Friendly Cambridge bike path turns into pole-wielding monster

[reohn2]

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?

Whilst that's true but unlikely on such a road,TBH I've rarely seen such gantries or cantilevered poles in the UK.

[reohn2]

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.

Up thread I gave a reason why I thought the pole could've been so far 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

.
I've already answered those questions up thread.

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.

You're now beginning to get silly.

[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.

Up thread I gave a reason why I thought the pole could've been so far in from the kerb.

Was it that bus drivers are incompetent and would hit a standard-placed sign with a side mirror?

You're now beginning to get silly.

Nearly as silly as describing almost a metre in from the side as being the extreme right?

[reohn2]

In a perfect world things would be perfect,unfortunately things aren't always perfect,good lights and extra vigilence at night can go a long way to highlighting those imperfections.
Once again I'll say I have the greatest of sympathy with the OP and hope he gets well soon.

I've said all I can on the issue so I'll leave it at that.

[mjr]

Ok. Posting warnings about particularly hazardous ones and pushing the highway authority to put its house in order are also good IMO. The world isn't perfect so we should seek to improve it for everyone and not just selfishly say "I wouldn't hit that because ..."

[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?

Whilst that's true but unlikely on such a road,TBH I've rarely seen such gantries or cantilevered poles in the UK.

IMO it's a compromise that increases the risk posed to users, just to save a little money.

Cantilevers and gantries are the normal way to put up signs on motorways and special roads, where we spare no expense for king car. This is done in the name of *safety*. We even have what they call 'passive safety' signposts, which are designed to give or detach under impact to reduce the likelihood of injury to vehicle occupants. For signposts that are located a prescribed distance from travel lanes.

[Vorpal]

What is important to me is that Network Rail put in place some retroreflective and visible marking so that someone else whose behaviour is reasonable (but not perfect) is not put through the shock, pain and inconvenience that I am currently experiencing. That might be a controversial wish, but I put it out there...

If it is Network Rail's responsibility, maybe it will help to ask them for their risk assessment?

[Pete Owens]

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.

This is the post you were replying to:

Most of the time, like other cyclists, I ignore the infrastructure on the basis that the very words or signs are enough to tell you to avoid it. You know it will be slow, awkward, bumpy and at times downright dangerous, especially when crossing side roads and when rejoining the carriageway. At the very least you will have to deal with overhanging branches, broken glass and very narrow tracks that you will have to negotiate with pedestrians.

While it may be popular among the hard *****

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

of forums like this, most cyclists don't ignore them.

Most black seamstresses in 1950s Alabama would have sat on the back seat of the bus.

[mattheus]

Here's a story of bollards removed after one caused serious injuries (different circumstances, I should stress):
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-t ... d=11349268

_____________________________

Does anyone have the URL for that gallery of hi-viz objects that have been run over?? Quite a lot of bollards, as I recall

[Vantage]

One of the problems with the post in question seems to be its positioning.
Now while I can agree to a certain extent that it could have been better placed (to where I have no idea) it doesn't change the fact that posts are pretty much everywhere and and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only cyclist out there who expects these things all over the place as is common. We can't use a paved pedestrian/cycle or shared path anywhere in the UK without a post of some sort being directly in our intended direction. Does this make it OK? Probably not, but they are to be expected and as such, as pointed out by myself and others, we as cyclists need to be on the lookout for them.
If it was placed in the middle of the path as suggested by Vorpal, it would be an even bigger hindrance as most cyclists I've seen tend to ride curiously enough, in the middle of the path. There would also be issues possible for pram or wheelchair users, certainly for those who push double prams. If it works on the continent that's because the people there have gotten used to it and expect it.
I would argue that putting a hedge or fence around such a post would only make the post a bigger hindrance and more prone to cause accidents for those who don't bother to look where they're going.
As to where the blame lies for the crash. Well I've said it before and I'll repeat it, the post is a static object that doesn't move. It didn't grow little post legs and run in front of the op with the intention of teaching him a lesson about ignoring it. The op, as he has clearly said, crashed into it. If you chopped your fingers off with an axe while cutting firewood, would you blame the axe?
As the saying goes, it's a poor tradesman who blames his tools.

[mjr]

If it was placed in the middle of the path as suggested by Vorpal, [...]

I think you may have misunderstood a suggestion.

If you chopped your fingers off with an axe while cutting firewood, would you blame the axe?

If the axe is substandard - say the head swings back into the handle, for example - then yes, quite likely! Of course, you should check the head is fixed before starting cutting, but such an axe is also faulty and if it's a design error, the maker would be liable too, wouldn't s/he?

As the saying goes, it's a poor tradesman who blames his tools.

That seems somewhat irrelevant because the OP doesn't own the post. I bet they wouldn't use a post like that!

[Vantage]

If it was placed in the middle of the path as suggested by Vorpal, [...]

I think you may have misunderstood a suggestion.

Fair point. However, there is but one lane on that particular cycle path, not two.

If you chopped your fingers off with an axe while cutting firewood, would you blame the axe?

If the axe is substandard - say the head swings back into the handle, for example - then yes, quite likely! Of course, you should check the head is fixed before starting cutting, but such an axe is also faulty and if it's a design error, the maker would be liable too, wouldn't s/he?

Indeed, but the post wasn't faulty or poorly designed. It's made to stand upright and give information to road users. It didn't fall into the path of the cyclist.

As the saying goes, it's a poor tradesman who blames his tools.

That seems somewhat irrelevant because the OP doesn't own the post. I bet they wouldn't use a post like that![/quote]

[amediasatex]

It’s a stupid post in a stupid place painted a stupid colour.

It’s all very well saying you should spot it and not ride into it but there’s enough hazards like that already, the path builders don’t need to go adding more.

It really doesn’t matter if you think *you* would avoid it, not everyone has great eyesight, sometimes it’s rainy, sometimes it’s dark, sometimes it’s foggy, sometimes it’s snowy, at the very least it should be lit, reflective and forewarned, but ideally removed.

[roubaixtuesday]

One of the problems with the post in question seems to be its positioning.
Now while I can agree to a certain extent that it could have been better placed (to where I have no idea) it doesn't change the fact that posts are pretty much everywhere and and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only cyclist out there who expects these things all over the place as is common. We can't use a paved pedestrian/cycle or shared path anywhere in the UK without a post of some sort being directly in our intended direction. Does this make it OK? Probably not, but they are to be expected and as such, as pointed out by myself and others, we as cyclists need to be on the lookout for them.
If it was placed in the middle of the path as suggested by Vorpal, it would be an even bigger hindrance as most cyclists I've seen tend to ride curiously enough, in the middle of the path. There would also be issues possible for pram or wheelchair users, certainly for those who push double prams. If it works on the continent that's because the people there have gotten used to it and expect it.
I would argue that putting a hedge or fence around such a post would only make the post a bigger hindrance and more prone to cause accidents for those who don't bother to look where they're going.
As to where the blame lies for the crash. Well I've said it before and I'll repeat it, the post is a static object that doesn't move. It didn't grow little post legs and run in front of the op with the intention of teaching him a lesson about ignoring it. The op, as he has clearly said, crashed into it. If you chopped your fingers off with an axe while cutting firewood, would you blame the axe?
As the saying goes, it's a poor tradesman who blames his tools.

Quite extraordinary.

[Vantage]

Why thank you