Another Cycle Lane Letter (update)



I

iarocu

Guest
On 28th November last year I started a thread (Another Cycle Lane
letter) regarding a dangerous cycle lane near me.
"After yet another driver making a point of passing dangerously close
when I chose not to use a cycle lane I finally got round to drafting a
letter to East Dunbartonshire Council regarding one of their cycle
farcilities. With his permission I stole some of Bob Downie's letter
to Glasgow City Council regarding the new cycle lanes in Kilmarnock
Road. For a picture of the farcility in question See
www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"

After getting no reply for 2 months I e-mailed a reminder and have
now had a reply basically saying they are not going to change
anything.
Well at least if a cyclist is doored there the council will not be
able to claim they weren't aware of the problem.

The reply is "Dear Mr Cullen

I refer to your e-mails of 29th November, 2006 and reminder of 31st
January, 2007 regarding the above and I apologise for the delay in
responding as your original e-mail must have slipped through the net.

The Traffic & Transportation section of the Roads Service carried out
a
study in 1997 on the A81 Milngavie Road, between Roman Drive and
Glasgow
Road, with a view to installing a Traffic Management Scheme that would
reduce speeds, provide sheltered parking, right turning facilities,
cycle
lanes and a minimum carriageway width of 7.3m. Within the constraints
of
the existing road widths, a scheme was designed and drawings were
presented
to the public within local libraries, where they were asked to comment
on
the design and implementation of the proposed scheme. In addition,
staff
from the Traffic & Transportation section were in attendance during an
exhibition held in Kilmardinny House. At this exhibition, members of
the
public had the opportunity to ask questions and offer comments.
Emergency
services and local cycle organisation, Go Bike, were also consulted
and
were requested to comment. All comments were taken onboard and where
appropriate included in the scheme which was implemented in November
1997.

To date, the scheme on the A81 Milngavie Road has proved successful
and
both vehicle speeds and accidents rates have decreased since its
introduction, some 10 years ago. You should also note that because of
the
success of the scheme it has been extended along Main Street to
Milngavie
Town Centre. At present, therefore, I have no intention to make any
alterations to the existing traffic management schemes.

It should be noted that during the design stage for the cycle lanes on
the
A81 Milngavie Road, the Scottish Executive's guidance 'Cycling by
Design'
was in draft format. This guidance document, in fact, only started to
emerge during the year 1996. Furthermore, it should be noted that
'Cycling
by Design' has still not be formalised by the Scottish Executive. The
design of the A81 Milngavie Road cycle lanes was based on the
principles of
the existing cycle lanes which had been implemented by Glasgow City
Council
at that time.

I trust the foregoing is of assistance."

I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not doing
anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
improve this lane.

Iain
 
iarocu <[email protected]> typed:

> www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"


> I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not doing
> anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
> disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
> improve this lane.


Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the door
open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?

--
Paul - ***
ebay stuff 140086163024
 
Paul - *** wrote:
> iarocu <[email protected]> typed:
>
>> www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"
>>
>> I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not doing
>> anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
>> disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
>> improve this lane.


I doubt it's snappy and obvious enough to make the local paper, IMHO.

> Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the door
> open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?
>
> What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?
>

The problem with it is that the cycle lane is actually a piece of road
whose sole function is to give adequate separation between the parked
motor vehicles and the driving ones. As such, it should be a hatched
area and the bikes should share the lane with the motor traffic.
Unfortunately, this means the lane is now too narrow to allow the right
turn filter to work.

A
 
"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> iarocu <[email protected]> typed:
>
>> www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"

>
>> I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not doing
>> anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
>> disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
>> improve this lane.

>
> Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh.


Boggle. Gasp. What are you on? It's a lane which tells cyclists to ride
exactly where they shouldn't be - in the door zone. Given no parked cars,
I'd probably be a bit to the left of the red stripe. With cars there, I'd be
to the right of the red stripe.

> Is the car with the door open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?


I'd go for the former - but it does illustrate the problem very well.

> What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?


Well, the cycle lane has been put in for traffic calming reasons, not for
cyclists. It probably encourages drivers to keep within the narrower lane,
which will also make them slow down.

One could simply lose the cycle markings but keep the red tarmac. Maybe the
occasional bike painted on the RHS of the red tarmac, to reinforce the idea
that it isn't actually mandatory to cycle in it?

The tricky problem is the drivers - if you remember the OP was spurred into
writing this letter by drivers cutting him up because he wasn't using the
lane. People do have a nasty habit of assuming 'cycle facilities' are
mandatory - I'm not sure of any good way to change that.

cheers,
clive
 
On 15 Feb, 14:34, "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the door
> open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?


I'll assume for the sake of argument that the comment above is
serious. The cycle lane directs cyclists into the doorzone area where
they can be seriously injured or killed by an opening door. What's
"good" about that?. The photo was staged to demonstrate that the lane
was too close to the parking zone.


"What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?"


I would have expected a council to recognise the lane was dangerous
and consider how it could be improved. Options could include
1 Removing it - simple and cheap.
2 Taking away the right turn lane thus allowing the cycle lane to be
moved further away from the parked cars.
3 Removing it and replacing it with hatched centre lines as suggested
by Warrington Cycle Campaign for roads not wide enough for safe cycle
lanes.
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/
good-practice/birchwood-way.jpg
So that's 3 ideas before even thinking about banning parking (OK
unthinkable), or widening the road.
Iain
 
On 15 Feb, 15:07, "iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?"
>
> I would have expected a council to recognise the lane was dangerous
> and consider how it could be improved.


All your suggestions are far too low-tech. We need a satellite
controlled system fitted to every car that detects when it is parked
next to a cycle lane and prevents the doors from opening on that
side ;-)
 
Ambrose Nankivell <firstname+'n'@gmail.com> typed:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>> iarocu <[email protected]> typed:
>>
>>> www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"
>>>
>>> I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not
>>> doing anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
>>> disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
>>> improve this lane.

>
> I doubt it's snappy and obvious enough to make the local paper, IMHO.
>
>> Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the
>> door open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?
>>
>> What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?
>>

> The problem with it is that the cycle lane is actually a piece of road
> whose sole function is to give adequate separation between the parked
> motor vehicles and the driving ones. As such, it should be a hatched
> area and the bikes should share the lane with the motor traffic.
> Unfortunately, this means the lane is now too narrow to allow the
> right turn filter to work.


OK. Actually I'm glad you've pointed it out to me. We have a few like
that in Doncaster, not that I actually use them, and I hadn't noticed
the narrowness of the filter right 'lane'. Thanks.

--
Paul - ***
ebay stuff 140086163024
 
Clive George <[email protected]> typed:
> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> iarocu <[email protected]> typed:
>>
>>> www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"

>>
>>> I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not
>>> doing anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
>>> disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
>>> improve this lane.

>>
>> Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh.

>
> Boggle. Gasp. What are you on?


Life ;)

> It's a lane which tells cyclists to
> ride exactly where they shouldn't be - in the door zone. Given no
> parked cars, I'd probably be a bit to the left of the red stripe.
> With cars there, I'd be to the right of the red stripe.


As would I.

>> Is the car with the door open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

>
> I'd go for the former - but it does illustrate the problem very well.


Having had it pointed out to me I can see the problem now. Didn't
strike me as too much of a problem is all, 'specially as I hadn't
spotted the filter right lane.

>> What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?

>
> Well, the cycle lane has been put in for traffic calming reasons, not
> for cyclists. It probably encourages drivers to keep within the
> narrower lane, which will also make them slow down.
>
> One could simply lose the cycle markings but keep the red tarmac.
> Maybe the occasional bike painted on the RHS of the red tarmac, to
> reinforce the idea that it isn't actually mandatory to cycle in it?
>
> The tricky problem is the drivers - if you remember the OP was
> spurred into writing this letter by drivers cutting him up because he
> wasn't using the lane. People do have a nasty habit of assuming
> 'cycle facilities' are mandatory - I'm not sure of any good way to
> change that.


Whilst I (now) see and agree with what you're saying, my point was what
the OP actually said to the council. Did he offer, as you have,
constructive comments, or did he just send in a letter/email having a
moan?

--
Paul - ***
ebay stuff 140086163024
 
iarocu <[email protected]> typed:
> On 15 Feb, 14:34, "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the
>> door open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?

>
> I'll assume for the sake of argument that the comment above is
> serious. The cycle lane directs cyclists into the doorzone area where
> they can be seriously injured or killed by an opening door. What's
> "good" about that?. The photo was staged to demonstrate that the lane
> was too close to the parking zone.


Absolutely serious. I'm a cyclist and didn't really see the problem.
Now it's been pointed out to me I can see it .. ;)

> "What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?"
>
> I would have expected a council to recognise the lane was dangerous
> and consider how it could be improved.


Are they cyclists? Are they looking from your perspective? I'd suggest
they have an entirely different agenda to yours, so will see things
entirely differently.

> Options could include
> 1 Removing it - simple and cheap.
> 2 Taking away the right turn lane thus allowing the cycle lane to be
> moved further away from the parked cars.
> 3 Removing it and replacing it with hatched centre lines as suggested
> by Warrington Cycle Campaign for roads not wide enough for safe cycle
> lanes.
> http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/
> good-practice/birchwood-way.jpg
> So that's 3 ideas before even thinking about banning parking (OK
> unthinkable), or widening the road.


Did you offer these comments/constructive criticisms to the council, or
did you simply moan at them and expect them to see what I, a cyclist
too, couldn't even see? You don't include a copy of the original letter
to them.

--
Paul - ***
ebay stuff 140086163024
 
Paul - *** wrote:
> Ambrose Nankivell <firstname+'n'@gmail.com> typed:
>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>> iarocu <[email protected]> typed:
>>>
>>>> www.flickr.com/photos/24192247@N00/308662833/ ............"
>>>>
>>>> I've not decided what to reply yet or whether since they are not
>>>> doing anything it would be worth approaching the local paper. It is
>>>> disappointing though not unexpected that they are choosing not to
>>>> improve this lane.

>> I doubt it's snappy and obvious enough to make the local paper, IMHO.
>>
>>> Looks like quite a good cycle lane to me, tbh. Is the car with the
>>> door open staged, or did you 'happen across' it?
>>>
>>> What did you expect, or want, the council to do about the road?
>>>

>> The problem with it is that the cycle lane is actually a piece of road
>> whose sole function is to give adequate separation between the parked
>> motor vehicles and the driving ones. As such, it should be a hatched
>> area and the bikes should share the lane with the motor traffic.
>> Unfortunately, this means the lane is now too narrow to allow the
>> right turn filter to work.

>
> OK. Actually I'm glad you've pointed it out to me. We have a few like
> that in Doncaster, not that I actually use them, and I hadn't noticed
> the narrowness of the filter right 'lane'. Thanks.
>

Yeah. I had a long stay (illness, rather than accident related) in
hospital a few years ago, and I spent a week next to someone who'd just
come off their bike due to hitting a car door. Grumpy sod never spoke to
me once.

Come to think of it, he never spoke to anyone, but he did make gurgling
and screaming sounds occasionally.*

--
A
*He was recovering some communication. My surmise is that he'd require
supervision but not nursing by now. He was a father of four, aged 26. I
avoid car doors quite strenuously now.
 
On 15 Feb, 16:43, "Paul - ***"

> Absolutely serious. I'm a cyclist and didn't really see the problem.
> Now it's been pointed out to me I can see it .. ;)



Sorry for my somewht brusk original reply to you Paul. I see many
cyclists riding in the doorzone in this and other places so you are
spot on that the the danger is not clear to everyone especially to non-
cyclists..


> Did you offer these comments/constructive criticisms to the council, or
> did you simply moan at them and expect them to see what I, a cyclist
> too, couldn't even see? You don't include a copy of the original letter
> to them.


To keep this post shorter I didn't include the text of my letter
again. It is on the original "Another Cycle Lane Letter" thread on
28th November. A Google in uk.rec.cycling using "iarocu lane letter"
will get you there.
In my original letter I pointed out that the lane was dangerous and
why, and that it did not meet current design standards for cycle
lanes. I had hoped they would acknowledge the danger and either
suggest improvements or enter into a discussion to try and identify
improvements. If I could summarise the reply I got it would be ....
Short history of how the scheme was implemented. Accident rates have
come down. We are not doing anything. And the cycle lane design
guidelines have no legal force anyway so we don't have to.
Iain
 
iarocu <[email protected]> typed:
> On 15 Feb, 16:43, "Paul - ***"
>
>> Absolutely serious. I'm a cyclist and didn't really see the problem.
>> Now it's been pointed out to me I can see it .. ;)

>
>
> Sorry for my somewht brusk original reply to you Paul. I see many
> cyclists riding in the doorzone in this and other places so you are
> spot on that the the danger is not clear to everyone especially to
> non- cyclists..
>
>
>> Did you offer these comments/constructive criticisms to the council,
>> or did you simply moan at them and expect them to see what I, a
>> cyclist too, couldn't even see? You don't include a copy of the
>> original letter to them.

>
> To keep this post shorter I didn't include the text of my letter
> again. It is on the original "Another Cycle Lane Letter" thread on
> 28th November. A Google in uk.rec.cycling using "iarocu lane letter"
> will get you there.
> In my original letter I pointed out that the lane was dangerous and
> why, and that it did not meet current design standards for cycle
> lanes. I had hoped they would acknowledge the danger and either
> suggest improvements or enter into a discussion to try and identify
> improvements. If I could summarise the reply I got it would be ....
> Short history of how the scheme was implemented. Accident rates have
> come down. We are not doing anything. And the cycle lane design
> guidelines have no legal force anyway so we don't have to.
> Iain


Fair do's all round then, I think. ;)

--
Paul - ***
ebay stuff 140086163024
 
On 15 Feb, 21:17, "iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote:

>If I could summarise the reply I got it would be ....
> Short history of how the scheme was implemented. Accident rates have
> come down. We are not doing anything. And the cyclelanedesign
> guidelines have no legal force anyway so we don't have to.
> Iain


Folowing a further e-mail pointing out matters raised in my original e-
mail whch the reply hadn't covered the council have replied that they
will "commission a Road Safety Audit to HD19/03 guidance taking into
account the date of design and implementation. If the audit
recommends alterations to the scheme then these will be undertaken"
So some progress has been made and credit where credit is due to East
Dumbarton for agreng to have another look at this location from a road
safety aspect.

Iain
 
iarocu <[email protected]> typed:
> On 15 Feb, 21:17, "iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If I could summarise the reply I got it would be ....
>> Short history of how the scheme was implemented. Accident rates have
>> come down. We are not doing anything. And the cyclelanedesign
>> guidelines have no legal force anyway so we don't have to.
>> Iain

>
> Folowing a further e-mail pointing out matters raised in my original
> e- mail whch the reply hadn't covered the council have replied that
> they will "commission a Road Safety Audit to HD19/03 guidance taking
> into account the date of design and implementation. If the audit
> recommends alterations to the scheme then these will be undertaken"
> So some progress has been made and credit where credit is due to East
> Dumbarton for agreng to have another look at this location from a road
> safety aspect.


That's a good step on the way to a safer road.

Just did a quick google and read of "Road Safety Audit to HD19/03"
http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/highw.../highway_req_development_part7_appendix_d.htm

Which seems to stress the Audit Teams independance to the Design Team,
so some good [1] might come of your letters. Well done.

[1] Providing they can look at it objectively, or with 'other' road
users heads on apart from cars ... ;)

--
Paul - ***