Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Council paints over cycle lane after drivers keep clipping kerb at new pedestrian refuge

With the installation of a newly-built pedestrian crossing, local cyclists noticed drivers swerving into the painted cycle lane, sometimes hitting the kerb, but it's the council's solution that has confused many...

A new pedestrian refuge being installed on a busy road should have been a victory for active travel in Staines-upon-Thames in Surrey, however the council's subsequent response to reports of drivers swerving into a cycle lane to avoid it, and sometimes hitting the kerb, has been anything but in the eyes of some local riders.

road.cc reader Ken got in touch to share the story, saying the pedestrian refuge "on a very popular route for cycling groups" was only a few weeks old when it was "immediately seen as a hazard, with cars clearly having hit the kerbs".

"The gap between the main footpath each side and the refuge is so narrow that drivers invariably swing left at the 30 mph limit, but often faster, over the broken line on the bike lane," he explained.

B376 towards Staines (Credit Ken Saunders)

"Numerous local cyclists were concerned that cars would swing into groups or individual cyclists — an accident waiting to happen! I raised these concerns with my local county councillor who passed these concerns on to the county highways office. Their action? To crudely paint out the broken white lines of the bike lane adjacent to the refuge.

B376 towards Staines (Credit Ken Saunders)

 "On the carriageway travelling south-east this results in a break in white lines of about 50m and no other warning."

Ken asked the council if improved signage is to be installed and why "removing a section of cycle lane each side makes this island any safer?"

"If anything it is even less safe for cyclists as car drivers can use the excuse for close passes that there is no cycle lane at that point. I just wish one or more of the county highways officers were cyclists. They'd then understand the hazards cyclists continually experience," his correspondence to the council concluded.

Ken has received no "substantive response other than acknowledgement" after the first message, suggesting it is unlikely the council painted over the lane with the intention of adding signage communicating the Highway Code's advice for cyclists to ride in primary position when approaching such road narrowings.

As per Rule 72:

Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you.

Undoubtedly many would argue cyclists using the route would be safer if the entire painted lane were removed and riders encouraged to ride away from the kerb, however the council's, likely 'easiest option', decision to simply erase the cycle lane for a short stretch has left local riders with questions about if their safety is being prioritised.

Dan joined road.cc in 2020, and spent most of his first year (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. At the start of 2022 he took on the role of news editor. Before joining road.cc, Dan wrote about various sports, including football and boxing for the Daily Express, and covered the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Part of the generation inspired by the 2012 Olympics, Dan has been 'enjoying' life on two wheels ever since and spends his weekends making bonk-induced trips to the petrol stations of the south of England.

Add new comment

33 comments

Avatar
cjwebb | 1 year ago
1 like

Why not reduce the width of the Cycle Lane to be just 20cm wide, like this one in Brighton?!

https://maps.app.goo.gl/4j82AusZKPqEedP26

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to cjwebb | 1 year ago
0 likes

Ooh!  Bet a lot of councils would find that attractive; you could easily apply for cash * for implementing bi-direction / double-capacity cycle lanes on both sides of the road and motorists would barely notice!

* I hope the "expectation" that infra is of "sufficient quality" will continue to mean they'd get nothing for stuff like this.  However it may be in the near future that the active travel budget goes from "chicken feed" to to zero anyway.  Or is just diverted to buses or fixing the roads for cars.

Avatar
ktache | 1 year ago
1 like

That's a properly wide pedestrian refuge, looks like you could fit a parent pushing a buggy in it.

I also find that the occasionally illuminated, reflective bollards tend to last a bit longer when there is a signpost involved.

Avatar
Muddy Ford | 1 year ago
0 likes

There should be an arrow that directs cyclists to take primary position past the refuge, like the merge arrows and perhaps with a big painted bicycle in the middle of the lane. I would never stay in the cycle lane past these because so many drivers don't realise the width of their vehicle until they have hit something, and the painted cycle lane makes them think there is enough room. 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Muddy Ford | 1 year ago
1 like

As I said (on the Musselburgh post below) this might be sort of helpful for the experienced.  However this really is an example of "sign the hazard better" and likely an ineffective one.  We should be removing the hazard!

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Muddy Ford | 1 year ago
0 likes

I first saw a similar system at a pinch point in Ambleside some years ago, in that case they painted the cycle lane green, and even the most inattentive motorist could not have missed it.

Painting lines where you expect traffic to run over them means that shortly the lines become indistinct and they rarely are properly maintained, so revert to being easily missable, little better than painting them out.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
1 like

Some of the cycle lanes around Ambleside were terrible. I am glad they've got rid of this one now and just put bike symbols on the road instead...

https://goo.gl/maps/HL4m6cDKjUTeVS7D6

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to HoarseMann | 1 year ago
1 like

It is a good example where it is trying to get the point across, it fails on width, the one I was thinking of was wider, but as it was 10 years ago or more, it may be my memory, or the simple shock of seeing a bike lane wider than a gangplank then.

There is an odd sign there - do we think that the pavement is a bike lane based on the blue plaque on the left in the second picture?

Avatar
JustTryingToGet... | 1 year ago
4 likes

This is a lost opportunity to make the roads safer.

Paint the murder strip back in. Cameras aimed at the passing place. Any driver who hits the kerb has their licence torn up, their car crushed and is put in the stocks for a day for getting behind the wheel whilst being too shite at driving to do so.

Avatar
Flintshire Boy | 1 year ago
4 likes

.

So, take primary earlier than usual - don't give drivers the chance to endanger you.

.

Drivers will be held up a bit more than previously.

.

Oh well, never mind.

.

Avatar
hutchdaddy | 1 year ago
1 like

In this case no cycle lane is better than a sh*t cycle lane. Excellent refuge though, full marks to Spelthorne/Surrey councils for that.

Avatar
HarrogateSpa replied to hutchdaddy | 1 year ago
0 likes

Not really. If they put in a zebra crossing instead of a refuge, it gives pedestrians priority and removes the pinch point.

Avatar
Doug_D | 1 year ago
9 likes

This approach between Musselburgh and Portobello is what they should followed, widen the cycle lane at the island to encourage cyclists to take primary position

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Doug_D | 1 year ago
2 likes

I know this place.  Well... yes, primary and all that.  However I don't think "this should be followed" if we want more people cycling.  It's not good enough and for those who are confident competent cyclists already it's superfluous.

Consider - this "infra" is suggesting that vulnerable road users should move out into conflict with more dangerous ones.  This is suggested at a point where they're less able to see (e.g. they'll need to look backwards).  I think at conflict points the ideal is to make it clear what priorities are assumed and always facilitate vulnerable road users to take responsibility for their safety - clear sight lines etc.

Less confident cyclists will likely stay to the left - which makes a "squeeze through" manouever possible.  (Aside - on several occasions motorists have passed me on the opposite side of a pedestrian refuge too, pretty sure we don't want that...)  If you want to help less confident cyclists, remove the danger e.g. don't send them through pinch points.

Again - it might be better for more general use in NL where drivers have been tamed somewhat and there are tons of cyclists.

In my opinion where you need central pedestrian refuges that's a sign you need *protected* cycle tracks / paths. (For mass cycling - if you're happy with the status quo no need for change.)  Or - in the UK where the road is wide enough that even the councils feel they've space to paint cycle lanes, the road is too wide.  Take some of that and make a proper cycle path / decent footways!

Avatar
EK Spinner replied to Doug_D | 1 year ago
0 likes

I have seen similar widened cycle lanes on the South Deeside Road in Aberdeen. They are also painted red and really encourage the riders out into primary while highlighting to drivers that their line requires temporary use of the cycle lane

Avatar
Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
4 likes

Tbh the cycle lane was just an excuse for close passes. At least cyclists are being somewhat encouraged to take their place in the middle of the lane, although I'd like to see a cyclist symbol in the road at the pinch point to make this clear.

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
7 likes

Doesn't really matter - look 20 metres up the road.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
8 likes

... and 20m the other way!

Avatar
Surreyrider | 1 year ago
3 likes

My local council - I wouldn't expect anything more or anything less. Utterly incompetent, as always. 

Avatar
MTB Refugee | 1 year ago
14 likes

All painted cycle lanes less than 2m wide should be painted over. They are not fit for purpose and increase the number of close passes.

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to MTB Refugee | 1 year ago
5 likes

Agreed, but I do find the narrow filter lanes on the approach to traffic lights useful.

Avatar
chrisonabike | 1 year ago
13 likes

I can share the UK solution as implemented in Edinburgh - the protected cycle lane.  Fully protected under parked cars - and the protecting car is itself protected by the cycle lane protection.  Win-win!

Avatar
the little onion | 1 year ago
6 likes

If only there were enough width in the combination of pavement and road to allow for a fully segregated, bollarded cycle lane. Something the width of, say, a SUV. If only there were an SUV in the photo that demonstrates how, with a teensy bit of imagination, there is enough space for proper infrastructure.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 1 year ago
10 likes

I would be asking for the details of who took this decision and what they based their views on when they took it, and what consideration they gave to the safety of cyclists.  When they come back with a load of rubbish, I'd then be taking it to my councillor and encouraging other cyclists to do the same.

A better solution would have been to widen the cycle lane at that point so that drivers would understand that cyclists should be given proper consideration, and they would most likely slow down.

Avatar
Hirsute | 1 year ago
10 likes

Maybe just drive a bit slower.

Avatar
Billy1mate replied to Hirsute | 1 year ago
1 like

Or drive properly, looking ahead, it's a feeble action to appease poor driving. Removing the white line is better than shrinking the cycle lane. I wouldn't worry about it, cycle lanes are optional and not mandatory, which is a good job as most are used for parking.

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
6 likes

Just saw this conflict resolution in Abingdon, the lh lane is split into a bike lane, but a car requires the full width of the lane, so it is impossible for a bike and car to co-exist.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/yX1CgBAWkQvRmrbX8

In what way does painting a cycle lane that a car cannot avoid improve on a bike being impassible in the lane anyway?

Added bonus, an inaccessible ASL, in this instance, full of car.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
8 likes
IanMSpencer wrote:

Added bonus, an inaccessible ASL, in this instance, full of car.

Professional Driver too!

Avatar
BIGWATTS replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
6 likes

The Dutch solution: make cycle lanes (where the cycle route is shared with cars on a minor road with lower speed limits) so wide that cars must drive in the cycle lane, and thus are prevented from attempting close passes with oncoming traffic.  It also has the added bonus of making the road appear narrower, discouraging high driving speeds.

Random bit of the Netherlands with wide cycle lanes and a good overtake by the red Mazda: https://goo.gl/maps/jz3gcjJKcoiFywzr7 

This works on lower speed limit roads, with 30km/h speed limits very well, although this is of course largely to do with the very different mindset and more mature attitude many (most?) people on the continent have towards cycling.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to BIGWATTS | 1 year ago
6 likes

Good point but I think - like many things in NL (e.g. removing cycle paths!) - this works when you've already got a large number of cyclists.  Almost everyone cycles at some point and if not their family and friends will.  So people driving "get it" and that's reinforce by actual cyclists being there much of the time.

If we just stuck them in over here with our pitiful cycling modal share I don't think it would go so well.  At least for some things it may be we "can't get there from here" - we have to work through some intermediate stages.

Pages

Latest Comments