10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

fras
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by fras »

Just to remind everybody what I posted in 2021 on council cycle lane barminess. Box ticking as usual.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/book.htm
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by Chris5156 »

traffic-light-man wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:19 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.
Absolutely atrocious. I believe the meaning of that arrow is "please turn into the driveway of number 6".
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by SteelCamel »

Chris5156 wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 00:28
traffic-light-man wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:19 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.
Absolutely atrocious. I believe the meaning of that arrow is "please turn into the driveway of number 6".
The intention would appear to be "pull on to the pavement, stop, and give way to cars before re-entering the carriageway". Which is a bad idea in the first place, but also the markings completely fail to convey that.
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by jnty »

SteelCamel wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 22:49
Chris5156 wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 00:28
traffic-light-man wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:19 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.
Absolutely atrocious. I believe the meaning of that arrow is "please turn into the driveway of number 6".
The intention would appear to be "pull on to the pavement, stop, and give way to cars before re-entering the carriageway". Which is a bad idea in the first place, but also the markings completely fail to convey that.
The impression I usually get is the designer pulling a strop at the first sign of difficulty. "We would usually just put END here, but I got criticised last time I did that - fine, let's see how they like this!" As reasonable an explanation as any other.

I don't see how, even if the pavement is intended to one day continue, this can be a reasonable design as the pavement is far too narrow for shared use and not designated as such.
User avatar
M4Simon
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 10121
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2002 22:35
Location: WGC, Herts
Contact:

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by M4Simon »

jnty wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 10:05
SteelCamel wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 22:49
Chris5156 wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 00:28
Absolutely atrocious. I believe the meaning of that arrow is "please turn into the driveway of number 6".
The intention would appear to be "pull on to the pavement, stop, and give way to cars before re-entering the carriageway". Which is a bad idea in the first place, but also the markings completely fail to convey that.
The impression I usually get is the designer pulling a strop at the first sign of difficulty. "We would usually just put END here, but I got criticised last time I did that - fine, let's see how they like this!" As reasonable an explanation as any other.

I don't see how, even if the pavement is intended to one day continue, this can be a reasonable design as the pavement is far too narrow for shared use and not designated as such.
It's a strange one. It appears to be the tail end of a project to signalise the junction behind the camera, but given the intent of the markings are not obvious, the marking is pointless. If SteelCamel is right, why take a cycle in an advisory cycle lane off the carriageway? Where is the give way line to rejoin? No-one would use it anyway so better not to put such an inappropriate marking on the road in the first place.

An End marking would do the job if it is not possible to get the cycle lane beyond the traffic island. If I was cycling that I'd be looking to move further out into the carriageway so that I have the road while I'm passing the island - better than being squashed to the kerbside by some driver trying to overtake while passing the island.

I'm a big fan of keeping things simple if possible. Over-engineering can give you a layout like the one referred to upthread in Huddersfield. Or things that make no sense at all like this example :shock:

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
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by jnty »

M4Simon wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 11:07
jnty wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 10:05
SteelCamel wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 22:49

The intention would appear to be "pull on to the pavement, stop, and give way to cars before re-entering the carriageway". Which is a bad idea in the first place, but also the markings completely fail to convey that.
The impression I usually get is the designer pulling a strop at the first sign of difficulty. "We would usually just put END here, but I got criticised last time I did that - fine, let's see how they like this!" As reasonable an explanation as any other.

I don't see how, even if the pavement is intended to one day continue, this can be a reasonable design as the pavement is far too narrow for shared use and not designated as such.
It's a strange one. It appears to be the tail end of a project to signalise the junction behind the camera, but given the intent of the markings are not obvious, the marking is pointless. If SteelCamel is right, why take a cycle in an advisory cycle lane off the carriageway? Where is the give way line to rejoin? No-one would use it anyway so better not to put such an inappropriate marking on the road in the first place.

An End marking would do the job if it is not possible to get the cycle lane beyond the traffic island. If I was cycling that I'd be looking to move further out into the carriageway so that I have the road while I'm passing the island - better than being squashed to the kerbside by some driver trying to overtake while passing the island.

I'm a big fan of keeping things simple if possible. Over-engineering can give you a layout like the one referred to upthread in Huddersfield. Or things that make no sense at all like this example :shock:

Simon
I did almost say that the thing to do, if you're going to rely on paint, would be to continue the lane to the island, do a wide "don't overtake bikes here" cycle lane, and then end the lane just after. That would help to ensure bikes have the road through the pinch point and then drivers get the idea that a cyclist ahead is in their lane now and they need to overtake properly.

I've seen people say that bike infrastructure should be 'user tested' before approval. If, say, 5 random cyclists of varying confidence levels don't use your infrastructure as you intended it (and that intent would have to be decided upon and documented beforehand, which is probably an improvement in itself!) then it is simply broken. Hopefully this would eventually result in better infrastructure with only a few botched schemes getting covered in paint and signs with paragraphs of instructions on them in the meantime...
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by FosseWay »

There's been a lot of talk in the last page or so of incompetence by highways authorities, engineers and consultants. Most of that is justified, of course, in that unfit-for-purpose facilities have sprouted across the network that wouldn't have if the jobs had been done competently. But it's a bit like with crime: no-one doubts that the offences are illegal and their perpetrators criminals, but little progress can ever be made at addressing the underlying issues of crime if no-one ever asks *why* people commit crimes. It's the same here. We need to look at *why* councils choose to install these silly cycle lanes, and why substandard plans get signed off.

I can think of three principal issues:

1. Environmental credentials, "what gets measured gets done" and all that. If you have a target of x miles of cycle route there will be a temptation to mark unsuitable places as "cycle routes". It doesn't even have to be something as crass as a concrete target, but more an outbreak of groupthink where authorities in Council A look at cycle provision in Council B and note that they're behind in terms of mileage, so they get the white paint out and make a mess of the footway.

2. Tacking on cycle facilities as an afterthought during developments, in contexts where a council is tempted to think "any extra cycle provision is a good thing, so if this developer is willing to add some, we're all for it", without really looking at the plans or how the new provision fits existing infrastructure or usage trends. Which rather leads into the third and possibly most important issue:

3. Attitudes to safety. Again, the basic thought is good - that cyclists are inherently at greater risk than people in cars in places where cycles and cars mix, and it is desirable to reduce that risk where possible. The problem seems to be that any new infrastructure is seen as by definition decreasing risk, while doing nothing is seen as tantamount to mounting weapons on cars and taking pot-shots at cyclists. So we're back to the issue in point 1 above, where maximum coverage by some form of specifically cycle-related installation is seen as the best thing to aim for, whereas actually it would be better to leave most places well alone and save the money for far fewer but more significant, more useful and more effective interventions at carefully selected sites (selected not just because of isolated blackspots but also to create a useable whole over a logical journey that cyclists are likely to want to make).

On the case illustrated above with the arrow telling cyclists to turn into someone's driveway, I have to wonder what the point of the cycle lane markings is at all, even without the silly arrow. It is, let's say, counterintuitive that there should be a greater need for marked cycle lanes in the 30 limit than in the 50 limit unless there is something that attracts cyclists from one direction and not the other (if there was a school there, for example). As it is, how many cyclists are going to specifically cycle along that road to some premises at or near the end of the marked cycle lane, versus the number who will continue into the 50 limit? If there aren't that many cyclists on the road at all, save the money for somewhere where you can help/safeguard more cyclists. If this is a popular cycling route, then perhaps you'd do better to look at providing decent provision *outside* the urban area, where the speed limit is higher and the road characteristics worse.
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!
swissferry
Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 20:42

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by swissferry »

traffic-light-man wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:19 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.
I presumed the left turn arrow was warning the cyclist they are likely to end up on the pavement, verge or worse when an overtaking vehicle cuts in before the traffic island.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by Bryn666 »

swissferry wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 18:44
traffic-light-man wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:19 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.
I presumed the left turn arrow was warning the cyclist they are likely to end up on the pavement, verge or worse when an overtaking vehicle cuts in before the traffic island.
The cycle lane ends because that is presumably the local authority boundary somewhere around there judging by the surfacing and streetlighting change. That doesn't explain why it forces you onto a footway. That's a Warrington special perhaps...
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by jnty »

Bryn666 wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 20:06
swissferry wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 18:44
traffic-light-man wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:19 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.
I presumed the left turn arrow was warning the cyclist they are likely to end up on the pavement, verge or worse when an overtaking vehicle cuts in before the traffic island.
The cycle lane ends because that is presumably the local authority boundary somewhere around there judging by the surfacing and streetlighting change. That doesn't explain why it forces you onto a footway. That's a Warrington special perhaps...
It's a local cycle lane for local people so the house it points to is obviously the only possible remaining destination. (The owner of the house beyond doesn't cycle.)
tom66
Member
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 16:47

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by tom66 »

I can't stand this obsession that highways engineers seem to have over putting cycle lanes in areas where they aren't really that useful, whilst apparently completely forgetting some of the most vulnerable moments are around junctions where they just "END" and give up, "You're on your own through this bit matey."

It's definitely improving in some areas (e.g. with dedicated lanes/pre-signals through junctions for cycles) but very much feels like a box-ticking exercise in other places.
B4444
Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 20:14

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by B4444 »

Apologies if this may have been posted before - I haven't checked it for a while to see if it has changed, though I think Portsmouth CC are/were aware of it.
cycle lane
linuxrocks
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 15:31

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by linuxrocks »

Birmingham has upped downed the ante with a 7 foot cycle lane

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... d-26085578
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: 10' long cycle lane in Nottinghamshire

Post by jnty »

Both of those - particularly the former - seem likely to be at least partly reasonable in context. It's very obvious in that article that the context of the adjacent toucan crossing is carefully cropped out in each picture, with which it would probably make some sort of sense. (Maybe it wouldn't - but at least we could then judge without needing to rely on impartial and expert analysis from the Taxpayers' Alliance...)

Perhaps I should write to Reach with pictures of tiny general traffic lanes along with sensational copy and flabbergasted vox pops and see if they'll give me a job.
Post Reply