Donate using PayPal


Photo number:
Photo #187753

UPDATES: In December 2022, as a pedestrian: the VAS continues to illuminate showing motorists are travelling faster than 20mph, plus twice I have seen drivers not give way despite the signs and the double lines when there was someone on a cycle already in the 'pound'.
In November 2022, as a cyclist: riding Burton Stone Lane southbound at lunchtime on 21.11.22 ie in the opposite direction to the photo in this image, I realised a driver was trying to beat me to the new measures. Motorists will want to get there before me - or any wider, slower craft. And, due to the limitations on the width of BSL, the passing is likely to be closer than the 5ft given in the new Highway Code. The new layout increases the 'need' for motorists to pass someone on a cycle (possibly also a scooter, a mobility scooter and also the places this is going to happen ie what are effectively 'pinch points'. The segregation needs to continue the length of Burton Stone Lane. Short stages simply return you to the carriageway and increase - guarantee? - motorists cutting in on you when you do. The only place there is partial segregation - wands - but drivers do not cut in on you is Haxby Road #174334 because the wands are not instead of a separate lane but are alongside part of the advisory lane. So someone cycling is riding northbound on an advisory lane, goes through the additional light segregation - those wands - but when they exit they are still on an advisory cycle lane that becomes part of the offroad segregated route under the ring road to Haxby or you can turn left onto the Haxby Cycleway. Clearly, obviously, BSL is a further reminder that stop-start segregation increases the dangers and stress (and suppresses demand/likelihood of people cycling) rather than provides protection.]
[Image taken 18.11.22] Burton Stone Lane, York. ‘Traffic calming improvements’: Details on CYC site: There is no warning at either end of the works: "New layout ahead". It needs them - to alert every road user. Not least as most drivers, likely regular users, speed along this route. (Sign that has gone up: #188811.)
When I’m out with my chalks, measuring tape and camera, understandably it’s not always clear why I am measuring and photographing. And, understandably, there are occasions therefore when people quiz me. Opinions can differ on whether infra works. For the first time, as I was on Burton Stone Lane (BSL), two people spoke to me and immediately assumed I shared their views: These changes don’t work. They make it less safe. Are you going to send your pictures to the Council? Please do and thank you for doing so.
I’d happened upon the new infra on Wednesday night on my usual walk. The speed cushions were in. The traffic islands between the cycle channels and the rest of the carriageway were in. When the wands were in. But a couple of the cycle symbols had still to be painted onto the road. I was flummoxed. I could not see how it was supposed to work or how this would: a) slow traffic – which was supposed to be the point of the interventions; b) improve the pedestrian experience; c) make this part of BSL, at least, less ‘challenging’ for people on cycles.
The first things I noted were:
1) speeds seemed no lower – the additional VAS (vehicle activated sign) was illuminating as often as the previous one in the opposite direction used to. There are/as there were, previously, signs the full length of BSL between Bootham/Clifton and Field View advising drivers there’s a 20mph limit (see: #187780);
2) the wands on the splitter islands that separate the cycle channel from the all traffic lane, with a speed cushion, were invisible and the give way lines at the northern end of the southern-most set were very close to it – not enough room to manoeuvre to avoid it;
3) it was a long way from one end of the scheme to the other;
4) local residents were stopping, or their visitors/delivery drivers were stopping, in what on a canal would be call the pound (the navigable channel between locks). One stopped for perhaps 30 minutes. This made seeing what was happening in the pound and at the other end of the scheme difficult to impossible as the vehicles blocked the sightlines;
5) totally terrifying was the experience of drivers coming straight at me as I was walking on the pavement. To navigate the pound drivers must move to the ‘wrong’ side of the road. They were doing it at speed and, as this was at night, the lights were dazzling. This means that in addition to the fear (and it feels likelihood) of being struck by a wing mirror of a motor vehicle passing you in the direction you are walking, you are now also at risk of being struck from the front;
6) on a cycle (mobility scooter, scooter) you are 'removed' from the shared space - the pound - by the cycle channels. This means you cannot control the traffic behind you (as you are taught to do in cycle training) by riding assertively. (Yet just four or five months later CYC put in symbols on the city centre bridges to empower cyclists to take the lane... #191071.) You are rendered invisible or irrelevant. The person (let's be clear, the human) is removed from the equation as if to reinforce the rider/scooter/mobility scooter user is not part of the 'traffic'. I think the scheme reinforces what many drivers believe and sets active transport back decades;
7) the scene is set to physically and psychologically and visually/physically encourage and support drivers to close- and fast-pass people on cycles, scooters and possibly mobility scooters, too. The pound is short. The motorist must return to the left-hand side of the road before the give way markings ahead which will usually have other road users queueing. Or, there are other vehicles in the pound a driver must negotiate with. But the main message is (set by the road markings - those give ways - and the physical signs that state Give way to oncoming vehicles) 'clear the pound as soon as possible'. Driver speeds are already too high here: well above the 20 the road signs show. So which driver will wait patiently - and far enough back that it does not feel like intimidation or tail gating - behind someone who is doing say 8mph (my likely pace) or less (I imagine, in a mobility scooter)? Instead many/most will crowd the cyclist as both vehicles approach the entrance to the pound. Then the driver tries to pass while the cyclist is in the separated channel (where there is one) or if that doesn't work s/he speeds up to pass before the end of the pound. It was very unpleasant to watch a lorry driver come up behind a cyclist. The cyclist said it was intimidating. For anyone nearby (including residents) is was noisy. The revving engine... It is yet another experience that makes cycling in this city unsafe feeling (at the least) and unattractive to do and a further nuisance for residents.
The two people who spoke to me, who did not overlap so neither was repeating what he had heard the other say, "City of York Council says, It’s all fine because no-one has been killed." See below about designing for all (LTN 1/20). I said to the one who was emerging from his home alongside the new infra, I walked here two nights ago and said to my partner, if I lived here I’d be expecting, Bang! Bang! Bang! all the time as drivers crashed or hit the infra. The resident said, "The first Bang! was Wednesday night." (It must have been after I had gone.) "Last night in the [heavy] rain, there were three more." It seems the first motorist did not see the wand, and hit that and the splitter island, and the others followed. (I am not sure if it was at the same or different times.) "Three vehicles were damaged in the same evening," he said.
LTN 1/20 ( has five core principles: 1.5.2 Networks and routes should be Coherent; Direct; Safe; Comfortable and Attractive. 1.5.3 Inclusive design and accessibility should run through all five of these core design principles. Designers should always aim to provide infrastructure that meets these principles and therefore caters for the broadest range of people. Design should begin with the principle that all potential cyclists and their machines should be catered for in all cycle infrastructure design.
1.5.4 Infrastructure must be accessible to all and the needs of vulnerable pedestrians and local people must be considered early in the process to ensure schemes are supported locally in the long term. The Equality Act 2010 requires public sector authorities to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty in carrying out their functions. This includes making reasonable adjustments to the existing built environment to ensure the design of infrastructure is accessible to all.

Figure 1.1: Core design principles

DO Cycle networks should be planned and designed to allow people to reach their day to day destinations easily, along routes that connect, are simple to navigate and are of a consistently high quality.

DO Not only must cycle infrastructure be safe, it should also be perceived to be safe so that more people feel able to cycle.

DO Comfortable conditions for cycling require routes with good quality, well maintained - smooth surfaces, adequate width for the volume of users, minimal stopping and starting and avoiding steep gradients.

1.6 Summary Principles include:
Cycle infrastructure should be accessible to everyone from 8 to 80 and beyond: it should be planned and designed for everyone. The opportunity to cycle in our towns and cities should be universal.

Cycle infrastructure should be designed for significant numbers of cyclists, and for non-standard cycles. Our aim is that thousands of cyclists a day will use many of these schemes. We also want to see increasing numbers of cargo bikes to replace some van journeys. Cycle routes must be accessible to recumbents, trikes, handcycles, and other cycles used by disabled cyclists.
I could have quoted much more. This design is a new low in York infra for all non motorised users. It also creates hazards for drivers though perhaps less so for those who drive at 20mph or less.
Other images here today:
#187754, #187755, #187756, #187757, #187758, #187759, #187760, #187761, #187762.
Images from 20.11.22:
#187780, #187781, #187782, #187783, #187784, #187785, #187786, #187787, #187788, #187790, #187791, #187792, #187793, #187794, #187795, #187796, #187797, #187798.
Images from 22.11.22:
#187859, #187860, #187861.
Images from 27.11.22: #188030, #188032, #188033, #188034, #188035, #188036.
Images from 8.12.22: #188664 (replacement bollard, count and report by a resident: #188664, (van parked on pavement and in front of the splitter island/new layout): #188665; (van obscuring priority sign): #188666.
Later image of construction vehicle obstructing cycle channel 25.1.23: #190047.
Pre-change image and links:
Ward Councillors' replies (or lack of) and coverage in party newsletters: #190968, #190969.
MY EXPERIENCE - motorists passing each other at speed in the 'pound': #190969.
MY EXPERIENCE: a driver trying to beat me to/through the works, to the junction with Bootham/Clifton: #188990

COST: From a Foi response dated 10.2.23: "Thank you for your query concerning the recent scheme on Burton Stone Lane, reference CGT/14899.
The cost of the civils works for the traffic calming scheme on Burton Stone Lane amounted to £35,500.
The source of the funding was the ward capital programme. This funding was allocated to the wards from the Highways budget. The cost of the work amounts to approximately 35% of the ward allocation.
The statement "The November 2022 traffic calming/speed reduction works on Burton Stone Lane come from residents' council tax" is not true.
As far as I am aware, no claims have been received for vehicle damage as a result of these works. As such, nothing has been paid and CYC are not budgeting for any such claims as any payments would be through the council’s insurance."

Noncompliance 17.30-ish (rush hour) Tuesday 28.2.23: #191523.

Comments reflect the views of the original submitter only.

We welcome your feedback, especially to report bugs or give us route feedback.

My comments relate to: *

Your comments: *
URL of page: *
How did you find out about CycleStreets?:
Your name:
Our ref: Please leave blank - anti-spam measure

* Items marked with an asterisk [*] are required fields and must be fully completed.