[Closed] New bike lane signage - you really couldn't make this up!

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.

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.

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).

probably better doing it like my street...
one way street.
the law permits cyclists to go either way.

only the first few metres have "cycling infrastructure", ie the no entry sign says "except for bikes", and there is paint up to the first meter parking bay.

it is a 30km/h (20mph) zone too.

marked lanes to swap from one side to another seem daft, unless it's a proper segregated light controlled crossing.

I went through that crossover thing the other day. Yes, it's a bit bonkers, but it's not a habitual thing and iirc there's a reason behind it.

It's on Tavistock Place. It's to set cyclists up for [url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.526112,-0.1237671,3a,75y,235.64h,75.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVmainpfczEI8qfiQdB9TYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]this junction[/url] but I can't quite work out why. You can see the superhighway segregated bit in the streetview link. I have a feeling it's because they want cyclists on the CSH approaching that junction to be delivered into the ASL which is in the car lane, so they have to get right - but before that, they want the CSH to follow the 'drive on the left' policy that drivers have.

it was the issue of contraflow where you have parking down the right hand side of a one way street and a cycle lane in the opposite direction alongside that was the problem I was referring to, a contraflow without the parking on the right is fine. If a driver is pulling out from a row of parked vehicles or in particular from behind a van, they can't see nor do they expect to see a cyclist coming the other way, made worse as the cyclist can't give the parked cars a very wide berth into the face of oncoming traffic

If a driver is pulling out from a row of parked vehicles or in particular from behind a van, they can't see nor do they expect to see a cyclist coming the other way, made worse as the cyclist can't give the parked cars a very wide berth into the face of oncoming traffic

Crossovers are great, this (utterly pointless and universally ignored) one is near me.

[img] [/img]
From WarringtonCC

Neil the wheel - yes precisely, but the situation I have described is what we have in Princes Risborough & is through a high street with shops so the solution you propose is not really practical, was just giving an example of where no cycle infrastructure would have been better than what has been installed

This one's a recent favourite...

[img] [/img]

Looks fairly innocuous, but just because you paint a picture of a bike on a footpath, doesn't make it an usable cycle lane. Near a busy school and the narrow path is often full of kids walking to and from it. Also the blue "Cyclists Dismount" sign was used the other day as justification for a punishment pass by a minibus driver. Apparently I shouldn't have been cycling on the road just past it as I should have dismounted!

I didn't say they did a good job.
Anyhow I can't quite remember but it was something like the cyclists needed a way to get into a two way track from the signalised junction, and also that those coming the other way needed to come out to obey the signal (signal heads for cyclists were not permitted by law then) hard to explain in writing and this was a while ago

that tavistock place one (going from streetview - no idea if there are more changes since) really is odd. whole idea of the contraflow is for the rest of the junction to have segregated bike bit too, and a cycle specific light phase. but drivers would blow a gasket if they had to wait for such a phase.

[quote=mrblobby ]Apparently I shouldn't have been cycling on the road just past it as I should have dismounted!

Have you had any feedback from reporting them?

roads 'for cars' are ALWAYS done right

If only that was true - there are no end of places where an extra lane is added just before traffic lights, only to be taken away again, just after the junction. All this does is encourage people to race each other.

There are so many places where drivers are given a choice and with frightening regularity, make the wrong choice (usually deliberately) where it would have been much cheaper and safer to remove the choice and keep the traffic under control.

Which is somewhat different, and nowhere near as bad as the mess which is made of stuff which is laughably called "cycling infrastructure". The reason being that roads have to comply with https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets or https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets-2 (choice depending on how big they are) or any over-riding local guidance based on those if it exists. Any guidance for cycling routes - such as there is - has no similar legal basis in the planning framework.

crazy-legs, I did my Bikeability course on the streets near Parkhouse St and we were told specifically not to use the cycle bit as it's dangerous.

The theory was you are rejoining at exactly the same point as the vehicles are steering back over creating a pinch point.

We went through it in primary a few times and didn't get any hassle off motorists.

If only that was true - there are no end of places where an extra lane is added just before traffic lights, only to be taken away again, just after the junction. All this does is encourage people to race each other.

As above, without that you would have much longer queues. Yes, merging back in is annoying.

Highways are not always done correctly, I check a lot of submissions for the local authority and some 'designers' just make sh#t up as they go. I regularly see some corkers.

There is very limited design guidance on cycle infrastructure, most coming from sustrans and not from dft.

As above, without that you would have much longer queues. Yes, merging back in is annoying.

I know the theory, but it very seldom works, due to the unwillingness of people to merge sensibly. This is often counter productive, slowing down the traffic where it cancels out any percieved benefit form 'double the amount of cars per cycle'
It's mostly due to people being stupid - people negotiate a junction in a stupid way, planners come up with a stupid 'solution', so people behave even more stupidly to subvert the solution.

It does drive me insane. Most of these ideas are lead by transport planners, whereby 'computer says yes' approach, rather than a proper highway designer. A lot of the time the analysis only focusses on the entry, and ignores the format of the exit. They massage the analysis to work, and then give the enviable task of creating a safe and sensible layout back to the highway eng. Hence multiple lane entries leading to pinch points post the junction (because in their analysis it works perfectly as they don't model the exit...). Obviously, some models are more complex and do look at wider network performance.

Flavour of the month appears to be dual lane exit off a roundabout into a single carriageway. I really do not like these as they are rarely designed to operate correctly.

Flavour of the month appears to be dual lane exit off a roundabout into a single carriageway. I really do not like these as they are rarely designed to operate correctly.

Drivers are rarely designed to operate correctly, especially when it comes to merging traffic.

I feel less victimised having seen how badly recent improvements to the Worcester bypass have been designed; they've changed two roundabouts in the last few years, and both had to be altered within days of completion because of the number of crashes or near misses. It's not just cycling facilities...

Re the above, nightmare situation. Those schemes were not sold well, people do not understand building in phases. They see whats been built as having zero improvement, but fail to see a bigger picture.

Nothing there was built that wasn't to a standard- it just didn't work in the context it was applied. Big enquiry because of public pressure and 2 very good engineers careers tainted (who I must add have now been cleared).

It's well documented in standards that road marking is iterative and should be reviewed once traffic is using it, in and around the opening audit. However, public deem changes as failure, incompetence or waste; they fail to understand the correct process.

The public witch hunt by some of the people wanting to make a name for themselves in Worcester in and around election time was embarrassing. Quoting a small amount of knowledge, mis-applied and adding fuel to the fire.

I'm not involved, but I know some of thlthe ins/outs of this. It seriously made me consider who I want to work for and what my liabilities are. Public wanted blood!

I ended up riding along the pavement today in Bromley because the cycle path appeared to just disappear - I just couldn't see where I was supposed to go and couldn't get back onto the road either... really random routing

I'm not involved, but I know some of thlthe ins/outs of this. It seriously made me consider who I want to work for and what my liabilities are. Public wanted blood!

I'd love to know what happened to whoever designed the improvement of M40 J10 ([url= http://www.cbrd.co.uk/badjunctions/40-43/ ]here[/url]). Not dangerous, just dumb. Now been put back to how it was before. Wonder how much cash was spent on that folly?

[quote=phiiiiil ]I feel less victimised having seen how badly recent improvements to the Worcester bypass have been designed; they've changed two roundabouts in the last few years, and both had to be altered within days of completion because of the number of crashes or near misses. It's not just cycling facilities...

Good point - I was just thinking of mentioning that regarding roads done badly (it even had the two into one pinch point just past the roundabout which was likely to result in an accident until it was redesigned). Though in that case people got suspended - when did that happen after they made a pigs ear of a "cycling facility"?

[quote=alexh ]Re the above, nightmare situation. Those schemes were not sold well, people do not understand building in phases. They see whats been built as having zero improvement, but fail to see a bigger picture.
Nothing there was built that wasn't to a standard- it just didn't work in the context it was applied. Big enquiry because of public pressure and 2 very good engineers careers tainted (who I must add have now been cleared).
It's well documented in standards that road marking is iterative and should be reviewed once traffic is using it, in and around the opening audit. However, public deem changes as failure, incompetence or waste; they fail to understand the correct process.
The public witch hunt by some of the people wanting to make a name for themselves in Worcester in and around election time was embarrassing. Quoting a small amount of knowledge, mis-applied and adding fuel to the fire.
I'm not involved, but I know some of thlthe ins/outs of this. It seriously made me consider who I want to work for and what my liabilities are. Public wanted blood!

Really? 😯

No it's not been sold well, because we've been told that the changes they've made so far will improve things. Not only is there no money allocated for the bit which which is required in order to see improvement - I'm not even sure there is any political will to push for it. So forgive me for not seeing the bigger picture when the bigger picture includes stuff which may never happen.

So you consider it acceptable to build something which is quite predictably wrong and dangerous because you'll fix it later? The thing is you didn't need to be a professional highway engineer to see that there was going to be a problem, nor that the work wasn't going to result in the touted improvements. I'm an engineer, and before I implement things in the real world I model and test them - something which doesn't appear to have been done properly here. If the engineers have now been cleared, who did get it wrong, or are you telling me that everybody followed procedure in documenting what they did so therefore nobody did anything wrong (I note that I've met a few Worcestershire transport engineers, including one of those I understand was suspended - not necessarily those people directly at fault from what I know of the person I know, but somebody clearly was)? I also understand that they didn't carry out a safety audit they were supposed to.

Oh and FWIW I've checked back in the FB feed of my local councillor who raised the safety issue, and it was after the election, so I suggest you retract the allegation that it was raised for pre-election political purposes (not that he needed to enhance his election chances, he is one of the safest local councillors around - and yes I would call him a friend, but only met him through his work as a councillor).

I'm an engineer, and before I implement things in the real world I model and test them - something which doesn't appear to have been done properly here. If the engineers have now been cleared, who did get it wrong, or are you telling me that everybody followed procedure in documenting what they did so therefore nobody did anything wrong

The general gist of that is how I feel when I look at some of the unbelievably daft / dangerous / pointless bit of "cycle infrastructure" in this country.

I mean, does no-one, from conception, through design to implementation actually look at this and ask the question "why?"
What would it take for the contractors and builders actually installing this rubbish to step back and say "we're not putting this in cos it's shit". Or are they not paid to question their orders?

Genuine question - I'm not a road designer so I'd be interested to know the actual process and the chain of responsibility throughout this.

I mean, does no-one, from conception, through design to implementation actually look at this and ask the question "why?"
What would it take for the contractors and builders actually installing this rubbish to step back and say "we're not putting this in cos it's shit". Or are they not paid to question their orders?

I don't work in anything related to cycling infrastructure but have you ever tried this at work? In the culture I work in you have to be damn careful about doing this. I was 'managed out' once from a major insurance company who's advertising suggests they're nice people. I don't know quite what I did, but I clearly upset someone senior for suggesting (positively) that we may want to consider doing things differently. The stress and hole that now exists in my CV remind me to be very careful about doing that again...

I'll apologise now for lack of quotes, I'm on site and doing this on a mobile is tricky. I'll try to respond chronologically.

Ok, before I reply let's agree the design was not fit for purpose in this case (hell I'm not defending that layout), but the engineers involved were not at fault. If procedure is followed there should be a low probability of anything being unsafe.

You get the bigger picture, you know of the bottleneck but the phased approach is not understood by all. Re that bottleneck I believed worcs mp recently proposed that to the minister of transport, although of late the political push does appear to have lost its momentum.

're test model. Highway design isn't the same as a structure built to eurocodes. Human behaviour is involved and sometimes it doesn't go as assumed and the standards that govern highway design appreciate this. Lots of highway design gets 're worked at stage 3 safety audit, and stage 4 too. Humans vary in behaviour.

Most design briefs are lead from a business case, which would have key improvements derived from a transport model. I assume in This case a 2 lane straight over to the bridge with a merge.

No, I would not be happy to promote something that is obviously wrong. Here I believe the brief and business case attempted to deliver something unrealistic that was not strongly challenged.

3 suspended, 2 engineers cleared. Someone was at fault.

Stating the scheme wasn't audited is not correct.

I can't say any more (just to reiterate I'm an outsider to this). I agree it's poor and it should not have happened.

Hopefully it will serve to provide better quality infrastructure to Worcester in future. There is plenty going on, cathedral square, Norton roundabout, Worcester 6 and hopefully the parkway station too.

Going way, way OT here, sorry to any non-locals!

So somebody who wasn't an engineer screwed up? Still the engineers involved should have challenged decisions - I don't believe it wasn't possible to foresee drivers' behaviour when encountering such a road layout - it was freaking obvious what was going to happen. We're not talking external contractors here, we're talking about people who should have been able to make their voices heard.

[quote=alexh ]You get the bigger picture, you know of the bottleneck but the phased approach is not understood by all.

Hardly surprising when there is no timescale for the next phase. I understand that it will only provide benefit when the rest is done, but it's somewhat disingenuous to claim any benefit for the works when there is no certainty that the next phase will ever happen (personally I'd still rather the money was saved and put towards completing the ring road, but then that should include all the money which was "wasted" on the current works).

Here I believe the brief and business case attempted to deliver something unrealistic that was not strongly challenged.

It was challenged by almost everybody - I'm certainly not writing with the benefit of hindsight here, I would have been extremely surprised if the works had achieved anything given that it has made zero difference to the points which are bottlenecks in either direction. Clearly it was just those who had any power who ignored the consensus.

Stating the scheme wasn't audited is not correct.

All of the audits? Apologies if I've been misinformed, but I've certainly seen reports that there was no stage 3 safety audit.

Some good stuff on here:

[url= http://lcc.org.uk/articles/what-would-british-roads-look-like-if-we-treated-them-the-same-way-we-do-our-cycle-lanes ]http://lcc.org.uk/articles/what-would-british-roads-look-like-if-we-treated-them-the-same-way-we-do-our-cycle-lanes[/url]

I mean, does no-one, from conception, through design to implementation actually look at this and ask the question "why?"
What would it take for the contractors and builders actually installing this rubbish to step back and say "we're not putting this in cos it's shit". Or are they not paid to question their orders?

I work in a different field but as an engineer for contractors in the construction industry and I quite often hi-light the problems / ignore consultants designs / refuse to install stuff but yee gods is it difficult to get your message across from the bottom step of the stairs & can quite understand why other contractors don't bother especially when they would kop the flack if something consequently went wrong

Didn't know about the mess on Tavistock Place

I ride near there on the way to work, might detour there for a laugh!

Yep way OT, if you had an email address I'd have responded directly.

Well, it can't have achieved anything as the model deemed 2 lanes straight over and onto the bridge was the requirement, and they do not have it. If that's it's business case, it's failed and will do until the bridge is replaced.

This is a particularly bad example, and really doesn't help my argument that sometimes things need to be changed that are not foreseen. This issue should have been spotted, it appears to have fallen through the cracks and no one questioned it, maybe thinking Someone else will pick it up. There is of course the definition of the Designer. If the client instructs a certain feature they have a design responsibility too.

No apology needed, I've not seen the reports and it would be unwise for me to comment further on what the official line is...

The stage 3 is completed close to opening (which it was) and the issue was noted. This wasn't done on day 1, and probably didn't help public perception by leaving the feature open. I believe it was closed asap after the audit noted it as as issue.

This has lead some issues re safety audits that new schmes have to work to. New roads can't be opened until the stage 3 is completed and signed off.

However, you Cant do a stage 3 audit on a closed road, furthermore you probably can't build a scheme unless you use your newly constructed areas. Knee jerk reactions creating unusable chicken and egg policies that people are bound to fall foul of drive me a little crazy.

I think a lot of the funds for this cane from S106 developer contributions from surrounding developments and so could not be redirected to another scheme such as finishing the ring road. Hopefully it will all come good in the end with a new bridge.

Like I said I hope for better to come. Cathedral square has not attracted too much criticism from the public, surprisingly given the phasing of this isn't well sold and the nature that a lot of the off carriageway works are currently temporary..some positive remarks lurking in there too.

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

Just seen this on Twitter. 🙂

[img] :large[/img]

Those blue rectangular signs are actually only advisory....I wish motorists and pedestrians would realise that.

Just seen this on Twitter.

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.