The placement of barriers on cycle paths – and their impact on encouraging cycling, along with accessibility for those with non-standard cycles – has long proved a source of discussion and debate on road.cc and around the wider cycling world.
Last March, delivery cyclist and ultra-cycling legend Steve Abraham criticised Milton Keynes Council’s decision to install a growing number of barriers and bollards on the city’s cycleways and shared use routes, which he claimed prevented them being used by delivery riders with large bike trailers – that were themselves supplied by the council.
And in September, a cyclist in Newcastle sent a legal letter to the city’s council to challenge the lawfulness of barriers on a National Cycle Route which prevent him from accessing the path on his recumbent.
> “Oh! Bollards!” Delivery cyclist says council’s new cycle route barriers are too narrow for cargo bike trailers… also supplied by the council
So, it was no surprise then when this attention-grabbing image – of a cycling and walking route in Salford, and its newly-installed barriers – popped up on social media, that it soon divided opinion and left many cyclists scratching their heads.
This, ahem, interesting set of barriers – the design of which seems to have taken inspiration from the marble-dropping kid’s game Kerplunk – are located on the walking and cycling route that connects Boothstown, Walkden, and Worsley to RHS Garden Bridgewater, introduced over the past few weeks to improve traffic-free sustainable travel in Salford.
Not that the path’s layout is encouraging people to ride their bikes to RHS Garden Bridgewater, at least in the eyes of local cyclists.
“Apparently RHS Bridgewater are confused as to why no one is cycling there,” the Walk Ride Central Salford group tweeted at the weekend. “Eight chicanes on one stretch of path. This was not on the design spec.”
“Obviously designed by a motorist,” added Pete, while others called on a similar design to be instead implemented on the road, to slow down motorists.
Noting that the road the path intersects is a “dead-end access road”, Tom asked the rhetorical (but highly likely to have been asked by the planners) question: “Should we do something to slow cars on this tiny dead-end street, or should we do something to slow cycles on the much longer cycle route?”
Others, meanwhile, saw the funny side in the barriers’ rather tricky placement.
“Are they remaking The Krypton Factor?” asked Gaz, while Sam said he “thought this was an equestrian events ground at first glance”.
“What’s it for? Ferret slalom racing? It’s certainly not for cyclists that’s for sure,” added Russ, and Pauline, oddly, reckoned it “looks like a giant scale eighties leg hair remover device”.
“I think you’ll find that’s the official cargo trike Olympic slalom course, new event: Minimum two passengers must be carried at all times, so they can lift the trike over any barriers which have are totally impassable at ground level…” wrote road.cc Podcast guest Kate Ball, from disabled cycling charity Wheels for Wellbeing, providing a serious counterpoint to the impracticality of barriers designed purely, it seems, to slow ‘speeding’ cyclists.
“Do those barriers meet equality standards?” asked Dorinda. “I watched the programme on RHS Bridgewater’s construction, and I’m sure part of the agreement from Salford Council investing was that it would be accessible to the community. It should be easily accessible WITHOUT a car.”
> Why is the 15-minute city attracting so many conspiracy theories? Plus access for disabled cyclists in the latest episode of the road.cc Podcast
However, other social media users – you see where this is going – didn’t seem to have much of a problem with the barriers, believing their job of slowing down cyclists would keep pedestrians using the path safe.
“Imagine having to share it with pedestrians, the utter outrage,” Hilton wrote under Walk Ride Central Salford’s post.
“As a mountain biker can I say WTF ...if a cyclist can’t be arsed to go around that then I doubt they will get on a bike for long anyway. It’s not difficult and it’s not hard,” said Rob.
“If you can’t cycle around them, perhaps you should be on cycle paths or road. They are there for the safety of pedestrians. If you have to slow down, so what,” added Gary.
“Shouldn’t have bikes on public footpaths, well done to the council, people can now walk safely and not have to jump out of the way for unlicensed uninsured untested cyclists!” wrote Si, filling up his anti-cycling bingo card nice and early in the week.
Eh, Joey, is that you?
Add new comment
31 comments
The Kerplunk barrier on teh Route to the RHS Bridgwater site is at
53.511330, -2.396725
which is at
///jumpy.wheels.spices
The kerplunk barriers are just repeating the victim-blaming mentality of our society at large when applied to roads. The danger comes from drivers, not cyclists, but the only measure to reduce risk is applied to cyclists, not drivers, the exact opposite of all H&S principles.
Something tells me this five point plan doesn't include taxing heavy vehicles, such as those made by JCB, in proportion to the road wear they cause..
it doesn't
The vast majority of products from JCB are not used on public highways, and subsequently cause very little wear I imagine.
If the study on cycling and anti depressants is correct it could mean a saving of literally billions to the NHS by providing proper cycling infra.
According to a quick google, depression costs the NHS somewhere in the region of £100bn. If 9% instead of 14% of people needed care for health issues caused by depression (the study above only looks at anti depressant prescription but it may well extrapolate to other healthcare costs) thanks to cycling to work that would be a saving of somewhere around £30bn.
They could spend £400 per person in the UK per year on cycling initiatives and infra and save money just on the costs of depression, with all the savings in reduced obesity related illness being on top of that.
Health is a big one! There are other quantifiable benefits also - as well as more subjective "nicer places". Some analysis suggesting building (good quality) cycle infra gives a decent return on investment from the UK government, Denmark, plus a good collection of such studies and articles here.
I see that the Surrey Police have published the full video clip showing the now-bang-to-rights group of cyclists committing the red light offence.
Fair cop.
https://twitter.com/SurreyRS/status/1746912014071451649
If they had dismounted at the line, and then got back on and turned right, would that have been legal?
New levels of entitlement
And we share the
roadsped/cycle infra with these peoplehttps://youtu.be/_n47fAzjnZ4?t=567
1 and 3 clips from the start time
Those Kerplunk barriers need a carefully written letter to the Council before they become institutionalised.
The surface also seems to be a problem.
So a
theoreticalhypothetical polite and reasonable cyclist would approach this, see pedestrians (or other cyclists) coming through and know that there wasn't room to pass them whilst within this little maze; so they'd wait until the other parties had come through (by which time there would be more coming through).Seems like it's fine for pedestrians - everyone knows they walk too fast to RHS gardens anyway - but as a cyclist I think I'd be looking into what alternative routes there are.
Hmm - perhaps that was the intention…
For some reason I can't comment on the page itself.
https://road.cc/content/news/road-rage-motorist-arrested-cyclist-inciden...
So the motorist was arrested in November, with plenty of witnesses and officers on scene seeing his behaviour and has yet NOT been charged?
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Northern Ireland’s Department for Infrastructure – known for its active travel faux pas over the years – secured a rare PR win in the eyes of cyclists for the government body, telling Alliance that bus lanes, regardless of strike action, encourage people to consider other sustainable travel methods, including walking, cycling, and car sharing.
“Bus lanes will remain operational during the industrial action for cyclists, motorcyclists, permitted taxis, any operating buses, which could include buses provided by health and education authorities, and the emergency services,” the DfI spokesperson said.
“Bus lane enforcement will continue as normal. Maintaining safe spaces for cyclists and motorcyclists, as well as providing ease of access for the emergency services, is always important but even more so when traffic volumes are high.”
Northern Ireland doing something right? What psychedelic was my morning coffee spiked with?
Isaac Levido has something of the night about him.
I believe he was responsible for the Conservative Party dishonestly pretending to be a non-existent organisation called FactCheckUK during the last GE.
I remember that.
I thought it was an amusing political PR stunt, on a feed clearly identified as "CCHQ Press Office", with hugely embarrassing overreactions.
I think the reaction was appropriate.
Deliberately misleading the voting public in order to undermine a political rival is standard practise for the tories, but it should never be accepted.
Given the prominent CCHQ branding I don't call that one misleading tbh.
But we all have our views.
And what does "CCHQ" represent, other an attempt to confuse with GCHQ?
Conservative Campaign HQ and it has done for years.
I guess they knew that the average Labour voter was usually of a low enough IQ not to see those things.
There are those of us who can see that CCHQ is deliberately as small as possible, and then there are other people.
We may all have our views, but only some are fact-based.
RE: slalom cycle barriers. If your problem* is "dangerously fast cyclists around pedestrians" then any solution which keeps mixing pedestrians and cyclists isn't a solution.
I think perhaps there is also some "stop the child running / cycling straight out in from of a car" logic here?
(P.S. I agree that this isn't a solution anyway, but that's because if there are any significant volume of cyclists OR pedestrians then the solution is each gets their own space to avoid conflict, so they can travel in a way appropriate to that mode and feel safe. And living in Edinburgh I have some experience of cycle slaloms!)
* "Problem" actually is very little real danger but perceived danger and unpleasantness (conflict). I think it's totally correct to consider that - but I draw rather different conclusions! I think this is still evidence of a belief that "cyclists are either just like smaller, stealthier motorbikes, which in turn are like one-person sports cars, OR they're like enormous wobbly children on their first bike ride - so obviously they'll have no problem getting off and walking regularly".
On the salford story I'm rather more concerned with the attempts in the comments to label cyclists as sexual offenders. Maybe road.cc you should give not oxygen to certain commentators ?
Hey Ryan, how about a round-up of the British National Cyclo-cross champs from over the weekend? Or is some rubbish about Van Aert more important?
Or maybe you guys are still recovering from watching British Cycling's top class coverage...
You surely mean the dreadful quality, barely watchable/listenable BC coverage? I watched some of Saturday on YT and the sound was so poor I tried BBC iplayer but it was no better. They've spent the Shell money on trackies so cyclo-cross - surely the biggest participation BC discipline - can get lost.
I managed to watch some of the French federation's stream of their nationals on Sunday morning. A world of difference! Clear pictures, good camera angles, excellent sound quality from the commentary pair. Could even hear the on-site announcer (is Daniel Mangeas still going? it sounded like his voice) and it looked far better with lots of adverts etc on the barriers.
The best footage I saw from Falkirk was Giorgio Coppola's course preview, which also gave a great impression of just how hard it was for mere mortals.
My son and I were there on Saturday and had a great day. Only down side was missing the junior men.
Settled down yesterday to watch it back and gave up after 5mins with a thumping headache.
Pitiful garbage from BC.
Big up to all the winners, especially Cam Mason. I think he spent longer with the kids after the race than the race itself.
Also for Cat Ferguson who won by almost 4mins, incredible talent.
It doesnt seem as if those Kerplpunk barriers were put there to limit cyclist pedestrian mixing - more to stop run away bikes near the road. When as others have said on a dead end limited use road it seems like over kill. Probably same result could have been achieved with a more winding path...
What's really needed there is a set of traffic lights. They're on green by default for cyclists/pedestrians, and red for cars. If a car arrives, the driver has to wind down the window, press a beg button, and wait a minimum of 3 minutes for a green light irrespective of whether there's anyone using the walking/cycling route.
The cycle paths I used in Cheltenham were covered in these too. I can appreciate why they're there in theory (to slow cyclists down for crossings/inclines/blind areas where there might be conflict) but in practice all they do is funnel pedestrians into the same space as cyclists and create way more conflict. My favourite was this gem of a tight slalom (under the trees, you can just see the end of it) which was impassible on a long wheelbase tourer, let alone a trike/recumbant/cargo bike. It's on a blind incline that forces peds/cyclists travelling in both directions to share the same 50cmx50cm block of path (again, on a blind incline). Absolute chaos, every time I used it.
The "road" is a cul-de-sac to about 12 houses.
Update: Sorry - 24 houses. They are semis.
Pages