Locals, cyclists and campaigners have together to call for a reduction of the 50mph speed limit besides a “complete rethink” of a junction where a father cycling on the bike path with his child sitting in the back was hit by a driver, suffering minor injuries.
A video of the shocking collision which took place on Wednesday morning was captured on a camera set up by a resident concerned by the number of crashes at the location. The footage, shared by the BBC, shows the father and child cross the A40 junction at the Barton Park pelican crossing in Headington, Oxford.
As they make their way towards Barton Park Fields Road via the bike lane, the lights for the second carriageway turn green, and a motorist driving on the A40 comes speeding at them. The cyclist had to be taken to the John Radcliffe Hospital following the collision.
Dr Arian Beqiri, a Barton resident, told the BBC: “It’s just very dangerous. We’ve been trying to get this fixed for quite a long time now. Cars are going by, often above the speed limit. Really often they run the red, they can’t stop in time, or they just go for it which obviously adds to the danger.”
He called for more enforcement and a reduction of speed limits, adding: “I am worried that it is going to take a fatality for something to finally happen. It’s very upsetting, it’s very stressful. It’s frustrating nothing happens. It must be very expensive, many of them have destroyed parts of the crossing.
“You constantly feel threatened. You cross that road and your heart’s pumping immediately as you approach it.”
“I really hope it won’t take something more serious. The timing of the light needs to change so that anyone can make it across in one go. And then after that, we really need to get the speed limit reduced. I think 50 is unacceptable for what is now a residential area with more and more people living here.”
Danny Yee, who is from Cyclox and leads Oxfordshire Liveable Streets, called for a “complete rethink” of how the junction works “before someone is killed, but also to stop the ring road severing Barton Park from the rest of Oxford”.
Following the calls, the Oxfordshire County Council has finally agreed to conduct a review of the junction layout as well as the 50mph speed limits as part of a countywide review of speed limits. It is also investigating options to reduce the number of drivers carrying out illegal U-turns at this location.
Andrew Gant, the county council’s cabinet member for transport management, said his thoughts were with those affected by this collision, and added the council would assist the police with their investigation.
He added: “We are aware of safety concerns in this area and are working with the police and other partners to address them.
“As part of our Vision Zero road safety programme, we have already committed to providing the funding for red light safety cameras at this junction. We are currently in discussions with the police over this, as they will own the equipment.”
Just last month, following an inquest into a cyclist’s death after he was hit by an overtaking minibus driver, Newcastle City Council was urged by a coroner to lower the speed limit of a residential road, deeming the 40mph limit as “unsafe” and as having the potential to cause further fatalities.
Positive results have also been noted after the widespread introduction of 20mph speed limits in Wales in 2023, with provisional collision data suggesting that fewer people have been killed and injured on the country’s roads. The Welsh government called the initial collision statistics “encouraging” and said they suggest things “are moving in the right direction”.
Meanwhile, in December, the Oxfordshire County Council was slammed for raiding its active travel funds to build an “unnecessary, damaging” new road in a small town, with local campaigners and politicians saying it “beggars belief” that the authority would spend the bulk of its active travel funding on new roads, instead of “investing properly in walking and cycling”.
26 thoughts on ““It’s going to take a fatality for something to finally happen”: Cyclists call for “complete rethink” of “very dangerous junction”, after father and child hit by driver on bike lane in shocking collision”
Just a reminder that one of
Just a reminder that one of the relevant councillors dropped in to the comments of the story linked in the last paragraph to say that it wasn’t actually true, which response has been overlooked (again) in writing this story.
For all that motorists are
For all that motorists are the first to claim, often stridently, that reduced speed limits or other measures to reduce the danger motorists bring to the roads are “a restriction on their freedom” and amount to a “war on motorists”, it’s always worth remembering that such measures are usually reactive and are introduced only because many motorists are incapable of looking out for the rest of us.
Something something road tax,
Something something road tax, bikes shouldn’t be on the roads, war on motorists etc etc
Not entirely clear from the
Not entirely clear from the video, but it looks like the cyclist has gone through the traffic lights just as they’re changing to red, but the traffic lights in the other direction don’t stay red for long enough to allow the cyclist to clear the junction.
Motorist has forgotten the second part of “GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear.”
I really don’t like being
I really don’t like being “that guy” when it comes to criticising fellow cyclists, but as far as I can see that was absolutely shocking judgement from the rider, especially a parent with a kid on the back. I’ve looked at the junction on Streetview (below) and for a start it’s clear that they shouldn’t have been going straight on at all, that junction is for left and right turns only, the straight on option is clearly marked BUS ONLY; if a bus lane doesn’t have signs indicating that it is also permitted for cyclists, it means just that, bus only. It’s not a bike lane. The cyclist could have joined the shared path on the left before the junction or taken the left turn and pulled right, either option would’ve taken him onto the toucan crossing which crosses the junction in two stages. As well as riding across the junction on a bus only lane, the rider clearly either jumps the red or rides through the amber when they could easily have stopped, as the car that is level with them manages to do. Finally, no matter what faults there are with the timings of the lights (which is pretty academic because the cyclist shouldn’t have been there at all) the traffic coming from the left has a green light and the most cursory observation should have shown the rider this, instead they have ridden straight out in front of fast-moving traffic. Incredibly lucky not to have been killed as a result of some shocking judgement and really poor riding. I really can’t see why campaigners are calling for a complete rethink of the junction when there is a wide toucan crossing to get cyclists across the four lanes of traffic safely and when this incident was only caused by a cyclist disobeying the signage to ride somewhere they shouldn’t have been.
Agree. I might have some
Agree. I might have some sympathy with using the bus lane rather than the crossing (though you’re right, they shouldn’t be using it). Signage could be better in that direction though (e.g. by existing at all), to direct cyclists to join the shared use path. But even if the timings are very tight, it’s pretty clear the cyclist must have proceeded on red – when the video starts, the rider is well back from the stop line, the car near them is already braking, and the lights for the traffic on the A40 are already red+amber. They barely had time to get across the first two lanes, let alone the far side. I like to think even if I’d made the bad call to start crossing the junction, I would have stopped in the central refuge and got off onto the crossing.
[Edited to add:] And in the second crash video on the BBC article, the driver of the car appears to have turned right from an “Ahead Only” lane when presumably the right turn lane would have been showing a red light. Change the timings and speeds by all means, but I don’t think those two examples are the ones to justify it.
I must admit I’d be quite
I must admit I’d be quite tempted to use the bus lane myself in many circumstances but yes, at the end of the day if you ride where you’re not allowed you’ve got to accept the blame for the consequences…the one improvement that could be made to this junction I think would be a clear sign on the approach saying “Cyclists no entry, use crossing to left”, I would guess that many cyclists – maybe the one in this incident – assume that they are allowed to ride in bus lanes and don’t realise that there has to be specific permission in the signage.
Another oddity is that in the
Another oddity is that in the opposite direction it appears to be a bus and bike lane. If the timings are tight, I can imagine that crossing being hairy. Of course, nothing to stop you using the crossing that way too, but you do seem to be permitted to use the bus lane in one direction, but not the other.
The TRO for this junction
The TRO for this junction allows cycles through this “bus only” lane: https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Oxfordshire/OX738.pdf. OCC have a habit of putting “Bis Only” signs at junctions where cycles are allowed.
> the straight on option is
> the straight on option is clearly marked BUS ONLY; if a bus lane doesn’t have signs indicating that it is also permitted for cyclists, it means just that, bus only
This is poor signage. If cycling through that lane is not allowed then how is this bus+cycle lane to be accessed? You can’t reach it from the A40.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/mVfg12zYeLBRhFQN6
Someone in Oxford’s highways departments perhaps needs to revisit this junction’s signage, because it’s ambiguous.
Accessibility for all wrote:
As per Peterjbdk’s post, the TRO and signage do appear to be out of alignment.
In answer to your question, though, anyone cycling across the toucan crossing would then be discharged into the section of road signed as bus+cycle.
This does appear to be a
This does appear to be a right mess (the TRO / on-road layout discrepancy). But Accessibility for all is right that the signage needs massive improvement – if bikes are not supposed to use the bus lane, you need to tell them where to go all the way back here.
Except that layout’s clearly
Except that layout’s clearly not appropriate for cyclists leaving and joining the road there. Obviously the real problem here is that people shouldn’t be approaching that point while cycling at all, but rather should have pushed their bikes until they reach the start of the shared path…
I took that to be where the
I took that to be where the shared path *should* start, because in the opposite direction it’s where cyclists are told to dismount (though no end of route / rejoin carriageway signs). It’s a total mess.
But presumably they a) did
But presumably they a) did something (and can proudly say so) and b) successfully used up an active travel budget / got a funding tranche…
So “mission accomplished” / “we have delivered on our commitment…”!
Cllr. Gant says – after the
Cllr. Gant says – after the cyclist collision – the signals are “according to the guidelines”, he (or rather the officers) may well be referring to TRAFFIC ADVISORY LEAFLET 1/06 Part 4 of 4, which gives an intergreen time of 7 seconds in this case. They should be using LTN 1/20 for cycling which gives an intergreen time of 10 to 11 seconds, which would have given the cyclist enough time to get across. A change to signal timings could be made by OCC now!!
Is it just me, or are the BBC
Is it just me, or are the BBC becomming more interested in cycling stories since the hammering they got for the Panorama travesty?
eburtthebike wrote:
Its just you.
Surely they should have gone
Surely they should have gone for a grade-separated crossing (if only in the interests of efficiency for motor traffic)?
(Obviously “but expense” / “but no space”…)
There are actually a couple of grade-separated pedestrian (presumably shared use?) crossings a bit over half a kilometer away. Presumably they’re not terribly convenient and – being underpasses – not inviting, in the traditional UK style. But are at least safe from motor traffic?
Might be interesting to
Might be interesting to compare another university city with a similar population – s’Hertogenbosch. Here’s an area to the south-west of the city, where there is a big “at grade” crossing of the ring road here … and no allowance for cycling at all! …
… because, within about a kilometer, there are four crossings for cyclists, completely separate from motor traffic (crossings indicated in dark green, some cycle routes in lighter green, main junction highlighted in red – I forgot about accessible colours, sorry…). And generally they’re actual cycle paths, not shared use of course.
One bridge and three underpasses. And the latter are straight through, no having the UK arrangement of having to wind around a ramp. (It’s far more inviting when you can see through the tunnel / there aren’t corners where peole can hide).
The only place I can see where there’s a large-ish road with an at-grade cycle crossing is at the top left, indicated in red / orange. I suspect the motor traffic levels aren’t too high there though – and it’s not across the ring road so speeds should be low.
chrisonabike wrote:
Particularly uninviting if you’re cycling.
Glad to see they’re spending
Glad to see they’re spending our taxes on motor infra * but still have some to spare for nice signs telling people like us to get stuffed! (Apparently there’s always money in the budget for signs…)
* Actually all of this is motor infra, including the underpass, the “protective” railing , the sign … If it weren’t for motor vehicles being dangerous it wouldn’t be needed.
chrisonabike wrote:
Motor vehicles are not dangerous — but their operators frequently choose to drive them dangerously. That’s an important distinction.
We could do something about the latter, if we so choose. And we know what that something is, because Japan has already done it, successfully.
dh700 wrote:
And guns don’t kill people, people kill people et cetera et cetera. Nuclear weapons aren’t dangerous until somebody presses the button. It’s a ridiculous argument to say that something that requires human control isn’t dangerous unless and until humans take control of it, so what? Motor vehicles are inherently dangerous because human beings are fallible and liable to lapses in concentration and allowing their emotions to get the better of them; whatever safety measures are put in place this will always be the case. When this happens in normal circumstances the consequences are usually minor, when they are in control of two tonnes of metal capable of reaching 100 mph plus then injuries and deaths are inevitable. If you accept them as justified collateral damage then fine but don’t pretend that motor vehicles are not dangerous because they are. In the case of Japan, yes they have successfully reduced their truly horrendous KSI rate since its astonishing high of 16,000+ deaths per annum in the 1970s, but they still had 2600+ deaths and 365,000+ injuries on the roads last year, if you think that’s success…
Japan – luckily people can
Japan – luckily people can see what that’s about through the power of the Internet. Short – not transferrable (although bringing in kei cars and trucks would be a great way to suddenly discover that our streets aren’tin fact “too narrow”).
Plus they’re also happily building bigger roads where they can (not to mention their history of public works roads to nowhere…)
Luckily Internet has us covered
History here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VFCz7G_jXeI
Overview here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jlwQ2Y4By0U
We need sustainable safety and road diets, plus far more support for alternatives to driving) Not police who always arrest the right person (they always confess!) and squeezing all our houses closer together. (Alhough we could certainly reverse our tendency for suburban sprawl. “more houses” needs several qualifications, Labour govt., else that’ll simply get us more car-dependency)
Kei vehicles here. Europe
Kei vehicles here. Europe already has microcars of course (in fact there’s at least one place in the US where they have quite a few really micro-cars). Like anything “motoring” they are not a panacea * but it would be great if we could not just stop the trend towards increasing vehicle sizes and weights ** (Sustrans have an interesting article on this) but reverse it.
* Not surprisingly there’s the usual testing limits of rules and even gaming-the-system e.g. in NL some types of microcars which can carry wheelchairs don’t require driving licences, can be used on cycle paths and get some parking exemptions. Now some folks who don’t appear to have disabilities are adopting things like these…
** Thanks upselling and tax-avoiding motor industry folks!