A council responsible for installing the “optical illusion” cycle lane in Keynsham, which led to over 100 people tripping and injuring themselves in the past two years, has announced that it won’t be implementing any changes to alleviate safety concerns despite a group of cross-party councillors coming together and trying to convince the council to do so.
The much-maligned cycle lane in Keynsham, which was installed in 2022, was even lambasted by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former MP for North East Somerset describing it as a “failed experiment” and appealing that the cycle lane be removed, with the road going back to being a two-way street.
The accidents are believed to take place due to the infrastructure’s colours and changing kerb heights creating an “optical illusion” trip hazard. In March and April 2022 alone, 25 pedestrians were reported to have tripped or fallen while attempting to cross the cycle lane, while 59 locals were injured during its first year in operation.
In February this year, it was reported that safety works on the High Street — named the ‘most dangerous in the UK’ last year due to the bike lane’s tripping dangers — were due to be undertaken as soon as the weather would clear. But now, the council has announced that it doesn’t have plans for any further changes, much to the discontent of the six councillors representing the town, who tried to convince the council otherwise.
Councillor Alan Hale, representing Keynsham South said: “Despite all of our efforts to protect our community from the injuries caused by a council-designed trip hazard, we have just been informed by executive director for sustainable communities, Sophie Broadfield, that ‘As it stands, we have no plans to make further changes to the design of the cycle lane’.
“I have been making representations to officers and the council leader since the lane opened and I was in High Street on the day it opened, and casualty reports began that day and have continued ever since.
“Not only are the administration being dismissive of our communities’ safety but also the safety of visitors to the town. Recently one visitor from Peasedown St John and another from Guildford were injured and needed an ambulance.”
However, Independent Cllr Hale told Keynsham Voice that they have managed to persuade Bath and North East Somerset Council to carry out “minor tinkering”.
The campaigning group of councillors has issued High Street shops with copies of a letter to hand out to anyone who falls on the kerb, describing what action they should take. They say many of the shopkeepers are well rehearsed in responding with a chair or cushions and blankets to help those who have fallen.
Cllr Hale added: “It has been a never-ending campaign and it was rewarding when all six councillors sat down together to fight for a change. Councillor George Leach is going to take a lead now in seeking changes and I have assured him that I shall continue to support him. This ridiculous situation cannot continue.”
He added: “I cannot see how an administration can preside over a development that has seriously injured over 100 people and do nothing.”
Lib Dem Councillor from Keynsham North, George Leach said: “The objective will be to seek short-term, more immediate solutions as well as a long-term strategy.
“The council’s financial situation and current stance does not make this straightforward but it is important we as elected representatives continue to advocate on behalf of our residents.”
Councillor Paul Roper, B&NES cabinet member for economic and cultural sustainable development, said: “We have no plans to make further changes to the design of the cycle lane. However, our recent Creating Sustainable Communities consultation gathered residents’ views on the pedestrianisation of the High Street, which we are exploring as a longer-term solution. In the meantime, we continue to monitor trips and falls.”
Works were carried out last year to paint the bike lane’s surface red in an attempt to more clearly distinguish between the differing kerb heights of the pavement, cycle lane, and road.
However, despite these changes, the injuries have continued to rack up, with one local architect, who suffered “significant trauma and soft tissue damage” along with a “badly jarred back, causing pain, numbness, and sciatica” in a fall on the bike lane, branding the infrastructure “completely idiotic” and like it was “designed by toddlers”.
In May, it was reported that pedestrians who fell and injured themselves on a cycle lane responsible for three tripping incidents a month due to its confusing layout and kerb heights did not receive any compensation from the local council – with 30 claims dismissed over the past year.
Councillor Hale said that he even warned the council leaders that should someone be unfortunately killed due to the bike lane, they could be investigated for corporate manslaughter.
13 thoughts on “No plans for further changes on “optical illusion” cycle lane which claimed over 100 trip victims, despite cross-party councillors’ efforts”
Quote:
I haven’t been there (I can’t remember the last time I went to, or even just through, Keynsham) but I honestly don’t understand how so many people can claim to have been injured by this.
brooksby wrote:
It’s misleading people as to the height of the surfaces.
Compare it to this set of stairs and imagine how many people would injure themselves by misjudging where the last step is.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Ah, but what about if that bottom step had been painted bright red and people still stumbled on it?
brooksby wrote:
Sorry, the stairs aren’t a great analogy. As I understand it, the tripping hazard is the border between the lane and the pavement/road, not the lane itself.
When I was there last month
When I was there last month there were still inconsistent heights in the kerb between the footway and cycle path. Then there is a separator (with vertical kerb) between the cycle path and the road. As I understand it in the first incarnation after it was just planters there were places where that separator was just painted with white lines on the road and places where it was there and the top of the kerb was painted white – so two places with the same visual markings but one had a vertical change.
Anyway if you want examples of current rubbish there there’s a spot at the east end (Bath Hill) where an on-street cycle lane is suddenly diverted onto the footway (it looks the same as the rest of footway) and there are bollards now on the footway. It then narrows to nothing, and you’re then expected to carve back across the motor traffic, through a “cycle refuge” and then across the other lane of traffic with bad sight lines (? according to markings ?) to access the cycle path. Or … you just ride on the footway (which narrows so you’ll be in conflict with pedestrians) and wait at the pedestrian crossing…
Google doesn’t seem to have
Google doesn’t seem to have been down the street recently, so this is the only one I can get. It looks to me like P in the picture below is paint, and K is kerb. Are people tripping on K thinking it’s flat? Or trying to step down off P thinking it’s raised?! Or have I fallen into the optical trap because actually P is K and vice versa…
[Edit – sorry, just seen chrisonabike’s explanation below. Think I get it now]
quiff wrote:
I think there’s problems with both P and K as shown in your photo. Here’s the best explanation that I’ve seen (taken from https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/keynshams-optical-illusion-cycle-path-8504124):
Your local news has higher
Your local news has higher journalistic standards than most!
quiff wrote:
They’re a bit hit and miss – sometimes they’ve got a decent article, but mostly it’s clickbait rubbish. However, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the comments sections.
Don’t blame you, it’s not a
Don’t blame you, it’s not a “destination” kind of place.
As for “but how?!” yes … but in their defence there are several elements of the designers and implementors “making it up” which mean it’s not a good design and has inconsistent details. There are too many potential trip hazards e.g. there’s an upright kerb to clear, and levels change / in earlier version there were confusing markings * . Plus there are LOTS of people driving there so people crossing will be looking up at cars, not down at the road.
I think a pedestrianisation treatment would be best (given that there doesn’t seem to be much cycling anyway) BUT I can’t see that happening because cars (even though they’ve diverted some of the traffic to the parallel Ashton Way. I think it’s definitely a “drive to the walk” place – maybe more so than other places.
* I do wonder how many people were injuring themselves when there were just planters there and no cycle lane?
They’re right about “designed
They’re right about “designed by toddlers” but not entirely in the way they are complaining.
I have (despite living a long way away) now been to Keynsham a few times and while the general idea is sound (a bi-directional cycleway down a main street – especially where it’s busy with cars) and I didn’t manage to injure myself there are issues both with big picture and the details of implementation.
Skipping kerb-nerdery and notes on poor “network” decisions I’d say the main problem is there is a LOT of traffic in Keynsham. There seemed to be more people driving about than in Edinburgh! Pretty much any time of the day.
Presumably this is a) motornormativity b) …and it’s become a commuter town / people want to go to amenities in Bristol and Bath so are accustomed to hopping in the car c) why would you walk or cycle when everyone is driving and in places even the footways are narrow d) the place is on a slope – not a mountain but it’s steep in the centre down by the Chew and further back it’s still noticable.
There’s also a giant traffic sewer (the “bypass”). Having a bypass seems a good way to take the through-traffic out but this one doesn’t entirely bypass the place. Then – good luck getting across! (There is one not-terrible-not-great underpass I found – NO CYCLING!). It’s possible to e.g. walk or cycle north-south e.g. to Waitrose but it really, really seems that this is not intended.
I used to go down there a lot
I used to go down there a lot on my bike (commuting) when it was 2-way traffic; very busy. It’s one-way traffic with the bike lane now. TBH if it was anything else then nobody would be moaning (eg some sort of fancy plaza style pedestrian area) and people who said they’d been injured would be ignored (clumsy inattentiveness)……but it’s a bike lane and motorists have been displaced. They can’t say “we hate bike lanes” but try and come come up with a plausible reason to restore the 2-way traffic.
I can understand in some ways
I can understand in some ways why there is sn issue. I mean who has stepped down from a height and the drop being greater or less than expected? At work we have toilet facilities on each floor and the ground floor facilities had this weird extra strip on the floor presumably due to the tile levels being slightly out. Anyway this strip is coloured and shaped in such a way that it looks like a step down and even now I still have to ignore it.
One of the issues with cycling infra is the lack of consistency, why only colour it now after issues have been raised? Which colour is to be used? Red, blue, whatever paint we have in stock?