"More resilient" bollards planned for cycle lane made "completely pointless" by drivers parking in it

The problem is with the car drivers.

Asha2820 wrote:

I don't actually think the problem is with the car drivers here; I think it's with the road design. It's actually difficult to interpret where the cycle lane actually is. Is it the red coloured lane to the right of the bollards, or is it the space to the left of the bollards next to the pavement? It's not immediately clear. Also, it's ambiguous as to whether parking really is disallowed. From the lane positioning of the cars in the first photo in this article, you can see that the motorists are interpreting the red painted area as the cycle lane, so it's not a great leap of logic to assume that the area to the left of this is NOT a cycle lane. We all kinda know what it needs. Paint the red cycle path next to the pavement, add some double yellow lines and ticks for the really thick drivers, and maybe put a kerb in between the cycle lane and roadway.

The red painted cycle lane was there before the wands - at that time, the area to the left of where the wands are now was parking and there was a painted cycle lane in the door zone.

After the wands went up, the council didn't scrub off the old lane (any more than they tidied up the rest of the road surface).  They also put "No parking" notices up on the street furniture and put a "Not in use" yellow cover over the parking payment machine.

As a positive, the red lane still being there was useful for whenever you couldn't use the new lane because of people parking in it.

As an anecdote: one time, I asked someone parked in the 'protected' lane why they were parked there.  Their reply was that they didn't realise that they couldn't park there (despite being next to the aforementioned yellow-bagged 'not in use' machine and actually on top of a flattened wand).  I asked whether they'd paid for their parking - No.  I asked what they thought that the wands were there for - Aren't they to mark the parking spaces out?

Some people, eh…?

We're still in the age of "unless you make it really really clear we can't drive / park somewhere, we can." (And noting some entries in the "car crashes into building"  thread even physical impossibility isn't always a clear enough "no").

I'd love us to be in the opposite situation where it's no parking by default, except where marked.  Like in NL.  For one we'd have cleaner looking streets and we'd save millions on yellow paint and notices.

It's obvious that the red painted area is to encourage safer overtaking of cyclists in the lane.

Mr Hoopdriver wrote:

Looking at the state of the 'parking bay' surface, I think I'd rather be in with the cars on the road or have they improved the surface since the photos were changed.

No: no, they haven't.

The photo also doesn't do justice to the broken glass from the first floor nightclub whose entrance is along there, either.

The lane on the other side of the road is just as bad - they put up the wands to mark out the lanes, but didn't think about drains, drain covers, road defects, &c, &c.  

Maybe they will as part of this new development, but I'm not holding my breath…

I hope you are going to go down there for old times sake and keep us updated with the parking !

They were consulting on this last summer. Or was it the summer before last? Anyway, I happened to take part in it because just by chance I was walking(!) past the BRI on the right day. It's part of a plan that runs from the top of Park Row down to the Bearpit and along Colston Street. It includes a bit of making-it-easier-for-drivers, inevitably, with a one-way system along the top part of Colston Street and whatever that other street is called that branches off it; so one way down Colston Street to the junction by Christmas Steps, and up the other road. Obviously that part couldn't be implemented till the Beacon was finished. 

There will also be a Danish style right-turn arrangement from Marlborough St into Lower Maudlin St (probably also delayed until the work on the Old BRI building is finished). This means you can't turn right, you have to pull into the left and use a three-legged turn waiting for lights each time. As you can't really turn right there at the moment, not a big loss, but I think the same will be used to turn into Lower Park Row, which (along with the top of Colston St) will have a contraflow cycle lane. And there'll be semi-floating bus stops (I can't remember the technical term). 

But I also think the repositioned pedestrian crossing is probably the biggest improvement.

The cars should be Danny MacAskilled.

 Let them do them and let them suffer the consequences. £500 fine should do nicely

Except in the real police world we inhabit, none of these things actually happen, because they can't be bothered, or they're taking bribes or whatever. It's not as if they have to get up and really do something- we do it all for them, provide the video as indisputable evidence, the driver is Guilty as Sin and still nothing happens

https://upride.cc/incident/yd62oxj_landrover_nomotclosepass/

Close pass, and no MOT/ insurance  since 24.5.23. No action at all, still no MOT today 4 months later- how much easier does it have to be for them?! So the possibility of fines for parking in/ obstructing a cycle lane remain a pipe-dream- even if there was a law, the police/ council would delight in not enforcing it in order to 'stuff the cyclists'

Yeah, what happened to traffic wardens?

They need to be like those self-relighting candles - so could be made of normal steel but be made in sections with a weak point and with the "rising bollard" hydraulic mechanism.  Bend / snap one off and park there and return to find the next section has been pushed up into your vehicle.

Even better, have mostly plastic wands but occasional, randomly placed proper bollards that look identical.

All traffic wardens are told to prioritise these - and issued with a bag of lentils...