UK and Europe · Public discussion

Another Cycle Lane Letter (update)

Started by iarocu · · Last activity · 14 posts · 471 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
15 February 2007
Last activity
9 March 2007
Original author
iarocu
Posts
14
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
471
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–14 of 14
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. On 28th November last year I started a thread (Another Cycle Lane
    letter) regarding a dangerous cycle lane near me.
    "After yet another driver making a point of passing dangerously close
    when I chose not to use a cycle lane I finally got round to drafting a
    letter to East Dunbartonshire Council regarding one of their cycle
    farcilities. With his permission I stole some of Bob Downie's letter
    to Glasgow City Council regarding the new cycle lanes in Kilmarnock
    Road. For a picture of the farcility in question See
    www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"

    After getting no reply for 2 months I e-mailed a reminder and have
    now had a reply basically saying they are not going to change
    anything.
    Well at least if a cyclist is doored there the council will not be
    able to claim they weren't aware of the problem.

    The reply is "Dear Mr Cullen

    I refer to your e-mails of 29th November, 2006 and reminder of 31st
    January, 2007 regarding the above and I apologise for the delay in
    responding as your original e-mail must have slipped through the net.

    The Traffic & Transportation section of the Roads Service carried out
    a
    study in 1997 on the A81 Milngavie Road, between Roman Drive and
    Glasgow
    Road, with a view to installing a Traffic Management Scheme that would
    reduce speeds, provide sheltered parking, right turning facilities,
    cycle
    lanes and a minimum carriageway width of 7.3m. Within the constraints
    of
    the existing road widths, a scheme was designed and drawings were
    presented
    to the public within local libraries, where they were asked to comment
    on
    the design and implementation of the proposed scheme. In addition,
    staff
    from the Traffic & Transportation section were in attendance during an
    exhibition held in Kilmardinny House. At this exhibition, members of
    the
    public had the opportunity to ask questions and offer comments.
    Emergency
    services and local cycle organisation, Go Bike, were also consulted
    and
    were requested to comment. All comments were taken onboard and where
    appropriate included in the scheme which was implemented in November
    1997.

    To date, the scheme on the A81 Milngavie Road has proved successful
    and
    both vehicle speeds and accidents rates have decreased since its
    introduction, some 10 years ago. You should also note that because of
    the
    success of the scheme it has been extended along Main Street to
    Milngavie
    Town Centre. At present, therefore, I have no intention to make any
    alterations to the existing traffic management schemes.

    It should be noted that during the design stage for the cycle lanes on
    the
    A81 Milngavie Road, the Scottish Executive's guidance 'Cycling by
    Design'
    was in draft format. This guidance document, in fact, only started to
    emerge during the year 1996. Furthermore, it should be noted that
    'Cycling
    by Design' has still not be formalised by the Scottish Executive. The
    design of the A81 Milngavie Road cycle lanes was based on the
    principles of
    the existing cycle lanes which had been implemented by Glasgow City
    Council
    at that time.

    I trust the foregoing is of assistance."

    I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not doing
    anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
    disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
    improve this lane.

    Iain

  2. iarocu <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:

    www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"

    Quoted message said:

    I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not doing
    anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
    disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
    improve this lane.

    Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the door
    open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

    What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?

    --
    Paul - [censored]
    ebay stuff 140086163024

  3. Paul - censored said:

    iarocu <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:

    www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"

    I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not doing
    anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
    disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
    improve this lane.

    I doubt it's snappy and obvious enough to make the local paper, IMHO.

    Quoted message said:

    Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the door
    open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

    What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?


    The problem with it is that the cycle lane is actually a piece of road
    whose sole function is to give adequate separation between the parked
    motor vehicles and the driving ones. As such, it should be a hatched
    area and the bikes should share the lane with the motor traffic.
    Unfortunately, this means the lane is now too narrow to allow the right
    turn filter to work.

    A

  4. "Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    iarocu <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:

    www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"

    Quoted message said:

    I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not doing
    anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
    disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
    improve this lane.

    Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh.

    Boggle. Gasp. What are you on? It's a lane which tells cyclists to ride
    exactly where they shouldn't be - in the door zone. Given no parked cars,
    I'd probably be a bit to the left of the red stripe. With cars there, I'd be
    to the right of the red stripe.

    Quoted message said:

    Is the car with the door open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

    I'd go for the former - but it does illustrate the problem very well.

    Quoted message said:

    What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?

    Well, the cycle lane has been put in for traffic calming reasons, not for
    cyclists. It probably encourages drivers to keep within the narrower lane,
    which will also make them slow down.

    One could simply lose the cycle markings but keep the red tarmac. Maybe the
    occasional bike painted on the RHS of the red tarmac, to reinforce the idea
    that it isn't actually mandatory to cycle in it?

    The tricky problem is the drivers - if you remember the OP was spurred into
    writing this letter by drivers cutting him up because he wasn't using the
    lane. People do have a nasty habit of assuming 'cycle facilities' are
    mandatory - I'm not sure of any good way to change that.

    cheers,
    clive

  5. Paul - censored said:

    Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the door
    open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

    I'll assume for the sake of argument that the comment above is
    serious. The cycle lane directs cyclists into the doorzone area where
    they can be seriously injured or killed by an opening door. What's
    "good" about that?. The photo was staged to demonstrate that the lane
    was too close to the parking zone.

    "What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?"

    I would have expected a council to recognise the lane was dangerous
    and consider how it could be improved. Options could include
    1 Removing it - simple and cheap.
    2 Taking away the right turn lane thus allowing the cycle lane to be
    moved further away from the parked cars.
    3 Removing it and replacing it with hatched centre lines as suggested
    by Warrington Cycle Campaign for roads not wide enough for safe cycle
    lanes.
    http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/
    good-practice/birchwood-way.jpg
    So that's 3 ideas before even thinking about banning parking (OK
    unthinkable), or widening the road.
    Iain

  6. iarocu said:

    "What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?"

    I would have expected a council to recognise the lane was dangerous
    and consider how it could be improved.

    All your suggestions are far too low-tech. We need a satellite
    controlled system fitted to every car that detects when it is parked
    next to a cycle lane and prevents the doors from opening on that
    side ;-)

  7. Ambrose Nankivell <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:
    Paul - censored said:

    iarocu <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:

    www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"

    I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not
    doing anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
    disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
    improve this lane.

    I doubt it's snappy and obvious enough to make the local paper, IMHO.

    Quoted message said:

    Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the
    door open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

    What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?


    The problem with it is that the cycle lane is actually a piece of road
    whose sole function is to give adequate separation between the parked
    motor vehicles and the driving ones. As such, it should be a hatched
    area and the bikes should share the lane with the motor traffic.
    Unfortunately, this means the lane is now too narrow to allow the
    right turn filter to work.

    OK. Actually I'm glad you've pointed it out to me. We have a few like
    that in Doncaster, not that I actually use them, and I hadn't noticed
    the narrowness of the filter right 'lane'. Thanks.

    --
    Paul - [censored]
    ebay stuff 140086163024

  8. Clive George <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:

    "Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    iarocu <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:

    www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"

    Quoted message said:

    I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not
    doing anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
    disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
    improve this lane.

    Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh.

    Boggle. Gasp. What are you on?

    Life 😉

    Quoted message said:

    It's a lane which tells cyclists to
    ride exactly where they shouldn't be - in the door zone. Given no
    parked cars, I'd probably be a bit to the left of the red stripe.
    With cars there, I'd be to the right of the red stripe.

    As would I.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Is the car with the door open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

    I'd go for the former - but it does illustrate the problem very well.

    Having had it pointed out to me I can see the problem now. Didn't
    strike me as too much of a problem is all, 'specially as I hadn't
    spotted the filter right lane.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?

    Well, the cycle lane has been put in for traffic calming reasons, not
    for cyclists. It probably encourages drivers to keep within the
    narrower lane, which will also make them slow down.

    One could simply lose the cycle markings but keep the red tarmac.
    Maybe the occasional bike painted on the RHS of the red tarmac, to
    reinforce the idea that it isn't actually mandatory to cycle in it?

    The tricky problem is the drivers - if you remember the OP was
    spurred into writing this letter by drivers cutting him up because he
    wasn't using the lane. People do have a nasty habit of assuming
    'cycle facilities' are mandatory - I'm not sure of any good way to
    change that.

    Whilst I (now) see and agree with what you're saying, my point was what
    the OP actually said to the council. Did he offer, as you have,
    constructive comments, or did he just send in a letter/email having a
    moan?

    --
    Paul - [censored]
    ebay stuff 140086163024

  9. iarocu <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:
    Paul - censored said:

    Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the
    door open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

    I'll assume for the sake of argument that the comment above is
    serious. The cycle lane directs cyclists into the doorzone area where
    they can be seriously injured or killed by an opening door. What's
    "good" about that?. The photo was staged to demonstrate that the lane
    was too close to the parking zone.

    Absolutely serious. I'm a cyclist and didn't really see the problem.
    Now it's been pointed out to me I can see it .. 😉

    Quoted message said:

    "What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?"

    I would have expected a council to recognise the lane was dangerous
    and consider how it could be improved.

    Are they cyclists? Are they looking from your perspective? I'd suggest
    they have an entirely different agenda to yours, so will see things
    entirely differently.

    Quoted message said:

    Options could include
    1 Removing it - simple and cheap.
    2 Taking away the right turn lane thus allowing the cycle lane to be
    moved further away from the parked cars.
    3 Removing it and replacing it with hatched centre lines as suggested
    by Warrington Cycle Campaign for roads not wide enough for safe cycle
    lanes.
    http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/
    good-practice/birchwood-way.jpg
    So that's 3 ideas before even thinking about banning parking (OK
    unthinkable), or widening the road.

    Did you offer these comments/constructive criticisms to the council, or
    did you simply moan at them and expect them to see what I, a cyclist
    too, couldn't even see? You don't include a copy of the original letter
    to them.

    --
    Paul - [censored]
    ebay stuff 140086163024

  10. Paul - censored said:

    Ambrose Nankivell <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:
    Paul - censored said:

    iarocu <[email hidden]> typed:

    > www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"
    >
    > I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not
    > doing anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
    > disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
    > improve this lane.


    I doubt it's snappy and obvious enough to make the local paper, IMHO.

    Quoted message said:

    Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the
    door open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

    What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?


    The problem with it is that the cycle lane is actually a piece of road
    whose sole function is to give adequate separation between the parked
    motor vehicles and the driving ones. As such, it should be a hatched
    area and the bikes should share the lane with the motor traffic.
    Unfortunately, this means the lane is now too narrow to allow the
    right turn filter to work.

    OK. Actually I'm glad you've pointed it out to me. We have a few like
    that in Doncaster, not that I actually use them, and I hadn't noticed
    the narrowness of the filter right 'lane'. Thanks.


    Yeah. I had a long stay (illness, rather than accident related) in
    hospital a few years ago, and I spent a week next to someone who'd just
    come off their bike due to hitting a car door. Grumpy sod never spoke to
    me once.

    Come to think of it, he never spoke to anyone, but he did make gurgling
    and screaming sounds occasionally.*

    --
    A
    *He was recovering some communication. My surmise is that he'd require
    supervision but not nursing by now. He was a father of four, aged 26. I
    avoid car doors quite strenuously now.

  11. On 15 Feb, 16:43, "Paul - [censored]"

    Quoted message said:

    Absolutely serious. I'm a cyclist and didn't really see the problem.
    Now it's been pointed out to me I can see it .. 😉

    Sorry for my somewht brusk original reply to you Paul. I see many
    cyclists riding in the doorzone in this and other places so you are
    spot on that the the danger is not clear to everyone especially to non-
    cyclists..

    Quoted message said:

    Did you offer these comments/constructive criticisms to the council, or
    did you simply moan at them and expect them to see what I, a cyclist
    too, couldn't even see? You don't include a copy of the original letter
    to them.

    To keep this post shorter I didn't include the text of my letter
    again. It is on the original "Another Cycle Lane Letter" thread on
    28th November. A Google in uk.rec.cycling using "iarocu lane letter"
    will get you there.
    In my original letter I pointed out that the lane was dangerous and
    why, and that it did not meet current design standards for cycle
    lanes. I had hoped they would acknowledge the danger and either
    suggest improvements or enter into a discussion to try and identify
    improvements. If I could summarise the reply I got it would be ....
    Short history of how the scheme was implemented. Accident rates have
    come down. We are not doing anything. And the cycle lane design
    guidelines have no legal force anyway so we don't have to.
    Iain

  12. iarocu <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:

    On 15 Feb, 16:43, "Paul - [censored]"

    Quoted message said:

    Absolutely serious. I'm a cyclist and didn't really see the problem.
    Now it's been pointed out to me I can see it .. 😉

    Sorry for my somewht brusk original reply to you Paul. I see many
    cyclists riding in the doorzone in this and other places so you are
    spot on that the the danger is not clear to everyone especially to
    non- cyclists..

    Quoted message said:

    Did you offer these comments/constructive criticisms to the council,
    or did you simply moan at them and expect them to see what I, a
    cyclist too, couldn't even see? You don't include a copy of the
    original letter to them.

    To keep this post shorter I didn't include the text of my letter
    again. It is on the original "Another Cycle Lane Letter" thread on
    28th November. A Google in uk.rec.cycling using "iarocu lane letter"
    will get you there.
    In my original letter I pointed out that the lane was dangerous and
    why, and that it did not meet current design standards for cycle
    lanes. I had hoped they would acknowledge the danger and either
    suggest improvements or enter into a discussion to try and identify
    improvements. If I could summarise the reply I got it would be ....
    Short history of how the scheme was implemented. Accident rates have
    come down. We are not doing anything. And the cycle lane design
    guidelines have no legal force anyway so we don't have to.
    Iain

    Fair do's all round then, I think. 😉

    --
    Paul - [censored]
    ebay stuff 140086163024

  13. iarocu said:

    If I could summarise the reply I got it would be ....
    Short history of how the scheme was implemented. Accident rates have
    come down. We are not doing anything. And the cyclelanedesign
    guidelines have no legal force anyway so we don't have to.
    Iain

    Folowing a further e-mail pointing out matters raised in my original e-
    mail whch the reply hadn't covered the council have replied that they
    will "commission a Road Safety Audit to HD19/03 guidance taking into
    account the date of design and implementation. If the audit
    recommends alterations to the scheme then these will be undertaken"
    So some progress has been made and credit where credit is due to East
    Dumbarton for agreng to have another look at this location from a road
    safety aspect.

    Iain

  14. iarocu <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:
    iarocu said:

    If I could summarise the reply I got it would be ....
    Short history of how the scheme was implemented. Accident rates have
    come down. We are not doing anything. And the cyclelanedesign
    guidelines have no legal force anyway so we don't have to.
    Iain

    Folowing a further e-mail pointing out matters raised in my original
    e- mail whch the reply hadn't covered the council have replied that
    they will "commission a Road Safety Audit to HD19/03 guidance taking
    into account the date of design and implementation. If the audit
    recommends alterations to the scheme then these will be undertaken"
    So some progress has been made and credit where credit is due to East
    Dumbarton for agreng to have another look at this location from a road
    safety aspect.

    That's a good step on the way to a safer road.

    Just did a quick google and read of "Road Safety Audit to HD19/03"
    http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/highways/road_improvements/htd/highway_req_development_part7/highway_req_development_part7_appendix_d.htm

    Which seems to stress the Audit Teams independance to the Design Team,
    so some good [1] might come of your letters. Well done.

    [1] Providing they can look at it objectively, or with 'other' road
    users heads on apart from cars ... 😉

    --
    Paul - [censored]

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.