After a mixed response to my previous post whose style is a poor imitation of the satire deployed to great effect by the likes of
Crap Cycling & Walking in Waltham Forest and
People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire, I'd like to clear things up without any trace of sarcasm, irony or cynicism.
The Rownhams services issue came to light earlier in the year when I, as many other people, was reporting local dangerous junctions to The Times for their "
cyclesafe" campaign. At the location depicted above I discovered on "
Crash Map" a little cluster of markers each representing an injured cyclist attended to by police. Initially I was confused: I occasionally choose to cycle Rownhams Lane because it has a reasonable quality pavement-style cycle path. Really fairly safe: I'd let my kids use it. Why so many accidents reported in one place? This is not a busy urban interchange -- satellite images show a T-junction with an access road leading to a small car park and delivery bay. There should only be a tiny volume of traffic that is not a significant hazard to anyone. I was particularly concerned that two injuries were to children who, it would appear from the dates and times of the separate incidents, were cycling to school.
I then looked at "
FixMyStreet" - a service where local people can publicise and report problems to their local councils. Several other users of the Rownhams Lane cyclepath had reported and commented on a perennial issue: illegal through traffic using the motorway service area to access and egress the M27. On a subsequent car journey a cry of "need a wee" brought us to the very same service area where I noticed a lot of traffic exiting the motorway via the access road.
If there had been no illegal through traffic using the motorway service area then the volume of turning traffic would have been tiny and the recorded cycle injuries most likely would not have occurred. A little background reading brought further information: Roadchef operates the motorway service area under license from the Highways Agency and has an obligation to prevent illicit through traffic.
It is unusual that there is an obvious and easy way to eliminate an injury black spot. To discover that the traffic hazard is down to continuing failure by a large company to meet its obligations makes this a cause worth chasing.
A few emails later and I discovered multiple other individuals were several steps ahead of me and had reported this problem to the local councils and to Roadchef. Apparently the local parish council was also concerned about ratrunning traffic. I learnt there was a history of vandalism by "local youths" to the automatic barriers intended to prevent through traffic.
To my mind, blaming vandals is rather like blaming the rain, or leaves on the line. It would not be acceptable for me to protest a MOT failure because vandals smashed my car's rear lights. It would be even less acceptable to drive off claiming that there is no point replacing the lights because they'd only be attacked again.
I heard that the parish council had been meeting with local Roadchef staff to discuss the issue. At risk of becoming cynical and disrespecting those involved, I imagined the councillors being invited for free Costa coffee and cake and a convivial chat with reassurances that something will eventually be done.
 |
| What cyclists had in mind (photo source) |
A poke in the eye came in the form of Hampshire County Council's apparent complicity. A
cyclist asked that HCC provide additional road markings, signs or engineering to clarify to motorists that the cyclepath has priority over the access road. Perhaps he envisaged something like the image above--standard junction design overseas and becoming more common in the UK. As well as ensuring safe, uninterrupted cycling for the length of Rownhams Lane, this is also the fairest solution because cycle traffic easily exceeds legitimate service area access traffic. HCC either misunderstood or revealed their
institutional motorism as they blithely interrupted the cyclepath
giving priority to the illegal traffic leaving cyclists fuming.
 |
| What HCC gave them: = = = = and triangle |
In 2012, anyone can turn investigative journalist and blog in the public interest and this is exactly what I have attempted here.
I've already spent too long pursuing this issue so am going to take a back seat and let the appropriate people get on with their jobs now that they've had a "heads up". Right now there is huge interest in cycle safety largely thanks to The Times. Indeed
Chris Boardman was on BBC TV and radio this morning speaking on this exact issue. Compared against our European neighbours, the UK has an appalling record both in terms of inactivity-related bad health and the safety of people getting around by foot or on a bicycle. Mainstream journalists might see a headline along the lines of "Roadchef vs injured children". And if I can observe non-stop illegal traffic weaving its way through a disembarking coach party of elderly people at the service area, so can a newspaper or consumer-rights TV camera crew.
"Cyclestrian" is obviously a pen name: I'm an anonymous Hampshire resident. I want my family and others to be able to feel safe on great infrastructure as they get around locally by bike and on foot. I also drive a car and I even sometimes buy coffee at this very same Roadchef franchise.
