Dangerous bollard?.

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3927
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by Nearholmer »

Ah, I see. That’s because I often snip out just a sentence from a very long posting to quote, rather than quoting the lot, then pruning.
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by Jdsk »

Interesting. I've started a thread on the etiquette:
viewtopic.php?t=156574

Jonathan
cycle tramp
Posts: 3531
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by cycle tramp »

mattheus wrote: 7 Jun 2023, 9:09am
cycle tramp wrote: 6 Jun 2023, 10:53pm <snip ... > You have to interact with them, and by doing so then they become hazardous. But by recognising that they are hazardous, you work in ways to minimise that hazard. The first step of avoiding hazards is to recognise them.
Good stuff.

So if an injury occurs where someone interacted with a hazard, you might then work to minimise that hazard?

Do you think the hazard that you are posting about has been minimised?
Ah, the trouble with minimising hazards, is its counter argument which is risk compensation... which is the safer you appear to make something the larger the risks one is prepared to take..

...however in this case I would be interested in the reasoning for one single bollard...

..however I would advise caution of anyone asking for the bollard to be a dayglo colour to make it stand out - after all, with this argument we only need to change cycle way to road, bollard to cyclist and cyclist to driver.... and we've written our own argument to wear the stuff...
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5814
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by roubaixtuesday »

Putting dangerous obstacles on cycle paths is a bad idea.

Still utilising mystified why any cyclist would feel otherwise.
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by pwa »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 7 Jun 2023, 10:26pm Putting dangerous obstacles on cycle paths is a bad idea.

Still utilising mystified why any cyclist would feel otherwise.
I share your opinion where it involves an obstacle, usually a lamp post, in the middle of a cycle path, away from any junction. But bollards at the end of cycle paths, where they meet roads, are something we expect and therefore anticipate. But even there, it helps if the bollards are made to be easily seen.
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5814
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by roubaixtuesday »

pwa wrote: 8 Jun 2023, 5:22am
roubaixtuesday wrote: 7 Jun 2023, 10:26pm Putting dangerous obstacles on cycle paths is a bad idea.

Still utilising mystified why any cyclist would feel otherwise.
I share your opinion where it involves an obstacle, usually a lamp post, in the middle of a cycle path, away from any junction. But bollards at the end of cycle paths, where they meet roads, are something we expect and therefore anticipate. But even there, it helps if the bollards are made to be easily seen.
There is no good reason for those bollards to exist. They impose risks without benefits.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3927
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by Nearholmer »

It’s impossible to meaningfully anticipate something that one doesn’t know is coming except in the most general terms (“this cycleway must end at some point”), so it’s more than helpful if the bollards highlighting such a thing are prominent: it’s absolutely essential, otherwise, if one doesn’t crash into the bollard, one might be unprepared for the hazard it is supposed to highlight.
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by mattheus »

cycle tramp wrote: 7 Jun 2023, 10:21pm
mattheus wrote: 7 Jun 2023, 9:09am
cycle tramp wrote: 6 Jun 2023, 10:53pm <snip ... > You have to interact with them, and by doing so then they become hazardous. But by recognising that they are hazardous, you work in ways to minimise that hazard. The first step of avoiding hazards is to recognise them.
Good stuff.

So if an injury occurs where someone interacted with a hazard, you might then work to minimise that hazard?

Do you think the hazard that you are posting about has been minimised?
Ah, the trouble with minimising hazards, is its counter argument which is risk compensation... which is the safer you appear to make something the larger the risks one is prepared to take..

...however in this case I would be interested in the reasoning for one single bollard...

..however I would advise caution of anyone asking for the bollard to be a dayglo colour to make it stand out - after all, with this argument we only need to change cycle way to road, bollard to cyclist and cyclist to driver.... and we've written our own argument to wear the stuff...
The Highways Engineers - you know, the ones whose views you were citing so emphatically - make almost every similar engineered hazard on the roads hi-viz (or similar). It's hardly a new idea to them :lol:
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by mjr »

mattheus wrote: 8 Jun 2023, 9:17am
cycle tramp wrote: 7 Jun 2023, 10:21pm ..however I would advise caution of anyone asking for the bollard to be a dayglo colour to make it stand out - after all, with this argument we only need to change cycle way to road, bollard to cyclist and cyclist to driver.... and we've written our own argument to wear the stuff...
The Highways Engineers - you know, the ones whose views you were citing so emphatically - make almost every similar engineered hazard on the roads hi-viz (or similar). It's hardly a new idea to them :lol:
And yet, black cars are still allowed.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by mattheus »

mjr wrote: 8 Jun 2023, 10:50am
mattheus wrote: 8 Jun 2023, 9:17am
cycle tramp wrote: 7 Jun 2023, 10:21pm ..however I would advise caution of anyone asking for the bollard to be a dayglo colour to make it stand out - after all, with this argument we only need to change cycle way to road, bollard to cyclist and cyclist to driver.... and we've written our own argument to wear the stuff...
The Highways Engineers - you know, the ones whose views you were citing so emphatically - make almost every similar engineered hazard on the roads hi-viz (or similar). It's hardly a new idea to them :lol:
And yet, black cars are still allowed.
Yup.
And they're only outsold by grey ones!!!

[made up statistic - I'm just going by what I think I see in the car-park outside the window]
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by pwa »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 8 Jun 2023, 7:25am
pwa wrote: 8 Jun 2023, 5:22am
roubaixtuesday wrote: 7 Jun 2023, 10:26pm Putting dangerous obstacles on cycle paths is a bad idea.

Still utilising mystified why any cyclist would feel otherwise.
I share your opinion where it involves an obstacle, usually a lamp post, in the middle of a cycle path, away from any junction. But bollards at the end of cycle paths, where they meet roads, are something we expect and therefore anticipate. But even there, it helps if the bollards are made to be easily seen.
There is no good reason for those bollards to exist. They impose risks without benefits.
Are you talking about this particular case, or every instance where bollards mark the end of a cycle path, where it joins a road? If it is the latter, I have seen the installation of bollards stop people driving cars on a cycle path to gain vehicular access to the rear of their homes, and parking on the path when they get there. I'd say that in that case the bollards did something useful. If I remember rightly, in that case the bollards were the common cast-iron-look black cylindrical sort, in black, with white reflective rings. Easier to distinguish than wood, perhaps.
cycle tramp
Posts: 3531
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by cycle tramp »

mattheus wrote: 8 Jun 2023, 9:17am
The Highways Engineers - you know, the ones whose views you were citing so emphatically - make almost every similar engineered hazard on the roads hi-viz (or similar). It's hardly a new idea to them :lol:
Good point and well made, sir.

I suspect that whilst highways would have preferred a much lighter coloured pollard... but that they were over ruled by planning.
Planning are strange people, who at one end of the scale are more than happy to see large areas of countryside turn into sprawling industrial units, houses and cinemas, but will at the other end of the spectrum insist on wooden bollards over sensible lighter coloured bollards to prevent 'the sense of urbanisation of open space'.
And if you don't argee with them, your cycle path doesn't get permission and isn't built (or continues to be a muddy path).

My own local cyclepath which provides a safe crossing of a very very busy A road, was only won on appeal - it was originally rejected as 'the cutting of the embankment and installation of a sealed path would adversely affect the rural idyllic' or something like that.

I believe that the cyclepath, south of Sherborne may have only got built because the charity at considerable cost to themselves agreed to use a brown crushed stone surface on the cyclepath rather than the cheaper normal black tarmac... again this was purely down to the planners.

I bet Highways England doesn't have this problem.
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by mjr »

cycle tramp wrote: 8 Jun 2023, 5:33pm I suspect that whilst highways would have preferred a much lighter coloured pollard... but that they were over ruled by planning.
Planning cannot overrule highways. The highways processes can happen after the planning permission has been granted and the Standard Highway Conditions on planning permission gives the highways department the final say by requiring agreement under sections 38 and 278 (IIRC) of the Highways Act. Even when a cycle-friendly planning department tries to bind a highways authority to actually deliver their fine words on cycling, it's very difficult to make it stick. If highways refused dull bollards or skiddy surfaces or whatever, that would be the end of them, but they rarely do for bikes.
I bet Highways England doesn't have this problem.
Generally, no. National Highways (rebranded again!) do what they do under broad legal powers with very little democratic accountability. Just see how difficult it is being to reverse the unlawful trashing of many old railway routes to prevent possible future non motorised use, all to save a few quid monitoring and maintaining road bridges.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
cycle tramp
Posts: 3531
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by cycle tramp »

mjr wrote: 9 Jun 2023, 12:09am
cycle tramp wrote: 8 Jun 2023, 5:33pm I suspect that whilst highways would have preferred a much lighter coloured pollard... but that they were over ruled by planning.
Planning cannot overrule highways. The highways processes can happen after the planning permission has been granted and the Standard Highway Conditions on planning permission gives the highways department the final say by requiring agreement under sections 38 and 278 (IIRC) of the Highways Act. Even when a cycle-friendly planning department tries to bind a highways authority to actually deliver their fine words on cycling, it's very difficult to make it stick.
If my memory serves section 38 is for a development of a road which is to be built as part of a new development (and is included in the larger application for the development) and section 278 is to alter part of an existing road to serve a new development (and again, the highway serves the development of a proposed housing or commercial site).

..in the case of the examples I've mentioned above, they were for a formation of a new cycle path and footway (rather than a highway, which would have included motor vehicles) and there were no other housing or industrial developments included as part of the application- as a result planning retains full power to refuse the formation of such footpaths and cycle ways, in the same manner it can refuse farmers the right to build new access tracks across their own land.

Unlike highways, cycle paths/footways have very little in the way of regulated features which allows planning a greater say in what materials should be used and its worse if the proposed cycleway/footpath is designed with no expectation of it being formally adopted by the council.
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
User avatar
plancashire
Posts: 545
Joined: 22 Apr 2007, 10:49am
Location: Düsseldorf, Germany

Re: Dangerous bollard?.

Post by plancashire »

Here is a bollard recently installed in Düsseldorf. It was reported in the local paper and has prompted some very witty comments.
RP - Radweg Poller.jpg
I am NOT a cyclist. I enjoy riding a bike for utility, commuting, fitness and touring on tout terrain Rohloff, Brompton M3 and Wester Ross 354 plus a Burley Travoy trailer.
Post Reply