In my case a “professional” driver thought it meant I had no right to be riding on the road and was therefore justified in dishing out a punishment pass.

That was sort of where I was coming from with it – did you ever get any response from that?

pot, kettle 😉

though I think we’re more or less done discussing that abomination though – coming back on topic, I’d like to re-iterate that the difference is that a similar safety issue with a “cycling facility” would be ignored – at least that part of the system does work properly for roads even for stuff which has (so predictably) gone wrong like that.

Bringing it back ot, that scheme has no cycle features. There was nothing practical that could have been done within the project scope.

I don’t believe that for a minute. There was plenty they could have done to improve access onto existing bike routes around there (and the parallel bike route could benefit a lot from improvement and straightening), but they chose not to. Haven’t ridden along there since the work – it’s not a route I tend to use much – but I get the impression access through there has been made worse and less direct. Not to mention the road now being closer to the play park than it was before (I already gave up on going there because of the noise), but apparently no budget to screen that from road noise and fumes 🙄

Of course what we need is S106 money ring fenced for cycling facilities (and just hope they manage to build something proper with it). But check out the comments of WEN any time a suggestion is made to spend money on cycling stuff – a few of us regularly point out that doing such stuff properly benefits drivers as well, but most seem unable to comprehend.

My understanding is that transport engineers speak a special language and that sign translates to “I’m incapable of doing my job properly”. I think it might have been said upthread, but I’ll obey those when car drivers get out and puch their cars.

(for Worcester locals, I’ve ridden across the dock bridge NE of Diglis locks 😉 )

That was sort of where I was coming from with it – did you ever get any response from that?

Getting there. Been in touch with the company but no response yet. About to contact the council to raise it with their pupil transport officer who I’m assuming manages their contract.

Dont want to divert the thread again but can i ask, as it seems some people with the right knowledge are here, what are the rules regarding placement of road-works signage?

There is a lot of works going on around where i work and all the signs are placed on the pavement or cyclepath alongside the road. The backs of the signs have no reflective material so are difficult to spot at a distance at night, in addition they are falling flat on their face (with the legs still sticking up/out!) about an hour after they have been put back up due to the current winds.

I think its quite dangerous and should at least have cones or something around them. I wonder if anyone can tell me if they are even allowed to put them on the path rather than in the road? In one place a large sign was put up completely blocking the entire shared path/cyclepath (between a metal barrier and into the bush on the other side).

yeah roadwork signs on cycle/footpath they’re a significant hazzard and those temporary plastic or metal covers that go over wiring for temporary traffic lights .. down to the contractor ? 🙄

Chapter 8 traffic signs manual covers signs for roadworks. They are temporary and so less stringent. they should not block the path. Common sense should prevail.

They are the contractor’s to manage and he should be a part of a considerate contractor scheme, the signs are usually Sun contracted out to someone to supply and check them every x hours. Just make a polite enquiry to the council or contractor, they will be moved.

Aracer maybe we have crossed wires again. Cathedral square was an architect lead scheme of about 20x20m. I don’t know of any cycle facilities running through it and by the college side approach its all so congested that there isn’t an easy way to get a cycle link.

Out towards the bridge you no longer give way to the roundabout, but the carriageway is largely unchanged in width (really tight for cycles and 2 vehicles)

In the other direction it’s no longer 2 lanes, its now a wide single with bus bay off carriageway- much safer through that section when I ride in.

Diglis bridges…I had an amusing meeting with British waterways/canals trust over one of the bridges. The scheme wanted to promote cycling through one of their bridges, but they would not allow cycling on their bridge unless it was fully upgraded. They cited it as unsafe.

The 15 cyclists that rode it perfectly well whilst we were there proved that people can behave, give way and be sensible. I’m not sure where that scheme ended up.

Definitely a failure of comprehension from me this time. I’ve not been through the new Cathedral square, but it looks good from the pics I’ve seen – I certainly wasn’t expecting cycling facilities there. I can’t recall ever cycling through there – I’m sure I must have done because WCC used to be my favourite LBS, but apart from that it’s not on a particularly logical route to anywhere from where I live. If you’re heading in that general direction on a bike, and want cycling facilities, then the riverside path (with the afore mentioned dock bridge) is a more obvious route.

Out of interest, what do you do, and can you say who you work for? Not that I’ve any need for a highways engineer/consultant, but have used one in the past! (if you want to go offline, aracer AT mail DOT com) Clearly you’ve far better knowledge of this than most of us – I’m just an amateur, though I doubt there are many other non-professionals who’ve spent more time reading MFS or WCC HDG than I have.