Bollards
With the fuss kicked up by Cllr. Gittins over the bikers who shouldn't be cycling down Betty Dawes Hill anyway it was interesting to see a set of shiny bollards down the side of The Rough. From the brief glance I got on Wednesday they seemed to be more for warning vehicles about the edge of the hill then stopping bikes, though it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the ones extending to the path were later removed to fir anti-cycle ones.
2 comments:
Bollards are no good as a cycling deterrent. If they're narrowly spaced enough to stop people cycling between them, they're far too narrow to walk a bike through, because of course you're wider walking alongside the bike than riding atop it. And of course, that means they're also too wide for parents with pushchairs or people in wheelchairs, which means the council is probably in contravention of the Disability Discrimination Act.
All too often I've seen bollards or chicanes used as a "traffic calming" measure for bikes, on marked and signposted cycle routes, but the obstructions themselves are never lit and rarely even sufficiently reflective.
If the council really doesn't want people cycling along this path, they should make sure there is a suitable alternative route. I think most cyclists will take even a slightly longer route if it makes their journey safer. If there is no way to make such an alternative, then clearly the route being blockaded should be made safe for cycling.
Managed to get a closer look in daylight, still not venturing out to much if I can help it. The two one the hill are offset with the one on the inside of the slight curve being higher up then the other.
In theory anyone coming down on a bike could avoid the higher one by taking an outside track, but would need to pull in sharply to avoid the lower one. So in theory they might work while not inconveniencing pushchairs etc.
Still none on the level path around the hill, that's the blind corner that also leads directly across this road causing the fuss.
Post a Comment