You have identified the real problem with separate cycle paths/tracks; the councils never bother maintaining them. Then if you complain about the state of them, you get told "nobody uses them" or "moneys too tight, so we do the lowest possible maintenance we can get away with".solocle wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 17:00Oh, wait, that track dates to before the war?fras wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 14:18 Alderley Edge Bypass
Cycle track both sides and, (wait for it), I've seen quite a few bike going along the two tracks !
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.27601 ... 8192?hl=en
So here we are, 20% through the 21st century and only just catching up with what was built before WW2
Woodstock Road (old A34)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.80732 ... 8192?hl=en
That would explain why it was like riding through bomb craters! Third place that I ever rode on a dual carriageway, after trying the cycleway, and having my water bottle rattle out every 10 yards.
The first was the A4142 from Iffley Road to Cowley Tesco, which seems to actually be prohibited... A travesty given the lack of signage for the alternative.
The second was the A40 Westway. Where cycling also is meant to be prohibited, but there was no signage to that effect - Royal Oak
10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
Enjoy !
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/
This web site seems to have ceased updating after 2019. However, I'm sure there must be plenty more council stupidities to uncover !
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/
This web site seems to have ceased updating after 2019. However, I'm sure there must be plenty more council stupidities to uncover !
- Vierwielen
- Member
- Posts: 5707
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
- Location: Hampshire
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
I think that it is a 10 metre cycle lane. The journalist probably saw the plans and when writing the story forgot to do the conversion.
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
I've got both books as a constant reminder of thefras wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 19:46 Enjoy !
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/
This web site seems to have ceased updating after 2019. However, I'm sure there must be plenty more council stupidities to uncover !
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
When I saw the story posted elsewhere I was wondering where the 10’ lane was as the one in the pictures clearly wasn’t.Vierwielen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 22:41I think that it is a 10 metre cycle lane. The journalist probably saw the plans and when writing the story forgot to do the conversion.
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
It's on my commute too, and has been on one of my regular routes into town for years. It's been gone since 2014/5 from Streetview. Until about ten years prior to that, there was a cycle lane along the whole of Short Street - all 50 yards of it - but most of it disappeared when the road was resurfaced. It wasn't of much use then, but was probably a hangover from the period before the bus gate was put in, when this was a pretty busy road and regularly clogged up in the rush hours.
[real name Colin]
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
I looked in Short Street this morning, and as crb11 points out, it was not there (which might explain why I'd never noticed it!).
A cycle lane needs more signage than red paint on the road. Cambridge City Council use it to highlight 20 zones and traffic bans as well as cycle lanes.
It looks as if it was a bit too narrow to be useful!
A cycle lane needs more signage than red paint on the road. Cambridge City Council use it to highlight 20 zones and traffic bans as well as cycle lanes.
It looks as if it was a bit too narrow to be useful!
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
I stumbled across this piece of lovliness today: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6395071 ... 384!8i8192 Just why!
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
It all seems to have a reasonable purpose in the context of the road layout and actually the island seems to be the highest quality infrastructure in the vicinity. But infected by the usual 'bikes are the most dangerous thing on the road' thinking - apparently pedestrians are totally fine negotiating two traffic lanes without priority, one of them specifically aligned to permit high speeds, but must be given priority (with a give way line!) over the occasional right-turning bike.c2R wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 09:16 I stumbled across this piece of lovliness today: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6395071 ... 384!8i8192 Just why!
The real horror here is definitely the tiny shared pavement lanes here when there's plenty of space to widen the pavements or put in something segregated.
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
I find this interesting where the cyclists seem to be encouraged to use the zebra crossing. It's not clear which way to go from the pavement to the cycle path.
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is the intent, but it's all bare minimum effort stuff - maybe just a 'legalisation' of a desire line that was probably used illegitimately anyway. Bizarrely the only cycles on the route in Street View are being pushed though, which is maybe a hint as to its quality.
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
Agreed. I don't think I have seen narrower shared pavements anywhere urban
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
On the theme of bad bike infra I know of this. Most pointless segregated cycle path I know of. I never use it and I don't think anyone else does. Always found the stuff they crammed between the 2 junctions hilarious
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
A perfect example of how officials take complete leave of their senses when designing these things. You would never give a garage, an industrial unit and a post depot priority over a regular road, no matter how minor it is, yet it's somehow totally OK in this situation.
- FosseWay
- Assistant Site Manager
- Posts: 19699
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
That's awful on two levels.
First, and obviously, it's just crap infrastructure for cyclists. Give way to every crossing cart track, insufficient width, godawful surface...
But it's worse than that, because it's essentially on an unimproved pavement. Cycling on the pavement is illegal for a reason. Sticking up (or down) some signs (or paint) does not in itself alter the reasons why cycling on the pavement is illegal. If you build a combined cycle/footway with decent width, visibility, surface and turn radius characteristics in a place where the expected usage levels for both cyclists and pedestrians is expected to be within the limitations of the design, then fine, go ahead and allow cycling on it, because it's not "just a pavement".
But this is just a pavement. From a pedestrian's point of view, there is no difference between this and a pavement where cycling isn't allowed except for the paint. The risk level to peds from cyclists doesn't magically go down because you stick paint on the ground; in fact it probably goes up because it actively encourages pavement cycling. From a cyclist's point of view, if you allow cycling there, there's no reason not to allow it on all the similar pavements with similar usage levels elsewhere that don't happen to have paint on the floor.
Also, how do all of these kinds of cycle paths - including ones that are considerably better in terms of width, pedestrian protection etc. - fit in with the new Highway Code rules? The HC says that drivers must give way to cyclists crossing junctions into/out of which the drivers are turning. The HC also says that all vehicle users, including cyclists, must obey Give Way signs. So which is it here?
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4733
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
I took note of this one yesterday. It must be a mistake because I don't know why anyone would have ever intentionally design that.
Simon
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
This is yet another case of where, if the institutions (ICE, CIHT, IHE, etc.) gave a damn about their members being professional and not acting outside of their area of expertise, the designers, checkers and approvers would have been censured, either with suspended membership and title or with 'additional'* training and guidance.jnty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 15:58A perfect example of how officials take complete leave of their senses when designing these things. You would never give a garage, an industrial unit and a post depot priority over a regular road, no matter how minor it is, yet it's somehow totally OK in this situation.
*Whoever designed and approved this clearly hasn't even had the most cursory training in designing for pedestrians or cyclists or even bothered to read any guidance pertaining to walking and cycling infrastructure.
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
The new Local Transport Notes (LTN1/20) guidance should hopefully see the end to such stupidity?Debaser wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:46This is yet another case of where, if the institutions (ICE, CIHT, IHE, etc.) gave a damn about their members being professional and not acting outside of their area of expertise, the designers, checkers and approvers would have been censured, either with suspended membership and title or with 'additional'* training and guidance.jnty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 15:58A perfect example of how officials take complete leave of their senses when designing these things. You would never give a garage, an industrial unit and a post depot priority over a regular road, no matter how minor it is, yet it's somehow totally OK in this situation.
*Whoever designed and approved this clearly hasn't even had the most cursory training in designing for pedestrians or cyclists or even bothered to read any guidance pertaining to walking and cycling infrastructure.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... gn-ltn-120
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
It should...but I'm afraid it hasn't. For example, we're picking up a prelim design, on a brownfield site, that the cycle design vehicle couldn't possibly get through at its junctions and crossings and yet it has supposedly been checked for compliance with LTN1/20 and approved by the Local Authority. I think too many consultancies, or rather the engineers in charge of the designs, believe walking and cycling provision is just a simple add-on to the 'proper' engineering you need to do for the highway alignment.Jim606 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 14:03The new Local Transport Notes (LTN1/20) guidance should hopefully see the end to such stupidity?Debaser wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:46This is yet another case of where, if the institutions (ICE, CIHT, IHE, etc.) gave a damn about their members being professional and not acting outside of their area of expertise, the designers, checkers and approvers would have been censured, either with suspended membership and title or with 'additional'* training and guidance.jnty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 15:58
A perfect example of how officials take complete leave of their senses when designing these things. You would never give a garage, an industrial unit and a post depot priority over a regular road, no matter how minor it is, yet it's somehow totally OK in this situation.
*Whoever designed and approved this clearly hasn't even had the most cursory training in designing for pedestrians or cyclists or even bothered to read any guidance pertaining to walking and cycling infrastructure.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... gn-ltn-120
Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire
My son used to live in student digs at the other end of Firth Street and still lives in the area, so I've driven through here many times (the last time a couple of weeks ago) and I've never noticed those lanes. I think this is because I have been more concerned about being in the right lane around the one-way system. After turning left from Colne Road into Queen Street, it is an immediate right into Firth Street so I am more focused on where I am going than on small bits of cycle lane. I'd be far more likely to spot the bikes using it than cycle lanes on an island that I only get a fleeting glimpse of.jnty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:22It all seems to have a reasonable purpose in the context of the road layout and actually the island seems to be the highest quality infrastructure in the vicinity. But infected by the usual 'bikes are the most dangerous thing on the road' thinking - apparently pedestrians are totally fine negotiating two traffic lanes without priority, one of them specifically aligned to permit high speeds, but must be given priority (with a give way line!) over the occasional right-turning bike.c2R wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 09:16 I stumbled across this piece of lovliness today: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6395071 ... 384!8i8192 Just why!
The real horror here is definitely the tiny shared pavement lanes here when there's plenty of space to widen the pavements or put in something segregated.
Simon
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Please contact me if you want to know more
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Please contact me if you want to know more