Cycling UK Forum

Yesterday I encountered this:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/133101/
in Warrington.

Just 1.2m between the fence and the cones so you have to ride very precisely - and a bit of a nuisance when you want to turn right. Fortunately it is only about 100m long. I wonder how much of the emergency funding they managed to squeeze out of Grant Shapps for that?

We are products of our environment in some ways and when that's the level of incompetence being exhibited, I can understand why you often seem to default to thinking most cycling infrastructure does nothing to facilitate or encourage cycling!

I think I'm right in saying that cones and the high kerb inside the fence are both meant to have 0.5m gap between them and cycle traffic to allow for typical deviation/wobbling, so if your 1.2m measurement is cone to kerb, the effective width of that lane is just 0.2m, which is obviously quite a long way short of the standard 1.0m cycle design vehicle envelope. I cannot imagine what thought process led anyone in Warrington Highways Department to decide that was worth doing, especially if turning right at one end is a key cycling desire line. 20mph limit over the bridge and line removal would have been better.

I also wonder if they had to buy new cones specially and what the recent surge in demand has done to prices(!)

1.2m - I wonder how they measured it. I bet it is cone centre to the fence. Now allow say 15cm for the kerb and 15cm from cone centre to edge of base, and the riding width becomes 0.9 m. My trike is 0.75m so that allows 7cm (less than 3") either side for wobble factor. Of course this is before the cones get pushed out of place.

mjr wrote:I also wonder if they had to buy new cones specially and what the recent surge in demand has done to prices(!)

It's a good job the universities are closed or the traditional drunken student night out would get very expensive!

I thought Warrington were exceptionally and famously prone to this kind of stuff? Wasn't it the Warrington Cycle Campaign who started the Web site about poor cycle lanes?

tatanab wrote:1.2m - I wonder how they measured it.

From the other side I would imagine. The iron law of cycle facility design is that absolutely nothing must be done to inconvenience motorists in any way so they will have measured a full standard general traffic lane from the centre line, then put in the cones, then the cycle lane is whatever is left over.

I've ridden that road thousands of times and can't see why it needs cones for me as a cyclist to be safe,the road is very wide anyway
I take the right lane after the bridge and have never had a problem providing I signal in enough time.

These are getting rolled out in parts of Edinburgh. Not a fan of them myself.

No, I'd agree. Apart from the difficulty in moving out of lane for the cyclist, most bike accidents happen at junctions, and it doesn't look as though they address that. Needs at minimum a differently-coloured surface.

reohn2 wrote:I've ridden that road thousands of times and can't see why it needs cones for me as a cyclist to be safe,the road is very wide anyway

Whereas just to the north is an oversized roundabout
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3894279,-2.5663127,3a,75y,349.23h,76.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJfEliqJypxEykC_YzvbaGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
and to the south there are some nasty pinch points.
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/83675/

As always the cycle facilities are located were there is surplus space, not to address problems.

I take the right lane after the bridge and have never had a problem providing I signal in enough time.

Something you will now find tricky (at least southbound), since the cones take you nearly as far as the junction.

Syd wrote:These are getting rolled out in parts of Edinburgh.

Particularly ironic since they are being installed as a response to the pandemic and the need for social distancing.

Pete Owens wrote:

reohn2 wrote:I've ridden that road thousands of times and can't see why it needs cones for me as a cyclist to be safe,the road is very wide anyway

Whereas just to the north is an oversized roundabout
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3894279,-2.5663127,3a,75y,349.23h,76.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJfEliqJypxEykC_YzvbaGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
and to the south there are some nasty pinch points.
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/83675/

As always the cycle facilities are located were there is surplus space, not to address problems.

I take the right lane after the bridge and have never had a problem providing I signal in enough time.

Something you will now find tricky (at least southbound), since the cones take you nearly as far as the junction.

Yer not wrong.

Pete Owens wrote:

tatanab wrote:1.2m - I wonder how they measured it.

From the other side I would imagine. The iron law of cycle facility design is that absolutely nothing must be done to inconvenience motorists in any way so they will have measured a full standard general traffic lane from the centre line, then put in the cones, then the cycle lane is whatever is left over.

Unfortunately this seems to be true, at least of the painted line type. As the road gets narrower, the cycle lane gets narrower with its markings staying a fixed width from the centre line.

Just out of interest, semi-permanent (pop-up?) protected cycle provision in Sweden.
https://goo.gl/maps/TjciPaSFniJcnVjm8

hufty wrote:Just out of interest, semi-permanent (pop-up?) protected cycle provision in Sweden.
https://goo.gl/maps/TjciPaSFniJcnVjm8

Hmm, it's shared pedestrians and cyclists, and it's for both directions. It doesn't look like a densely populated area but it is urban enough to have zebras. Doesn't really look quite wide enough to me. Good but a lot is going to depend on popular handlebar widths and how foots and wheels play together in limited spaces in Swedish road culture.