The North East Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) says that lane dividers installed along Great North Road in Gosforth could result in someone being killed. Newcastle City Council has installed the ‘Orcas’ to separate a cycle lane from the road.
On its website, the group describes the Orcas as “narrow humped back obstructions on the flat road surface that have not been passed for use by the Department of Transport.” The group suggests that any motorcyclist or scooter rider who hits one “will at best be thrown to the ground and at worst killed by forcing them into collision with another motor vehicle.”
Chronicle Live reports that MAG has called for a meeting with councillors to discuss the issue.
Katalina Ferguson, a spokeswoman for the group, said: “It’s mad. In order to try and protect cyclists from cars they have sacrificed the safety of motorcyclists and scooterists by reducing their available road space and then throwing obstacles in their way. In Manchester, where these were trialled, even the cyclists are against them.”
Mad Cycle Lanes of Manchester has documented many of the places in which similar lane dividers, known as 'Armadillos', have been employed in the city, and as you might have gathered from the blog’s title, it hasn’t been entirely complimentary. Criticisms include that they aren’t large enough to deter drivers while still being of sufficient size to be a hazard for cyclists; that they can be hard to see; and that they aren’t particularly durable.
A Newcastle City Council spokeswoman described the Orca separators as ‘light segregation’ and admitted that they are not approved by the Department for Transport (DfT).
“No segregation would mean that only the white line was provided, and this is only sufficient on quieter or lightly trafficked streets. On busier roads, this provides no physical protection to cyclists, and would not encourage increased usage of safer cycling infrastructure as is the aim of the safety fund that paid for these changes.
“While these orcas do not require DfT approval, there is a legal requirement for the cycle lane separator to be installed behind a continuous white line at the edge of the carriageway, which clearly indicates a mandatory cycle lane.
“The DfT’s view is that such items are considered as street furniture, in a similar way to bollards or guardrail, which could also be placed behind the edge of the carriageway without any approval required.”
The spokeswoman said that a risk assessment had been carried out for various different measures and that no evidence had been found to suggest that this form of lane divider should not be considered on the grounds of potential health and safety concerns.
69 thoughts on “Newcastle motorcyclists claim ‘Orca’ cycle lane separators could prove lethal”
Motrocylists the clue here is
Motrocylists the clue here is the absence of the term “motor” in “cycle lane”
balmybaldwin
Cycle lanes are almost always advisory, not mandatory. Whether you like it or not, motorcyclists and motorists are allowed to encroach on them, providing they are not “causing an obstruction” (a limitation so vague as to only add to the pointlessness of most cycle lanes in the first place). And even if they weren’t (allowed in the cycle lanes) motorcyclists could easily be put in a position whereby they need to take evasive action and hit one of these things. If I was a motorcyclist, damn right I’d be up in arms about them.
What an idiot idea. It’s as
What an idiot idea. It’s as if the potholes, poor/failed roadwork reinstatements, gravel, broken glass and parked vehicles in cycle lanes weren’t bad enough on their own.
I suspect they’d be even
I suspect they’d be even more wound up if proper, adequately large, separstors were used to keep motons out of the cycle lane.
oldstrath wrote:I suspect
I agree but this middle way nonsense helps no one. Someone is always going to be pissed off so just decide who that is going to be. This approach is just designed to piss everyone off. Cyclists get no protection. Bad motorists don’t get stopped and bikers can get offed pretty easily.
Oops I have just re-read the
Oops I have just re-read the quote, which seems to indicate that these are being installed along [b]mandatory[/b] cycle lanes.
Still a crap idea. Get rid and install a proper kerb.
And what is the effect of a
And what is the effect of a motorcycle hitting a kerb? Perhaps we should remove the kerb between road and pavement if motorcyclists have so much trouble staying in the correct lane.
wycombewheeler wrote:And what
I’d much prefer to scuff along a decent kerb than the armadillos i’ve seen in Bristol I think (not tried it) – get the impression it’s easier to get something hooked or knocked with them than a usually relatively smooth surface at a reasonably even height over small distances.
The feedback about this style of ‘light segregation’ has not be good from some cyclists groups and individuals – not sure why there’s so much vitriol about motorcyclists not being able to control themselves here when MAG mention some of the same faults.
If you can’t manage to keep
If you can’t manage to keep your motorbike within the available road space it’s time to sell the bloody thing – as with a bicycle, all the rubbish is in the road margins, and white lines -centre or bike lane -are best avoided, and especially in the wet ‘cos they’re slippery.
MAG in self-justification exercise perhaps..
Manchester council have just
Manchester council have just installed yet more of these idiotic things on a mandatory cycle lane on my route to work.
Reduces usable width of the lane and means you have to steer a course between them to exit lane to avoid obstructions (which is common as the local school kids use it as a footpath).
On the other hand, some other changes made now include a lane for drivers looking for a good time…. A kerb has been extended over some existing road markings so they now read HEAD ONLY
:))
Does anyone know if the lamp
Does anyone know if the lamp posts, rubbish bins, signs, telecom cabinets and trees which are routinely installed in bicycle lanes have been approved by the DfT?
Agree with them on this.
Agree with them on this. They’re potentially lethal to cyclists too – have a batch of them installed on Wilsmlow Road in Manchester (probably referred to above), and ye gods, they’re awful. Made a really bad road even worse. Not sure if designers are stupid or trying to get cyclists off the roads altogether.
which clearly indicates a
Hmm since when have cycle lanes in the UK been mandatory?
The Highway code rule 63 states…
As we all know most cycle lanes are purely to tick a green mandate box in a council agenda and serve feck all practical use, in most case they are pointless and dangerous.
john.berry wrote:
which
Mandatory cycle lane is the term for a cycle lane which it’s mandatory for motor vehicles to stay out of. They’re the ones with a solid white line. It’s a confusing term.
bdsl wrote:john.berry wrote:
One that confused me, to be honest. I ignore most of the “white paint of protection” on my route except the stretch across a junction of the M56 which is a solid line so I thought it was mandatory for cycles. Now the council have made it more lethal with armadillos, and I’ve learnt something new tonight, I shall be riding primary in lane one from now on.
john.berry wrote:
which
the term ‘mandatory cycle lane’ denotes a cycle lane which a car must not use, it is denoted by a solid white line between the cycle lane and the motor traffic, as opposed to an advisory cycle lane which cars may enter, denoted by a dashed line.
NOT cycles must not be anywhere other than the cycle lane.
“HEAD ONLY”
Simonsway,
“HEAD ONLY”
Simonsway, Wythenshawe, Manchester
(armadillos in cycle lane just beyond)
I am sure these are used in
I am sure these are used in Barcelona without issue. I also thought a much cheaper way to achieve more wideranging infrastructure changes. The current changes in London cost a fortune and the very cost impacts on how extensive the changes will be.
Bobinski, These are used in
Bobinski, These are used in Barcelona, but they do cause problems, even for cyclists as they can be quite hard to see at night.
I don’t agree these are safe. My friend witnessed someone on a scooter being killed instantly by colliding into one of these in Rotterdam. He died instantly when his head struck the floor.
I do agree however, as per above photos, that when combined with street furniture they become pretty safe and serve their purpose.
mrfree wrote:I don’t agree
Scooters in the Netherlands are often allowed in cycle lanes (dependant on size/power) and are not required to wear a motorcycle helmet, so while there are similarities there are also significant differences in use of these armadillos in the UK, especially those in question of this article.
Camden council have been
Camden council have been experimenting with armadillos in royal college street for some time and they are being phased out because they….don’t work.
No deterrent to motorists, a danger to cyclists and they are often torn off their mounts and lie in the road or cycle path. Truly the product of an idiot!
hampstead_bandit wrote:..
looks more like the product of some pretty large creature. solid black armadillos seem like an exceptionally bad idea.
I get that motorcyclists are
I get that motorcyclists are very vulnerable road users but don’t have much respect for them – the only motorcyclist that sticks to speed limits, particularly red circle speed limits, are the ones under L plate supervision with an instructor behind them.
I am regularly passed when on my road bike by bikers that come by me at 50mph + when in a 30mph zone, it’s like they’re exempt from speed limits when on 2 wheels.
200 kilos of bike will slice through a person at the stupidly high speeds they travel at on busy main roads.
If this bit of rubber will keep them further away from me and maybe slow them down a bit then I’m for it. If they work of course. If you are also a biker then nothing personal, just sayin’.
Critchio wrote:I get that
I understand they’re all bigots and prone to over generalising too.
fukawitribe wrote:Critchio
I understand they’re all bigots and prone to over generalising.— Critchio
Fixed it for you.
Those things look like a
Those things look like a slipping hazard to anything with two wheels – especially in the wet.
I’m with the motorcyclists on this – they look like infrastructure has been installed by people who don’t ride – either bikes or motorbikes and therefore don’t understand the hazard they could present
If any cyclist thinks these
If any cyclist thinks these are a good idea they are clearly very inexperienced. Cyclist or motorcyclist (I happen to be both) these present the most unbelievable hazard, especially in the wet.
I’m with the motorcyclists on
I’m with the motorcyclists on this one. They are also a danger to fast filtering cyclists who don’t know the road.
They aren’t a standard road feature, they are small enough to be obscured easily, they effectively are in the road, they might not be expected and could cause an accident.
They argument about motorcyclists avoiding them like they avoid the curb doesn’t hold up, you expect the curb to be there, you don’t expect dodgy funny little immovable lumps to be stuck on the road.
And they don’t protect cyclists from large vehicles.
And large vehicles will destroy them because they’re too small, I’ve seen far bigger rubber road humps that have been wrecked by traffic, these won’t last.
kie7077 wrote:I
They argument
no but I do expect motorised traffic not to enter the cycle lane, and the only way they could come into conflict with these is by crossing the line.
If we say oh well they may move into the cycle lane, then what’s the point?
@wycombewheeler
Those
@wycombewheeler
Those armadillos weren’t solid black to start out. See those indentations? That was reflective materials of some sort. Got ripped away by the first car/lorry that drove over it…
Useless things…
Seem bonkers to me, imagine
Seem bonkers to me, imagine riding a stretch of those in the rain with traffic all around.
Why not reduce the speed limits, enforce them, prosecute then punish offenders?
No need for road junk of any sort.
Whilst agreeing that these
Whilst agreeing that these separators are currently useless in the UK, due to generally poor driving standards, the damaged examples shown above are due to drivers inability to miss hitting inanimate objects outside their lane, MAGs response seems to be due to the fact that they might hit the “orca’s” whilst undertaking in traffic. Simple answer to this is don’t undertake, it’s illegal.
Gus T wrote:Whilst agreeing
You were doing so well. I was nodding in agreement. But your last sentence is complete cobblers!
No it isn’t, it is an offence
No it isn’t, it is an offence under the Road Traffic Act for motorised vehicles to undertake each other, motorcycles can filter between lanes or on the outside of standing traffic but can not undertake ie use a cycle lane to pass standing traffic. Still having held a motorcycle license for nigh on 30 years what would I know.
What’s with the term
What’s with the term ‘Mandatory cycle lane’? That gives completely the wrong impression. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory.
Highway code rule 63:
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
Highway Code rule 140:
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8
segregated cycle lane, and
segregated cycle lane, and where not to park!
more armadillos, now bolstered with paint line and additional street furniture
Do these armadillos cost
Do these armadillos cost money?
Are they durable?
Do they actually protect cyclists from cars?
Basically councils don’t have a lot of money, do why the f*** do they keep on wasting it!
Is it so hard to come up with a workable solution rather than just pissing money up the wall???
mrmo wrote:Do these
Yes
No
No
That’s what councils do.
It would appear so.
All quite sad really.
As far as I can see, the
As far as I can see, the orcas/armadillos will only present a problem when the motorcyclist tries to enter the cycles-only lane.
According to the newspaper item, there are two whole lanes for motorised traffic as well as the segregated section for bicycles. That should be more than ample for law-abiding motorcyclists and drivers (and as a former biker, I know that Critchio’s comment about most bikers’ inability to stick to speed limits is not unfair).
If using that route I would be more concerned that the orcas were not sufficient deterrent to drivers and motorcyclists entering the cycles-only lane; as we have seen, the orcas (and big plant boxes) are soon damaged by careless drivers.
Motorcycles should stay in
Motorcycles should stay in the centre of the lane, and not be in the cycle lane like they have been taught during their training.
I think curb would be better – it gives better protection and it’s very visible due to its continuity.
As much as I can see the
As much as I can see the problems with these half-arsed attempts to segregate cyclists from motorised traffic, I struggle to sympathise with the cycle-lane-riding motorcyclists, who, round where I live, treat the A-roads more like a race track than a public highway with 50mph limits.
We wouldn’t put up with it from boy racers, so why should be put up with it from bikers?
I can understand the “useless
I can understand the “useless halfway house” comments but I can see the appeal of armadillos – in theory they really should keep cars out the cycle lane whilst allowing permeability for cyclists and preventing a drainage problem.
I think the problem comes from visibility and forgivingness. They are forgiving to cars because they have to be as a result of their poor visibility. Bolt-down kerbs with those yellow signs with a blue circle and arrow down and right like they use for any other potentially damaging obstruction would be much better and would avoid the drainage problem. As would a nicely aggressive rumble strip continuous white line. The edge of the motorised road really has to look like the edge of the motorised road or the cars will end up in with the bikes. Clearly the roads design isn’t well refined
These products seem to have
These products seem to have been designed and implemented by car drivers who do not understand the safety needs of cyclists or motorcyclists. I agree that they are potentially lethal to both cyclists and motorcyclists and should be removed.
Why not just used the old
Why not just used the old tried and tested method of camera-enforcement?
Put cameras above the cycles lanes, if motorised vehicles encroach- fine them £60 per offence.
It would stop it happening and make a few quid for the councils.
Or am I missing something?
Yes. under UK law you can’t
Yes. under UK law you can’t enforce cycle lanes with cameras. Only the police can, and they refuse to. If parking restrictions are in place in the cycle lane then the local council or highway authority can issue parking fines, but they can’t enforce against moving traffic offences.
The fact that these can be
The fact that these can be driven over renders them useless. Wherever they are trialled they quicker get destroyed by the first lorry or bus drives over them.
Segregated cycle lanes need to physically separated (by a proper kerb or grass verge) so that cars and lorries can’t drive into them!
I was going to write a nice
I was going to write a nice detailed response as i ride the road in question daily, but reading many of the responses so far its the usual ill-informed bigoted posters. So instead ill say this…
‘Speeding motorcyclists’ if this was your comment f-off back to the Sun or Daily-mail website you came from. Idiots.
Armadillos provide separation while allowing cyclists to manoeuvre in or out of the lane as they wish, say to overtake or move into right lane at the next junction (as i do daily). This is better for more users than a lane completely separated, that does not allow flexibility of use.
They pose a risk to motorcyclists where a law abiding rider may be forced to swerve by a poorly executed overtake or other incident, hitting one may launch them into the air.
Visibility? See the big white line in the opening picture, well the armadillos (also in picture) are on that. The white line is preceded by tall orange bollards, the white line is straight.
Personally the armadillos are a good part of the facilitates installed in this location, the bus stop chicanes and quality or roundabout crossings are more debatable.
Ive not seen one car hit or cross into the cycle lane, or park over it where these armadillos are installed. They are square edged to traffic like a curb would be.
STATO wrote:
They pose a risk
Ha ha ha ha. Brilliant. Well done.
They just seem like a terrible hazard to the very people they are supposed to be protecting.
Oh no STATO, you’ve just
Oh no STATO, you’ve just spoilt their fun 😉
Seriously, thanks for some factual info. Not enough of it around these days.
Haven’t we seen those
Haven’t we seen those armadillos held up as great cycle lane planning and protection on some bike paths abroad just recently ?
No experience myself – but I’d ask the cities concerned who already have them if they’ve had any problems ?
fenix wrote:Haven’t we seen
I think mrfree answered your question.
fenix wrote:Haven’t we seen
Seville installed concrete ones & created 80km of protected cycle path in 3 years & cycling went from 0.5% modal share up to 6%.
I’m a fan of armadillos as a cheap way (no need to alter drainage) to trial segregation but it shouldn’t be seen as a permanent solution. If the trial is successful, spend money on proper kerbed segregation & appropriate drainage as the permanent solution.
tarquin_foxglove wrote:fenix
That is more or less what i was trying to say earlier:)
I think Stato made the
I think Stato made the obvious point – you are nto supposed to be anywhere near these as a motor user. Just like any other kerb. Possibly they should be a lot more visible.
I’d rather see them have the tyre shredding capability added to them as you see in some car parks (hire car places mostly) to encourage drivers to not cross into areas they are not allowed into.
Looks like it needs developing – rather like the flower tubs as a solution as long as the outside edge really will damage any motor vehicle to discourage the pesky lorry drivers who love to hit street furniture – self policing solutions do seem to work best
Driving (or riding a motor
Driving (or riding a motor cycle) in a mandatory cycle lane is a moving traffic offense under the 2006 Road Traffic Act. motorcyclists should never be in a mandatory lane, and these armadillo things just physically enforce that which is why MAG hate them. Cycle lanes cannot be enforced by cameras under current UK law, and it is the responsibility of police to enforce them (but they flatly refuse to).
Therefore an affordable measure is needed to protect cycle lanes from general traffic. Armadillos, or orcas, are cheap to install because the drainage on the carriageway does not need to be altered which is very expensive and which you would have to with other types of physical segregation.
I don’t buy the argument that they are hazardous: splitter islands with bollards are installed at the beginning and end of the runs, and the armadillo are retro-reflective and only used under streetlighting. Kerbs don’t have retro-reflective glass beads stuck all over them, and I don’t hear motorcyclists, pedestrians etc saying that they are dangerous. You have to drive according to the conditions presented too you.
Plus it’s nonsense and very
Plus it’s nonsense and very bad journalism to say that Newcastle Council “admitted” that they don’t have DfT approval. Read the quote!: “these orcas do not require DfT approval” – there’s no admitting anything there! There is no need for orcas to have DfT approval as they are classified as street furniture, the same way that litter bins and bus shelters are.
My big concern is that when
My big concern is that when leaving the bike lane (e.g. to get around the inevitable parked car, or take a safe line through a junction) you need to look over your shoulder while hoping you don’t hit an orca.
I don’t understand how
I don’t understand how motorcyclists are coming into contact with these? Are the motorbikes trying to use the cycle lane or is just when they are attempting to undertake stationary traffic?
I thought that motorbikes should generally be ridden in the middle of a traffic lane or in the case of stationary/slow traffic they’d be splitting lanes to go between lines of cars (or on the outside).
Apart from the fragility of these armadillos, I don’t have a big problem with them as it looks easy enough to avoid hitting them on your bike.
Personally I think that all
Personally I think that all cycle lanes should be abolished. On my commute around the north side of Bristol I always feel less safe on the road where there are cycle lane markings as other road users seem to assume that they can pass as close as they like up to and including the white line regardless of where in the cycle lane I’m riding. Where there is no cycle lane most road users seem to give me a much wider berth. Even pulling completely onto the opposite carriage way to pass. And often waiting to pass rather than squeezing through as they would have if I were in a designated cycle lane!
Anyone else with similar experience?
spitty6 wrote:Personally I
No, they shouldn’t be abolished, they should be made better and more numerous.
I drove past a stretch of the armadillos in question recently, apart from the general useless nature of them, all the usual half arsed design has been applied : lanes just vanish as soon as something like a junction needs to be thought about. It’s meant to be a strategic route but it’s still barely suitable for experienced riders IMHO.
joemmo wrote:
I drove past a
I would disagree. The lane still remains as a white lined lane at junctions, and as it is on the road you retain priority over junctions. And flexibility to use the main traffic lane to turn right when required.
If they had built it as a separated path it you lose the flexibility of use (I use it daily and see riders joining/leaving as required through the humps). Segregated paths often lose priority at junctions (as we all know), to allow a cycle lane to retain priority there needs to be space for cars turning off the main lane to stop and wait for a gap in the cyclists, this requires a lot of space which is very rarely available.
As a final point, its hardly being used any more than the plain 2 lane road it was before, and not because the armadillos are dangerous, but because despite 200m of safety there is no protection in any of the roads leading to this section.
Ive said it before, you can spend all you money trying to make one location ‘safe’ but its pretty pointless if the people you want using it cant get there. I have no problem personally with (correct width, not blocked by parked car) white line cycle lanes, you could put these on every road in a city for the cost of a short section of segregated path, and i believe it would entice a lot more people onto a bike. Yes they would not be ‘protected’ physically but we keep being told cycling is safe, and as we know from other cities, more cyclists means drivers get used to us and roads get safer.
Armadillos recently installed
Armadillos recently installed on my commute just to the North of the Velodrome as I enter the Olympic Park.
Sort of see the thinking as there is a bus depot there, although generally it’s a really quiet road. Suspect there was some money left over from the bigger cycle lane scheme on the main road which these lead off from.
But, the things are installed much closer together than in the picture above so weaving in and out not such a good idea, which I wanted to do because they are interrupted by a bus stop – I wanted to get out to the road to go past a bus, and clipped one with my rear. And now I just stay in the road!
Guess there are no standards for how they should be paced.
As someone else has mentioned, wouldn’t want to meet them in the dark if I didn’t know they were there.
BTW, here’s how it’s done in
BTW, here’s how it’s done in San Francisco:
The white things are made of light plastic and fold easily. Probably still dangerous when ran over on two wheels, but at least they’re clearly visible.
Quote:BTW, here’s how it’s
Thanks for the photo, looks great.
If they are being trialled,
If they are being trialled, shouldn’t they be called guinea pigs as opposed to armadillos?
Anyway as soon as some one is seriously injured or killed because of one of these lumps in the road and that local authority is sued by the injured/dead party then they will all hastily be removed.
Sorry, my post of 19:04 was a
Sorry, my post of 19:04 was a reply to Al_S
I’d rather see wands than
I’d rather see wands than armadillos but some people think they’re ugly. I think they make all the difference.
Boydy101 wrote:I’d rather see
..rather like the look of them as well. Quite neat. Thanks for the photo kibber.
I’d like to see proper
I’d like to see proper physical segregation, but understand its 10 times more expensive than using armadillos, paint and planters
unfortunately the armadillos and planters in Royal College Street London NW1 were repeatedly trashed by motor vehicles, especially HGV around the Parcelforce depot. These items then became a hazard to cyclists using the cycle lane.
It became expensive for these to be constantly replaced so there were long periods with the cycle lane having no markings or “protection”, hence the brilliant idea (!) to paint a thick white line along the edge.