Manchester’s First Street development has questioned the status of a cycle lane after being pressured to remove a Christmas tree from the middle of it by cyclists.
In last week’s live blog, we published a tweet from Deb, who spotted the tree being unloaded from a van at the entrance to First Street.
Why don’t cyclists use the cycle lane? pic.twitter.com/Z6Jax6F9SL
— Deb (@UrmstonDeb) November 15, 2018
We naively assumed that this was only temporary, but the Manchester Evening News reports that the tree was actually left in this position.
When cyclists complained, First Street’s initial response was to tweet: “Don’t worry, this isn’t a cycle lane.”
As you can see on the StreetView image below, it certainly appears to be one.
Plenty of cyclists made similar observations (generally with a little more feeling and a more robust choice of words) and eventually First Street agreed to move it.
… and are conscious that we don’t want to put cyclists in danger. We’ll keep you all posted on when this might be, but it’s looking like it will be moved tomorrow. We hope you’ll bike over to see us soon (2/2)
— First Street (@firststreetmcr) November 16, 2018
A large number of responses to those two tweets questioned the assertion that the tree was on “First Street land.”
First Street says it is still investigating ownership.
In any case, five days later, the tree was still there and when Manchester councillor Chris Paul questioned this, First Street replied:
Hi Chris, thanks for your tweet. There wasn’t a promise to move it on any specific date, just confirmation that it would be moved! As mentioned yesterday, we don’t have an on-site maintenance team so we have to wait for a date from a contractor. It will be moved ASAP
— First Street (@firststreetmcr) November 21, 2018
The tree has now been moved.
12 thoughts on “Manchester’s First Street disputes cycle lane’s status after depositing a Christmas tree in the middle of it”
So, if its not a cycle lane,
So, if its not a cycle lane, yet the kerbs seems to imply that it is… Does that mean there’s a six foot length of cycle lane across the footpath and then it ends at the bollards.
Reminds me of the developers who put a shared-use bridge in Bristol then tried to put ‘no cycling’ signs on it and a surface that couldn’t be ridden on…
brooksby wrote:
They won an award for the “cheese-grater” bridge, despite it being a complete slip hazard whenever it was wet: https://happypontist.blogspot.com/2014/12/bristol-bridges-4-meads-reach-bridge.html
I’m still waiting for it to be repaired since that lorry reversed onto it and trashed it as the other bridge (Valentine’s?) seems to be designed to bring as much conflict between cyclists and pedestrians as possible (along with the vaguely passive aggressive signs around it).
hawkinspeter wrote:
They won an award for the “cheese-grater” bridge, despite it being a complete slip hazard whenever it was wet: https://happypontist.blogspot.com/2014/12/bristol-bridges-4-meads-reach-bridge.html
I’m still waiting for it to be repaired since that lorry reversed onto it and trashed it as the other bridge (Valentine’s?) seems to be designed to bring as much conflict between cyclists and pedestrians as possible (along with the vaguely passive aggressive signs around it).
[/quote]
Valentine’s won an award as well, from Sustrans! Despite the “cyclists dismount” signs, and the fact that the designers made the parapets too low, and the surface not suitable for cycling. Three of the four recent bridges in Bristol docks are not fit for purpose, and there is something seriously wrong with an industry which can’t even get something as simple as a pedestrian/cycle bridge right.
brooksby wrote:
Never mind the kerbs, there’s a big blue circle sign with a bike on it, a legally enforceable road sign stating it IS a cycle lane – Don’t see any “End of cycle lane” sign before teh bollards either.
The usual crass British
The usual crass British management, aided and abetted by particularly stupid contractors. I wonder if the moving date will be 5th January?
“and are conscious that we don’t want to put cyclists in danger”
Well we don’t mind too much!
“We’ll keep you all posted on when this might be, but it’s looking like it will be moved tomorrow”
Is it?
By ‘eck, I remember when that
By ‘eck, I remember when that were all fields (it wasn’t that long ago)
Here’s a photo taken in 2011 from First Street looking towards the arches from the other direction.
There also used to be a well known night club where the apartment block now stands.
Fields? Wasn’t it a
Fields? Wasn’t it a gasworks?
Kapelmuur wrote:
Maybe long ago. It was a big British Council building (whatever they do) surrounded by grass and parking. And the ‘well know club’ was The Haçienda. I got to go there once in 1996 before it shut; never forget.
Organon wrote:
They help immigrants in, innit?
Perhaps we need a volunteer
Perhaps we need a volunteer to ride into the tree and sue for damages? After all, it would definitely work if a driver did it; how many times have drivers not seen a cyclist even though they were lit up like a christmas tree?
burtthebike wrote:
Local to me a driver managed to drive into the kerb (they’d built the pavement out a bit to create protected parking spaces) – bent his alloy wheels and successfully claimed. I mean if you can’t see the bloody pavement – should you be driving ?