Brighton & Hove City Council says it will conduct further tests on a cycle lane branded a "death trap" where a number of cyclists crashed last month as a result of a hidden kerb, in the hope of finding a permanent solution to the problem.
The local authority put a temporary ramp in place to lessen the danger to riders following a spate of crashes after the Vogue Gyratory on Lewes Road reopened last month following a £600,000 makeover.
According to The Argus, there have been no recorded incidents of riders coming off their bikes since that makeshift solution to the problem was put in place.
Council officials are said to be investigating finding a permanent solution amid concerns that the short-term measures are not “durable enough.”
The newspaper says that of particular concern to the council is the belief that in the absence of the kerb, motor vehicles will encroach onto the cycle lane.
One of the cyclists who was injured at the location concerned is Bev Wells, who sustained a fractured hand an elbow when she fell off her bike.
She believes that the design of the road layout makes it impossible for two vehicles and a bike rider to share the road safely there.
“You can't do something like this piecemeal,” she told the Argus. “You would hope that the council would get it right in the first place, but why are they only looking at it again now more than a month after the accidents?”
Ian Davey, the city’s lead councillor for transport, said: “Generally the Vogue is demonstrably safer for bikes and has been well-received by cyclists.
“Although these kerbs are common, we've had this unexpected situation of a few cyclists apparently entering the bike lane from the side and failing to see the kerb.
“But the arrangement has to be easy to understand and safe for everyone so we need to test whether a cycle lane flush with the road keeps cyclists safe from vehicles or whether we need a kerb of some sort which bikes won't trip over.”
Confirming last month that a temporary ramp had been put in place, a council spokesperson told road.cc: “We have put in some temporary measures and additional signage warning of the new layout.
"Cycle representatives were involved in the new design of the new junction, and we will involve them in any future review.
"Most cyclists using the new facilities have had no problems and the feedback we’ve had has been generally good.
"We will continue to monitor the performance of the junction closely, as we do with all our new transport schemes."
Add new comment
6 comments
I don't think armadillos are the answer, certainly not if they're the tiny plastic things. They crack the first time a car drives over them.
See:
https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/armadillos-the-e...
"Make no mistake – armadillos are popular because they’re cheap, not because they’re effective."
Why not do the job properly with a clearly visible segregated kerb, like they do in the Netherlands, Copenhagen etc...
stick some armadillos on the road instead of a kerb
http://www.cyclehoop.com/product/cycle-lane-safety/armadillos/
If installed correctly cyclists could ride between the "humps" and cars won't try and get through (or at least will only try once).
Notably the only real positive take I've seen on armadillos is on the manufacturers website (as per your link). Not everyone is so keen.
http://madcyclelanesofmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/salford-armadill...
Nothing will stop the most determined of drivers but give me a clearly defined piece of kerb every time. And if the cycle path is a couple of metres wide and continuous why would I want to keep diving back onto the main carraigeway anyway?
I'd seen these on TV last year and not realised how fragile they were. Clearly it's the design and not the concept that's at fault though. Why they don't make them out of the same stuff as sleeping policemen I don't know.
Perhaps rows of small bollards may help instead, at least lumps of concrete are a little more durable and harder for workmen to get wrong.
If it were up to me it would be a row of spikes, similarly I think traffic lights should have retractable spikes that only drop when the lights turn green.
Just wondering who the cycling representatives are? I don't just mean this particular council but generally. I'm not sure I've ever seen a report regarding any part of cycling infrastructure that has not been designed without such experts, yet gets roundly criticised. Surely it should be mandatory for the likes of BC or CTC to be involved?
National body, it's usually Sustrans thats consulted. There's a reason why Sustrans enjoys a somewhat mixed reputation amongst cyclists.