Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Vantage
Posts: 2703
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 1:44pm
Location: somewhere in Bolton
Contact:

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby Vantage » 6 Jan 2020, 4:17pm

Vorpal wrote:
Vantage wrote:The 2 above photos were clearly taken at night.
Amazingly, I too can see the pole in both shots, so not invisible as the op suggests.

The OP said it was drizzling, so, it would have been much harder to see anything.


But not invisible.

But even so, I think we've been through this a few times, and we don't need to use any more of this thread to blame the OP for not seeing a sign post that shouldn't have been there in the first place.


Having been dormant for a month, the op decided to reopen the thread, not I nor anyone else.
If the op makes a statement, are the rest of us supposed to accept his view on it and not give an alternative view on the matter? Isn't discussion how forums work?

As mentioned plenty of times already, the only thing that was moving in the incident was the op, not the post and so cannot be held at fault. Posts such as the one mentioned are very common throughout the UK and to crash into one, whether lit up like a christmas tree or hidden like a ninja takes some doing. Whether anyone likes that it is there or not is not the point. The point is that it IS there and clearly NOT hidden from view. The only reason I can think of is if it was raining and the op was wearing glasses/a visor etc which were covered in rain drops which made vision very difficult. Even then, it is the ops responsibility to ensure that he could see ahead and take precautions to avoid crashing into a steel post.

For what it's worth, I crashed into a steel gate across a parking lot at night once when I was about 12 or 13. I very nearly broke my leg and was hobbling around for a month before the pain in my leg eased off.
I didn't see the gate. Why? Because I was too busy messing about with my mates to bother focusing on what was in front of me.
At no time did I consider taking legal action against the council for my injuries. I accepted that the crash was entirely my own fault and took responsibility for my actions.
If I went and blamed other people/organisations for my accidents over the years I'd never be out of court.
Last edited by Vantage on 6 Jan 2020, 4:34pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bill


“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.

reohn2
Posts: 37367
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby reohn2 » 6 Jan 2020, 4:20pm

mattheus wrote:Your "vigilance" and the OP's "diligence" are completely subjective.

You think the former is very good, and the latter is lacking. These are clearly not "facts".

Vigilence and diligence will always put you in good stead where obstacles are concerned.That's the fact of it!


I think a better fact is that the more people complain about these things, the more improvement we will get.
And thus the less injuries of this sort will occur.

Did I claim otherwise?

What say you?

I say you are right in that complaints about obstacles should and I emphasise 'should',get them removed.
But(there I go again)it needs a sympatheic ear of someone on the handles of power to have any effect,in this case I'd be surprised if that ear were sympathetic.That's not to say I think it shouldn't be sympathetic but more likely that it won't be,without a court case and even then it's no guarantee of something being done due to the dire state of the country with regard to cycling infrastructure.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

mattheus
Posts: 1382
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby mattheus » 6 Jan 2020, 4:26pm

Hmmm. Good point, vantage. Let's go back to Des' follow-up post:

desphillips wrote:OP here. This is quite useful Best Practice:

Local Transport Note 2/08, Cycle Infrastructure Design, October 2008

8.11 Street furniture
8.11.1 Where a footway or footpath is being converted for cycle use, obstacles within the track such as sign poles, lighting columns, pillar boxes, bus stops and telephone kiosks may need to be moved. If barriers or bollards are required to restrict motor vehicle access to the route, they should be highlighted through the use of reflective material or highvisibility paint, especially in areas where there is no street lighting. A cycle audit during the hours of darkness as well as in daylight may help to identify potential hazards.

QED. This installation fails on two counts.

Notwork Fail have gone very silent to my emails.



That's quite a relevant find. What do you make of it, diligent cyclists?

Tangled Metal
Posts: 6275
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby Tangled Metal » 6 Jan 2020, 5:04pm

If barriers or bollards are required to restrict motor vehicle access to the route, they should be highlighted through the use of reflective material or highvisibility paint, especially in areas where there is no street lighting.


In the first bold bit the op referred to bollards not signs.

Second bold point the word should implies it must but the earlier not quoted here uses the word may. To be ignored as suits. From dealing standards at work it's only the should that catch you out.

Thirdly the underlined part refers to where no street lighting. The second photograph posted two pages back today seems to have a light to the right and ahead in that view.

This is all an argument over things we would probably agree on. So I'll summarise.

It's bad the op got injured cycling.
It's bad there's street signing there which isn't hivviz or lighted to prevent such accidents
This shouldn't be the way it is.
This is how it is across the country.

I bet there's more things we agree on.

reohn2
Posts: 37367
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby reohn2 » 6 Jan 2020, 5:51pm

Tangled Metal wrote:. ....
It's bad the op got injured cycling.
It's bad there's street signing there which isn't hivviz or lighted to prevent such accidents
This shouldn't be the way it is.
This is how it is across the country..... .


That just about sums it up.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Vantage
Posts: 2703
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 1:44pm
Location: somewhere in Bolton
Contact:

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby Vantage » 6 Jan 2020, 6:18pm

reohn2 wrote:
Tangled Metal wrote:. ....
It's bad the op got injured cycling.
It's bad there's street signing there which isn't hivviz or lighted to prevent such accidents
This shouldn't be the way it is.
This is how it is across the country..... .


That just about sums it up.


Agreed.
Bill


“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.

rfryer
Posts: 706
Joined: 7 Feb 2013, 3:58pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby rfryer » 6 Jan 2020, 6:54pm

Tangled Metal wrote:This is all an argument over things we would probably agree on. So I'll summarise.

It's bad the op got injured cycling.
It's bad there's street signing there which isn't hivviz or lighted to prevent such accidents
This shouldn't be the way it is.
This is how it is across the country.

I bet there's more things we agree on.

There are many on here who are of the strong opinion that every road user is entirely responsible for not hitting anything, no matter how unexpected or badly lit that thing might be. Which means the OP is entirely to blame.

I'm less convinced (and I accept this is something I'll get a lot of flack for). I think that most road users have an expectation that, whatever the type of road they are on, they will get sufficient clear warning of the need to avoid a hazard. That expectation is generally satisfied, for example, on a 60mph A-road it would be indefensible for the highways engineer to include an unmarked bend in the road so tight that you needed to slow to 30mph. That same unmarked bend would be entirely OK on a residential street.

Similarly, when travelling on a straight, wide, well-surfaced cycleway with no significant hazards, maybe it's reasonable to expect hazards to be called out which might otherwise be acceptable/expected on a short, poorly-designed, stretch of shared-use pavement.

Road users with such expectations are taking a risk - trading a faster, less mentally tiring journey for the possibility that they could hit some badly designed road furniture, or an unlit hazard of some description. I don't see how these expectations can be changed, unless we take "positive" action to educate road users. Maybe the police could lay black concrete blocks in the road, then charge any drivers that drove into them and survived? No, obviously not, but the point is that our road designs and traffic regulations combine to create an environment in which people can reasonably expect that hazards will be visible in time at normal road speeds - and in this context, poorly visible hazards end up taking a large share of the blame for any accidents they are involved in. Maybe we need to learn to live with this reality?

Mike Sales
Posts: 4125
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby Mike Sales » 6 Jan 2020, 7:14pm

rfryer wrote: I don't see how these expectations can be changed, unless we take "positive" action to educate road users. Maybe the police could lay black concrete blocks in the road, then charge any drivers that drove into them and survived? No, obviously not, but the point is that our road designs and traffic regulations combine to create an environment in which people can reasonably expect that hazards will be visible in time at normal road speeds - and in this context, poorly visible hazards end up taking a large share of the blame for any accidents they are involved in. Maybe we need to learn to live with this reality?


One small thing that the police could do, is, when a cyclist is hit from behind as well as urging cyclists to fit lights and wear hiviz, they might remind drivers of their responsibility to adhere to H.C. 126.
I often hear policemen telling cyclists to take precautions which we all know, often fail to protect them.
I never hear policemen telling drivers to " Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear".
Perhaps that helps create the reality?
Last edited by Mike Sales on 6 Jan 2020, 8:51pm, edited 1 time in total.

dim
Posts: 327
Joined: 12 May 2019, 5:59pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby dim » 6 Jan 2020, 8:48pm

my conclusion to this thread is this:

if you ride in the dark and use lights that are rated as 'to be seen', dont ride fast especially on roads that you are unfamiliar with ... they are ok if you've travelled the road before and know where the obstacles are

if you ride on roads that you have not ridden on before when it's dark, and if you want to ride a bit faster, get lights that are rated 'to see'

Tangled Metal
Posts: 6275
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby Tangled Metal » 6 Jan 2020, 9:00pm

I disagree. I ride the same commuting route for quite some years now and know it very well. I've also seen obstacles in the way that I simply would not have known they were there with the "to be seen by" lights. It's simply the case if you can't see far enough you can't be sure you're safe. Good lights to see by are needed unless street lighting is really that good.

reohn2
Posts: 37367
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby reohn2 » 6 Jan 2020, 9:21pm

Tangled Metal wrote:I disagree. I ride the same commuting route for quite some years now and know it very well. I've also seen obstacles in the way that I simply would not have known they were there with the "to be seen by" lights. It's simply the case if you can't see far enough you can't be sure you're safe. Good lights to see by are needed unless street lighting is really that good.

I always try to expect the unexpected when using the road whether as a pedestrian,driving my car or riding my bike.Light to be seen by are only any use to be seen by such as riding in dull weather or in the rain.
At night I want a front light I can see with that casts a good strong beam at least 7m to 10m in front of me with a nice 1.2m to 2m spread,that way I know there's a very good chance I can see any hazard I'm likely to encounter.
I'm currently testing this light which is proving to be a great front light :- https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/USB-Recharge ... 2749.l2649
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17126
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby [XAP]Bob » 6 Jan 2020, 9:48pm

reohn2 wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:
Tangled Metal wrote:Can I ask what your views of a car hitting a pedestrian or stationary object like a signpost on a country road because it was dark and their lights were dipped so they didn't see them?


I've never seen a traffic sign mounted in the carriageway... Have you?

I have all the time pedestrian refuges have them.


But pedestrian refuges are, by definition, not the carriageway.
They are also usually highlighted with either reflective or illuminated bollards, white lines, cats-eyes and all sorts.
And yet motorists still hit them...


This is a post in the middle of an actual carriageway (sufficiently close to the middle if there is an 85cm gap to the 'narrow side', that's enough for me to get past on the trike!)
More than that it is a carriageway designed for use by vulnerable road users...

It should be treated as assault by design, and those who designed and approved it should all face some consequence - at the very least a strong learning exercise and preferably a penalty that is recorded so that it can be escalated if they repeatedly fail in their duty of care to the public.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

reohn2
Posts: 37367
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby reohn2 » 7 Jan 2020, 9:26am

[XAP]Bob wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:
I've never seen a traffic sign mounted in the carriageway... Have you?

I have all the time pedestrian refuges have them.


But pedestrian refuges are, by definition, not the carriageway.
They are also usually highlighted with either reflective or illuminated bollards, white lines, cats-eyes and all sorts.
And yet motorists still hit them...

Mad innit?


This is a post in the middle of an actual carriageway (sufficiently close to the middle if there is an 85cm gap to the 'narrow side', that's enough for me to get past on the trike!)
More than that it is a carriageway designed for use by vulnerable road users....

How much carriafeway was there on the wide side on the offending pole?
The 85cm gap between pole and kerb I'd suggest is to allow for the lean of a bus due to the road camber or incline so the bus does collide with the sign fixed to the top of the pole.



It should be treated as assault by design, and those who designed and approved it should all face some consequence - at the very least a strong learning exercise and preferably a penalty that is recorded so that it can be escalated if they repeatedly fail in their duty of care to the public.

What's betting it won't?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14686
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby mjr » 7 Jan 2020, 9:44am

reohn2 wrote:[
How much carriafeway was there on the wide side on the offending pole?
The 85cm gap between pole and kerb I'd suggest is to allow for the lean of a bus due to the road camber or incline so the bus does collide with the sign fixed to the top of the pole.

There's a good couple of metres on the righthand side but this is Cambridge, England and we ride on the left!

It's a modern straightish road with minimal camber. The pole could be in the usual edge position and the driver would hit the kerb before the sign. I expect it is set back to reduce collision risk but I don't understand why: shouldn't we rejoice if incompetent bus drivers crash into such a sign instead of clipping some walkers near the kerb further along the busway?

I'm going to remember "assault by design" for future use!
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

reohn2
Posts: 37367
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

Postby reohn2 » 7 Jan 2020, 10:10am

mjr wrote:
reohn2 wrote:[
How much carriafeway was there on the wide side on the offending pole?
The 85cm gap between pole and kerb I'd suggest is to allow for the lean of a bus due to the road camber or incline so the bus does collide with the sign fixed to the top of the pole.

There's a good couple of metres on the righthand side but this is Cambridge, England and we ride on the left!

It's a modern straightish road with minimal camber. The pole could be in the usual edge position and the driver would hit the kerb before the sign. I expect it is set back to reduce collision risk but I don't understand why: shouldn't we rejoice if incompetent bus drivers crash into such a sign instead of clipping some walkers near the kerb further along the busway?

I'm going to remember "assault by design" for future use!


To get this straight,UK cycling infrastructure sucks.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.