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

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.

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?

[quote=alexh ]Yep way OT, if you had an email address I'd have responded directly.

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.

[quote=crazy-legs ]Just seen this on Twitter.

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.

[quote=alexh ]Aracer maybe we have crossed wires again.

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.