Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Megaphone-wielding cyclist stands guard at dangerous "sharp blocks" crash site to warn others

Despite there being a cycle lane, the council claims: "Theoretically, there should be no reason for a cyclist to enter this area"...

If you happen to pass under the motorway bridge near Junction 4 of the M65 in Darwen, Lancashire, you might spot a somewhat unusual sight — a man stood with a six-foot sign, covered with pictures of bloodied cuts, shouting warnings to you through a megaphone.

David Sullivan, 65, has taken to public-spirited service to warn other cyclists of the danger of "sharp blocks" which run adjacent to the cycle lane and left the cyclist of 55 years with the injuries now plastered on his sign after a fall last month.

M65 bridge Darwen (Google Maps)
M65 bridge Darwen (Google Maps)

The sign can be seen in photographs taken by LancashireLive who visited the site, Mr Sullivan telling the local news website he is determined to get the council to remove them before someone is more seriously hurt.

> "Accident waiting to happen" gravel cycle path maintained by good-willed resident with a shovel

"I've got my board to warn people and a megaphone that I'll use, to just say what I want. I need to warn people, there's a big school nearby and what if it was a child that this happened to?" he said.

The cyclist usually stands guard between 8am and 9am in the morning, and a couple more hours later in the evening.

"About two weeks ago, I fell off my bike. I'm not sure how or why, but I'm 65 and accidents happen," he continued.

"I was cycling down under the motorway bridge of Junction 4 off the M65 in Darwen. I was on the cycle lane at 10mph and I fell and hit these sharp blocks they have there to stop people from parking.

"I am lucky to have survived. I hit the left side of my body, but if I hit my head I wouldn't have a face anymore — I just can't help but think, why are they next to the cycle lane? The council are trying to encourage people to take up cycling and then this happens. They're also saying it's safe, but I don't see how it is."

A spokesperson from Blackburn with Darwen Council said he was "very sorry" to hear about the incident but, despite the cycle lane, "theoretically, there should be no reason for a cyclist to enter this area".

"This area was built when the motorway was constructed and the feature is adjacent to the cycleway. Theoretically, there should be no reason for a cyclist to enter this area," Martin Eden, a strategic director of the Environment and Operations department at the council suggested.

"The Highways Safety Inspector has visited the area in question and found the area to be free from defects. Prior to this incident, the council has never received any complaints or has it ever been raised as an area of concern. We are however very sorry to hear that the cyclist is injured and wish him a full recovery."

Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.

Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.

Add new comment

15 comments

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
3 likes

 "theoretically, there should be no reason for a cyclist to enter this area".

totally inconceivable that a cyclist would move around an oncoming cyclist, or overtake another cyclist, using what appears to be a solid surface, in in the shadow on the bridge. Totally unexpected that any cyclists would leave the very narrow cycle lane for any reason.

Avatar
Awavey | 2 years ago
2 likes

arent they anti camping spikes ? underpasses being often ideal locations to shelter from the weather, I doubt the council, well roads authority at least, will be minded to change them.

and tbf whilst yes theyll hurt if you fall off your bike on them, lesson there is maybe dont fall off your bike then, because if you fall off your bike on most cycle paths it will hurt and injure you in a variety of ways, and be thankful its not the normal collection of broken bottles, overgrown brambles,dog poo and used needles you find discarded under most underpasses that you fall into.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Awavey | 2 years ago
2 likes

The other bridge on the island has large flat places and seems to "allow" parking according to streetview and of all the bridges with footpaths in the area of the motorway, it seems to be the only one with these spikes.

As for the second point, I'm guessing this cyclist didn't expect to fall off his bike there just as no cyclist expects to fall off their bike anywhere*. However they did and these spikes that were deliberately fitted from 30+ years ago has now been shown to be potentially dangerous for people. (If you have'n't already, check the link to the newspaper article to see the specific damage caused). Whilst I understand you point of items discarded that he could have fallen on, they would be gone with a quick council pickup where these stones are erm, set in stone.

*For example, The other week my bike slid out from underneath me whilst doing 10mph along a paved canal path. Paving stones were wet  and very slippy and a pedestrian and her dog appeared at a narrow bridge area just as I got there. I touched my brakes and my back wheel slightly locked and just slid and my bike was then facing the other way with myself standing up wondering exactly what happened. 

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
4 likes

The council seem to be missing the point. There is no reason for a cyclist to be there unless they fall off - which is what happens. The whole 1.5m thing is about giving cyclists room to make mistakes and yet again we have infrastructure where if a cyclist is on the road, their environment is better, drivers aside, than if they are on the cycle lane (that is barely wide enough for a competent cyclist to stay within the borders of, especially avoiding the post signing the shared cycleway). Hardly compliant with current DoT guidance.

Avatar
brooksby replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
2 likes

It's different definitions, isn't it?  The council are being obtuse so that they don't look quite so stupid/Evil.

"This area", to the council, means specifically hat eight foot wide area with the pointy concrete.  And they are quite right that no cyclist would go on there.

But "This area", to the gentleman on the Clapham Omnibus, means the cycle path and footway that pass next to the area with the pointy concrete.  And that has been made more dangerous by said pointy concrete...

Avatar
OnYerBike | 2 years ago
5 likes

Funny that the council (or Highways England or whoever it was) wasted money installing barriers on that bridge - theoretically no-one is ever going to hit them.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
3 likes

That "nice" pole in the middle of the paint segregation is pretty dangerous as well I suspect. 

Avatar
jpj84 replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
9 likes

Blackburn-with-Darwen consider the below to be a cycle lane - I wouldn't anticipate they'll care about a pole

 

Avatar
Flintshire Boy replied to jpj84 | 2 years ago
0 likes

.

That's nehwt. Should see what we got round are end.

.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 2 years ago
1 like

I think he's got a point. Those blocks are not to dissuade parking, as there's a nice paved area next to the road with an angled kerb that looks like a lay-by!

The blocks are also in the dark, in the shadow cast by the bridge, so could be missed on a sunny day.

The only thing I can think, is that they're designed to trap debris thrown up from the road to keep the pavement clear.

Ideally, the blocks and the slabbed area should be switched, so the blocks are nearest the road and the paving slabs next to the cycle path. Unlikely to happen though.

Avatar
Patrick9-32 replied to HoarseMann | 2 years ago
1 like

"The only thing I can think, is that they're designed to trap debris thrown up from the road to keep the pavement clear."

Almost always, the answer to the question "why is this public space pointy or uncomfortable?" is "The government wanted to make the lives of the homeless as miserable as possible, even if it negatively impacts everyone else at the same time."

Its known as hostile architecture and it is basically pure evil. 

Avatar
Patrick9-32 replied to Patrick9-32 | 2 years ago
1 like
Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Patrick9-32 | 2 years ago
0 likes

With cuts to public support maybe the idea is it'll also encourage the "natural wastage" of those disfavoured by the ruling party?

Maybe at a more general level this is also something the last couple of governments have been secretly developing to keep out "forins" too?  Less "hostile climate" for migrants, more "turn much of UK into a dystopian failing state so that people want to leave as soon as they get here"?

Avatar
ktache replied to Patrick9-32 | 2 years ago
1 like

"SkateStopper"

I knew what they were, seen a lot of them, also spiral wires on handrails, good to know there is a term for them, rather than "little widgets that stop skateboarders, in-line skaters and BMXers doing cool and impressive stunts on street furniture" that of course does scratch it a bit, sometimes but rarely causing more damage.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to Patrick9-32 | 2 years ago
0 likes

I doubt it's there to deter the homeless, it's not close enough to the town centre and would be an awful place to camp.

Also, they've only bothered with this textured surface where the cycle path is, the paved areas on the other side of the roundabout don't have it. But they seem to have attracted parked cars for some reason!

https://goo.gl/maps/TYAtF9gHyLUagD7B8

Latest Comments