Stevenage giant cycle lane creates pedestrian confusion

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

The lane markings are forcing pedestrians to keep to the small walkways, resident Neil Brinkworth said

A new cycle lane that dominates a bridge in Hertfordshire is causing confusion for pedestrians who are staying on the narrow edges.

The bridge over Fairlands Way, Stevenage, was resurfaced by the county council's highways unit last month.

Resident Neil Brinkworth said he was "astonished" at the council's work, saying "it's crazy watching everybody blindly obeying the lanes".

The council said the new lines met "current codes and standards".

Mr Brinkworth, who crosses the bridge two to three times a week, said: "It's making everybody go down the edge of the bridge. As a nation we are good at following instructions, but it does make you think 'why have they done that?'

"It's rarely used by cyclists. Was it a health and safety issue? I can't recall any issue of anyone crashing on the bridge. It makes no sense at all."

Hertfordshire County Council said: "The lines in place on the Fairlands Way path have been installed in accordance with the scheme design and to current codes and standards. The lines are not intended to form pedestrian lanes, nor pedestrian exclusion zones. They are guidance for cyclists. Pedestrians are free to walk wherever they like. The signing provided at the bridge indicates this to bridge users."

[eightf48544]

Another example of my contention that we have collectively stopped thinking.

[devon_metro]

I don't really see the issue really, pedestrians always use the cycle lane anyway 

[grahame]

Here's the footpath on the road that leads from our town centre to the school - alongside the busy A365



We too have been told "in accordance with the scheme design and to current codes and standards. The lines are not intended to form pedestrian lanes, nor pedestrian exclusion zones. They are guidance for cyclists. Pedestrians are free to walk wherever they like."  (I've quoted the Hertfordshire words, but I think the Wiltshire words were the same.   They probably read the same highway engineer's book of stock answers to public questions!)

[bobm]

I use a cycleway under the railway in Swindon everyday.  One side is marked for cyclists and the other for pedestrians - but almost everyday there is a pedestrian meandering down the cycle side and more often than not oblivious to the world because they have a personal stereo on.  It wouldn't be so bad if they walked in a straight line but they don't!!  It is particularly annoying if it is by the ramp which goes up from the cycleway to where I need to get to as you have to slow right down and then loose the momentum to get up the incline!   

[SandTEngineer]

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions state in Schedule 5 that Sign 1057 is for a 'Cycle Lane or Route'.  The defining use of the cycleway is in Schedule 5 where two alternative signs indicate if it is a shared pedestrian/cycleway (Sign 956) or a dedicated cycleway (Sign 957).  So what type of blue sign is provided on the approaches?

You can find the regulations here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/contents/made

[grahame]

Yes, near the Melksham footpath / cycleway anyway there are indeed signs showing a bicycle on top of a parent and child holding hands, as shown in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/5/made on what's labelled as page 148 but has numbering starting at 144, so it should be obvious to anyone who uses the lane (say the highways people) that it's to be shared by both pedestrians and cyclists.

My personal view is that, whilst some may be aware of the significance of the family group being below the cycle rather that to one side of it with a line between them (that means separate lanes, of course!), others may not be and I think that the conclusion reached by the highways people may be wrong.  And - in the case of our Melksham lane - if even one person steps out of the way of a cycle in what they think of as being a bus lane, and under a passing lorry, that's one potentially fatal misreading too many.

[SandTEngineer]

I agree with you entirely.  My personal view is that we have gone H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) mad and provide far too much road (and rail) signage.  And that is not counting the fact that most of it is confusing anyway.

By the way.  The cycle symbol in the Stevenage photograph looks as though it is not compliant with the regs (unless its just the angle).

[eightf48544]

There are some very confusing cycle lanes on the A4 through and to the West of Slough. By the Estate and Salt Hill Park there are three lanes which seem to be a two way cycle track and a pedestrian lane. All three are quite narrow. But at least the cycle lanes are next to the road.

In both the Stevenage and Melksham cases I would take it mean cyclist had right of way in their lane. and pedestrians are pushed to the edge.

Perhaps our highway engineers should go to Amsterdam where the cycle lanes are clearly marked often have adifferent surface and woe betide you if you stray intm them whilst walking.

I think our problem is that we are trying for dual use when cyclist and pedestrains don't really mix. Shouldn't cyclists be on the road?

[Brucey]

I think our problem is that we are trying for dual use when cyclist and pedestrains don't really mix. Shouldn't cyclists be on the road?

But cyclists cause far less damage to pedestrians than cars/lorries cause to cyclists.

[grahame]

In both the Stevenage and Melksham cases I would take it mean cyclist had right of way in their lane. and pedestrians are pushed to the edge.

That's how I took it initially - from a letter to my local council:

We teach our children to follow / obey signs, and it is unfortunate to say the least (an accident waiting to happen?) that we're directing them if walking  down a narrow band on the right (into the bushes!) or onto an 18" wide kerb between cycles and articulated trucks.

But I was wrong.  Wiltshire's Principle Highway Engineer wrote to me (or rather to a colleague who copied me (?) accidentally):

From reading Mr Ellis^ email I think he is perhaps a little confused about what the markings actually mean and how this area is supposed to work. Firstly the path is not segregated and remains shared use, although I accept the cycle symbols on its own perhaps give the impression that it^s for cyclists only.
 
The area to the right of the dashed white line is not a narrow walkway; it merely delineates the edge of the shared use path and works in conjunction with the buff coloured areas to highlight the adjoining private driveways. The markings here are an attempt to encourage both cyclists and pedestrians away from the adjacent vehicle accesses.

[bobm]

Here's the cycleway in Swindon I referred to earlier - complete with partially obliterated sign.  At least they have cut the vegetation back, it was a blind bend coming round that corner on the left of the shot before.

[lordgoata]

There are some very confusing cycle lanes on the A4 through and to the West of Slough. By the Estate and Salt Hill Park there are three lanes which seem to be a two way cycle track and a pedestrian lane. All three are quite narrow. But at least the cycle lanes are next to the road.

The cycle lanes in Slough are terrible - especially the ones on the pavements, and especially the ones where the cycle lanes are next to the road! When I was riding home from work once, there was a chap on the pavement, riding along the cycle path, minding his own business. I was on the road (I refuse to ride on the pavement, even if they are called "cycle lanes") as I was approaching I could see what was going to happen - just as he rode past the group of kids on the pavement, they were also minding their own business jostling around with each other (perfectly safely, not near the road), when bang! One of them moved across just as the cyclist arrived and pushed him straight into the A4 rush hour traffic. Luckily for him, with me being in the road and pre-empting what was going to happen, I had already slowed down and moved out from the gutter slightly, forcing the traffic to slow down behind me. 

I think our problem is that we are trying for dual use when cyclist and pedestrains don't really mix. Shouldn't cyclists be on the road?

Yes, unless its a dedicated (read no pedestrians) lane. The problem is all the bloody lazy councils that found it easier to paint on pavements to get their cycle lane grants, than to create dedicated lanes.