The System Stinks / legal def of contraflow

[Pete Owens]

Remove the lane and this ceases to be an issue - Problem Solved.

I cannot see any possible merit in that lane, and I cannot understand what possible safety benefit you think it gives you.

Again, the problem is not solved, the council just negate their responsibility.

Clearly you're an advocate of unsegregated contra flow access for cycles ,

Yes.
Indeed, I am generally opposed to segregation either with flow or contra-flow.

perhaps this could be applied on all our roads.

Certainly most one way streets.
(and before you start to misrepresent me I do not mean riding on the wrong side of the road, round roundabouts or dual carriageways, but on conventional urban streets where restrictions are put in place because they cannot accomodate two-way motor vehicle traffic)

Many car drivers are incapable of giving adequate clearance for cyclists when driving in the same direction,

On the contrary drivers tend to give cyclists more space when there is no cycle lane then there is a cycle lane.
The effect of cycle lanes is to give drivers the impression that all the space to their side of the line is their's so they drive faster, with less clearance, and less care. see:

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... -lanes.pdf

If you want adequate clearance then the last thing you want is a cycle lane.

somehow I it will be any different with cyclists heading straight for them.

The main difference is that the cyclist and the driver can both see each other, so negotiate the best place to get past.
If there is a cycle lane they will assume that this represents enough clearance and will pass regardless

I don't believe the cycle lane in question gives any benefit,

And it does a lot of harm, so removing it is a very good idea.

remove it and vehicles will park there even more often

Which is not a problem if there is no cycle lane to obstruct.

It is no different to riding along most residential roads in the country, with cars parked along both sides.

and on the blind bend where there is only room for one other vehicle to pass.

That lane is not fit for any cycle contra flow access because of the narrow blind bend, they should never have changed the road direction in the first place, again I believe the council only did this in an attempt to stop vehicles coming off the main road and parking behind the shops blocking access.

If the bend is blind and too tight to pass then this will be true whichever direction motor vehicles and cyclists are travelling.

[EdinburghFixed]

I agree with Pete entirely. The problem of this 30mph blind bend will exist whatever the solution, except the banning of cyclists altogether which does us all a disservice. I'd rather make my own judgement than be banned "for my own safety" without an accurate appraisal of the real risk.

I still think this road is a great candidate for some full-width speed bumps to go along with the removal of the lane. One just before the corner would slash vehicle speeds and solve this problem at a stroke (and cost the council about £5 of tarmac and a lick of paint).

[Karen Sutton]

. If you feel unsafe doing it, go a different way, which is what you would have to do if they adopted your suggestion.
)

My personal safety is not my priority, accountability is.

The only reason why Stockport council suggest removing the cycle lane is because they are unwilling to enforce the regulations against the shop traders, which is a disgrace.

I have just received an email from Don. He has spoken with the Parking Enforcement team and they are going to step up their patrols in that area. The issue is also going to be raised at the Cycle User Group meeting at the Town Hall tonight. This meeting is open to cyclists so it may be worth your while attending, UrbanManc.

[EdinburghFixed]

Hmm, seems like the system is smelling a little better today

Good luck with this one, both of you!

[UrbanManc]

. If you feel unsafe doing it, go a different way, which is what you would have to do if they adopted your suggestion.
)

My personal safety is not my priority, accountability is.

The only reason why Stockport council suggest removing the cycle lane is because they are unwilling to enforce the regulations against the shop traders, which is a disgrace.

I have just received an email from Don. He has spoken with the Parking Enforcement team and they are going to step up their patrols in that area. The issue is also going to be raised at the Cycle User Group meeting at the Town Hall tonight. This meeting is open to cyclists so it may be worth your while attending, UrbanManc.

Karen thanks for your efforts in this issue, unfortunately I am unable to attend.

The first time I brought this to the attention of Stockport council they said they would increase patrols, as far as I could see they made the effort one day, booked one private vehicle and ignored the traders.

I've just sent a formal letter to GMP's Chief Constable so when I return to work next week I will asses the situation.

[Karen Sutton]

. If you feel unsafe doing it, go a different way, which is what you would have to do if they adopted your suggestion.
)

My personal safety is not my priority, accountability is.

The only reason why Stockport council suggest removing the cycle lane is because they are unwilling to enforce the regulations against the shop traders, which is a disgrace.

They have not said they are going to remove the cycle lane, only that it is an option. This will be discussed at the CUG meeting tonight. I know Don as I used to attend the meetings on a regular basis when I was a CTC Councillor. Unfortunately I am no longer able to do that as I am now widowed and have a child to look after in the evenings. I do however receive agendas and minutes of the meetings, so I keep in touch with the activities of the CUG.

We are very fortunate in Stockport to have a Cycling Officer who is a regular cyclist, and I know that others in the transportation department are cyclists. When they are considering changes to cycle facilities or introducing new facilities they will have 'field trips' as part of the CUG meetings, where cyclists and council staff go out together to view the area concerned and discuss best options. I do know from my attendance at GMCC meetings that some other Greater Manchester boroughs do not have active cyclists as Cycling Officers and that some councils do not take the CUG seriously/do not have a CUG at all.

As Don and the other transportation department staff are aware of, and are reading, this discussion I feel that here may be a better outcome if forum users remain polite and patient whilst the options are being considered.

[UrbanManc]

I'm always polite and say things as I see them, I might react to provocation but only when I feel it's justified.

The thoughts of individuals that post on forums should not effect authorities from doing what’s right, I work in a safety critical environment, if I was criticised I would not deliberately operate unsafely as a reaction to that criticism.

[UrbanManc]

Update as promised:

The past 2 weeks has seen the bike lane cleared of the usual suspects, the two street lights have also been fixed.

The local councillor (who needs to be highly praised for his work) instigated a safety check by council officials, this is their report .

Having considered the way in which the link between Castle St and Shaw Heath currently operates, we propose to trial a solution based around:



* The recent intervention of Parking enforcement patrols has been effective; this level of input can be maintained



* Incorporating the street into the existing Edgeley 20mph regime



* An additional entry / exit treatment at the junction with Shaw Heath in the form of highlighted carriageway markings to clearly delineate the cycle lane at the point of entry



At this stage, it is not considered appropriate to undertake more major physical re-configurations. In particular, again changing the direction of operation of the street for all modes is, we feel, to be avoided.


Last Friday I was using the cycle lane, a vehicle approached me (using the normal direction for vehicular traffic) and then proceeded to veer onto the centre of the cycle lane causing me to brake suddenly, having stopped inches from my front the woman driver picked up her mobile phone and made a call, I politely requested that the driver obeyed the traffic regulations, actually I didn't, I gave it her with both barrels, she then drove around me and parked up again in the cycle lane directly behind me.

That has been the only incident, except when passing the lane I've seen two private vehicles parked in lane .

The situation has vastly improved, though I still maintain the short stretch of road is unsuitable for a contra-flow cycle lane.

BTW , no response from the chief constable , but he may have instigated action.

[EdinburghFixed]

Sounds like some real progress has been made - especially regarding the 20mph and beefing up the deliniation.

A great result if it's followed through. The utility for riders has been maintained but the hazard reduced.

[UrbanManc]

Here's one for the legal minded.

Can shop keepers unload/load on a contra-flow cycle lane that has double yellow lines and a solid white line to protect it ?

I'm 99% certain they can't because if they did they would be forcing cyclists to break the law by having to cycle the wrong way down a one way street .

The legal definition please, I don't want to stand in front of an area committee and get it wrong.

Thanks

Andy

[Swizz69]

Would think something in the highway code might cover it if there are double yellow & solid white lines involved. Got a picture?

[UrbanManc]

Here ya go .

[Swizz69]

140

Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.

There you go.

The double yellows aren't even required according to that.

Not a fan of cycle-lanes tbh and yours is a good example of why! Why not allow cyclists to proceed down these one-ways on their own lookout, and warn oncoming traffic with a sign & a note in the highway code stating why?

As morally wrong as your community bobby is, there is a grain of realism in acknowledging that 'we all have to get along' - shops have to take deliverys & building sites need skips. Drivers won't like you nipping through a shortcut they cannot use anyway, white line or no white line

Good luck with your area meeting - hoping to get to mine in Tameside next week for a grumble

[rbrian]

I have a strange sense of déja vu...

[UrbanManc]

Thanks for that.

The reason why I'm asking for the legal definition is because the local councillor I'm liaising with has just e-mailed me and reported that he has been told that the shopkeepers can load/unload in the cycle lane.

I've just e-mailed him back and told him I thought that was total b/s and I have enquired who gave him this information.

I will contact him again with the rule you have quoted .

Cheers.