Poor road design

[Trif]

Solocle said:

All purpose trunk dual carriageways.

That's it, that's my entry.

This has always been a favourite of mine. Cycle lane crossing on the ramp of a 70mph road. "Dave, do you think we should put a sign up or something?"

[Solocle]

Trif said:

This has always been a favourite of mine. Cycle lane crossing on the ramp of a 70mph road. "Dave, do you think we should put a sign up or something?"

Absolute classic.

What surprised me was actually having directions to a 70 mph road.

[SteveStrange]

Trif said:

Solocle said:

All purpose trunk dual carriageways.

That's it, that's my entry.

This has always been a favourite of mine. Cycle lane crossing on the ramp of a 70mph road. "Dave, do you think we should put a sign up or something?"

It wouldn't be Dave. Dave doesn't work in that team.

The cycles, on their off-road cycle path, are given a pretty formal, if uncontrolled, at-grade crossing point with excellent (100m+) visibility and minimal level difference, and there is a warning sign suitable for the speed.

Do you expect the cyclists to be taken up to the roundabout, across West Mayne, and back down the slip road on the other side? Or signals on the exit slip? Or a bridge, with 1:20 approach ramps, 100m long?

By the way, the A127 isn't a Trunk Road. Cycles are allowed.


ETA swap "speed" for "Size"

Edited by SteveStrange on Thursday 22 December 15:12

[Solocle]

SteveStrange said:

It wouldn't be Dave. Dave doesn't work in that team.

The cycles, on their off-road cycle path, are given a pretty formal, if uncontrolled, at-grade crossing point with excellent (100m+) visibility and minimal level difference, and there is a warning sign suitable for the size.

Do you expect the cyclists to be taken up to the roundabout, across West Mayne, and back down the slip road on the other side? Or signals on the exit slip? Or a bridge, with 1:20 approach ramps, 100m long?

By the way, the A127 isn't a Trunk Road. Cycles are allowed.

Cycles are allowed on the vast majority of non-motorway trunk roads, most without any form of provision.

Cycling is allowed here.

Havant Bypass - Google Maps.

As for that A127 junction, provided that the surface is smooth and well maintained, then using the elevation of the junction to route the cycle paths under the slip road like this:

Keeps the cycle path seperate from slip road traffic, and maintains momentum for cyclists, thus removing an impetus to use the carriageway.

Edited by Solocle on Thursday 22 December 15:20

[SteveStrange]

Boxster5 said:

I think we need a thread started on the lines of “Ask a road planner/highway design engineer anything”

We had one.

Boxster5 said:

paraphrased with something along the lines “Which idiot designed that?”

Pretty disrespectful if I'm being honest.

Once again, give someone a driving licence, and they immediately become an expert in road design/maintenance/planning, even though they have no idea of traffic design standards, material properties, planning or environmental considerations, historical safety problems, ground conditions etc etc.

PS I'm a CEng in Highways Engineering - both design and maintenance, so in many cases I'm the "idiot".

[SteveStrange]

Solocle said:

As for that A127 junction, provided that the surface is smooth and well maintained, then using the elevation of the junction to route the cycle paths under the slip road like this:

Keeps the cycle path seperate from slip road traffic, and maintains momentum for cyclists, thus removing an impetus to use the carriageway.

Edited by Solocle on Thursday 22 December 15:20

Tunnelling under the slips, for the very low number of cycles, would never be funded. There are far bigger problems on the A127 that would take priority. There have been zero cycling accidents around that junction in the last 5 years. Tunnels are a solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist.

[Trif]

SteveStrange said:

Do you expect the cyclists to be taken up to the roundabout, across West Mayne, and back down the slip road on the other side? Or signals on the exit slip? Or a bridge, with 1:20 approach ramps, 100m long?

Maybe it is better then I think but I'd be looking at every alternative to cycling that route if I was ever in need to do so. I don't think many drivers would expect to see a cyclist crossing there, despite the sign. Personally I'll continue suffering the painfully slow traffic, definitely less chance of getting killed.

[Boxster5]

SteveStrange said:

Boxster5 said:

I think we need a thread started on the lines of “Ask a road planner/highway design engineer anything”

We had one.

Boxster5 said:

paraphrased with something along the lines “Which idiot designed that?”

Pretty disrespectful if I'm being honest.

Once again, give someone a driving licence, and they immediately become an expert in road design/maintenance/planning, even though they have no idea of traffic design standards, material properties, planning or environmental considerations, historical safety problems, ground conditions etc etc.

PS I'm a CEng in Highways Engineering - both design and maintenance, so in many cases I'm the "idiot".

Sorry if I’ve offended you but if you stand back and look at some of the decisions made, my “..idiot” thought certainly appears warranted. Durham County Council seem to have a power trip when it comes to highways design. They seem hellbent on silly little cyclist “give way” signs painted on footpaths or bus lanes that aren’t even long enough to accommodate a single bus. I don’t have a problem with cyclists (or buses) but they need proper separate cycle lanes, not making the highway narrower. Yes no doubt there’ll be the good old costs element to consider but to me they are wasting money on pointless projects (why did they need to install thousands of plastic bollards at no doubt a not insignificant cost - total waste of money) that don’t achieve what they are supposed to do. As per usual, it’s the usual half-cock approach that grates with me.

[Boxster5]

Trif said:

Boxster5 said:

Trif said:

Boxster5 said:

OK so here goes - a 2 lane public highway with plenty of space for cyclists then the local authority decide to divide off the highway on either side with plastic cones (thousands of them) narrowing the road. Any oversize vehicles have no chance of getting through. Not only that but the new cycle lanes have hardly ever been used as road sweepers cannot clear the drains (another bugbear) so cyclists either cycle on the footpaths or ride on the public highway blocking motorists (I’ve seen both).
The local highways authority need their arses kicking!

Streetview? But what you have described is not affecting your safety in a 2tonne metal box. I've worked with an oversized vehicle delivery previously, the route was planned meticulously and wouldn't go down unsuitable roads.


The detest of cyclists runs deep in councils, including the maintenance departments. There needs to be more work to build complete routes that cyclists (and those who currently drive short distances) want to use, are maintained to a good standard and don't leave cyclists stranded in tricky positions at the start and finish of the route. My experience is they fail regularly on all points. This should be every drivers complaint, as why would a cyclist chose to use the road if there was a cycle lane?

So here is the ridiculous plastic cones at Pity Me - have absolutely no issue with the painted lines separating cyclists (trust me they are hardly ever used - I can count one one hand how many times I’ve seen a cyclist). The next photo is the A177 near Maiden Castle where the local authority have left the uphill section narrower than a vehicle to accommodate cyclists (at least there aren’t any plastic cones)

So this has nothing to do with the fact it went from a NSL road to 30mph? It looks to me that the council wanted to narrow the road in response to the lower speed limit to help with natural enforcement of the slower speed (the narrower the road, the more aware of your speed you are). Their method of choosing to narrow it was by installing a cycle path with deformable bollards which presents no danger to you inside your vehicle. I am however not in favour of the bollards being used to stop right turns by the hotel, normally you would see a raised kerb with a lit up keep left bollard here.

If we are talking about the placement of the cycle lane in general, I also mostly agree it was misguided as they haven't taken into account where people are and where they want to go. They should connect Durham University through to the Hospital via the train station with a segregated cycle lane. Plus Front Street and Old Pit Lane to the Hospital. And Sunderland Road and Gilesgate to the town centre, these are all densely populated areas with busy roads and are short distances perfect for cycling.


For the A177, I just see that as clearly showing that cyclists have the right to be in front. I'd have expected to see solid white lines to stop overtakes around the bend. But the cyclists and line of paint are again presenting no danger to you in your car, just don't overtake on a blind bend and you'll be fine.

I’m pretty sure that stretch of Rotary Way is still NSL (ie 60mph). This all was introduced (along with the stretch through Framwellgate Moor) without any consultation (as far as I’m aware) during COVID lockdown as you probably are aware. Yes more cycle lanes but they need to be properly separated from the highway. The coned sections now have the problem that the drain cleaners can’t access the drains to clear them whilst all the fallen leaves mean cyclists are reluctant to use the lanes (and yes that no right turn into the hotel should not be bollards - again another half-baked idea).

[SteveStrange]

Trif said:

SteveStrange said:

Do you expect the cyclists to be taken up to the roundabout, across West Mayne, and back down the slip road on the other side? Or signals on the exit slip? Or a bridge, with 1:20 approach ramps, 100m long?

Maybe it is better then I think but I'd be looking at every alternative to cycling that route if I was ever in need to do so. I don't think many drivers would expect to see a cyclist crossing there, despite the sign. Personally I'll continue suffering the painfully slow traffic, definitely less chance of getting killed.

I agree on seeking out alternatives. Technicalities and legalities aside, I can't think of a more horrible road in the area to cycle on (or walk along). It's worn out, too busy, not big enough, and goes through/very close to some of the most unpleasant areas I can think of (Dale Farm yuk).

[Solocle]

SteveStrange said:

I agree on seeking out alternatives. Technicalities and legalities aside, I can't think of a more horrible road in the area to cycle on (or walk along). It's worn out, too busy, not big enough, and goes through/very close to some of the most unpleasant areas I can think of (Dale Farm yuk).

Thing is, what route I choose depends on the kind of ride I'm doing.

Two rides with the same start/finish in mind, albeit different directions. But two different times of day.
August 2021, overnight. London-Dorset (abandoned at Stonehenge).
July 2022, Sunday 10am-8pm. Dorset-London.

The daytime ride, I took the A30 up to Salisbury and on to Michaeldever. I then detoured to the 70 mph dual carriageway A33, as I figured, parallel to the M3, it would be a lot quieter than the 70 mph dual carriageway A303. I was keen to avoid the couple of miles where the A30 and A303 multiplex.

For both rides the A30 section between Popham and Hounslow was similar, with some variations. Never too busy, paralleling the M3.

But on the overnight ride, I was hitting Popham at 3am. I didn't bother with the detour.

Then I went down the old A30 to Sutton Scotney, pondering the choice of onward route.

And having done that, I rejoined the A303. I chose the trunk dual carriageway over the nice quiet rural A road.

That may seem nonsensical, but there were a couple of factors.

1. Services. I needed food and drink.
2. Speed and ease. The A303 is smoother and gentler in gradients.
3. Novelty. I'd ridden the A30 before, but not the A303
4. Stonehenge. Right off the A303, too much of a detour from the A30.

There wasn't no traffic, even at that godforsaken hour, but it was quiet enough to be quite manageable.