It’s been quite the week for infrastructure and utility cycling news, and today Cycling UK has announced that West Sussex County Council has admitted …

By stwhannah

Get the full story on our front page at:

Council to pay £25k costs after illegally removing popular cycle lane

Support us and help us keep the content flowing by becoming a full member.

Not really a win though as it’s out of court to reduce risk to both parties. A win would be the councillor surcharged for wasting public money without using proper process (full cost of the removed scheme and the court costs), plus reinstatement of the original scheme.
As it stands we have an airy fairy ‘commitment’ to put ‘something’ in place in the future.

I agree with the statement around it should not be a cycling charity who takes this to court.
I also feel that there should be accountability for the councilor, who made a decision against the information and contract.

accountability for the councilor

Are those orange Bollards supposed to be a cycle lane? I can see the benefits in term of preventing parking (on a road that doesnt have parking restrictions on), but that does seem quite half arsed anyway.

Dont looke a gift horse in the mouth/making the best of the limited budget, i suppose.

It was a temporary installation using emergency funds released by the government.  “light segregation” its called.  I think it’s a good way of trying something out as while it doesnt offer physical protection to cyclists from an out of control vehicle, it does mean that vehicles being drriven to a reasonable standard have to leave a safety gap to the cyclist, and gives a feeling of safety. Perception of risk often the most important thing in increasing cycling rates.  Or as I was once told “perception is nine thenths of reality”.  If ppeople believe its dangerous, then they wont use it, if they believe its safe, they might.

Edit: Nottingham City Council installed a load of these with the emergency funding.  Many of which are now being made pemenant with the remodelling of the road network in the city centre.  They used them as eveidence for the demand and thus convince decision makers of teh value of permenant infrastructure.    The easiset way of going east-west across the city will be by bike (or hire scooter) before long.

West Sussex it seems have a bit of a problem with cyclists. They did something similar in Chichester with the admittedly poorly thought out temporary cycle lanes. Frustrating when there good Green representation locally, the South Downs and generally a great place to be a cyclist. Would think they might embrace it.

Edit: Nottingham City Council installed a load of these with the emergency funding. Many of which are now being made pemenant with the remodelling of the road network in the city centre. They used them as eveidence for the demand and thus convince decision makers of teh value of permenant infrastructure. The easiset way of going east-west across the city will be by bike (or hire scooter) before long.

Does that mean that they’re going to put the ones on Carlton hill back in? As they were worse than the painted white line cycle lane that was there before:

1. The downhill side has cyclists travelling at 20+ miles an hour easily, so in the flow of traffic anyways.
2. They meant that the road didn’t get swept in those areas, so filled up with debris, forcing nervous cyclists into the main carriageway, or over said debris
3. Cars knocked them over and they weren’t replaced, leaving the slippery plastic bases in the carriageway, right where cyclists would want to ride in terms of minimum distance from the kerb.

It’s a route I use daily when I’m in the office, and both me and my barber (who also cycles the same route) breathed a sigh of relief when they took them out.

Councillor Roger Elkins – Conservative.

Explains a lot.

This infrastructure for cycling and the emergency finds etc. needs more policing. As a cyclist I fully support efforts to make it better and safer to ride from your home but last year I witnessed how this funding can be abused if you have the right contacts in local council.

The ‘Active Travel’ initiative that came along when local councils got money to close roads during covid saw one of our local roads closed. Amazingly this was a road that residents have been trying for a number of years to get it as ‘access only’. After at least 2 failed attempts that were unanimously voted out by other residents further afield who use it, this small stretch of road is picked as a closure to help Active Travel. The temporary closure was to end in Sept 2019 but was then extended to May 2020 so they could ‘review’ the impact. It was then extended to July, then September 2020, and we finally saw it re-open in Oct 2020. All this time the 8 residents on the hill had a lovely private car free area to themselves, and everyone else had to endure the gridlock on the other routes caused by ongoing roadworks. During this time I had a conversation with Sustrans who were the advisors to the local gov and it turns out the info they provided had be sliced and diced to work in the favour of a closure.

We have now had confirmation that the road will stay open for all users but will be reviewed again in the future. This road would now be closed and the residents house prices increased if a motivated group of locals had not stood up and fought for common sense and decency.

Why can the people we elect not just do things the right way in the first place, it isn’t hard to be honest, and carry your job out with integrity…………………………is it?

Why can the people we elect not just do things the right way in the first place, it isn’t hard to be honest, and carry your job out with integrity…………………………is it?

No, it’s really easy in fact.
As long as you aren’t trying to get your cut, out of EVERYTHING.

Why can the people we elect not just do things the right way in the first place, it isn’t hard to be honest, and carry your job out with integrity…………………………is it?

The thing is, for everyone of us being balanced and with best intention I bet he gets three frothing letters from constituents about ‘that bloody cycle lane’, plus there is the issue of being elected is no representation of your skill, integrity or personal attitudes…I mean, thousands elected Boris.

They are a funny thing these light segregation lanes. There’s a lot here that don’t seem to have been built with any thought – they’re too narrow, make it hard to pass slower cyclists as you can’t just nip out like you would normally, don’t get swept so are full of debris and none of the potholes that were there before have been filled but can’t be avoided easily because you’re hemmed in. There’s a lot round here that also don’t have space to exit where other parts of the cycle network join the main road.

So while I’m glad that the council has been held to account over its provision, I don’t think light segregation is the answer.

Correct

I Agree that light segregation is not the answer, but I think it could be used usefully in temporary installations to confirm demand, need, layouts, identify issues (like munrobiker hoghlights) to be developed into full schemes.

I don;t understand why councils insists on doing both sides of the road on hills – re-allocate teh road space to a nice wide uphill cycle lane, and leave the downhill side as a multi-use lane on arterial urban & rural routes, provide parrallel quiet ways for those not happy/with kids to cycle on the road.

I live on NCN route 6, and it’s horrendous, wifgglin through back streets and a muddy nature reserve.  To cross the canal you go over a bridge, which has cyclists dismount signs on it!  And the perfectly good main road (wide enough for fully segregated facilities) has a massive central hatched section, and lanes <1m wide….  Bonkers.

Sustrans have  alot to answer for with regards to the proor quality and attitude towards cycling infrastrucuter in this counry, hopefully ATE sideline them in terms of active travel and utility cycling, leaving them to restore old railway lines (in itself a valuable thing).

I don’t think light segregation is the answer.

I chatted to a friend who is weekly rider from local bike club at lunch.

He said that the local bike club runs refuse to use any cycle provision – and wouldn’t use heavily or lightly segregated. The reason being that they wanted to move as a peloton and only on tarmac – that this a ‘right’ and one of the reasons they ride as a larger group and that the entrances are narrow, so requiring a reduction of speed for the cyclists.

I get it, and think they have a point, but wonder if they are being rather stubborn over it. Infringing Rule No.1? I don’t know what I think.

If riding in a group then dedicated facilties may not be appropriate for their usage.  Given that at some point they will be presented with a pram/wayward pedestrian and likley travelling at >20mph, then the road is the right place to be.  Infrastrucutre is for utility cycling and taking the kids out at weekends.  Active Travel, not training for your Cat 4 race at the weekend.

Personally I woulfd rather we were startiing from a point further back, woth no existing infrastructure at all as so much of it is so poor, and mis-represents (to drivers) what cyclists want/need.

And sorry for all the typos in my last post/rant, it was a total mess but I hope it made the point.

Ta

Keith

EDIT: you could also consider the non-use of facilities by groups of road cyclists to be in line with the heirarchy of provision in the new Highway Code, by reducing the likihood of them coming into conflict with those using the facilities to get to shcool/shops/work safely in “normal” clothes.  By using cycle facilities at their typical speed they could be endangering those with probaby more need of the satefy of deicated infrastrucutre.

^ a fair point, and one I agree with.

Sustrans have alot to answer for with regards to the proor quality and attitude towards cycling infrastrucuter in this counry,

I believe sustrans have changed their attitude.  The used to follow the idea any provision was better than none and would use what influence they had to try to improve rubbish designs.  they now refuse to endorse rubbish designs I believe

Mr Justice Lane

I mean, that’s just delicious, is it not? 🙂

They are a funny thing these light segregation lanes. There’s a lot here that don’t seem to have been built with any thought – they’re too narrow, make it hard to pass slower cyclists as you can’t just nip out like you would normally, don’t get swept so are full of debris and none of the potholes that were there before have been filled but can’t be avoided easily because you’re hemmed in. There’s a lot round here that also don’t have space to exit where other parts of the cycle network join the main road.

It’s quite impressive that with just a few plastic wands they’ve managed to tick all of the quality control boxes that are required for permanent facilities.

My local council and about 1/2 km from me.
It wasn’t well thought out in the first place
But the councillor who approved it’s removal never went to look at it. Which is impressive for someone who’s job it is to look after local interests.

I believe sustrans have changed their attitude. The used to follow the idea any provision was better than none and would use what influence they had to try to improve rubbish designs. they now refuse to endorse rubbish designs I believe

If this is the case, then they need to acknowledge their error and start removing their blue stickers and signs from the routes they previously championed. I know the relatively recently released an article claiming that a significant portion of the NCN wasn’t fit for purpose, but that is mostly due th their own short-sightedness 20ish years ago.

I hope ATE is a success and supplants Sustrans as the default frame of reference for cycle facilities, as they currently appear to be for any organisation/developer installaing cycle facilities. Let them concentrate on opening up the traffic free, rural and inter-urban routes like old railway lines etc.

I believe sustrans have changed their attitude. The used to follow the idea any provision was better than none and would use what influence they had to try to improve rubbish designs. they now refuse to endorse rubbish designs I believe

Yep – they originally used to champion anything at all. After spending years hassling a council to put in a cycle lane, the council would eventually get bored and pop a bit of paint somewhere and Sustrans would hail this as evidence of their extraordinary success. The result of that was a hodge podge of total bollocks that was in no way joined up or good condition.

They did finally recognise this and accepted that almost 1/3rd of the “network” they’d spent the last 20 years building was not fit for purpose. But that’s what you get when you have a charity doing your road infrastructure.

I agree that light segregation is not the answer, but I think it could be used usefully in temporary installations to confirm demand, need, layouts, identify issues (like munrobiker highlights) to be developed into full schemes.

Which is what was supposed to happen. However councillors usually aren’t experts in traffic management and they’re very prone to listen to the tiny but very loud minority who are instantly up in arms about anything cycling and then they do knee-jerk stupid reactions like rip it all out again. Unfortunately, the £25k costs is going to come out of already tight council funds, as they squandered the installation money they’re not going to get any new funds so no more cycle lane.

Most councillors are extremely risk-averse. They like to be seen to be campaigning for things that are known to be popular but when it comes to actually doing anything, they’re terrified of any fallout. It’s why things at council level move at glacially slow pace as councillors kick things down the road, wait for their own retirement when a successor can pick up the poisoned chalice and generally do everything for a quiet life. Not all of them but a significant %.