[mattw]

This is an issue I literally ran into – one of these across a shared use pavement in my town. I’m posting here to ask for thoughts, experiences and opinions on an issue I am not clear about yet.

The cable protector I came across on my utility cycle, which is a Brompton size e-folder with 16″ wheels was the size of a bolt down road-hump across the pavement, and is advertised as a “Pavement Cable Protector”.

It is 45mm high and 270mm side to side with 45 degree slopes. The height is the same as a scaffold plank.

Once we get any number of these, these shared pavements will be unusable by my I think, and even more unusable by wheelchair users etc.

Warwickshire Council have published guidance permitting use of these because ‘haf their housing stock does not have parking off-street, and denying they have any responsibility in law.

Below is a piece I wrote to highlight the question for Wheels for Wellbeing’s Disabled Cycling Activists Network.

I’d welcome any thoughts from anyone.
————————————————————————————
Councils are starting to promote use of cable protectors across pavements when charging electric cars.

Warwickshire Council for one are specifically offering advice that these are acceptable, and cable protectors, and have published guidance. This is all the info I have, I have not gone after the EIA, which should exist but I bet does not.

[i]Close to half of Warwickshire’s housing stock has no off-street parking, such as a driveway, which can make the charging of an electric vehicle difficult. In order to address this problem, Warwickshire County Council is allowing residents to place a charging cable across a pedestrian footway (e.g., a pavement) when using a cable protector.[/i]

They also specifically say all legal responsibility for any problems caused is down to the owner.

IMO this is a lie, and is directly against the EA Provision of Equal Service, and the PSED – especially when we consider the disruption caused by the 2-5 of these we will end up with for every 10-20 houses in areas where they are needed given charging times.

AFAICS the typical size of “cable protectors” are up to 45mm (2 inches) high, 300mm wide and with 45 degree sloped. Aren’t drop kerbs 5mm? And front wheels of a manual wheelchair 75-150mm?

Linked below one of these big ones with 150 reviews.

Looks like a recipe for huge conflict and abuse, and one that Councils will try to slope shoulders on.

HTH,

Warwickshire council article
https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/news/article/4348/making-electric-vehicle-charging-more-accessible-in-warwickshire

Warwickshire guidance
https://api.warwickshire.gov.uk/documents/WCCC-1615347118-1185

Pavement Cable Protector Product Link
https://www.theworkplacedepot.co.uk/pavement-cable-protector

Below
Warwickshire guidance
“Pavement Cable Protector” Photo and Dimension

Topic

[mattw]

Hirsute wrote:

I can’t recall which twitter thread it was in but someone mentioned the Dutch allow the use of sunken cables in the footway. But then they are a bit more advanced than us when it comes to infrastructure.

https://twitter.com/RantyHighwayman/status/1788882817218208230

[mattw]

The political issue I think

The political issue I think is that the Council don’t care whether it’s workable; they care that it is not their problem and no one can easily hold them responsible – just like eg A-barriers.

And the Govt just won’t address an issue requiring some restriction on ‘personal freedom’.

I think the key target groups, alongside arguing from both cycling and disabled pedestrian with mobility aid viewpoints, are Councillors who supervise LHAs, Regional Mayors, and the Labour candidates who will be the next generation of MPs. Plus asking prominent spokespeople to intervene.

[chrisonabike]

Wait – are there places near
Wait – are there places near you where motorists haven’t colonised the footways already?

[brooksby]

Presumably you’d need to get

Presumably you’d need to get some really expensive third party public liability insurance, too?

[Hirsute]

Possible answer from

Possible answer from chrisonabike link

A Dutch scheme which used a street reconstruction to add modular channel blocks within which to run a charging cable. As with the Oxfordshire scheme, this relies on neighbourly goodwill, but it deals with the tripping issue.

[chrisonabike]

This would be entirely
This would be entirely consistent with “how we do it” in the UK. Essentially set up the conditions for something (Cars 2.0) but when it comes to the inevitable consequences shrug and say “nothing to do with us” (even though there are laws which cover these things).

[mattw]

But then how do service

But then how do service providers maintain the footway?

We run servcies such as gas, water, electricity everywhere.

Never mind the back street angle-grinder wielders cutting trenches through all our paving slabs.

I might ask BicycleDutch if he can do a survey of this. I doubt that anyone has this sorted.

HMM. Based on who uses most electric cars – what does Norway do?

[hawkinspeter]

mattw wrote:

But then how do service providers maintain the footway?

We run servcies such as gas, water, electricity everywhere.

Never mind the back street angle-grinder wielders cutting trenches through all our paving slabs.

I might ask BicycleDutch if he can do a survey of this. I doubt that anyone has this sorted.

I can anticipate issues with water getting into the channels and freezing which will mean that they won’t last very long. That also raises the question of safety issues if/when the electric cable gets damaged.

The only decent solution is to have the cables properly sunken and sealed under the pavement i.e. proper kerbside charging infrastructure.

[chrisonabike]

Ranty Highwayman has a blog
Ranty Highwayman has a blog on the subject with an image of a Dutch idea and a link to another. (Good article also):

https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-amazing-electricity-trickery.html

[Hirsute]

I can’t recall which twitter

I can’t recall which twitter thread it was in but someone mentioned the Dutch allow the use of sunken cables in the footway. But then they are a bit more advanced than us when it comes to infrastructure.

[brooksby]

So as well as motorists

So as well as motorists believing that they own the carriageway (cos Road tax, innit) and thinking they have a god-given right to store their vehicles on the road for free, they are now going to quietly colonise the tiny proportion of public space exclusively (ish) for pedestrians by leaving tiny speed bumps everywhere.

And, as hirsute says, it opens up a serious can of worms about exclusivity of the ‘parking space’ on the road in front of an individual’s house…  Investment in far far more public charging points is surely the only answer for people who don’t have their own off-road parking.

[hawkinspeter]

That doesn’t seem workable to

That doesn’t seem workable to me. If you do trip over it, how do you contact the owner – surely there should be some contact information if the council is claiming that it’s not responsible for it? Also, what happens if you damage it? (Oops, I dropped the rubber handled axe that I was carrying straight onto the cable coming out of it)

If people are allowed to keep a cable and protector on the pavement, then does that mean that people are also allowed to remove them if they are becoming a nuisance?

[mattw]

Yes – I’ve also been all over

Yes – I’ve also been all over twitter yesterday as my twitter name MattWardman on CycleGranny’s thread (shows the value of twitter), and this weekend I’m flagging it in various places (here, Wheels for Wellbeing’s DCAN, my local cycling FB group in Nottingham, and Active Trave Cafe next week). If I can find a name, I will add in Cycling UK’s barriers to cycling team, and also Transport for All.

The Red Flag for me has been Warwickshire LHA officially declaring a free for all, and abdicating their legal responsibilities.

That Ranty diagram follows the step height and gradient guidelines in the Inclusive Mobility Guidelines, but the wider issues will be the frequency of these – potentially one every 6-12 houses some of the time (based on 6-12 hour charging time), energy and strength for some disabled people, abuse around refusal to move them, and cycles/mobility scooters forced back into the road (and more following abuse). Plus major issues for some particular conditions – eg bumps for people who bruise easily causing the to turn black and blue.

Reactions I have seen are just what I would expect in large part – “it’s making it easier”; “yes a wheelchair can use it” (no evidence); “stop moaning”; “cyclists using disabled people as a front – despicable”; “it shows how much they have thought about disabled people”.

Obviously Mark Harper will sit on his butt, and Rishi Sunk does not give a damn about disabled people, or especially cyclists.

So how to address?

[Hirsute]

RantyHighwayMan

RantyHighwayMan

The council’s guidance is astonishing. It allows cable protectors across footways with a maximum height of 32mm and side slopes at no more than 1 in 5. Under any interpretation of highway practice this is a significant trip hazard and impassable for some wheelchair users.

Of course, you’re not allowed to run cables across the road, but it’s fine to create issues for people using the footway.

I’m absolutely against the idea because it’s making things more awkward or uncomfortable, but I reckon you’d need something more like this, but it’s still liable to create a trip risk. Not so cheap or easy to deploy now is it.

 

Someone else commented “The trip hazard + obstruction is serious enough, but this presumably also creates an issue of “ownership” of the public highway; an “entitlement” to park in front of one’s house because they need to charge. Unless there are very specific permits, this is going to cause problems.”

[mattw]

Pic of cable protector in use

Pic of cable protector in use.

[Author]

Replies