Forum menu
At, no doubt, great expense the local council have 'improved' my local commute with a fancy new bike lane.
Without a huge explanation and lots of pictures, it's a complete dogs dinner where they now direct cyclists onto the path inches in front of a number of bus shelters, where funnily enough people stand waiting for the buses.
They've now just put up signs on the bike path "cyclists - please give way to pedestrians" 🙄
nodding, there's a bike lane, brand new, that takes riders off the dual carriageway and behind the bus stop then back onto the road near me.
This is clearly to protect cyclists when a bus has stopped and not force the bike into the outside lane.
Whilst I get that if you have families of cyclists with kids, neither the lycra warriors or the keen cyclist will go up on a path, fight with pedestrians and then back on the road.
BUT I do hope it will encourage more families to re that road and possibly use the bike lane that runs behind the stop as that's what its aimed at.
In case you're not already au fait with the norms of UK cycling infrastructure 😉
http://singletrackworld.com/columns/?p=4889
That kind of idiocy is everywhere, I'm afraid...
[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.1223088,-0.2024237,3a,75y,239.8h,75.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9817Y2molTgUAgkCewKEkg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]Local to me[/url]
[url= http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/22-london-cycle-lanes-that-hate-cyclists#.vnB8JgADy ]In that there London[/url]
[url= http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/ ]And oop North[/url]
The council have just remarked our cycle lanes, which I use everyday for commuting. I initially emailed them to advise on large gaps appearing on the edge of the footpaths and cycleways that need attention, so to prevent ankle and trip injuries............ So their email response was that they have 'investigated the issue and resolved' in other words, they sprayed the holes white with the marker paint on the edges of the path/ cycleway, so hiding the tarmac work that is needed. I told them to employ a member of staff with eyes, which I got no response back.
it's 2015 FFs, why is no-one getting publicly punched in the face for this kind of shite?
(i'm having a thoroughly [s]enjoyable[/s] painful email exchange with a nice young woman at the council who thinks that the mud-filled gutter of the busy B6066 constitutes an adequate cycle route. More than a suitable replacement for the hard-pack track round the side of a woodland that accidentally got built over)
proper cycling infrastructure on Bury New Rd in prestwich, been there for a good 5 or 10 years (you can still see it on Google maps where the post office is)
has now had a road put through the middle of it and white paint in the lane to stop the bikes and give right of way to cars...
so that they can drive into a f**cking KFC
After putting in some badly thought out bike lanes last year Reading council are about to spend a load of money removing them.
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
Just work backwards << for further despair...
After putting in some badly thought out bike lanes last year Reading council are about to spend a load of money removing them.
Which ones? Some of Reading is actually quite good. Others (Wokingham Road -> Reading Road) are an exercise in rubbish design, there's the space to do something really good, there was the money to re-do the whole road, but for some reason, they just didn't and painted a green stripe that finishes well before each junction!
There's actually a sign on the cyclepath to from Reading Newbury that says "we have deliberately left this section as [s]grass[/s] [b]mud[/b] as [s]it's more sensitive to the natural environment[/s] [b]we're arseholes[/b]"
To be honest, (and I say this as a highway designer), its very rare that we get a brief for a scheme which places cycle use as a high priority or driver in the scheme.
They are usually schemes to improve capacity (and so economically justified). Cycle facilities are then Ill thought out, and shoe horned in. Or they put a scatter gun of warning signs up.
Cycle lanes are an afterthought, and I think some of the signage is designed with reducing litigation rather than accidents.
There's a bit of cycle path in Fallowfield, Manchester, that makes me laugh.
Instead of making the road slightly wider, the cycle path goes behind some bollards, sneaks past a tree hiding your approach, then up on to the pavement that the outside of a pub and takeaways spill on to. Ludicrous.
Ride the cycle path/pavement combo get taken out by a pedestrian. Take the road, be wiped out by a Magic Bus on a road now too narrow...
[img] 
[/img]
from belugabobs link
I get to ride this gem every day
it gets incredibly busy especially in summer- this route runs from UCL to Kings X, and is near Euston+ in a lot of very confused tourists not knowing which way to look when they cross and it can be very dangerous, had so many near misses in the year ive been using it
Here's the design template for that one.
[img] https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQcXUTLwbnqO9K5QOcGnP4Vgjm6HzYghMXrNmaLzuFsU5VGYdt_w [/img]
Some of it does seem almost spiteful at times.
I saw this a while ago: https://goo.gl/maps/7yfuK3M9Cbt
There's nothing there, but make sure the bikes give way to the nothing anyway. Wouldn't want them getting all uppity and thinking they were important or anything.
Oh my god the "local to me" link earlier [url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.1222478,-0.2030746,3a,75y,94.76h,86.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sT54lGCoa9GvAoBammrXrJg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DT54lGCoa9GvAoBammrXrJg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D317.15387%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656]this one[/url] is horrific. Not just stupid, not just pointless, but actually literally dangerous.
To be honest, (and I say this as a highway designer), its very rare that we get a brief for a scheme which places cycle use as a high priority or driver in the scheme.
And yet if you accuse our Highways officers of making cyclists and pedestrians of lower priority than motorists they deny it- even when they are at the same time outlining a redesign of a roundabout that will take cyclists 9 minutes to get from one side to the other if the lights are against them at the approach road crossings. This is being done to reduce the time taken to cross the city centre by car by a minute or two - the aim being to "reduce air pollution". I despair.
They made the genius decision to put road signs along one of my local cycle paths, the type supported by two posts about 30 inches apart, barely wide enough to fit even my narrow bars through.
[img] 
[/img]
Ever noticed how you never see a Cyclists Remount sign...?
I'll obey those when I see similar signs saying "Motorists: get out and push"
I think the sign is "cyclists rejoin the route" or something like that ilk. I obviously pay attention to these...
I think CrazyLegs' route was designed by a cyclocross fan who wanted to get some dismounting and remounting practice in on his/her commute, I think I can see 10 signs which would be perfect for a drill... (How much did all that cost, not just the signs, the paint, plus what looks like rumblestrips or that grippy road covering stuff, plus the time to install it all...)
Some of Reading is actually quite good.
Building a bridge over the river exclusively for pedestrians and cyclists is pretty good
Double post
I'm going to rock the boat and defend the cycle planners here on that scheme in Camden. It is not ideal, they knew that. However, due to finanicial restrictions and most importantly lack of political support and will, they designed the best that they could with the money and support they had. The measures along that route were in some ways seen as an interim measure. Previously there were parked cars all along that kerbside and it took huge persuasion to get them removed to build what is there now. Related to it, there is a signal scheme further up from that point where a left turn was banned to protect cyclists approx. 4 years ago. The uproar that that caused (to you and I a very simple, logical measure), led to demands from residents for months of investigations traffic surveys, nosie surveys, pressure from cab companies (who still exert and insane amount of inlfuence politically),questions to MPs etc was enormous. It's not always as easy as it seems (of course there is some appaling design too). As far as I am aware whilst it is not ideal , no one has been hurt at that point where the cyclists must cross each other, but cycling numbers have gone through the roof on that route and the next stage is to completely close that route to through traffic all the way to Tottenham Court road. Its annoying that they have to work that way but often that is the politicla environment they must work in that really dictates what is built on the ground.
https://goo.gl/maps/bgvo1upDZeF2
I used to go up this one every day (the bit under the truck). At the top of a mile long hill, the road narrows and there is a short section of cycle lane before it disappears to allow people to double park in front of the short parade of shops
Problem is there is no double yellow in the cycle lane so the builders and estate agents use the bollard to protect their cars from the main traffic by parking in the lane. bit like this but sometimes a bit further up. it means that when you are going your slowest you are pushed out into the traffic who are doing at least 30. Spoke to the council who said I should report the parking to he traffic enforcers. They don't care as it isn't double yellow, so I asked the council who say there is no budget to paint it, or put another bollard in the pavement to stop cars. I gave up after sending 10 pics of different cars there to the council over a 3 week period.
Building a bridge over the river exclusively for pedestrians and cyclists is pretty good
There are some really good bits (cycle path along the A33 and river into town) and some really bad bits (the same path where it drops down to about 1 bike width, on a corner, with a wall on one side and nothing to protect you from going into the river on the other. If someone comes quickly the other way or you go to quickly yourself and meet a pedestrian, one of you is going in.
used to go up this one every day (the bit under the truck).
Crazy. Also why deliberately narrow the road and push traffic towards the curb just when you're starting a cycle lane?
Oh my god the "local to me" link earlier this one is horrific.
Reminds me of a lot of the stuff around traffic islands our way, you get spat out back into traffic at about the worst point possible with no real clue as to who has priority.
[url= https://goo.gl/maps/4mqfa5tWD8T2 ]This one is a good example[/url] near me. Cyclists are intended to take the little path to the left of the obstruction which then spits you out into the path of the motorist who's floored it to get past the island before the oncoming traffic and needs to pull in quickly. I don't use the lane, but then I've had drivers who assume i'm going to despite riding in the middle of the road and will try and overtake pretty much right at the pinch point. Whoever designs this crap really needs to start riding bikes.
[url= https://goo.gl/maps/yhyMFY8iAyC2 ]These stupid barriers[/url] are a PITA too. Tight enough for the average cyclist to have to get off to negotiate. And just impossible to get past if I've got the kids in the trailer leaving little option but to pull out into the road and into oncoming traffic if you're heading up the hill.
After putting in some badly thought out bike lanes last year Reading council are about to spend a load of money removing them.
Wish they'd remove most of the cycling "infrastructure" in Newbury. Majority of it is poorly designed, confusing to motorists and cyclists, and often dangerous. Would be better if it just wasn't there. Same goes for most of the "traffic calming" measures.
Cyclists are intended to take the little path to the left of the obstruction which then spits you out into the path of the motorist who's floored it to get past the island before the oncoming traffic and needs to pull in quickly.
Nearly identical bit on a road in Manchester. Have a look at [url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4750451,-2.1838966,3a,75y,98.49h,75.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw1lzv4Nm9SdqElK9ta1ylw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 ]this[/url]
Cyclist is supposed to ride through the little left hand channel. That's fine but when you come out, you're right in the conflict zone of oncoming traffic or traffic that's attempting to overtake.
All it would need is an extended kerb on the exit to protect the cyclist lane and prevent cars encroaching - so nearly a good bit of design but in it's current incarnation, actually more dangerous than nothing at all.
Nearly identical bit on a road in Manchester. Have a look at this
Ugh. If it wasn't so stupidly dangerous it'd be funny 😐
Cyclist is supposed to ride through the little left hand channel.
Actually, the blue "keep right" signs on the bollards make that illegal.
Actually Bez, thinking about it - there is no indication anywhere along that road that it's a "cycle lane".
There's a sign at one end saying "give way to oncoming traffic" and a sign at the other saying "priority over oncoming traffic" with the appropriate signage but none of the little blue "cycle" signs.
Wondering if it's supposed to be "assumed" cycle path, otherwise why would you have the lane there?
I note you tweeted it from your @bollocksinfra account. 🙂
I think it's just like how I assume most stuff is done: someone freestyled the bike bit and didn't consider legislation or convention when doing so, and then it's signed off because no-one actually understands those considerations or wants to spend the time having a conversation about them. British cycling infrastructure seems to be all about reinventing square wheels, no matter how the same problem's been "addressed" in this country or actually solved in others. It seems to be an opportunity to either be creative with no constraints, or just phone it in.
Is the biggest frustration with it that even when provision has been made and money spent it's just wasted on such poor design. Why not just ask someone who actually rides a bloody bike!
That's not a cycle channel. it's just a way to save a few £ on filling in the raised bit, and probably to allow rainwater to flow to a drain or something.
certainly bo11ocks though.
as are all the pedantic bits of the legislation for things like only being able to enter an ASL via the open or dashed bit, etc. certainly seems to be a complete lack of commonsense somewhere.
And if you ever say "look at holland" or "look at denmark", the average "we are the traffic" rider or driver will respond with "yes that's holland/denmark, and we don't have the space". but yet there are pictures on that very bollocksinfra account where they found more than enough space to paint a hatched lines down the middle of the road, but can't find enough space on the same flippin' road to put a cycle lane the width of my handlebars, and can only find enough paint to paint one the width of my pedals.
I guess it comes down to whether Dulux have a surplus of white paint going spare, or red/blue paint going spare when someone somewhere in an office that hasn't ridden a bike since their raleigh grifter has to sign something to keep their budget for next year.
still. Germany has some odd ones too. armadillo type things across the road for traffic calming rather than a full width road hump (not a problem), but then actually have to mark a well maintained cycle lane bypass to pass around the nearside most hump, when any normal cyclist would just zoom straight thru at the speed limit, perfectly safely.
The worst bit in Manchester is the latest tram lines out to Ashton. I don't know if they've made changes, but the cycle path crossed the tram line at about 30 degrees. It's pretty much impossible not to fall off in the wet riding over them.
I design roads, I commute on a bike. I witness lots of crazy ideas about cycle routes/lanes from people who have never rode a bike on the road.
Sometimes the best decision is to not have a cycle facility, rather than trying to tick boxes and build something impractical to use, or outright dangerous.
Sometimes the best decision is to not have a cycle facility, rather than trying to tick boxes and build something impractical to use, or outright dangerous.
^^ This x 1 million.
Unfortunately, Sustrans themselves - the very people who are supposed to be campaigning for more/better cycle infrastructure have for years gone with the "anything is better than nothing" school of thought and with a policy of appeasement or gratitude. Rather than saying "this 0.8m-wide strip of paint is an insult, **** off", they've actually said "ooh, a whole 0.8m out of your precious roadway, how kind of you, thank you".
🙁
sometimes the best decision is to not have a cycle facility, rather than trying to tick boxes and build something impractical to use, or outright dangerous.
Yeah, it's like that 'criss-cross' thing on the previous page. A poster has said that there wasn't the political will or public support so actually the designers did a good job, considering. Can you imagine the Highways Agency building a motorway and then saying "oh, we didn't have the space to get junction 4 right so traffic joining there and going northbound will have to drive on the southbound hard shoulder for five miles. But it's ok, we cut a hole in the central reservation so they can cross over to the correct side before they reach junction 5"?
Would people be saying "well, considering there wasn't much space, they've done a good job really, you just have to keep your wits about you and you'll be fine"?
Like Bez says (sez?), standards and rules seem to go out of the window when it comes to cycling infrastructure, as long as it doesn't give cyclists the benefit/priority anyway.
Sometimes the best decision is to not have a cycle facility, rather than trying to tick boxes and build something impractical to use, or outright dangerous.
+1 contraflow cycle lanes on one way streets (where parking is allowed on both sides of the street) are an accident waiting to happen - Princes Risborough high street for example 👿
A poster has said that there wasn't the political will or public support so actually the designers did a good job, considering
I didn't say that
contraflow cycling on one way (for motorised vehicles) streets is the norm in several EU countries
that in itself is not an accident waiting to happen, but as I've mentioned before on several other threads, it's the change from the established norm to something new and something that pedestrians, cyclists and drivers have not been brought up with that's the accident waiting to happen (eg right turn in most of EU, will have drivers getting a green light but obliged to give way to cyclists on the cycle lane up the inside AND pedestrians crossing in the side turning they wish to turn into). it's the norm in mainland EU, so isn't a problem. green means you have to give way to everyone, not floor it and go.
Sometimes the best decision is to not have a cycle facility, rather than trying to tick boxes and build something impractical to use, or outright dangerous.
Sadly most cycle campaigns wont let councils take that choice, so they are hounded to put something in and usually its crap. Much is made of 'taking space' from cars but when there is only one lane each way and buildings either side where are you going to take space from. Can totally agree with the comment above about not giving space when there was space to be had tho.
contraflow cycling on one way (for motorised vehicles) streets is the norm in several EU countries
Pretty common in London, very useful indeed and entirely practical when there is plenty of room for a car and a bike, but not for two cars. Not really dangerous either when done thoughtfully.
Sometimes the best decision is to not have a cycle facility
I would say frequently. I am against segregation, I don't want to be ghetto-ised. The exception to that is for major cycling arteries, like the one they are building on the Victoria Embankment in London. That is going to knock 10 mins off a trip from Paddington to the City.
A poster has said that there wasn't the political will or public support so actually the designers did a good job, considering
I didn't say that
Sorry, did I misinterpret this:
?due to finanicial restrictions and most importantly lack of political support and will, they designed the best that they could with the money and support they had.
Either way, it wasn't an attack on you or that scheme in particular, I was just making the general point that roads 'for cars' are ALWAYS done right, following strict guidance. Routes for bikes are a half-arsed afterthought, only done if it's easy, and if it's not easy and you've got some leftover paint then it's done badly/madly instead.
Let's not confuse contraflow lanes (which are common abroad, and pragmatic, and permit the implementation of one-way systems for motor vehicles which can be used to reduce throughflow without restricting access) with a point where two lanes switch sides (which is just crap).