While I can appreciate your point regarding the danger of humps, the humps in question (low humps with a shallow gradient) could hardly be described as "particularly vicious". I firmly believe that the bollards are the greater hazard, as do other cyclists with whom I have discussed this on my commute.

In a previous e-mail you made the point that you hoped to make the bollards more visible by improving illumination. As I replied then, the same solution could have been applied to the humps and would have saved taxpayers' money.

If you are seriously concerned that humps on the cyclepath pose a danger to cyclists, it would have been more appropriate to move a few hundred yards down the cyclepath and eliminate the hump beneath the West Street bridge, which has a pothole in the middle. (Note: bollards placed here would pose a far greater hazard than those at Meadow Court Drive, however I see no need for the hump to be there).

Bollards placed across the Path at 45 degrees (horizontal measures) were chosen because they present little or no obstacle to most bikes including tandems, trikes, recumbents and trailers.

There is not sufficient space at the edge of the cyclepath for a cycle towing a trailer to pass through at an angle. A typical child-carrying trailer has a track of 80-85cm. I have measured the lateral spacing between the two most closely spaced bollards (i.e. the maximum track for a vehicle passing straight through) at 76cm. As I have mentioned previously, this space will be further narrowed by the growth of overhanging vegetation during the spring and summer.

Equally importantly, unlike humps, they will not trip pedestrians or make life difficult for wheelchairs.

I can see no way in which the humps that have been replaced could make life difficult for wheelchairs. They could conceivably have tripped an unwary jogger in the dark.

We have even taken account of a tandem recumbent trike which is owned by someone in Bath who wishes to use the Path.

This statement implies that cyclists have been consulted. I should be interested to know how cyclists were contacted for consultation. The least I would have expected would have been a notice, clearly displayed at the site, giving details of the planned work and a contact address for comments.

Furthermore Richard Burton (the CTC representative for South Gloucestershire) tells me that he was not consulted, despite an assurance from Cllr Pat Hockey that he would be consulted on issues affecting cyclists within the county.

You miss the point by saying we have narrowed the Path - the rationale is to create a horizontal deflection which slows cyclists but still allows machines through that are wider than the apparent gap, provided they slow down and steer round the bollards.

I repeat, there is insufficient space at the edge of the cyclepath for some vehicles to steer round the bollards.

Since my last e-mail to you on 23/10/01 you may be interested to know that I have ordered some new bollards which are white with red reflective tops and will replace all six black bollards (with white and red reflective tops) at this site.

While the white bollards will certainly be an improvement upon the black, I object to this further expenditure of Council Tax payers' money when I do not believe that bollards of any description are appropriate at this location.

Please get in touch if you have any more queries.

I have yet to receive a reply to my e-mail of 23/10/01, in which I expressed concerns regarding the current works at Victoria Road and enquired about removal of barriers at access points.

Further to that, I noticed the following interesting statement in the council's cycling strategy:
"Contractors are required by law to provide an information board displaying the organisation name and contact phone number at any work site."

This legal requirement has not been met by the contractors at Victoria Road, nor was it met by those who installed the bollards.

--
Danny Colyer