Cycling UK Forum

... It should also be noted that vehicles are now moving through the area at reduced speeds as the recent changes have brought in a natural traffic calming effect as a by-product of the scheme.

From what I can see, the actual speed limit has not been reduced, so anybody who drives uncalmed, so speak, is unaffected. They tend to be the drivers causing most concern but they are "perfectly" legal.

... . Our parking enforcement service will be advised that vehicles which park outside the bay will be issued with Parking Charge Notices (PCN), as a deterrent. ... Once the scheme is formally opened, the parking regulations will be enforced.

Note cunobelin's comment above. No doubt some offenders will get a ticket but it's likely that complaints about individual examples of poor parking will be referred to the police - or rather the complainant will be - and the police will, in turn say that parking has been decriminalised.

The yellow line waiting restrictions apply to the back of footway, therefore any vehicles parking on the cycle track or the promenade may receive a PCN.

This seems either disingenuous or badly informed. It does not recognise a distinction between loading etc and waiting ie parking. The white van in the u-tube clip looked either to be delivering to the premises or was possibly involved with maintenance etc. Yellow lines, even double yellow lines do not prohibit such use, and, as I've posted before, case law tends to support drivers who use the footway in such circumstances, rather than physically obstruct a narrow road. (The important bit is unnecessary in unnecessary obstruction. It's pretty much accepted that if something big or in large quantity is being shifted by vehicle, then any obstruction is likely to be "necessary."

There will be marking on the cycle track, which will clearly identify it as a two-way cycle track, not for pedestrian use. Pedestrians currently cross the road between the parking area and the Esplanade. All road users, including cyclists and pedestrians are required to exercise due care and attention to themselves and other road users. In reality most pedestrians will probably wait until cyclists have passed, before crossing.

It is very unusual for a TRO to ban pedestrians and I doubt that has happened here (although it would be necessary to check the specific regulation to be sure.) Although it is an offence to cycle without due care and attention, there is no specific offence of careless walking. (Civil law does require everybody to be careful, which is not quite what's being implied here.) I think the general experience - and it's certainly mine - is that pedestrians treat cycle tracks as part of the footway. I've no idea what it's like there in Summer, but if it's throng with holidaymakers, a cycle track will just be extra walkng room.

The approach that we have adopted in the design of this cycle route is similar in many ways to two-way and contra-flow cycle lanes in towns and cities across Europe (e.g. Copenhagen and Stockholm), where the only delineation between motorists and cyclists is a standard kerb.

Those are places where there is a greater presumed liability of blame in a collision between a motor vehicle and a vulnerable road user.

[color=#004080]I have ridden this wonderful new cycle track on Four seperate occasions, twice in each direction, and can already see cause for great concern. Firstly let me point out that I rode along it on a fully marked and equipped Ambulance Cycle Response Unit, fitted with bright yellow panniers and blue lights, and I the rider was in full Ambulance hi-vis clothing........ I had SIX, yes SIX, pedestrians wander off the pavement onto the path without looking in their attempt to cross the road, one of which I narrowly missed a collision with, and where there are cars parked alongside the track (In properly marked bays) I had some dozy front seat passenger open his car door right in front of me causing we to swerve wide to avoid a collision. Taxis are also using the cycle lane to park outside the Casino in the early evening to pick up their passengers, and others who park alongside the track, are also opening their car doors to the danger of passing cyclists. Pray tell me how many active cyclists were involved in the planning of this track, and I'm not talking about the middle aged politician who rides to the office and back Mon-Fri, not many I bet. In short I think an accident will happen very very shortly, and once again I can almost guarantee it will be a cyclist ending up in A&E. Lets not forget my observations were on a week-day afternoon, so god help us in the summer months when it gets busy..............2/10 for effort, and that's me being generous folks.

michaelbriannugent wrote:[color=#004080]I have ridden this wonderful new cycle track on Four seperate occasions, twice in each direction, and can already see cause for great concern. Firstly let me point out that I rode along it on a fully marked and equipped Ambulance Cycle Response Unit, fitted with bright yellow panniers and blue lights, and I the rider was in full Ambulance hi-vis clothing........ I had SIX, yes SIX, pedestrians wander off the pavement onto the path without looking in their attempt to cross the road, one of which I narrowly missed a collision with, and where there are cars parked alongside the track (In properly marked bays) I had some dozy front seat passenger open his car door right in front of me causing we to swerve wide to avoid a collision. Taxis are also using the cycle lane to park outside the Casino in the early evening to pick up their passengers, and others who park alongside the track, are also opening their car doors to the danger of passing cyclists. Pray tell me how many active cyclists were involved in the planning of this track, and I'm not talking about the middle aged politician who rides to the office and back Mon-Fri, not many I bet. In short I think an accident will happen very very shortly, and once again I can almost guarantee it will be a cyclist ending up in A&E. Lets not forget my observations were on a week-day afternoon, so god help us in the summer months when it gets busy..............2/10 for effort, and that's me being generous folks.

Hi. Firstly can I express my anger at the recent reports in the Evening Echo -> http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_n ... ront_smash . This was a situation we predicted, as the allegations in the printed paper were that the quad bike rider was using the cycle path. I do hope that your colleague is recovering.

Secondly, as the CTC rep for the area I'd like to answer your question. I don't believe I'm a middle aged politician, I cycle circa 5,000 to 6,000 recorded miles a year for leisure, commuting into Southend, and Audax. I'm happy on bridleways through to 70mph dual carriageways. I think nothing of cycling 300 miles to a meeting and 300 miles back and then submitting an expenses claim. I want to see safe cycling in Southend, but have now hung up my cycling shoes in disgust and used the motorbike for the last three weeks; I've not cycled the seafront since my last abuse in April.

So... "Pray tell me how many active cyclists were involved in the planning of this track" we were 'consulted' on the 29th March 2010 on a scheme that had a completion date of 31st March 2010. i.e. following that meeting with the Council I rode home past a scene where the finishing touches were being applied to a lengthy construction process.

I was involved in 2008 with the Council in putting forwards three designs for the seafront. All three focussed on dual use, i.e. catering for "wibbly wobbly cyclists" as Rob Marshall of Cycling England called them on the day, as well as catering for commuters. We recognised that both types of cyclists would be using the area, and both needed catering for. The route as implemented does NOT meet these requirements. Huge discussions have taken place at http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=31115.0

Following the unfortunate incident with the Paramedic I discussed this cycle track at work. My colleague caught me the next day to say that his taxi driver friend had been told by the Council to park on the path outside the casino rather than block the carriageway and that the low kerbs had been installed on purpose to allow for this... I am trying to work out how to substantiate this claim via an independent source.

If you have any further details on the incident last week, please PM them to me or PM me contact details so that we can meet. I am desperate to hear that he is recovering, and to find out astonishing happened. I am also being careful not to prejudice the case in any way so feel free to PM saying that you'll update me at a later date.

Michael.

Judging by the councillors' replies on the yacf topic, this sounds like an excellent opportunity for experts from the CTC to condemn the design as fundamentally unsafe.

How would we go about achieving this?

from YACF wrote:Dear Mr ,

Thank you for your email.

We are aware of the serious road traffic accident which occurred on the Western Esplanade on Sunday 23rd May 2010, in the early evening. Following receipt of more detailed information about the events on that evening, it is becoming clear that the accident was not caused by the design and construction of the cycle path along the Western Esplanade. It appears that illegal driver/rider behaviour was a contributory factor involving the quad bike incident.

The cycle path scheme has been subject to a road safety audit and has also been subject to an inspection by experts on behalf of Cycling England. This process has ensured that independent checks on safety have been carried out before and after the scheme was installed.

Please contact me if you have any further queries regarding this matter.

Kind regards,


I have now replied with:

Dear Mr Mazhar,

Thank you for your reply. While I accept the driver of the quad bike was fully responsible for the collision with the paramedic, would the earlier collision, which the paramedic was aiding with, have happened if the road was still a safe width?

Also, in an earlier email dated April 7th, you stated that:

"The kerb, which has an upstand and raised line, would in the first instance deflect and errant drivers back onto the carriageway and in the second instance alert them that they have strayed from their path via the ‘rumble’ effect the raised line would provide."

As these measures completely failed to deflect a small vehicle like a quad bike this clearly is NOT the case.

I would now like to make a request, under the Freedom of Information Act, to see the road safety audit that was done regarding the seafront cycle path and new car parking arrangements from Adventure Island to Chalkwell esplanade along Western Esplanade.

You can mail it to me at:

<address>


Best regards,