A number of articles have been published regarding the recently opened cycle lane on Wimborne Road West, Colehill, Dorset. The articles make a number of contentious statements, which are inaccurate or incorrect.
The information below clarifies the situation.
Background information
The cycle lane in question is part of the 2.3km scheme along Wimborne Road West, and Leigh Road, from Colehill up to just before the outskirts of Wimborne.
The scheme is part of the south east Dorset Transforming Cities Fund programme funded mostly by a grant from the Department for Transport but also being funded by and jointly undertaken by Dorset Council and BCP Council. Further funding has been provided on this specific route by Sustrans.
The images being published in the media show a section of Wimborne Road West near to the junction with the A31 trunk road, known as the Canford Bottom Roundabout. This junction is a particularly busy one being on the main trunk road to the South West. The vast majority of the traffic at this point is through traffic on the A31.
Wimborne Road West and Leigh Road were originally this trunk road but were superseded with the construction of the A31 Wimborne Bypass. As a result, the road is now significantly wider than is needed for a local residential through road and can well accommodate a bi-directional cycle lane, giving people green, healthy travel choices and helping to reduce congestion and speeding.
Articles claim: The cycle lane on Wimborne Road West is the widest in the country
This is incorrect: The cycle lane on Leigh Road is bi-directional (i.e. it is for two-way cycling). Highways standard is that two-way cycle tracks should be between 3m and 4m wide. The width of the two-way lane on Leigh Road is 3.5m (11ft 4in) and clearly meets relevant standards. There are many other two-way cycle lanes of this width across the UK.
The confusion has come about because cycle markings in the photo taken by BNPS news agency gives the impression that the cycleway is one way; it is in fact two-way. Dorset Council will be reviewing the cycle lane markings and will change them if necessary, to avoid confusion.
Articles claim: The cycle lane at this point is wider than the vehicle lanes
This is incorrect: The total width of the two-way cycle lane on Leigh Road is 3.5m (11ft 4in) and the total width on the two-way road is 6.5m (21ft 3in).
The cycle lane at the point displayed in the photographs and discussed in the articles is actually a two-way cycle lane, not a single direction lane as suggested by the articles. It is intended for use by all cyclists on Wimborne Road West going both east and west. It is therefore wider than a single cycle lane to accommodate this two-way cycle traffic.
The decision to make this a two-way cycle lane was taken on account of safety concerns at the junction, as well as a need to link the cycle lane to The Castleman Trailway, part of the National Cycle Network, which runs east from the A31 at Canford Bottom to Ringwood, Hampshire.
Articles claim: The cycle lane and road is not built to Highways standards
This is incorrect: Both the cycle lane and road conform and in fact exceed Highways standards.
The total width of the two-way cycle lane on Wimborne Road West is 3.5m (11ft 4in) and the total road width is 6.5m (21ft 3in). There is nothing unusual about these widths (there are many similar in Britain) and they conform to Highway standards.
The appropriate Highway design standards state that:
- Two-way cycle lanes should be between 3 and 4 metres wide. The two-way cycle lane on Wimborne Road West at 3.5m, is well within these guidelines.
- Two-way traffic lanes for mixed traffic should have a minimum width of 6m. The two-way traffic lane on Wimborne Road West is 6.5m wide and meets, and exceeds, this minimum standard.
Articles claim: Cyclists are still using the road and not the cycle lane
To clarify: As can be seen in the images used in the article, the cycle lane scheme on Wimborne Road West and Leigh Road is still under construction.
People on bikes can still legally use the road if they wish. This will remain the same when the scheme is complete however, given that the scheme is still under construction as indicated by the photos within the article, it is very likely that some cyclists will chose to use the road at this time.
Once the scheme has been completed, there will be cycle lanes running 2.3km from the Canford Bottom roundabout to the junction of Brook Road with Leigh Road at the outskirts of Wimborne.
Articles claim: Local residents had not been informed about the changes
This is incorrect: In early November 2020, all residents and businesses on Leigh Road and Wimborne Road West, as well as residents and businesses on other local roads leading onto Leigh Road and Wimborne Road West, received letters, leaflets and other communications giving details about the scheme and why it was being undertaken. Later, a month before the work began, they received a separate letter from their local Councillor explaining what was going to happen as well as the council’s rationale behind the scheme and the benefits of building sustainable transport infrastructure. There has also been a significant level of press coverage about the scheme in local media and on social media, before the work began and whenever various milestones have been reached in the project. Finally, two weeks before work begins outside their homes, each resident receives a personal letter from Dorset Council and the contractors, explaining the work that will be done outside their homes and giving them a contact point with the contractors so that they can speak directly to someone who will be able to sort out any access or other problems.
Articles claim: Passing lorries have smashed their mirrors against each other as they pass because the lanes are too narrow
This is unsubstantiated: We have not received any reports of this nature. Anyone with concerns about the work on Leigh Road/Wimborne Road West should email transformingtravel@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk
Articles claim: Cars are veering into the oncoming lane to avoid a cyclist
It is stated in the highway code that motorists on any road should not attempt to overtake cyclists if there is oncoming traffic in the opposite lane and there is insufficient room to pass the cyclist safely. This is particularly important when cycling through stretches of roadworks. Drivers should wait until it is safe to pass, giving the cyclist plenty of room as they pass. Attempting to crowd cyclists off the road, so as to squeeze between them and an oncoming vehicle is dangerous driving and has been the cause of cyclist injuries and fatalities in the past.
Articles claim: Complaints from local Jewsons
This is unsubstantiated: We have not received any contact from Jewsons on Leigh Road regarding any complaints or incidents during the road works. We will be contacting the Jewsons branch again to check if they have any concerns regarding the road.
Articles claim: The council could have done more when designing the cycle lane to make equal room for both cyclists and drivers including a barrier or raised curb to separate the cycle lane
This is incorrect: The two-way road (6.5m) is in fact wider than the two-way cycle lane (3.5m) and separated from the road with a raised kerb and white lines.
Does this imply most other cycle lanes are single way? 🤔. What evidence was gathered to prove bi-directional was required over and above a narrower lane?
What is the point of a 2 way cycle lane? What is the ratio of cycle users to motorists – I am certain that the ration will be less than 1 in 1,000. This council takes things to extremes – it needs to concentrate more on maintaining our verges and providing green bin collections, than it does by tinkering with ideas that cause motorists nothing but grief. And on the same vein, isn’t it about time the covid related road closures were revered and we ger back to normal?
Hi Les, the point of a 2-way cycle lane is so that cyclists moving in both directions can use the lane safely. I’m not aware of which road closures you’re referring to, but if you’d like more information about specific road closures, you can contact the team here: https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/travel/travel-dorset/roadworks-road-closures
I think the point that was made was the cycle lane (3.5 mtrs) was wider than the vehicle lanes (6.5 mtrs ÷ 2 = 3.25 mtrs), giving the impression that the traffic is being squashed into narrow lanes. When two lorries meet it can be very tight. It also furthers the ‘anti motorist’ impression. As a cyclist and proffessional driver, i think cycle lanes are good but the onus on safety seems to be always with the motorist. Many cyclists ride dangerously and without lights. And as much as we would all like a utopian society, 90% of people need their cars, and sadly, when the British weather returns to normal, there won’t be a cyclist in sight!
Dear BCP I you need to come here to make a “statement” to address this issues I’d maybe suggest this work wasn’t wanted it needed in the first place. As a local I can fully confirm that I for one wasn’t made aware of proposed plans before work started and that none of my neighbours were either! I’d almost say this was rushed because of just how terrible this monstrosity turned out. Do us all a favour and fix it to make it proportional to the road and the number to cyclists using it or get rid of it.
Hi David, the statement is to address inaccuracies in recent reports about the works.
Sorry to hear you did not receive communications about this work. As stated in the article all residents and businesses on Leigh Road and Wimborne Road West, as well as residents and businesses on other local roads leading onto Leigh Road and Wimborne Road West should have received information about this. Please do contact the team so we can look in to why these messages might not have reached you and ensure this doesn’t happen again: transformingtravel@dorsetcc.gov.uk
Why only now are you apologising for not properly communicating with the many residents and businesses significantly affected by these works, and suggesting some breakdown in the messaging. And why should this be anything to do with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Councils when these works are not in their council area?
I also challenge Dorset CC to publish full details of the Consultation process they were legally required to carry out before this scheme was sanctioned.
The outcry from local people speaks volumes, although up until now they have been completely ignored and it takes visitors to the area to raise this through National Media to highlight the nonsense and huge waste of public funds.
This section of road is now very dangerous on many counts, and to all types of user – pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle driver alike. It will only be a matter of time before a serious accident occurs and those responsible need to be identified and made accountable.
Hi Sandy, as stated in the article all residents and businesses on Leigh Road and Wimborne Road West, as well as residents and businesses on other local roads leading onto Leigh Road and Wimborne Road West were sent information about these works.
In March 2020, Dorset Council and BCP Council were jointly awarded £79m by the government under their Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) scheme. The work on Wimborne Road West forms part of the TCF investment. You can find out more about the project here: https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/News/News-Features/Transforming-Travel/Transforming-Cities-Fund/transforming-cities-fund.aspx
You can find the results from the public consultation on TCF’s six proposed sustainable travel routes here: https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/News/News-Features/Transforming-Travel/sustainable-travel-network/sustainable-travel-network.aspx
what ever you say its still a total waste of money and will be unused in the winter months still its a really good reason to not vote conservative at the next elections and we will certainly be doing that lets hope we get the same result as when you shut the toilets down.
Typical of the Press mantra “Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?”.
Why can cyclists, once the cycling lanes are complete, still use the vehicle lanes? Surely this is why the cycling lanes are for? Vehicles pay road tax so feel it’s unjust to let cyclists use when they are going to have their own cycling lane.
Also surely it’s safer for both cyclists and vehicles if they kept in the cycle lanes.
Road tax was abolished in 1937; drivers pay vehicle excise duty. Like most taxes, it is not ringfenced for the thing it is charged on (vehicle excise duty isn’t restricted to spending on roads, just like tobacco duty isn’t ringfenced for spending on health measures related to smoking). You may have a point that cyclists should be forced to use a cycle lane where available rather than the road; there is nothing Dorset or BCP councils can do to enforce this – you need to complain to your MP to get the Road Traffic Act amended.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41212379 Road tax was abolished in 1937 – Motor vehicles pay to pollute and there is no link to road maintenance locally. Cyclists have as much right to use the road as any other vehicle and may choose to use cycle lanes if they wish. Cycle lanes are a safe refuge for young / not confident riders who have been bullied off the actual road by inconsiderate motorists who continue to close pass / intimidate vulnerable road users. For confident / faster cyclists cycle lanes are often inconvenient and slower than cycling on the road itself.
The Government advice on cyclists using cycle lanes is that if cyclists are travelling at 18mph plus then they should use the road. As I understand it the road alongside this cycle lane will be a 30mph max limit. So its not going to be much of a speed difference between a vehicle travelling at 28mph and a cyclist travelling above 18mph [ Assuming all drivers are law abiding and won’t break the speed limit !] Incidentally ‘Road Tax’ was abolished in the 1930’s. It’s now called Vehicle Excise Duty and some vehicles don’t pay this at all. We all pay tax whether cyclist or driver in the form of Income Tax, Value Added Tax, Inheritance Tax, Import/Export Tax etc etc which just gets put into one large pot and is then dished out as needed.
As someone who cycles this road several times a week I am very pleased this cycle way is being constructed. You wouldn’t believe the number of close passes I experience on this road
Sorry BCP this project is a totally unnecessary shocker ! Leigh road is heavily used by traffic including large lorries .
What you have failed to admit is the increased pollution from added congestion. There is shortly a large housing development to open !Utter madness sorry you cannot defend the indefensible.
Hi Malcolm, thanks for your comment. These works aim to make it easier for people to walk and cycle more, particularly as an alternative to short car trips, which would help to reduce congestion and pollution.
One claim that would appear to be correct though is that the Cycle lane is wider than either single road carriageway i.e. 3.5m for cyclists vs 3.25 for vehicles.
I note this as a dual cyclist / car driver living in Hamworthy & using both cycleway and road around the RNLI. Here I find the cycle lane unnecessarily wide & the road unnecessarily narrow especially given the high volume of HGV’s from the port.
Whilst I acknowledge and understand the statement of facts above, my impression is the same as this stretch of highway – is it really necessary to proportionately give cycle users more width than vehicles?
Hi, thanks for your comment. As stated in the post the road is wider than the cycle path. The cycle lane is two way, meaning cyclists travelling in opposite directions get 1.75m each. I hope that helps to clarify.
Well done Dorset Council for refuting these frankly ludicrous claims which were made to incite anti-cycling rage. This sort of rubbish if often taken as gospel but great to see a measured and considered response based on facts not uninformed hearsay.
The reports were not to “incite anti cycling rage” they were to highlight the crass design of the cycle lane that was being built with money we don’t have, without popular support and of little value or need.
I am amazed. I have heard of new estate roads being built to reduced width standards (down to 6m) but main busy roads (and this is a busy busy main main road whatever designation it might have been give on paper) always were built to 24ft (7.3m in new money) as a MINIMUM. Reducing the width to 6m might just work IF, and only IF, width restricting features (such as cycles and parking) are legally removed and made to be in their designated place off the carriageway.
‘The cycle lane at this point is wider than the vehicle lanes
This is incorrect: The total width of the two-way cycle lane on Leigh Road is 3.5m (11ft 4in) and the total width on the two-way road is 6.5m (21ft 3in).’
Down to interpretation of the wording isn’t it? The cycle lane (3.5m) is wider than one vehicle lane (6.5m for two lanes and 3.25m for one lane, and even less with a centre white line)
Hi Paul, thanks for your comment, as stated in the post – the cycle lane is two way. That means cyclists travelling in opposite directions get 1.75m each.
I am a cyclist. However, looking at the amount of the road width available, a disproportionate amount of the total width HAS been given to cyclists.
This road is very busy with traffic, a lot of which are wide lorries and buses, and then compare it to the rarely used over-wide cycle lanes there, you’re lucky if you see one cyclist – so someone has been trying to tick the boxes, but not looking at the bigger picture.
On top of which, if you added up the amount of man hours wasted by motorists waiting at the temporary traffic lights, whilst all this work has been very slowly done. Then compare it with the benefits to the occasional cyclist, then it’s madness, someone should be held accountable.
Do you think I’d choose to cycle along this very busy road, whilst heavy traffic is still zooming past me? Not likely.
Still not practical for cyclists and drivers. Cycle lanes could have been narrower and road lanes slightly wider.
I have driven this route and now try to avoid it as I feel it is dangerous. Bad use of public funds in line with a lot of local road decisions.
Does it matter how wide the cycle path is. If it isn’t being used by cyclists it it a total waste of money. Which could have been spend to reduce the national dept caused by COVID.
Hi Dave, thanks for your comment. The funding from central government to complete this work is specifically aimed at offering environmentally friendly, safer and quicker journeys to work, education and leisure. You can find out more here: https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/News/News-Features/Transforming-Travel/sustainable-travel-network/sustainable-travel-network.aspx
Who thought the idea of a two way cycle Lane? It’s madness what will happen in the winter when it’s dark? Many cyclist now have very powerful front light, more powerful than some cars. When they are cycling towards oncoming cars they will dazzle the driver. I know from an in counter with a racing bike rider with the very powerful front light. He came up behind me riding in the centre of the lane with his light shining in my inside rear view mirror. He stayed with me at 30 mph and stayed in the middle of the road. He followed me for several miles, in the end I had had enough and pulled over and let him go speeding ahead of me. When he got to a roundabout he went around it and went back the way he had come. Car drivers seem to be the enemy on the road not the selfish cyclists and this council seem to be pandering to a minority because the council want cars off the roads. I for one need my car to get around and if I didn’t have one I would be stuck in my home. Who is in charge of these stupid schemes and they seem to just want to spend government money that they are giving it away?
I just give up with the way money is being wasted on cycle ways and not repairing the pothole riddled roads that car drivers have to put up with.
I agree the roads are pot hole riddled. As a cyclist I find this very dangerous at times, as some are so bad you have to suddenly swerve out of the way. When I drive I am aware of this if there is a cyclist ahead so give them plenty of room when I overtake. But there is one thing you cannot refute – Cyclists DO NOT cause pot holes – so using a cycleway is much preferred when cycling.
I am pleased the authorities are building cycleways. This is foreward thinking which hasnt happened with transport policy in the past. We are always playing catch up with road building. The proposed south coast motorway from Kent to Devon never materialised – but if it had then it would have greatly reduced the pollution and congestion problems we find we have today. Similarly after the Beeching cuts there was no foresight to use the old rail lines for cycleways or other sustainable transport. It is only in this age of climate change we are thinking about it. Consequently today we have a hotch potch of routes which are stop/start and not continuous
Cyclists should be made to use cycle tracks & should be fined for using the road.’
Cyclists never use cycle lane past Hurn airport causing serious delays
Motorists are fined for driving in cycle lanes so why not cyclists.
Cyclists should also be made be made to insurance their bikes
You are quite right about the hurn airport, a long path and never any one walking on it or cycling on it, but the bikes just stay on the road holding up traffic.
The path around the airport is unmaintained and unsuitable for most cycles. I know I go that way everyday I hope the recent new cycle lanes mentioned here will be properly maintained
Neither of these things – forcing cyclists to use cycle lanes where provided, and requiring them to have insurance, is anything Dorset or BCP councils can do anything about. It’s a matter of the Road Traffic Acts – which would need your MP to change.
Not true, I do when I am working in Ferndown but it is rubbish.
We can’t see why so much money is being spent on cycle lanes when the one going up gravel hill in Poole is hardly used by cyclists and they still cause problems using the road . They have no regard to road tax paying motorists .
Initial comments-
First the council ignores government guidelines when it suits them.
If you look more closely at the picture in the media it indicates that it is a one way cycle path. All the symbols on the surface are facing the same way. There is no signage to indicate it is two way.
That is why it appears wider than the single vehicle lane. The comments are about the width of each traffic lane, not the total width of both.
According to a government web site the width of say a refrigerated lorry could be 2.6 metres excluding wing mirrors. If you add 20cm wing mirrors that does not leave much room, 0.5m, for two such vehicles to pass each other safely. Especially as vehicles should not be driven such that the wing mirrors overhang onto the pavement.
At night on coming cyclists will be blinded by vehicle head lights because they will be shining directly at the cyclist.
Does the protected lane remove the need to leave a cars width when overtaking a cyclist? If not then it is impossible to use the road.
Still ridiculous.
I am 63 and have been a cyclist for most of my life. In fact, for the first 30 years I lived in west London and cycled all over town safely without the aid of cycle paths. The only time I got knocked off my bike (right outside the local police station….none of them were looking out the windows!) was by an idiot opening the inside door of a car several feet from the kerb unexpectably and me cycling straight into it! I have visited Holland and that was great but nearly everyone has a bike there. I think it is still going to be a long while before we get to that in the UK. Educate the drivers to ‘see’ us and sort out the many potholes on the edges of the roads where we mainly cycle before antagonising them by taking away strips of ‘their’ roads.
So the width of a car lane is less than the cycle two way lane, the chance of two cyclists passing each other at the same time is small, even so two cyclists take up less space than a big lorry, the car lane should be wider. I’m sure you’re try to squeeze out the car use, but not everyone is fit or young enough to ride a bike and public transport is hit and miss, if I wanted to go to Haskins there is no bus to take me there from where I live and that applies to a lot of places. All these cycle lanes are only being done because the government coughed up the money, cyclists should be licensed in some way so if they do not use the cycle lane when there is one there they should be fined and don’t get me started on all the riders that ignore red lights.
this path is being heavy criticise on Facebook echo page, many people fill ill informed before work started. some of the many criticisms , buses now stop and traffic is unable to pass, there are people already saying the the new paths are dirty and covered in leaves, the path also switches halfway down etc
they’re also more ‘improvements’ planed for ferndown, and now with the backlash on this route. will you now reopen the now closed consultation with ferndown residents now aware before starting work? who or which company is responsible for the planning?
2 way just how wide are the phantom bikes you are expecting?
Chronic waste of public money thrown down the drain of Public Sector ineptitude.
You are totally out of touch with reality.
Publish these comments to show all sides of the argument.
The whole concept is out of order on relation to the overall standard of traffic problems in the region ! why are there not any regulations, as on the Conintent, to slow down at junctions and Give Way to the LEFT . It actually works, like a gear wheel ! Why are road surfaces so badly covered with course gravel Exacerbatling the noise level , In France the top covering is smooth and made to drain away surface water ,! Why was I told by a member of your staff. Having suggested that speed restriction could be made on Horton Road, as in Golf Linls Road, that all of the properties in that location were valued at over £1.000.000? Is that the Criteria to which your decisions are based? Overall you responces not Good enough . It represents a total disregard of any objections made the Tax Payers and smells of self interests of Members of The Council. I note that certain council ours abstained in a vote for planing application on Horton Road , Why would that be ? Unless he had a vested interest ? I await your next promised response ! First one never arrived ?
Sadly the Daily Fail et al don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Riding my bike in the dark with my bright front light on in inclement windy weather I must keep a very straight course trying to keep close as possible to the oncoming large vehicles with their enormously bright lights less than 1 metre away from me and I also am shining a light at them. Possibly due to air pressure due to closeness of both parties, and temporary blindness, someone at one time will automatically swerve. I (and others )predict a severe casualty situation. The result should be that the bike lane to Wimborne should be on the right near the pavement away from the oncoming vehicles and the bike lane to Colehill etc.. go with the close flow of the traffic thereby will not have a possible ‘head on’ clash but will ‘go with the flow’ and no cyclist or motorist will be confused as both will be going in same direction and not be dazzled. Has any one who planned this tried this theory, are they even cyclists .
The section from Canford Bottom towards Hampreston has been completed yet we rarely see cyclists on it. The few seen are recreational cyclists unlikely to affect air quality or reduce traffic congestion. The avialable width of the lane is reduced by the failure to cut the ingrow.
I am presuming that you have survey data of the use of these routes by bicycles before the cyclepaths are implemented for comparison with data to be collected after completion.
I use the cyclepath in question along Ham Lane regularly. It is an excellent concept to provide the cycle path first and then this gradually encourages people to use it. Incidentally the path is dual use between pedestrians and cyclists. There wasnt even a pavement there before. Also the width of the carriage way hasnt been changed. I am constantly amazed at the speed of traffic along Ham Lane, especially speeding drivers as they enter the 40mph section coming from Canford Bottom to the crossroads at the junction with Stapehill Road. There is going to be a serious accident here unless a camera is put in place
Why, when the amount of cycling on this stretch of road is minimal why not use the minimum standard(3m), instead of 3.5m. If as you state it’s
two-way why not mark it as such with a central white line, as is normal in Sweden or, France. As usual in this country it’s always piecemeal , when one gets to a roundabout, crossing or, similar the lane ends leaving the cyclist with nowhere to go. You couldn’t organise “a ****** in a brewery”.
The cycle way is a great step forward for all road users and to be welcomed, it is not yet complete and should not be judged until it is complete.
Well done to DCC for clarifying these claims, all of which are proven to be misinformation from the publications involved. Congratulations on providing a safe infrastructure for locals and visitors alike.
To use the west bound cycle lane you have to cross the road and cycle, in effect, on the wrong side of the road, as is the case on Ham Lane. If you want to turn left you then have to cross back over again.
Apparently the narrow roads will reduce congestion and speeding. No:they will slow down traffic, increasing both congestion and Co2 emissions, which according to Dorset and BCP Councillors, will bring life in Dorset to an end (despite the fact that rising co2 levels are making the planet greener) . And as for the Muppet who decided to place a bus stop on the newly narrowed road!!!
All this for how many people to benefit from?
Now where are those KPIs?
So, you don’t disagree that sections of the road are narrower than the 21’3″ at Leigh Road?
You mention many roads are this size, please give examples so this can be verified and also only include those roads that have recently been reduced in width that meet this standard.
What studies have you that show the need to exceed the minimum 3 metre with will be required to handled the expected volume of cycles?
Thanks for clarifying. Seems wholly appropriate what you have done. Hope it works satisfactorily. Far more ambitious than a four lane old trunk road I dabbled with in the 1990s.
Despite your comments the scheme has been a monumental waste of money when you take into account the number of cyclists using this route — the money would have been far better spent on dealing with the poor road surfaces and , in particular, the road marking which in many parts of the area are almost invisible, Cooper Dean roundabout for one.
Cost per cyclist using this route does no bear thinking about!
Hi Evan,
The cost of this scheme is tiny compared to other road schemes. Just to put this in perspective the upgrade of the Blackwater junction on the A338 cost over £11 million. That’s one junction.
If you think the money spent on the cycle lane is going to pay for major road resurfacing or repairs then this is not the case.
The cost per use over the lifetime will be much lower than general roads which get work out quickly by cars and especially HGVs.
The Blackwater Junction improvements provide a benefit to a large number of people: the cycle lane?
The money spent on the cycle lane could have easily been spent on desperately needed repairs that benefit cyclists more than motorists. The Government decides where the spending is directed and in the past it was directed at repairs but that is no longer trendy.
If you don’t have any idea of usage stats there is no validity to your claim
Central government have provided the funds so it has been spent on the easy parts, straight roads and pavement areas. The junctions are where the accidents are. Wheres the cycle lane through Wimborne centre/Kinson/Winton/Wallisdown roundabout?
Very interesting. I wonder how you justify that at Lychett Minster the introduction of cycle lanes on the B road has meant that when two vehicles traveling in the opposite direction pass one another one or both have to encroach on one of the cycle lanes
If the road is 6.5m wide and the cycle lane is 3.5m wide this would mean that the cycle is in fact wider than either of the lanes for cars. No one in the area wanted this and I’ve not spoken to a single resident in this area that is happy with the changes around wimborne, this includes multiple housing developments that bring more and more traffic to our town. I’ve lived here 20 years and the amount of traffic through wimborne now is mental. The bypass does nothing as it is always completely rammed, meaning everyone drives through wimborne anyway.
Hi Charlie, as stated in the post – the cycle lane is two way. Cyclists travelling in opposite directions get 1.75m each, so the road is wider than the cycle lane. You can find the results from the public consultation about this work here: https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/News/News-Features/Transforming-Travel/sustainable-travel-network/sustainable-travel-network.aspx
Hi Charlie,
You rightly acknowledge the roads are rammed. If building more roads isn’t fixing anything what do we do ?
Perhaps making an alternative to everyone driving where many of those journies are short and with one person in a car, might help.
If you got a few folk out of cars then the congestion and pollution will be reduced.
So if you need to drive – and you might need to – then encouraging others to cycle, walk, get a bus will make the traffic better for you.
Or we build more roads, we make the A31 six lanes each way and just build build build.
I don’t think you want that either.
It’s a real shame that some expensive new infrastructure intended to make a positive difference is receiving such negative reactions and press. It’s also quite dangerous as people can do some stupid things when feeling antagonised, shouting abuse or perhaps driving dangerously. The Lane does seem quite wide but and could probably accommodate the anticipated cycle traffic just as easily if narrowed but come on drivers, do slightly wider lanes make our journeys any longer or more dangerous, two lanes are two lanes. For me the biggest reason people don’t use bike is the lack of infrastructure, but it is vital what there is actually takes people to where they want to go and doesn’t just stop at the difficult and dangerous spots.
I posted some questions a few days ago but don’t see them on here, is there a reason.
Sorry for the delay Michael, I am just waiting to hear back from the team with answers to each of your questions. I’ll publish these answers as soon as I’ve got them.
In my opinion, if it is indeed me meant to be a 2 way cycle lane, then it should be clearly marked with a central broken white line.
I also agree that a hard physical barrier would have been appropriate here.
While it both the main carriageway and the cycle lane may meet or exceed current standards, it works have been prudent, in my opinion, to build the cycle lane to the exact standard and use the extra width for the main carriageway.
By narrowing the road where it was much wider, you have brought bus stops in line with the flow of traffic, and near Leigh House I have noticed a new raised kerb+in line with the main carriageway) just before the current lay-by stop. I can only presume that means you will be removing said lay-by stop. Thereby forcing traffic to build up behind a bus that is embarking or disembarking passengers, or waiting time at a timing point, further adding to congestion and air pollution, not easing it.
U state the road is wider then the cycle lanes where in fact it was stated that the lanes were smaller then the cycle lanes which is in fact correct. But you have said the rd is wider and not the individual lanes…. I drive there every day almost and have seen yes cyclists on the road and also cars up on the cycle lanes when big vehicles are coming down the other side of road. Also because the road is so narrow u can’t blame people going down the whole 2 mile road without overtaking as one makes them late for work maybe and 2 they want to overtake so is more of a risk for other people as I’ve seen them be impatient and overtake bikes either side of the lane.
Hi Darren, as stated in the post – the cycle lane is two way. Cyclists travelling in opposite directions get 1.75m each, so the road is wider than the cycle lanes. As is also stated in the post, the cycle lane scheme on Wimborne Road West and Leigh Road is still under construction, so it is very likely that some cyclists will chose to use the road at this time.
I am genuinely all for cycle lanes, but the road scheme in question is an unnecessary, expensive, ugly white elephant. Large areas of green grass have been replaced with grey tarmac. This may conform to planning guidelines, but it is resulting in a street more appropriate to inner London, than a road linking semi-rural Dorset towns and villages. The wanton destruction of green spaces is now continuing towards Wimborne. Perhaps there’s a clue in the title “Dorset Transforming Cities Fund”. There are no cities in Dorset. Bournemouth, and Poole may aspire to city status, but Wimborne is definitely a town and Colehill is a certainty a village. Dorset and BCP Councils have made a tragic mistake. We were promised a cycle lane and it turns out we’ve been given an eyesore. What an egregious misuse of public funds!
Hi Peter,
What’s your solution? We have heavily congested roads due to the traffic volume and most cars have one occupant and are on a very short journey.
Do you want more roads in your rural Dorset – that’s not going to fix it.
This is a very modest scheme and a drop in the ocean relative to general road spend.
Bournemouth and Poole is Europe’s largest conurbation. It’s got huge traffic issue and the heavy pollution and impact to people that brings.
You’re not in some 1950s rurual landscape.
I think it just needs more markings to make it clearer to all.
Vehicles are using the Cycle Lane and Pavement to undertake traffic queuing to get to Canford Bottom Roundabout when they want to get to the Spar Shop which is very dangerous.
Vehicles park on the Pavement and Cycle Lane making it pointless. Vans in particular parking there not only causes an obstruction but reduces visibility for people pulling in and out of their drives.
When Emergency vehicles are trying to get through traffic it is very difficult for them and if people are parked on Cycle Lane and Pavements then there is nowhere for traffic to move over to allow access.
Well done Dorset Council. I live on Wimborne Road West and have yet to see chaotic scenes. Traffic is managed
In a correct manner. If drivers cannot obey signals and block drives, surely this is bad driving. There is adequate room for lorries to pass. I would humbly suggest, in a 30 mph, this is careless driving. It may be an idea to ask Jewsons to tell their suppliers that they open at 7 am. Lorries are parking on the cycle lane waiting to enter Jewsons yard.
Hi Bill, great – thank you for your comment. We’ll pass your feedback along to the team.
Good to see a rational and detailed analysis for all the naysayers. I for one , and my cycling friends and family, especially the youngsters, look forward to making full use of this exciting scheme. Congratulations.
That’s great to hear, thanks for your comment.
I cycled this road for several years and never had an issue or near miss. All the areas I did have problems have NO provision for cycling as it’s to difficult or expensive to put in place. This is just an expensive white elephant so the council and say “look what we’ve done”.
First of all, you obviously have no idea how much traffic uses this road, as the main A31 is constantly coming to a halt, causing people to look for alternative routes, which inevitably takes them along the road in question.
Secondly, Wimborne has had an awful lot of new housing built in the past couple of years, which is still going on, so local traffic has increased substantially.
As regards to the cycle lane being for cyclists going in both directions, there are plenty of other cycle lanes in the region, which are for exactly the same situation, but are nowhere near as wide.
It is absolutely ridiculous to even suggest, that there is the need for such a wide path, exactly how wide is a cyclist anyway, less than a metre, that’s for sure.
Has anybody done a survey, on how many cyclists will actually be using this cycle super highway, I doubt it very much.
Who are Sustrans, who have donated to this project, and where have they suddenly appeared from?
The law needs to be changed, to protect the motorists, if there is a fantastic new cycle lane, and the odd cyclist decides in his or her great wisdom, to ignore it and use the very tight road instead. If something was to happen, and there was an accident involving a cyclist, the motorist should have the right to ask, why they weren’t using the cycle lane, where they would have been perfectly safe.
To say that the road is perfectly safe, and wide enough, just proves that the people sat behind their desks, have no idea, how busy, or what sort of traffic uses this road
Hi Brian,
That’s quite a message. I think you need to go back and read the highway code and understand you don’t have some magic priority over other road users.
This might come as quite a shock to your way of thinking. You can’t just keep driving everywhere all the time.
Your right more houses are being built and regrettably the days of popping everywhere in the car need to be curtailed.
You comment on the traffic volumes and they are shocking, we can’t build more roads to solve this, so you may want to consider alternatives for those short journies you do.
Cars are very inefficient, most carry one person and a queue of 10 cars ( 10 people) is massive compared to other forms of transport.
My partner works for the largest insurance firm around here. If you hit a cyclist it doesn’t matter whose fault your for the high jump.
you can write all you like to justify your actions but you have still narrowed the road and stuck bus stops on the main road into Wimborne on both sides of the rd . This is a busy road and often gets used,moreso when the bypass is blocked.
You have built hundreds of new houses in the area and want to build more which will increase the road traffic.
I pay road tax,the few cyclists that i see pay nothing.
Hi Al,
You don’t pay road tax, that was abolished in the 1930’s. Many road users don’t even pay VED or a very small amount ( £30 per year ).
Despite what you might think the cost of motoring is massively subsidised by the general tax payer and you are benefitting from this subsidy.
Unfortunately this needs to change and being able to drive everywhere, all the time will need to be moderated.
This scheme is to offer an viable alternative to driving. It’s a small start but there will be more.
As a lifelong cyclist and Wimborne resident I can assure I will never cross the Canford Bottom roundabout when there is the Ham lane underpass.
The Dual way cycle path leading to the roundabout will not be used by experienced cyclists provided the underpass is well sign posted.
A complete white elephant
The Ham Lane underpass is a great route if you are heading towards Longham but doesn’t really help if you are heading east towards Stapehill and Ferndown or heading up Hayes Lane towards the residential area of Canford Bottom. Either way, the turn off to Ham lane is only a few hundred yards from Canford Bottom roundabout so it still left cyclists with the need to negotiate virtually all of what was a busy 40mph road from Wimborne. Not surprisingly, this put off all but the brave few. This scheme provides a safe and very welcome alternative and is a good step forward in building a network of safe cycling routes in the area. I will continue to use the route to cycle to Wimborne for all my shopping including groceries but in much greater safety and comfort than before.
1.Will a post installation analysis of the scheme be undertaken to see over time what the modal shift has been?
2. Was a cost benefit analysis undertaken prior to the project being developed?
3.Was a safety audit carried out prior to the design going ahead?
4.The vehicle carriageway has been reduced below a normally accepted level of 7.3 metres (3.65m each direction). Was this decision included in the risk assessment/ Safety audit?
5.The reduction in carriageway width will have the effect of reducing capacity, possibly causing longer queuing. Will this raise issues of poor air quality?
6.What is the proposed speed limit of this road after completion of the works?
I understand you will be introducing a Zebra Pedestrian crossing but this does not appear to go across the cycle path; is expected that cyclists will give way to pedestrians?
I would be interested in your answers to my questions, thank you.
Hi Michael, thanks for your questions. Here are the responses from the team to each:
1. Yes – we will undertake a post project appraisal on the scheme which will include cycle and traffic count. This will allow us to establish the modal shift associated with the scheme.
2. Yes – the whole TCF programme has been subject to cost benefit testing prior to the award of funding to Dorset Council and BCP Council.
3. Yes – All highway improvement schemes are subject to a multi-stage road safety audit process. These include safety audits on the design prior to construction and post construction safety audit.
4. As previously mentioned, the designs are subject to a safety audit prior to construction, which includes the carriageway widths. The 7.3m to which you refer is for main or trunk roads as specified by Highways England and is not the standard for local and residential roads. Leigh Road is well within allowable widths as laid out within the appropriate guidance.
5. It is unlikely that the reduction in lane widths will reduce capacity. Highway capacity is largely constrained by junction capacity, not that of the roads between junctions. In fact, slower speeds, which are encouraged by tighter geometry, tend to smooth the flow of traffic and help maintain a steady flow of vehicles. Of course, the main reason for constructing the cycle lanes is to offer the choice to local road users to adopt greener forms of transport like cycling, walking or taking the bus, particularly for shorter journeys. All of this is aimed at reducing congestion and CO2 emissions, and improving air quality in our local neighbourhoods.
6. The speed limit is now 30mph and will stay at this speed after completion of the project. This new limit was implemented on 18 January 2021, the day we started construction. The narrower carriageways support this speed limit, which was reduced from 40mph.
7. The crossings we are installing are called Parallel Crossings, which are essentially wide zebra crossings that make it easier for both pedestrians and cyclists to use at the same time. They include a larger shared entrance area to the crossing on both sides, making them safer for all to use. In terms of priority, a recent new edition to the Highways Code states that in shared situations, pedestrians should be given priority and cyclists should give way to them.
If you would like any further information about the project, you can contact the team: transformingtravel@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk
Thank you for your answers.
The final insult to road users of this system is the Bus stop provision 100% on the highway. Surely part of this provision could be incorporated in to the cycle way. Is it to much to ask cyclists to navigate around a parked bus or even wait a short while until the bus goes on its way.
Two things. Firstly, I’d like to know what the environmental impact assessment determined from a cost/benefit perspective of this project. In other words, what is the payback over time and at what level of assumed usage of the cycle lanes in terms of environment benefit versus the cost of implementation including carbon footprint of materials, waste, installation processes including plant & vehicles, disruption, time loss, additional pollution of queuing traffic, etc. Second, what is the health and safety perspective on the ongoing hazard of partial and misleading road markings that are left in place from the original carriageway until such time that the new lanes are resurfaced? Are those responsible just hoping there are no serious accidents now the evenings are becoming darker? I’ve certainly been thrown a few times where the central line veers off across the oncoming lane.
Could I get a response to this please?
Hi Steve, thank you for your questions which I’ve forwarded to the team. I will let you know responses as soon as I have them.
If you would like to contact the team directly, you can find contact details here: https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/-/transforming-travel-project-team
You have put in cycle ways for part of the road Canford bottom end to the new housing estate will the cycle lanes also go into Wimborne town center ? and if not what is the reasoning that it is safer to cycle on the road or narrow pavement for this stretch of Leigh road. I dont feel safe to cycle from Ferndown to Wimborne because of this .
This used to be such a pleasant wide approach road to Wimborne with plenty of room for the very few cyclists and even fewer pedestrians. The change is totally unnecssary, a tragic waste of money and now we have a complicated
ridiculously tight vehicle road.