Leeds bike path barriers too narrow for bikes to use

Council's response:

"Thanks Ollie - we had a response from a colleague in the Parks team last night, they've given the reasons for the A frames which have been in place since 2008 as: to prevent motorcycles from using the site in addition to slowing cyclists down before they join the carriageway, and stated that cyclists can get through them easily by dismounting."

Which as you can see from my picture is not true. They're too narrow for handlebars to go through and I can't lift my bike with a toddler on the back.

Cycle in Leeds (as long as you can lift a bike and don't have a child).

Ah well, back to using the roads and ignoring cycle infrastruscture.

It's a perfectly understandable piece of "cycle infrastructure" when you remember that Leeds Highways dept detests bicycles, and that Leeds Council is actually PROUD of being colossally pro-motorist at the expense of everyone else.

This little journal written last year by Katie Shoosmith show how anti cycling UK authorities are, in spite of weasel words to the contrary. My personal recommendation is to take your cycle tours to more civilised, deserving and welcoming parts of the world and spend your time and money there.

http://bromptonontour.weebly.com/blog/katies-bogus-adventure-in-wales

There were quite a lot of this type of gate on the Leeds to Liverpool canal towpath between Shipley and Leeds, although a number were removed a couple of years ago, seemingly to improve cycle access.

However, since City Connect 1 resurfacing of the towpath completed earlier this year some of those remaining have been replaced with an even narrower version with vertical 'plates' inside the A-frame.

I contacted the Canal & River Trust when the first of these was installed (see tweet attached) but no one was interested despite repeated contact by me on both Twitter and the telephone. The advice was to 'get off the bike and turn the bars sideways'. I was provided with the plans which showed the gate width to be adjustable at the time of installation. I was told the engineers had set the new gates at the same width as the previous ones, but that was nonsense as my mountain bike would just clear the original-style A-frame gates but not the new-style ones. I am still waiting for the promised call back from CRT North West Admin Team, who were going to speak with the contractors.

Disillusioned with the lack of interest and the general depiction of cyclists on the towpath as speeding lunatics wreaking havoc on innocent pedestrians, dog walkers and runners I have cancelled my direct debit as a 'friend' of the CRT.

My only hope is that this report might make someone see sense. 

I almost fell off my chair when I read that someone from Sustrans suggested that bollards should have been used instead. We see this crappy design used all over the country on Sustrans' routes. They don't seem particularly fussy, so why suggest something else in this case?

NCN 5 & 568 around Chester (both shared use, off road paths) suffer from these non-DDA compliant devices. As others have noted no discernible impact on the local yobs on motor bikes, but plenty of impact on those people with trailers, wheelchairs and even mountain bikes who are excluded... Sustrans blame the council,  the council say "la la la I'm not listening because you're not a local resident for local people" (they said the same to someone both resident and working for the council so that's obviously a stock reply)

Quote:

Twitter account, Leeds Council Help, told Clark the A-frames were the responsibility of the local Highways department, however, and pointed him to an online form to lodge a complaint

Is that not Leeds City Council (as the highway authority, as defined in law) then? Or is Leeds Council Help nothing to do with Leeds City Council?

Time to draw up national standards on what cycle paths need to be. Widths, accessibility, access, surface quality etc.

But the problem isnt Sustrans or the Council or whoever put these in-its the fact we are a fucked up anti social society where good manners and respect arent enough to stop twats on mopeds tazzing down these paths so the majority have to tolerate this nonsense

But..I wonder what would happen if ALL of these ridiculous restrictions were removed-would the paths be over run with motorized traffic? Or would use by their intended audience increase?And in so doing deter the anti social element? 

Isnt it worth a try?

My biggest annoyance with these paths is they end up being used as dog toilets. 

"To the person blaming Sustrans: if you read the article, they didn't put these barriers in, and they say they are against them"

Then Sustrans should camapign actively for decent routes, threaten to delist bad bits of NCNs, and generally stop acting all grateful when substandard facilities are put in by local authorities.

I am a bike campaigner in Oxford, and when we complain about rubbish proposed by Oxfordshire CC, we frequently find that Sustrans have also been consulted and said it is ok - so our feckless local authority can tick off the "cyclist approved" box .   It doesn't help one bit.

They put some a-frames up near me on a new cycle path, but after two weeks, the motorbikers came along with a ratchet strap and used that to bend them. It was good though, as then my brother could get his tandem through.

The council removed them after another few months but I haven't seen any motorbikes down there since. There is now just a 1m gap between a pole and a metal gate, but there isn't much room for a trike or trailer.

Funnily enough, Sustrans own guidance is quite interesting on this.

Quote:

5.2.4 Adjustable and/or removable barriers can be provided in order to assess in practice the implications of access control. These could be installed initially at a restrictive setting, which could then be relaxed until the desired reduction in misuse is achieved. Examples of this could include adjustable ‘A’ type barriers, which could be installed initially with a small clearance between the squeeze plates, which would then be increased over time, (see photo). Through all the considerations it is imperative to bear the statement in 5.3.5 in mind regarding what constitutes an obstruction. 

My emphasis above, photo used is actually from Leeds.

Quote:

5.3.5 It is important to re-iterate that, regardless of the outcome of consultations, where an access control measure has the effect of preventing the passage of legitimate users of the path where they have a right-of-way or access, the proposed access control may be in danger of constituting an unlawful obstruction. Legal advice may need to be sought to clarify this on a case-by-case basis.

5.3.6 Therefore the design of the access control must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and ensure that no users with a disability are excluded due to a physical restriction. These design parameters are considered in Section 6. 

That's Sustran's own emphasis above, suggesting an obstruction of this type is probably illegal. A little more reading is in order, link below for the curious.

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_content_type/access_...

Nice twitter quote from the Alternative Dept for Transport:

"If I ever need to feel good about Berlin's cycling conditions I just go on the Leeds cycling Facebook page. That lot really do have it rough."

To the person blaming Sustrans: if you read the article, they didn't put these barriers in, and they say they are against them.

I know what you mean about Sustrans routes, some are good, and some or not. I do think they've got the message on certain points - for example, their default approach is to use a tarmac surface these days.

In the case, it seems from the article that they are not to blame, so it's unfair to do so.

As a MTBr I'm quite used to seeing these. Yes they aren't great but if they keep kids with mopeds out then they aren't a problem.

The are easy to get through - get off, pop the bike onto its back wheel, walk through and away you go.

I can see them being annoying tho if you are doing any distance

there is no barrier that can allow all bikes and trikes but exclude motorbikes/mopeds. At all. As trikes, larger bikes with wide handlebars can be mobility aids- not to mention mobility scooters and wheelchairs- these barriers are clear disability discrimination. That top example has no obvious provision that would allow wheelchairs or indeed prams and buggies through

Build cycle infrastructure - if it's crap and no one uses it cite no demand as a reason not to make more. If you accidentally build good infrastructure then prevent access so you can claim jo demand and not build more.

Frees up council money for better parking in the town centre which will bring in revenue for years as more people are forced to drive and consequently make the roads worse scaring the remaining cyclists off the roads.

What's worse is that cycle funding was probably used for these a frames.

Although this level of scheming is probably beyond the council so probably just incompetence.