Cycling UK Forum

Is it really, it looks like a shared use path with two white lines painted down the outside.

Once again Local Authorities not :-
Using common sense
Not consulting either cyclists or anyone likely to cross the bridge, doesn't need an in depth consultation, probably the first couple of people coming over the bridge would have put them right.
I know us cyclists are a petty stupid lot, so on a positive side those lines help us not to crash into the railings as I'm sure we probably don't realise it might hurt.

Another case of wasted money and the end result another excuse for those who dislike cyclists to have another pop.

The bottom lines of the article are correct.

A spokesman said: "The lines are correct and placed within the current rules and standards,
"The lines are there to stop cyclists careering into railings. Pedestrians are free to go where they like."

The bicycle symbol is simply there to show that cycles may be exepcted. Same as on divided paths and in some places on the road. The newspaper article is the result of a slow news day and the comments etc are the result of people not knowing what the markings mean. I suppose the newspaper could not run the article if it were titled "Ignorant people complain about misunderstood markings".

I am sure that we could all find places where exactly the same markings have been used to mark out a segregated shared use path. People having the perception to realise when the markings are being used correctly is much rarer than people having enough perception to not need the lines at the edge at all.

I am in the "this is a waste of time, paint and money camp."

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.

Go out there with some chalk and draw a pedestrian with the cycle.
So it looks like a normal shared use sign

The man from the Council said that the lines are there to prevent cyclists hitting the railings.

I think it would be fair to assume they have been 100% effective in their task.

It must be the same paint they use on roads which can prevent you crossing it, nice.

Did they have a spate of collisions with the railings then?
Did they not think that streetlighting might improve the situation for all path users, or a reflective stripe on the railing?

Ah, that looks like the bridge in Stevenage between the old and new town. It's a strange thing, because only half of it is that width; it abruptly halves in width, half way across. I thought cycling wasn't allowed, and it would certainly be anti-social on the narrow half.

Last time I was there, the bridge was closed for repairs. Apparently it was crumbling at the edges, and the railings were about to fall off. Perhaps there is a danger of a cyclist hitting the railings and plummeting off the edge. Or perhaps the railings (or where they attached to the bridge) were weakened by cyclist collisions.

I'll try and have a look today or tomorrow.

The bridge, seen from the new town (south side) in July:

I might add that any pedestrian anger at being "forced to the edge" is manufactured. On Stevenage cycle tracks, pedestrians outnumber cyclists 10:1, even when there is a perfectly good footpath alongside.

Blog entry by me about Stevenage: http://cycleseven.org/stevenage2012

Google aerial view: https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.904749 ... 2&t=k&z=19

GSV of the north end of the bridge: https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.905536 ... 16.52,,0,0

The faded sign on the right side of the entrance is no cycling -- black bike on white background in red circle. I don't know if it applied to the bridge or "pedestrian" area to the right. When I was a kid I cycled across the entire bridge, of course. The only recent time I crossed it, I walked up the narrow side and cycled down the wide side -- very few pedestrians about, and easy to avoid them.

snibgo wrote:Ah, that looks like the bridge in Stevenage between the old and new town. It's a strange thing, because only half of it is that width; it abruptly halves in width, half way across. I thought cycling wasn't allowed, and it would certainly be anti-social on the narrow half.

I work in Stevenage, and a fellow cyclist sent me this news report at the office this lunch time.

It's actually the old A1, the line of which runs down through Stevenage Old Town, over this bridge, past a supermarket and a theatre, and on southwards (although obviously the bridge wasn't there when the A1 ran this way). When originally built, the bridge wasn't as Snibgo describes, but had normal slopes at both ends. The south end was replaced with the structure in Snibgo's picture, and the cycle path interrupted, to make room for the supermarket.

It's part of the general picture that Stevenage is not a good place for bikes if you're trying to go across the town centre. The planners really haven't got their heads round anyone wanting to go near town and not do some shopping. There are ways around, but it takes weeks of exploration to find them. For example, coming from the north, you avoid this obvious bridge, dive down an obscure side path, go right and left under the road that passes under this bridge, pass the station, and then find your way back onto the line of the old A1. No signs, of course

I am confused by the signing in the report. A shared use path would normally have a both a cyclist and a pedestrian painted on the surface, surely? On the other hand, the narrow paths would need pedestrians painted on them if they were where people were intended to walk.

The photo in the Stevenage Comet looks staged. Distant pedestrians seem happy to use the cycle lane. I can imagine the photographer waving the foreground pedestrians aside to the edges.

drossall wrote:When originally built, the bridge wasn't as Snibgo describes, but had normal slopes at both ends.

IIRC, and my memory of such bygone times is increasingly unreliable, when it was originally built it had only one end, the north end. It was a generous width but, as it went nowhere, wasn't much use. My memory says it stayed that way for many years, but I was very young so it was perhaps no more than a few months.

Then they built the south end with, as drossall says, a normal slope. However, this was half the width of the northern section and steel instead of concrete. (Unless drossall knows differently? I have only recently returned to Stevenage.) IIRC the explanation was given that this was a temporary arrangement and the bridge would be finished properly at some time. That was at least 40 years ago.

More recently, they wanted to plonk a Tescos at the south end of the bridge, so had to shorten it with these horrible cycle-unfriendly zig-zags. When I visited the bridge in June, I had to ride around Tesco's car park a few times before I found the ramp.

I'm in Stevenage tonight and intend to visit the bridge tomorrow morning. If you see a wizened bloke with a wistful teary eye, ignore him.

No matter what the minor details of the signs etc., IMO that elevated pedestrian walkway, which looks like part of the set of I'm a celebrity is just a monument to the intellectually bankrupt "planning" that got us where we are today.