Tactile Paving Slabs

[rmurphy195]

These things are for the blind, so that they know when they are meeting the edge of the footway.

The ones with pimples are for people with poor eyesight, you will find them at crossings, at crossing points without lights (dropped kerb or raised road surface) and they sometimes will go right across the pavement to provide tactile markings for the location of crossing points.

It's illegal to obstruct such crossings by parking across them, even if no yellow lines are present (as my disabled friend found to his cost a few weeks ago - ironic really!)

I might "invoke" rule 243 one of these days if parking across the exit to a local cycleway continues! https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 238-to-252

The ones set at awkward angles/sloping etc. have often been disturbed by crass parking or sing the dropped kerb with a vehicle.

[mjr]

The ones with pimples are for people with poor eyesight, you will find them at crossings, at crossing points without lights (dropped kerb or raised road surface) and they sometimes will go right across the pavement to provide tactile markings for the location of crossing points.

I think the tail of tactiles going back across the pavement is to indicate which side has the tactile cone under the button box at button-controlled crossing.

I think my only objection to the pimple/blister tiles is that they're often a near-white buff colour which misleads motorists into thinking they're give way markings even when they're not.

The tramline tiles are just unnecessary crash hazards, though, maybe second only to narrow barriers and slalom fences.

[[XAP]Bob]

Black eye and stitches thanks to our tactile paving on the cycle route.
Has there been any effective lobbying on this matter since 2009?

No - because it's part of a standard to help vulnerable road users.

People with limited sight need to know where road features are - that's what the different patterns of blobby paving are for. They are coloured to make it easier for those with limited vision (i.e. still registered blind, but not totally blind).

Firstly, the tramline tiles are unnecessary - the ladder tiles signify to the person of limited sight that they are stepping to/from a footway into a space with vehicles. There are no tiles placed across a carriageway where a footway crosses or joins it, so I don't see why a crash hazard must be placed across a cycle track.

Secondly, most tramlines are installed dangerously - usually not level, often too close to a turn, but sometimes even the wrong tiles are used (round-topped cordorouy - misspelt that, sorry - instead of flat-top) which are an even worse crash hazard or they're simply installed the wrong way round, suggesting that footway and cycle track swapped sides somewhere along the route.

If the set near you are dangerous, I think it'd be fair game if someone filled the tramline tiles in with readymix concrete to produce a low speed hump.

Or you can simply do what many people seem to do on the dangerously-installed set nearest me and just ride over the ladder tiles instead, then cross the paint carefully, possibly at the next drainage gap if it's that raised plastic stuff - almost no-one cares that you're on a supposed footway for a short stretch as long as you don't skim walkers or generally behave in an anti-social way.

They aren't unnecessary - the cycle track is part of the pavement, and it is therefore perfectly permissible for a pedestrian to use that space. If there was nothing there then the VRU would be unaware that this wasn't simply a normal pavement.

The issues around incorrect installation are a different question - and they should all be logged and corrected.

[mjr]

They aren't unnecessary - the cycle track is part of the pavement, and it is therefore perfectly permissible for a pedestrian to use that space. If there was nothing there then the VRU would be unaware that this wasn't simply a normal pavement.

That's looking at things the wrong way IMO. Cycle tracks aren't pavements (or at least should not be). A cycle track should be regarded conceptually as like a narrow restricted carriageway (London has finally started to do this correctly and it happens in some other places) and while it's perfectly permissible for a pedestrian to use that space, the transition from footway to non-footway should be marked, but the transitions between different types of non-footway don't need to be.

The issues around incorrect installation are a different question - and they should all be logged and corrected.

They should be, but incorrect installations I reported 10 years ago remain uncorrected so I hope you can understand why I feel direct action is the only way it's likely to be remedied.

[Bmblbzzz]

I don't think we're talking about cycle tracks like the London CSes, are we? At least, maybe these slabs are found on those as well, though I'd be a little surprised. I've only seen them on the tracks which are "pavements you're permitted to cycle on" in law as well as practice.

The issues around incorrect installation are a different question - and they should all be logged and corrected.

They should be, but incorrect installations I reported 10 years ago remain uncorrected so I hope you can understand why I feel direct action is the only way it's likely to be remedied.

Are you advocating spade work?

[mjr]

I don't think we're talking about cycle tracks like the London CSes, are we? At least, maybe these slabs are found on those as well, though I'd be a little surprised. I've only seen them on the tracks which are "pavements you're permitted to cycle on" in law as well as practice.

What the heck are "pavements you're permitted to cycle on" in law? No such thing as far as I know. In law, the footway must be extinguished and a cycle track created which people are permitted to walk on, as I understand it. In practice, few pavements are suitable cycle tracks without at least some reconstruction work.

Are you advocating spade work?

Not advocating, exactly, but pointing out that it seems like it might be the only way to get tactile tile installation errors corrected. Highway authorities don't seem to care how many cyclists they injure.

[Bmblbzzz]

By "pavements you're permitted to cycle on" I mean the common type of facility where a line is painted on a pavement and cycling allowed on one side of it, or sometimes where the pavement is too narrow for this there is no line and cycling is allowed across the whole width.

[iviehoff]

They aren't unnecessary - the cycle track is part of the pavement, and it is therefore perfectly permissible for a pedestrian to use that space. If there was nothing there then the VRU would be unaware that this wasn't simply a normal pavement.

The Dutch don't find it necessary. [Sarcasm] Must be really terrible being a visibly impaired person walking around in the Netherlands with all those heavily used cycle lanes and no tactile markers where pedestrian crossings go across them. [/Sarcasm]

What the Dutch actually do is put drempels, ie cyclist-suitable slow-you-down speed humps either side of pedestrian crossings over cycle routes. It is a much safer and more effective method of addressing the issue.

If you want to know how to do something with cycle lanes, just do what the Dutch do and in nearly all cases it will be a lot better than what we already do. Unfortunately we seem to be incapable of "doing what someone else does" without making some fundamental misunderstanding that destroys the whole point of it.

[mjr]

By "pavements you're permitted to cycle on" I mean the common type of facility where a line is painted on a pavement and cycling allowed on one side of it, or sometimes where the pavement is too narrow for this there is no line and cycling is allowed across the whole width.

I don't support that method of creation, but in law they're still cycle tracks. Sometimes with a footway adjacent and sometimes without. People are generally allowed to walk on cycle tracks and we should give way to them when they do, but most people will share sensibly. The same applies to carriageways, but some motorists seem to get very cross when they have to share.

[Bmblbzzz]

They might legally be cycle tracks (or is it paths?) but in practice they are pavements for cycling on. In law, of course, there's no such thing as a pavement. Shared use facilities is the official name for these things, but I was simply trying to emphasise the practical - as opposed to legal - difference between these and the "superhighway" type facility.

[mjr]

They're only pavements for cycling on when councils are doing them wrong (more often than not, sadly). They're sometimes called shared use facilities by governments and others who hate cycling and seek to marginalise it. There's no such concept in law, to the best of my knowledge. We should resist such phrasing and demand cycle tracks. Without tactless tiles across them. Even the rubbish LTN02/08 gets it right in places, such as when a cycle track crosses a carriageway: no tactless across it.