Cycle safety concerns over landmark Poole bridge ignored, says councillor

burtthebike wrote:

For those with access, the original report inspired me to write an article for Local Transport Today https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/50...

Basically, I suggest that many of the recently built pedestrian/cyclist bridges are not fit for purpose, and provide four examples, including the Twin Sails bridge.

I suspect a lot of this comes down to councils wanting a shiny landmark bridge and using cycle funding money so they can achieve it, no matter what. Pero's Bridge and the so-called Cheesegrater Bridge in Bristol are other  examples.

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

For those with access, the original report inspired me to write an article for Local Transport Today https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/50...

Basically, I suggest that many of the recently built pedestrian/cyclist bridges are not fit for purpose, and provide four examples, including the Twin Sails bridge.

I suspect a lot of this comes down to councils wanting a shiny landmark bridge and using cycle funding money so they can achieve it, no matter what. Pero's Bridge and the so-called Cheesegrater Bridge in Bristol are other  examples.

Just two of the other examples I used, the other being Valentines Bridge, which got an award from Sustrans despite the cyclists dismount signs.

I'm not sure it's the councils, I think it's just that the designers have no idea about function.  All they had to do was hire a Dutch cycling engineer, and they'd have had a bridge which worked and looked good.  Our engineers and designers lack knowledge and experience, and quite definitely have no intention of learning.

burtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

For those with access, the original report inspired me to write an article for Local Transport Today https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/50...

Basically, I suggest that many of the recently built pedestrian/cyclist bridges are not fit for purpose, and provide four examples, including the Twin Sails bridge.

I suspect a lot of this comes down to councils wanting a shiny landmark bridge and using cycle funding money so they can achieve it, no matter what. Pero's Bridge and the so-called Cheesegrater Bridge in Bristol are other  examples.

Just two of the other examples I used, the other being Valentines Bridge, which got an award from Sustrans despite the cyclists dismount signs.

I'm not sure it's the councils, I think it's just that the designers have no idea about function.  All they had to do was hire a Dutch cycling engineer, and they'd have had a bridge which worked and looked good.  Our engineers and designers lack knowledge and experience, and quite definitely have no intention of learning.

In the interests of full disclosure I've never ridden over the Cheesegrater, just read the media coverage.

However, I use Pero's pretty much every day. Its narrow, and packed with pedestrians. It's marked as shared use, and there are no dismount signs.

I had a debate with my wife at the weekend, grumbling about it. She said that I should just get off and push; I said if I'm expected to do that then it shouldn't be signposted as part of a cycle route; she said it can't be that busy all day; I said probably not, only during commuting times morning and evening, and over the weekend... Our little chat went a bit downhill after that.

brooksby wrote:

In the interests of full disclosure I've never ridden over the Cheesegrater, just read the media coverage.

However, I use Pero's pretty much every day. Its narrow, and packed with pedestrians. It's marked as shared use, and there are no dismount signs.

I had a debate with my wife at the weekend, grumbling about it. She said that I should just get off and push; I said if I'm expected to do that then it shouldn't be signposted as part of a cycle route; she said it can't be that busy all day; I said probably not, only during commuting times morning and evening, and over the weekend... Our little chat went a bit downhill after that.

Pero's bridge was the first modern era bridge over the docks in Bristol, and as you say, it is narrow.  When it was designed, they ignored the fact that it was on a council defined strategic cycle route, and the planning committee weren't made aware of this.  When it was built, it had cyclists dismount signs.   I took them to the Ombudsman and won and the signs came down, but the lessons were not learned, with subsequent bridges, Valentines and the cheesegrater, having significant, easily avoidable problems. But probably the biggest problem is the failure of safety audits to pick up what seem to me to be blatantly obvious hazards.

It will be interesting to see the responses in LTT from the designers, if indeed they do respond.

brooksby wrote:

I suspect a lot of this comes down to councils wanting a shiny landmark bridge and using cycle funding money so they can achieve it, no matter what. Pero's Bridge and the so-called Cheesegrater Bridge in Bristol are other  examples.

Reading has a similar one, it has a right-angle bend in it and feneces so high the visibility is poor as well as an artificial narrowing at either end and finally... a roundabout for padestrians!  They could have just built it in the right place.  

P3t3 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I suspect a lot of this comes down to councils wanting a shiny landmark bridge and using cycle funding money so they can achieve it, no matter what. Pero's Bridge and the so-called Cheesegrater Bridge in Bristol are other  examples.

 

Reading has a similar one, it has a right-angle bend in it and feneces so high the visibility is poor as well as an artificial narrowing at either end and finally... a roundabout for padestrians!  They could have just built it in the right place.  

Having walked over the new bridge in Reading after the beer festival I couldn't help but notice that it's really not designed for bikes!