Diversion - duty of care and road safety?
Discussion
Popular cycling commuter route between towns, one a university town.
A large wall blew down, some still standing. Road closed. Diversion in place via steep hill and a main road and shopping area and back up the hill.
Alternatively you can carry bike up steps and cycle off road muddy path through the woods.
However, the diversion down into the town is a significant accident black spot over the years, and is unpleasant at best. The path through the woods is busy with pedestrians (also diverted) and the Herris fencing keeps blowing down onto this path. An increasing number of cyclists are just avoiding the whole cycle route and using main road the whole way.
A few weeks or months I can understand, but this has been closed for over two years while council and insurers argue.
Is there any duty of care or risk assessment which needs to be made for this, particularly for vulnerable pedestrians or cyclists?
A large wall blew down, some still standing. Road closed. Diversion in place via steep hill and a main road and shopping area and back up the hill.
Alternatively you can carry bike up steps and cycle off road muddy path through the woods.
However, the diversion down into the town is a significant accident black spot over the years, and is unpleasant at best. The path through the woods is busy with pedestrians (also diverted) and the Herris fencing keeps blowing down onto this path. An increasing number of cyclists are just avoiding the whole cycle route and using main road the whole way.
A few weeks or months I can understand, but this has been closed for over two years while council and insurers argue.
Is there any duty of care or risk assessment which needs to be made for this, particularly for vulnerable pedestrians or cyclists?
I am clutching at straws on this one, and struggling for a term that isn't 'duty of care'. Thing is the council have a road safety team, and they make all sorts of proclamation and decisions about new infrastructure and roads citing safety as a deciding factor because 'keeping public safe' is No.1 apparently.
But the same council seems oblivious to the increased risk that multiple cyclists now accept daily, and have done for 2 years.
Councilors are aware, but effectively asking for public support to lean on council officers. Said council officers didn't know people cycled there(!) and say nothing can be done while insurers argue.
But the same council seems oblivious to the increased risk that multiple cyclists now accept daily, and have done for 2 years.
dontlookdown said:
Diversion via accident black spot doesn't sound ideal. Presumably there is no alternative?
Write to the council/tell your councillor. Can't do any harm. They probably don't cycle so may be unaware of the issue.
The woods and steps are the alternative, or 1km walk on narrow pedestrian paths with anti-cycling barriers....Write to the council/tell your councillor. Can't do any harm. They probably don't cycle so may be unaware of the issue.
Councilors are aware, but effectively asking for public support to lean on council officers. Said council officers didn't know people cycled there(!) and say nothing can be done while insurers argue.
POIDH said:
The woods and steps are the alternative, or 1km walk on narrow pedestrian paths with anti-cycling barriers....
Councilors are aware, but effectively asking for public support to lean on council officers. Said council officers didn't know people cycled there(!) and say nothing can be done while insurers argue.
But, you are being inconvenienced at most. Has there been an accident because of this diversion? or have most people just "got on with it" Councilors are aware, but effectively asking for public support to lean on council officers. Said council officers didn't know people cycled there(!) and say nothing can be done while insurers argue.
Regarding 'duty of care'.
What the Council will have done is initiated diversions via any necessary TPO etc. both in line with any pre-existing diversionary routes established, or by identifying new ones which reduce risk 'as far as is practicably possible' for all users.
Reducing the risk 'as far as is practicably possible' is where your argument lies (if valid) should they have over compensated for the situation.
The Council 'may' have been advised that the location of the fencing as it stands is appropriate to mitigate the risk of liability for damage or injury, this may also be a requirement of their public liability insurance following any risk analysis conducted.
This not only applies to the bounded area, but also to use of the area which you consider should be accessible.
What you will need to do is evidence that by moving the barriers, you are not now exposing what was previously a latent risk which is now a real risk, or creating a new risk to all potential users.
As an example, you state you need 1 to 1.5 meters clearance creating, will that work with cyclists and/or pedestrians in opposition?
If so, you will need to be clear why that example would not be an issue.
What the Council will have done is initiated diversions via any necessary TPO etc. both in line with any pre-existing diversionary routes established, or by identifying new ones which reduce risk 'as far as is practicably possible' for all users.
Reducing the risk 'as far as is practicably possible' is where your argument lies (if valid) should they have over compensated for the situation.
POIDH said:
All that's being asked for is Heras fencing to be moved back about 1 to 1.5metres for a 30m section...
I don't believe you have mentioned this previously, but if this is achievable whilst not increasing risks from within, or outside the zone currently bounded by the fencing, then this is where you need to focus.The Council 'may' have been advised that the location of the fencing as it stands is appropriate to mitigate the risk of liability for damage or injury, this may also be a requirement of their public liability insurance following any risk analysis conducted.
This not only applies to the bounded area, but also to use of the area which you consider should be accessible.
What you will need to do is evidence that by moving the barriers, you are not now exposing what was previously a latent risk which is now a real risk, or creating a new risk to all potential users.
As an example, you state you need 1 to 1.5 meters clearance creating, will that work with cyclists and/or pedestrians in opposition?
If so, you will need to be clear why that example would not be an issue.
Why is the road closed? While the rubble is being cleared and the remaining wall either stabilised or demolished, fair enough, but unless it's a massive retaining wall or similar after a couple of weeks it becomes a pisstake; even if they have an overdeveloped CYA tendency there's no reason the road cannot open for cycles and walkers, if they want to be anal about it fencing it off down the middle of the road leaves plenty of room for everything other than motor vehicles. Definitely ask your councillor what the score is.
I have recently made a formal complaint to my local council about this. It seems that nearly every time I go out there is a road closure. To close a road there has to be a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TRRO) to legally allow the road to be closed. The vast majority of TTROs only prevent ‘vehicular traffic’, this includes cyclists, however, if you dismount and push your bike you are no longer classed as vehicular traffic. There should be pedestrian access unless this has been included in the TRRO, therefore you should have access if walking.
Having been prevented from going through several closures recently I have checked the TRROs and found that every occasion I should have been allowed through, but worse is the fact that several closures were illegal. There is a real lack of understanding and diligence in organisations planning and implementing road closures, they get away with it because no one checks.
If a public highway is closed there has to be a diversionary route, which must be suitable, but do they consider cyclists? No! I have been advised on two occasions that the road is closed and to use the diversion, a high speed dual carriageway. I have taken this up with those concerned.
Having been prevented from going through several closures recently I have checked the TRROs and found that every occasion I should have been allowed through, but worse is the fact that several closures were illegal. There is a real lack of understanding and diligence in organisations planning and implementing road closures, they get away with it because no one checks.
If a public highway is closed there has to be a diversionary route, which must be suitable, but do they consider cyclists? No! I have been advised on two occasions that the road is closed and to use the diversion, a high speed dual carriageway. I have taken this up with those concerned.
Alicat said:
I have recently made a formal complaint to my local council about this. It seems that nearly every time I go out there is a road closure. To close a road there has to be a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TRRO) to legally allow the road to be closed. The vast majority of TTROs only prevent ‘vehicular traffic’, this includes cyclists, however, if you dismount and push your bike you are no longer classed as vehicular traffic. There should be pedestrian access unless this has been included in the TRRO, therefore you should have access if walking.
Having been prevented from going through several closures recently I have checked the TRROs and found that every occasion I should have been allowed through, but worse is the fact that several closures were illegal. There is a real lack of understanding and diligence in organisations planning and implementing road closures, they get away with it because no one checks.
If a public highway is closed there has to be a diversionary route, which must be suitable, but do they consider cyclists? No! I have been advised on two occasions that the road is closed and to use the diversion, a high speed dual carriageway. I have taken this up with those concerned.
I've seen even better than that...Having been prevented from going through several closures recently I have checked the TRROs and found that every occasion I should have been allowed through, but worse is the fact that several closures were illegal. There is a real lack of understanding and diligence in organisations planning and implementing road closures, they get away with it because no one checks.
If a public highway is closed there has to be a diversionary route, which must be suitable, but do they consider cyclists? No! I have been advised on two occasions that the road is closed and to use the diversion, a high speed dual carriageway. I have taken this up with those concerned.
alock said:
My biggest issue with cycling is road closures. The signs never make it clear whether pedestrians and/or cyclists can still get through. They seem to assume everyone has.local.knowledge of why the closure is in place.
Few years ago, actually probably 6 or 7! I took the extra scenic route home from work to make a nice 30ish mile ride in the evening. Got half way home and saw the same signs "road closed access only" To divert would have added 20miles total, much of it up hill! And I wasn't feeling it at the end of a work day!I pedalled along and found the road blocked off with plastic fences. A large trench cut in the left hand lane and assorted diggers parked up for the night. No pavements either side as it was a bit rural
Carefully lifted bike over the barriers, scooched round myself, walked through the works and then did the same at the other end and carried on.
Legal, almost certainly not, but I just don't care. If Id have had to negotiate over that trench, might have been a different decision. But it wasn't and I doubt a single person on the planet knew I did it. If Id injured myself it would have been on me.
Quite what anyone walking along that road was supposed to do legally I dunno
BunkMoreland said:
Few years ago, actually probably 6 or 7! I took the extra scenic route home from work to make a nice 30ish mile ride in the evening. Got half way home and saw the same signs "road closed access only" To divert would have added 20miles total, much of it up hill! And I wasn't feeling it at the end of a work day!
I pedalled along and found the road blocked off with plastic fences. A large trench cut in the left hand lane and assorted diggers parked up for the night. No pavements either side as it was a bit rural
Carefully lifted bike over the barriers, scooched round myself, walked through the works and then did the same at the other end and carried on.
Legal, almost certainly not, but I just don't care. If Id have had to negotiate over that trench, might have been a different decision. But it wasn't and I doubt a single person on the planet knew I did it. If Id injured myself it would have been on me.
Quite what anyone walking along that road was supposed to do legally I dunno
Generally pedestrian access has to be maintained, although if there's no frontages that won't technically count... But here was an example I encountered in similar circumstances.I pedalled along and found the road blocked off with plastic fences. A large trench cut in the left hand lane and assorted diggers parked up for the night. No pavements either side as it was a bit rural
Carefully lifted bike over the barriers, scooched round myself, walked through the works and then did the same at the other end and carried on.
Legal, almost certainly not, but I just don't care. If Id have had to negotiate over that trench, might have been a different decision. But it wasn't and I doubt a single person on the planet knew I did it. If Id injured myself it would have been on me.
Quite what anyone walking along that road was supposed to do legally I dunno
There was one case where I was a little cheeky and walked onto a closed dual carriageway locally, but the closure order prohibited vehicles, not pedestrians. They decided to give me a lift rather than having me walk it.
BunkMoreland said:
Few years ago, actually probably 6 or 7! I took the extra scenic route home from work to make a nice 30ish mile ride in the evening. Got half way home and saw the same signs "road closed access only" To divert would have added 20miles total, much of it up hill! And I wasn't feeling it at the end of a work day!
I pedalled along and found the road blocked off with plastic fences. A large trench cut in the left hand lane and assorted diggers parked up for the night. No pavements either side as it was a bit rural
Carefully lifted bike over the barriers, scooched round myself, walked through the works and then did the same at the other end and carried on.
Legal, almost certainly not, but I just don't care. If Id have had to negotiate over that trench, might have been a different decision. But it wasn't and I doubt a single person on the planet knew I did it. If Id injured myself it would have been on me.
Quite what anyone walking along that road was supposed to do legally I dunno
Most legal notices for road closures only prevent ‘vehicular traffic’. This does not include pedestrians, or cyclists who dismount and push their bike. However, those that implement traffic management do not understand this and there has been a recent tendency to barrier right across a highway preventing all access. I raised this with a traffic management company recently and was told there was no footpath, so no pedestrian access, a total lack of understanding of highway law, and what a public highway is.I pedalled along and found the road blocked off with plastic fences. A large trench cut in the left hand lane and assorted diggers parked up for the night. No pavements either side as it was a bit rural
Carefully lifted bike over the barriers, scooched round myself, walked through the works and then did the same at the other end and carried on.
Legal, almost certainly not, but I just don't care. If Id have had to negotiate over that trench, might have been a different decision. But it wasn't and I doubt a single person on the planet knew I did it. If Id injured myself it would have been on me.
Quite what anyone walking along that road was supposed to do legally I dunno
Alicat said:
Most legal notices for road closures only prevent ‘vehicular traffic’. This does not include pedestrians, or cyclists who dismount and push their bike. However, those that implement traffic management do not understand this and there has been a recent tendency to barrier right across a highway preventing all access. I raised this with a traffic management company recently and was told there was no footpath, so no pedestrian access, a total lack of understanding of highway law, and what a public highway is.
It does seem to abound rather.There was one I encountered cycling in Hertfordshire, where part of a roundabout was closed. I encountered it shortly before the closure actually took effect. Although the roundabout did have a footway.
I enquired about the diversion, and the council confirmed that the route was "for all vehicles". Personally, I don't think that was the "smart"est route.
Solocle said:
It does seem to abound rather.
There was one I encountered cycling in Hertfordshire, where part of a roundabout was closed. I encountered it shortly before the closure actually took effect. Although the roundabout did have a footway.
I enquired about the diversion, and the council confirmed that the route was "for all vehicles". Personally, I don't think that was the "smart"est route.
Now why does that not surprise me. It is Hertfordshire I have made the formal complaint to! There was one I encountered cycling in Hertfordshire, where part of a roundabout was closed. I encountered it shortly before the closure actually took effect. Although the roundabout did have a footway.
I enquired about the diversion, and the council confirmed that the route was "for all vehicles". Personally, I don't think that was the "smart"est route.
I ride quite a number of random routes through the Surrey Hills and often come across random road closures. If they are unmanned I'll nearly always just ride through and rarely find the road completely blocked edge to edge. If they are manned I'll ask the person if I can get through and I've not yet been denied access.
Last week I came across a random pothole team, road wasn't officially closed they just had a yellow "emergency road closure" sign up. I asked the guy with a whacker if I could get through and he mumbled something, I walked along the verge and he said "I didn't say you could" but I wasn't sure if that was him disclaiming liability or being sarcastic about me ploughing on through, but the he said to mind the tools further up, so...
Last week I came across a random pothole team, road wasn't officially closed they just had a yellow "emergency road closure" sign up. I asked the guy with a whacker if I could get through and he mumbled something, I walked along the verge and he said "I didn't say you could" but I wasn't sure if that was him disclaiming liability or being sarcastic about me ploughing on through, but the he said to mind the tools further up, so...
I think it depends what part of the country you are in and who is the traffic management contractor. I travel and cycle all over the UK.
It is a real mixed bag ranging from rude and ill informed contractors, to some who go out of their way to ensure you are not inconvenienced and safe. I recently cycled through a closure and they stopped me whilst they swept debris off the road - I contacted the contractor to and gave them positive feedback.
It is a real mixed bag ranging from rude and ill informed contractors, to some who go out of their way to ensure you are not inconvenienced and safe. I recently cycled through a closure and they stopped me whilst they swept debris off the road - I contacted the contractor to and gave them positive feedback.
Alicat said:
I think it depends what part of the country you are in and who is the traffic management contractor. I travel and cycle all over the UK.
It is a real mixed bag ranging from rude and ill informed contractors, to some who go out of their way to ensure you are not inconvenienced and safe. I recently cycled through a closure and they stopped me whilst they swept debris off the road - I contacted the contractor to and gave them positive feedback.
I mean, it varies for sure. Hampshire for instance seem to be good about providing non-motorway alternative diversions. Incidentally, I had quite a friendly encounter in Hampshire, although the works were National Highways...It is a real mixed bag ranging from rude and ill informed contractors, to some who go out of their way to ensure you are not inconvenienced and safe. I recently cycled through a closure and they stopped me whilst they swept debris off the road - I contacted the contractor to and gave them positive feedback.
Although I was entirely within the law, because I joined the road just before they closed it. Thus I had the Westbound A31 basically to myself from Cadnam [M27 J1] to Ringwood.
At one point the chaps I'd been chatting to drove past me and gave me a cheer.Edited by Solocle on Thursday 17th April 11:03
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff