Old Shoreham Road

Jim Davis of the Lo Fidelity Bicycle Club has already visited the re-working of the Old Shoreham Road in Hove, and has provided two excellent reports about it.

The aim of the scheme involves taking space from the carriageway – which, as you can see in this photograph of an unmodified section of the road, is ample –

and reallocating it for wide cycle tracks on either side of the road.

I took the opportunity to visit the road for myself in the middle of May. It should be stressed that the project is (quite obviously) not finished; both Jim and I were visiting what amounts, in many places, to a building site. A true impression of how the scheme will function may not necessarily have been obtained. Some of the minor problems that I think exist may be addressed before the road is formally reopened towards the end of June.

The signs are very promising. While not up to the standard of a Dutch cycle path, the scheme is certainly streets ahead of the usual UK off-carriageway provision. For the great majority of its length, the path is very wide, as wide as a van.

It’s certainly wider than this car, the driver having decided to pull over onto the cycle track to continue his mobile phone call.

This brings me, however, to my first minor concern. Although the tracks are separated from the road by a kerb, they will prove to be a very tempting parking bay. They even look like a parking bay. There is, it seems, nothing in the physical design of the scheme that will keep cars and vehicles from parking on the tracks.

This four-car household are already spilling out onto the pavement.

In the absence of the construction lorry, the cycle track – where the lorry is parked – might be the obvious place to park ‘extra’ cars.

Ideally, I would like to have seen some more demarcation between the track and the road, perhaps a small raised kerb, like this Dutch example –

Which would make it more obvious that the cycle track is not just an extension of the road. It would also serve to keep the corners at junctions sharp, and consequently the speeds of vehicles turning across the track low (about which more below).

The space for this kerb could come from the track itself, or from the carriageway, which strangely still has a hatched ‘separation’ area between the traffic lanes, to discourage overtaking – this shouldn’t really be necessary on a suburban road.

Long term, it would make sense to replant the trees along this road – which currently lie in the pavement – where the cycle track meets the carriageway, providing a further barrier, and removing them as an obstacle from the pavement and the cycle track. As things stand, I suspect that there will have to be some vigorous enforcement on the part of the council to ensure that the tracks are kept clear of parked vehicles – there does not appear to be much in the design itself that will keep cars and vans out.

Where the cycle tracks pass residential side roads, it was pleasing to see that the kerbs separating the track from the carriageway extended as far as they could go, right up to the width of the junction mouth at its narrowest point. These are very sharp corners.

Judging by the height of the kerb above this grating, there is a reasonable height difference here, which should discourage fast corner-cutting. (This is, of course, where a raised kerb separator would help even more). I suspect some drivers might be willing to bump up across a kerb of this height.

I would also like to have seen the pavements continue across the junctions, which would further have given the impression to drivers that they should yield. The tracks do continue at the same height, meaning drivers have to turn up and over them; but continuation of the paving would have been an extra visual signal.

A continued pavement would have been good for pedestrians too. As it is, the pavements halt at these junctions with residential roads.

Curiously, one junction on the length of the works is treated rather differently –  Radindnen Manor Road. I’m not sure why the treatment is different.

The kerb, unlike at the other residential junctions, is rounded off and is of a larger radius. Likewise, double yellow lines continue around the corner. The impression given is of a  ‘smooth’ corner for vehicles turning into the road.

Indeed I noticed that is not smooth enough for one driver, tyre marks visible across the corner of the cycle track –

I think this junction is problematic, and should have been treated like the others. The priority is not clear. Drivers should give way; however, the current arrangement is deeply ambiguous, especially in the context of the rest of the cycle track, where cyclists do have priority. The kerb should be as sharp as the other junctions, and the track should be much more ‘visible’ across the junction mouth.

A side street, Chanctonbury Road, is closed off (to motor vehicles) where it meets Old Shoreham Road.

This closure predates the construction of the tracks; you can see the former arrangement in this photograph by Jim –

It’s pleasing to see that the horrible pinch point, and the pedestrian cages and fences, have been removed and replaced with a zebra crossing, a solution I have suggested should be employed much more widely. The new arrangement is much better for pedestrians and cyclists.

A minor quibble is that the cycle track becomes a ‘shared’ area around this junction. If Chanctonbury Road is closed, the track could surely continue across the junction, with a pavement at left. The zebra crossing could extend across the cycle track, to make priorities clear. But with a school on the other side of the road, I suspect the planners feared conflicts with plenty of pedestrians crossing, and wanted to ‘slow’ cyclists by creating an area with sharing. Perhaps the current arrangement is too ambiguous; time will tell. But I should stress again that this is only a minor concern.

If we look at a map of the area –

we can see how Chanctonbury Road is closed to motor vehicles at its northern end, at the junction with the Old Shoreham Road.

It would make a great deal of sense to close all of these residential streets in a similar fashion at their northern ends, with access remaining from Highdown and Montefiore Road. Turning conflicts would be eliminated at a stroke, and the side streets themselves would become quieter and more pleasant, as they would no longer be through routes. Perhaps this is something for the future. (This is how filtered permeability and cycle tracks can work hand-in-hand).

The other ‘shared’ area of the track has been born out of necessity, as it passes over the railway bridge.

This is location where there genuinely isn’t the width available. The carriageway has been narrowed as much as possible, and the remaining space reallocated for pedestrians and cyclists. Given the width, sharing is the best solution for this short stretch. It will not be a problem. (If we want to dream, it might possible to imagine the carriageway narrowed to a single lane, with alternate priority for motor vehicles and the space given over to pedestrians and cyclists – although restrictions like this should be careful not to inadvertently divert through traffic onto residential streets).

I am sorry to say that the bus stop treatments – unless they are going to be changed – are not ideal.

The cycle tracks should pass behind the bus stop, to avoid conflict with waiting pedestrians – this would naturally involve moving the bus stop, something that hasn’t been done. At the very least there should be a waiting area for passengers to the right of the cycle track, something like the arrangement on Royal College Street (picture by David Arditti).

As things stand, passengers queuing to get onto a bus will be doing so in the cycle track, which is not brilliant. Indeed, the bus stops along the improvements are marked as ‘shared areas’ on the plans, and this is how they are being implemented, marked as such on the pavements/tracks.

My final concern, and perhaps the most serious, is the light-controlled junctions. It is at these points that provision seems to disappear. As Jim noted, these ‘scheduled’ junction improvements are not part of this plan, and will arrive later; Mark Strong confirms this. However, my impression, from the kerbing put in place so far, is that the tracks will halt some distance before the lights, and cyclists are left to fend for themselves through the junction. The kerb slopes down to road level underneath this car, returning cyclists to the carriageway about 30-40 metres from the lights.

This might be, I suspect, because ‘junction capacity’ has to be preserved, and cycle tracks, or a cycle phase on the lights themselves, are not compatible with the necessary two queuing lanes needed to get as many motor vehicles through the junction as possible. Cyclists are put into the queue.

The same arrangement – with the kerb disappearing, and the track merging into the left-hand queuing lane – is present at the eastern end of the scheme.

I hope that the tracks will not disappear in this way once the works are completed, and that some solution is found, because the disappearance is a problem in two respects. Firstly, making right turns on a bike will involve negotiating out into the second vehicle lane. This is more daunting than simply cycling along a road, a problem the cycle tracks address. The road has been made more pleasant for cycling, but the most serious impediment has not been dealt with. It’s a little analogous to securing your house with a fancy new burglar alarm, but leaving the front door open.

The second problem is that left hook conflicts – where left-turning vehicles move across the path of cyclists trying to go straight on, or right – remain unresolved. By way of an illustration of the potential problem, here’s a video of me cycling up from the seafront, towards the Old Shoreham Road, on the existing cycle track on Grand Avenue.

The cycle track disappears before the junction. As I approach the lights, which are on red, I am initially thinking about moving into the ASL area, in front of the vehicles. But then as I go to move past the white Micra, the lights change. I decide, sensibly and correctly, to hang back, and the driver also appears to have been aware of my presence, turning left quite cautiously. So no harm done. But this is an issue typical of junctions with ASLs; turning conflicts are a real problem.

Cyclists wishing to go straight on should not have to negotiate with vehicles turning left. Paths crossing like this is something Dutch design seeks to eliminate, with left-turning motor vehicles held at a red light while cyclists progress straight on, and cyclists wishing to progress straight on held at a red signal while vehicles turn left. Whether we will see something like this in the treatments on Old Shoreham Road, I don’t know, but I am sceptical. I suspect that the junctions will be similar to the existing treatments along Grand Avenue and the Drive – that is, without much or any protection for cyclists at all, despite the cycle tracks between the junctions.

Having said all that, the scheme as a whole is bold, and a great step forward. The tarmac is smooth and continuous, the paths are wide, the carriageway has been narrowed, and most of the junctions with minor roads have been designed sensibly. The quibbles about shared areas and bus stops are, I think, minor ones. Hopefully at some point in the future we can finally get around to making sure that cyclists get through light-controlled junctions in as safe, calm and secure a manner as they will progress along the tracks themselves.

I leave you with a video of me cycling along the stretch of track between The Drive and The Upper Drive, which includes crossing the worst side road treatment, Radinden Manor Road.

It’s rather nice.

This entry was posted in Brighton, Infrastructure, Street closures, Subjective safety. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Old Shoreham Road

  1. Wyadvd says:

    For me personally, if a main road is amply wide, then it’s safe for cycling. If I can leave a reasonable distance from the curb and cars can still overtake without interrupting the passage of oncoming vehicles, then it’s a safe road to cycle on. All schemes like this do is turn a safe road into a narrow one for those of us who wish to cycle like vehicles, not cowering small mammals. As for the left hook risk, this only effects cyclists who insist on passing junctions on the extreme left. I observe some who actually pull into the ‘lay by’ created by junctions as they traverse them. More fool them.

    • Wyadvd says:

      And in your conflict turning video, in the absence of the wonderful cycling lane ( and in my case even with it) I would be waiting at the lights fairly and centrally placed in the right hand lane intended for vehicles going straight on . I would suffer no such conflict with the white micra. I may however momentarily slow down that silver van for around 2 seconds. Why do we have to invent a whole new grammar around junctions when if you just obey the existing rules you are safe? Facilities like this around junctions just entrench dangerous riding practice.

    • fonant says:

      For me, personally, I agree with you. But for my family, including my cycling-mad twins aged six who’ve ridden bikes since they were three, I disagree very strongly. And for the general population, who aren’t cyclists but who might want to use a bicycle for transport, I disagree strongly. People on bicycles do not want to, and should not have to, put themselves deliberately in the path of motor vehicles to remain “safe”. You only have to see how experienced cyclists have been killed doing this to know that this “safety” is reliant on motorists paying attention, and is thus extremely fragile.

      On the parking problem, I reckon that the Dutch must have had this too. Their solution of having a narrow raised strip, with kerbs on both motor and cycle sides, seems a good one: as a motorist you don’t see that as being useful for parking on, and you’d also worry about grounding the underside of your car if you tried straddling the strip with wheels on each side of it. The idea of using trees along this strip is an excellent one, providing some significant barriers between motor vehicles and people on bikes, and at the same time providing a much-improved street-scape and some shelter for people on bikes too.

      • Wyadvd says:

        Agreed to an extent, but statistically the kind of left hook ‘accident waiting to happen’ is how many, many more cyclist meet their maker compared to being struck from behind whilst in the correct lane travelling on the correct side of the road. Cycle lanes which encourage cyclists to be positioned incorrectly for their intended direction of travel are dangerous. They also. Encourage a culture in which cyclists who do are regarded as being in the wrong. If there is a lane for straight on then that’s where we should be , not in a red lane with a cycle painted on it so we can be left hooked by vehicle turning left.

    • “All schemes like this do is turn a safe road into a narrow one for those of us who wish to cycle like vehicles, not cowering small mammals.”

      The interesting issue here is why you would insist on continuing on using the road ‘like a vehicle’ when there is now a cycle path to the side which is just as wide, where you won’t have to worry about close overtakes by vehicles.

      Why? I mean, really – why?

  2. PaulM says:

    “Cowering small mammals” – Oh dear! I think someone doesn’t get the point!

    A question for Mark: I get how Dutch design protects cyclists with the motorists’ held at red while cyclists proceed straight on, but are there complete and distinct go-forward and turn-left phases? Or is it the case that between red phases, after the delay for motor vehicles, there is a general green phase during which the cyclist/left-turning driver conflict can reappear?

    On the parking problem, it seems to me to be a fairly stock response for motorists and residents to respond to such cycle paths by thinking “how thoughtful of them to provide me with off-road parking space”. Certainly, the cycle path which borders the old A3 (now A333) where it runs parallel to the new A3 which descends into teh Hindhead Tunnel, which cycle path was built primarily of not solely to meet a statutory obligation to unmotorised vehicle which are not permitted to use the tunnel, is reguarly used by some residents along the old road as additional parking space, blocking the track entirely. If the track in question actually wennt from anywhere to anywhere, it would be a problem but then, like so many UK cycle paths/tracks, it doesn’t.

    • Motor vehicles at large junctions are separated into left-turn and straight-on/right turning phases, with lights for each. Left turns for bicycles are feasible at all times (because protected tracks go around the corner). Bicycles going straight on will proceed with vehicles going straight on and turning left, while left-turning vehicles are held. Bicycles will be held while vehicles turn left. There is (generally) no phase at which conflict can occur. These two videos from Mark Wagenbuur give a good explanation.

      At smaller junctions, you are now more likely to find a dedicated ‘all ways green’ for bikes, allowing you to go in all directions, while all motor vehicles are held at a red light. Again, there will be no conflicting movements (except with other bicycles, but that’s not a problem). See my videos at the end of this post.

  3. Wyadvd says:

    Mainly because it feeds you into the most dangerous part of the road at every single junction. Especially the majority of junctions which have no lights . It also makes you and I mean YOU feel safe when all you have protecting you is a thick white line. So your attitude to the risk to which you exposed does not reflect the real risks which arise to a much greater extent from left hooks at junctions than from close overtaking (which feels much more dangerous than it is)

    • On a road of this width, you would be cycling in that position anyway – take a look at the first picture. The left hook problem would still exist in precisely the same form. Except that now, the great majority of the junctions with side streets along this road have been treated so that they are impossible to turn into at speed. Swinging around a cyclist and turning left at speed would have been possible on the former arrangement; it isn’t now. The cycle tracks have tightened the geometry significantly.

  4. We sd be pressing for double fines for parking a motor vehicle on a cycling facility. Yellow lines over the whole road, and footway, but few people know this. The dual-level fines would sharpen minds. I do hope they get over the traffic light problem or we’re back to square one: bike facilities that dump cyclists into traffic at the point where facilities are most needed. We sd also be cautious about wanting a lip betwixt road and bike route: this then requires an extra council road sweeping policy … Or broken glass etc left to puncture the tyres of the unwary.

  5. Pingback: New Cycle Lanes for Cambridge | randomswimbikerunstuff

  6. Clara A says:


    I am an undergrad at the university of Oxford and am carrying out research for my geography dissertation this summer. I’m focusing on how infrastructural changes to the Old Shoreham Rd have affected bike riders’ experiences of citizenship on the roads, and would love to interview users of the cycle path and hear their thoughts. If the author of this piece/ any of the commenters fancy getting involved please do drop me an email: clara.austera@keble.ox.ac.uk
    Would love to hear the thoughts of cyclists who knew the road both before and after changes to its infrastructure.

    Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.