Hazard #22052

DateEventByComments
29 Jul 2009 - 18:54AddedReporter
30 Jul 2009 - 20:41ReportedCTC
13 Aug 2009 - 12:06RejectedHighway authorityDuring their installation a 750mm gap was retained between the edge of the
carriageway and the rumble strip to allow for drainage and to enable/help
cyclists to pass conveniently. Larger gaps would only serve to encourage
motorists to avoid the rumble strips.
8 Sep 2009 - 12:47Report againReporterIn rejecting the report the Highway Authority states:
"During their installation a 750mm gap was retained between the edge of the carriageway and the rumble strip to allow for drainage and to enable/help cyclists to pass conveniently. Larger gaps would only serve to encourage motorists to avoid the rumble strips."

I HAVE NOW CHECKED THE RUMBLE STRIPS AND THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE" 750mm gap".

THE ONE I MEASURED WAS ONLY 550mm FROM THE LINE MARKING THE EDGE OF THE CARRIAGEWAY TO THE RUMBLE STRIP. IT WAS CLEARLY INSTALLED INCORRECTLY; I WOULD BE HAPPY WITH A 750mm GAP.
8 Sep 2009 - 22:18ReportedCTC
10 Sep 2009 - 11:31Reference addedHighway authorityHighway Authority reference updated.
30 Sep 2009 - 14:45CommentHighway authorityA 750mm gap is provided for cyclists to avoid the rumble strips. However, in light of this complaint, the authority will re-visit the site to re-assess the gap widths.
30 Nov 2009 - 15:37RejectedHighway authorityFurther to my letter dated 10 September 2009 I have visited the site to re-assess the layout of the rumble strips as promised.

The gap from the line to the device is as quoted (550mm) in the majority of cases however from the edge of the kerb to the device this is measured between 750-200mm.

I have enclosed for your perusal two photographs showing the above in question. Quite clearly the gap shown will accommodate a cyclist and whilst I appreciate the complainant concerns I quote "Is is advisable to provide a gap preferably in the range of 750mm to 1m between the edge of the carriageway and the device".

A cyclist can override the white edge line if he feels it is appropriate to do so.

It should also be noted that the "wet area of carriageway" is obviously not subjected to vehicular override. To reduce the length of the rumbles strip on either side as suggested by the complainant would reduce the effectiveness of this traffic calming feature. The tyres of a vehicle would naturally avoid the rumble strips on their near side.
1 Dec 2009 - 19:38NotfixedReporterI've added 3 pics to those provided by Bradford MDC. Note the worst offending strip is close to a drain cover so in avoiding it cyclists are going closer to another hazard. I am surprised the authority has suggested "A cyclist can override the white edge line if he feels it is
appropriate to do so". This would entail going over the drain cover. Surely, at the very least, this one (ie 550mm) strip could be cut back.

I'm not sure what this rumble strip achieves; certainly whilst I was there none of the cars going down the hill slowed down (no brake lights came on).
2 Dec 2009 - 09:42ReportedCTC
Join Cycling UK to help us change lives and communities through cycling
Membership gives you peace of mind insurance, discounts in cycle shops, rides & routes – for just £4.00 a month!