Home
Council says there is signage “which is available for everyone using the area to see”

Leeds City Council has come in for criticism after constructing a bus shelter across a cycleway on one of the city’s busiest commuter roads.

In November, the council said that segregated cycle lanes and Copenhagen style junctions were planned for the A65 Kirkstall Road between Woodside View and Weaver Street. The 850m stretch of road saw 59 people injured in reported collisions between January 2011 and January 2016 with 32 of those incidents involving cyclists.

The BBC now reports that part of the new cycle lane has been interrupted by a bus stop with cyclists having to either ride behind it or bump down the kerb into the road.

Craig Bilclough, who works in Woodrup Cycles opposite, said the arrangement was “a joke” and that it was putting both cyclists and pedestrians in danger.

"It just popped up over the weekend and now cyclists are having to negotiate it and they can't do it in an easy manner. It's dangerous to pedestrians as well who are stood waiting for a bus. I just don't think it's been thought about properly."

In a statement, the council said: “We needed to meet the needs of bus users, pedestrians and cyclists, so we made this into a shared space. There is signage indicating that this is the case which is available for everyone using the area to see.”

Local cyclist Anthony Woodrup said: “I can see the point why the council put this in. However, no-one seems to know where the right of way is now.”

Martin Stanley, from Leeds Cycling Campaign, said: "I think there's opportunity to take some carriage space away and move the bus stop further on to the road so the pathway could have continued in a straight line."

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.

28 comments

Avatar
alansmurphy [746 posts] 1 week ago
12 likes

Shared space is fine, I assume the bus stop is able to move around other objects in the shared space?

Avatar
Ramuz [300 posts] 1 week ago
9 likes

Rotate 180° and move 1.5m to the left. Layout implemented in Oxford.

Avatar
wellsprop [317 posts] 1 week ago
6 likes

ffs.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX [496 posts] 1 week ago
1 like
Ramuz wrote:

Rotate 180° and move 1.5m to the left. Layout implemented in Oxford.

But you'd still have people queueing for a bus in the "cycle lane"/shared use path... this becomes worse when the are embarking/disembarking and it looks like they have to navigate around wheelie bins in it too!
Clearly not a segregated cycle lane.

Avatar
MarkiMark [49 posts] 1 week ago
2 likes

If it's a shared cycle/pedestrian space then I see little problem, other than the practical use of a small space.

The sinister undercurrent is the cynical stealth based approach to simply getting bikes of the road and squeezing them out completely by making it practically impossible for anyone to ride a bike.

As the great Grant Lee Phillips once sang:

They talk about building morale and hope
They're just building bigotry, a better rope
One that won't break, one you can't even see
One made of paper and policies

(listen, it's brill)

 

Avatar
rdmp2 [14 posts] 1 week ago
6 likes

This recently popped up in shared use cycle path near Oxford

Avatar
Oranj [34 posts] 1 week ago
2 likes

This is news?

There are loads of examples of this in Oxford, of which rdmp2's photo shows just one.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet [1344 posts] 1 week ago
8 likes

Screw it, just ride on road.

Avatar
DaveE128 [904 posts] 1 week ago
4 likes

The dutch must surely be laughing at us... 

Avatar
japes [81 posts] 1 week ago
11 likes

"we put up a sign, what more do you want?"

Avatar
hennie [17 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes
MarkiMark wrote:

If it's a shared cycle/pedestrian space then I see little problem, other than the practical use of a small space.

The sinister undercurrent is the cynical stealth based approach to simply getting bikes of the road and squeezing them out completely by making it practically impossible for anyone to ride a bike.

As the great Grant Lee Phillips once sang:

They talk about building morale and hope
They're just building bigotry, a better rope
One that won't break, one you can't even see
One made of paper and policies

(listen, it's brill)

 

I listened and it was brill. Cheers MarkiMark!

Avatar
kitsunegari [262 posts] 1 week ago
6 likes

Riding in primary position on the road is the obvious - and only - safe course of action.

Avatar
bearric [1 post] 1 week ago
3 likes
kitsunegari wrote:

Riding in primary position on the road is the obvious - and only - safe course of action.

 

The big issue is that Kirkstall Road is a complete stand still for traffic and prior to this bus stop (and directly after it) there is a long cycle path. The real kicker is that this bus stop is meters from where a cyclist was killed only last year.

Avatar
SculturaD [4 posts] 1 week ago
2 likes

You can't allow for any form of common sense when it comes the council's in the UK. Thick as two short planks!

Avatar
Grahamd [597 posts] 1 week ago
1 like

My first thought was that this seemed like a Monty Python scetch. The planners must be a bunch of numpties.

Avatar
burtthebike [1037 posts] 1 week ago
2 likes
rdmp2 wrote:

This recently popped up in shared use cycle path near Oxford

Criminal.

I take it the local cyclists have mentioned this to their councillors?  And pointed out that it is dangerous, that a safety audit would show that it is dangerous and the council could be sued by anyone injured as a result?

And done a press release for the media?

Seriously, it is time that such appalling "provision" is exposed for the complete incompetence it is and councils held to account.

Avatar
burtthebike [1037 posts] 1 week ago
7 likes

Unfortunately, this is absolutely typical of local authorities, my own, SGlos, included.

About a month ago, the leader of the council, Matthew Riddle, appeared on our local radio station, and after some rather robust debate, he agreed to ride with me on a short trip to look at some of the areas where his council had made things worse for cyclists, against all their own policies.

Yesterday, the radio presenter, the leader and myself rode about three miles and I showed them eight separate places where they had made cycling more difficult, dangerous and less attractive, and to be fair Matthew listened politely and made all the right noises and has said he will go back to the officers and find out what is going on.  I've heard this before from various councillors and officials so I'm not holding my breath, but I live in hope.

Interview and phone in here, starts at 0:06:00 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05dm043#play

Avatar
Zjtm231 [67 posts] 1 week ago
3 likes

possibly both the worst and most dangerous single bit of cycling infrastructure I have ever seen

Avatar
LastBoyScout [265 posts] 1 week ago
3 likes

Plenty of examples around where I live where some eejit has decided to put some sort of post, either for street lamps, signage or telegraph poles (many of them unlit), in the middle of the shared-use path. All painted grey, of course. The tiny little bit of white paint on the path around the bottom of them isn't fooling anyone!

Why they couldn't put them a couple of feet back and sited them in the grass verges is anyone's guess.

Avatar
SteppenHerring [342 posts] 1 week ago
5 likes

I often wonder: who designs cycle lanes and what is wrong with them? 

 

Around my was we have some lovely ones - like a bidirectional cycle lane on a shared path that goes for about 500m then throws riders out into traffic. On the wrong side of the road. Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

Avatar
ktache [609 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes
LastBoyScout wrote:

Plenty of examples around where I live where some eejit has decided to put some sort of post, either for street lamps, signage or telegraph poles (many of them unlit), in the middle of the shared-use path. All painted grey, of course. The tiny little bit of white paint on the path around the bottom of them isn't fooling anyone!

Why they couldn't put them a couple of feet back and sited them in the grass verges is anyone's guess.

Often signs that have no relevance to the cyclist, such as the speed limit (as we know generally ignored.

Imagine how long the grey posts would last in the middle of the road?  That little bit of white paint on the tarmac is an insult.  Put some on the post.

Avatar
WillRod [226 posts] 1 week ago
1 like

And people wonder why cyclists avoid cycle paths.

 

Shared use paths can be nightmares, and that's just navigating pedestrians and junctions with side-roads. Poorly placed clutter just makes it worse.

Avatar
jasecd [471 posts] 1 week ago
3 likes
burtthebike wrote:

Interview and phone in here, starts at 0:06:00 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05dm043#play

 

Well done Richard - I thought that you were very reasonable in your dealings with the councillor. If I'm honest I probably would have been more forthright - maybe you were but it wasn't broadcast. 

For me the councillor embodied everything that we're dealing with when trying to argue for proper infrastructure and protections on the road - the attitude that cycling is something unusual (the fuss made about cycling for an hour being something special),  the assertion that much of the infrastructure is good enough (despite it failing to meet legal standards) and how good the council is at accessing money etc. He seemed fairly benign but I severely doubt he will have the intention or follow through to actually make any significant changes. The whole piece fits perfectly into the national picture where cycling will carry on getting crumbs from the table of the transport budget and the infrastructure won't really improve, despite the climate, pollution, congestion, and health arguments that we know off by heart.

I was also hugely disappointed that the third call was an anecdote about "irresponsible cyclists" instantly moving on the debate from safe conditions and infrastructure to castigating an entire group based on their mode of transport. 

Still, well done for getting the conversation going.

Avatar
ConcordeCX [393 posts] 1 week ago
3 likes

I particularly like the amusing way they have placed the signs which tell you about the cycling facility in precisely the right spot to make the facility unusable. I think someone in their planning department is an aficionado of the self-refuting. It's the kind of thing I'd like to do if I were a bored bureaucrat too intelligent for the job, then write a first novel that nobody will ever buy, in which the main character does this sort of thing.

Avatar
Rob the Commuter [6 posts] 1 week ago
2 likes

This is on my regular commute. It is just plain dangerous, because the bus shelter obstructs the view for drivers trying to pull out of the road jnction just beyond it. There are usually enough people waiting for the bus to block the pavement, so the only way round is to take to the road, which has just become narrower due to the presence of the cycle lane.

The cycle lane had marginally improved safety. However with this bus shelter in the way it is now impossible for a driver to see to the right when emerging from the side road without pulling far enough out to block the cycle lane. So the layout is now more dangerous than before the cycle lane was built. This is an accident waiting to happen.

Completely daft

Avatar
Richard D [85 posts] 1 week ago
2 likes

Would they put such infrastructure in the road?  Of course not.  So why is it considered appropriate for one part of the highway, and not the other?  It seems custom-designed to bring cyclists and pedestrians into conflict - and perhaps collision.

Avatar
theloststarfighter [56 posts] 1 week ago
1 like

It might have made more sense just for LCC to say, look we've got to accommodate various different road and path users and the needs of bus passengers to stay dry, after all there's limited room, therefore cyclists should dismount and walk around all bus shelters.

In fact cyclists should dismount and walk here, here, here and again here along this road then cross on foot at these junctions and then ride again for 10 yards staying below 10mph because this is what pedestrians and car drivers are happy with.

Yep just like Copenhagen.

 

 

Avatar
severs1966 [406 posts] 1 week ago
0 likes

Leeds council has a long history of building cycling facilities that are hostile, sometimes lethally hostile, to their supposedly intended users.

Riding a bike in Leeds, one quickly gains the impression that Leeds Metropolitan District Council is quite deliberately anti-cycling, while pretending to be cycle-friendly.

Added to the local cops being institutionally anti-cycling and extremely hostile to bike riders (therefore all drivers know they will never be prosecuted for killing or maiming bike riders), this makes every ride an exercise in taking your life in your hands.

This latest bus stop episode is just an extension of the norm, but taking the situation into pantomime levels of absurdity. To build physical cycling infrastructure, because of a bike rider that was killed, and then deliberately nobble it so that it is more dangerous than having done nothing at all? That's just "typical Leeds" but funny in a very dark way.

This is why Leeds has close to the lowest modal share of transport that is bike use, out of British cities.

At least this cycle path doesn't have a police van parked in it, like the one on Cookridge Street often has.