A Labour council is under fire after it ignored recommendations made by its own safety audit that adding planters and parklets to narrow the road and decrease through-traffic speed could make cyclists vulnerable to side swipe collisions.
However, the council has claimed that the concerns are “disproportionate” and recommendations are “not justifiable given the nature and intent of the scheme”, adding that the new environment instead has “safety at its heart” and aims to “prioritise people rather than cars”.
The London Borough of Fulham and Hammersmith (LBHF) installed nine planters and four parklets with seats on Wandsworth Bridge Road in August last year after a consultation in which residents and businesses suggested that they wanted a “high street, not a highway”.
However, a Road Safety Audit (RSA) report commissioned by the council and obtained via a Freedom of Information request has revealed a number of concerns and recommendations regarding the traffic-calming measures fitted as part of low traffic neighbourhoods, banning non-residential drivers from the streets.
The report, obtained by a resident and seen by The Telegraph, warns that narrowing the 20mph two-way street could leave motorists confused about what “line” to take as they approach oncoming traffic at the parklets.
“This could lead to side swipes or crash avoidance manoeuvres, which may result in cyclists and motorcyclists being struck as they filter through traffic or are overtaken,” the engineering consultancy said, calling for “more clarity [to be] provided to riders and drivers on how the space should be used”.
However, the council has rejected the advice, saying that “drivers and cyclists are not automatons [but] read the road… and follow the path of least resistance whilst being aware of their surroundings”.
It added: “The new environment… will contribute to creating a sense of uncertainty and caution which will reduce speed further and help in improving safety for all users.”
Fears of casualties being caused by placing a bus stop opposite a parklet – resulting in the potential “narrowing” of the carriageway and having “no clear definition” over who had priority were also rejected.
The council said in the report the concerns were “not valid”, adding: “All drivers in the UK are taught to drive on the left and it is highly unlikely that drivers held behind a stationary bus will temporarily forget this most fundamental principle of driving.”
Another point of contention raised was the ‘Cyclists Use Control Position” signage, not a part of the Highway Code. Atif Habib, owner of Fulham Cycles on the road, said that customers have asked him what the “control position” means.
Caroline Shuffrey, who obtained the documents and had previously claimed that the council’s parking cameras had made life in the borough like “living in North Korea”, told The Telegraph: “As a result of the numerous accidents and incidents involving the parklets, cyclists are now cycling on the pavement causing further danger to pedestrians.”
“These measures have safety at their heart”
Shuffrey also raised the issue to the council in a public meeting in January, asking the council “if accidents occur in the manner foreseen by the safety audit professionals who in LBHF will take responsibility and who will pay compensation to the victims if LBHF is successfully sued”.
Councillor Sharon Holder, Cabinet Member for Public Realm, replied: “On reviewing the RSA documents, we have determined that the council’s responses align with most of the designer’s responses, demonstrating that a high degree of professional rigour has been applied to reach a broad consensus across both responding organisations. Where issues have been partially accepted or rejected by the design or overseeing organisation, we are reasonably assured that the associated risks are relatively small and that the recommendations made by the safety auditors are either disproportionate and/or not justifiable given the nature and intent of the scheme.
“We would stress that the interventions are experimental at this stage and are subject to monitoring. As overseeing authority, the safety of our residents and visitors is our utmost priority and you can be rest assured that adjustments or modifications can, and will, be implemented as required to ensure that the highest level of safety is maintained at all times.”
Sarah McMonagle, Director of External Affairs at Cycling UK, also welcomed council attempts to improve air quality, but emphasised that “they also need to come with clear signage that’s universally easy to understand”.
Meanwhile, Gary Fannin chairman of the Wandsworth Bridge Road Association, which has campaigned for the parklets said “the chief aim is to decrease the amount of traffic on the road” by “prioritising people rather than cars” and they were “following the science and data”.
A council spokesman also said the reports were part of a “standard safety audit process” to evaluate and review the design, adding how “the vast majority” of the 14 recommendations were either fully or partially accepted, with two that were initially rejected later accepted.
They added that “residents and businesses told us they want a high street, not a highway” and the interim scheme, which is still under construction and will include improved pedestrian crossings, benches and “decluttering pavements”, will return the road to its “former self at the centre of the community”.
“These measures have safety at their heart,” they said. “They will reduce congestion on the road, manage vehicle speeds more effectively and create a safer, cleaner and greener environment while increasing opportunities for businesses.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
10 thoughts on “Narrowing roads with planters and parklets could make cyclists vulnerable to side swipe collisions, finds council’s safety report, but council claims “risks are relatively small” as new environment aims to “prioritise people rather than cars””
road.cc wrote:
Well people certainly follow the path of least resistance – drivers are quite happy to drive on the pavement or the wrong side of a pedestrian refuge if it will apparently save them a second or two… I’m not so sure about “being aware of their surroundings”.
Now I’m worried – this is exactly the logic behind “shared space” and in practice that has generally been a failure (or terrible, if you’re blind or partially sighted). Uncertain humans do not make for safer drivers. We have found experientially that where people are not very sure of what is required a percentage of them will go haywire.
Now I’m very afraid. If they’re falling back on “but all drivers are trained and we have road laws” as a safety measure all bets are off. As far as I’m aware all drivers are taught not to speed or drive on the pavement. Look how well that’s going.
This all sounds terribly like Edinburgh council and their “fingers in our ears” approach to the safety issues raised over the tram line. Why follow someone else’s safety advice – what do they know. Why follow your own process, even?
Yeah, the number of times I
Yeah, the number of times I’ve had oncoming drivers overtake a stationary vehicle – parked car on their side for example – forcing me to hit the brakes / take evasive action certainly doesn’t fill me full of confidence in that statement about being taught to drive on the left. And I don’t cycle in London or, now I’m retired, rarely anywhere during rush hour.
LBHF wrote:
Does this mean they should be ready to apply a wrist lock to any drivers that look like they might be a threat?
“…..we are reasonably
“…..we are reasonably assured that the associated risks are relatively small and that the recommendations made by the safety auditors are either disproportionate and/or not justifiable given the nature and intent of the scheme.”
We are reasonably assured that the associated risks to us are non-existent and what do safety auditors know about safety? And anyway, it’s only cyclists: they’re expendable. You couldn’t make it up.
This council is treading a very dangerous line, and if a cyclist should be killed or injured at one of these installations, they run the very real risk of being sued for millions. Not following the advice of safety advisers who conducted a safety audit is extremely foolish and leaves you wide open being dragged through the courts and losing: it’s difficult to see any valid defence. They could try “We didn’t believe the expert safety auditors” but that isn’t going to work, or “We thought we knew better than the safety auditors” but that isn’t going to work either. Or they could try putting their hands over their eyes so that the great bugblatter beast of Krall can’t see them, but I don’t think a judge would go for that.
The latest in highway design UK: deliberately make it dangerous for the vulnerable road users, ignoring a safety audit.
Beam me up now Scotty, this planet is doomed.
I believe, if the profession
I believe, if the profession of Highway Engineers were psychologically profiled, they would discover a higher proportion of sadists greater than the national average.
Twice in the past, I have battled with HEngs about similar installations. The last one, I had a speeding BMW driver nearly wiped me out entering a similar restriction.
Mr Anderson wrote:
You might be more right than you realise.
Quote:
For what it’s worth I ride down that road three or four times a month, from my perspective it’s fine, just be aware of what’s coming up, signal and take primary well in advance. However, I can see how inexperienced/inattentive drivers and/or cyclists could get into a tangle. I wonder if any consideration was given to running a cycle gap on the inside of the new installations, a la floating bus stops? I suppose it would just have led to headlines in the Mail and Telegraph about lycra-clad maniacs almost running down disabled pensioners who were only trying to get onto the parklet for a nice sit down.
I think a lot of the time in
I think a lot of the time in the UK even where local authorities have “got it” they end up using the wrong tools, or the right ones in the wrong way. They look at places which are models for the urban environment they want, then apply some of the infra (more or less correctly done). However many of these treatments have preconditions for working well. A common one is sufficiently low maximum traffic volumes and speeds.
Expecting some infra interventions to do both traffic evaporation and then work to keep places feeling safe and pleasant may be asking too much. But the usual vicious circle applies – without infra which makes people feel safer they’re more likely to drive, which means the interventions don’t work as well anyway etc…
How busy does it get
You’re quite right – to the extent that the UK tolerates poor standards of driving some of these things may be counter productive.
Aside from that – how busy does it get (generally / busiest times)? How well respected is the speed limit?
Reason for asking – is the “issue” here really there are just too many motor vehicles? Road narrowing doesn’t particularly help with that. Some drivers – even if it’s painfully congested or slow – will insist on trying to drive places.
Road narrowing *should* help cue drivers that the speed limit is lower. But that needs addressing in general in the UK, so perhaps “too soon”.
Road narrowing is not good for vulnerable road users on the road unless other conditions have been established e.g. that acceptance of going slow and continually looking out for others. Also there is a lot of MGIF culture…
Mad busy at rush hour, it can
Mad busy at rush hour, it can be backed up all the way from Wandsworth Bridge to King’s Road. No problems with speed limit at those times, though it’s regularly ignored when quieter – more down toward the bridge though, where the planters are generally well respected. Mainly because it’s wall-to-wall Chelsea tractors up there and though they might not worry too much about cyclists they definitely worry about their paintwork!