Dropped kerbs

[thirdcrank]

From the injuries sustained by chris1576 I'll jump to the conclusion that somebody dialled 999 and called the ambulance and probably the police. If the police did attend, I'll wager (and I'm no betting man) that this was written off on the computer log "Cyclist fell off bike, no report." I'd be pleased to find out I'm wrong. snibgo's original point that it's only by this stuff getting into the stat's that anything is going to be done is well made, but I fear it simply doesn't happen, or more accurately, rarely happens.

Attention has been drawn elsewhere on the forum to the publication of the latest accident stats. Table 23c has the data for single vehicle accidents. For pedal cyclists, this has two columns, one where a pedestrian was involved, one where they were not ie cyclist came off or hit something other than a vehicle.

A total of 458 injury accidents were recorded for the year. There were 464 casualties of all types so I can only assume there were six tandems involved where both riders were injured. Of the casualties 6 were fatal, serious 177, leaving presumably 275 minor injuries. Obviously, in many cases where a cyclist comes off, even if they are injured they will never come to official attention. Even so, it seems unlikely that there were fewer than 500 injury accidents of the 'no other vehicle involved' type throughout the country over a whole year.

Reference is made in the stats and elswehere to the significant difference between police reports and hospital admissions. Here's one part of the reason.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: The instructions in IRC's link date from 2005, way after my time so I'm out of date.

Scrolling down from the bit he quoted there is this:

The STATS19 requirement is clear that all accidents involving non-motor vehicles such as pedal cycles and ridden horses on 'public roads' (see 2.4) should be reported, regardless of motor vehicle or pedestrian involvement.

which in the document is in a large bold-faced font to emphasise it.

From the data I've quoted, it's not changed much.

[PRL]

I used to be a civil engineer. In my day, drainage didn't take precedence over safety.

I doubt the authority will say, "We realise this design can make cyclists fall off and break bones, and possibly then get hit by following traffic, but it's a cheap way of keeping the water flowing."

It does see to be ingrained that any transition should have a level change no matter how many sources advise zero upstand. The worst case that I have seen is bus stop indents 2cm higher than the road. A considerate cyclist with following traffic might , to allow overtaking, pull a little to the left at a shallow angle and end up horizontal.

http://tinyurl.com/372uvhn

[Jonty]

When I was working I ensured that any new or replacement cycling infrastructure such as cycle paths or cycle parking was discussed with cycling interests who were represented on a Transport Forum.
If this had been done in this case this problem would probably not have arisen.
jonty

[gaz]

.

[dave holladay]

Presumably as a CTC member your crash and claim is being dealt with by RJW

I have some interest in the limits of vertical misalignment through working on level crossings and tram line issues, and some 20 years ago responding to the consultation on the stupid idea that cycle traffic should have parallel ridges and foot traffic transverse ridges in the specification for tactile paving (especially as those with prams and wheelchairs prefer to cross to the 'cycle' side of such features because it is a better arrangement for them and cyclists should actually use the pedestrian side as it is a safer arrangement for them).

As a result of extensive testing at TRL (Gordon Harland et al) which I would very much like to track down in detail, the profile and maximum height for the parallel tram lines was defined and tested with cycles crossing at angles and the use of washing up liquid and water to create worst case conditions. The standard set a MAXIMUM height of 6 mm and defined the edge profile - many installations use the WRONG profile and CTC members have successfully forced the Council responsible to remove the non-compliant units.

There should also be a standard for thermoplastic white lining which is as lethal as tar banding when wet if not to the correct spec, and the rumble treatment (small bumps moulded into the thermoplastic lining) also has a shape and height spec set to prevent this bringing down motorcycles.

Basically any ridge greater than 6mm will deflect a cycle tyre striking it at an oblique angle, and a number of research reports, with poor linking references, do reinforce this detail. It would be a good little student project to collate this into a coherent document to drop on the desk of people like Network Rail - especially relating to the relevant section (28?) of the level crossings inspection schedule on road surface condition (panel misalignment).

[chris1576]

Thanks for the above posts.
It's a shame that the only expensive titanium metalwork I currently own is located inside my shoulder, but at least I've been re-united with my bike.
I'm still off work - back to the fracture clinic in 2 weeks to see if the bone has fused. I've been able to use a static gym bike but it's the cycling equivalent of watching paint dry.
RJW are dealing with my claim and have recently made some more positive sounds, there being a partner in the firm who has dealt with similar cases (though not all successful).

[thirdcrank]

chris1576

Wishing you a speedy recovery and good luck with the compo. Keep us posted.

[chris1576]

11 months later....

The latest response from the main contractor responsible for building the road in question is:

"There is no specific requirement governing the size of the upstand of a dropped kerb in cycleways, and indeed there is a need for a 'lip' of some form to avoid water ingress / flooding".

I doubt the author rides a bicycle!

[Shakenandstirred1977]

Hi there,
I have just signed up to this forum for the first time. I realise this is an old discussion but I found it on Google after having a similar accident last week in Bournemouth. I was visiting a friend with the intention of going cycling around the New Forrest, something we had done the day before. On this morning we had cycled to Poole Harbour and taken the ferry over to Swanage. Whilst there it started to drizzle so we decided to head back. We made it to the Lindsay Road which runs parallel to the A35 Poole Road and were approaching the County Gates Gyratory when there was a sign pointing to a marked bike lane on the pavement. I aimed the bike up the dropped curb, which was at least 2 inches, but as I went over it I caught the wheel on the edge, lost control, veered into the pavement and crashed into the signpost marking the bike lane. The sign stopped me dead and the impact was on my leg. Luckily I didn't hit my head or chest. 2 really nice guys in a van stopped to help along with my cycling buddy. What seemed ridiculous to me is that a dropped curb specifically for bikes would not be dropped right down to the road. As one of the other guys on this forum said, something that was designed for cycle safety actually makes it more dangerous. Had the curb not been dropped at all, I would have slowed right down or stopped completely. Luckily I got away with severe bruising and a broken saddle and a week later am almost able to walk properly again. I just feel annoyed that the lack of care and attention that is given to something that is specifically designed for road safety.

I have uploaded an image of the bruising.

[karlt]

Whenever I've experienced dangerous cycle facilities, tram lines etc., I've found the local authority assumption is "everyone rides mountain bikes these days" and so anything that can be negotiated at 3mph with 2.5" knobbly tyres is considered legit. Road/utility cyclists on road tyres don't figure.

[Ron]

11 months later....

The latest response from the main contractor responsible for building the road in question is:

"There is no specific requirement governing the size of the upstand of a dropped kerb in cycleways, and indeed there is a need for a 'lip' of some form to avoid water ingress / flooding".

The quote from the contractor is interesting, in Scotland the design guidelines quite clearly state the transition from road to path should be flush, also that ridges or projection greater than 10mm should be dealt with promptly. I would be surprised if guidelines for other parts of the UK were any different.
The need for a "lip" refers to an outmoded standard when a height differential was considered essential.

[Vorpal]

I don't know if it's useful to anyone, but the correct guidelines state it should be flush...

1.7 Cycle Tracks
1.7.1 Where cycle tracks join or cross carriageways, dropped kerb flush with the carriageway should be used as
carriageway edging. Concrete kerbing of 125 x 250 mm cross-section in conjunction with special dropped kerbs or
450 x 250 mm quadrants are typical for urban areas.

The problem is that the guidelines for dropped kerbs state

1.2 Dropped Kerbs
1.2.1 A lowering of the kerb to the carriageway level to aid crossing by disabled persons (see section 1., or
cyclists (see section 8.5), should be applied where private vehicular entrances, footpaths, and cycle tracks gain
access to the carriageway. If a water check is required this should be limited to about 12mm high.

Which is probably what the contractor referred to.

This information comes from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 6 Section 3 http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb ... ta5787.pdf

[gaz]

.

[MikeF]

I reported this one and received a reply in February.

This section is the responsibility of the Highways Agency and from the information that you have provided we can understand your concerns.

Following the Governments Comprehensive Spending review the Highways Agency’s priorities have changed. Whilst a limited programme of major improvements remains, our primary focus has shifted to the steady state maintenance and operation of the network. There is a very limited amount of funding for small improvements and hence only the highest priority schemes are likely to attract funding. The position is unlikely to change during the current spending review period which ends in March 2015.

Please be assured The Highways Agency is committed to maintaining the network in a safe and serviceable condition. We try all avenues for funding this work, but may take time to resolve. We confirm that we have added this to our watchman database which identifies needs on our network and we will be using your information to support a proposal for funding at this location.

So it's now on the official list of accidents waiting to happen which I do find very reassuring .

So removals of hazards are now classed as an improvements not "the steady state maintenance and operation of the network" - whatever that is

[snibgo]

Daz's example would be translated as:

We built it badly. Building comes out of capital budget, not maintenance budget. Fixing means re-building. We have a few pennies in the maintenance piggy-bank, but no capital. We won't fix it this year, or next year. Probably not in 2015 either.

I would reply, "If you built a road this badly, wouldn't you fix it?"

They would reply, "But you can still get on/off that path. You can use the pedestrian side."

I would then say, "But that would be illegal."

They would reply, "Not if you get off and walk."