Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

[mjr]

It would be interesting to find out what a court would determine the division of fault among concerned parties. As I see it there's three. The OP, the council or other body responsible for the sign and the rail station operators for unsuitable lighting causing the glare. Out of those three parties I can only see there being any potential for improvement action being made in the near future. Can you guess which?

A pessimist is never disappointed...
[youtube]E0cuGn0F_-s[/youtube]
But I've had posts removed from cycleways before, so I think there's potential for the council or other responsible to act.

[Pete Owens]

"hard *****" is mjr speak for competent careful cyclists who value our own safety above the convenience of motorists.

When you have to lie about the other side in a debate and put words in their mouths, you are losing the argument.

No lie - it is a direct quote - I note you took care to cut out your post that I was replying to.

[mjr]

"hard *****" is mjr speak for competent careful cyclists who value our own safety above the convenience of motorists.

When you have to lie about the other side in a debate and put words in their mouths, you are losing the argument.

No lie - it is a direct quote - I note you took care to cut out your post that I was replying to.

It is not. I have never called competent careful cyclists who value our own safety above the convenience of motorists anything rude.

[PH]

I've every sympathy with the situation the OP finds himself in but better lights

What legal road bike lights will illuminate a dull grey non-reflective post maybe 3 inches across from sufficient distance?

This one would IMO satisfy that criteria:- https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/lightinglig ... usb-light/

That 30 lux light is a start, but the non dazzle equivalent to the sorts of lights the OP thinks would have made a difference I was thinking more along the lines of this 150 lux model
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/lightinglig ... usb-light/

I like to ride with two lights, a dynamo powered one, currently either the 100 lux IQ-X or the not quite as bright but nicer beam Edelux II, in conjunction with them I have a 700 lumen Niterider hooligan of a light, only used when there's no one around to upset. The Nitrider is a lot of fun, turns night into day, illuminates the full width of road plus a good bit more and the tops of the trees. It also avoids that riding into a tunnel feeling you get with better shaped beams. But in terms of illuminating a post in the rain with a lot of other light clutter, it won't offer any more than the dyno lights do.
Before mjr bursts another blood vessel, I'll point out that I haven't said more powerful lights would have made a difference, it's the OP who's said that, several times. I'm saying that such powerful lights don't have to be of the dazzling sort.
I haven't expressed an opinion on the right and wrong of it, I think that was pretty well covered in the first page or two.

[Vantage]

If it was just the post then every cyclist going that way would hit it too with similar consequences...

Wow.

Unless a risk materialises on every possible occasion it's not a risk?

It's an unmarked pole. In the middle of a cycle path.

Nothing remotely similar would ever be contemplated on a road.

Obviously it's a stupid, dangerous and inconvenient thing to install.

As the unfortunate OPs story so richly illustrates.

I don't agree it's unmarked. It's a shiny light grey colour which given my own experience lights up quite well in darkness when hit by light. Its also not in the middle of the path. Its offset quite a bit to the side. Even if it was in the middle of the path, its a pole, not a brick wall. It's thin enough to cycle around and not (according to other forum members) a booby trap or intentionally placed to cause harm.
Unlike bicycles, motor vehicles are heavy, wide and fast. Putting a pole in the middle of a lane would indeed be stupid and dangerous, hence the reason it never AFAIK happens.
The ops story only illustrates that he/she failed to notice and avoid the post in question. Better lights (German standard which are designed to not blind others while still putting out enough light to see with (not retina burners!) and or better awareness of his/her surroundings may very well have had a different outcome. And instead of asking, "What could I have done differently to avoid this accident?", the op has posted with guns blazing that the post was put there deliberately to kill him/her and intends legal action against whoever placed it.
Had this story been a motorist complaining about a dented grill because they'd hit a pedestrian who crossed the road dressed in black, the torches would already be lit and the pitchforks been sharpened. But hey, it's one us, a poor cyclist who can do no harm and as usual with most stories like this, we at the ctc forum will stand with our cycling comrades no matter how far in the wrong they are. GO CYCLISTS!

[Bonefishblues]

In Tort terms does the body who put it there owe a duty of care to cyclists using the path? Yes.

Is it reasonably foreseeable that a cyclist might hit it, given its positioning? Yes.

Might the OP, if they brought a successful claim on the above basis, have their damages reduced somewhat for their own contributory negligence in failing to keep an effective lookout for hazards, animate or otherwise? Yes, quite possibly.

My two penn'th.

[Tangled Metal]

At last, some sense!

Of course the rules say you're wrong. No cyclist can ever be said to have contributed to anything negative that happened to them!

[Vorpal]

But would you expect to find an unlit, unmarked post in the middle of the carriageway?

Always expect the unexpected,ride within the parameters of any given situation and riding will be safest.
Over the years I've come across some of the most unlikely things in the carriageway/cyclepath bricks,potholes,tree branches,dead animals, planks of timber,scaffold fittings,furniture,etc,etc.
All of which weren't fixtures and totally unexpected at the time,however because I was riding carefully I either stopped in time or was able to ride around the obstacle,I've also,broken my wrist on a patch of black ice unseen and totally unexpected.
I've every sympathy with the situation the OP finds himself in but better lights and more awareness would've helped him negotiate such a situation IMO,I would also question his riding within 0.85m(distance from kerb to pole) on a cyclepath with apparently no oncoming traffic at the time.
I'm sorry but we really must take responsibility for our own actions.

There are a couple of things about this....

Maybe the OP could have prevented this by some of the things suggested on this thread. I'm sure they realise that, as well. And I'm equally sure that they accept responsibility for their actions.

However, the folks responsible for this facility are *also* responsible for what occurred, and I think the OP is right to take them to task for it.

I asked above if someone had strung a wire across the path, would the OP still be responsible; I can see how a pole like that could be very difficult to see in some conditions, even if you know it is there. How difficult should something be to see before the OP isn't blamed for what happened? Or does it have a criminal action, rather than just a negligent one that places an obstruction inappropriately in a cycle facility?

The OP, by the way, would have been riding 0.95 - 1.0 metres from the kerb to strike the pole with their shoulder.

[Vorpal]

I don't agree it's unmarked. It's a shiny light grey colour which given my own experience lights up quite well in darkness when hit by light. Its also not in the middle of the path. Its offset quite a bit to the side. Even if it was in the middle of the path, its a pole, not a brick wall.

Standards other countries requires such obstructions to be marked and lighted. My supposition is that the Dutch and Danes might have some experience with such things. Or maybe you'd like to ask some Dutch cyclists if that's a good place for a grey pole?

If there is cycle traffic in both directions, that pole is in the middle of the 'lane', and it is entirely appropriate for cyclists to ride just inwards of that pole.

[Vorpal]

I really don't understand blaming the OP. If somebody stuck a fixture like that in the middle of a facility designed for motor vehicles,
a) it wouldn't last the day
b) drivers would be up in arms about it

That's absolutely crap design. I cannot think of any reason to say otherwise, except that cyclists are just used to being the lowest class of road users.

[reohn2]

There are a couple of things about this....

Maybe the OP could have prevented this by some of the things suggested on this thread. I'm sure they realise that, as well. And I'm equally sure that they accept responsibility for their actions.

However, the folks responsible for this facility are *also* responsible for what occurred, and I think the OP is right to take them to task for it.

I asked above if someone had strung a wire across the path, would the OP still be responsible; I can see how a pole like that could be very difficult to see in some conditions, even if you know it is there. How difficult should something be to see before the OP isn't blamed for what happened? Or does it have a criminal action, rather than just a negligent one that places an obstruction inappropriately in a cycle facility?

The OP, by the way, would have been riding 0.95 - 1.0 metres from the kerb to strike the pole with their shoulder.

If the pole had been in the centre of the path or say two thirds way in from the side I'd that it's positioning was grossly negligent,but placed where it was in the absence of any other place it's a compromise,given that to be the case it's then users of the path to avoid hitting it.The OP didn't,he didn't because of two things not having a good enough light and not being observant enough at the time.
It can't be denied the pole could've been hilighted by reflective paint or similar,but then i'm repeating myself.

Wire strung across a cycle path is a red herring and would be entirely the fault of whoever set such a trap as a trap is what it would clearly be.A pole with a road sign attached to it palced to the extreme right of what looks from the photos to be a 3 to 4m wide cycle path isn't what I'd consider to be major hazard for anyone riding with an adequate headlight and suitable vigilence

[atlas_shrugged]

The victim blamers on here seem to be deploying the safe drunk diver argument. The safe drunk driver argument goes like this:

99% of drunk drivers get home safely - so drunk driving must be OK!

The answer to this is NO. Drunk cycle path designs may be navigated safely by 99% of the cyclists, but it is the 1% that needs to be worried about.

I have never seen a hard upright object sited on any cycle race track I have ever visited in the UK or in the EU. Any hard objects sited *near* the track are protected by padding e.g. a straw bale. This is not genius - it is just common sense.

I get just as cross at the lack of a protective verge between the busway and the cycle way (see the same place and elsewhere). Specifically I called for a protective hedge between the two. This is easily doable as there is plenty of room - it is also what they do in the NL. A few weeks after I had a meeting with the Cranebridge CC cycle team where I presented this specification to this team, a cyclist working for the exam syndicate fell onto the busway and was crushed to death by a bus. There is no excuse for bad cycle path design - ever.

[reohn2]

I really don't understand blaming the OP. If somebody stuck a fixture like that in the middle of a facility designed for motor vehicles,
a) it wouldn't last the day
b) drivers would be up in arms about it

But it wasn't in the middle of the facility

That's absolutely crap design. I cannot think of any reason to say otherwise, except that cyclists are just used to being the lowest class of road users.

IMO it's a compromise in light of there being nowhere else for it,admittedly it could be hilighted in some way but wasn't thought of at the time of installation which could be that no one ever ran into such a pole before the OP's case,perhaps some action my be taken to limit the chances of it happening again.

[Vorpal]

IMO it's a compromise in light of there being nowhere else for it,admittedly it could be hilighted in some way but wasn't thought of at the time of installation which could be that no one ever ran into such a pole before the OP's case,perhaps some action my be taken to limit the chances of it happening again.

Nowhere else like a gantry or cantilever with a pole on the other side of the cycle path?

[mjr]

A pole with a road sign attached to it palced to the extreme right of what looks from the photos to be a 3 to 4m wide cycle path isn't what I'd consider to be major hazard for anyone riding with an adequate headlight and suitable vigilence

Part of the problem with that pole is it isn't at the extreme right: it's almost double the normal distance in from the kerb.

As for there being no other place for the sign, we've already had suggested cantilevers, gantries or putting a small protective hedge or bush around it, as well as simple warning paint. Also, there's the simplistic answer of saying put the busway signs in the busway's tarmac - but for some reason, bus drivers tested to a higher standard aren't expected to be as skilled at avoiding obstacles as hundreds of untested cyclists every day.