Road works?

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps they were considered safe enough. There is no obligation to
provide special cycling provisions past roadworks just because there
is a cycle lane leading up to them - or anywhere just because it
would be relatively dangerous for cyclists compared to average roads.

Wrong. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 "Cyclists at Road Works"

"Existing cycle facilities: where there is cycle provision, such as
cycle lanes or tracks, efforts should be made to keep these open or
to provide an acceptable alternative during the road works. They
should not be blocked by signs, debris, plant etc."

I stand corrected on that point (if the advisory counts as obligation in
law).

Very likely to be seen as such in court. At the very least the statutory
undertaker would have to show that they had considered this advice and
either considered it not applicable or demonstrated why they had taken no
action despite the official advice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I contend that any reasonable person would agree that this situation
was clearly dangerous.

I suggest that some reasonable experienced cyclists would not be bothered
by it.

I am an extremely experienced cyclist, and I was extremely bothered. The
question is, would a reasonable person consider that danger had been caused?
Given that they didn't appear to have considered cyclists at all, and made
no provision for them, that the cycle lane was specifically provided to
improve cyclists' safety and they were forced out of it, the conclusion that
this had been made dangerous by negligence would appear to be inescapable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't you
think that the highway authority has the duty to provide safe passage
for all road users?

Yes, but from your description, the road doesn't sound dangerous to cycle
on to me.

That is your opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to it, but without
knowing the location and circumstances, your opinion is likely to be less
valid than that of someone who rides that route every day.

burtthebike said:

Pete Biggs said:

burtthebike said:

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> burtthebike wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

why wasn't provision made at the road works to make
them safe for all road users, including cyclists?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps they were considered safe enough. There is no obligation to
provide special cycling provisions past roadworks just because there
is a cycle lane leading up to them ...

Quoted message said:

Wrong. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 "Cyclists at Road Works"

Quoted message said:

"Existing cycle facilities: where there is cycle provision, such as
cycle lanes or tracks, efforts should be made to keep these open or to
provide an acceptable alternative during the road works. They should
not be blocked by signs, debris, plant etc."

If you are relying on that, it is you who is wrong. That is not a
duty, it is a "best practice" - a suggestion, IOW. It is not an
obligation, so the PP was precisely right. Always distinguish "must",
"shall", etc, from "may", "should", etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 2. Why exactly was it dangerous to ride on the main carriageway?
> Cars going uphill at 40 mph isn't enough to make a dual carriageway
> dangerous to cycle on. So was there anything else?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's on a left hand bend, uphill, dual carriageway, 40mph limit (very
much a minimum) and you've got to pull out around the signs and the
works into the quite narrow nearside lane with cars doing 40+ coming
up the hill. I cycle 12 miles through heavy traffic every day, and
let me tell you, this was dangerous.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Everyone has different ideas about what it takes for a road to be
"dangeous" to cycle on. Personally, cars have to be doing 70+, or the
surface very bad, for narrow lanes to bother me - including those with
hills and roadworks.

Quoted message said:

I contend that any reasonable person would agree that this situation was
clearly dangerous.

There are a couple of very obvious ways of mitigating, or even
obviating, that perceived danger.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even then I don't expect special cycle provisions. I have the
choice whether to proceed or not.

Quoted message said:

So you'd just wait there until the road works were done???

Would it have been possible to wheel the bike on the footway past the
roadworks? Or to go another way? The second of those may be
impractical, but it's hard to see how the first could be.

Quoted message said:

Don't you
think that the highway authority has the duty to provide safe passage
for all road users? This would seem to be the sole reason for their
existence. They could quite easily have done so, but chose not to.

That must depend largely on how (and whether) the aim could be
achieved. If the only way to do it would be to either (temporarily)
allow cycling along the footway, or to use a set of traffic signals
with a very complex set of phases as to allow a separate phase for
cyclists, the answer is that neither is likely to be politically
acceptable. One-way alternative working controlled by traffic lights
at road-works, even with the simplest of phasing and minimum all-red
times, normally causes massive delays which can propagate back through
an urban network with inadequate capacity, causing re-routing which
*may* lead to inappropriate traffic levels along other streets. It's
all a matter of balance.

Pete Biggs said:

burtthebike wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps they were considered safe enough. There is no obligation to
provide special cycling provisions past roadworks just because there
is a cycle lane leading up to them - or anywhere just because it
would be relatively dangerous for cyclists compared to average roads.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wrong. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 "Cyclists at Road Works"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Existing cycle facilities: where there is cycle provision, such as
cycle lanes or tracks, efforts should be made to keep these open or
to provide an acceptable alternative during the road works. They
should not be blocked by signs, debris, plant etc."

Quoted message said:

I stand corrected on that point (if the advisory counts as obligation in
law).

You don't. It doesn't. It never could.

Pete Biggs said:

burtthebike said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps they were considered safe enough. There is no obligation to
provide special cycling provisions past roadworks just because there
is a cycle lane leading up to them - or anywhere just because it
would be relatively dangerous for cyclists compared to average roads.

Wrong. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 "Cyclists at Road Works"

"Existing cycle facilities: where there is cycle provision, such as
cycle lanes or tracks, efforts should be made to keep these open or
to provide an acceptable alternative during the road works. They
should not be blocked by signs, debris, plant etc."

I stand corrected on that point (if the advisory counts as obligation in
law).

It doesn't. It also only requires that efforts be made rather than
that solutions that satisfy everyone be found.

But whether the situation at these roadworks was (or is) reasonable
cannot be determined from the information so far presented, so far as
I can tell.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete Biggs said:

burtthebike wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Perhaps they were considered safe enough. There is no obligation to
>provide special cycling provisions past roadworks just because there
>is a cycle lane leading up to them - or anywhere just because it
>would be relatively dangerous for cyclists compared to average roads.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wrong. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 "Cyclists at Road Works"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Existing cycle facilities: where there is cycle provision, such as
cycle lanes or tracks, efforts should be made to keep these open or
to provide an acceptable alternative during the road works. They
should not be blocked by signs, debris, plant etc."

Quoted message said:

I stand corrected on that point (if the advisory counts as obligation in
law).

You don't. It doesn't. It never could.

Most of the Highway Code is only advice, but is can be and is used in a
court of law to decide blame. Whilst you are entitled to your opinion,
stating it so dogmatically with no allowance for the fact that there are
other equally valid opinions, is neither considerate or correct.

Such official advice would have to be taken into account by any statutory
undertaker, and they would have to demonstrate either that they had followed
it, or why they had ignored it. If they ignored it, or claimed ignorance of
it, this would be taken into account in a court, as evidence of negligence.

burtthebike said:

JNugent said:

Pete Biggs said:

burtthebike wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Perhaps they were considered safe enough. There is no obligation to
>> provide special cycling provisions past roadworks just because there
>> is a cycle lane leading up to them - or anywhere just because it
>> would be relatively dangerous for cyclists compared to average roads.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Wrong. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 "Cyclists at Road Works"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "Existing cycle facilities: where there is cycle provision, such as
> cycle lanes or tracks, efforts should be made to keep these open or
> to provide an acceptable alternative during the road works. They
> should not be blocked by signs, debris, plant etc."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I stand corrected on that point (if the advisory counts as obligation
in law).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You don't. It doesn't. It never could.

Quoted message said:

Most of the Highway Code is only advice, but is can be and is used in a
court of law to decide blame. Whilst you are entitled to your opinion,
stating it so dogmatically with no allowance for the fact that there are
other equally valid opinions, is neither considerate or correct.

"Considerate" doesn't come into it (what an odd word to use in the
context).

Either the advice/guideline you quoted is a mandatory duty or it
isn't. And it isn't, so I was not wrong and neither was the PP.

Quoted message said:

Such official advice would have to be taken into account by any
statutory undertaker, and they would have to demonstrate either that
they had followed it, or why they had ignored it. If they ignored it,
or claimed ignorance of it, this would be taken into account in a court,
as evidence of negligence.

Perhaps. It doesn't make a difference. To state that making specific
provision is a mandatory duty is simply incorrect, and the previous
poster was therefore already correct and did not stand to be "corrected".

burtthebike said:

"Ekul Namsob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Haven't seen it since this morning, anyone know if it's still quite so
bloody dangerous?

What would have been the situation if a cyclist had been struck by a
motor
vehicle whilst avoiding the roadworks?

Is there any reason why the road is inherently dangerous there?

No, but since I never said it was, why do you think it is?

Your suggestion that "it's still quite so bloody dangerous".

Quoted message said:

What makes it dangerous is the signs and works obstructing the cycle lane,
so that cyclists had to enter the 40+ motorised traffic, going uphill on a
left hand bend.

I've often cycled on a stretch of road with a limit of 40 mph, uphill on
a left-hand bend. Just such a stretch of road exists round the corner
from here. It has no cycle lane. I ride in the primary position and
other traffic just has to wait or overtake in another lane.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob said:

I've often cycled on a stretch of road with a limit of 40 mph, uphill on
a left-hand bend. Just such a stretch of road exists round the corner
from here. It has no cycle lane. I ride in the primary position and
other traffic just has to wait or overtake in another lane.

And do you think it would become dangerous if there /was/ a cycle lane,
which motorists were expecting cyclists to be in, and which neither
cyclist nor motorists expects to disappear just round the bend?

Little details like that can make a big difference.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

burtthebike said:

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but from your description, the road doesn't sound dangerous to cycle
on to me.

That is your opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to it, but without
knowing the location and circumstances, your opinion is likely to be less
valid than that of someone who rides that route every day.

This is ludicrous. If you are going to dismiss the views of other people
on such grounds then what on earth are you doing discussing this matter
here?

cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

burtthebike said:

How do you pull out safely to occupy the primary position when you don't see
the signs until you're halfway around the LH bend and traffic is coming up
behind you at 40+?

Look behind you. Hold your right arm horizontally. Be prepared to change
lane.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob said:

burtthebike said:

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but from your description, the road doesn't sound dangerous
to cycle on to me.

That is your opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to it, but
without knowing the location and circumstances, your opinion is
likely to be less valid than that of someone who rides that route
every day.

This is ludicrous. If you are going to dismiss the views of other
people on such grounds then what on earth are you doing discussing
this matter here?

That was my opinion. First he appeared and posted apparently wanting
opinions on the situation, then when opinions were offered which
didn't toe his pre-decided line, he announces that they are worthless
because the posters don't know all the details.

The council inspector / surveyor thinks the situation was OK. Burt
thinks it wasn't. I don't believe it's worth any further discussion -
Burt doesn't seem to want any. I'm not sure what the point of the
original posting was, maybe just to blow off steam.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

burtthebike said the following on 15/12/2007 11:02:

<SNIP>

Quoted message said:

So you'd just wait there until the road works were done??? Don't you
think that the highway authority has the duty to provide safe passage
for all road users? This would seem to be the sole reason for their
existence. They could quite easily have done so, but chose not to.

To be quite honest, I would just find a way past them and get on with my
life. So much easier, I find.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ekul Namsob said:

burtthebike said:

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote
in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> Yes, but from your description, the road doesn't sound dangerous
> to cycle on to me.

That is your opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to it, but
without knowing the location and circumstances, your opinion is
likely to be less valid than that of someone who rides that route
every day.

This is ludicrous. If you are going to dismiss the views of other
people on such grounds then what on earth are you doing discussing
this matter here?

That was my opinion. First he appeared and posted apparently wanting
opinions on the situation, then when opinions were offered which
didn't toe his pre-decided line, he announces that they are worthless
because the posters don't know all the details.

The council inspector / surveyor thinks the situation was OK. Burt
thinks it wasn't. I don't believe it's worth any further discussion -
Burt doesn't seem to want any. I'm not sure what the point of the
original posting was, maybe just to blow off steam.

regards, Ian SMith

Perhaps if you bothered to read the original post, you'd actually have some
valid comments to make.

burtthebike said:

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ekul Namsob said:

This is ludicrous. If you are going to dismiss the views of other
people on such grounds then what on earth are you doing discussing
this matter here?

That was my opinion. First he appeared and posted apparently wanting
opinions on the situation, then when opinions were offered which
didn't toe his pre-decided line, he announces that they are worthless
because the posters don't know all the details.

The council inspector / surveyor thinks the situation was OK. Burt
thinks it wasn't. I don't believe it's worth any further discussion -
Burt doesn't seem to want any. I'm not sure what the point of the
original posting was, maybe just to blow off steam.

Perhaps if you bothered to read the original post, you'd actually
have some valid comments to make.

I did. I've read every post in the thread.

In the first message you asked a few general questions but prejudged
that the roadworks were at fault on the grounds of having made the
road extremely dangerous for cyclists. The council disagrees with
you. Some other posters have stated that from the information given
it does not sound particularly inherently dangerous.

Personally I don't think one can decide from the information given
whether it has made the road unreasonably more dangerous or not.

You have decided that your experience trumps everyone else's
(including the professional in the field that has seen the location
first hand) and are dismissing out-of-hand any comments that don't
match your assessment. You're not explaining why the comments are
wrong, you're just insisting that they are because you know better.

A such, it's not worth further discussion - anyone further that
disagrees with you will presumably also get dismissed out of hand.
It's not a useful discussion, save that it may serve as an opportunity
to blow off steam.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 16 Dec, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
>
> This is ludicrous. If you are going to dismiss the views of other
> people on such grounds then what on earth are you doing discussing
> this matter here?

That was my opinion. First he appeared and posted apparently wanting
opinions on the situation, then when opinions were offered which
didn't toe his pre-decided line, he announces that they are worthless
because the posters don't know all the details.

The council inspector / surveyor thinks the situation was OK. Burt
thinks it wasn't. I don't believe it's worth any further discussion -
Burt doesn't seem to want any. I'm not sure what the point of the
original posting was, maybe just to blow off steam.

Perhaps if you bothered to read the original post, you'd actually
have some valid comments to make.

I did. I've read every post in the thread.

In the first message you asked a few general questions but prejudged
that the roadworks were at fault on the grounds of having made the
road extremely dangerous for cyclists. The council disagrees with
you. Some other posters have stated that from the information given
it does not sound particularly inherently dangerous.

Personally I don't think one can decide from the information given
whether it has made the road unreasonably more dangerous or not.

You have decided that your experience trumps everyone else's
(including the professional in the field that has seen the location
first hand) and are dismissing out-of-hand any comments that don't
match your assessment. You're not explaining why the comments are
wrong, you're just insisting that they are because you know better.

A such, it's not worth further discussion - anyone further that
disagrees with you will presumably also get dismissed out of hand.
It's not a useful discussion, save that it may serve as an opportunity
to blow off steam.

regards, Ian SMith

You have my sympathy. Life must be so difficult if you read but don't
understand.

burtthebike said:

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You ... are dismissing out-of-hand any comments that don't match
your assessment. You're not explaining why the comments are
wrong, you're just insisting that they are because you know
better.

You have my sympathy. Life must be so difficult if you read but
don't understand.

QED

The amusing thing is that you're making on these attacks on me, but I
have not disagreed with you and I have said you may be right. If your
argument is so badly shaken by someone saying they are not sure
whether you're right or not that you have to descend to ad-hominem, I
start to wonder how it would stand up to actual disagreement.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

burtthebike said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't you
think that the highway authority has the duty to provide safe
passage for all road users?

Yes, but from your description, the road doesn't sound dangerous to
cycle on to me.

That is your opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to it, but
without knowing the location and circumstances, your opinion is
likely to be less valid than that of someone who rides that route
every day.

If a road is dangerous enough for the authorities to be obliged to do
something about it then I would expect it to be possible to describe it in
such a way that would convince those who have never seen the road that it is
more dangerous than the average dual carriageway with narrow lanes, hills
and bends - let alone "boody dangerous" or "extremely dangerous". Dual
carriageways with narrow lanes, hills and bends don't have to have cycle
lanes.

Regardless of whether my opinion is liklely to be less valid than yours, it
is possible that the road is not as dangerous as you feel it is, and that
your expectations of what cycle facilities should be provided are
unreasonable. You post stuff claiming something is dangerous, you get
replies questioning the claim. That's newsgroups for you.

~PB

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You ... are dismissing out-of-hand any comments that don't match
your assessment. You're not explaining why the comments are
wrong, you're just insisting that they are because you know
better.

You have my sympathy. Life must be so difficult if you read but
don't understand.

QED

The amusing thing is that you're making on these attacks on me, but I
have not disagreed with you and I have said you may be right. If your
argument is so badly shaken by someone saying they are not sure
whether you're right or not that you have to descend to ad-hominem, I
start to wonder how it would stand up to actual disagreement.

So sad.

Quoting burtthebike <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

So sad.

Please stop blustering. You aren't fooling anyone; you haven't responded
to Ian's arguments.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Gloucesterday, December.

"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoting burtthebike <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

So sad.

Please stop blustering. You aren't fooling anyone; you haven't responded
to Ian's arguments.

I can't see the point in responding to someone who so clearly is lacking in
comprehension.