Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cars regain priority at Yarm cycle path crossing

Local councillor had said giving cyclists priority would be ‘confusing’ for drivers

Changes have been made to a new footpath and cycleway in Yarm after a local councillor claimed it was dangerous. Cyclists and pedestrians had initially been given right of way where the path crossed a minor road, but Andrew Sherris suggested that this might be confusing for drivers and so the priority has since been changed.

Sherris – who was de-selected as Conservative candidate for Yarm this week – initially said of the crossing on the Levendale estate:

“As the path crosses Lingfield Road cyclists have priority and this is something new that I don’t think exists elsewhere. Such confusion could lead to a child or adult getting hurt or worse.

"The next crossing point is Mt Leven Road but here vehicular traffic has the priority. Signs are very close to the roads giving cyclists little time to stop and there are visibility issues for drivers travelling West along Lingfield Road and an absence of any safety barriers.

“I appreciate that the scheme has yet to have its safety audit and would hope that these problems can be reviewed.”

The Teeside Evening Gazette last week reported that these changes have now been implemented and cars once again have priority over bikes. Sherris, who is governor of the nearby Levendale school to which the path provides access, reacted by saying:

"I'm very pleased that having met with council officers the priority has been changed back to a more standard design that we experience elsewhere. There are still some issues that are being monitored, such as some indiscriminate parking.

"Overall, the scheme has been a great success, and we now have far more children coming to school on foot, bikes or scooters."

The path is part of £300,000 scheme which has been part-funded by Sustrans. Tom Bailey, Area Manager for Sustrans told BikeBiz:

“All modern guidance makes it clear that cycle tracks can and should take priority at minor roads, but we recognise that each Highway Authority will take a cautious approach when implementing this for the first time. We are aware that the scheme has been changed from our endorsed design and are working with Stockton council on this issue.”

Stockton-on-Tees council have footed the bill for the alterations.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

12 comments

Avatar
LondonDynaslow | 9 years ago
0 likes

I *only* know about Rule 170 because I learned it on my cycling proficiency test about 30 years ago. I still obey it in my car because I was taught it on my bike.

Other than the general invitation to "learn the Highway Code", it was not touched upon in driving lessons about 10 years after that.

Perhaps things have changed, and perhaps my experience is unrepresentative. I hope so / doubt it.

Avatar
mrmo replied to LondonDynaslow | 9 years ago
0 likes
deblemund wrote:

I *only* know about Rule 170 because I learned it on my cycling proficiency test about 30 years ago. I still obey it in my car because I was taught it on my bike.

Other than the general invitation to "learn the Highway Code", it was not touched upon in driving lessons about 10 years after that.

Perhaps things have changed, and perhaps my experience is unrepresentative. I hope so / doubt it.

I have been driving 8? years now, and it hadn't changed at that point, I just made the conscious effort to try and understand as much of the highway code as I could. I have also made the conscious effort to check events that I am unsure about, ie roundabouts and which lane to use!!

I strongly believe VERY few people ever bother, and that the code Is free, if you have the internet, makes it more depressing. Hardly surprising though.

Avatar
P3t3 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Terrible.

The next thing will be a barrier at 90 degrees to the cycle path to prevent kamikaze cyclists hurling themselves out into the path of oncoming cars!

Avatar
Al__S | 9 years ago
0 likes

so, checking this road on the map, it seems to be purely an estate road of little use to anyone but those living on the street and the cul-de-sacs off it. It is hardly some busy truck road. Yet HONK! kiddies on bikes must get out of the way!

Avatar
Paulnrswain | 9 years ago
0 likes

Common mistake it's Teesside Evening Gazette not Teeside Evening Gazette

Avatar
antigee | 9 years ago
0 likes

cycling isn't really very high up the agenda for the local council in our city district of Melbourne, Aus but one of the local paths has quite a few of these

I guess if sight lines are poor the authorities could always make it a Stop sign /Line for drivers so they have to be a bit more cautious  1

Avatar
Dave.W replied to antigee | 9 years ago
0 likes
antigee wrote:

cycling isn't really very high up the agenda for the local council in our city district of Melbourne, Aus but one of the local paths has quite a few of these

I guess if sight lines are poor the authorities could always make it a Stop sign /Line for drivers so they have to be a bit more cautious  1

As an aside I really hate those temporary speed humps in the picture above. They use them in Sydney along the Barangaroo construction site and for a while in Leichhardt on approach to pedestrian crossings. In the wet they're lethal to ride over, but the biggest risk is cars just drive around them by cutting into the cycle lane without looking or indicating.

There's also a smaller version which is basically two 1 foot long humps placed where a cars wheel would normally be but again it just prompts drivers to treat them as a chicane!

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 9 years ago
0 likes

It's good to remind us of rule 170, which I think has largely been forgotten by most people in the UK - replaced by the assumption that might is right.

Avatar
mrmo | 9 years ago
0 likes

//assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_170_give_way_to_pedestrians_who_have_started_to_cross.jpg)

remind me, who has priority at junctions?

Avatar
Pete B replied to mrmo | 9 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:

//assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_170_give_way_to_pedestrians_who_have_started_to_cross.jpg)

remind me, who has priority at junctions?

Rule 170 of the Highway Code specifically says “(Pedestrians) who have started to cross , have priority”. My interruption is that doesn’t mean a pedestrian can step off the kerb into the path of a vehicle turning at the junction.

When you are cycling along a road and about to turn left into a side road, you notice a pedestrian walking along the pavement, who will step out onto the road you are about to turn into, at the same time you will arive at that point; do you stop to let them cross ? Or is your expectation that they will stop at the kerb and look, on seeing you turning they will wait for you to pass before stepping onto the road ?

So the concept of cycle traffic on paths having priority over motor vehicles turning from a road, like they do in the Netherlands, is something new in the UK. I do of course think it is a great idea and the way forward. But I can see a problem that unless the junction layout is designed well and the signs make it 100% clear to drivers they have to stop to give-way to a cyclist on the path, something drivers aren’t currently used to doing in the UK, it will lead to dangerous situations.

Avatar
mrmo replied to Pete B | 9 years ago
0 likes
Pete B wrote:

Rule 170 of the Highway Code specifically says “(Pedestrians) who have started to cross , have priority”. My interruption is that doesn’t mean a pedestrian can step off the kerb into the path of a vehicle turning at the junction.

If the pedestrian is crossing they are crossing, there is a white line at junctions for a reason, if the car has to cross the line then by definition of a line the car doesn't have priority. It is one of the many issues on the roads where everyone has been cowed by the car lobby. Think of how zebra crossings are meant to work, the moment the pedestrian has stepped into the road they are incharge, and yes the highway code does contradict itself!!!! but I would say rule 195 trumps rule 19, because 195 says drivers MUST stop, whereas 19 suggests pedestrians don't try and cross if there are any cars.

Maybe we need to look at the continental model again and place zebra crossings at every junction to reinforce who is in charge?

And yes the laws do need to be changed to clarify cycle paths where they cross roads.

Avatar
Initialised | 9 years ago
0 likes

"Cyclists and pedestrians had initially been given right of way where the path crossed a minor road"

Please don't use this terminology, you might as well be calling VED 'Road Tax'. No one has right of way, a road or footpath is a right of way where one user may have priority over another.

Latest Comments