# Show us your Daft, Pointless or plain hard to use cycle lanes.



## Tom B (29 Oct 2016)

Not sure what the point of this one is in Rawtenstall...
https://goo.gl/maps/837LvxJxnE12







Deane Road, Bolton - Cyclists are permitted to go straight on and vehicles are permitted to turn left. We think.
https://goo.gl/maps/bQZUhVtATw12







There are a few of these islands on Bury and Rochdale Road.
Some start the on road cycle lane, others are just randomly along it, in this case it narrows the road causing the cycle lane on the opposite site to narrow. They are usually full of crap, grot and glass and I usually come out of the cycle lane and pass it on the right to avoid punctures.


----------



## GuyBoden (29 Oct 2016)

The cycle lane in Nottingham that seems to be pretty useless (Picture: NTI)

"Some bright spark decided that rather than having cyclists go for another few feet they needed to mount the kerb and negotiate a sharp turn."
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/18/is-th...ycle-lane-ever-painted-6013255/#ixzz4OURKqThI


----------



## Slick (29 Oct 2016)

GuyBoden said:


> The cycle lane in Nottingham that seems to be pretty useless (Picture: NTI)
> 
> "Some bright spark decided that rather than having cyclists go for another few feet they needed to mount the kerb and negotiate a sharp turn."
> Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/18/is-th...ycle-lane-ever-painted-6013255/#ixzz4OURKqThI



Ffs, nobody is beating that one. Lol


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (30 Oct 2016)

Can't go onto the M2 but lets divert the shared use path across the off-slip 






Pointless green boxes that nobody has a clue how to work






This one is actually good most of the time. Shared use along a DC which I ride up often enough, but ride down on the road (or is it?)


----------



## GGJ (30 Oct 2016)

We can only dream of this happening in the UK


----------



## rivers (30 Oct 2016)

Coronation Road in Bristol. I had to explain to my wife one day why cyclists used the road as opposed to the cycle path. 













coronation road



__ rivers
__ 30 Oct 2016


















coronation road



__ rivers
__ 30 Oct 2016


----------



## Drago (30 Oct 2016)

Why don't they build roads with trees and lamp posts in the carriageway if that's such a good idea?


----------



## boydj (30 Oct 2016)

GGJ said:


> View attachment 149571
> We have this complete mess. It was a classic 2 lane B road which was too busy to cycle unless you had a death wish, then the much needed village bypass was built so the council decided in their wisdom to make a cycle/traffic route. This road is now classed as a single track road with passing places.
> 
> You can follow the road by clicking here
> ...



Bit of an exaggeration there. I've cycled over the Eaglesham Moor road many times. It's not a busy road at all, since the M77 runs parallel. I can't recall any stories about cyclists being killed there, at least not this century.

I believe that by making the road a single track road it has calmed traffic down a bit and made it safer for cyclists. It's certainly very popular for cycling at the week-ends.

Edit : Or maybe you were talking about your own driving?


----------



## HLaB (30 Oct 2016)

boydj said:


> Bit of an exaggeration there. I've cycled over the Eaglesham Moor road many times. It's not a busy road at all, since the M77 runs parallel. I can't recall any stories about cyclists being killed there, at least not this century.
> 
> I believe that by making the road a single track road it has calmed traffic down a bit and made it safer for cyclists. It's certainly very popular for cycling at the week-ends.
> 
> Edit : Or maybe you were talking about your own driving?


I don't know the nature of the accident but there's only been one fatality in the last 17years of RTC's on Eaglesham Moor and whilst its not best placed to speculate as the accident involved a single vehicle and 4 casualties, I'm guessing it wasn't a bike


----------



## Jenkins (30 Oct 2016)

I've posted these before, but Norwich Road outbound from Ipswich has a cycle lane that's narrower than the bike symbol used to indicate it.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0...SQZuhJrRJ5KNr997cveQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en and https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0...AqEXghdotaDDS0ceS7jA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en show how bad it gets. Going the other way, cyclists can use the empty bus lane - from a now closed park & ride system.

Then there is the latest cycle lane...


----------



## GGJ (30 Oct 2016)

boydj said:


> Bit of an exaggeration there. I've cycled over the Eaglesham Moor road many times.




Click

Click


Yes I've cycled over it many times and I exaggerate a lot...


----------



## winjim (30 Oct 2016)

They've since moved the traffic signal control box, but what really annoys me is the tactile paving. It's like that on all the cycle paths round here and was clearly put down by somebody who has no idea how a bike balances or the dynamic envelope. It's downright dangerous. Especially in winter if it's a bit slippy, it guides your tyres into a "straight" line and flips you off balance. If I ever use the path, which is rarely, I nip over to the pedestrian bit to cross it, where it runs side to side and is much safer to ride over.


----------



## Theseus (31 Oct 2016)

winjim said:


> what really annoys me is the tactile paving. It's like that on all the cycle paths round here and was clearly put down by somebody who has no idea how a bike balances or the dynamic envelope. It's downright dangerous. Especially in winter if it's a bit slippy, it guides your tyres into a "straight" line and flips you off balance. If I ever use the path, which is rarely, I nip over to the pedestrian bit to cross it, where it runs side to side and is much safer to ride over.



Unfortunately it is not the fault of a local idiot. It is this way round all over the country. Tactile paving is for the benefit of people with impaired vision and does not take the needs or desires of other users into consideration. It is all laid out in BS 7997:2003 (according to Wikipedia ... I do not plan to pay for the privilege of downloading a copy to check)


----------



## Gixxerman (31 Oct 2016)

Rather odd one here that got reported in the local press.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3...4!1sj7W9A8TiLM33U3EO1nf83A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I think it is to make cyclists cross the road at 90 degrees to continue on the cyclepath opposite. But surely it would be safer to just let them indicate right move to crown of the road and turn right as normal? Unless that were concerned abonb cars approaching from the left cutting the corner and coming in to conflict with cyclists waiting to turn right.


----------



## keithmac (31 Oct 2016)

First two pictures are the same roundabout, I have ridden and driven round this and to be honest it's nonsensical, would be far better unmarked. The cycle lane puts cars and bikes far too close together.

The third picture is a long straight road, you would be forgiven for thinking there isn't a cycle lane on each side of it due to the poor road markings. To be fair it doesn't make a blind bit of difference anyway as on a normal day there will be 20+ cars parked on them making the lanes totally unusable..


----------



## User482 (31 Oct 2016)

rivers said:


> Coronation Road in Bristol. I had to explain to my wife one day why cyclists used the road as opposed to the cycle path.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you look carefully at the blue signs, you'll note that the cyclists' "side" swaps from left to right (or vice versa) about halfway down. An alternative is the "chocolate path" on the other bank of the river, now difficult to access due to the closure of Ashton Avenue swing bridge, and if you do get on it, enjoy the bumps and skating rink surface if it's wet or frosty.

We're a cycling city, apparently.


----------



## winjim (31 Oct 2016)

User482 said:


> If you look carefully at the blue signs, you'll note that the cyclists' "side" swaps from left to right (or vice versa) about halfway down. An alternative is the "chocolate path" on the other bank of the river, now difficult to access due to the closure of Ashton Avenue swing bridge, and if you do get on it, enjoy the bumps and skating rink surface if it's wet or frosty.
> 
> We're a cycling city, apparently.


Similarly in my post above, to get round the signal control box, the path actually switches from segregated to shared and back again, all within the space of about fifteen feet.


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Oct 2016)

This is a good one (not)... I've seen plenty of cyclists take the proper road position for going straight ahead or turning right from this roundabout, and plenty of drivers yelling/beeping at them to get in the cycle lane, which is only of use for cyclists turning left... for which there's also a short section of shared use pavement.


----------



## nickyboy (31 Oct 2016)

So what's going wrong here?

I presume it costs a fair bit to install a cycle lane. And I presume it isn't too difficult to get sensible advice regarding the design of the cycle lanes. Or is that the problem? I have no idea what the design process is for cycle lanes but I'd be interested to hear what it is


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (31 Oct 2016)

nickyboy said:


> So what's going wrong here?
> 
> I presume it costs a fair bit to install a cycle lane. And I presume it isn't too difficult to get sensible advice regarding the design of the cycle lanes. Or is that the problem? I have no idea what the design process is for cycle lanes but I'd be interested to hear what it is



In my experience, the sensible advice is usually ignored and the councils put in whatever they please. Usually as it's cheaper than putting in something that has been suggested by cyclists, works and that people may use. Then, when no-one uses them as they are not up to scratch or even dangerous they can say "Well, we put such-and-such in at a cost of blah-de-blah pounds and no-one uses it. Why shouild we spend any more money on cycle infrastructure?"


----------



## summerdays (31 Oct 2016)

ABikeCam said:


> In my experience, the sensible advice is usually ignored and the councils put in whatever they please. Usually as it's cheaper than putting in something that has been suggested by cyclists, works and that people may use. Then, when no-one uses them as they are not up to scratch or even dangerous they can say "Well, we put such-and-such in at a cost of blah-de-blah pounds and no-one uses it. Why shouild we spend any more money on cycle infrastructure?"


I don't think it's that simple. Different cyclists will want different things, depending on their skill and experience level. The experienced roadie just wants to remain on the road normally, the parent with young children wants cycle paths everywhere. Then there are the bod's at the council that can be well meaning, and look at their accident stats and try to sort them out but not always in a way that is appreciated, sometimes they are right, some times they are wrong. Money is short so they can't spend millions on producing fantastic cycle facilities.


----------



## nickyboy (31 Oct 2016)

ABikeCam said:


> In my experience, the sensible advice is usually ignored and the councils put in whatever they please. Usually as it's cheaper than putting in something that has been suggested by cyclists, works and that people may use. Then, when no-one uses them as they are not up to scratch or even dangerous they can say "Well, we put such-and-such in at a cost of blah-de-blah pounds and no-one uses it. Why shouild we spend any more money on cycle infrastructure?"



So do you think that local councils (I presume they have the responsibility for cycle lanes) have an anti-cycling agenda that is met by putting in rubbish infrastructure?

I doubt that very much. I think it's down to ignorance on the part of whoever has input into the design and sign off. I'm sure lack of money is the reason behind some of the rubbish infrastructure. However, I think a fair bit is down to poor design. It does feel like the design and sign off is done without any input from cyclists. I wonder if that's the case, and if so why?


----------



## Jody (31 Oct 2016)

Jenkins said:


> Then there is the latest cycle lane...



Looks prime for pulling a manual


----------



## summerdays (31 Oct 2016)

nickyboy said:


> So do you think that local councils (I presume they have the responsibility for cycle lanes) have an anti-cycling agenda that is met by putting in rubbish infrastructure?
> 
> I doubt that very much. I think it's down to ignorance on the part of whoever has input into the design and sign off. I'm sure lack of money is the reason behind some of the rubbish infrastructure. However, I think a fair bit is down to poor design. It does feel like the design and sign off is done without any input from cyclists. I wonder if that's the case, and if so why?


I know that the local cycle campaign has commented on designs before now. I don't know what the process is for taking account of those issues, as sometimes it seems input is ignored and other times changes are made. I seem to be on a mailing list where proposals are sent round asking cyclists for their comments. I managed to get a traffic engineer to stand on a roundabout and notice that the problem with traffic flows. His solution was different to mine, and is still being implemented but I will have to wait quite some time to see the change.


----------



## Milkfloat (31 Oct 2016)

nickyboy said:


> However, I think a fair bit is down to poor design. It does feel like the design and sign off is done without any input from cyclists. I wonder if that's the case, and if so why?



I think the biggest issue is that there are no national standards, therefore they can freestyle whatever bodge they like. I would much prefer to see less infrastructure, if it meant good infrastructure.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (31 Oct 2016)

Touche said:


> Unfortunately it is not the fault of a local idiot. It is this way round all over the country. Tactile paving is for the benefit of people with impaired vision and does not take the needs or desires of other users into consideration. It is all laid out in BS 7997:2003 (according to Wikipedia ... I do not plan to pay for the privilege of downloading a copy to check)


I have a copy of 'guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces' as published in Scotland, which I could send you, too big to upload. (2.8 Mb, limit is 2)


----------



## SavageHoutkop (31 Oct 2016)

SavageHoutkop said:


> I have a copy of 'guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces' as published in Scotland, which I could send you, too big to upload. (2.8 Mb, limit is 2)


This is the one for the segregated path...


----------



## SavageHoutkop (31 Oct 2016)

And I can safely guarantee that I'd gladly cycle over the rumble strips going against my line of travel rather than the ones going in my direction (and when I'm a pedestrian with a sleeping child in a pram / pushchair, I'd rather walk on the cycle side).


----------



## Theseus (31 Oct 2016)

Pretty obvious from that how much they consulted with cyclists on whether a rumble was preferable or not to tramlines.


----------



## User482 (31 Oct 2016)

SavageHoutkop said:


> This is the one for the segregated path...
> View attachment 149746



If (as is the case on my daughter's school run) you have to cut diagonally across the strip to cross the road, those surfaces are lethal in the wet. The small wheels on her bike slide off the raised surface, causing her to fall off.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (31 Oct 2016)

User482 said:


> If (as is the case on my daughter's school run) you have to cut diagonally across the strip to cross the road, those surfaces are lethal in the wet. The small wheels on her bike slide off the raised surface, causing her to fall off.


In my experience, lethal on small wheels (Brompton) *and* large ones (Workcycles Fr8) - catch them slightly skew and you 'tramline', which is not pleasant. I've not fallen yet, but am taking to the pedestrian side of the shared path in two new stretches of cycle path near me to avoid turning over them esp. if wet / leafy.


----------



## PK99 (31 Oct 2016)

GuyBoden said:


> The cycle lane in Nottingham that seems to be pretty useless (Picture: NTI)
> 
> "Some bright spark decided that rather than having cyclists go for another few feet they needed to mount the kerb and negotiate a sharp turn."
> Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/18/is-th...ycle-lane-ever-painted-6013255/#ixzz4OURKqThI



That does not look so daft, surely?

It reads as giving access to a shared pavement and avoids a confusing right turn from road to pavement...

If staying on the road and turning right, use junction as normal.


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

rivers said:


> Coronation Road in Bristol. I had to explain to my wife one day why cyclists used the road as opposed to the cycle path.


Haven't they fixed that one yet? It's been a laughing stock for as long as I can remember being aware of it. Here it is in 2001.



summerdays said:


> I don't think it's that simple. Different cyclists will want different things, depending on their skill and experience level. The experienced roadie just wants to remain on the road normally, the parent with young children wants cycle paths everywhere.


I'm not sure that's true. The main reason experienced roadies want to remain on the road is that much of what's built off-road is substandard crap with lumpy surfaces that doesn't flow and loses priority at every farm field gate, isn't it? Over in the Netherlands, chaingangs seem quite happy blasting along cycle tracks. And as it's been put to me, why would anyone think that a parent with young children wants an obstacle course?



nickyboy said:


> So do you think that local councils (I presume they have the responsibility for cycle lanes) have an anti-cycling agenda that is met by putting in rubbish infrastructure?


Occasionally there are individual cycle-haters who subvert schemes and get away with it because the process is weak. I strongly suspect cabinet member for transport at North Somerset Council, Elfan Ap Rees, is one - he's been proud to unveil lumpy cycle tracks only on the downhill sides of roads and once launched a cycle lane on the central reservation side of a dual carriageway - I guess it helped allow them to spend the cycling budget on the dual carriagway without getting in the way of motorists. Mostly though, it seems to be a consequence of a hazardous mix of weak and poor guidance, inexperience, incomprehension and underfunding.

Responsibility for cycling facilities is split: along motorways and major roads is Highways England or the devolved administrations (including TfL); along most other roads is the responsibility of highway authorities (mostly county councils, unitary councils or borough councils in London) and away from roads is anybody's guess but often the borough/district/city councils, but could be the Environment Agency, National Trust or private landowners. Of course, this means that any cycling design expertise is diluted even further. Some of the better borough/district/city council facilities happen because they are on friendly terms with the highway authority and use their designers.



nickyboy said:


> It does feel like the design and sign off is done without any input from cyclists. I wonder if that's the case, and if so why?


It is the case. If we are very lucky, there is a consultation step before sign-off, but there is no requirement for it, no requirement to change anything (not even obvious dangers and practical problems like posts in a track surface), no scrutiny by councillors and design changes sometimes keep on happening right up until construction. Even where a cycle track or lane is included in a planning application (which does have more scrutiny than highway design on its own, and has certain legal process requirements), the cycling element is frequently different to the approved plan and departing from the plan is not regarded as sufficient to refuse permission, when farking the motoring accesses would be.



SavageHoutkop said:


> And I can safely guarantee that I'd gladly cycle over the rumble strips going against my line of travel rather than the ones going in my direction (and when I'm a pedestrian with a sleeping child in a pram / pushchair, I'd rather walk on the cycle side).


Does the guidance you have mention that the tactiles should not be installed within a certain distance of a corner or barrier? That often seems to be ignored, leading to predictable crashes.

But in general, I agree that tactile use appears to have been defined without any awareness of how cycles ride or any knowledge of how places like the Netherlands use them - I think the pedestrian side may have surfaces to indicate to walkers they are entering/leaving a footway, but the cycle side would be smooth.


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

PK99 said:


> That does not look so daft, surely?
> 
> It reads as giving access to a shared pavement and avoids a confusing right turn from road to pavement...
> 
> If staying on the road and turning right, use junction as normal.


It looks daft to me, making cyclists do two tight turns and then give way to the flow of traffic that they were already in. Why do you feel it's confusing to turn right directly onto the cycle track? Are you confused by all movements that cars may not legally make?


----------



## Bazzer (31 Oct 2016)

Take your pick from some of the lunacy here.http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/
Go to Links - then go to the bottom of the page to "how not to design for cyclists". The "Archive" section for Warrington has examples from around the country.


----------



## User482 (31 Oct 2016)

SavageHoutkop said:


> In my experience, lethal on small wheels (Brompton) *and* large ones (Workcycles Fr8) - catch them slightly skew and you 'tramline', which is not pleasant. I've not fallen yet, but am taking to the pedestrian side of the shared path in two new stretches of cycle path near me to avoid turning over them esp. if wet / leafy.



Yep, come to think of it I fell off there a few years ago.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (31 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Does the guidance you have mention that the tactiles should not be installed within a certain distance of a corner or barrier? That often seems to be ignored, leading to predictable crashes.
> 
> But in general, I agree that tactile use appears to have been defined without any awareness of how cycles ride or any knowledge of how places like the Netherlands use them - I think the pedestrian side may have surfaces to indicate to walkers they are entering/leaving a footway, but the cycle side would be smooth.



Not sure, there are 108 pages (!) 

You can avoid some unnecessary tactile use by making sure the path is on the 'right' side at a junction, as tactiles not needed on the cycle bit if it isn't possible for visually impaired people to move to the 'wrong' side without realising, eg top here clearly preferable to bottom!


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (31 Oct 2016)

summerdays said:


> I don't think it's that simple. Different cyclists will want different things, depending on their skill and experience level. The experienced roadie just wants to remain on the road normally, the parent with young children wants cycle paths everywhere. Then there are the bod's at the council that can be well meaning, and look at their accident stats and try to sort them out but not always in a way that is appreciated, sometimes they are right, some times they are wrong. Money is short so they can't spend millions on producing fantastic cycle facilities.



I agree that different cyclists want different things, but most cyclists pay taxes that go towards the infrastructure. If that infrastructure only meets half the requirements of one of those groups, then it's pointless. The group they're trying to help end up worse off than they were before.



nickyboy said:


> So do you think that local councils (I presume they have the responsibility for cycle lanes) have an anti-cycling agenda that is met by putting in rubbish infrastructure?
> 
> I doubt that very much. I think it's down to ignorance on the part of whoever has input into the design and sign off. I'm sure lack of money is the reason behind some of the rubbish infrastructure. However, I think a fair bit is down to poor design. It does feel like the design and sign off is done without any input from cyclists. I wonder if that's the case, and if so why?



No, I do not think councils have an anti-cycling agenda, and the lack of provision is usually blamed on lack of money. However, around my way they seem to be able find millions to fund a bypass but can't consider joining up the outlying villages to the city being bypassed with decent cycle tracks, or improving the journey to the rail station in preparation for the new homes they're building on the opposite side of the city.

I'm talking about things that have input from cycling groups from the outset, but do not end up with anything that has been agreed between those people and the authorities throughout the design process. The input is there, but it is ignored. Why is that?


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

SavageHoutkop said:


> You can avoid some unnecessary tactile use by making sure the path is on the 'right' side at a junction, as tactiles not needed on the cycle bit if it isn't possible for visually impaired people to move to the 'wrong' side without realising, eg top here clearly preferable to bottom!


The problem with that layout is that it means the cycle track can only connect to other tracks on one side. Then, if there's a carriageway on one side (so no cycle tracks directly connecting on that side), it probably means pedestrians are being put next to the carriageway and they naturally prefer to walk as far away from the marauding motors as they can, so they walk on the cycle track side and there's almost no point in segregating tracks in the UK until that changes.

I think the Dutch layout would be B without the tramlines on the cycle side. After all, that's similar to how it would look in the UK where a footway crosses a carriageway, except then I think they use blister paving instead of rumble lines.



ABikeCam said:


> However, around my way they seem to be able find millions to fund a bypass but can't consider joining up the outlying villages to the city being bypassed with decent cycle tracks, or improving the journey to the rail station in preparation for the new homes they're building on the opposite side of the city.


That's Political Will for you! I've no idea who he is, but I'm often told he's lacking and that's why we don't get these things. I guess what we need to do is to kick up a stink before next May's county council elections and get him replaced with councillors who promise to do good stuff for cycling.

What really sucks is when bypasses and ring roads are built and the old roads get jackhammered instead of restricted to non-motoring use.


ABikeCam said:


> I'm talking about things that have input from cycling groups from the outset, but do not end up with anything that has been agreed between those people and the authorities throughout the design process. The input is there, but it is ignored. Why is that?


Apart from a few places where a cycling group is organised enough, militant enough and large enough to disrupt the project and cost the authorities thousands of pounds, there's basically no penalty for ignoring the input. And of course, how big/organised a cycling group has to be to disrupt a project varies from project to project or even on one project with time... and there's constant dangers of motorist-cyclists pushing for compromise because lots of so-called cycling projects now have very explicit benefits for motorists, and quite a few long-term advocates who seem so fed up with cycling getting crumbs that they'll accept mouldy cake rather than keep calling for a fair square meal.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (31 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> I think the Dutch layout would be B without the tramlines on the cycle side. After all, that's similar to how it would look in the UK where a footway crosses a carriageway, except then I think they use blister paving instead of rumble lines.


Yes, blister for crossing a segregated cycle lane as well here. 
Issue would be (if that were a road / pedestrian crossing, not just another cycle path) how a visually impaired pedestrian crossing the road finds the right 'bit' and doesn't end up in the cycle path. Blisters all the way to the pedestrian bit?


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Issue would be (if that were a road / pedestrian crossing, not just another cycle path) how a visually impaired pedestrian crossing the road finds the right 'bit' and doesn't end up in the cycle path. Blisters all the way to the pedestrian bit?


Well, how does a visually impaired pedestrian crossing the road find the right 'bit' and not end up in the carriageway?


----------



## SavageHoutkop (31 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Well, how does a visually impaired pedestrian crossing the road find the right 'bit' and not end up in the carriageway?


Blisters both sides, and usually crosses square? T-junction as pictured a bit more complex.


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Blisters both sides, and usually crosses square? T-junction as pictured a bit more complex.


So just make sure it adheres to the same principles when a footway crosses a cycle track. I really don't understand why this always seems to be such a problem in this country and worth adding artificial tramlines for cyclists to fall off on. If anything, crashing bikes is not really safe for visually-impaired pedestrians either.


----------



## nickyboy (31 Oct 2016)

ABikeCam said:


> I'm talking about things that have input from cycling groups from the outset, but do not end up with anything that has been agreed between those people and the authorities throughout the design process. The input is there, but it is ignored. Why is that?



A combination of other priorities in infrastructure design and poorly run and organised cycling groups


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> So just make sure it adheres to the same principles when a footway crosses a cycle track. I really don't understand why this always seems to be such a problem in this country and worth adding artificial tramlines for cyclists to fall off on. If anything, crashing bikes is not really safe for visually-impaired pedestrians either.


what are these artificial tramlines you speak of?


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> what are these artificial tramlines you speak of?


Shaped concrete tiles laid in a design that imitates such rails. See the earlier post:


SavageHoutkop said:


> This is the one for the segregated path...
> View attachment 149746


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Shaped concrete tiles laid in a design that imitates such rails. See the earlier post:


Thought so. I just can't imagine them causing anyone to fall off.


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> Thought so. I just can't imagine them causing anyone to fall off.


Try to cross them at an angle on thin tyres and the front tyre can get snatched into line with the tramlines, throwing you off, or the back tyre can skid sideways along them, throwing you off, or the whole thing can railroad you into any obstruction too close in front of it, which is why they shouldn't be installed within 4m of a bend or barrier. Even with thicker tyres, it can make the handlebars skip around unpleasantly or subject the back wheel to buckling forces. And finally, the tiles almost never remain level with the adjacent tarmac. No cycle-friendly place would install them on cycle tracks IMO.


----------



## winjim (31 Oct 2016)

SavageHoutkop said:


> This is the one for the segregated path...
> View attachment 149746


They actually used the word _tramline_. Unbelievable. Have they ever tried riding a bike on tramlines?


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

winjim said:


> They actually used the word _tramline_. Unbelievable. Have they ever tried riding a bike on tramlines?


Not yet, but it would be a fitting punishment for them, wouldn't it?


----------



## winjim (31 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Not yet, but it would be a fitting punishment for them, wouldn't it?








Maybe have them use this cycle path?

Infirmary Rd, Sheffield.


----------



## Andrew_P (31 Oct 2016)

I bet my one is the only one that take the cyclist within 5 feet of a motorway just as the slip road is going into two lanes and expects the cyclist to dismount and make a mad dash for the central reservation with cars getting up to 70mph. There are way around it but all involve more climbing

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2...QYz0PDUETbRXBI7XdA_g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en 

I never use but it can get a bit hairy with cars undertaking and overtaking you @ 50+ 

I made a few complaints and it has been reviewed several times but the 1993 plans are too expensive!


----------



## mr_cellophane (31 Oct 2016)

Elm Park, LB Havering. Designed to stop cyclists taking primary through the pinch point? Also cars have to cross onto the hatching to avoid having to make a sharp turn to miss the bollard
There is a similar one the other side, but that isn't so bad as there is usually a builders flat bed truck parked in it.


----------



## simon.r (31 Oct 2016)

You can just about see the graffitied "door lane" paint under the cycle here:


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (31 Oct 2016)

GGJ said:


> View attachment 149571
> We have this complete mess. It was a classic 2 lane B road which was too busy to cycle unless you had a death wish, then the much needed village bypass was built so the council decided in their wisdom to make a cycle/traffic route. This road is now classed as a single track road with passing places.
> 
> Y


I cycle and run along the Moor Road a fair bit, and to be honest, I prefer the East Ren section with the markings compared to the North Ayrshire section, where the markings got removed. Can you guess which section sees me being given a wider berth?


----------



## boydj (31 Oct 2016)

GGJ said:


> Click
> 
> Click
> 
> ...



I wasn't aware of the second incident, but I was on a course at Jackton at the time of the first incident and the word was that the senior police officer had had a heart attack or similar which caused the crash.

All I can say is that my experience of the road is that it is a good one for cycling on and popular with club cyclists, judging by the number to be found in the Whitelees Wind Farm cafe every week-end.


----------



## winjim (31 Oct 2016)

Another tramline themed one from me, Shalesmoor roundabout. Notice how the curve of the road combined with the curve of the tracks makes for a very shallow angle where you cross them. If I ever ride this way I take the lane and ride in a zig-zag to try and make the angle as close to perpendicular. Sometimes earns me a honking but it's the safest way I think.


----------



## mick1836 (31 Oct 2016)

http://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api...ov=180&pitch=-11.293608448805202&sensor=false
Tixall Road Stafford


----------



## HLaB (31 Oct 2016)

GGJ said:


> Click
> 
> Click
> 
> ...


As tragic as the first one is it happened in the village


boydj said:


> I wasn't aware of the second incident, but I was on a course at Jackton at the time of the first incident and the word was that the senior police officer had had a heart attack or similar which caused the crash.
> 
> All I can say is that my experience of the road is that it is a good one for cycling on and popular with club cyclists, judging by the number to be found in the Whitelees Wind Farm cafe every week-end.


The stats say the 2010 rtc was in the village and nothing to do with the cycle lanes but the report says 0.5 east of the wind farm, which puts it at the cycle lane section  regardless though if it was an heart attack it had nothing to do with the cycle lanes.
Hopefully the lad survived in the 2nd but it appears it had nothing to do with a cycle lane either.
As much as I dislike them, I don't think they can be blamed and I doubt a cash strapped council would prioritise anything based on the accident (I hate that word) history


----------



## GGJ (31 Oct 2016)

boydj said:


> I wasn't aware of the second incident, but I was on a course at Jackton at the time of the first incident and the word was that the senior police officer had had a heart attack or similar which caused the crash.
> 
> All I can say is that my experience of the road is that it is a good one for cycling on and popular with club cyclists, judging by the number to be found in the Whitelees Wind Farm cafe every week-end.




There's been a couple more in recent years so I'll have a look and try and find them. Also a retired ex Jackton lad I cycle with was involved in a hit & run near Fenwick in February this year, the police know who it was but can't pin anything on the driver...yet. Needless to say there are a few cameras strapped to bikes now when we go out.

Yes the road is a lot safer than when I first rode it in the 60s, but it's still far from ideal and some sort of traffic calming could easily be introduced to make it a heck of a lot safer. The B764 is now classed as a 'local access road' so maybe it's time to close one end so that motorised vehicles cannot go through


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

If it's a local access road, gate it, with cycle/horse bypasses. Even if the gates are unlocked, that seems to stop most motorists who don't need to use it.


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> Try to cross them at an angle on thin tyres and the front tyre can get snatched into line with the tramlines, throwing you off, or the back tyre can skid sideways along them, throwing you off, or the whole thing can railroad you into any obstruction too close in front of it, which is why they shouldn't be installed within 4m of a bend or barrier. Even with thicker tyres, it can make the handlebars skip around unpleasantly or subject the back wheel to buckling forces. And finally, the tiles almost never remain level with the adjacent tarmac. No cycle-friendly place would install them on cycle tracks IMO.


all that from a short series of tiny bumps... crickey 

I guess i've just been lucky each time i cross them.


----------



## benb (1 Nov 2016)

There's a really nifty app instantstreetview.com where you can download streetview images or get the URLs to embed
Anyway, here's one near me. Lovely. It could be good. They have kerb separated it (at least in this section. Earlier on it's just a shared use pavement), but bottled it when it came to side road priority.


----------



## benb (1 Nov 2016)

And then there's this amazing one that is right in the door zone, and doesn't give enough space for a safe overtake anyway.


----------



## benb (1 Nov 2016)

When the cycle stencil has to be squashed up to fit it in the painted lane, you can safely assume the lane is too narrow.


----------



## User482 (1 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> all that from a short series of tiny bumps... crickey
> 
> I guess i've just been lucky each time i cross them.



I watched what happened as my daughter fell over: as she turned her bars, the front tyre slid along the raised "rail" rather than gripping and riding over it, causing her to fall sideways. This was at walking pace.


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Nov 2016)

User482 said:


> I watched what happened as my daughter fell over: as she turned her bars, the front tyre slid along the raised "rail" rather than gripping and riding over it, causing her to fall sideways. This was at walking pace.


The 'rails' on the ones round these parts are about 5mm high. The white line down the middle of the track is bigger 'obstacle', as are many small stones, pebbles and sticks. I can only assume that other parts of the country have bigger 'rails'.


----------



## User482 (1 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> The 'rails' on the ones round these parts are about 5mm high. The white line down the middle of the track is bigger 'obstacle', as are many small stones, pebbles and sticks. I can only assume that other parts of the country have bigger 'rails'.



The rails aren't high, and she has never fallen off on any of the other obstacles you mention.


----------



## mjr (1 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> The 'rails' on the ones round these parts are about 5mm high. The white line down the middle of the track is bigger 'obstacle', as are many small stones, pebbles and sticks. I can only assume that other parts of the country have bigger 'rails'.


There is a related tile, the cordouroy tile, which is similar but with taller rails and rounded off at each end of each square tile and intended for a different application, but some councils do indeed install it on cycle tracks incorrectly. North Somerset Council did in a couple of places near the Locking Castle school/library centre IIRC.

But it really is quite possible to crash on tramline tiles that you've traversed safely hundreds of times before. It seems to be a function of the angle you hit it at, your actions while traversing it, tyre width/pressure/etc, any bump up/down to/from adjacent tarmac and just dumb luck on which bit of the tramlines you hit. It's even worse at the moment, with leaves covering some of them. They are an evil impediment which should be tarmacked over as soon as possible. It wouldn't cost that much and it would improve so many routes.


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Nov 2016)

forgive me if i can't believe that these paving blocks present the hazard you speak of...






...I hope the helmetless, no-handed cyclist is OK going over them.


----------



## User482 (1 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> forgive me if i can't believe that these paving blocks present the hazard you speak of...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The rails are a little higher on the ones round here. Anyway, you'll forgive me if I rely on my direct experience rather than your opinion.


----------



## mjr (1 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> forgive me if i can't believe that these paving blocks present the hazard you speak of...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, those look like they've been sanded down, but I do note that they've been cunningly installed just off-parallel with the kerb to keep some element of danger! And they're not usually installed anywhere near that competently, in my experience.


----------



## mangid (1 Nov 2016)

Never seen it used by anybody ....


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> Yeah, those look like they've been sanded down, but I do note that they've been cunningly installed just off-parallel with the kerb to keep some element of danger! And they're not usually installed anywhere near that competently, in my experience.


They look exactly like all the 'tramline' slabs i've seen on cycleways around here. Either you're exaggerating the danger (!) they pose, or the ones installed down south are very different.


----------



## winjim (1 Nov 2016)

Not the clearest of photos but here's a cycle path under construction with the tramline slabs positioned across the path. It's part of the "campus masterplan" and possibly on land owned by the university so I guess might not be subject to the usual regulations. It looks to me as if the tactile paving is intended to create a nudge style pedestrian crossing across the cycle path. Horrible tiny kerb at the edge of the path though.


----------



## mjr (1 Nov 2016)

mangid said:


> View attachment 149902
> 
> 
> Never seen it used by anybody ....


I think that's a 1980s end-of-route sign, so it's been left there a long time not to be used. That really does look a bit bonkers, but not difficult for cyclists to ignore.



MontyVeda said:


> They look exactly like all the 'tramline' slabs i've seen on cycleways around here. Either you're exaggerating the danger (!) they pose, or the ones installed down south are very different.


I hope you don't discover your bravado is misplaced. Do you like them or benefit from them somehow?

Here's an example of the more severe ones, incorrectly installed on a bend (picture under CC-By-SA by peteowens):


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Nov 2016)

Is this a wind-up? That bollard presents more of a hazard.


----------



## Glow worm (1 Nov 2016)

There are loads of these pointless efforts hereabouts. I've never seen anyone use any of them in 15 or so years. At least they bothered to drop the kerb I suppose!


----------



## palinurus (1 Nov 2016)

A new facility on the industrial estate. Dismount signs at every driveway, even this one.

And the surface is gravel.
















This one is near me.


----------



## Glow worm (1 Nov 2016)

Deary me! It's almost as if road planners don't actually like cyclists very much!


----------



## tallliman (1 Nov 2016)

How's about this: https://www.instantstreetview.com/@52.777897,-1.19629,63.28h,0.51p,1.5z

Should be the junction of station Blvd with the a60 if it worked.


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Nov 2016)

I hope everyone posting a photo is also advising the respective local councils exactly what's wrong or dangerous about the cycle lane being commented on. As otherwise nothing will ever change.


----------



## mjr (1 Nov 2016)

Flying Dodo said:


> I hope everyone posting a photo is also advising the respective local councils exactly what's wrong or dangerous about the cycle lane being commented on. As otherwise nothing will ever change.


Maybe it'd be good to post the www.fixMyStreet.com links with each submission.


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Nov 2016)

palinurus said:


> This one is near me.



WTF


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> ... Do you like them or benefit from them somehow?
> ...



I don't dislike them. And I'm sure some people may well benefit from a tactile indicator of which side of a shared use track is intended for foot traffic.


----------



## Profpointy (1 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> WTF



that's really the only sensible response to that one


----------



## Profpointy (1 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> I think that's a 1980s end-of-route sign, so it's been left there a long time not to be used. That really does look a bit bonkers, but not difficult for cyclists to ignore.
> 
> 
> I hope you don't discover your bravado is misplaced. Do you like them or benefit from them somehow?
> ...



'kinell - wonder how many have beed off'd by that. It's just nuts


----------



## mjr (1 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> I don't dislike them. And I'm sure some people may well benefit from a tactile indicator of which side of a shared use track is intended for foot traffic.


Fine, put a tactile indicator on the side intended for foot traffic. I just think it's a bit mean to put skid hazards that are rarely level and don't drain (so fill with ice in winter) on the cycleable side. We don't put tactile indicators on motorable lanes...

which reminds me of LCC's page What would British roads look like if we treated them the same way we do our cycle lanes?


----------



## srw (1 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


>



As LCC _really _should know, that particularly egregious example of a bike lane (which was a bodged solution to what was, in fairness, a tricky problem) has been replaced by a far more sensible, if still experimental solution - the road has been made one way to motorised vehicles, with two-way bike working in wide lanes on either side. What's more, at either end of the length the one-way street goes in opposition directions, so it's useless as a car rat-run.

https://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/conte...-place-experimental-traffic-changes.en?page=4


----------



## User482 (1 Nov 2016)

Flying Dodo said:


> I hope everyone posting a photo is also advising the respective local councils exactly what's wrong or dangerous about the cycle lane being commented on. As otherwise nothing will ever change.


I have. would you like to guess my success rate?


----------



## Glow worm (1 Nov 2016)

This is how we deal with 'Cyclists Dismount' signs hereabouts


----------



## theclaud (1 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> Is this a wind-up? That bollard presents more of a hazard.


They unpleasant at best, and a hazard at worst, especially when wet. Swansea Council have just removed some, which were positioned on a bend around the war memorial, where the bike and pedestrian sides, idiotically, swap over. Their main effect on me is to make me veer over to the pedestrian side, so they do the opposite of what they are intended to do. They are the epitome of half-baked design ideas.


----------



## mjr (1 Nov 2016)

srw said:


> As LCC _really _should know, that particularly egregious example of a bike lane (which was a bodged solution to what was, in fairness, a tricky problem) has been replaced by a far more sensible, if still experimental solution


I'm sure they know. The page I linked is from four years ago and has other examples. Still, someone actually built that insane switchover. I even rode through it. Once.

Nice to see some of them get fixed, isn't it? Hopefully it'll become permanent.


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> Fine, put a tactile indicator on the side intended for foot traffic ...



it needs to cover the entire width if it's to be of any use to visually impaired peds. 



mjr said:


> We don't put tactile indicators on motorable lanes.



Don't they? Ever noticed those bumpy slabs by crossings and the kerbs lining the roads?


----------



## mjr (2 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> Don't they? Ever noticed those bumpy slabs by crossings and the kerbs lining the roads?


I'm well aware of them, but I've never seen the bumpy slabs covering the entire width of the carriageway, so does that mean they're not any use to "visually impaired peds"?

Another problem with the current UK tactile guidance is that bar tiles are used in other contexts to warn of a hazard, with the bars aligned across the edge to avoid - for example, across the top of a flight of stairs or along a platform edge, with the bars parallel to the edge:




(photo by moonpointer on Flickr, CC-By-SA licence)
...so the current bar tiles on footways next to cycle tracks mark the footway entrance as a hazard or step down, which seems odd. I feel it would be better to use blister tiles across the footway ends and treat the cycle track as if it were a restricted carriageway, unless pedestrians are banned from walking on the cycle track, which is very rare.


----------



## TheJDog (2 Nov 2016)

Not sure if I can use this image linking thing properly







But that is the entirety of that bike lane.


----------



## Profpointy (2 Nov 2016)

TheJDog said:


> Not sure if I can use this image linking thing properly
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Could be worse - I bet someone knows of a similar one with the arrow the other way !


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (2 Nov 2016)

It's a new month!  So there's a new entry on the Warrington Cycle Facility of the Month site: http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/


----------



## winjim (2 Nov 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Could be worse - I bet someone knows of a similar one with the arrow the other way !


There's this one which is close.




The intention is to put you on the pavement so you can cross at that toucan and go the wrong way round the one way system which is to the left of the image. I have to say that I'd lived here for about five years before I even noticed it and I always go round the one way system on the road anyway.


----------



## Profpointy (2 Nov 2016)

winjim said:


> There's this one which is close.
> View attachment 149980
> 
> The intention is to put you on the pavement so you can cross at that toucan and go the wrong way round the one way system which is to the left of the image. I have to say that I'd lived here for about five years before I even noticed it and I always go round the one way system on the road anyway.



Was about to guffaw at that one, but reading your description it may actually make reasonable sense - allowing road cyclists to bale out onto a bit of a short cut.


----------



## winjim (2 Nov 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Was about to guffaw at that one, but reading your description it may actually make reasonable sense - allowing road cyclists to bale out onto a bit of a short cut.


Yes, it's not actually as silly as it looks.


----------



## mjr (2 Nov 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Was about to guffaw at that one, but reading your description it may actually make reasonable sense - allowing road cyclists to bale out onto a bit of a short cut.


Yeah, I do the same at a couple of points around town, although without any cycle lane marking in front of the island, including one where it allows me to avoid some traffic lights and crossing an 8-lane A road twice.


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> I'm well aware of them, but I've never seen the bumpy slabs covering the entire width of the carriageway, so does that mean they're not any use to "visually impaired peds"?
> 
> ...



Why would the the bumpy slabs cover the width of the road? They're to mark where the crossing points are on the pavements. But the case in point is the tramline paving on shared use paths. They're there for a reason, yet you appear blind to their purpose (pun intended).


----------



## mjr (2 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> Why would the the bumpy slabs cover the width of the road? They're to mark where the crossing points are on the pavements. But the case in point is the tramline paving on shared use paths. They're there for a reason, yet you appear blind to their purpose (pun intended).


I don't know why they'd be in the road. You're the one who gave them as an example of "tactile indicators on motorable lanes" and suggested that tactiles need to cover the full width to be useful. I've never seen them on the motorable lanes - only on the footways.

The same blister tiles should be used in the same style to mark the points where pavements cross cycle tracks too. People need to move past the bull shoot term "shared use paths" and realise that they're legally and practically cycle tracks which may have footways alongside, because it's that flawed "shared use path" concept which has led to a lot of the worst problems being built.


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> ... You're the one who gave them as an example of "tactile indicators on motorable lanes" and suggested that tactiles need to cover the full width to be useful.
> 
> ....



No I didn't. What I said is that the tramline slabs need to cover the entire width of a shared use path, marking one side as foot traffic and the other as cycle traffic... which was a response to your suggestion that they should only be on the pedestrian side.


----------



## mjr (2 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> No I didn't. What I said is that the tramline slabs need to cover the entire width of a shared use path, marking one side as foot traffic and the other as cycle traffic... which was a response to your suggestion that they should only be on the pedestrian side.


Sorry, the context of your reply misled me.

Why do the slabs need to cover the cycle track part when they never cover the carriageway part of a footway-carriageway interaction? That's repeatedly asserted but never explained. After all, accidentally walking along a carriageway could end far more badly than walking along a cycle track.

And do you see the logical inconsistency of using bars indicating a hazard at steps and platform edges, but the opposite at a footway-cycle track interaction?


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Nov 2016)

For the visually impaired, a carriageway is usually bounded by a kerb. At crossing points (pelican, toucan & zebra) there's the bumpy paving. I don't know why you think it should go all the way across the road too... but that's going way off topic. A shared use path is marked on both sides for a reason; the lines go 'with' the flow on the cycle side and across it on the ped side, thus giving a clue to the visually impaired as to which side is which. The only other tactile marker is the central white line which helps them stay on track. Maybe you can avoid the hazard that tactile paving poses by simply bunny hopping over it. I'll continue riding over them because i can cope with a series of 5mm bumps, and i'm not great at bunny hops


----------



## mjr (2 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> For the visually impaired, a carriageway is usually bounded by a kerb. At crossing points (pelican, toucan & zebra) there's the bumpy paving. I don't know why you think it should go all the way across the road too... but that's going way off topic.


I'm pretty sure that it's the footway that's usually bounded by a kerb - or actually just a white line in some parts of Somerset and probably elsewhere. But anyway, why not take the same approach to a footway alongside a cycle track as for a footway alongside a carriageway? White line or kerb along the long edge and bumpy tiles where users have to cross the track/carriageway.



MontyVeda said:


> I don't know why you think it should go all the way across the road too... but that's going way off topic.


I never said it should! It was that MontyVeda who said it needed to, at 09:10 today. 



MontyVeda said:


> A shared use path is marked on both sides for a reason; the lines go 'with' the flow on the cycle side and across it on the ped side, thus giving a clue to the visually impaired as to which side is which.


Leaving aside the "shared use path" BS again, that so-called clue is the opposite one to other situations, where lines across warns against crossing it - and it would be just as good a clue to mark only one side, wouldn't it?

And I'll not repeat my reply to your disgusting repeated implied insult of all those who skid on this anti-cycling measure this time. I am utterly mystified that any cyclist actually supports the use of these nasties. Is it some hatred of cyclists who use cycle tracks leading to a desire to keep putting obstacles in their way?


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> I'm pretty sure that it's the footway that's usually bounded by a kerb - or actually just a white line in some parts of Somerset and probably elsewhere. But anyway, why not take the same approach to a footway alongside a cycle track as for a footway alongside a carriageway? White line or kerb along the long edge and bumpy tiles where users have to cross the track/carriageway.


As far as I'm can tell the current design is OK. There's only you and User482 and possibly The Claud claiming otherwise. Maybe you'd like to start a separate thread asking for other member's accounts of facing this particular hazard?



mjr said:


> I never said it should! It was that MontyVeda who said it needed to, at 09:10 today.


you know that's not true. It was discussed very recently and i explained what my reply meant... or have you forgotten typing "Sorry, the context of your reply misled me."


mjr said:


> Leaving aside the "shared use path" BS again, that so-called clue is the opposite one to other situations, where lines across warns against crossing it - and it would be just as good a clue to mark only one side, wouldn't it?


No... marking only one side is of no use to the visually impaired. If there's no marking on the cycling side, then it's going to be just another bit of pavement to someone who relies on tactile paving. 
.


mjr said:


> And I'll not repeat my reply to your disgusting repeated implied insult of all those who skid on this anti-cycling measure this time. I am utterly mystified that any cyclist actually supports the use of these nasties. Is it some hatred of cyclists who use cycle tracks leading to a desire to keep putting obstacles in their way?


I wonder how many cyclists have been a victim of these 'nasties'. I look forward to a host of links to newspaper articles and threads.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (2 Nov 2016)

I'm another who can't stand them, I've not come off yet but have had several wobbles, they install them longer than in your original picture now (2.4m if that post I linked to earlier is to be believed). I'll post a vid for you of a path alongside a park near here, newly installed, where you keep having to swap sides and alternate shared use / segregated, so hit them at an angle. I won't cycle over those tramlines in the wet or when covered with leaves, and given our councils insistence on not sweeping leaves from cycle paths that's pretty much always at the moment. 

It's akin to having your wheels slide along the side of an exposed drain, not pleasant at all.


----------



## User482 (2 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> As far as I'm can tell the current design is OK. There's only you and User482 and possibly The Claud claiming otherwise. Maybe you'd like to start a separate thread asking for other member's accounts of facing this particular hazard?



Is there any need for that? I'm not seeking to win a debate, I'm telling you what happened when my daughter tried to cycle diagonally across one, in the wet. For all I know, the installations in your area could all be absolutely fine, but that doesn't make what other people are telling you wrong.


----------



## mjr (2 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> Maybe you'd like to start a separate thread asking for other member's accounts of facing this particular hazard?


Not really but https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/have-you-skidded-on-tramlines.209605/



MontyVeda said:


> No... marking only one side is of no use to the visually impaired. If there's no marking on the cycling side, then it's going to be just another bit of pavement to someone who relies on tactile paving.


So do they see carriageways as just another bit of pavement, or are visually-impaired people a bit cleverer than you're giving us credit for?



MontyVeda said:


> I wonder how many cyclists have been a victim of these 'nasties'. I look forward to a host of links to newspaper articles and threads.


Yeah, because every single-bike crash gets reported in newspapers(!) 

Am I the only person who finds the most comfortable approach is to cycle over the transverse lines (the supposed footway side) as fast as you can? Illegal, but easiest and seems safest - that's not what good design should encourage.


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> So do they see carriageways as just another bit of pavement, or are visually-impaired people a bit cleverer than you're giving us credit for?


There's a whole spectrum of visual impairments. Some of them can see more than others. You know that. Anyway, this is all off topic. If you want to discuss how you and other visually impaired people cope on our highways and byways, start another thread. I'm off to find a picture of a crap cycle lane.


----------



## winjim (2 Nov 2016)

I've slided on them, not catastrophically but certainly unnervingly, which funnily enough is why I mentioned it in the first place.


----------



## mr_cellophane (2 Nov 2016)

I'm not sure which of the two threads to post this in. When the A10 was built in the 20's it had a lovely wide cycle path nearly all the way along from Wood Green to Enfield. In places that has now become parking bays with a narrow cycle path between the cars and pavement.


----------



## MontyVeda (2 Nov 2016)

mr_cellophane said:


> I'm not sure which of the two threads to post this in. When the A10 was built in the 20's it had a lovely wide cycle path nearly all the way along from Wood Green to Enfield. In places that has now become parking bays with a narrow cycle path between the cars and pavement.
> 
> View attachment 150016


who thought it was a good idea to put it between the pavement and parked cars?

These traffic calming measures aren't much use... well, not as intended.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 Nov 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> As far as I'm can tell the current design is OK. There's only you and User482 and possibly The Claud claiming otherwise.


And me 
I hate the bloody things, slippy in the wet, lethal when there's ice or leaf mulch.


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Nov 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


> And me
> I hate the bloody things, slippy in the wet, lethal when there's ice or leaf mulch.


lethal? I'm claiming over exaggeration! ...anyway, there's another thread for this sort of stuff.


----------



## Alex H (3 Nov 2016)

This was / is somewhere around Cambridge


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Nov 2016)

Cycle lanes that only go the length of a T junction are really useful.





All these little stretches of red paint add up to 'miles of cycling infrastructure', which possibly secured a grant for more infrastructure... but please, not more of the same!


----------



## AnthonyC (3 Nov 2016)

Elephant and Castle..


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Nov 2016)

AnthonyC said:


> View attachment 150115
> 
> 
> Elephant and Castle..


cycle lanes as bad as the sitcom.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2016)

Alex H said:


> This was / is somewhere around Cambridge
> 
> View attachment 150048


Looks like an access point to a cycle track, but they omitted the turn arrow? Better than North Somerset, where they included the arrow but omitted the dropped kerb:




(edit: after I reported it a few times, this was fixed)



MontyVeda said:


> Cycle lanes that only go the length of a T junction are really useful.


Especially when they direct people into prime left-hook/SMIDSY-pull-out location


----------



## winjim (4 Nov 2016)

Alex H said:


> This was / is somewhere around Cambridge
> 
> View attachment 150048





mjr said:


> Looks like an access point to a cycle track, but they omitted the turn arrow?


It looks to me like they've just used a cycle lane to create a pinch point on that speed cushion.

I was told on my speed awareness course that cycle lanes were often put in just to narrow the road as a cheap traffic calming measure. I have mentioned it before on this forum but somebody said I was talking bollocks so I must've dreamt it or something.


----------



## classic33 (4 Nov 2016)

winjim said:


> It looks to me like they've just used a cycle lane to create a pinch point on that speed cushion.
> 
> I was told on my speed awareness course that cycle lanes were often put in just to narrow the road as a cheap traffic calming measure. I have mentioned it before on this forum but somebody said I was talking bollocks so I must've dreamt it or something.


Local council did just that. Then had it pointed out the lanes, at 18", weren't wide enough. Well placed! concrete bollards met your handlebars.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (4 Nov 2016)

One common approach to cycle lanes in Melbourne is to make them green, to better stand out from the other lanes. This is laudable, but the only problem is what is used to make the green colour: it's *green ground glass fragments!*  For months after any of these lanes is resurfaced in this crappy material, cyclists get increased punctures. One of Melbourne's councilors replied to a thread on this topic in an Australian cycling forum a few years back, and he swore that the stuff never caused punctures, because it was carefully ground up to the point where it had no sharp edges, but he clearly didn't do much cycling in these lanes.


----------



## mjr (4 Nov 2016)

winjim said:


> I was told on my speed awareness course that cycle lanes were often put in just to narrow the road as a cheap traffic calming measure. I have mentioned it before on this forum but somebody said I was talking bollocks so I must've dreamt it or something.


I think it's more likely that whoever told you it was talking bollocks. Highways designers seem pretty busy so I doubt they often deliver speed awareness courses.



Shut Up Legs said:


> One of Melbourne's councilors replied to a thread on this topic in an Australian cycling forum a few years back, and he swore that the stuff never caused punctures, because it was carefully ground up to the point where it had no sharp edges, but he clearly didn't do much cycling in these lanes.


Ah, we've suffered so-called "glasphalt" in the UK too, most famously http://road.cc/content/news/179157-has-glass-asphalt-stopped-racing-odd-down-cycle-circuit

One theory I've been told is that although the glass doesn't have sharp edges at first, but putting it down incorrectly may break some of it, leaving sharp edges, then they're ground down, but then the winter freezes cracks some of the glass (because we don't often grit cycle lanes or tracks), creating more sharp edges.


----------



## classic33 (4 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> *I think it's more likely that whoever told you it was talking bollocks. *Highways designers seem pretty busy so I doubt they often deliver speed awareness courses.


Search out Ovenden Way for proof then!

They've managed three in one on there.


----------



## Dannz (4 Nov 2016)

Barnsbury Road, London N1.


----------



## marknotgeorge (4 Nov 2016)

Wetmore Road, Burton. It's a good job the barely visible cycle lane's not mandatory, as the road's not wide enough for cars to stay out of it.


----------



## Dannz (5 Nov 2016)

Corner of Great Dover Street and Globe Street, London. 

Double red lines mean no stopping at any time for ANY purpose. 

You get fined if you stop at double red lines, you get fined if you cross the stop line at a red light.


----------



## benb (6 Nov 2016)

Dannz said:


> Corner of Great Dover Street and Globe Street, London.
> 
> Double red lines mean no stopping at any time for ANY purpose.
> 
> ...



You are allowed to stop on a red route if the traffic is stationary or if there are red lights, box junctions etc. 
You're just not allowed to pull over and stop, unlike double yellows where you are allowed to pull over to drop off or pick up passengers.


----------



## SuperHans123 (13 Nov 2016)

By the side of the River Tawe looking toward the local council yard.
Literally a dead end.


----------



## ChrisPAmbulance (28 Aug 2019)

mick1836 said:


> http://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api...ov=180&pitch=-11.293608448805202&sensor=false
> Tixall Road Stafford


I live on Tixall Road and the cycle lane is absolutely ridiculous. It's covered in cars and the track goes up and down so much you are almost seasick by the end.


----------

