Cadent Gas

[BobSweet]

Is it a nationwide issue that Cadent Gas do not leave enough time for cyclists at their roadworks? It certainly seems to be a regular thing in Cheshire / Manchester. They cone off a long section of road, presumably for the safety of their workers, they don't give cyclists enough time to get through. Last time I complained they just put up "Cyclist Dismount" signs. Here is a video of their latest effort near me, which seems unchanged since I passed it a week ago, except more cones have been demolished.
https://youtu.be/bElfCft-XlQ
I have reported this via FixMyStreet.

[Pinkie]

Is it a nationwide issue that Cadent Gas do not leave enough time for cyclists at their roadworks? It certainly seems to be a regular thing in Cheshire / Manchester. They cone off a long section of road, presumably for the safety of their workers, they don't give cyclists enough time to get through. Last time I complained they just put up "Cyclist Dismount" signs. Here is a video of their latest effort near me, which seems unchanged since I passed it a week ago, except more cones have been demolished.
https://youtu.be/bElfCft-XlQ
I have reported this via FixMyStreet.

What's the interval and the distance. Road workers in general seem to leave an inordinate time between light cycles to clear the road for the oncoming traffic

So much so that I just go on with my journey on the pavement

I suppose it largely depends how fast you go ? You cant really exspect to inconvienance thousands of people if your going at walking speed and if your going at walking speed you may as well get off and walk

[[XAP]Bob]

It doesn't help that many people think that a green light means "go"

[Pinkie]

It doesn't help that many people think that a green light means "go"

Well it sort of does, it means PROCEED with caution, it doesnt mean sit there till the road is clear, the expectation of a green light is that the road is clear. That's the whole purpose of traffic lights

[philvantwo]

Maximum legal distance between 'wait here' signs is 300 metres.
I had an issue with Western Power and the mess they left behind in the gutter just round the corner from me. The area manager gave me a call and said he was sending a road sweeper out that same afternoon. The next day he phoned again saying he'd personally been out and was sending the sweeper out again as he wasn't happy with it.
Cadent are a nightmare around here, start one job and then leave it for a fortnight, its like a roadworks festival.
Best thing is to go on Twitter and complain. Temporary lights are normally provided by a third party comany so get onto them as well.
No joy.......contact the HSE.

[mjr]

Is it a nationwide issue that Cadent Gas do not leave enough time for cyclists at their roadworks?

Yes.

It certainly seems to be a regular thing in Cheshire / Manchester. They cone off a long section of road, presumably for the safety of their workers, they don't give cyclists enough time to get through. Last time I complained they just put up "Cyclist Dismount" signs.

Use of "Cyclists Dismount" is a pretty clear sign ( ) that they are not following the current Code of Practice on Safety at Streetworks, which is required by law. Since 2013, it has said "You must ensure suitable provisions are made for the safety of cyclists passing or crossing the works" and "When portable traffic signals are used, bear in mind when setting the timings that cyclists might take longer than motor vehicles to clear the controlled section." https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... road-works

A plain "Cyclists Dismount" is no longer allowed and the replacement "Cyclists Dismount and Use Footway" should only be used when the carriageway is closed.

Unfortunately, enforcement of that is the responsibility of the highways authority and it seems that most couldn't care less about cycling.

It doesn't help that many people think that a green light means "go"

Well it sort if does, it means PROCEED with caution, it doesnt mean sit there till the road is clear, the expectation of a green light is that the road is clear. That's the whole purpose of traffic lights

You may wish to reread this part of Rule 176 of the Highway Code: "Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely"

Or the section on "Light Signals Controls" which also states "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear."

Where does anything official say that a green traffic light means proceed with caution?

[Pinkie]

Maximum legal distance between 'wait here' signs is 300 metres.
I had an issue with Western Power and the mess they left behind in the gutter just round the corner from me. The area manager gave me a call and said he was sending a road sweeper out that same afternoon. The next day he phoned again saying he'd personally been out and was sending the sweeper out again as he wasn't happy with it.
Cadent are a nightmare around here, start one job and then leave it for a fortnight, its like a roadworks festival.
Best thing is to go on Twitter and complain. Temporary lights are normally provided by a third party comany so get onto them as well.
No joy.......contact the HSE.

So at a fairly moderate speed 300 meters will take you about 30 seconds, let's say 40 , I'd be suprised if the green to green cycle wasnt several times that ?

[Pinkie]

Is it a nationwide issue that Cadent Gas do not leave enough time for cyclists at their roadworks?

Yes.

It certainly seems to be a regular thing in Cheshire / Manchester. They cone off a long section of road, presumably for the safety of their workers, they don't give cyclists enough time to get through. Last time I complained they just put up "Cyclist Dismount" signs.

Use of "Cyclists Dismount" is a pretty clear sign ( ) that they are not following the current Code of Practice on Safety at Streetworks, which is required by law. Since 2013, it has said "You must ensure suitable provisions are made for the safety of cyclists passing or crossing the works" and "When portable traffic signals are used, bear in mind when setting the timings that cyclists might take longer than motor vehicles to clear the controlled section." https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... road-works

A plain "Cyclists Dismount" is no longer allowed and the replacement "Cyclists Dismount and Use Footway" should only be used when the carriageway is closed.

Unfortunately, enforcement of that is the responsibility of the highways authority and it seems that most couldn't care less about cycling.

It doesn't help that many people think that a green light means "go"

Well it sort if does, it means PROCEED with caution, it doesnt mean sit there till the road is clear, the expectation of a green light is that the road is clear. That's the whole purpose of traffic lights

You may wish to reread this part of Rule 176 of the Highway Code: "Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely"

Or the section on "Light Signals Controls" which also states "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear."

Where does anything official say that a green traffic light means proceed with caution?

Not really applicable as temp road works traffic lights dont generally incorporate a junction and the highway code not its self being the law

[thirdcrank]

This is the relevant bit of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8 Part 2 Operations

O3.14 CYCLISTS
O3.14.1 Consideration must be given to the safety of cyclists in particular when narrow lane techniques are
applied on all-purpose roads.
O3.14.2 Long lengths of narrow lanes can cause diffi culties for cyclists and it may be preferable to have lanes
that are too narrow for other vehicles to overtake than lanes where passing is possible but unsafe. Lane widths
between 2.75 m and 3.25 m should be avoided. Detailed guidance on lane widths is given in Part 1: Design,
Section D3.3.
O3.14.3 In situations where motor vehicles are unable to pass cyclists safely, e.g. where the effective lane
width is less than 3.5 m, the use of temporary speed limits should be considered, backed by the appropriate
enforcement methods, where feasible; see Part 1 Design, Section D3.7.
O3.14.4 It should be borne in mind that cyclists are particularly vulnerable to rough surfaces (temporary or
otherwise) and particularly gullies at the edge of the carriageway. Therefore, wearing courses should be kept as
level as possible, especially at locations where cycling demand is known to exist. Guidance on surface condition
is given in Section O3.16.
O3.14.5 Care should be taken not to place cones, signs and other items in locations likely to cause hazards to cyclists
O3.14.6 Where there is cycle provision, such as cycle lanes or tracks, efforts should be made to keep these
open or to provide an acceptable alternative during the road works. They should not be blocked by signs,
debris, plant etc.
O3.14.7 The settings on portable signals should give cyclists suffi cient opportunity to pass safely through
road works, particularly where oncoming motor vehicles cannot pass without confl ict. See Section O3.21 for
guidance on the use of portable traffi c signals.
O3.14.8 When cycle routes, and other facilities for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians, are affected
by the road works the changes should be clearly signed well in advance of the road works.
O3.14.9 Cyclists may be tempted to ride contra-fl ow to the traffi c or use the footway in order to avoid
potential hazards, lengthy diversions or other long delays. Hence, wherever possible, access for cyclists should
be maintained in both directions throughout the period of road works, avoiding more hazardous diversions.
Where possible, a segregated cycle lane or route away from the carriageway should be provided particularly on
dual carriageways or multi-lane roads.
O3.14.10 Department for Transport Traffic Advisory leaflet 15/99 gives further guidance on catering for the
needs of cyclists at road works.
O3.14.11 For road works on routes used by both cyclists and pedestrians, the guidance given in this section
should be considered in conjunction with that given in Section O3.13
(My bold)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... art-02.pdf

[Pete Owens]

... https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... road-works

While it is good concerning the continuation of pedestrian and cycle access, it is absolutely dreadful when it comes to the layout of a shuttle section.

The worst part is the recommended width - where it recommends an "ideal" range of 3.25 - 3.5m. This is the worst possible width from a cycling POV - as if they were actively trying to cause close passes. If the lane cannot be made wide enough for safe overtaking (quite likely at roadworks as you need at least 4.5m) then they should be narrowed to less than 3m so it is obvious to even the most impatient driver that overtaking simply isn't possible.

It doesn't even mention the delay in the timing of the signals to allow for the passage of vehicles. This is bad even for conventional permanent traffic lights at larger junctions that use a formula that assumes vehicles will accelerate to well in excess of cycling speed - I guess temporary lights will use the same formula.

[Pinkie]

... https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... road-works

While it is good concerning the continuation of pedestrian and cycle access, it is absolutely dreadful when it comes to the layout of a shuttle section.

The worst part is the recommended width - where it recommends an "ideal" range of 3.25 - 3.5m. This is the worst possible width from a cycling POV - as if they were actively trying to cause close passes. If the lane cannot be made wide enough for safe overtaking (quite likely at roadworks as you need at least 4.5m) then they should be narrowed to less than 3m so it is obvious to even the most impatient driver that overtaking simply isn't possible.

It doesn't even mention the delay in the timing of the signals to allow for the passage of vehicles. This is bad even for conventional permanent traffic lights at larger junctions that use a formula that assumes vehicles will accelerate to well in excess of cycling speed - I guess temporary lights will use the same formula.

Do you have this formula? Because I doubt that's true, if cycling speed is in double figures, 3 mph you may have a point!

[Pete Owens]

This is the relevant bit of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8 Part 2 Operations

O3.14 CYCLISTS
...

O3.14.2 Long lengths of narrow lanes can cause difficulties for cyclists and it may be preferable to have lanes
that are too narrow for other vehicles to overtake than lanes where passing is possible but unsafe. Lane widths
between 2.75 m and 3.25 m should be avoided. Detailed guidance on lane widths is given in Part 1: Design,
Section D3.3.

Now the principle of the first sentence is spot on - it is the actual widths that they come up with that are the problem.
If you look up the section referred to in part 1 you find this says:

D3.3.7 On all-purpose single and dual carriageway roads, the designer should consider the adequacy of
lane width provisions for vehicles to overtake cyclists safely. Department for Transport Traffic Advisory Leafl et
15/99 advises that cyclists need a width of at least 1.25 m to travel safely, thus requiring a minimum lane width
of 3.25 m to allow a typical car to safely overtake a cyclist.

This calculation is the source of the stupidity - that has been repeated in various manifestations of the road works spec over the years.
If you take the dynamic width of a cyclist as 1m and a clearance of 0.25m from the kerb then you arrive at the figure of 1.25m. ie the distance from the kerb to the right elbow of a cyclist riding as close to the left as practicable. They have the simply added the width of a car to determine the the amount of space needed to overtake. Presumably "safe" in their book means it is physically possible to get past with the right wheel of the car scraping the cones and the left wing mirror brushing past the cyclists right elbow.

...
O3.14.7 The settings on portable signals should give cyclists sufficient opportunity to pass safely through
road works, particularly where oncoming motor vehicles cannot pass without conflict. See Section O3.21 for
guidance on the use of portable traffic signals.

And again, the first sentence is fine - but section O3.21 has absolutely nothing to say about timing. And remember, they think 3.5 m is sufficient width to pass oncoming vehicles without conflict.

[Pinkie]

This is the relevant bit of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8 Part 2 Operations

O3.14 CYCLISTS
...

O3.14.2 Long lengths of narrow lanes can cause difficulties for cyclists and it may be preferable to have lanes
that are too narrow for other vehicles to overtake than lanes where passing is possible but unsafe. Lane widths
between 2.75 m and 3.25 m should be avoided. Detailed guidance on lane widths is given in Part 1: Design,
Section D3.3.

Now the principle of the first sentence is spot on - it is the actual widths that they come up with that are the problem.
If you look up the section referred to in part 1 you find this says:

D3.3.7 On all-purpose single and dual carriageway roads, the designer should consider the adequacy of
lane width provisions for vehicles to overtake cyclists safely. Department for Transport Traffic Advisory Leafl et
15/99 advises that cyclists need a width of at least 1.25 m to travel safely, thus requiring a minimum lane width
of 3.25 m to allow a typical car to safely overtake a cyclist.

This calculation is the source of the stupidity - that has been repeated in various manifestations of the road works spec over the years.
If you take the dynamic width of a cyclist as 1m and a clearance of 0.25m from the kerb then you arrive at the figure of 1.25m. ie the distance from the kerb to the right elbow of a cyclist riding as close to the left as practicable. They have the simply added the width of a car to determine the the amount of space needed to overtake. Presumably "safe" in their book means it is physically possible to get past with the right wheel of the car scraping the cones and the left wing mirror brushing past the cyclists right elbow.

...
O3.14.7 The settings on portable signals should give cyclists sufficient opportunity to pass safely through
road works, particularly where oncoming motor vehicles cannot pass without conflict. See Section O3.21 for
guidance on the use of portable traffic signals.

And again, the first sentence is fine - but section O3.21 has absolutely nothing to say about timing. And remember, they think 3.5 m is sufficient width to pass oncoming vehicles without conflict.

I think the one meter " dynamic width " ( sic) is a bit top side unless you have particularly wide bars on or a very rotund cyclist. , even then a fair amount of that will be overhanging the kerb if you can get over to the left

The whole thing is problematic, as the roads are as wide as they are and if you close one direction there is very little wriggle room on a narrow road ,

I either get over to the left and wave hesitant cars past, I'd sooner they come when I am exspecting them or if it's to narrow for that, either block the whole road or say stuff it and ride on the pavement.

Either way I get where I'm going in one peice

[Pete Owens]

This is bad even for conventional permanent traffic lights at larger junctions that use a formula that assumes vehicles will accelerate to well in excess of cycling speed - I guess temporary lights will use the same formula.

Do you have this formula? Because I doubt that's true, if cycling speed is in double figures, 3 mph you may have a point!

See: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... pter-6.pdf
Table 6-1
Page 40
It allows 5s for the first 9m and thereafter 1s for every additional 9m - which equates to accelerating up to 20mph.

[thirdcrank]

Re TAL 15/99, I can only say that in those days when they were in paper form, I was on the circulation list, and I got my copy just after I'd had a close shave on roadworks just down the road. I presume there must be a contact number because I rang and got through to somebody responsible. After a polite but firm discussion in which I left him in no doubt of my feelings, his concluding words were along the lines "These advisory leaflets are not for people like you.... (they are for professionals.)"