A48 Newport (Tredegar Park to M4 junction) closed to cyclists. Why?

[horizon]

I needed to cycle this stretch of road the other evening and found two huge temporary "no cycles" signs. No suggested diversion, no explanation, no timings (e.g. overnight). I ignored the signs and carried on.

I just wondered if anyone had any views/info on this and who is able to simply close a road in this way. And was there in any case an alternative?

[Neilo]

Roadworks?

[horizon]

Roadworks?

They came later but what struck me was the fact that there was no information whatsoever. In any case, the main stretch was clear and I had no problem going through the roadworks after the M4 junction.

[meic]

I dont know why it did strike you. I dont recall ever seeing a redirection, notice or explanation posted at a roadworks for cyclists' benefit in the UK.
It does quite strike me that in other countries (France in particular) they sometimes actually do stick up such notices, diversions and even occasionally maps.

Certain bits of cycletrack in Carmarthen are closed off just to provide a depot/storage area for contractors who are working on nearby projects .

[mjr]

I dont know why it did strike you. I dont recall ever seeing a redirection, notice or explanation posted at a roadworks for cyclists' benefit in the UK.

We do it in most of Norfolk, thanks to the work of my colleagues in KLWNBUG and Norwich Cycling Campaign and recently cooperation from some Norfolk County Council Highways Officers. I've also seen Somerset County Council and Bristol City Council post cycle route diversion signs sometimes.

I don't think closing the A48 to cycling with no diversion when it remains open to motorists is legal. However, http://www.roadworks.org makes me think that it might be Newport City Council doing it, who are also responsible for enforcing the legally-required Code of Practice on Safety at Street Works, so you'll probably need to go through their complaints procedure - it's probably worth doing because it might stop it happening again, but there's pretty much no chance that the current roadworks will get corrected.

Roadworks information:
Newport City Council

Information for Road Users
Location: Cardiff Road, Newport, Newport
Traffic lights, etc: Some carriageway incursion

Information for Operational Teams
Highway Authority: Newport City Council
Location: From Junction 28 to the junction with Waterloo Road
Description: Diversionary route for Junction 28 closures on an ad hoc basis throughout the project
Works ref: HT999JUNCTION28I
Current status: Work in progress
Work info last updated: 00:00 on 29/03/2017
Last updated on roadworks.org: 14:09 on 16/05/2017
Data source: Newport City Council

[thirdcrank]

The power to do this is contained in section 14 of the Road traffic Regulation Act 1984.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14

The main bit about alternative routes is in sub-section 3:-

(3) When considering the making of an order or the issue of a notice under the foregoing provisions an authority shall have regard to the existence of alternative routes suitable for the traffic which will be affected by the order or notice.

I can't see a duty to sign diversions.

"have regard to" probably has a legal interpretation but I suspect the only formal challenge would be by way of judicial review.

[horizon]

I dont know why it did strike you.

It might have been the combination of a dark and empty road, the hugeness of the signs (man-size) and the sheer, uncompromising nature of their message. And of course the message being that as cyclists we have no right to exist let alone to expect a suitable route to our place of abode or business.

[thirdcrank]

We have had a couple of prominent examples of this happening which have been mentioned in several threads. The more recent is the cycling ban during "improvements" to the A 30 which affects End-to-End riders. A couple of years ago there was a cycling ban on the A1 in the Midlands during "improvements" and that caused some comment on here partly because the large signs intended to indicate a cycling ban had the extra diagonal line which, in theory, makes them unlawful, but in practice just illustrates the ignorance of the people involved.

[mjr]

The power to do this is contained in section 14 of the Road traffic Regulation Act 1984.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14 [...]
I can't see a duty to sign diversions.

I'd say that signing a diversion is an integral part of providing a diversion route and the duty to do that is in the Code of Practice for Safety at Street Works, given legal force by Section 65 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and Section 174 of the Highways Act 1980. It says several times that either the carriageway should remain open for cycling or an diversion route provided, including "Cyclists might have to use other parts of the carriageway, a temporary cycle track, or an alternative route. You should consider whether access on the carriageway can be preserved for cyclists, even if it needs to be closed to motor vehicles" (page 35) and "In certain cases the location or nature of the works being undertaken will make it impossible to achieve a safe working area and maintain traffic or pedestrian flows around the works. In these cases a carriageway, footway or footpath closure will be required. This option can only be considered if there is a suitable diversion route for the affected traffic or pedestrians" (page 70).

I'm not saying such bans don't still happen, but they seem to be illegal since 2014.

[thirdcrank]

... seem to be illegal since 2014.

Where does 2014 come in?

[mjr]

... seem to be illegal since 2014.

Where does 2014 come in?

That's the date the latest code of practice came into effect.

[thirdcrank]

Right.

I don't claim any particular knowledge here, but my understanding is that the NRSWA (which replaced the Public Utilities and Streetworks Act - PUSWA) regulates statutory undertakers who are now entitled to dig holes in the road and to reinstate them: ie it was introduced with the privatisation of gas, electricity, water and telecommunications. In return for a certain level of self-regulation, statutory undertakers are subject to codes of practice etc. There is a tendency to sub-contract the roadworks and there's often further subcontracting to "facilities" providers who deal with temporary traffic signs etc. The former sometimes leads to the reistatements being better than the surrounding road and the latter to over-egging of the pudding.

AFAIK, NRSWA doesn't affect highway authorities who are subject only to the Highways Acts and Road Traffic Regulation Act.

[mjr]

I assume that's why the code also has Highways Act 1980 force too, then. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/174 seems to apply it to highways authorities.

[Pete Owens]

Were the signs in text or were they the bike surrounded by a red circle?

[horizon]

Were the signs in text or were they the bike surrounded by a red circle?

The latter (but very big).