Bath Two Tunnels route -access partially blocked

[recumbentpanda]

The main entrance and exit to the Bath ‘Two Tunnels’ route is at the top of Inverness Road, Bath. Recently it has been reduced in width by nearly half by means of some two by fours screwed across between the existing roadside fencing and one of the ( now no longer) removable bollards.

The entrance was never particularly generous to begin with, and a sad travesty of the original design recommendations for the path. Now, a considerable amount of commuter and leisure traffic, pedestrians and cyclists, and including many schoolchildren, is funnelled into an even tighter space.

I asked the council about it and was told it had been done for ‘safety reasons’ because of a concern had been raised, the idea being to funnel people away from ‘drives’. There is only one drive that could conceivably be a concern here, that of the last house on the southern side of Inverness Road, which is a cul-de-sac for cars. The drive runs parallel to the the main Tunnels path. The access is at the side of the path, at right angles to the main route, so people joining or leaving the Tunnels path have to pass the end of this drive.

Even so, I was somewhat puzzled as to what the ‘safety issue’ might be, as there are very clear lines of sight from the drive in question, toward anyone joining or leaving the Two Tunnels path, as well as a pedestrian pavement running across the end of it.

Then, yesterday, I rode past to see that two large vehicles were parked in the drive, one hanging out over the pavement, which would have partly blocked the path access if the width had not been already reduced.

I strongly suspect someone is being a bit ‘obstructive’ here, in order to claim a bit of territory which is not really theirs.

I have raised the issue with local ward councillors and with Sustrans, and await developments.

[Bmblbzzz]

That turning from Inverness Rd always required a footing, for me at least, just due to those obstructively placed bollards. Awful design.

[pwa]

Looking at that on Street View, it is a really awkward junction. Awkward for cyclists, awkward for whoever has to back cars out of that driveway, and awkward for anyone given the job of remodelling it. I can see why there might be safety concerns. Perhaps there has been an incident involving a bike emerging on the side closest to the drive at the same time as someone is trying to get a car out. Poor sight line for the driver could be a factor.

[mjr]

Looking at that on Street View, it is a really awkward junction. Awkward for cyclists, awkward for whoever has to back cars out of that driveway, [...]

No-one has to back cars out of that driveway. Reverse in, like the Highway Code says: http://highwaycode.info/rule/201

People cycling should not be obstructed if there's an incompetent motorist living next to a junction.

[pwa]

Looking at that on Street View, it is a really awkward junction. Awkward for cyclists, awkward for whoever has to back cars out of that driveway, [...]

No-one has to back cars out of that driveway. Reverse in, like the Highway Code says: http://highwaycode.info/rule/201

People cycling should not be obstructed if there's an incompetent motorist living next to a junction.

Have you looked at it? Yes you could reverse in, and that would be my preference, but even then if that is a busy cycle route you could be reversing across a line of cyclists, with your view of cycle traffic blocked. I wouldn't fancy having to do that. Even a competent motorist might find that stressful, especially if they care about the possibility of hurting someone. So for me it is an awkward junction.

[Foghat]

Poor sight line for the driver could be a factor.

It's the key factor, I'd say, if the 2015 images on Google Streetview are still representative of the property's vegetation. Given the clear public safety concerns, the council should be enforcing creation of a proper sightline and visibility splay on the house-owner, who presumably thinks they shouldn't have to lower their hedge at the critical points (and remove the lower limbs of the tree, or the whole thing if necessary) so they can actually see cycle traffic while reversing and drive accordingly.

Restricting the width of an already narrow pinchpoint, funnelling two-way traffic through a channel wide enough for one, is not a very sensible response to the problem, and I'd be banging on the authorities' doors with the relevant guidance on visibility splays and sightlines if I used the route, given how simple it would be for the owner to create them.

[recumbentpanda]

Before people run too far after that particular rabbit, I can tell you that the sight lines from that drive are just fine. When the path was made, quite a lot of shrubbery was removed for exactly that reason.

[mjr]

Looking at that on Street View, it is a really awkward junction. Awkward for cyclists, awkward for whoever has to back cars out of that driveway, [...]

No-one has to back cars out of that driveway. Reverse in, like the Highway Code says: http://highwaycode.info/rule/201

People cycling should not be obstructed if there's an incompetent motorist living next to a junction.

Have you looked at it? Yes you could reverse in, and that would be my preference, but even then if that is a busy cycle route you could be reversing across a line of cyclists, with your view of cycle traffic blocked. I wouldn't fancy having to do that. Even a competent motorist might find that stressful, especially if they care about the possibility of hurting someone. So for me it is an awkward junction.

Yes, I've looked at it and visibility reversing in would be a damn sight better than visibility reversing out and that should be obvious to any competent driver!

[pwa]

Before people run too far after that particular rabbit, I can tell you that the sight lines from that drive are just fine. When the path was made, quite a lot of shrubbery was removed for exactly that reason.

Mjr suggested that the owner of that house might choose to reverse cars into the drive, allowing them to exit forwards. Normally that would be a good idea, but in this unusual street layout the stick-out corner of the garden opposite would block the reversing driver's view of the bollard area from which cycles emerge.

It's not an easy one. I suspect the only total solution would involve compulsory purchase of land to widen the corridor. I hate the idea of taking someone's garden off them, even with compensation, but how else could that messy arrangement be fixed?

[pwa]

No-one has to back cars out of that driveway. Reverse in, like the Highway Code says: http://highwaycode.info/rule/201

People cycling should not be obstructed if there's an incompetent motorist living next to a junction.

Have you looked at it? Yes you could reverse in, and that would be my preference, but even then if that is a busy cycle route you could be reversing across a line of cyclists, with your view of cycle traffic blocked. I wouldn't fancy having to do that. Even a competent motorist might find that stressful, especially if they care about the possibility of hurting someone. So for me it is an awkward junction.

Yes, I've looked at it and visibility reversing in would be a damn sight better than visibility reversing out and that should be obvious to any competent driver!

Bit tetchy mate!

Look at the image. Imagine a car across the road about to reverse into the drive. The driver would be level with a block of greenery with no view of the bollard area. I consider that dodgy.

[mjr]

Yes, I've looked at it and visibility reversing in would be a damn sight better than visibility reversing out and that should be obvious to any competent driver!

Bit tetchy mate!

Sorry. Somebody has just planted a load of black bollards on a badly-lit previously-unobstructed section of Route 1 and we don't know who did it yet, plus all media has been full of speeding apologists all day. It starts to get wearing.

[pwa]

Yes, I've looked at it and visibility reversing in would be a damn sight better than visibility reversing out and that should be obvious to any competent driver!

Bit tetchy mate!

Sorry. Somebody has just planted a load of black bollards on a badly-lit previously-unobstructed section of Route 1 and we don't know who did it yet, plus all media has been full of speeding apologists all day. It starts to get wearing.

Forgiven. I've just added a bit more explanation of my reservations to my previous post.

[mjr]

Look at the image. Imagine a car across the road about to reverse into the drive. The driver would be level with a block of greenery with no view of the bollard area. I consider that dodgy.

Well, yes, it would be, so instead of starting across the road, they should reverse from parallel with the nearest kerbside and turn in hard on full lock, avoiding that problem.

[Foghat]

Before people run too far after that particular rabbit, I can tell you that the sight lines from that drive are just fine. When the path was made, quite a lot of shrubbery was removed for exactly that reason.

Fair enough - 2.5 years is a long time in boundary vegetation maintenance. I can see a lot of the vegetation outside the boundary of the property was removed between the 2012 image and the 2015 image with the new path, but has the obscuring boundary hedge itself actually been lowered sufficiently, and the tree sorted, since the 2015 image? I guess it has, as you've said the sightlines are now ok - presumably for reversing drivers as well as forwards drivers exiting the driveway.

As the sightlines are now ok, the council's solution makes even less sense, as the risk of the driver hitting cyclists is still broadly the same, it's just the collisions will be a couple of feet further from the kerb, and meanwhile a substantially higher risk of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists (and possibly a higher risk of head-on collisions between cyclists?) has been introduced.

Just trying to think of arguments you can put to the council, but it sounds like you've already made them.

[recumbentpanda]

Yes, trees and shrubs within the property were also removed.