party national website as a Green Achievement, and there's a whole section about it on the Council website.

The two cockups are installing a trip hazard for cyclists, and then making it effectively invisible. It's easy to correct, but it needs to be done within days or they will have a running sore. If they have a really serious accident, eg a fatality, then it will change the nature of the issue.

I'd say they have made a middle way mistake. It needs to either be no kerb there, or a kerb prominent enough that everyone can see it. I'd make a comparison with parking bollards that are high enough to damage your car but too low to see when you are close to them, or with pinch points just wide enough for a car driver to think they squeeze through with the cyclist.

Ferdinand

[661-Pete]

It's also running on the Green Party national website as a Green Achievement, and there's a whole section about it on the Council website.

I can't find the reference on the Greens' website, but the Council site has articles here and here. It might be worth E-mailing them at the address given on the pages, with sensible ideas as to how to remedy the situation - though they've probably had a flood of E-mails already, many of them doubtless uncomplimentary!

[snibgo]

Browsing around, I found a PDF plan for the works: Proposed Junction Layout.

These things can be dificult to read, and the significance of details can easily be overlooked. But this plan is very clear: "Cyclelane 50mm above carriageway" and "Cyclelane 25mm above carriageway". It isn't clear how far the raising extends along the carriageway. At that point, the cyclelane swings into the bus lane, reducing the bus lane width to zero. I suppose the raised cyclelane was to discourage buses from encroaching.

I don't know if that plan was part of the public consultation.

[Steady rider]

The lack of suitable design standards is the primarily issue. Councillors approve proposals but are probably not design engineers.
Individual engineers may have to carry the can but they have tried to provide something suitable. Small kerbs are a high risk issue for cycling. A CTC volunteer group could probably put together the basics of good standards, the London issue could be the starting point.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cyclin ... apters.pdf

[Steady rider]

The proposed junction layout, not clear what the blue rectangle is, bus and cycle lane join fairly quickly, vehicles turning left may have view blocked by a bus, 25 mm raised design a major design fault.

London standards
7.1.13
For cycle tracks and shared footways, adequate edge restraint should normally be
provided in the form of edging to restrict the deformation and erosion of the facility.
Standard 50mm wide, 150mm deep concrete edging is normally suitable, which can be
laid flush to allow water run-off, or raised as a low (50mm) kerb if adjacent to a
pedestrian way if required. Alternatively kerbs (125x150mm) either bull-nose, battered
or half-battered can be used. Kerb-faces of 50-100mm should be used, 50mm being
preferable for cyclists.

7.1.21
Where they are necessary, dropped kerbs should be specified as flush, within a
tolerance of +/-6mm of the adjacent surfaces, to provide a comfortable surface for
cyclists. Where appropriate, minor upstands can be beneficial as a speed control
measure for cyclists. Particular care is needed with channel levels to ensure that
ponding does not occur at crossing points.

In the above case flush with roadway surface could have been the best option, simple for all to understand. A smooth transition may have been suitable to provide for differing levels but more skill, workmanship and design details are involved.
The London standards above need improving with more clarity and detailed cross sections 1:10 scale perhaps and several examples.

ps the design standards use edging that creates steps and lips/edges, for cycling small edging are dangerous, a smooth surface is required, concrete surface poured on site, not edging.

[gaz]

I do find it interesting that the press have labelled it a "death trap" rather than an accident black spot.

These things can be dificult to read, and the significance of details can easily be overlooked.

One such detail in the plan is labelled "Access to Mortuary", perhaps the press have realised it's significance .

[thirdcrank]

... One such detail in the plan is labelled "Access to Mortuary", perhaps the press have realised it's significance .

Well spotted, sir! But not up to your usual attention to detail. As a point of information, it's the access to the crematorium, but in the final analysis, it's a dead end.

I learn something new every day and I'm intrigued by "floating bus stop" on the other side of the carriageway, although I'm unclear whether its a "floating-bus stop" or a "floating bus-stop." Anyway, if it's a sign that somebody from the council has been to Amsterdam to see how they cater for cyclists, it must be a step in the right direction.

[Tigerbiten]

I've finally worked out where the problem is at that junction.
If you go from the A270 southbound to the A270 northbound, you would naturally like to enter the new cycle lane at the end of bus stop island.
It's the natural line.
But there is a slight raised curb there that you will hit at a very shallow angle if you do try and enter the cycle lane.
Hence people are being caught by surprise and getting tipped off.
I wonder if the planners even thought about this scenario ??

[thirdcrank]

... I wonder if the planners even thought about this scenario ??

Is that the bit labelled "cycle slip?"

[gaz]

I think Tigerbiten has something like this in mind.

Green line good, Blue line bad..png

Anyone starting from the ASL box to head northbound is fine if they maintain primary in the general traffic lane until they've passed the "invisible" kerb (my green line).

Anyone viewing the bus lane as a place of safety and then trying to join the cycle lane from it gets floored (my blue line).

[snibgo]

They call it a "death trap" because it is dangerous by design. It is a bike facility designed by someone who has never ridden a bike (or hates cyclists).

I wonder if the planners even thought about this scenario ??

They either didn't think cyclists would want to use the cyclelane, or thought cyclists could leap up invisible 50mm kerbs at shallow angles. It is stupid and dangerous design.

The designers knew that cyclists would want to travel south-west along A270 Lewes Rd (Southbound), and want to turn right into A270 Lewes Rd (Northbound). We know they knew this, because they put in a wonderful ASZ for that purpose.

Having made the turn, a cyclist might want to join the cycle lane at the first opportunity, without realising they need to leap up a 50mm or 25mm kerb to do so. They would hit the kerb at a shallow angle, which is almost certain to throw them off.

EDIT to add: visibilty wouldn't help much. The kerb itself is dangerous. If it was painted in hi-viz with big warning signs, it would still be dangerous. Making the thing invisible is just icing on the cake.

It takes a special genius to make a cycling facility actively dangerous to use.

[Pete Owens]

They call it a "death trap" because it is dangerous by design. It is a bike facility designed by someone who has never ridden a bike (or hates cyclists).

Or rather it as been designed by someone who listens to the numerous cycle campaigners who relentlessly call for "protected" bike lanes and who have been praising the similar low kerbed cycle lane that they installed on Old Shoreham Road a couple of years back as an example of good practice.

[PRL]

They call it a "death trap" because it is dangerous by design. It is a bike facility designed by someone who has never ridden a bike (or hates cyclists).

Or rather it as been designed by someone who listens to the numerous cycle campaigners who relentlessly call for "protected" bike lanes and who have been praising the similar low kerbed cycle lane that they installed on Old Shoreham Road a couple of years back as an example of good practice.

Generally they are quite sensible but not if cyclists are likely to enter them from the side. If I recall in France they can be made with 45 degree kerbs rather than vertical ones to avoid the trip hazard. In this case the problems has arisen as the cycle lane seems to have been stuck on to a fundamentally hostile gyratory system.

[ferdinand]

It's also running on the Green Party national website as a Green Achievement, and there's a whole section about it on the Council website.

I can't find the reference on the Greens' website, but the Council site has articles here and here. It might be worth E-mailing them at the address given on the pages, with sensible ideas as to how to remedy the situation - though they've probably had a flood of E-mails already, many of them doubtless uncomplimentary!

The link on the Green website is here:
http://agc.greenparty.org.uk/assets/ima ... ements.pdf

It is published by the Association of Green Councillors. The achievement is listed as:

"Junctions for People

Dangerous junctions such as Seven Dials and the Vogue Gyratory have been reconfigured."

These things are defined in standards. Eg the London Cycle Network Design Manual specifies 15mm max for such a kerb or no level change at all.

Ferdinand

[snibgo]

... and who have been praising the similar low kerbed cycle lane that they installed on Old Shoreham Road a couple of years back as an example of good practice.

Ah, I didn't know that. Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Googling around, I see that CTC and aseasyasridingabike approve the vertical separation between general lanes and cycle lanes.

I profoundly disagree. They are a trivial obstruction to motorists who decide to park in the cycle lane. They are dangerous hazards to cyclists. The only benefit for cyclists is that they might discourage motorists from actually driving in the cycle lane.

The theory of the kerb is, of course, to keep cyclists off the general lanes. If it is risky to hop down from the cycle path to the general lane, and even riskier to hop back up, cyclists won't do it.

At the Vogue Gyratory, cyclists are encouraged to use the general lanes. They are the only way to get around the junctions. So the designers have applied two principles: "keep cyclists off general lanes" and "encourage cyclists to use general lanes". After a few serious injuries on a single day, they realise how stupid they have been.

As always, cyclists suffer the greatest risks at junctions. Long straight bits of Old Shoreham Road are well and good, but even the blogs I cited have concerns about the junctions.