Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Police officer: cycle path too risky to use with family

Ch Insp Mark Evans says a cycle path along the A38 near Bristol, which crosses a motorway slip road, has been built without thought to safety

A senior police officer has said he wouldn’t put his family at risk by using a cycle track, which crosses a motorway slip road, with them.

Ch Insp Mark Evans was invited by cycle campaigner, Richard Burton, to cycle on a shared path alongside the A38 from Almondsbury to Aztec West near Bristol.

However the route crosses a roundabout at the entrance to an M5 slip road with no traffic lights for pedestrians and Ch Insp Evans says deciding when to cross requires “an educated guess” to avoid traffic entering the motorway.

Councils will be "scrabbling for scraps" on cycle funding

He said the cycle provision has been put in on this route without enough thought of safety.

“The actual cycle track is too narrow for traffic to come both ways, it’s only suitable for bikes, not for bikes and pedestrians. It forces bikes out onto the road. If I was with a family would I use it? No I wouldn’t put my family at risk using those cycle paths,” he said in an interview with the BBC.

“I’m an experienced cyclist and personally I’d use the road, it seems safer for me to use the road than it does to use the cycle routes designed for cycles.”

He said at the point allocated for crossing it’s not possible to see the traffic lights on the roundabout, so cyclists and pedestrians have to make an “educated guess” about when to cross the motorway junction.

Highways England, the new government-owned company responsible for Britain’s main roads, has been given £100m to “cycle proof” the core road network, so that those on bikes can more easily use main roads without mixing with traffic. This work, announced earlier this year includes cycle lanes and crossings created and improved at nine motorway junctions.

It appears the shared route along the A road has been resurfaced as part of Highways England's work on Junction 16, but nothing has been done to improve the painted crossing at the motorway slip road, which is faded. 

Sean Walsh, south west cycling champion for Highways England, said: “Safety is the top priority for Highways England and we work closely with vulnerable road user groups, including cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists, to ensure that we accommodate their needs.

“We encourage sustainable modes of transport and the valuable role they can play in reducing congestion and ultimately pressure on the strategic road network.

“On that basis we are looking to remove any barriers posed to cyclists by our road network.

“We are currently looking at undertaking work at the roundabout under junction 16, and we have been working with local partners in South Gloucestershire and the South Gloucestershire Cycle Forum.

“Progress is being made and we will be able to provide further information in the very near future."

Sam Jones, from Cycling UK, told road.cc: “I think we would agree with the Inspector Mark Evans, that this doesn’t look like a particularly well thought-out or safe cycling infrastructure as it abandons the cyclist at the point where they need most help – at a junction.”

According to the BBC a Gloucestershire Council spokesperson said the crossing “met national guidance”, but conceded it is “not designed for family cycling” and the recommended route for “less confident cyclists” is a different shared use path off the carriageway.

Add new comment

32 comments

Avatar
PaulBox | 7 years ago
2 likes

It's laughable that these pricks are actually paid to come up with these "solutions".

My commute is c. 1h 10m each way. If I used the cycling infrastructure that is available to me I think it would easily take me 2h and therefore absolutely impractical. And that doesn't take in to account the fact that the surfaces are so knackered/filthy etc. I would undoubtadly get more punctures and damage to my bike. Some of them would be uncomfortable to ride on a hardtail mountain bike...

Why aren't these very basic things taken in to account when designing this stuff?

Why aren't road sweeping requirements a consideration? I rode along a cyclepath Northbound on The Parkway (A312 I think), just NE of Heathrow last week. It was covered in so much crap that it was actually dangerous to ride with slick road tyres. And that's not too mention the glass etc. covering some of the underpasses that followed between there and the Hillingdon Cycle Circuit.

Avatar
rjfrussell | 7 years ago
2 likes

I have recently cycled twice from central London to Tunbridge Wells, taking slightly different routes each time.

With some limited exceptions, the cycling infrastructure is just a dangerous shambles.

The worst, yet most common, solution is the strip-of-green-paint cycle lane at the edge of existing roads.

In my view this is nearly always more dangerous than not having the cycle lane there at all for 3 main reasons:

-  it is in the gutter, so if you cycle in the lane you are necessarily cycling over gratings, manhole covers etc

- motorists assume that because there is a separate lane it is save to overtake without pulling out at all

- if you do try to cycle in a sensible location on the road-  usually just outside the cycle lane- you get increased aggression from motorists because you are not using the lane than you would if it was not there at all.

In a couple of places where there are wide pavements the cycle lane is on the pavement.  But of course, you then have to give way at every single sidestreet, and are at risk of people pulling out of the drives.  And, the lane is regularly impeded by street signs etc, including at one point a bus shelter which covers the entire lane.

There are a number of stretches where signed routes follow quite imaginative quiet back streets-  but many of them have large speed bumps.  And frequently, you have to go up or down kerbs.

It is pretty dispiriting that so much time and money has been spent on measures that, frankly, make things worse.  Surely it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the authorities to include people who will acutally be using the infrastructure in the planning stages?

Avatar
burtthebike | 7 years ago
2 likes

Sean Walsh, south west cycling champion for Highways England, said: “We are currently looking at undertaking work at the roundabout under junction 16, and we have been working with local partners in South Gloucestershire and the South Gloucestershire Cycle Forum."

Double bolox.

They have never been to the SGlos cycle forum, have never consulted with them or even bothered to inform them of what they plan to do.

Avatar
burtthebike | 7 years ago
2 likes

"Sean Walsh, south west cycling champion for Highways England, said: “Safety is the top priority for Highways England and we work closely with vulnerable road user groups, including cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists, to ensure that we accommodate their needs."

Bolox. 

What he should have said, being accurate, would be "Driver safety is the top priority for Highways England and we work closely with drivers' groups, whilst completely ignoring vulnerable road user groups, totally excluding pedestrians and cyclists, to ensure that we don't accommodate their needs."

Tell you what Sean, get in touch and come for a ride with me around this roundabout, like the Chief Inspector did, then issue a press release admitting that you've made it more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

Avatar
Ramz | 7 years ago
2 likes

We have a similar situation in my town: a few years ago a child was driven off a narrow road by a lorry. This road is extensively used by cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians and lacks a pavement. When the parents reported the incident to the local police, they were advised by the police not to let their child ride on the streets.  In theory the police should be reporting problems with poor/missing infrastructure or incorrect speed limits, or need for traffic calming, etc. to the Council and getting this addressed. However they seem to advise cyclists to avoid using the roads. Something wrong here?

Avatar
severs1966 replied to Ramz | 7 years ago
2 likes

Ramz wrote:

[...] In theory the police should [...] However they seem to advise cyclists to avoid using the roads. Something wrong here?

What is wrong here is that most cops in most police forces hate bike riders. Why? Because they are all drivers too, and have joined in the national mood of hostility from drivers to anyone on a bike.

This is also the reason why they try very hard to do nothing at all when bike riders are run nearly, but not actually, to death; and do the minimum possible when bike riders actually are killed.

Avatar
Paul_C | 7 years ago
2 likes

as usual, the cycle 'lane' is fine except when it encounters any form of junction, then it is crap...

also, it is on the wrong side of the road for most of the properties along that road... great for bypassing the junction, but nothing proposed to get across the road safely for access to/egress from any property...

Avatar
Standby Gladiator | 7 years ago
0 likes

I use that path quite regularly going northbound as the Aztec West roundabout just south of that is not good in a car, let alone on a bike. Southbound I always use the road and would love to see what the Ch Inspector would say about the countless times I have been squirted and had abuse shouted at me because I'm not using the cyclepath. I'm pretty sure I know what response I would get if I reported each case to the police. 

Avatar
JonSP | 7 years ago
2 likes

It's certainly not the only cycle path that crosses a motorway slip road – e.g. M6 J29, where the A6 crosses. I gave it a try recently but agree with the comments above that it's safer to use the road.
And this is one of the big worries about the growth in cycling infrastructure – all too often it's poorly planned and all to often it's piecemeal. I can't tell you offhand how many places there are on the A6 north of Preston where the bike lane just disappears at a pinch point – exactly where you actually might benefit from having one. Must be at least a dozen. And then the ignorant minority of motorists moan when you don't use substandard bike lanes.

Avatar
Bmblbzzz | 7 years ago
1 like

I ride up there fairly frequently. I have used that path, both coming from Aztec West heading towards Almondsbury and coming from further down the A38. As a path, it's ok. It probably is wide enough for the use it gets, ie very little (mind you, I've not used it at rush hour). Crossing the first (entry) slip road is dodgy for the reasons stated. The exit slip has lights.  But before that there is badly designed access to the path. After the roundabout (ie north of it, in Almondsbury) I'm not really sure what happens to the path – I guess it continues on the pavement. Heading south, into Bristol, I've never used it because, well, it's on the wrong side of the road, there's no way of getting to it. 

 

All in all, if you're not already a confident cyclist on busy roads, you've no way of getting over that junction other than making a dash and hoping. Which is okay, because no one uses it. Now why is that? 

Avatar
Goldfever4 | 7 years ago
3 likes

I work near here. I've got to be honest and say as a cyclist I never knew the cycle lane was there because I've always just taken the lane on the roundabout. And I certainly don't plan on changing, the road is fine here as long as the cyclist is in a primary position.

 

More worryingly, I've never realised the cycle lane was there as a motorist, and I've used the junction dozens of times. Being honest there have been occasions where 've probably been going too quickly to be able to stop if there was someone crossing the slip road there.

Avatar
Jacobi | 7 years ago
5 likes

It should be a prerequisite that any wannabe councillor should have to cycle for six months on every cycle lane/road in the constituency they intend to stand for. Maybe then cyclists would be shown a bit more consideration.

Avatar
the_mikey | 7 years ago
1 like

I ride that route occasionally and never use the cyclepath,  it's much safer to use the road, wait and the lights and go when they turn green,  rather than play chicken with the traffic joining the motorway.   

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 7 years ago
0 likes

I saw this on Twitter earlier and yep, it looks awful.

Avatar
Dnnnnnn | 7 years ago
11 likes

I think the problem is neatly summed up at:

“met national guidance” followed by  “not designed for family cycling”

 

 

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Dnnnnnn | 7 years ago
3 likes
Duncann wrote:

I think the problem is neatly summed up at:

“met national guidance” followed by  “not designed for family cycling”

 

 

The trouble is, it's too scary for family cycling. But confident experienced cyclists would know it is better to take the lane at the roundabout than to be a surprise on the slip road just as cars are accelerating to 70mph.

So who is it for?

Avatar
Jitensha Oni replied to wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
1 like

wycombewheeler][quote=Duncann wrote:

So who is it for?

Exactly. Looking at StreetView ,there is an entrance to the path off the carriageway a few tens of metres before the slip road, but as far as I can tell (as a non-local) the footway leading up to that  is shared use, and the cycle exit from the carriageway joins onto that. As you point out, hardly anyone who is "confident enough" to cycle on the carriageway up to that point is going to leave the carriageway. But, even confident cyclists who take the path route are going to be put in a much more dangerous position than staying on the carriageway, yet that seems to be what the council are claiming is who the path is for.

Maybe the council imagines it's for "medium confident" cyclists. So, Gloucestershire Council - #FAIL - get someone in your Highway Department who understands cycling.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Dnnnnnn | 7 years ago
1 like

Duncann wrote:

I think the problem is neatly summed up at:

“met national guidance” followed by  “not designed for family cycling”

 

 

Actually, it doesn't meet any national guidance for pedestrians or cyclists, just drivers.

Avatar
ribena | 7 years ago
1 like

Highways England again... They seem completely hopeless at cycling.

Their "cycle strategy" document is all of 4 pages long and mostly useless

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycling-strategy

Contrast with the Dft document, at 48 pages long, which is actually quite good.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-cycling-and-walking-in...

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
22 likes

“I’m an experienced cyclist and personally I’d use the road, it seems safer for me to use the road than it does to use the cycle routes designed for cycles.”

That's my exact view on a lot of cycle paths that I've seen. Motorists get all upset if they see you not using the cycle infrastructure but they fail to see how it's not fit for purpose.

Avatar
bigshape replied to hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
3 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's my exact view on a lot of cycle paths that I've seen. Motorists get all upset if they see you not using the cycle infrastructure but they fail to see how it's not fit for purpose.

 

couldn't agreee more.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
5 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

“I’m an experienced cyclist and personally I’d use the road, it seems safer for me to use the road than it does to use the cycle routes designed for cycles.”

That's my exact view on a lot of cycle paths that I've seen. Motorists get all upset if they see you not using the cycle infrastructure but they fail to see how it's not fit for purpose.

What the article doesn't say is that this junction was re-engineered by the council and the Highways Agency to increase capacity for motor vehicles, including more approach and circulating lanes, making the road more dangerous for cyclists.

What they expect cyclists and pedestrians to do is to use the paths under the motorway, by crossing the slip roads, in itself hazardous, and the local bike club use this junction to show novice leaders when it is safer to ignore cycle "provision".  The paths under the motorway are narrow, two-way shared ped/cyclist and there is no railing to prevent falling into the path of circulating traffic.  A girl was killed last year in Weston in identical circumstances.

As part of the re-engineering, HA put in a light controlled crossing on the arm of the roundabout where it was already safest to cross, ignoring the other three.

The bridge supports prohibit widening the shared use paths.  Despite many anti consultation responses, and criticism from the local business forum, and completely contrary to all their own policies (transport, environment, sustainability, health and ironically congestion) the council went ahead.  The HA didn't bother to consult.

No Non-Motorised User review was done, despite the NMU context report acknowledging that there is no alternative for cyclists and pedestrians.  There were no less than six Road Safety Audits, none of which found the problems that were intantly apparent to the Chief Inspector, who is a cyclist.

I'll be asking for an investigation into the re-engineering of this junction.

Avatar
the little onion | 7 years ago
13 likes

The best bit is from the linked BBC article, where the council spokesperson says ""Our records show that there isn't a problem with accidents involving cyclists at this location,"

 

Oh well, no one has been killed yet. Must be ok.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to the little onion | 7 years ago
5 likes
the little onion wrote:

The best bit is from the linked BBC article, where the council spokesperson says ""Our records show that there isn't a problem with accidents involving cyclists at this location,"

 

Oh well, no one has been killed yet. Must be ok.

Since there haven't been any accidents involving cyclists using the motorway, it must e safe. So can thd police stop picking cyclists up for doing this?

Avatar
Bikebikebike replied to wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
2 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:
the little onion wrote:

The best bit is from the linked BBC article, where the council spokesperson says ""Our records show that there isn't a problem with accidents involving cyclists at this location,"

 

Oh well, no one has been killed yet. Must be ok.

Since there haven't been any accidents involving cyclists using the motorway, it must e safe. So can thd police stop picking cyclists up for doing this?

 

I bet no-one has been killed snowboarding there, either.  Doesn't make it suitably designed for that activity, either.

Avatar
ron611087 replied to the little onion | 7 years ago
1 like

the little onion wrote:

The best bit is from the linked BBC article, where the council spokesperson says ""Our records show that there isn't a problem with accidents involving cyclists at this location,"

 

Oh well, no one has been killed yet. Must be ok.

That's the problem about cycling infastructure here, it's built (or rather painted) and then abandoned. Box ticked, job done.  I'll put money on the fact that the council has never revisited the infra in this example to see if it's being used, or if it's safe.

In places that take cycling seriously the infra evolves. It's built and then monitored. What works is kept, what doesn't is dumped.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to ron611087 | 7 years ago
1 like

ron611087 wrote:

the little onion wrote:

The best bit is from the linked BBC article, where the council spokesperson says ""Our records show that there isn't a problem with accidents involving cyclists at this location,"

 

Oh well, no one has been killed yet. Must be ok.

That's the problem about cycling infastructure here, it's built (or rather painted) and then abandoned. Box ticked, job done.  I'll put money on the fact that the council has never revisited the infra in this example to see if it's being used, or if it's safe.

In places that take cycling seriously the infra evolves. It's built and then monitored. What works is kept, what doesn't is dumped.

 

As part of our objection to this scheme, we monitored cycle use at the roundabout, and well over 90% of cyclists used the road in preference to the diabolical shared use paths, so they made the road more dangerous.

 

Avatar
ron611087 replied to burtthebike | 7 years ago
3 likes

burtthebike wrote:

As part of our objection to this scheme, we monitored cycle use at the roundabout, and well over 90% of cyclists used the road in preference to the diabolical shared use paths, so they made the road more dangerous.

You're doing the job that Highways England should be doing. You deserve a medal. 

What's astonishing is that Highways England presumably consider this part of their cycle proofing of the core network.

The statement by Gloucestershire Council spokesperson said the crossing “met national guidance”, but conceded it is “not designed for family cycling” and the recommended route for “less confident cyclists” is infuriating.

Ch Insp Mark Evans judges it dangerous and states that as an experienced cyclists he would use the road instead. So it's not for less confident cyclists, and it's not for experienced cyclists, which leaves erm... a facility designed for no-one.

We get precious little of the road budget, and then it gets wasted by fools who don't give a toss.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to ron611087 | 7 years ago
3 likes
ron611087 wrote:

What's astonishing is that Highways England presumably consider this part of their cycle proofing of the core network.

>

Water-proof: designed to prevent water from entering or passing through

Cycle-proof: designed to prevent cyclists from entering or passing through

Seems like this meets the definition to me!

Avatar
brooksby replied to the little onion | 7 years ago
8 likes

the little onion wrote:

The best bit is from the linked BBC article, where the council spokesperson says ""Our records show that there isn't a problem with accidents involving cyclists at this location,"

 

Oh well, no one has been killed yet. Must be ok.

Apparently the middle of the Atlantic Ocean is safe for cycling because, y'know, no cyclists have been killed there...

Pages

Latest Comments