- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Bromley Heath Viaduct (picture credit Alan Williams).jpgSafety fears raised over cycle path on viaduct in Bristol
South Gloucestershire Council has sought to reassure cyclists after safety concerns were raised in connection with a cycle path on the Bromley Heath Viaduct, which forms part of the A4174 Avon Ring Road in Bristol.
In an exchange of emails seen by road.cc, a number of cyclists contacted the local authority to express their concern about sharp edges on the supports on a barrier separating the cycle path from the main carriageway, as well as the presence of a bollard in the middle of the path.
The email trail highlighted previous examples of cycling infrastructure giving rise to safety concerns that we have covered on road.cc include the Twin Sails bridge in Poole, Dorset, where cyclists sued the council after sustaining injuries on its “razor sharp” barriers, and the so-called ‘Cheesegrater’ bridge in Bristol, which was resurfaced in response to a petition.
In an email sent to South Gloucestershire Council, Alan Williams wrote: “It’s great to see that the viaduct is now fully open. The cycle-path is a vast improvement.
“Am I being too picky though to be concerned at these fierce-looking brackets so close to the edge of the path (supporting the Armco)? I would certainly not like to crash into these.”
In response, Michael Dixon, who is Challenge Fund Programme Manager at the council, said: “The bollard is a common installation on shared use paths and shared use foot/cycle bridges.
“It is there to prevent unauthorised vehicles from accessing the viaduct shared use path. The style of the bollard has been used widely in other locations in South Gloucestershire and has a reflective band on it for low light conditions.
“There have not been reports of any difficulties with these bollards in those other locations, often where the path is not as wide as we have provided at Bromley Heath Viaduct.”
He continued: “The road restraint system posts have had plastic caps put on them to prevent injuries and the white line has been laid to alert cyclists and pedestrians of the presence of the posts so they can stay clear of them.
“The whole site will have a stage 3 road safety audit carried out on it and if the audit identifies any issues they will be dealt with.”
He concluded: “I hope I have addressed the points you raised and shown that the Council has considered them in the design, construction and post construction process.”
However, despite the council’s attempt at reassurance, Mr Williams remains concerned over the safety of the infrastructure.
Replying to Mr Dixon, he said: “Firstly I should say that the cycle path is a massive improvement over the previous situation and should be regarded as a success.
“But I raised the query simply because these support posts are so close to the edge of the path and it would be really horrible to catch a pedal on one of them and crash. The yellow caps won’t do anything to soften an impact here or prevent injuries.
“My first reaction on seeing these posts was similar to seeing the Poole bridge – ouch, it looks terrible.
“I realise that it’s not possible to de-risk everything and that cyclists also have a responsibility for their own safety, so should slow down here, but somehow this short stretch needs to be ‘softened’ to minimise the consequences of an impact with the posts.”
Another cyclist, Danny Colyer, wrote: “Several years ago South Gloucestershire Council introduced a policy of always using white bollards, rather than black, on cycle paths, precisely because of the difficulty of seeing black bollards.
“What was the reason for abandoning that policy? I haven't made it to a cycle forum meeting in a while, but I keep an eye on the minutes and I'm sure I'd have noticed if the forum had been consulted on the change.”
As part of its submission to the government’s cycle safety review, consultation on which closes on 1 June, Cycling UK has urged that national design standards be drawn up for safe and simple cycling infrastructure.
Referring to the Bromley Heath viaduct, Duncan Dollimore, the charity’s head of campaigns, told road.cc: “Judging from the pictures I’ve seen, despite the council’s best intentions to make a safe space for cyclists and walkers, they have actually inadvertently added to the hazards.
“It’s this sort of well-intentioned but dangerous infrastructure Cycling UK is calling for an end to with our campaign, Cycle safety: make it simple.”
He added: “Decent national design standards would mean that councils stop wasting money on infrastructure that is dangerous, and I’d urge everyone who wants to see an end to poorly thought out cycling infrastructure to support our campaign today.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 18 min 38 sec ago
Well, I don't have any insight into how all consuming being a professional cyclist is and so how much you have to put your faith in your advisors,...
- roboito 54 min 40 sec ago
I'm restoring mine, I never did anything like this before, skill levels building as I go. It'll take years to get them all finished. The ones I've...
- Hirsute 59 min 23 sec ago
In the comments "Was it due to icy conditions? "
- chrisonabike 1 hour 4 min ago
Shurely "Place with large concentrations of bikes (and presumably thriving second hand market) in bike theft hotspot shock"?...
- Hirsute 1 hour 6 min ago
Finding solutions to US school drop off: Our school has 2 VIP parking spots they auction off at their fundraiser. So, I got one 😁 - and made it...
- Jamie Williams 2 hours 19 min ago
798mg of electrolytes but only 345mg of Sodium so going to need a fair few of those per hour, obviously something is going to be better than...
- slc 3 hours 40 min ago
Marsh lane was unchanged on Friday - I don't think the contractors have been back since the protest.
- chrisonabike 4 hours 16 min ago
She did say (in comment) they'd suggested to the council to make this access and emergency vehicles only and the council said no....
- S.E. 21 hours 16 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
Add new comment
38 comments
So the council have tackled the tops of the 'jagged' posts with yellow plastic caps, which will probably work. Just not on the top edge of the actual barrier - the razor's edge
On dual carriageways etc where traffic - o.k. I mean motor vehicles - is kept apart by Armcor barriers, you always see them doubled up i.e. both directions have 'smooth' forward-facing barriers. Obviously this would be complete overkill for a cycle lane, so I can only think that the white painted line is the intended protection in case of accidents
Surely some innovative manufacturer has developed a 'soft' side to be added to the rear of Armcor barriers for such situations. This method of separating motor vehicles from cyclists/pedestrians can hardly be uncommon?
I live not far from the new bridge and I've got some old bits of decking I was going to take to the tip.
Wonder if anyone would notice if I went down there late one night (with a high-vis jacket on) and fixed up some 'ghetto Armco'...
You'd get a Penalty Notice for 'fly tipping'.
I'm sorry but I don't see a problem with the so called "jagged edges", just wear a helmet, simples. I see everyday the number of people who were not killed due to wearing a helmet.
Where do I get this helmet that fully protects my face and limbs from all the puncture injuries etc that this can cause.
There is no excuse for this, it is simply lazy carcentric design where someone has had to tick a box to say they have cycle facilities so that they can access the cycling budget.
I always think that if they wouldn't put it in the middle of a road, they probably shouldn't put it in the middle of a cycle route. That black post would have a car wrapped around it in moments if in a carriageway.
There's quite a nice cycle route between Crowthorne and Swinley forest, apart from the "Drivers pulling out without bothering to look" signs, and the large signs for motorists, especially the ignored speed limit signs that are on large grey posts in the middle of the cycle route, and they painted a white triangle on the ground, not painting the post white, far too sensible.
AtWarWithTheMotorist has this https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2017/10/28/new-road-safety-campai...
with some contributions from Jitensha Oni.
Theres a road on my commute home, between Ash Vale station and North Camp Station, where every fluorescent yellow illuminated retroreflective bollard was damaged, more than a dozen in less than a mile, a few new ones installed a couple of weeks back, just counting the days.
The idea is normally to stop vehicles on the path - which is quite sensible in some locations and are placed sometimes in the middle of the road - but no idea why they thought this was a place that might happen or why they've decided to change from white to black posts.. alas sounds about par for the course with that council.
As those of us who have the misfortune to live in SGlos can attest, the likelihood of them actually following their own transport, cycling, health, pollution or congestion policies is zero. Two years ago they spent umpteen thousand pounds of taxpayers money on a bright shiny new cycling strategy, when they already had one and all they had to do was change the date on the cover.
A new Aerospace museum has just been opened in SGlos, to commemorate Bristol aircraft, and I went along a couple of months ago. I had to ask where the cycle parking was as it is so far from the entrance as to be invisible, against all council policy, but they approved it anyway. Went to a local Boston Tea party this morning, and the cycle parking was literally as far as possible from the entrance.
SGlos transport policy encourages cycling and discourages driving, so they plan to spend more on a single road junction than on cycling and walking for the next 18 years. When I worked for Bristol Transport Planning, we used to say that SGlos transport planning only existed to make Bristol look good; we weren't joking.
Cyclist in SGlos ride despite the council, not because of them.
Why can't the cyclists have the nice smooth 'safe' armco on their side and the drivers, safe in their steel cages have the spiky side?
Hahahaha, too much logic in one sentence, I can't cope! I bet that very question was asked in the planning phase (ok, maybe) and the asker was told to sit down and shut up.
because then it wouldn't function and catch the vehicles that are inevitably driven into it.
I was thinking that.
Why indeed. If the spiky Armco supports are safe, why not put them on the other side?
Presumably because they're not safe and cars cost more to repair than bikes do.
nowhere near as much as humans cost to repair or even worse 'write off'...
Adding an armco barrier on the shared use path side isn't really going to help, as cyclists would go over it, CoG is much higher than a car.
I don't really understand why the crash structure to keep cars off from entering the shared-use path is installed on the shared us path. Wouldn't it make more sense to install the structure on the road? Would that be too simple and logical as a way to build these things?
It's a thought that occurs to me frequently, when confronted with any number of barriers (e.g. the anti-terror ones on some London Bridges) or temporary or permanent road signs. They exist for the benefit of motorists, or they are made necessary by bad driver behaviour...yet they are invariably plonked on the pavement or in the cycle path.
Never do drivers have to give up any of their space for the things that are there because of them - it's alway someone else who has to generously donate to help them out.
Sounds like the existing path was expanded and the Armco added on to what was originally in the road - I guess they could have not put it up on a raised section (not added that bit) and just made the barrier supports higher, is that what you mean ?
Adding barrier to the inside would require a complete (expensive) redeisgn of the barrier system as it would add additional strength, the posts are designed to fail on collision with the long barrier anchored at both ends it then acts like a big elastic band and absorbs energy during deflection, bring a vehicle to a stop in a more controlled manner than hitting an immoveable object.
Why don't they deal with the problem the same way councils seem to prefer dealing with hazards to cyclists like tram rails?
That is, don't worry about making the barriers safer to drive into, just put a rock-solid immovable barrier there, then deal with the issue of bad effects on motorists of driving into them by adding warning signs saying 'motorists! Warning, don't drive into this barrier!'.
There are actually inexpensive plastic panels designed to protect motorcyclists that would do the job here. They'd prevent a cyclist from vaulting the barrier in an impact and are also more forgiving than a steel barrier. And they cost less than steel barriers too.
These simply bolt onto the steel barrier fixings and are designed so that they do not impede the impact performance of the barrier when hit by a motor vehicle.
The problem is that most traffic engineers are ignorant about what's available in terms of traffic technology.
It isn't just the thought of crashing into these that would concern me, its falling on top of them in case of an off.
Why cant they just mount another length of armaco barrier on the cycle side?
That way if anyone cycling does crash into the barrier, instead of hitting the uprights and getting chucked off the bike and possibly going over the barrier in to the road they would instead bounce off the barrier and be kept on the cycle path side
No common sense is why they havent done it!
Stop it with the common sense or you'll get yourself a bad name and find that you're banned from County Council meetings as a disruptive influence.
It's a simple solution and I imagine one the council will argue is too expensive.
It highlights how the idea of "cycling infrastructure" currently is a joke. This is about motorists safety and nothing about cyclists' safety. It's simply not worth the money.
The bollards are a bit pointless and a risk; the rest of it, considering all the other hazards I may encounter on a bike, I can live with. Lets face it, the previous incarnation of this stretch (prior to the viaduct works) was narrower (just wide enough for 2 bikes to pass each other) and there was nothing between you and the traffic. That felt a whole lot worse than some spiky barriers. It's a massive improvement (not perfect), the only snag now is that it's quite 'fast' so no doubt someone will 'total themselves' along there and everyone will campaign for it to be lined with crash-mats (or something). Cyclist spots hazard on bike bath; slows down to appropriate speed to reduce risk of crash. Bit like on the road.
Cycle infrastructure is also supposed to be designed to be used safely by kids. I wouldn't like to see a kid making a mistake and getting their eye gouged out by one of the spiky bits.
A child on a bike round there is like spotting a White Rhino in Africa; granted there might be more at the weekend. They're all safely tucked up in cars on the school run; see them every day.
And that's why we could do with some good cycle infrastructure in Bristol.
I just spent 3 years commuting, not every day mind you, from Bath to NE of Frome; apart from the '2 tunnels' path, absolutely bloody hellish. Nearly wept with joy when I was back going from Bath to Bristol on traffic free(!!) cycle paths. Pretty weak excuse if a spiky bollard is the excuse for not using the (supposed) poor Bristol cycle infrastructure. Wish all those cycle paths were around when I was a kid.
The problem with badly implemented infrastructure like this is that it then becomes an excuse for the next series of bad implementations - "we've always built them like this" or "common installation".
I don't see why they can't follow their own policy with regard to the bollard and it just seems sensible to make the barrier safer. We could wait for people to start having accidents and then suing the council for unsafe designs, but to my mind we should just save money and do it properly the first time.
We should be encouraging kids (and everyone) to cycle, so why leave traps around to injure the careless/clumsy/unfortunate?
people shouldn't be allowed to have rhinos in cars, especially on the school run - it's just an accident waiting to happen.
Pages