fed up of narrow cycle lanes?
Re: fed up of narrow cycle lanes?
Fed up *with* narrow cycle lanes.
-
PhilWhitehurst
- Posts: 260
- Joined: 9 Aug 2011, 4:14pm
Re: fed up of narrow cycle lanes?
thirdcrank wrote:meic wrote: ... I am in the "this is a waste of time, paint and money camp."
Does anybody localknow the history?
I presume this bridge - probably designed as a footbridge - has been used by cyclists for years and somebody has now assessed it and decided that cyclists need to be alerted to the railings. The main clue to what was intended should be the blue signs at either end of the cycle route. I don't know the exact location of the bridge to check, although it may not be on streetview anyway.
Note to editors: if you are genuinely concerned about poor provision for pedestrians, I'll be happy to provide details of plenty of examples where they have lost out to provision for motor vehicles. I'll not hold my breath waiting for your calls.
It's a bridge between the old town and tescos. Hardly sees any cyclists. No reported collisions with railings in 21 years I've lived here. You'd only really use it if heading into town to shop; but then you're banned from cycling in the pedestrianised centre the bridge connects to.
We have good segregated cycling lanes across the whole town built at same time as town. White lines not really necessary. Bicycle symbol welcome though as generally I've walked across that bridge when on the bike. Sees far more pedestrians than bikes though. Yahoo is just a copy of local paper where a disgruntled pedestrian wrote in last week. No response in paper this week.
At the the pedestrians might appreciate how we feel about the width of typical white line cycle lanes.
Re: fed up of narrow cycle lanes?
The history ?
It was originally built as a link between the old and new towns for pedestrians, cycles, prams etc. It is bridge over a dual carriageway and a whole nest of access roads and other shared use paths at ground level.
When one end was modified for the benefit of a supermarket, cycling was banned (but continued without incident). There has long been an aspiration to 'reconnect' this link for cycles. It looks like a decision has been taken that cycling can again be allowed. The painted cycle may come in handy for the few militant pedestrians who don't like to share and ask 'where are the signs?'
This north south link along the old Great North Road is now available again, albeit round some sharp bends and through the supermarket car park. To the north is the original road. To the south it continues along an access road past the theatre, wiggles a bit to get under a roundabout, then back on the old route. I fully agree about the lack of signs. Other than NCN12, there are no signs for people wishing to pass through.
No additional street lighting is needed. It does not show in the photo, but the lighting for the dual carriageway and roundabout also lights the bridge.
It was originally built as a link between the old and new towns for pedestrians, cycles, prams etc. It is bridge over a dual carriageway and a whole nest of access roads and other shared use paths at ground level.
When one end was modified for the benefit of a supermarket, cycling was banned (but continued without incident). There has long been an aspiration to 'reconnect' this link for cycles. It looks like a decision has been taken that cycling can again be allowed. The painted cycle may come in handy for the few militant pedestrians who don't like to share and ask 'where are the signs?'
This north south link along the old Great North Road is now available again, albeit round some sharp bends and through the supermarket car park. To the north is the original road. To the south it continues along an access road past the theatre, wiggles a bit to get under a roundabout, then back on the old route. I fully agree about the lack of signs. Other than NCN12, there are no signs for people wishing to pass through.
No additional street lighting is needed. It does not show in the photo, but the lighting for the dual carriageway and roundabout also lights the bridge.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: fed up of narrow cycle lanes?
On a general point, one problem with officially designating something like that as a cycle route is that it can diminish the legitimacy of cyclists using a nearby carriageway.
In my RtoR days, we had a welter of proposals to extablish cycle routes which would only have involved officially permitting what was happening already. One case which sticks in my memory was the infamous Armley Gyratory roundabout. Some manouevres there are virtually impossible for any cyclist, but others are OK for a strong rider. There was a proposal to designate a series of footbridges (which only served some potential cycle routes) as a cycle route. I resisted it IIRC on the basis that the ramps etc were unsafe - they were never going to spend money on this. There were muffled threats that enforcement would punish the existing utility riders who used the bridges but as that had not happened in the 25 years that the bridges had been in place, there was no likelihood of it starting. I never had to check because the proposal was never pursued but I doubt if there was any regulation prohibiting cyclists.
In my RtoR days, we had a welter of proposals to extablish cycle routes which would only have involved officially permitting what was happening already. One case which sticks in my memory was the infamous Armley Gyratory roundabout. Some manouevres there are virtually impossible for any cyclist, but others are OK for a strong rider. There was a proposal to designate a series of footbridges (which only served some potential cycle routes) as a cycle route. I resisted it IIRC on the basis that the ramps etc were unsafe - they were never going to spend money on this. There were muffled threats that enforcement would punish the existing utility riders who used the bridges but as that had not happened in the 25 years that the bridges had been in place, there was no likelihood of it starting. I never had to check because the proposal was never pursued but I doubt if there was any regulation prohibiting cyclists.
Last edited by thirdcrank on 13 Oct 2012, 9:51am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: fed up of narrow cycle lanes?
That's true in principle, but I'm not sure it applies to this bridge.
First, you'd only use the bridge to go to the supermarket end of town. Vod is correct that you can get through that way past town on a bike now, but, as I said before, even if wanting to use cycle paths you wouldn't - you'd avoid this bridge and go the other way.
Therefore the bridge is a handy short cut to the supermarket for cyclists and pedestrians, that is not available to drivers (they have to go around).
Second, few cyclists choose to use the nearest north-south road instead. Stevenage main roads were designed on the assumption that bikes would be on the cycle paths, and it shows - for one thing, there are high-speed roundabouts everywhere.
My route to work lies two main roads to the west. I have only rarely ridden on that one too. I've given up on its cycle paths because sight lines are so bad, there are just endless junctions where every works entrance crosses the path*, and cyclists have to give way to cars turning at speed. However, I now use a side road that runs between the two main roads described. Much easier to predict where cars are going!
In short, I'd happily use the bridge - but only on the rare occasions that I want to go where it takes me. Which may be why there are so few cyclists on it.
==============
* In the original vision, grade separation was used to avoid this. However, as new office blocks/parks have been built, with new entrances, this has not been maintained, and some cycle paths now involve a fair amount of dodging turning traffic which comes from behind you, or from a hidden exit, at speed.
In any case, even the original paths have very poor sight lines in some places, and would never be allowed if the kinds of test applied to new roads were used. This applies both to side turnings with cars emerging, and path junctions where cyclists meet cyclists. It was interesting that, when I was surveyed recently in Cambridge by Sustrans, concerning the car-free paths there, sight lines was something that they asked about.
Sight lines on the bridge are fine
First, you'd only use the bridge to go to the supermarket end of town. Vod is correct that you can get through that way past town on a bike now, but, as I said before, even if wanting to use cycle paths you wouldn't - you'd avoid this bridge and go the other way.
Therefore the bridge is a handy short cut to the supermarket for cyclists and pedestrians, that is not available to drivers (they have to go around).
Second, few cyclists choose to use the nearest north-south road instead. Stevenage main roads were designed on the assumption that bikes would be on the cycle paths, and it shows - for one thing, there are high-speed roundabouts everywhere.
My route to work lies two main roads to the west. I have only rarely ridden on that one too. I've given up on its cycle paths because sight lines are so bad, there are just endless junctions where every works entrance crosses the path*, and cyclists have to give way to cars turning at speed. However, I now use a side road that runs between the two main roads described. Much easier to predict where cars are going!
In short, I'd happily use the bridge - but only on the rare occasions that I want to go where it takes me. Which may be why there are so few cyclists on it.
==============
* In the original vision, grade separation was used to avoid this. However, as new office blocks/parks have been built, with new entrances, this has not been maintained, and some cycle paths now involve a fair amount of dodging turning traffic which comes from behind you, or from a hidden exit, at speed.
In any case, even the original paths have very poor sight lines in some places, and would never be allowed if the kinds of test applied to new roads were used. This applies both to side turnings with cars emerging, and path junctions where cyclists meet cyclists. It was interesting that, when I was surveyed recently in Cambridge by Sustrans, concerning the car-free paths there, sight lines was something that they asked about.
Sight lines on the bridge are fine
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: fed up of narrow cycle lanes?
drossall wrote: ... In short, I'd happily use the bridge - but only on the rare occasions that I want to go where it takes me. Which may be why there are so few cyclists on it.
So why has anybody decided to spend good money signing it for use by a few cyclists if the status quo was OK?
It seems obvious to me that around here at least, pointless cycling "infrastructure" - often in the form of lanes (which disappear at every junction along wide straight roads) - has been installed so that when funding bids are made, it can be shown that things are being done.
The results are little, if any, benefit for cyclists and the type of controversy which started this thread.
Re: fed up of narrow cycle lanes?
That's what we started trying to figure out two pages ago.
In summary, the bridge was originally built to preserve an ancient route for cyclists and pedestrians, while motorists were sent around. It was later considerably undermined for through cyclists, by the removal of the south end and the obstruction of the onward route with a supermarket car park. It is still, however, a good way to reach the north end of the shopping area from the Old Town.
It seems that, in response to concerns that pedestrians were not aware of the likelihood of a limited number of cyclists sharing the path with them, some rather confusing paint-work was done.
This then turned into a national newspaper story for no obvious reason, given that pedestrians happily wander over the cycle paths everywhere else, where there are separate footways, so why on earth would they suddenly be concerned about it here, where there aren't?
Of course, cyclists on the downward slopes do need to show some respect, owing to the greater potential for speed. On the other hand, you'd have to be pretty fit to be a risk at all on the way up
In summary, the bridge was originally built to preserve an ancient route for cyclists and pedestrians, while motorists were sent around. It was later considerably undermined for through cyclists, by the removal of the south end and the obstruction of the onward route with a supermarket car park. It is still, however, a good way to reach the north end of the shopping area from the Old Town.
It seems that, in response to concerns that pedestrians were not aware of the likelihood of a limited number of cyclists sharing the path with them, some rather confusing paint-work was done.
This then turned into a national newspaper story for no obvious reason, given that pedestrians happily wander over the cycle paths everywhere else, where there are separate footways, so why on earth would they suddenly be concerned about it here, where there aren't?
Of course, cyclists on the downward slopes do need to show some respect, owing to the greater potential for speed. On the other hand, you'd have to be pretty fit to be a risk at all on the way up
Re: fed up of narrow cycle lanes?
I can think of a few reasons why the money was spent when it was:
* This has been first on the local council 'missing links' list since at least 2002, it was not done on a whim.
* Is was done on the back of some emergency resurfacing, so a cheap add-on to necessary work.
* There are cyclists who do obey 'no cycling' signs. They will now be able to cycle along connection.
* Because the few militant pedestrians don't agree with a 'status quo' approach.
* This has been first on the local council 'missing links' list since at least 2002, it was not done on a whim.
* Is was done on the back of some emergency resurfacing, so a cheap add-on to necessary work.
* There are cyclists who do obey 'no cycling' signs. They will now be able to cycle along connection.
* Because the few militant pedestrians don't agree with a 'status quo' approach.