Highways Road Maintenance And Any Statutory Duty To Consider Cyclists ?

[Psamathe]

Question: When Highways are scheduling routine (non-emergency) road maintenance do they have any statutory duty to consider cyclists in their plans. they seem to give plenty of consideration to motorists (diversions, etc.) but no consideration of the impact to cyclists. So do they currently have a statutory duty to consider ALL road users ?

(I'm currently having a "discussion/complaint" with my local Highways as they seem to only consider motorists - they schedule works with long diversions onto roads I would not want to cycle on when carrying out the works differently could make life easier for cyclists; particularly as the surface dressing makes a road unsafe for cyclists for a long time after cars re-start using it).

Ian

[meic]

If they do, it is ignored!

If any work needs doing on the A40 dual carriageway West of Carmarthen they erect warning signs across the cycle route and park their vans and plant blocking the cycle lane.
They also spread all the large gravel pieces that are in the trench all over the place while working.
The stones are then cleared off the road but not the cycle path.

This is one of the most commonly complained about stretches of track, to Sustrans, because of this.
Which is doubly annoying to Sustrans as it isnt part of the NCN.

[Vorpal]

It is covered by implication (but not explicitly) under the Road Traffic Regulation Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/2

There was also a TAL published by DfT http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... -15-99.pdf
which is, of course, not statutory duty, only guidance, though it can and should be used against local authorities

Some county councils have policies or permit schemes that require traffic disruptions and diversions to consider all road users, like this one from Essex County Council (which replaced a guidance document)
https://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/Document ... .pdf?la=en

So, I suggest starting with your local authority documentation.

edited to add: I just discovered a new document that might help... https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... tworks.pdf
This includes

Warning: Failure to comply with this Code is evidence of failing to fulfil the legal requirements to sign, light and guard works. Compliance with the Code will be taken as compliance with the legal requirements to which it relates.

This includes a section on looking after cyclists, and specific additional information about cyclists' needs for lanes widths, temporary traffic lights, awareness of obstacles, etc.

[axel_knutt]

Cycles are small enough and rare enough that they can squeeze past a lot of road works without too much inconvenience, if they were to put a notice to that effect on the diversion signs, most of the problem could be avoided.

[Ron]

I've been in the same situation as the OP, unfortunately few cyclists are prepared to complain so we will continue to be ignored.

[Psamathe]

Cycles are small enough and rare enough that they can squeeze past a lot of road works without too much inconvenience, if they were to put a notice to that effect on the diversion signs, most of the problem could be avoided.

Whilst I am pursuing that in a general sense Highways are not considering cyclists, a specific aspect of that is the surface dressing which my local Highways have gone way OTT with this summer - which in effect means you "can't squeeze past" and if you try by going on the newly laid surface you get tar everywhere (ruined a pair of my shoes with soles now coated in tar ...). But they are not signposting adequately and the diversions (often set without advanced warning despite it being scheduled works) can send you on detours of miles and you can end-up of roads that I consider particularly unsafe for cycling on. Whilst a 4 mile detour might be trivial in a car, it is not so trivial for somebody trying to get to work by bike on-time (when the road is suddenly closed without warning at 8:00am) and who rides 3 miles to work and 3 miles home each day ...

To make matters worse, when they are doing all the surface dressing they ignore manhole covers, etc. and you end-up with a raised road surface, ridge of tar/loose chippings, etc. round the manhole cover which even in a car causes a nasty bump (not so bad in a car as most of such created hazards are in the cycling primary position rather than where a cars wheels run).

I appreciate that Highways have to close roads on occasions and that they are facing budget cuts so are making more use of surface dressing, but they have gone potty with it dressing totally inappropriate roads. I was chatting to the workmen in the middle of surface dressing one single track lane and they were rolling their eyes saying how this was not really a road as there was nothing under the surface - and sure enough, less than a month later patches of the surface are now breaking up.

Ian

[Psamathe]

I've been in the same situation as the OP, unfortunately few cyclists are prepared to complain so we will continue to be ignored.

I made my complaint, got a several page response giving all sorts of irrelevant statistics and a thinly disguised "tough luck", so I've gone back with "You have completely failed to address the issues my complaint was about ...".

Ian

[Vorpal]

I've complained a few times in the past with some success (Essex CC).

I complained about a diversion once where the road was closed to all traffic, including pedestrians, with an approx. 8 mile diversion (12 miles extra when I attempted to go through and found out that I couldn't). After I complained, they added a sign that said the road was closed to all traffic & put up separate diversion signs for pedestrians. Other times, I complained that the timing on temporary traffic lights wasn't suitable for cyclists, and they got changed, though it did take a few days. I don't live there anymore, so I don't know how it is recently.

[meic]

To make matters worse, when they are doing all the surface dressing they ignore manhole covers, etc. and you end-up with a raised road surface, ridge of tar/loose chippings, etc. round the manhole cover which even in a car causes a nasty bump (not so bad in a car as most of such created hazards are in the cycling primary position rather than where a cars wheels run).

If it makes you feel any better when the road was resurfaced in my village, I helped out a young man who had put a hole in his sump while driving over a raised manhole cover before the final coat had been applied.

[Psamathe]

To make matters worse, when they are doing all the surface dressing they ignore manhole covers, etc. and you end-up with a raised road surface, ridge of tar/loose chippings, etc. round the manhole cover which even in a car causes a nasty bump (not so bad in a car as most of such created hazards are in the cycling primary position rather than where a cars wheels run).

If it makes you feel any better when the road was resurfaced in my village, I helped out a young man who had put a hole in his sump while driving over a raised manhole cover before the final coat had been applied.

Nasty losing a sump, but consider what that might have done to a cyclist (worse if being followed by a motor vehicle as the cyclist suddenly ends-up on the road in front of a moving car). Another example of Highways failing to consider cyclists.

Ian

[mjr]

Question: When Highways are scheduling routine (non-emergency) road maintenance do they have any statutory duty to consider cyclists in their plans. they seem to give plenty of consideration to motorists (diversions, etc.) but no consideration of the impact to cyclists. So do they currently have a statutory duty to consider ALL road users ?

Yes. Vorpal has linked to the code of practice on safety at street works, which is given legal force by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

However, if this is Norfolk County Council (NCoC), there's also the disgusting Norfolk Transport Asset Management Plan https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/what-we-do-a ... ement-plan which often means cycling gets stuffed around here.

Please keep Norwich Cycling Campaign (NCyC - for Norwich and neighbouring districts - CTC's Tony Clarke is involved) or KLWNBUG (for West Norfolk, North Norfolk and Breckland) informed. If you're on Facebook, send me a friend request and I'll invite you into some groups that people on there use to coordinate. Or there's http://klwnbug.cyclescape.org/. Our members have had to take NCoC officers to the Local Government Ombudsman and we won the last one - it's long overdue that the rest of NCoC sorted themselves out about this, instead of it being left to a lottery of cycling-friendly and cycling-clueless officers.

[Psamathe]

Question: When Highways are scheduling routine (non-emergency) road maintenance do they have any statutory duty to consider cyclists in their plans. they seem to give plenty of consideration to motorists (diversions, etc.) but no consideration of the impact to cyclists. So do they currently have a statutory duty to consider ALL road users ?

...
Please keep Norwich Cycling Campaign (NCyC - for Norwich and neighbouring districts - CTC's Tony Clarke is involved) or KLWNBUG (for West Norfolk, North Norfolk and Breckland) informed. If you're on Facebook, send me a friend request and I'll invite you into some groups that people on there use to coordinate. Or there's http://klwnbug.cyclescape.org/. Our members have had to take NCoC officers to the Local Government Ombudsman and we won the last one - it's long overdue that the rest of NCoC sorted themselves out about this, instead of it being left to a lottery of cycling-friendly and cycling-clueless officers.

Not on Facebook (nor anything similar). Initial complaint was over the telephone. Response was a cut and paste job not addressing anything but giving several pages of "budget constraints", "cost per unit distance", history and stats, etc. - probably exactly what everybody else who complains gets. My response was brief in "You failed to address ..." and 4 "for examples". I doubt I'll get anywhere except that each person complaining gets the volume turned up very very slightly.

Probably mentioned it elsewhere (and not part of my complaint) but I'm also making a claim against the Council Highways as their tar ruined my cycling shoes. The claim is more about slightly "turning up the volume". I (I believe quite legally) went down a bridleway and came onto a road where the surface dressing machine had recently past the junction (100 yds down the road) and as there were no signs warning of anything, no diversions, nothing, I had to walk over the freshly laid surface and I was not going to turn round riding an extra 6 miles in high 20's°C, water virtually finished, all because they had not considered cyclists riding where they were perfectly legally allowed to ride ... (at least that is my limited understanding).

Ian

[millimole]

Leicestershire have a habit of making long diversions around works connected with new developments (Lubbesthorpe and Optimus Park) but failing to consider cyclists. They then just ignore repeated complaints.


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my iPad using hovercraft full of eels.

[Adnepos]

On several occasions I've been caught on a longish stretch of single carriageway between temporary traffic lights, with nowhere to go (eg deep trench on one side and parked up maintenance vehicles on the other) in the face of oncoming traffic. This is particularly pressing when the stretch is uphill and you are loaded up; you have to wait until all the motor vehicles have gone through because a standing uphill start in front of them is unsafe and then you make really slow progress through the roadworks.

Do you think the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act (including amendments, New Roads... 1991 &c) requires cyclists be taken into account? The way I read it, there doesn't appear to be any such requirement! The 2013 DfT Guidance and the 1999 Traffic Advisory Leaflet (see above for both) certainly help but do not have the impact on Highways Departments that a law might.

[tim-b]

Hi
I've noticed that longer stretches of temporary traffic lights around here don't account for the slower speed of cyclists; on several occasions I've been confronted by oncoming traffic that has legally "gone" on green and I'm sure that they think that I've come through on red because that's what all cyclists do, right?
Regards
tim-b