(Urgent) Help needed - Cycleway complaint

[freiston]

I've already posted this on YACF but have decided to post it on here to increase my chances of a response (two so far on YACF):


I'm hoping for some good direction here . . .

Recently, some new road markings appeared on the relatively new Coundon Cycleway in Coventry, where there is access to a property ("Christ The King" - a church, social club and school). The cycleway has priority over the access to the property but the new markings, imho, make it appear that the vehicles entering/exiting the property have priority.

I wrote to the council and got what I considered to be a fob-off reply. I responded with a "formal complaint" which was logged as such and dealt with by a "complaint not upheld" fob-off from the same bloke.

I've been given 20 days in which to appeal.

Now for the detail . . .

Firstly, my original email:

Hello,

I hope that I have addressed this to the right people - if not, I would be most grateful if you could forward it on to the relevant person/department and copy me in.

When using the Coundon Cycleway today, I noticed "road markings" across the cycleway that give the impression that cyclists must give way to traffic entering and exiting Christ the King premises. This surprised me because it was my understanding that a big feature of the Coundon Cycleway is that it is prioritised over side entrances and roads. Furthermore, the markings do not look to me to be complying with regulations or codes of good practice.

My suspicion is that the markings have been made by an unauthorised party and should not be there.

I have attached a photo for reference.

Can you investigate and let me know what's happening please?


Thanks and regards,

. . . and here's the attached photo - the lines extend into the property with a further "IN" and "OUT" painted into the two "lanes":



. . . and the response:

Dear Adrian,

These lines have been implemented following concerns raised by local stakeholders regarding how the access operated.

As with all changes to the highway, the change will be monitored to evaluate the effectiveness for all users.

Kind regards,



Mark O’Connell

Head of Public Realm

City Services

Coventry City Council

My response:

Dear Mark,

In that case, I feel compelled to make a formal complaint because of safety issues and I ask you to accept this email as a formal complaint and escalate it as appropriate.

I understand that the the cycleway was planned, constructed and adopted as having priority over access to and from Christ The King (as well as other properties and side streets) - the consultation document specified "Vehicles accessing and egressing car park must give way to cycleway first" (please see attached plan excerpt).

I understand that there has been no legal change of priority over the cycleway at the entrance to Christ The King since the cycleway was opened.

If there were concerns about how the access operated, then any new or additional markings should have reflected that "Vehicles accessing and egressing car park must give way to cycleway first", such as Give Way or Stop markings, for the traffic accessing and exiting the car park to obey. Instead, the markings make it look like vehicles accessing and egressing car park have clear priority over the cycleway.

As the new markings are, they are dangerous. They significantly mislead motorists entering or exiting the car park that they have priority. A motorist could assume priority instead of ceding it (and a cyclist could reasonably expect a motorist exiting or entering the car park to give way) - this could lead to a collision causing serious injury or death - and to reiterate, the markings would be a significant factor.

I have seen near misses at this junction/entrance since the markings have been made. I urge you to have the markings as they currently are to be removed.

You did not mention in your reply who implemented the lines and you did not say what the concerns raised were - nor did you explain the procedures followed. The reason I bring this up is because I find it hard to believe that something so dangerous and irresponsible could be implemented with, to the best of my knowledge, no notices of work, or change of priority/layout being given to users of the cycleway. I also find it incredible that this has been sanctioned by your office - as it appears to be from your reply.

Kind regards,

Attached plan excerpt referred to:



This got logged with the complaints team and later I received a response forwarded as an attachment by the complaints team:



For reference, here's a Google Maps link - if you go into Street View then from the south, the images are pre-cycleway and from the north, they are after the cycleway was built.

My initial thought was to refer to the Highway Code/Govt guidelines on road markings and argue their unsuitability on that basis but after a quick search, I didn't get very far and thought it best to ask for some help/guidance.

So, pretty-please can you help me or give me advice?

Thanks in anticipation


My 2nd post:

I'm wondering about approaching it on the basis that the markings as “edge of carriageway at a junction of a cycle track and another road”, should be along the edge of the cycleway and not across it, because as they are they effectively delineate the path of the vehicles into the property as a carriageway going over the cycleway and they should be going along the edges of the cycleway instead.

If this is the way to go, I would appreciate some help.

[gaz]

.

[slowster]

Hopefully other more knowledgeable posters can give you better advice than me, but the following occur to me:

1.There is a blog about the cycleway and the design features here - https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com ... -city.html, including a photograph of that entrance before the new markings were installed - https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/i ... 59_HDR.jpg. And this shows it before the installation of the cycleway - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4222068 ... FQAw%3D%3D

I suggest you contact that blogger, because he seems knowledgeable and may be able to advise you.

2. They are apparently trying to give priority to vehicles entering (and exiting) what I presume are private premises. The reply to your complaint specifically refers to 'concerned local stakeholders regarding how the access to Christ the King operated'. Maybe they worded that poorly and there are also concerns about egress, although my guess is that people are complaining that cars in the road waiting for a gap between passing pedestrians and cyclists in order to turn into the site, are blocking the road.

On that note, as I see it what the council is doing directly conflicts with Highway Code Rule 170 (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 159-to-203) and Rules H2 and H3 (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... troduction). The rules require vehicles intending to turn into a side road* to give way not only to pedestrians already crossing the side road, but also pedestrians 'waiting to cross'. The HC seems clearer to me about the priority that should be given to pedestrians in these circumstances, but I do not see that it is viable or safe to have different priority for cyclists, when both pedestrians and cyclists are travelling on parallel paths.

* And it is not even a side road, it's the entrance to private premises.

I think the fact that pedestrians use a parallel path and the council is similarly trying to remove their priority, is an important angle of attack. HC Rules 170, H2 and H3 are unambiguous about pedestrian priority, and if the council cannot do it to pedestrians, then they will have to concede the same for cyclists.

Incidentally, we have had a couple of threads which have touched on the issue of cyclists' priority at road junctions under the new HC - viewtopic.php?t=154978 and viewtopic.php?t=155893.

It seems to me that the council are trying to reverse the effect in the HC of Rules 170, H2 and H3. I suspect they probably cannot do that lawfully using the markings they have installed, and with good reason because it creates confusion and danger to pedestrians and cyclists if vehicle drivers wrongly believe they have priority and do not need to give way contrary to what the HC says. My guess is that the correct and lawful way to give vehicles priority in this situation would be to install traffic lights and a toucan crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, but I also guess that there is negligible chance of the council and the owners of Christ the King being able/allowed to install traffic lights.

3. Like Gaz, I think the argument that what they have done is consistent with the rest of the cycleway is highly questionable. Firstly Christ the King are presumably private premises. It does not look to me like any other private premises with parking accessed by crossing the cycleway and pavement have such markings, whether they be private residential premises or otherwise, e.g.

Access to car parking for flats - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4126864 ... FQAw%3D%3D

Bablake and King Henry VIII School - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4283401 ... FQAw%3D%3D

As for side roads (not access to private premises), there are others in addition to the one found by Gaz where there are give way signs/markings for traffic exiting a side road and crossing the cycleway and pavement. And to state the obvious, for traffic turning into the side roads, HC Rules 170, H2 and H3 apply.

Hollyfast Rd - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.423445, ... FQAw%3D%3D

Browett Rd - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4185396 ... FQAw%3D%3D

Stanier Ave - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4128831 ... FQAw%3D%3D

Pake's Croft (give way marking for cyclists exiting a side road!) - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4180341 ... FQAw%3D%3D

And where there are no signs/markings, are they really suggesting that the special raised surface and kerbing should/may be interpreted by drivers as giving them priority both exiting and entering side roads like those below?

Elmwood Ave - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4209245 ... FQAw%3D%3D

Ashwood Ave - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4202461 ... shwood Ave

[simonhill]

Call me cynical but is it worth investigating who are the the worthies at Christ the King.

Given this is the only access/egress altered, it could be a bit of string pulling.

Maybe a friendly chat off bike with some of the drivers asking about the (very good) change.

[tim-b]

LAs react to media scrutiny, use BBC radio and TV, local radio and media, etc.
You're in that lull between bonfire night and Christmas lights so get in there. Hold up the "waste" of markings contrary to the Highway Code and other points already raised.

Does this change affect Christmas shoppers and make access more difficult for the public at large?

LAs don't have a rigorous complaint process IME, so try contacting The Holy Cross Catholic Multi Academy Company who manage this group of schools and explain the danger to pupils who cycle, get them on the telly too

[JohnR]

Also see section 10 of LTN 1/20 https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... gn-ltn-120. This very useful document (from the cyclists' perspective) seems to be frequently overlooked by the local authorities highways staff despite being published over 4 years ago.

[mjr]

I would appeal further because you've got basically nothing to lose by doing so, other than the authority digging in and doubling down on its incorrect decision. I would appeal on the grounds that the measures are inappropriate because they do not follow any design in LTN 1/20 "cycling infrastructure design", that the council failed to consult properly stakeholder groups that did not express concerns such as the local cycling campaign and users of the cycle way, and that no monitoring data has been published so far.

But, as others mention, the complaints process rarely works. Locally, even when a complaint worked, after going all the way to the local government ombudsman, the invalid changes were left in place, (because removing them would affect another innocent resident negatively), with only a commitment not to do it again in the same way. Of course, they made similar downgrades nearby later, by using a slightly different process.

So i would also try two other tactics. First, seek a meeting with the relevant councillor for the area. In most of England, that would be the county or unitary councillor. If you can get a postcode, say of the church, then www.writetothem.com will tell you who. Express concern about their division's residents, especially ones cycling to school, work or shops, helping to achieve council transport targets.

Secondly, like others suggest, see if you can get the press interested. The local cycling campaign might have useful contact information.

[pjclinch]

Until earlier this year a lot of the driving force for better cycle infra in the West Midlands had been Adam Tranter, but he's stepped down from the Cycling Commissioner role now. He might know good lines to follow to get this un-borken, he's @adamtranter.bsky.social on BlueSky and a post about it tagging him in might get something done.

Pete.

[simonhill]

After I posted above, I went through a few of the recent newsletters of the Church and Primary school to see if there were any clues. Nothing mentioned, although maybe I didn't go far enough back.

Nonetheless as it is (in part) a Primary school, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for sympathy from the press even though most (or all).of the little darlings will be in cars. It'll be children at risk from speeding cyclists.

[rareposter]

So, pretty-please can you help me or give me advice?

Main advice - do not do this alone.

You are one person and as a result you are easy to fob off. You need to get your local cycling & walking group involved. Sustrans could be your first port of call, they'll have a Regional Representative person. Active Travel England will also have a regional rep.

https://www.activetravelengland.gov.uk/

(also links in there to endless resources covering design specification, design toolkits etc).

If YOU tell them they've messed up the design, they'll double down on it, tell you you're "just" a cyclist, can't see the bigger picture etc (maybe not directly but that'll be their angle). If ATE tell them they've messed up the design and they won't get any further funding if they carry on with such nonsense, they'll listen.

Very bluntly, you can write back and forth on your own for years and nothing will come of it other than your name being added to one of those "not him again" piles in the council offices. Or you can bring in the big guns.

(as an aside, this is also the way to deal with things like getting a zebra crossing or speed restrictions put in outside a school. Do it en masse, get as much local interest support as possible and ideally someone from police / Highways etc to tell the council why they're wrong).

[mjr]

You are one person and as a result you are easy to fob off. You need to get your local cycling & walking group involved. Sustrans could be your first port of call, they'll have a Regional Representative person. Active Travel England will also have a regional rep.

That's good advice but be aware that you are playing a lottery with these organisations. So far, the best I've had from Active Travel England is that they've put comments on file for when the next major planning application in that area is submitted (which they have statutory powers over) and the best from Sustrans was announcing proudly that 5 discriminatory barriers along a mile of route had been removed, trusting the county council who I think they may have part-funded to do the work, when only 4 of the 5 had actually gone and the last one still remains, two years later, leaving the route still unusable by some cyclists, unless you want to ride two-thirds and then U-turn. The local cycling group has been wonderful, though, and I try my best to help them beyond my local major development zone.

Again, there's little to lose by trying everything. One place I worked, this was known as a "one-person seige", attacking from all directions to see if any of them reveal a weak spot. You only need one method to succeed, really.

[mjr]

I don't think you want to go this far but just in case:

Streets Ahead: Taking a council to the High Court

Episode webpage: https://shows.acast.com/streets-ahead/e ... high-court

Media file: https://sphinx.acast.com/p/open/s/5e8ee ... 1V3QlZGWg4

[Freeweel]

It might also be worth escalating to the local MP with a cc letter and short preface, and advising the council at the time of your final appeal that you're doing so? My experience is that the better MPs can act as a helpful way to make the public sector a little more accountable. They generally send your letter on to the exact same authorities with a request that the explanation also be provided to their office; it helps to focus minds, especially if your MP's party is supportive of active transport. (If she's Kemi Badenoch, perhaps disregard?!).

[gaz]

.

[AndyK]

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet is: contact the local councillors. As it's a council matter, they have much more access and power to demand a proper answer from council officers. That location appears to be in Bablake Ward (list).

Having said that, a quick Google suggests you may have been stitched up way back at the public consultation stage. Here's the diagram used for the consultation in 2020:

... and here's the post-consultation version. Spot the difference.

[edited to add:]
Having said that, those new paint markings do not appear on the original plan. As the cycleway appears to be part of the highway (it's a converted footway), I think there would need to be a separate Traffic Regulation Order to add those markings. So you could try an FOI request for that TRO together with any responses received when it went to consultation. If there was no TRO, the markings may not be legal. It does look suspiciously like the CTK people had them painted.