Cycle crossing is “obstruction of the highway” says Councillor

Cycling Consultation Sign

Bradley Stoke Councillors have given a further thumbs down to plans for cycle crossings in the town despite compromises being made by South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) following the Town Council’s earlier objection.

SGC now says it is prepared to abandon plans for a ‘raised table’ crossing on Fiddlers Wood Lane, close to the Bradley Stoke Way roundabout, replacing it with a ‘kerb build out’ scheme.

But the District Council is adamant that a similar proposed crossing on Baileys Court Road, between its junctions with Sherbourne Avenue and Meadow Way [Street View], should go ahead.

The length of the raised crossing proposed by SGC has been increased to 6m, so that bus passengers will not experience a bumpy ride.

Cllr Robert Jones described the proposed crossing on Baileys Court Road as “an obstruction of the highway”, adding that he would object to “anything that slows the traffic below the legal speed limit”, while Cllr John Ashe said installation of the same crossing would effectively mean “introducing a [lower] speed limit by the back door”.

Councillors voted to inform SGC of their continued objection to the Baileys Court Road scheme and requested that a light controlled crossing be installed in its place.

It is likely that the matter will now have to be decided by SGC’s Executive Member for Transport.

In the meantime, construction work connected with Cycling City Route 3 (of which the crossings form part) is well underway. A new footpath/cycleway has been completed south of Savages Wood Roundabout and work has now commenced on widening the footpath along Bradley Stoke Way, north of the Willow Brook Centre.

Share this page:


  1. I cross over the crossing on Bailey’s Court road every day.

    I was greatly looking forward to the raised table. I believe it is an excellent idea. Given the traffic levels on the road a raised table is so much better than a light controlled crossing (which doesn’t scale well if the traffic on the cycle path increases).

  2. I agree with Daniel, it is an excellent proposal that will inevitably slow traffic down. As Cllr Jones believes no one should drive below the legal speed limit maybe he should propose increasing the speed limit in Bailey’s court Road to 60mph, that way the majority of users will be within the law!

  3. Just who do these councillors think they represent? just car drivers? Don’t they think about pedestrians and cyclists who have to deal with cars and trucks doing 35-40mph. Aren’t they aware of the 20mph zones in the rest of the UK which show massive savings in road traffic accidents, mainly to pedestrians and cyclists?

    Cllr Robert Jones should retract his ludicrous statement about slowing the traffic to below the speed limit. It’s illegal to do over the speed limit councillor! Does he really want to encourage law breaking behaviour?

    Shame on these councillors for failing to represent their community, and hopefully they’ll be voted out at the next election.

  4. What a very poor and narrow-minded response by the Councillors clearly based on views by ‘car and lorry driver’. Do they not realise that much of the traffic travels at well above the legal speed limit on this road. We all want to travel as quickly and safely as possible to and from our distinations and this included cyclists! Clearly Councillor Robert Jones is not interested in representing cyclists and I too agree that I sincerly hope they get voted out at the next election. I thought Bradley Stoke was a valuable part of the Cycling Initiative proposed and driven forward by the Government under Cycling City? Maybe cyclist should have a say then since the money was granted to improve and encourage cycling for the benefit of all, not just car and lorry drivers!

  5. The money would be better off being spent repairing the pothole-riddled roads of Bradley Stoke and surrounding areas, making them safer for motorists, bikers and cyclists alike.

  6. The basic principle should be that the road belongs to community and to those people who live alongside it, not to those rushing to get through. Agree with Brian, we all want to get to where we are going as quickly and safely as possible, but road layouts are too often dictated by the needs of car drivers rather than the pedestrian or cyclist.

  7. Both these blokes are South Glos. councillors so why didn’t they make their views known to the Transport Supremo before the work was started (’cause I’m sure they would have known about it). They are going to cost the council more money now due to the delay in completing the work. So much for the Conservatives wanting to save money!!

  8. I was looking forward to seeing the raised table installed on Bailey’s Court Road and am disappointed by the councillor’s objections.

    I live within sight of this crossing point and members of my household regularly cross the road at this point both on foot and by bicycle. In addition, we are also daily drivers along Bailey’s Court Road.

    I am acutely aware of the high speed of the traffic along Bailey’s Court Road in this location, around the clock. Very few vehicles are slowed by the existing speed cushions – most having a sufficiently wide wheel-base to straddle them anyway! As far as I can observe, the only outcome of the existing speed cushions is a potential to damage the vehicles of local residents whose wheels straddle them frequently over a long term. I would prefer to see these ineffective cushions removed and raised tables installed at critical crossing points. I think it would be a good mid-way point between the two roundabouts to install a raised table, helping to prevent traffic from getting up to speeds of 30+ on this particular stretch.

    I think proposal of a light-controlled crossing is completely ridiculous though. Even if cycle/pedestrian use of this route were to double or triple, it would still amount to tiny numbers daily, so surely doesn’t justfy the expense or unecessary street-furniture of a light-controlled crossing.

  9. Personally, I agree with the councillors stance here, albeit for different reasons. Surely, on safety grounds, these raised crossings should not be introduced. They’ll just encourage cyclists (particularly young ones) to pedal straight out into the road, without looking out for vehicles that then might not stop for them (and have no obligation to, since they aren’t zebra crossings, or any other sort of crossing).

    A toucan crossing is a much more sensible, safer, proposal.

  10. I think a raised table would be a good idea.
    ‘Another Local Resident’ says “They’ll just encourage cyclists (particularly young ones) to pedal straight out into the road”

    I understand your concerns, and can see that being a potential problem; however if I was to design such a feature I would install two small metal railings on either side of the path spaced approx 2 metres apart to slow down a bike travelling towards the road.

    I do not agree with installing a toucan crossing on Baileys Court road as the road width is not particularly wide, and such a crossing will just slow down traffic and cyclists that even bother to use them.

Comments are closed.