The smallest-most dangerous cycle path in Leeds?

Unusual markings, logos and symbols around the city
Post Reply
User avatar
tyke bhoy
Posts: 2412
Joined: Wed 21 Feb, 2007 4:48 am
Location: Leeds/Wakefield
Contact:

Post by tyke bhoy »

From the pictures cyclists do not need to dismount but they do need to give way twice. The absence of a stop sign means they only need to stop if giving way. The first giveway is not dangerous as there should be no contention in whether there is a pedestrian either approaching or exiting the crossing and therefore potentially crossing the cycle path. If there is a pedestrian then the cyclist must slow or stop to give way to the pedestrain.The second giveway is extremely dangerous as it is for people allighting buses as well as approaching the bus stop. Again there can be no contention in a pedestrain approaching the bus stop but, given the far side of the bus stop is completely obscured by the advertisement in the bus shelter cyclists should proceed with caution when there is a bus at the stop.It would be safer were Metro to remove the advert on the bus shelter. I am however at a loss as to why LCC saw the need to divert cyclists off road to avoid the PedX as the vast majority ofbike riders ignore red lights on Pedestrian crossings even when there are pedestrians on the crossing. Before I get flamed, I will say I don't think serious cyclists ignore red lights but serious cyclists are in a minority particularly on Otley Road
living a stones throw from the Leeds MDC border at Lofthousehttp://tykebhoy.wordpress.com/

raveydavey
Posts: 2886
Joined: Thu 22 Mar, 2007 3:59 pm
Location: The Far East (of Leeds...)
Contact:

Post by raveydavey »

chameleon wrote: 'because if they were to declare said money as 'spare' then the central money launderers, sorry, financiers in government would assess this and reduce next year's budget accordingly..'That is a policy which has been applied to eudgets of government departrments at a local level for as long as I can remember.'I'd love to hear from the person/department within the council who actions these sorts of 'schemes' and the so called reasoning behind them.'As for this, I'd like to see the obligatory Risk Assessment....... That should ruffle a few feathers if demanded Do I smell the faint whiff of a Freedom of Information Act request...?
Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act – George Orwell

User avatar
chameleon
Site Admin
Posts: 5462
Joined: Thu 29 Mar, 2007 6:16 pm

Post by chameleon »

raveydavey wrote: chameleon wrote: 'because if they were to declare said money as 'spare' then the central money launderers, sorry, financiers in government would assess this and reduce next year's budget accordingly..'That is a policy which has been applied to eudgets of government departrments at a local level for as long as I can remember.'I'd love to hear from the person/department within the council who actions these sorts of 'schemes' and the so called reasoning behind them.'As for this, I'd like to see the obligatory Risk Assessment....... That should ruffle a few feathers if demanded Do I smell the faint whiff of a Freedom of Information Act request...? easier than that I suspect, would it not apear as an impact assesment in the already public domain of planning applications Davey? Have you travelled along Austhorpe Road recently - a newly introduced reign of confusion, congestion, adverse effect on traders and safety in general of the travelling public, whether by road or footway - now two pedestrian crossings one either end of an excessively long relocated bus stop, (the queue at which fully obdtructs the public footpath leaving at times only the private frontages of the shopd for folk). A second crossing, not a bad idea at all, except that motorist' concentration there will have to be shared with the problems produced by busses stopping on each sideof the road in close proximity to each other. I can see that progress by any means will regularly cease in both directions and back-up wuith interesting effects

WiggyDiggy
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed 09 Jun, 2010 11:39 am

Post by WiggyDiggy »

Thanks for the photos Phil, that is one useless cycle path! I'd agree with the view the cyclist was completely in the wrong to be shouting like that, even without the give way markings it blindingly obvious to anyone using that cycle path they should give way to pedestrians and slow down.Personally I wouldnt put myself in that lane because of the conflict with peds, and avoids giving me the problem of trying to pull back onto the road in front of a bus that just stopped. Better to stay on road and avoid both of those issues.

raveydavey
Posts: 2886
Joined: Thu 22 Mar, 2007 3:59 pm
Location: The Far East (of Leeds...)
Contact:

Post by raveydavey »

chameleon wrote: raveydavey wrote: chameleon wrote: 'because if they were to declare said money as 'spare' then the central money launderers, sorry, financiers in government would assess this and reduce next year's budget accordingly..'That is a policy which has been applied to eudgets of government departrments at a local level for as long as I can remember.'I'd love to hear from the person/department within the council who actions these sorts of 'schemes' and the so called reasoning behind them.'As for this, I'd like to see the obligatory Risk Assessment....... That should ruffle a few feathers if demanded Do I smell the faint whiff of a Freedom of Information Act request...? easier than that I suspect, would it not apear as an impact assesment in the already public domain of planning applications Davey? Have you travelled along Austhorpe Road recently - a newly introduced reign of confusion, congestion, adverse effect on traders and safety in general of the travelling public, whether by road or footway - now two pedestrian crossings one either end of an excessively long relocated bus stop, (the queue at which fully obdtructs the public footpath leaving at times only the private frontages of the shopd for folk). A second crossing, not a bad idea at all, except that motorist' concentration there will have to be shared with the problems produced by busses stopping on each sideof the road in close proximity to each other. I can see that progress by any means will regularly cease in both directions and back-up wuith interesting effects Indeed - Austhorpe Road needed some action taking, but they've actually managed to make it worse with the "improvements".The new zebra crossing (yet to be completed as it is currently not illuminated) is right on top of the narrow entrance / exit from the car park and the bus stop is in an even worse place than it was before. As you say it narrows the path and now when more than one bus arrives at the same time (a frequent occurrence given the number of services using it) the car park entrance is blocked completely.I can't see why an extra crossing was needed there as it's only yards from the existing one and the whole road is like the jaywalking Olympics most of the time anyway - if people won't use an existing crossing they're unlikely to walk further on to use another one (especially as it would require forcing your way through the bus queue and crossing the car park entrance / exit).To my mind, they'd have been better doing the following:1) replace the existing zebra crossing with a pelican crossing - this would have stopped the endless hold ups to traffic / danger to pedestrians in using the crossing and it's then clear whos turn it is to go.2) Make the car park entrance / exit at the side of Livorno's an entrance only, with traffic exiting the car park directed along Back Austhorpe Road (also make this one way only) and up Marshall Street (strictly enforcing the no parking rules here - see point 4) onto Austhorpe Road. It's incredibly dangerous in the current layout, especially now exiting traffic has to deal with the relocated bus stop and the new zebra crossing right on top of the exit.3) Remove the new parking bays outside the doctors surgery opposite the junction with Church Lane - these are causing turning buses on the 56 no end of problems due to the narrowing of the road, especially turning into Austhorpe Road. 4) A sustained crackdown on those who flout the parking and other resticrions, motorists in general who are' just popping into the dhop'.... private hire drivers who stop anywhere to pickup/dropoff passengers, at any point of the road in a stream of traffic or 'wait' for their next fair on no loading restrictions and even those blue badge holders who abuse their privilege - conditions of use clearly state a badge is not a licence to park anywhere and those causing obstruction or parking in no loading zones will be dealt with like any other motorist (and face loosing their badge), to the detriment of genuine users.Davey: I have amended your post. Such remarks are discriminatory and can not be made, please do not repeat them. I am happy to discuss if you wish to contact me - the forum is not the place for that.Chameleon.    
Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act – George Orwell

electricaldave
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu 29 Nov, 2007 2:29 pm

Post by electricaldave »

The cycle path on the A63 'mad mile' from Sparks garden centre, up to the Whitkirk roundabout is [edited for content].It dumps you off to cross the traffic turning on to the motorway, instead of the far safer option of keeping in lane within the traffic stream and letting the motorway on traffic pass by on your left side.The cycle path down the A63 from Whitkirk is no better, in fact its rubbish all the way down past the crossgate Arndale centre - it has grates in it whose grids are lengthways down the road instead of accross, which give you a passble chance of dropping your front wheel in it, as if you didn't have enough to concentrate on, such as parked cars, buses pulling out and noob drivers who can't figure out the road markings and drift across lanes until they find one that pleases them.Seems to me that the planners don't cycle or walk anywhere at all, else they would realise they don't mix, yet the A63 attempts to do this in certain parts, its also a very poor idea to have the cycle path go across the side street at the entrance from the main road, far better to remain in the traffic stream, otherwise it is just an invitation to get sideswiped by a left turning car.The cycle path around the back of Colton - as if you were going from Whitkirk roundabout to Bullerthorpe lane has a couple of traffic calming chicanes on it, with a straght path for cycles at the side - seems like a good idea, think again, the cycle path is way to narrow, and the kerbs are high, so that your pedals are in serious risk of catching and throwing you off, there is totally no wobble or swerve room at all, again, its much safety to stay in the traffic stream than to use them - novice cyclists such as children are far more likely to come to grief on those kerbs, but presumably this is supposed to be designed to protect them.The roundabout just past the garage, where there is a left turn on to the motorway north bound is not much fun at all, you are constantly looking around to make sure you don't get clobbered from the side from cars coming around you - this should be a dedicated left turn lane off from the main road, leaving A63 traffic, including cyclists to continue straight on.I tend to avoid it completely and go up the side of Garforth over to Barwick - its longer but far safer, and has not been spoiled by stupid cycle lanes.

Phill_dvsn
Posts: 4423
Joined: Wed 21 Feb, 2007 5:47 am

Post by Phill_dvsn »

I've just had a text that this cycle path is in the Y.E.P tonight. I'll have to get a copy. The on line version of it can be seen here anyway http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 3966906The council calls the cycle lane 'Innovative'The definition for said word is....being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before!And getting run over by a bike would certainly have been a whole new experience for me I can say     
My flickr pictures are herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/phill_dvsn/Because lunacy was the influence for an album. It goes without saying that an album about lunacy will breed a lunatics obsessions with an album - The Dark side of the moon!

User avatar
Leodian
Posts: 6478
Joined: Thu 10 Jun, 2010 8:03 am

Post by Leodian »

It's on page 15 of today's YEP. I think the photo in that strongly supports your view Phill that the cycle lane is placed at a potentially dangerous position.PS. The YEP states their report is "Another YEP Exclusive". I doubt though that they would have ever done it without you Phill alerting the YEP to the situation.
A rainbow is a ribbon that Nature puts on when she washes her hair.

Phill_dvsn
Posts: 4423
Joined: Wed 21 Feb, 2007 5:47 am

Post by Phill_dvsn »

Leodian wrote: It's on page 15 of today's YEP. I think the photo in that strongly supports your view Phill that the cycle lane is placed at a potentially dangerous position.PS. The YEP states their report is "Another YEP Exclusive". I doubt though that they would have ever done it without you Phill alerting the YEP to the situation. The guy on the photo is walking just the same way I did off the bus, but I wasn't using a mobile at the time. I think what really annoyed me enough to get in touch with them was, the fact the cyclist shouted 'oi' at me for having the pleasure of nearly knocking me down. Just going about minding your own business and getting shouted at. The dam cheek of it I thought         
My flickr pictures are herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/phill_dvsn/Because lunacy was the influence for an album. It goes without saying that an album about lunacy will breed a lunatics obsessions with an album - The Dark side of the moon!

User avatar
chameleon
Site Admin
Posts: 5462
Joined: Thu 29 Mar, 2007 6:16 pm

Post by chameleon »

The answer is right there in the comments to the online story, you see, it says in effect that you should look around you (where you ARE GOING!!).Clearly fails to see the point does that respondent me thinks - and not very useful advice if you happen to be one of the many the blind bus users who may chance to alight there    

Post Reply