Bus stops on cycle lanes pose threat to life and limb in Kingston upon Thames

THIS week’s blog features engineer John Meudell who explains  why he is highly critical of the attitudes of the planning and highways engineers building cycle lanes in England. 

His accompanying photographs of recently constructed cycle lanes in Kingston upon Thames illustrate the dangerous short comings we have become familiar with over the years. 

Do Kingston's cycle lanes even comply with government guidelines which call for a minimum of 3 metres width for a two-way cycle lane?  These two-way lanes look very narrow in the photographs, with  barely enough room for approaching riders to pass in safety. 
And that's before we add bus stops into the equation!

John Meudell,  loaded and ready for another big tour.

Unlike in The Netherlands where whole junctions get ripped apart and rebuilt from scratch in order to accommodate all modes, cycling infrastructure in the few places it does exist in the UK  has been  tacked on to existing roads and pavements and safety and convenience  compromised. The smart signage and distinctive black surface with the symbol of a cycle  provides a false sense of security.

In Kingston there is real possibility of collisions between cyclists and bus passengers where bus stops are positioned on the cycle lanes.  

Kingston even admits to the dodgy construct on their website, where the cycle lane passes under the noses of alighting passengers. Kingston simply advise cyclists, bus passengers and bus drivers to be aware at these locations! 

Would they expect passengers to step off a bus onto a  main road?  At least they did get the cycle lane design right at one bus stop!

Meudell ponders how it is that dangerous facilities such as these get signed off as safe to use? Why are they built that way in the first place?

Yet this has been the trend in the UK for decades.

It begs the question, if the government were ever to fulfil our wishes to rebuild the highways to make them “safer” for cyclists are planners and highway engineers up to the task?

Personally, as a professional engineer, writes John MeudelI, I find the concept of pop-up cycle lanes highly concerning.  Given the safety critical nature of highways and the poor quality of current cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, even when developed (if not consulted) over a number of years the idea that, by someone sticking down a bunch of coloured traffic cones almost at random, the activity suddenly becomes safer and more convenient is bizarre!

I was horrified when I first heard the excuse “there haven’t been enough cyclists/pedestrians killed” when asked about road improvements for cyclists.  That was in the early 2000’s, albeit the guy who said it, a highways engineer, was being ironic at the time.  But, since then, the attitude has only got worse and the myopia systemized.

Coming from my background; i.e. munitions, hot and heavy steel; domestic gas, aviation, power and oil and gas engineering; industries where safety is of critical importance (and not only human life but financial safety as well) I find the general attitude of the highways industry, and its administrators, totally abhorrent. 

If anything the recent screw up over “Smart (duh!) Motorways” has reinforced that view, HE blindly pushing a capacity agenda with little grounded thought for the safety implications or their decisions.

(The introduction of smart motorways has led to an increase in serious accidents on some stretches, official research has revealed. An analysis of reports published by Highways England, the body that maintains motorways and major A-roads in England, showed that severe accident rates worsened after the hard shoulder was removed.)

Over the years I have had many conversations with the officials charged with transport planning and highways engineering.  Their attitude, combined with the complete lack of accountability of their profession, has convinced me that they will never “heal themselves” and it will require an outside intervention and change agent to achieve this.  Hence my long held view those things will only change with the creation of an independent Inspectorate of Roads, or similar organization, with full powers of sanction, to hold the highways establishment to account.

What is also concerning is the lack of any “sound of opposition” from pedestrian and cycling organizations on the subject of infrastructure safety. 

Recent Kingston schemes for cyclists have  been a shambles. Here are four different bus stop treatments within a kilometre of one another. Near the junction of Surbiton Road and Penrhyn Road. 

 We have this gem  with a little blue circular
sign on a post indicating

                      shared use beyond, into the bus stop zone! 

The telephone box! To get round it, pedestrians simply step  into the cycle path .

At least Kingston got this right, a sensibly configured arrangement.  

This cycle lane is an accident waiting to happen, every time a bus stops and disgorges passengers onto the cycle lane. Last year I was on a bus which pulled up here. The driver opened the doors and a young woman stepped out - straight into the path of two kids doing about 15kph. Fortunately, they reacted instantly and missed her completely. But the kids' mother on her bike, had to swerve and brake hard and nearly fell.
All but one of these bus stops rely exclusively on the reactions of pedestrians, cyclists and bus drivers to  keep each other safe from conflicts created by the  highways engineers and the safety inspectors responsible.
........................................

John Meudel C.Eng MIMechE,  is a professional engineer and former deputy chairman of the CTC. (Cyclists’ Touring Club, now rebranded as Cycling UK).

Trained  initially  as  an  engineer  he has  extensive  international experience,  in  both  private  and  public sectors, holding senior positions within the DTI, in London, and Royal Dutch Shell in Malaysia, UK, the Netherlands, Brunei and Sarawak. His early career included spells with Rolls Royce, British Steel and Royal Ordnance plus, over the years, extensive work with voluntary organisations.

Since leaving industry and moving into research his focus has increasingly turned to transport planning, integration and development, along with aspects of community involvement, most specifically in relation to non-motorised user issues.