Residents in the Somerset town of Taunton were left despairing at this bizarre barrier that the council’s contractors installed entirely blocking a cycle path.
Local cyclists pointed out how dangerous the layout is, Dejan Branc sharing photos online and saying: “Who at Taunton Town Council erected them in the middle of [the] cycling path? This seems so dangerous, not visible in the dark and extremely unsafe near busy school area.”
The town’s council was quick to shift the blame onto its third-party contractors after a misunderstanding about what they should install. A spokesperson attempted to explain how they had initially wanted two barriers and marked the paving where they were meant to be, but then changed their mind to one barrier and marked that spot as well.
In the Taunton Town Council spokesperson’s own words: “To clarify, two offset hooped barriers were originally considered to slow cyclists (for their own safety, entering the highway and that of pedestrians entering the park) and approximate locations marked on the tarmac.
“This was then changed to a single hooped barrier, to be installed to separate and be in line with the foot and cycle paths and again, the location marked on the tarmac. Unfortunately, our third-party contractor referenced the wrong marks and installed the single hoop. As soon as this was noted, the contractors were advised and they rectified the issue within two working days.”
As mentioned above, the barrier has now been “rectified”, according to the council, it now sitting in between the cycle path and pedestrian section of the route.
It’s not the first time we’ve reported on issues for cyclists in Taunton, such as back in January when Somerset Council shut down calls for “urgent repairs” to a “slippery and very uneven surface” at a notorious cobbled roundabout in the town.
Somerset Council insisted that, while many cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists and motorists signed a petition demanding “urgent repairs”, there was no funding available for anything more than minor work, a decision made more controversial by the number of crashes which had occurred on the route.
25 thoughts on ““This seems so dangerous”: Bumbling council contractors install barrier in middle of cycle path”
I am not sure moving it has
I am not sure moving it has made it more or less dangerous!
So now a cyclist riding into
So now a cyclist riding into the park is faced with the head-on profile of a barrier the same colour as the tarmac beyond it. Can’t see what problems that could possibly cause, especially now the nights are drawing in…
It’s no better now.
It’s no better now.
It would be invisible in the dark.
Pointless, & needs removing.
Clearly #nocyclistinvolved in
Clearly #nocyclistinvolved in the planning or execution.
No responsibility being taken anywhere either…
Even if they had been, the
Even if they had been, the barriers there to prevent you simply riding out from traffic free park route, straight onto a road with vehicles moving.
Because thats exactly what used to happen when councils didn’t install barriers like that and then got criticised for not taking safety seriously, probably a pay out involved or liability case went to court and so councils guidance is always to put barriers like that in.
You can debate the positioning is badly thought out there a cyclist might have positioned it better but they couldnt remove the barrier completely
stonojnr wrote:
I know this is in the realm of “fantasy” (only … it does happen elsewhere) …
… but logically that isn’t the only option, is it? The other half of the dance is that “straight onto a road with vehicles moving”. That is in fact where the danger is.
But of course in the UK the notion that we might make a residential area a “no through road” or one way (with 20mph limit) to *reduce traffic* because … people walking and kids playing in the street?
As you say – if it isn’t just immediately shouted down by their peers / bosses / councillors, that’s only going to get the officers involved / council sued.
But in reality it wouldn’t get that far! Either the residents will be outvoted by all those people who want to use their neighbourhood as a through-route, or maybe even the residents will object (to “nicer place”). Because “it takes 20 seconds longer to get to the shops!” (The corner shop is just 100 yards away, but when I drive there in my car in your new layout I have to drive 200 yards! Madness!)
Or “now we can only drive one way and we have to wait to join the busy main road”. Which … is a bit like those cyclists wanting to leave the park, having to basically dismount to navigate the chicane barriers, because “the danger to little johnny from motorists means that logically all people walking and cycling have to lose convenience (and perhaps it’s now inaccessible for some)” …
Thinking on this – this is
Thinking on this – this is about “transitions” really isn’t it?
There is a transition from one environment (a street * with motor traffic) to another (a park with no motor traffic, and probably children playing, people walking, maybe animals running…)
In addition – what is the “traffic” expected on either side? As mentioned – motor traffic on one side and mostly people on foot on the other. BUT if this is supposed to be a route for cyclists (pretending that we’re not still in box-ticking “provision” mode) then cyclists (including those on adapted cycles, child-carrying bakfiets etc) ought to be able to cycle easily through the transition. And – one would hope – maintain reasonable speeds on either side **.
What should the transition zone do? Alert users they are changing environment and help them do so safely. So e.g. to cue slowing / observation as needed. And perhaps provide them with a protected space to wait before joining e.g. a motor traffic flow at 90 degrees to their path, or space to wait to turn across traffic and into the park while also observing for people on foot. The latter immediately suggests a wider entrance for the different modes – or perhaps two?
What is the point of this barrier? In the UK we have real issues with people driving where they should not, so “keeping the motor traffic out” is one. The other one is “stopping vulnerable road users charging out onto the road”.
Well it’s plain why we need that – think about the kids who run away from their parents and straight out onto a busy road!
OTOH one might ask (as I did) “why is there an entrance to a park where kids play which is straight onto a busy road”? Of course we are where we are (because of organic growth of motoring everywhere, and more pressure for road space etc.)…
If the street is really quiet – do we need a barrier? If the street isn’t, the transition zone perhaps needs a rethink?
* Again I’m not quite sure where this is but it looks like it should be a “quiet residential street”. However in the UK these are often more like “roads”: with a fairly high volume of traffic passing through, and sometimes speeds well over 20mph rather than at most 20mph but ideally lower…
** Another issue with our transport model in the UK, where “cyclist” seems to be a definition centred around two extremes – “sporty” at one pole (cyclists as mini cars, or motorbikes but maxing out at 20-30mph) or someone wobbling about barely faster than a jogger, and actually delighted to stop and dismount regularly.
Nope.
Nope.
In those case a short section of railing would be installed on the edge of the road. This is a death trap for cyclists and mobility aid users.
There there’s plenty of room to do it safely and professionally.
It’s a gang of ignorant amateurs, freelancing, with no infra or safety knowledge.
How did they mess up their
How did they mess up their cycle parking programme so bad 🫨
That’s not a barrier, it’s a
That’s not a barrier, it’s a relatively good Sheffield.
Hey Council, would you
Hey Council, would you install this between lanes on a road?
No?
Then don’t do it on a bike/pedestrian path!
Simple really.
To show how ridiculous it is,
To show how ridiculous it is, someone should install a similar barrier in the middle lane of a three lane motorway.
Plenty of space either side for drivers to get past it…
As mentioned above, the
As mentioned above, the barrier has now been “rectified”, according to the council,
There’s only one way to rectify that: remove it and bury the council employee that was in charge, along with the contractor that did it, in that very spot. No headstone for obvious reasons.
Wouldn’t it have been better
Wouldn’t it have been better to have repainted the give way sign on the path and perhaps added a solar powered lit give way sign at the edge of the path?
After all these do work for road traffic.
This barrier is the sort of thing that results from cycle paths being designed by people who don’t cycle. The same people who assume cyclists are happy to dismount every 50m to cross a road and then wonder why they don’t use cycle paths.
Multilayered incompetence?
Multilayered incompetence?
Presumably a junior engineer thought it was a good idea
Approved by a senior engineer
Installed by operatives without question
Signed off as a job well done.
So … if it’s dark, that
So … if it’s dark, that presumably acts a little bit like a Stealth Bomber, in that it would give a very small reflection from an approaching cyclist’s lights? If it is in any way intended to lower the risk to cyclists, shouldn’t it have some sort of orange reflector on it?!?
It also looks as thought it’s intended to prevent a pedestrian joining the path from the right as we look at it (whose approach would be hidden by the hedge) from walking out into the path of a cyclist taking the natural line in preparation for turning left onto the road [I’m being deliberately generous with “intended”, I’m sure it’s an accident]. However, in practice what it does is encourage cyclists planning on turning left to keep the barrier on their *left* as they pass, which makes the likelihood of a cyclist/pedestrian collision higher than it would otherwise have been?
Nothing that can’t be solved in a couple of minutes with a decent angle grinder.
So it’s been changed from
So it’s been changed from dangerous to marginally less dangerous. That’s a big improvement.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Only … like Pedal those squares – has it? In the former case it was more of an obstruction, but easier to see.
If the concern is cyclists /
If the concern is cyclists / pedestrians bolting on to the road from the park … put the barrier at the kerb edge.
It’s already within a yellow zig-zag zone, so moving to to the kerb edge would only be a safety improvement.
Good point – that could
Good point – that could continue for a short distance so as you approached you can keep cycling/walking but there’s now a barrier to your right. (Keeps motor traffic from continuing straight into the park).
Again, depending on the expected *route* for cyclists there might or might not be a major flow of cyclists coming from the other direction on the road. If the road is busy, how would that be addressed? Perhaps a build-out where cyclists can wait to cross the road AND turn sharply to get behind the barrier, before turning again ( across a pedestrian flow) to enter the park?
If they’re wanting to provide for cyclists AND be consistent about safety they’ll need a bit more effort and a lot more thought. (A very big if, as opposed to say covering backsides with the minimum spend and also avoiding changes to the “aspect”. Certainly not doing anything more than paint on the road…)
To show how ridiculous it is,
To show how ridiculous it is, someone should install a similar barrier in the middle lane of a three lane motorway.
Plenty of space either side for drivers to get past it…
I predict a claim soon. The
I predict a claim soon. The film ‘Idiocracy’ is now resembling more a documentary and prediction than a mediochre comedy.
The ‘fix’ is not really any
The ‘fix’ is not really any safer, and it seems that it still isn’t what the council intended!
The first picture shows two red paint marks on the dividing line right at the end of the lane, so the contractor appears to have got it wrong for the second time.
Having said that, even if they got it ‘right’ it would still be a hazard. Institutionally incompetent!
Somerset local info. The
Somerset local info. The road is a very quiet residential street except at school drop off and pick up times. Ideally it would be made a school street. The barrier is one of several installed around the town to try and prevent incursions into parks by travellers, but as many note here even the reinstalled version is a poor solution for cyclists and pedestrians.
stewb62 wrote:
Thanks for local info! I wish them “good luck” with preventing incursion with travellers – Edinburgh Council here has tried planters, heavy locked gates, massive concrete blocks and even trenches. Not stopped people getting where they’re determined to go so far. Can be a pain in the posterior for all the “settled folk” though…
(Side issue: where the travellers make a way which can also double as a shortcut, a whole bunch of presumably “local” drivers quickly follow…)