- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Keynsham cycle lane (Facebook)More pedestrian injuries reported on "optical illusion" cycle lane, with one casualty claiming it must have been "designed by toddlers"
A Somerset town's high street cycling infrastructure, which made headlines last year when pedestrians repeatedly tripped due to an "optical illusion" with the kerb height, is once again back in the spotlight, multiple reports of similar incidents happening over the Christmas period.
The discussion about the segregated cycle lane on Keynsham's high street attracted national media attention in 2023 (seen in the BBC report below), Conservative MP for North East Somerset Jacob Rees-Mogg calling it a "failed experiment" after it was revealed 59 injuries had been reported during its first year in operation.
By November, the number of injuries had risen to 76, the Bath Echo now suggesting that "well over 100 people have fallen and suffered injuries" due to the lane's differing kerb heights that pedestrians have reported makes it a trip hazard.
Reports on FixMyStreet from over the Christmas period suggest that despite maintenance work undertaken by the council, such as painting the lane red to differentiate it from the road and pavement, people have still been injured after tripping.
One report from an architecht who suffered a "badly jarred back, causing pain, numbness and sciatica" in a fall, said the infrastructure is "completely idiotic" and like it was "designed by toddlers".
"This is the worst cycle path design I have ever seen," they said. "No consistency in levels. Some parts flush, some parts raised with no distinct difference in visual colouration to help differentiate between the two, which is an obvious breach of accessible design criteria. It is shocking.
"I can't believe this is legal. Completely idiotic. I'm an architect and I can only imagine that this was designed by toddlers or with the intention being to attract tourists to the 'UK's most dangerous cycle path'."
Another incident, on December 9, saw someone trip and suffer "significant trauma and soft tissue damage".
"Broad daylight but did not pick up on the height difference between the pavement and the cycle lane," the report says. "Misstepped on this half kerb [...] sustained significant trauma and soft tissue damage to left knee and lower leg. Now 11 days on I am still in significant pain with severe swelling to knee and bruising that is still coming out. The kerb needs to be hazard marked, it is lethal."
Another trip victim reported "severe bleeding to my nose, face and hands followed by bruising". In response to all of the complaints, the local authority replied: "Thank you for your report, it will be reviewed by the appropriate team."
In November, pedestrianisation was said to be being considered to fix the cycle lane dubbed "the most dangerous street in the UK", the council committing to further works this month to warn people of the level changes.
Two months prior, a cross-party group of councillors had proposed a motion to commit the council to investigate the cost of fixing the kerb height issue, however this was withdrawn amid fears it would be easily dismissed due to an unspecified amendment put forward by the administration that could "crush" the proposal.
With a six-month rule in place, preventing repeat motions, it could not be proposed again until March 2024 at the earliest, prompting the councillors to withdraw the motion in the hope of bringing a stronger case in the future.
A council source insisted that the amendment causing concern was standard practice for any administration on any motion, and stressed that a "Stage 4 safety audit" on the infrastructure is already underway to look into potential safety concerns.
"We're taking reports of all falls seriously. The majority of incidents happened within the first six months of the scheme going in and the number of incidents is decreasing as people get used to the changes and in light of the amendments we have already made," the council said at the time.
In April, Rees-Mogg weighed in on the discussion, saying it was a "failed experiment" and should return to its previous layout.
It should go back to being a two way street. This experiment has failed.https://t.co/WFHQpj8HHl
— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) April 26, 2023
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- grOg 1 sec ago
Going by your logic, no motorist should pass a cyclist in case the cyclist suddenly chooses to turn in front of a motorist..
- trenzalorian 1 hour 4 min ago
try deleting cookies and re-logging in. That worked for me (I also changed passwords so both site and fantasy passwords were still identical....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 16 min ago
Thanks! A great trip and a nice write up, more so for memories of places on that route....
- wtjs 2 hours 54 min ago
Maybe the Government could introduce a set monthly fee that allows drivers to be caught out as much as they like! ...
- wtjs 3 hours 5 min ago
there is a very big inner tube factory in Wuhan...
- David9694 3 hours 15 min ago
car crashes into...horse trough...
- LordSandwich 4 hours 23 min ago
The official advice is bollocks! They tell you to click when you see a potential hazzard, but anything could be a potential hazzard....
- andystow 4 hours 43 min ago
Here's where I got it. Not sure if they ship outside the US, though. https://magicpine.com/products/will-bike-for-beer-unisex-tee
- Pot00000000 7 hours 11 min ago
But some people do want that 🤷🏼♂️ these are race bike that also happen to be purchased by middle aged men who don't race. ...
Add new comment
21 comments
JRM "It should go back to being a two way street."
Completely ignoring the problem and re-creating the problems that the cycle path was supposed to solve: great thinking JRM!
As an ex-resident of South Glos, where the cycle provision for many years was abysmal, I'm encouraged that they at least tried here, even if the design has flaws which should have been picked up at the design stage.
But isn't it frustrating that the cyclists can now only go in one direction, and how do they stop safely to get to the shops?
My guess is that shoppers like to cross the road informally, hence the trips. A splash of paint on the kerb would do it, but councils tend not to be pragmatic. There will be audits and surveys and consultations, and then nothing will change.
Btw, quite a few drain covers to bounce over!
This item keeps coming up, but I'm still none the wiser as to where exactly, and how or why, the "optical illusion" manifests. What is deceiving the eye?
I think it's something to do with the inconsistent kerb heights and the colouring which tricks people into thinking that they're the same height
A report on FixMyStreet says "This is the worst cycle path design I have ever seen. No consistency in levels. Some parts flush, some parts raised with no distinct difference in visual colouration to help differentiate between the two, which is an obvious breach of accessible design criteria."
There's some more detail here: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/keynshams-optical-illusion-cycle-path-8504124
Thanks! So reading that bit in the picture it seems as if they have fitted the cycle lane in at a mezzanine level between the original levels of the pavement and the road, so now the kerbs either side of the bike lane are half the height of the original single kerb, making them less conspicuous.
Oi! Mate! There's no crosswalk over there!
Pedestrians shouldn't cross the street there anyway!
What is this "crosswalk" of which you speak? No such animal in the UK.
It's when you're walking behind a slow walking group of three or four people who are blocking the pavement
What we need is a consistent national standard for cycle lanes rather than different councils putting in bizarre designs just because they are the cheapest or need the smallest amount of work. It's not difficult - just copy from a country that has already put in lots of infrastructure and knows what works and what doesn't.
I hate to say it, but JRM might be correct in calling this a failed experiment, but only in terms of the implementation - a cycle path is still needed.
Look at all the fun around the Clevedon seafront changes. Independent review says, "What a load of old rubbish! Put it back as it was." and then people complain because they'll have to spend money to undo the work, and possibly give back money to the Govt (since the active travel stuff has been undone).
I note that South Glos council reviewed the changes to Thornbury High Street and has said that they're not undoing anything precisely because (1) the council can't afford it right now and (2) the council will definitely need to give back the active travel money.
Agree on the first and the "it doesn't need a two-way road, it needs a properly designed cycle path".
Sadly a) I suspect what has been done is actually in line with LTN1/20 (haven't scruitinised) although a full-height kerb and a stepped cycle path might improve things.
b) BUT I'm pretty confident the major problem here is just "change". People simply aren't used to cycle paths (as opposed to cycle lanes on the main roadway). They are either ignoring this (just some strangely painted footpath) or noticing it but getting confused. After all in the UK the vast majority have got no previous knowledge of these. As we know from observing driving, it doesn't take much to cognitively overwhelm a human, or for our mostly automatic guidance systems to get it wrong.
Standards - I've just discovered the following (by a ex-pat US traffic engineer) - 20 minute watch. (Ranty Highwayman has covered similar ground as well). Apparently - same as in UK - the "standards" are NOT baked into law now. There are agreed "best design standards" but most aren't mandatory at all! There are only a few basic road rules set by law. In fact - the law is suprisingly minimal. The "standard pattern" apparently emerges from a responsibility of safety - liability for maintenance and design - plus some serious environmental rules.
We may be screwed here in the UK as I suspect a version of some of these already apply here - and yet this leaves us where we are. Perhaps we're missing the "consensus politics" part of the culture (I'm sure that idea has its limits in NL too though)?
Haven't been along there myself in a while, but from what I gather, the kerb changes height and position which is part of the confusion along with inconsistent visual cues.
I may have an opportunity to visit in the future.
Certainly the rule is "keep it exactly the same along its course" and ideally "make it the same as everywhere else". However ... it's also dumb luck that this is a change (e.g. adding cycle infra and not crap "paint and signs"). Not that it's ideal but there are variable height kerbs and other potential trip hazards all over the UK's streets - but this one has likely made the news to the extent it has because the additional novelty.
No, I think the problem is micro kerbs. a step change in level of 25mm or less is hard to see. and more than capable of tripping pedestrians or even cyclists who attempt to cross at a shallow angle.
Having taken more of a (remote) look (thanks HP for detail) I've changed my mind. It is actually an inconsistent dog's dinner with the "micro kerb" as you say (but looking along it, that height varies...) but also some cunning "kerb - or line of paint?" traps.
I don't think there's anything per se wrong with "mid-height cycle path". If the path part is at the same level as the main road (here) without a separator with upstand (or e.g. planters, as noted) it's not a cycle path, it's a cycle lane. However something rising *up* next to the cycle path is then another thing for people crossing it on foot to get over.
I think people - mostly - expect something that's apparently a kerb to have a vertical upstand. I am a fan of the sloped ("forgiving") kerb to extend the usable width of cycle paths. Plus I think helps anyone on / with wheels crossing it. Possibly not ideal for those with visual impairments / walking issues? Not sure if that's a big issue for people or "change" again?
Apropos of nothing - build it and they will come (yes - the Dutch still have some cycle lanes).
How is it done elsewhere? Utrecht, Rijnlaan - cycle path at footway level but there is a bit of "microkerb" - not sure this is intended (although the quality generally looks higher than the UK...) BUT right next to the first pic there is this nice crossing with tactiles and markers.
Rosmalen, Hintham - a kerb by the footway that's nearly a microkerb and then slightly sloping kerbs everywhere else! I don't think either example is particularly new.
2 points:
1) It should be a 'proper' full height kerb between path and cycle lane with all the usual visual impairment accoutrements. No height difference required between cycle lane and road as the planters are a physical segregation.
2) JRM is a failed experiment of colonial ideologies in the modern world and he should return to the 1890s.
1890s? To be honest, I would suggest that he's more a creature of the 1860s. Possibly earlier, given his fondness for a top hat.
1) Perhaps ... but that's not a given per the guidance IIRC. However LTN1/20 6.2.7 advises a height difference as a preference for the visually impaired. Of course that then means you need dropped kerb / raised cycle path level for crossing points for those with physical impairments...
Maybe something like Westminster Bridge? Perhaps the additional height changes there aren't an issue because not so many people head across the road and the enviroment cautions them to pay more attention?
They've got the other parts right though (emphasised) but that didn't help some people:
(Aside - I wish they'd emphasise the use of sloped kerbs to extend the useable width for cycling - as alluded to in 5.5.4. This might also help those with physical impairments cross, although may not be quite so helpful for those with visual impairments. Balancing acts!)
Per my other comment though - I'm pretty sure most of this is "change" and an unfamiliar environment. The comments from people who'd fallen speak of "my autopilot got confused".