You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Had a chance today to walk past the works where Harrogate Borough Council are building a new bike lane up Otley Road. It's honestly the biggest waste of public money under the excuse of "cycling" that I've ever seen.
The new bike lane is just a wider pavement which shuttles on and off the road down steep little ramps with zero protection from traffic. The bit on the pavement literally runs right past the front of shops and is a shared space in these areas. Except, of course, the bike "half" gets the street furniture in it.
Conveniently though for drivers, Otley Road has been widened in these areas and now has new filter lanes for cars and a pristine new road service.
In some respects you have to admire the person that managed to convince the Government to pony up several million quid to get a road resurfaced but then kicks riders off it onto the pavement.
That's highly depressing because it gives drivers an 'excuse' for close passes and abuse if you choose not to use the shit infrastructure.
The new bike lane is just a wider pavement which shuttles on and off the road down steep little ramps with zero protection from traffic.
Without it you are cycling in traffic, so having something drivers know they should stay out of is better than nothing and a step in the right direction. Plus I think when fossil fuel vehicles make up less of the traffic the structure of these pathways will be widened.
Currently bikes stay for the most part in the gutter, so close passing is the norm, and in the gutter we only have about 3 feet.
As to the whole close passing thing. Cars in two lanes pass each other very close too, certainly closer than the law is currently insisting motorists give cyclists.
As to the whole close passing thing. Cars in two lanes pass each other very close too, certainly closer than the law is currently insisting motorists give cyclists.
WTF!
How hard would it be to create a set of rules that cycling infrastructure has to follow it's design and construction?
The reality of what I see is a myriad of designs that go from the superb to the useless to the dangerous.
Dyna-ti...could you try that again, in English?
You expected the council to make decent cycling infrastructure 🤣🤣🤣
How hard would it be to create a set of rules that cycling infrastructure has to follow it’s design and construction?
I'd be extremely surprised if this, well guidance and standards if not exactly rules, don't already exist.
Of course where it is difficult, expensive or a is likely to upset gammon snowflakes it gets ignored in favour of a white line or two and sustainability medals all round.
Worth asking under freedom of information for the risk assessment and if it meets national standards.
We've got new bike lane markings that are laughable in Dunblane (third set in 5 years...) that have just failed an external assesment against the National best practice and a basic risk assessment...
I’d be extremely surprised if this, well guidance and standards if not exactly rules, don’t already exist.
You mean like?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120
It's probably worth photographing the offending features, composing a structured letter of complaint to the council and CCing any other organisations that might be interested.
Would you believe that this Cycle infrastructure design guidance was updated 18 months ago? Have a read and see where it's been applied and where it's been ignored. There's lots there but the nub of it is in section 1.5 'Core design
principles' where it states "...routes should be Coherent; Direct; Safe; Comfortable and Attractive."
IMO "Cycling infrastructure" that routes cyclists on and off of painted bits of pavement is a sure sign that cars have being given first consideration and the possibility of collision with pedestrians never really entered the designers mind.
Edit mrmo beat me with the link.
Does it pass the grandchild test? Would the traffic 'engineer' allow their grandchild to ride it unsupervised?
This should be cycling infrastructure rule 1.
The small town that I live in is 1Km from the next town. There is an existing path that connects the two that crosses a field 250m back from the main road. It is designated a core path (including cycling) already, it just gets very muddy in winter. Sustrans have agreed matched funding for it. It is such an obvious route you would think the council would be pleased to use the matched funding and crack on.
They opened a public consultation to get views on the route options; the obvious, existing one and a mysterious 2nd option that has popped up. Option 2 is next to the road, takes a circuitous route full of 90 degree bends. The consultation is full of nudging language and bias towards the 2nd option. Sounds like they can cover future maintenance under the roads budget for option 2. Huge campaign, glossy materials, posters everywhere, roadshows in both towns for weeks on end. How much did you spend on this?! This consultation gives the local mouth breathers a lovely platform to air their anti-cycling tropes.
Result of the consultation is 70% in favour of the obvious, existing route. The council are now 'considering the options'. I wonder which one they will choose...
I know Sustrans can withhold funding if the proposed design isn't acceptable, is there a route for appeal to Sustrans?
Might be worth looking up the consultation for the work as well to see the options that were put forward and the responses received. Definitely do what @cookeaa suggested though - read the guidance here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120take photos, list the reasons why it doesn't comply and ask them to fix it. Otherwise it'll have the same result that all shit infra has - cyclists don't use it (cos it's shit), motorists get upset that it's not being used and punish-pass, bully and abuse cyclists for not using it.
Harrogate has horrendous traffic problems and a council that won't do a blind thing about it other than pander to the poor affronted motorists at every turn.
And woe betide anyone suggesting cycling across The Stray, the Friends of The Stray consider that little short of treason. I'm actually quite surprised that it doesn't have a gibbet on it still. Here hangs the body of the last person caught cycling on our sacred grass. They're still banging on about the World Champs FFS!
We had the same 'cycling infrastructure implemented in Surrey. slightly wider paths, line down the middle 'separating' pedestrians from cyclists. trouble is it's not wide enough, pedestrian do as they please, and there are side road junctions every 200m metres, for which cyclists have to give way. It's basically unusable, and if you use the road to cycle on instead you get abuse from car/van/lorry drivers. What a depressing waste of money.
Does it pass the grandchild test? Would the traffic ‘engineer’ allow their grandchild to ride it unsupervised?
You assume the engineer likes their grand children
Do the FOI, ask how much of it was centrally funded and whether it was assessed against LTN 1/20, then write to councillors and MP asking if they are aware that the DfT is cutting funding to councils who don't take active travel seriously as per Gear Change - One Year On.
Maybe Ride Harrogate are taking an interest too?
Here hangs the body of the last person caught cycling on our sacred grass
TBF though, the Stray wouldn't take much traffic at this time of year without turning to mud. And it's only just recovered from being churned up by the support vehicles for whatever that cycling event was a couple of years back. That was the fault of bikes, see...
As for Otley Road, it's an odd choice for that scale of work. I can only assume a local councillor was held up a couple of times by chaingangs heading uphill for a loop round Swinsty and Menwith. Mind you, with the amount of building sprawling out from that side of town it may have some use for utility cycling too.
Without it you are cycling in traffic, so having something drivers know they should stay out of is better than nothing and a step in the right direction.
I disagree on the whole. Cycling in traffic should be the default, because cyclists ARE traffic. The change that needs to happen is that it needs to be safe to cycle in traffic. That means slowing cars down. In fact, in some cases making roads narrower helps because the cars have no choice but to sit back and wait.
DynaTi, WTF?
You know this is a cycle forum, right?
Seems like these views are more suitable for (insert reactionary anti-cycling rag here).
Or, if you'd like to educate yourself, Cyclecraft by John Franklin is a good place to start.
APF 🙁
Ach calm yerself.
I'm been cycling in traffic, around traffic etc etc for near 30 years and never once had an accident, so i think I know a thing or two and as such have a fair opinion of it all.
In fact I once suggested staying in lane if at lights and stuff and was met with those on here who insist you should filter up to the front, be that effectively undertaking or even up the middle. Rather than acting like every other vehicle in the line where the driver in front and behind can see me and i dont suddenly appear from their blind spot.
Apparently thats not how you do it 🙄
Hold on, before you all pile on Dyna-ti for offering his opinions (not that I agree with much of what he wrote), that kind of reaction from bicycle users is part of the problem perhaps?
Yes he seems to be approaching it with a "cars have priority" motorists mindset which is probably a large majority of people's attitude, his thoughts aren't atypical of the general population.
But it's worth getting him to expand on his thoughts to perhaps examine why these sort assumptions about how our road traffic environment is supposed to operate persist.
Throwing "WFT" and terms like "reactionary" at him or suggesting "educate yourself" is just going to turn a discussion into an argument. Challenge and question, but don't go looking for another internet argument, clearly he's interested enough in the topic to want to take part in a discussion.
Some important points made, Yes bicycle are traffic and the default should be for them to be able to use the road. Segregation from motor vehicles that puts bicycles in conflict with Pedestrians is an overall reduction in safety (for Peds). But why do people assume it's bad to have bikes in traffic and that giving space when passing is a problem?
All too often these things descend into abuse where I think some discussion and an open exchange of perspectives might be more beneficial...
Yes he seems to be approaching it with a “cars have priority” motorists mindset
No im not, at least that wasnt my point so I'l clarify now.
Im saying we, and drivers, have equal rights to the space and we shouldn't force one to go and do something extra in for example a simple overtake. We undertake and cant move 3' to the left, and we normally ride with cars quite close especially in heavy traffic.
and what about filtering up the inside. We go out the the white line and do we sit 3' off the left side of the car, no we ride close in, close enough to clip a side mirror. Thats not safe if an overtaking car is within 3' isnt safe. Or filtering up the middle. wobbling about- Something i hear from drivers that has them quite worried.
I used to ride with the 'reclaim the streets' mob but I stopped as all that caused was ill will to other road users, and left them thinking cyclists had an arrogant outlook towards them.
Im not a car driver, in fact i cant drive so its always been on the bike for me and in traffic, so i reiterate having never had an accident nor caused road rage, i think my outlook and system is correct even if some here disagree with that.
The new bike lane is just a wider pavement which shuttles on and off the road down steep little ramps with zero protection from traffic.
It’s even worse than that … next time you walk by take a look at the signage on the widened path ….
A right mix of shared use ( pic of cycle above person ) and segregated path ( pic of cycle seperated from person by white line ) and absolutely no sign of logic in which 1 is where 😡
And don’t get me started on the poxy little strip of properly seperated cycle path around the Harlow moor oval junction … a whole 25 meters ( ish ) ….. why the **** isn’t the thing done like that … raised curb both sides make it so more obvious and safer all round
Or, if you’d like to educate yourself, Cyclecraft by John Franklin is a good place to start.
Oddly enough I took a look at the wiki page and his points on vehicular cycling, in respect to technique, lane sharing,lane control, speed and destination positioning and **** me if thats not a fair description of how I ride in traffic most of the time. I ride defensively, as my father, who's car i spent much time in, drove defensively and from his words and descriptions have managed to get to this point without injury.
I cant always ride in line or in lane rather, especially in rush hour traffic as id be holding up the line and force drivers into dangerous sudden overtakes when they think that see an opportunity, so in that type of traffic i tuck in and if they pass close, im not going to chase them down the street to call them this or that.
I think possibly you should read it yourself. And keep in mind he's an American cycling expert, dealing with US roads,lanes,junctions and attitudes, which I think we can all agree is very different to UK roads.
Oxford Road (in Manchester) had some improvements are a few years ago. It's certainly a lot better for cyclists (especially with the road being only open to buses, cabs and cyclists between certain hours) but the risk of colliding with pedestrians is much worse given how the bike lanes are set out; one has to be really careful where the bike lane is situated on the 'wrong' side of the bus stops. Unfortunately, in separating the motor vehicles and cyclists they put pedestrians and cyclists in more conflict.
I do wish we were more like the Netherlands but there's a horrible reactionary element in the country who try and block needed change. For some reason, the car is a hill they're willing to die on.
And the problem is that that cycle path (the one on Otley Road that the OP is talking about) is going to get very little use IMO. If anyone remembers the Worlds', Otley Road is the hill that featured on the Men's and Women's races (leading up from the Stray and heading to Beckwithshaw). It is about 1.6 miles of pretty hard uphill slog for anyone that isn't a particularly fit rider (it's challenging enough for fit riders) and I really do not see many people utilising it on a regular basis. It was no more than a box-ticking exercise in order that the council could wave past a few more thousand houses for that side of Harrogate because they can claim to have provided infrastructure for sustainable transport. They would have been better off installing a %£*&ing dedicated Range Rover Vogue lane in that part of Harrogate so the Self-Entitled can get to Weeton's more quickly – that would take more pressure off the roads for us normal people.
Just in case anyone is curious about what is planned / being done it’s all on the NYCC website
I’m been cycling in traffic, around traffic etc etc for near 30 years and never once had an accident, so i think I know a thing or two and as such have a fair opinion of it all.
There is a massive difference between cycling in Glasgow and Harrogate though. Glasgow is dreamy in comparison to Harrogate, the land of the entitled range rover.
Im saying we, and drivers, have equal rights to the space and we shouldn’t force one to go and do something extra in for example a simple overtake. We undertake and cant move 3′ to the left, and we normally ride with cars quite close especially in heavy traffic.
and what about filtering up the inside. We go out the the white line and do we sit 3′ off the left side of the car, no we ride close in, close enough to clip a side mirror. Thats not safe if an overtaking car is within 3′ isnt safe
There's a big difference in the risk presented by a cyclist filtering (or "undertaking") and a hoofing great Evoque barreling past at 30 mph with inadequate separation. The only similarity is that it's the cyclist at risk in both scenarios.
Interesting you think "filtering" needs no quotes, whereas "undertaking" does. Passing on the left is undertaking. "Filtering" would include passing on the right or "overtaking" as well, no?
Check out the 'Not Just Bikes' YouTube channel for some excellent stuff on good cycle infrastructure. It's by a well traveled Canadian now living in Amsterdam.
The last one I watched estimated a lifespan of about 30 years for a revamp of road infrastructure, so depressing to think the OPs example could still be here in 2051.
The last one I watched estimated a lifespan of about 30 years for a revamp of road infrastructure, so depressing to think the OPs example could still be here in 2051
Depends on the road and the infra - it could be revised in 5 years if there's enough other work done (like a new housing estate / school / shopping centre put in to serve what is already being built) or it could be there in 30 years time, probably in a considerable state of disrepair.
What the council have done though is the classic thing of wanting to rid the road of bikes to provide safe quick passage for the Important Motorists but being so rubbish with the infra that they've actually made things worse. By not using it, the cyclist in the road is now going to get hooted at, yelled at - "use the fahkin cycle lane!" - and there are going to be angry letters in the local rag from Disgusted of Harrogate.
Shit infra is far worse than no infra.
id be holding up the line and force drivers into dangerous sudden overtakes when they think that see an opportunity
This is an odd attitude for someone who always cycles and has never driven: you're not 'holding up the line' any more than cars are 'holding up the cyclists' when they jam up - that's just mixed traffic.
More importantly you do not 'force drivers into dangerous sudden overtakes' - that is entirely on them, you are not 'forcing' anybody to drive dangerously.
Well thanks for clarifying dyna-ti, I think perhaps it's an accident of understanding/interpretation.
I just didn't like the way people's reading of your thoughts seemed to be turning into a bit of an internet mob beating.
Interesting that I (and others) misread your comments as a "Car-centric" analysis of cycling infrastructure. That perhaps says more about me than you.
This is an odd attitude for someone who always cycles and has never driven: you’re not ‘holding up the line’ any more than cars are ‘holding up the cyclists’ when they jam up – that’s just mixed traffic.
More importantly you do not ‘force drivers into dangerous sudden overtakes’ – that is entirely on them, you are not ‘forcing’ anybody to drive dangerously.
Er think ill have to disagree with you there and its a simple premise to understand.
You're on the road and in prime lane position. Ahead of you there are no cars for 50m, and a glance behind you have a great number all backed up. I cant ride at 25/30mph, so when in lane anyone behind me driving at 25/30mph is going to catch up pretty quick, and the vehicle behind them and so on and so forth till we have a line of traffic with the slow moving bike(Me0 at the front. Its that caravan scenario and we all know how much annoyance that causes.
So I can tuck in to the gutter, which due to drains and pot holes isnt the safest or sensible spot to allow this traffic to clear. And if i dont then the car directly behind and others will make an attempt to overtake me. Which would be fine on a big wide road like a dual carriageway, but not on a tight city road.
See, if anything happens and he has to cut back in quickly, due to being on the other side of the white line, im in the firing line. I think the safest thing it to project these scenarios and act accordingly with my safety being of prime importance.
I think even the highway code of practice suggests that it is not illegal to bump onto the pavement and stop to allow any build up of traffic to clear. I seem to remember reading something about that somewhere.
But while I dont drive, i have spent my life as a passenger in cars and have a clear view of driving practice as well as what annoys drivers.
More importantly you do not ‘force drivers into dangerous sudden overtakes’ – that is entirely on them, you are not ‘forcing’ anybody to drive dangerously.
Yes obviously, but i'd rather not be the catalyst for anyone's driving. especially as i can see what needs to be done and step up and do it.
Cycling along and car in front is wanting to turn across my path, i stop and allow it with a wave and a smile(and a check behind). By doing things like that you stay safe yourself. No point in feeling entitled, and maybe thats something many could learn from.
Cycling along and car in front is wanting to turn across my path, i stop and allow it with a wave and a smile(and a check behind). By doing things like that you stay safe yourself. No point in feeling entitled, and maybe thats something many could learn from.
See, as a driver this annoys me. The highway code is there as a set of rules to follow so that everyone knows what everyone else should be doing. You see it as courtesy but it's really inconsistency.
Your point on sharing the road and pulling over where appropriate is a good one though.
Glasgow is dreamy in comparison to Harrogate, the land of the entitled range rover
I've nearly been wiped out on Eglinton Street by buses (cutting me off) and taxis (sailing through red lights above the speed limit) enough times to doubt that. And that's before we talk about the potholes that could swallow a small van. But that's just my experience, YMMV.
See, as a driver this annoys me. The highway code is there as a set of rules to follow so that everyone knows what everyone else should be doing. You see it as courtesy but it’s really inconsistency.
Thanks for the insight, ill take that on board. 🙂
So I can tuck in to the gutter, which due to drains and pot holes isnt the safest or sensible spot to allow this traffic to clear.
I'll disagree only with the "tuck in to the gutter" aspect.
If I'm causing a problem for traffic, I'll pull over to let them past when it is safe for me to do so.
Allowing them to squeeze past just encourages rubbish driving and bad driving habits that may put a less confident/experienced cyclist in danger in the future.
Pretty sure my approach is the one in the Highway Code.