Traffic islands have been installed in many locations where I ride. This has the effect of reducing the width of the carriageway and puts motorists into conflict with cyclists. I am often intimidated or forced into the gutter by impatient and aggressive motorists at these ridiculous constrictions. If motorists have adequate room they generally leave cyclists alone and give them adequate space (e.g. the A2 or the A20 into Dover or even on Folkestone Road in Dover, before some idiot put central refuges along it at regular intervals.)
Such cycle paths as have been built are usually fragmented and involve crossing a busy Road (e.g. Snargate St , Dover.) This is not a viable route to use because I travel at 25mph typically. Were I to use the cycle path I would have to stop every 20 seconds, as the path crosses the road or a junction. It is utterly useless and covered in puncture inducing debris. The local authority uses it as a car park for its maintenance vehicles and when road works are carried out it is obstructed with sandbags and road signs. Obviously nobody, including those who are charged with the responsibility for highway matters, takes it seriously.
Many cycle paths are sandwiched between a road and a pavement. These paths are quite narrow and would be hopelessly inadequate if you did actually manage to crowbar a sizeable proportion of the population (and I use the word sizeable advisedly), from their sofas and cars onto bicycles. The fact that they are adjacent to a pavement means that pedestrians frequently use them as a pavement. Sometimes they step off the pavement just as a cyclist approaches from behind. Down the hill outside my place of work, I could be doing over 30mph, assisted as I am by the the mysterious force of gravity. Imagine what would happen if a pedestrian walking in the same direction, were to choose such a moment to take a not untypical excursion onto the red tarmac. It is often said, and with good reason, that cyclists and pedestrians should be kept apart and consequently, cycling on pavements is prohibited. In these situations the authorities have officially sanctioned behaviour that in other circumstances they would claim to abhor. The Dover Harbour area is even worse; large numbers of people walking about in an area where the cycle path is merely a painted out section of the paved area. Take a look and you will find pedestrians milling about all over it. Madness!
OK Rant over
Anyone agree or know how these decisions might be reversed?
Kent Highways is 'consulting' the locals about their views on cycling policy. Somehow I doubt that they really want to listen!
Cycle Paths and traffic Islands
KCC are consulting on the Dover District Cycling Plan.
Hurry thought the deadline is 28th March.
More generally a local campaign group is spokes. They might be able to guide you on how to get things changed or support your efforts.
Hurry thought the deadline is 28th March.
More generally a local campaign group is spokes. They might be able to guide you on how to get things changed or support your efforts.
Re: Cycle Paths and traffic Islands
potholed wrote:Traffic islands have been installed in many locations where I ride. This has the effect of reducing the width of the carriageway and puts motorists into conflict with cyclists.
It has just recently been explained to me by the local authority that such an installation has been put in place in order to slow down the traffic and thus encourage children to cycle to school
Needless to say, correspondence continues.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Cycle Paths and traffic Islands
potholed wrote:Anyone agree or know how these decisions might be reversed?
1/ Yes
2/ No.
I was passing through Congleton recently and noticed a sign that I have not previously seen instructing motorists not to overtake cyclists when passing pedestrian refuges. (The precise wording escapes me.)
At the time I wondered if Congleton was a particularly bike friendly town. Alas, I now suspect that it was simply an attempt to cope with problems caused by new refuges!
At the time I wondered if Congleton was a particularly bike friendly town. Alas, I now suspect that it was simply an attempt to cope with problems caused by new refuges!
-
mhara
In theory traffic islands are to help keep walkers safe from traffic when they cross busy roads.
However, on the odd occasion I walk, I seldom find one where I need it. Walkers, like cyclists tend to take the shortest possible route between A and B. The shortest possible route is not the one stravaiging round the houses in order that vehicles may travel in a direct line.
Also, didn't the DfT's Manual For Streets say that it was not appropriate to use cyclist / pedestrian safety features to effect speed reductions?
However, on the odd occasion I walk, I seldom find one where I need it. Walkers, like cyclists tend to take the shortest possible route between A and B. The shortest possible route is not the one stravaiging round the houses in order that vehicles may travel in a direct line.
Also, didn't the DfT's Manual For Streets say that it was not appropriate to use cyclist / pedestrian safety features to effect speed reductions?
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
mhara wrote:In theory traffic islands are to help keep walkers safe from traffic when they cross busy roads.
IMO that's the myth. They allow fit, able bodied pedestrians to cross one half of the road at a time without really inconveniencing motor traffic. The threat to vulnerable pedestrians from fast moving traffic is not reduced at all.
There is one of these islands on Otley Road in Harrogate on an uphill section which is designed to slow traffic by causing a pinch point.
To make it safe for cyclists the council have put in a short section of cycle path starting just before & ending just after. Of course where the cycle path rejoins the road it is signed for the cyclist to give way - cycling uphill!
Another case of cycling facilities designed for the inconvenience of cyclists & the benefit of motorists. In other counties they would simply put up a speed camera to slow vehicles but guess what? No fixed speed cameras in North Yorkshire.
To make it safe for cyclists the council have put in a short section of cycle path starting just before & ending just after. Of course where the cycle path rejoins the road it is signed for the cyclist to give way - cycling uphill!
Another case of cycling facilities designed for the inconvenience of cyclists & the benefit of motorists. In other counties they would simply put up a speed camera to slow vehicles but guess what? No fixed speed cameras in North Yorkshire.
-
mhara
thirdcrank wrote:mhara wrote:In theory traffic islands are to help keep walkers safe from traffic when they cross busy roads.
IMO that's the myth. They allow fit, able bodied pedestrians to cross one half of the road at a time without really inconveniencing motor traffic. The threat to vulnerable pedestrians from fast moving traffic is not reduced at all.
IMO also.
And let's not forget the so-called "centre refuge" which often divides a toucan crossing.
This double carriageway is 40mph and goes past a secondary school gate - so you can imagine the kids waiting carefully and quietly with their bikes on this spacious refuge after the going home bell rings.
And if you look carefully you can tell which part of the crossing is for cyclists because it's got a legally required post stuck in the middle, although in this case it seems to deviate a bit from the cycle path standard because it's probably for the traffic lights rather than being the usual lamp post, traffic sign post or tree. I'm not very well up on this - are there different obstacle requirements for crossings? Possibly it would be inconvenient to plant trees on crossings.
No great ideas on reversing the trend, but it's likely to be for these reasons that cycle facilities are generally more dangerous than roads for cyclists. Most bike accidents happen at junctions, and cycle facilities tend to put cyclists out of sight, out of mind for motorists (and vice versa most likely), and often do little to make junctions safer; therefore you seem to get more accidents at the dangerous bits, and any help there is concentrated on the places where you didn't need it.
DaveP - there have been "don't overtake" signs like that in Macclesfield on the Congleton road for years. I hadn't noticed them in Congleton but I have not visited for a few months. It's probably the same authority - at least they are trying to do something about the risks they are creating, even if they aren't going the whole hog and avoiding creating the risks!
DaveP - there have been "don't overtake" signs like that in Macclesfield on the Congleton road for years. I hadn't noticed them in Congleton but I have not visited for a few months. It's probably the same authority - at least they are trying to do something about the risks they are creating, even if they aren't going the whole hog and avoiding creating the risks!
I had similar problems locally, where 2 islands were put in on what had been a safe 40 mph trunk road. The road was reduced to a seriously dangerous width. I ended up getting knocked off on one occasion. The Police, as usual, were uninterested, contrary to the assurances that I had from the Highways Agency.
The process I followed was:
1) Contact Council to see whose responsibility that road was (different for different roads). In my case, I found that responsibility lay with the Highways Agency, who subcontracted their work to Interroute. This is typical for strategic/trunk A roads.
2) I called HA, and found out who the responsible engineers were, and what their contact details were
3) I called the people individually, initially just asking questions, and making sure that I didn’t set their backs up. Unfortunately, their answers to even simple questions were in a classic Public Sector way so defensive that I ended up going on to the next stage
4) I invoked the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and in writing demanded from each of my contacts answers to the following questions:
a. What plans had been drawn up, and what dimensions were involved (this is so that you can turn back to them and tell them that they’ve not designed to appropriate standards)
b. What need had been demonstrated for the islands(standards require this)
c. What the cost of each island was (so that you can embarrass them with their profligate spending)
d. What subsequent inspection had been carried out to ensure compliance with plans (another point of leverage if you can demonstrate non-compliance)
e. Demand that they tell you what the resulting actual lane widths are (this forces them to consider what they have done, and puts them on their back foot if you refer them to standards)
f. What safety audits they have carried out before and after (you can have an input on the final one)
g. Ask them what current Rules 64 of the Highway Code states (I had helpful advice from the Area Engineer (who calls himself a cyclist) to ride on the pavement past the islands!). I also asked whether the advice of the Area Engineer to ride on pavements is HA policy.
By asking specific questions, they have to answer, and they are more difficult to evade. If they do, you can refer them to the Information Commissioner for being obstructive. If they say that they will have to charge you, ask even more specific questions, such as “Do xx islands comply with design guidelines” They have to answer this truthfully, as you could call their bluff and pay for specific pieces of information which might show them to have been untruthful – not a good place for them to be.
When HA responded to me, it was clear that not only had they not followed their own procedures and process, but they had also mis-designed the islands and not even followed standards, put them in the wrong place, and not properly followed their own safety audit procedures. This, for £81,552 for the 2 islands! Of course, they pretended that nothing was wrong – they can’t be seen to make mistakes or acting “improperly”.
Having got those answers, I then went back to the HA folk and challenged them to ride a bike through the islands. I offered to video them, so that when they got knocked off, they would at least have evidence for their insurance claims. I also pointed out their lack of compliance, and threatened a letter to the local MP. They declined to ride a bike through, so I put I this in writing to them. Eventually, I referred it to my MP, whose minor interest got the HA very excited. 1year later, despite the apparent brush-offs from HA which I thought that I had been receiving, the islands were quietly downsized, and now present a much smaller threat. Result!
I subsequently received an audit report which showed that 10 out of 20 islands inspected in the area had significant compliance/safety failings!
The HA is required to work to its standards manual:
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/index.htm
Volume 5 Section 2 of this shows the 4 stage audit process that they are required to follow – if they haven’t, then they are remiss in the extreme, and you should demand that they follow it – you should ask to be there so that you can have your input. You should feel free to challenge their processes and compliance at every step. In my experience in any number of organisations, compliance to procedures is low, so you will find something significant that they have not done.
Volume 6, Section 2 gives geometric considerations and design standards.
Peruse the other Volumes at your leisure/peril.
Design of Pedestrian Crossings is also a document which they should heed:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltn ... rossin4034
In the end, although it may feel as though you’re not having an effect, you will at the very least alter future behaviour to a greater or lesser extent.
The process I followed was:
1) Contact Council to see whose responsibility that road was (different for different roads). In my case, I found that responsibility lay with the Highways Agency, who subcontracted their work to Interroute. This is typical for strategic/trunk A roads.
2) I called HA, and found out who the responsible engineers were, and what their contact details were
3) I called the people individually, initially just asking questions, and making sure that I didn’t set their backs up. Unfortunately, their answers to even simple questions were in a classic Public Sector way so defensive that I ended up going on to the next stage
4) I invoked the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and in writing demanded from each of my contacts answers to the following questions:
a. What plans had been drawn up, and what dimensions were involved (this is so that you can turn back to them and tell them that they’ve not designed to appropriate standards)
b. What need had been demonstrated for the islands(standards require this)
c. What the cost of each island was (so that you can embarrass them with their profligate spending)
d. What subsequent inspection had been carried out to ensure compliance with plans (another point of leverage if you can demonstrate non-compliance)
e. Demand that they tell you what the resulting actual lane widths are (this forces them to consider what they have done, and puts them on their back foot if you refer them to standards)
f. What safety audits they have carried out before and after (you can have an input on the final one)
g. Ask them what current Rules 64 of the Highway Code states (I had helpful advice from the Area Engineer (who calls himself a cyclist) to ride on the pavement past the islands!). I also asked whether the advice of the Area Engineer to ride on pavements is HA policy.
By asking specific questions, they have to answer, and they are more difficult to evade. If they do, you can refer them to the Information Commissioner for being obstructive. If they say that they will have to charge you, ask even more specific questions, such as “Do xx islands comply with design guidelines” They have to answer this truthfully, as you could call their bluff and pay for specific pieces of information which might show them to have been untruthful – not a good place for them to be.
When HA responded to me, it was clear that not only had they not followed their own procedures and process, but they had also mis-designed the islands and not even followed standards, put them in the wrong place, and not properly followed their own safety audit procedures. This, for £81,552 for the 2 islands! Of course, they pretended that nothing was wrong – they can’t be seen to make mistakes or acting “improperly”.
Having got those answers, I then went back to the HA folk and challenged them to ride a bike through the islands. I offered to video them, so that when they got knocked off, they would at least have evidence for their insurance claims. I also pointed out their lack of compliance, and threatened a letter to the local MP. They declined to ride a bike through, so I put I this in writing to them. Eventually, I referred it to my MP, whose minor interest got the HA very excited. 1year later, despite the apparent brush-offs from HA which I thought that I had been receiving, the islands were quietly downsized, and now present a much smaller threat. Result!
I subsequently received an audit report which showed that 10 out of 20 islands inspected in the area had significant compliance/safety failings!
The HA is required to work to its standards manual:
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/index.htm
Volume 5 Section 2 of this shows the 4 stage audit process that they are required to follow – if they haven’t, then they are remiss in the extreme, and you should demand that they follow it – you should ask to be there so that you can have your input. You should feel free to challenge their processes and compliance at every step. In my experience in any number of organisations, compliance to procedures is low, so you will find something significant that they have not done.
Volume 6, Section 2 gives geometric considerations and design standards.
Peruse the other Volumes at your leisure/peril.
Design of Pedestrian Crossings is also a document which they should heed:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltn ... rossin4034
In the end, although it may feel as though you’re not having an effect, you will at the very least alter future behaviour to a greater or lesser extent.
(I haven't had time to read all the above posts fully so aplogies if this doesn't follow logically.)
My own take on narrowing caused by central refuges is that I really like them. Mhara is right, the LA shouldn't really use us cyclists as traffic calming measures but I rise to the occasion and make sure that the car follows me through the gap at a proper speed. We are back to the old squeeze-through here but lining up well in advance and checking behind you gives you some temporary mastery of the road.
My own take on narrowing caused by central refuges is that I really like them. Mhara is right, the LA shouldn't really use us cyclists as traffic calming measures but I rise to the occasion and make sure that the car follows me through the gap at a proper speed. We are back to the old squeeze-through here but lining up well in advance and checking behind you gives you some temporary mastery of the road.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
-
George Riches
- Posts: 782
- Joined: 23 May 2007, 9:01am
- Location: Coventry
- Contact:
horizon wrote:(I haven't had time to read all the above posts fully so aplogies if this doesn't follow logically.)
My own take on narrowing caused by central refuges is that I really like them. Mhara is right, the LA shouldn't really use us cyclists as traffic calming measures but I rise to the occasion and make sure that the car follows me through the gap at a proper speed. We are back to the old squeeze-through here but lining up well in advance and checking behind you gives you some temporary mastery of the road.
That's what I tried, but doing 10 mph uphill in the primary position, and being followed by a 40-50mph car didn't work! I had temporary mastery of the road until the silly old duffer hit me.
I appreciate your principle, but it doesn't always apply.