A resident from Reading has criticised the council for implementing “bumpy” cycle lanes that “disappear before junctions”, thus putting cyclists more in danger and not doing anything to “encourage more cycling”, but only helping the councillors claim that “they did something”.
There had been ongoing roadworks for improving cycling and walking on Shinfield Road between Christchurch Green and Shinfield Rise, and the council announced in late March that the first sections were nearing completions.
However, Leonid Yanovich, a cyclist from Reading contacted the Reading Chronicle criticising the state of the new cycle lanes. He said: “I am watching with great sadness at what Reading Transport are doing along Shinfield road. A good initiative badly implemented won’t work.
“The surface on the cycle paths they create is bumpy. It would be acceptable for a pavement but not for a cycle path. I will not cycle on this bumpy surface, which pushes me into more danger than before the ‘improvements’ on the narrow remains of the car lanes.”
He added that the cycle paths consisted of short stretches of elevated surface, causing bicycles to jump up and down from them. And worst of all, they disappear before the junctions putting cyclists back into the traffic, something that the council did not change even after the improvements.
“Hence, there is absolutely nothing that would add to the cyclists’ safety to encourage more cycling,” said Yanovich.
> Reading announces pop-up cycle lanes after two cyclists are killed in one day
Earlier, Reading Borough Council’s Lead Councillor for Climate Strategy and Transport Tony Page had said: “I’m pleased at the progress we’ve made so far on our work to introduce a fully segregated new cycle lane along the Shinfield Road. The segregated cycle lane links to key centres of employment in Reading, such as the Royal Berkshire Hospital, The University and, of course, the Town Centre itself.
“As part of our wider Climate Emergency Strategy, this work underlines the Council’s wholehearted commitment to tackling poor air quality which we know exists in parts of Reading. It has never been more important to create realistic alternatives to the private car, not only in terms of tackling congestion and air quality but also for the residents and local communities who live on key routes.”
Page also said that the Shinfield Road works preceded the council’s plans to implement further cycling and walking improvements stretching in other major areas of the city, as well as the decision to make permanent the fully segregated cycle lane along Sidmouth Street.
> Call to remove “senseless” cycle lane, according to local paper story using one resident’s opinion
The Sidmouth Street cycle lane had come into existence after two cycling fatalities in the city within the span of 24 hours back in 2020, as one of the council’s seven cycling and pedestrian routes worth £1.5 million.
However, Yanovich said that he believes the only benefit of these new cycle paths, which have been in the works since October last year, would be for the councillors to be able to claim that they “did something”.
“The new bumpy paths are very uncomfortable to ride on any bike unless someone is riding as slow as a pedestrian. It is not the case when you try getting as fast as you can from home to the town or back. I have to stay on the better surface of the road with the cars. That space is now narrow and more dangerous because of these ridiculous ‘improvements’,” he said.
14 thoughts on ““A good initiative badly implemented won’t work”: Resident slams new cycle lane as “bumpy” and “dangerous””
This is the lane the van went
This is the lane the van went into in the video the other week.
I cycled past it on Thursday… on one side there was a big reduced lane width sign blocking most of the lane… and on the other side it was actually completely closed off to the public again as if they were going to be working on it.
It is a totally useless waste of money, like some say of Tony Page.
The only reason that Sidmouth
The only reason that Sidmouth Street cycle lane still exists is that very little traffic ever flowed on that street in that direction; it all comes the other way. It’s of little use to cyclists.
Thats not correct. It exists
Thats not correct. It exists because one day it will form part of a strategic North-South cycle corridor in Reading – which is clear on the Reading Cycling vision documents. However its a tactical own goal as it effectively ends at a 4 lane road unless you cross over to a poorly marked shared path. The Northern end is no better – it should link directly to the cycle path on the canal. Taken on it own it makes no sense, taken as part of a longer term vision its pretty essential. But built out of order if that makes sense.
Its an easy win for moaners as that road is one of the first opportunities you have to loop back onto the IDR after passing the hospital on London Road. Hence every morning and evenining its log jammed.
The moaners will tell you that no cyclists ever use it (only partially true see above) BUT those same moaners will ignore the fact that there is 3/4 of a lane given over to metered car parking that is little used and with a bit of a rejig could form another lane leaving everyone happy. (Except the Grammar School next to the parking but they should be supporting active travel so they can do one).
A vision is a great thing to
A vision is a great thing to have but what we have now is a useless stepping-stone towards that vision that is being used as an argument against any other cycling projects. I know Reading well but I have no idea how I would get on or off that cycle lane.
Why is it that so much of
Why is it that so much of cycle provision in this country is so bad? We’ve had lots of advice about it for many years, but we still get unacceptable rubbish. Is it just that councils won’t ask cyclists or they can’t be bothered to read the advice?
Well theres always an
Well theres always an attitude in council depts that they know best, but I suspect most of it is just they arent designed by people who would ever use them regularly, so they dont understand the problems they create, and they’re loathe to reduce space for cars and that’s something they do use alot.
Awavey wrote:
I would say even that they’re petrified of doing that. I have a bit of sympathy, when or if any local authority does anything remotely radical they routinely get crucified on social media and the websites of what passes for local ‘news’ these days.
eburtthebike wrote:
It’s because the main political parties don’t take active transport seriously and would rather go to expensive dinners with oil/motor company execs instead.
I’d like to cycle this lane
I’d like to cycle this lane myself and report back. If you look at the comments there is another person saying its fine. So 50-50 IMO whether this is newsworthy or not.
Agreed. The lack of provision
Agreed. The lack of provision at junctions sounds like more of a problem than the bumpy surface.
First – it’s nowhere a
First – it’s nowhere a priority – not seen as vital for transport, big government don’t care, no-one’s coming from Gazelle or even Spa Cycles with the billions (and nice “fact-finding trips”…) So “get a grant for a few million and have a bash” seems a sensible level of effort.
Councils can be fractious internally – getting anything done can be hard. New stuff – harder. So even given a good design “competing interests” may convince folks changes are needed. Money talks!
Third – not invented here I’d warrant. There’s a mismatch between organisations, leading to lack of understanding and trust. I suspect they’re far more likely to trust their own staff, then professional consultants / companies (even very dubious ones) than cycling groups – who might be seen as querulous zealots / opinionated amateurs. If they call in consultants / their own roads departments it’s professionals who have been doing it the motoring-first way all their lives – as they’ve been paid to do.
Councillors / council officers – like most people in UK – generally have zero experience of good cycling infra (and certainly not the why and how of it). There are few UK examples of this. However there’s quite a body of the rubbish kind. Lots of folk-wisdom and misunderstandings about driving and cycling mean people can be very confidently wrong.
Finally – our “standards” are still “guidelines”…
Do it properly and you’ll
Do it properly and you’ll have no end of consultations, impact assessments and concerned citizens claiming it will be the end of all civilization.
Build something crappy, tick your “active transport solved” goal and only a few ungrateful cyclists will complain on some backwater cycling website.
Here is my local favourite. 45cm wide cycle lane, diverting off the road and onto pavement at the pedestrian crossing, directed back onto the road and then disappears at the next roundabout where some actual protection might be useful.
Clearly the cycle path is
Clearly the cycle path is bumpy because the council watched that twitter feed from the National Museum of Mathematics, NYC, and wanted to create evenly shaped inverted catenaries of the right size and curvature. They were trying to be helpful for cyclists with square wheels
As luck would have it …
As luck would have it …
https://twitter.com/BillyM2k/status/1645772036550328322