have been stuck in the extra traffic caused by this island and used it on my bike ride on sunday. preferred the traffic lights crossing as still have to run across. the local council must have some extra money to use up on the cycle path on the canal. Would be better spent on the pot holes the cyclist have to negociate.
I have no great objection in principle to making 'the countryside' more 'accessible' by creating improvements to the basic towpaths, footpaths and bridleways. But there it should end. If people want to get out and walk and cycle they are perfectly at liberty to do so providing they follow fairly common sense guidelines as have been set out in the Countryside Code, the Highway Code, bye-laws and common law. Apart from that there should be no need for being treated in the condescending fashion which seems to prevail whenever our beloved leaders in WBC (and beyond)are visiting another 'big idea' on its unsuspecting citizens. With regard to the unecessary and unwarranted creation of 'the island', even if it did make life easier for a few cyclists it still does not justify its existence as there is a perfectly adequate and safe crossing already. And as far as the ludicrous signage goes, if we don't know the way (pretty difficult along a canal!) we can ask the way; if we get lost we get lost - albeit temporarily, it's not exactly a Wilderness Area in suburban Woking is it? Most keen cyclists and walkers use maps - perhaps others should learn to use them also. Failing that they can always use an 'app' on their iphone for goodness sake!
This island IS going to lead to an accident, caused by somebody impatient going around it on the wrong side of the road. I am also tempted to do this as I am fed up sitting there watching two cars turning right, and then having to wait a whole change of lights before I, too can turn right.
This is cycle friendliess gone bananas!
My theory is this: when that car ran into the railings on the St John's side of the A322 outside the Total petrol station, flattening the railings, some bright spark decided that as the railings needed reapir / removal they would just get somebody to take the railings away and build and island at the same time. This person has clearly never tried to access Brookwood from Bisley but should be made to do it at least eight times a day!
I saw a dairy van driving round the wrong side of this island this very morning. I plan to carry my camera every time I walk near it in the hope of catching somebody at it.
I do a very short commute of 3 miles and am incensed at the extra time this island adds to this journey. Five minutes to a five minute journey doubles it! As if having to wait through a complete cycle of the lights wasn't bad enough.
I go right through the centre of Knaphill and back up the Lye to avoid it. Maybe that's the plan, to divert as much traffic as possible up the Broadway and through Knaphil or up Redding Way?
Watched a driver mount the Island this evening desperately trying to get to the turn right lane. Very worrying, what if someone had been on there? I won't be encouraging my children to use it, they will continue to cross at the traffic lights with their cycles.
i actually find the island useful. It is the likes of the drivers you claim to be driving around the island dangerously that make it necessary to have an island to help you cross the road.
The fact remains that if pedestrians and cyclists used the toucan crossing which has been in place for several years, Fishwick Island would be unnecessary. Fishwick Island causes motorists to make dangerous manouveres out of sheer frustration. It is lazyness of pedestrians and cyclists that have caused SCC to implement a solution which is now causing further problems. had a proper consultation occured, these problems would have been highlighted. Someone should lose their job over this.
As a pedestrian, I would like to say that I too actually find the crossing useful, particularly when crossing back over to the Brookwood side from the canal with my dog. I am a car driver, though not a cyclist, so appreciate that drivers might find it irritating not to be able to zoom up on the outside of the traffic to enable them to get into the righthand lane at the top, but pedestrians also need to be considered.
I note that the previous commentator refers to the toucan crossing, but am a loss to know where this is?
I agree that the island is going to lead to an accident - not only by the cars going the wrong side of the road, but pedestrians crossing when they think the lights are red. We had an incident, because the lights for the turning lane was red and we did not see the green lights behind the big trucks. I have also observed cyclist passing through the vehicles when they started moving.
The toucan crossing is a specially designed crossing to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. On the Brookwood Lights junction, the lights and crossing nearest Fishwick Island is a Toucan crossing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toucan_crossing
The toucan crossing here isn't perfect due to the nature of the junction, but extra money would have been spent at the time to implement it, and cyclists and pedestrians should use it.
As pedestrians and cyclists can't be bothered to use it, motorists are being penalised.
At the end of the day, would you prefer your children to cross using the toucan crossing or cross using Fishwick Island?
Thank you for the information on the toucan crossing. I have to say I have never noticed any advantage to the crossing at Brookwood crossroads - quite the reverse in fact. Going out of Connaught Road, of the four light sequences, on only two of them is it actually safe to cross half the road - at the first sequence, when traffic is turning right off the A322, you can cross to the middle island. You then have to wait for the second sequence to be completed, i.e.traffic going across the A322. At the next two sequences, when cars are either going into or out of Brookwood or joining th A322,it is then safe to cross to the far side.
Coming back into Brookwood, you wait for sequences 1 and 2 to be completed before it is safe to cross to the middle, after which you wait until sequences 3 and 4 have been completed and sequence 1 recommences again before it is safe to cross the other half of the road.
All in all, none of this sounds very safe to me and I have seen people, myself among them, taking their chance to cross the road when it is not safe to do so simply because of the time it takes.
I stick by my previous comment that for me as a pedestrian the island is a much safer place to cross.
I would rather cross somewhere that had a little green man telling me it was safe even if it took a long time, then cross at a tiny island which has people driving around it and even mounting it at points!
I go from Bisley to Brookwood twice a day, and I can only say that this traffic island is absolutely ridiculous. I find I have to leave home earlier because of it - what kind of a situation is that?!
I appreciate that some drivers used to act dangerously in the past by driving around the corner blind to access the turning lane, but this island is not a solution if drivers go around it illegaly instead.
Why is a traffic island necessary anyway when there are traffic lights a few metres up the road?
Alex Christie cyclist, pedestrian and car driver, personally I like Fishwick Island its easier quicker and a safe crossing. The traffic light crossing at Brookwood junction is frustrating for pedestrians and cyclists let me explain. When I drive through the junction I only have one set of light to go through, but as a cyclist or pedestrian you have two sets of lights this doesn't seem fair! There is nothing worse than waiting at traffic lights to cross the road just to get to an island and waiting again for the little green man.
As a cyclist, pedestrian, driver and tax payer I am not a fan of many cycling 'improvements' in Woking. When I am cycling I don't like islands as drivers who try to overtake you near them will often cut in at the last minute potentially knocking you into the kerb or worse. I know there are people out there who think this is what I deserve for slowing them down on their much more important car journeys.
However, Paul Fishwick is not responsible for people who deliberately drive dangerously. No amount of frustration justifies endangering the lives of others. I now understand how Council officers become jaded after receiving this kind of treatment.
Yes by all means challenge poor design where it happens. However, maybe most of your indignation should be directed at the crazy drivers that terrorise other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians? Then the Council would not have to spend so much money trying to keep us all alive. Imagine if speeding and dangerous driving made you a social pariah? Instead we let people get away with the Council made me do it attitude. Shame.
What an unwanted and unnecessary obstruction when a perfectly acceptable crossing point exists just a few yards away. I suppose it was inevitable when the Head of Transport in Surrey is the big noise in Cycling for Woking. How many dangerous potholes could have been filled in for the money that this folly has cost
I can't really understand why some of the contributors to this blog are so angry. It seems to me your anger is misdirected, your anger is about the traffic at Brookwood junction. I agree its hell and whenever I'm driving I avoided like the plague, it doesn't matter what time of day you always get stuck in traffic. It must be horrible to live by the junction the constant smell and noise of stationery motors. Can I suggest a campaign, for some sort of a bypass? This would help get traffic moving through this traffic blackspot, maybe it could be named the Christie bypass. I would love to have some think named after me. Paul Fishwick must be very proud to have this crossing named after him. It's a real shame Fishwick island didn't make the front page of the Woking News in Mail that would have been an issue to treasure. But I'm sure his proud that his island has its very own web site.
I frequently drive along this road and as soon as I noticed the new island thought how dangerous it looked. Not enough cars can get in the lane to turn right to Brookwood and every time I have been there, someone has driven on the wrong side of the road, round the island to get in the lane to turn right.
Whilst these have all seemed sensible drivers who have made sure there was nothing coming the other way, there WILL be someone who doesn't. There are going to be accidents, it is a no-brainer!
I also wouldn't feel happy to use the island with my children having seen what the cars are doing.
steve said. the island has been installed within the right hand filter lane forcing traffic into the left hand lane this is an accident waiting to happen,whoever thought of this idea is a complete idiot.
at loss to even wonder why someone thought this island would be appropriate given that there is a perfectly good crossing with traffic lights a few feet away! Really just how difficult is it to take your bike or yourself a few feet further down the road to cross, then go back along the pavement a few feet and continue down the tow path?
This seems to be a ludicrous waste of money which I'm sure could be better spent elsewhere but that's (some) councils for you
I drive, cycle and walk and would just like to say the following. I'm aware of the extra congestion that this new little island has created, and have indeed been caught up in the longer queue that now forms before the lights. However, I would say, at rush hour this junction and awaiting to turn right has always been a pest. Since, the island has been in place I have also come at it from the angle of walking and cycling, and I have to say that crossing the road now when in pedestrian mode and cycling mode is so much better, and most importantly much much safer.
I realise that when driving it is slightly more annoying and time consuming, I have experienced it, and it will take time for all of us, as drivers to adjust and be more patient. I for one, applaud the construction of it, as before crossing the road as a walker or as a cyclist was really dangerous. The traffic lights above are not in a good postion especially from a cycling perspective.
I'm a cyclist and would never use the 'Fishwick Island' with my children. It should never have been built in the first place and whilst it remains drivers will continue to drive on the wrong side of the road to speed up their journey. I'm a commuter and whilst I don't condone the dangerous driving that this island has caused I do appreciate how precious every second is when you have a train to catch.
On that note, I live in Brunswick Drive and have noticed that since the island was built more and more drivers are avoiding the Brookwood traffic lights and cutting through Queens Road. This adds to my journey time to the station in the morning as there is always a long queue of cars waiting to turn right to go through the Pirbright tunnel & I want to turn left.
Please get rid of Fishwick Island - who is Paul Fishwick by the way?
Why has Paul fishwick been allowed to get away with this, and his other mistakes, without being censured? Brookwood Newsletter states that he has had to remove other attempts at 'progress', and we have had to pay for it! Fishwick Island is a death trap waiting to happen and when it does you can guarantee it will be the cyclist/pedestrian/ motorists fault - not Mr Fishwick's. I walk my dog along the canal and I always use the toucan to cross to the other side. It's slow but I intend living a little bit longer.
Guess what is the Woking side of the cyclist's traffic island, on the bridlepath/cycleway: A set of steps!! There is also a near-identical crossing in Woking town centre, where they have not placed a traffic island (Chobham Rd. / Victoria Way). As already pointed out - the island is not even wide enough to accomodate a bicycle - How dangerous is this?! I've seen cyclists squeezed by traffic overtaking alongside the traffic island as they ride soutbound. How long before a cyclist is injured or worse? Friends and colleagues in Knaphill advise that traffic now backs up to The Broadway, which never happened before.
I live in Brookwwod and this piece of traffic planning is so much of a farce Brian Rix would have been proud. On more than one occasion I have seen groups of cyclists using the traffic light crossing point as the island provides no safety for them as most cycles are over four feet long.. As a law abiding motorist I will not go on the wrong side of the road to get around it. If you are stuck and the petrol station is clear drive through that as that could not be deemed illegal!! The sooner this waste of money gets removed the safer the area will become again.
I'm a cyclist and a driver but also feel this island is inappropriate due to the nature of peak hour queues. The traffic light cycle crossing may not be perfect but the additional time it takes for a cyclist to cross should be balanced against the additional time for motorists to get through -- and at the moment there is a clear imbalance. I would also question having the island so near the petrol station as there are now many "obstacles" to be aware of whether a pedestrian / cyclist or motorist. Perhaps a better solution would be another toucan crossing nearer the Sainsburys side of Bagshot road but to be honest there are about 30 sets of lights already on the A322 between Brookwood and Lightwater so perhaps not !!
I'm a driver, cyclist & pedestrian, regular from Bisley to Brookwood station. I didn't see the 'New road layout' sign until a day later. It wasn't in a very good place, just at the bend! Love the squiggily arrow pointing to the right hand lane, are we meant to drive like that too? Haven't seen that in the highway code. Pointless island, dangerous there as not visable until you're almost on it. I'd rather use the crossing at the lights a few metres away, far safer. I cycle too, but wouldn't use that as a crossing point because of lack of view.
Having just read the article about the island in Brookwood I felt I had to write & say that as a previous resident of Connaught Road, the whole thing is yet another example of wasted money-better to have spent the monies on all the pot holes on our local roads which are wrecking our cars! The crossroads have never been right also & have caused mayhem for traffic since they were set up, & now an island which is yet another congestion generator-& yet of course we must think of our cyclists-they pay road tax dont they?! Worlds gone mad! Lets not all forget who ultimately pays for these do gooders ideas that are pointless!
I don't buy the reasoning that this is to help the cyclists. That island is a death trap for cyclists, and is the last place I would have my kids poised to cross the road. This junction has been troublesome for years. It was completely rebuilt in around 2002 in order to "solve shortcomings and improve safety" and yet it remains a bad example of road planning and management.
I think this island was put into place to ensure that no more than 5 or 6 cars can turn right into Brookwood at one time (whereas cars 7,8, and sometimes even 9 would be jumping the lights prior to the island being installed). They probably also thought it would solve the problem of drivers speeding up the right hand side of the queue from as far back as the Meadows in order to get into the filter in time for the next green light.
This island has not solved those problems. As have been observed by so many, people are simply driving around the island because they can’t reach the (empty) filter lane on the other side of it. Simple fact is, the more frustrated a driver is, the more likely they are to do something foolish and dangerous – again which is why I would stay well away from this island as a pedestrian.
The decision to install this island was made by somebody who is clearly out of their depth and should not be involved with highways planning. This complete lack of foresight does nothing but put lives at risk. I fear it is only a matter of time....
WBC has spent yet more public, money, wages, time, etc, etc on yet another WHITE ELEPHANT - do you all remember the curley wurley bridge connecting Goldsworth Road to the marketplace? Ha ha ha! Yes, have experienced all as above, except the illegal going round on the wrong side of the road, but suppose I will soon. Am so glad I am due to move to another county council soon, I've never known a county council to make so many public money mistakes. Why don't they simply ask the public their opinion BEFORE making decision, HUGE amounts of money would be saved and everyone benefitting. That poor woman who now has the grotesque cycling signs outside her home, and in a beautiful area too. If we wanted to put up signs like that on our OWN property I dare say the council would ask us to take them down before suing us!!! I AM A CYCLIST BY THE WAY - Sharon
Oh sorry, forgot to say, the island is definitely NOT for cyclist. The main junction was built many years ago at GREAT GREAT expense so that pedestrians and cyclist could cross safely - so what happened to that reasoning, traffic is already held up at a complicated junction for these reasons - which work by the way! However, we ALL know the junction should have been a roundabout, at a much less cost and better traffic flow, don't we? - Sharon once again
Using derogatory terms to describe drivers lowers the impact of your argument here.
I think the point here is that cyclists and pedestrians would rather put their lives at risk by crossing in an inappropriate spot to avoid waiting 2 minutes (as was the original situation with the Toucan crossing a few metres away).
The solution (according to Cycle Woking, specifically one man) is to place an island in the middle of a filter lane with no real consultation (deliberately as our FOI requests show), fudge the survey results to show it is necessary and then blame motorists for dangerous driving who are frustrated by it.
Incidentally, even cyclists have been witnessed going round the island on the wrong side as the space left to go through is quite often too narrow!
Surrey County Council procedures with regard to cycle provision are seriously at fault as a quick Google shows.
I to am a driver but not so self-centred to moan without purpose and well being of all road users. I use a bicycle for pure fun/therapy (anything to get away from traffic fumes). 1. abysmal planning has lead to a designated cycle path on the North side of the canal instead of the South (so an easy diversion to cross at Brookwood lights) 2. Please, Please build a small roundabout (cuts pollution at a stroke(I turn off my engine while stuck here!)) 3. With the money our council is so free with "extend width of the bridge so path and steps can be properly accommodated" then I won't have to breath in the pollution generated and dodge unreasonable/dangerous motorists intent on "self" 4. Buy up and close the petrol station (it truly is in a dangerous position)
In fairness should point out I live along the canal near Langmans bridge (another planned hazard).
The problems with this island are significantly exaggerated. Because so few people use the filter lane (only a tenth of those approaching the lights) it is not a problem. Those going round the wrong side of the island are clearly breaking the law anyway. It is a great help to many pedestrians and cyclists.
While somewhat dangerous if I’m not mistaken it is not breaking the law to go on the wrong side of the road at this location. (I will check tomorrow for solid white lines). I bike down this road going towards Brookwood and come back the other direction. I’m a bad cyclist and I tend to cross the road before the “island” I do this as you can not fit your bike past the cars etc at the island and I don’t want to loose speed while going up the hill. Ps I am a car driver so I know I would more than likely sometimes tut tut at myself. The island I have to say it is the most pointless waste of money I have ever seen, it is a good example of bad road design that can and will create an accident. I personally think no objects that you can crash into should be installed in the middle of a road. (I know of a taxi driver who drove into a traffic calming bollard at 30mph because he forgot it had been installed a few months before, he was just used to being able to drive down that road as normal like he had done for 20 years.) As for the roads in the general area (ie most of the South East) I was some what surprised when I moved down from the North West just how truly crap they are. Traffic doesn’t move, and I have no idea why as it is just as busy if not more so in many parts of the North West. It seems all the councils are only interested in trains and buses and have just totally forgot about good road improvements. The best example of a truly badly designed road for traffic flow is the A322 leading to the M3 jun (both directions) this could be very easily improved without much effort, but hey that’s a problem for another website altogether.
considering cyclists contribute nothing to the roads why should they get priority? people dont cycle in the huge volumes that cyclists like to pretend exist and turning that awkward enough junction into a plethora of ugly lights for the sake of one or two bikes is ridiculous.
cyclists and pedestrians never want to blame themselves in most if not all actions with vehicles when in fact they - as the most manoeouverable things on the roads and crossingspay the least attention when travelling. diriving is a skill that not many are good at, but any idiot can get ona bike and assume that they are somehow immune from common sense and logic despite the fact that they are usually alone and in a teeny tiny minority of people who cycle as much so they can say they cycle rather than genuine interest in the environment or whatever. smug cyclists irriatate me the most because of the lack of a real life they have, hence the free time to cycle badly throughout this county.
it's a bad choice of a junction and the 10 bikes per day and 20 pedestrans dont justify it. i remember when you used to be able to turn right out of cementery pales that was because the junction past the golf course entrance was efficient!!!!!!!!!! DUH!
Cyclists who live in the area pay council tax which pays for the upkeep of the roads.
Car tax (or VED) does not contribute to the roads, it gets collected by the government and is used for numerous things. Just like taxes collected on alcohol don't improve your local pub. Such taxes also go the government.
Motorists are likely to live further out and may actually not be paying council tax to the authority who built the island.
Therefore cyclists are contributing when some motorists aren't.
As for the island, it does seem a bit pointless when it is so close to an existing crossing.
Oh how I HATE Fishwick Island. It is so frustrating to be stuck in the traffic queue sometimes right next to the island seeing an empty right turning lane ahead, the traffic lights changing and not being able to get to them!I use that junction sometimes 4 times a day and I have NEVER even seen any pedestrians or cyclists using the island. I don't see why motorists should be subjected to all this unnessary hassle just because people can't be bothered to walk a few metres to a proper crossing. Get rid of it is what I say.
As a cyclist who crosses that area at leat 10 times a week, I can honestly say Fishwick island is usually awful.
During peak times, you end up not being able to use it because a car is either blocking access to it, or when the light turns red, you need to wait for cars to fill up and stop (and hopefully not block the way) so you can cross, and let's not talk about how you jut out from either side of it.
Good riddance, wish we could say the same of whomever it was that thought it good to waste £25K on it!
Replace the junction by a Dutch style low speed roundabout with priority for cyclists and pedestrians on their own wide paths. The space is there! Then scrap the right turn line and build a sufficently wide and long traffic island for the canalpath. Now consider giving priority to cycling at the canal as well or installing a signaled cycle crossing there. Now you have almost reached Dutch minimum standards for this junction. The price tag is a bit higher (600k) than the ridiculus 15k spend on this substandard island. The Dutch feel they owe that to their children whose independence in getting places depends entirely on good cycling infrastructure, but again the people of Woking are just guilty of not loving their kids. Otherwise the would have used some real money and expertise to get their new cyclepath right!
have been stuck in the extra traffic caused by this island and used it on my bike ride on sunday. preferred the traffic lights crossing as still have to run across. the local council must have some extra money to use up on the cycle path on the canal. Would be better spent on the pot holes the cyclist have to negociate.
ReplyDeleteI have no great objection in principle to making 'the countryside' more 'accessible' by creating improvements to the basic towpaths, footpaths and bridleways. But there it should end. If people want to get out and walk and cycle they are perfectly at liberty to do so providing they follow fairly common sense guidelines as have been set out in the Countryside Code, the Highway Code, bye-laws and common law. Apart from that there should be no need for being treated in the condescending fashion which seems to prevail whenever our beloved leaders in WBC (and beyond)are visiting another 'big idea' on its unsuspecting citizens. With regard to the unecessary and unwarranted creation of 'the island', even if it did make life easier for a few cyclists it still does not justify its existence as there is a perfectly adequate and safe crossing already. And as far as the ludicrous signage goes, if we don't know the way (pretty difficult along a canal!) we can ask the way; if we get lost we get lost - albeit temporarily, it's not exactly a Wilderness Area in suburban Woking is it? Most keen cyclists and walkers use maps - perhaps others should learn to use them also. Failing that they can always use an 'app' on their iphone for goodness sake!
ReplyDeleteThis island IS going to lead to an accident, caused by somebody impatient going around it on the wrong side of the road. I am also tempted to do this as I am fed up sitting there watching two cars turning right, and then having to wait a whole change of lights before I, too can turn right.
ReplyDeleteThis is cycle friendliess gone bananas!
My theory is this: when that car ran into the railings on the St John's side of the A322 outside the Total petrol station, flattening the railings, some bright spark decided that as the railings needed reapir / removal they would just get somebody to take the railings away and build and island at the same time. This person has clearly never tried to access Brookwood from Bisley but should be made to do it at least eight times a day!
I saw a dairy van driving round the wrong side of this island this very morning. I plan to carry my camera every time I walk near it in the hope of catching somebody at it.
ReplyDeleteI do a very short commute of 3 miles and am incensed at the extra time this island adds to this journey. Five minutes to a five minute journey doubles it! As if having to wait through a complete cycle of the lights wasn't bad enough.
I go right through the centre of Knaphill and back up the Lye to avoid it. Maybe that's the plan, to divert as much traffic as possible up the Broadway and through Knaphil or up Redding Way?
Watched a driver mount the Island this evening desperately trying to get to the turn right lane. Very worrying, what if someone had been on there? I won't be encouraging my children to use it, they will continue to cross at the traffic lights with their cycles.
ReplyDeletei actually find the island useful. It is the likes of the drivers you claim to be driving around the island dangerously that make it necessary to have an island to help you cross the road.
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that if pedestrians and cyclists used the toucan crossing which has been in place for several years, Fishwick Island would be unnecessary. Fishwick Island causes motorists to make dangerous manouveres out of sheer frustration. It is lazyness of pedestrians and cyclists that have caused SCC to implement a solution which is now causing further problems. had a proper consultation occured, these problems would have been highlighted. Someone should lose their job over this.
ReplyDeleteAs a pedestrian, I would like to say that I too actually find the crossing useful, particularly when crossing back over to the Brookwood side from the canal with my dog. I am a car driver, though not a cyclist, so appreciate that drivers might find it irritating not to be able to zoom up on the outside of the traffic to enable them to get into the righthand lane at the top, but pedestrians also need to be considered.
ReplyDeleteI note that the previous commentator refers to the toucan crossing, but am a loss to know where this is?
I agree that the island is going to lead to an accident - not only by the cars going the wrong side of the road, but pedestrians crossing when they think the lights are red. We had an incident, because the lights for the turning lane was red and we did not see the green lights behind the big trucks. I have also observed cyclist passing through the vehicles when they started moving.
ReplyDeleteThe toucan crossing is a specially designed crossing to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. On the Brookwood Lights junction, the lights and crossing nearest Fishwick Island is a Toucan crossing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toucan_crossing
ReplyDeleteThe toucan crossing here isn't perfect due to the nature of the junction, but extra money would have been spent at the time to implement it, and cyclists and pedestrians should use it.
As pedestrians and cyclists can't be bothered to use it, motorists are being penalised.
At the end of the day, would you prefer your children to cross using the toucan crossing or cross using Fishwick Island?
Thank you for the information on the toucan crossing. I have to say I have never noticed any advantage to the crossing at Brookwood crossroads - quite the reverse in fact. Going out of Connaught Road, of the four light sequences, on only two of them is it actually safe to cross half the road - at the first sequence, when traffic is turning right off the A322, you can cross to the middle island. You then have to wait for the second sequence to be completed, i.e.traffic going across the A322. At the next two sequences, when cars are either going into or out of Brookwood or joining th A322,it is then safe to cross to the far side.
ReplyDeleteComing back into Brookwood, you wait for sequences 1 and 2 to be completed before it is safe to cross to the middle, after which you wait until sequences 3 and 4 have been completed and sequence 1 recommences again before it is safe to cross the other half of the road.
All in all, none of this sounds very safe to me and I have seen people, myself among them, taking their chance to cross the road when it is not safe to do so simply because of the time it takes.
I stick by my previous comment that for me as a pedestrian the island is a much safer place to cross.
I would rather cross somewhere that had a little green man telling me it was safe even if it took a long time, then cross at a tiny island which has people driving around it and even mounting it at points!
ReplyDeleteI go from Bisley to Brookwood twice a day, and I can only say that this traffic island is absolutely ridiculous. I find I have to leave home earlier because of it - what kind of a situation is that?!
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that some drivers used to act dangerously in the past by driving around the corner blind to access the turning lane, but this island is not a solution if drivers go around it illegaly instead.
Why is a traffic island necessary anyway when there are traffic lights a few metres up the road?
Alex Christie cyclist, pedestrian and car driver, personally I like Fishwick Island its easier quicker and a safe crossing. The traffic light crossing at Brookwood junction is frustrating for pedestrians and cyclists let me explain. When I drive through the junction I only have one set of light to go through, but as a cyclist or pedestrian you have two sets of lights this doesn't seem fair! There is nothing worse than waiting at traffic lights to cross the road just to get to an island and waiting again for the little green man.
ReplyDeleteAs a cyclist, pedestrian, driver and tax payer I am not a fan of many cycling 'improvements' in Woking. When I am cycling I don't like islands as drivers who try to overtake you near them will often cut in at the last minute potentially knocking you into the kerb or worse. I know there are people out there who think this is what I deserve for slowing them down on their much more important car journeys.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Paul Fishwick is not responsible for people who deliberately drive dangerously. No amount of frustration justifies endangering the lives of others. I now understand how Council officers become jaded after receiving this kind of treatment.
Yes by all means challenge poor design where it happens. However, maybe most of your indignation should be directed at the crazy drivers that terrorise other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians? Then the Council would not have to spend so much money trying to keep us all alive. Imagine if speeding and dangerous driving made you a social pariah? Instead we let people get away with the Council made me do it attitude. Shame.
What an unwanted and unnecessary obstruction when a perfectly acceptable crossing point exists just a few yards away. I suppose it was inevitable when the Head of Transport in Surrey is the big noise in Cycling for Woking. How many dangerous potholes could have been filled in for the money that this folly has cost
ReplyDeleteI can't really understand why some of the contributors to this blog are so angry. It seems to me your anger is misdirected, your anger is about the traffic at Brookwood junction. I agree its hell and whenever I'm driving I avoided like the plague, it doesn't matter what time of day you always get stuck in traffic. It must be horrible to live by the junction the constant smell and noise of stationery motors. Can I suggest a campaign, for some sort of a bypass? This would help get traffic moving through this traffic blackspot, maybe it could be named the Christie bypass. I would love to have some think named after me. Paul Fishwick must be very proud to have this crossing named after him. It's a real shame Fishwick island didn't make the front page of the Woking News in Mail that would have been an issue to treasure.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm sure his proud that his island has its very own web site.
I frequently drive along this road and as soon as I noticed the new island thought how dangerous it looked. Not enough cars can get in the lane to turn right to Brookwood and every time I have been there, someone has driven on the wrong side of the road, round the island to get in the lane to turn right.
ReplyDeleteWhilst these have all seemed sensible drivers who have made sure there was nothing coming the other way, there WILL be someone who doesn't. There are going to be accidents, it is a no-brainer!
I also wouldn't feel happy to use the island with my children having seen what the cars are doing.
steve said.
ReplyDeletethe island has been installed within the right hand filter lane forcing traffic into the left hand lane this is an accident waiting to happen,whoever thought of this idea is a complete idiot.
Why can't cyclist use the crossing on the junction like everybody else.
ReplyDeleteAnd the person who surveyed, planned this must have had a brain freeze
at loss to even wonder why someone thought this island would be appropriate given that there is a perfectly good crossing with traffic lights a few feet away! Really just how difficult is it to take your bike or yourself a few feet further down the road to cross, then go back along the pavement a few feet and continue down the tow path?
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be a ludicrous waste of money which I'm sure could be better spent elsewhere but that's (some) councils for you
sorry forgot to mention in post above I am a cyclist!
ReplyDeleteI drive, cycle and walk and would just like to say the following. I'm aware of the extra congestion that this new little island has created, and have indeed been caught up in the longer queue that now forms before the lights. However, I would say, at rush hour this junction and awaiting to turn right has always been a pest. Since, the island has been in place I have also come at it from the angle of walking and cycling, and I have to say that crossing the road now when in pedestrian mode and cycling mode is so much better, and most importantly much much safer.
ReplyDeleteI realise that when driving it is slightly more annoying and time consuming, I have experienced it, and it will take time for all of us, as drivers to adjust and be more patient. I for one, applaud the construction of it, as before crossing the road as a walker or as a cyclist was really dangerous. The traffic lights above are not in a good postion especially from a cycling perspective.
I'm a cyclist and would never use the 'Fishwick Island' with my children. It should never have been built in the first place and whilst it remains drivers will continue to drive on the wrong side of the road to speed up their journey. I'm a commuter and whilst I don't condone the dangerous driving that this island has caused I do appreciate how precious every second is when you have a train to catch.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, I live in Brunswick Drive and have noticed that since the island was built more and more drivers are avoiding the Brookwood traffic lights and cutting through Queens Road. This adds to my journey time to the station in the morning as there is always a long queue of cars waiting to turn right to go through the Pirbright tunnel & I want to turn left.
Please get rid of Fishwick Island - who is Paul Fishwick by the way?
Why has Paul fishwick been allowed to get away with this, and his other mistakes, without being censured? Brookwood Newsletter states that he has had to remove other attempts at 'progress', and we have had to pay for it! Fishwick Island is a death trap waiting to happen and when it does you can guarantee it will be the cyclist/pedestrian/ motorists fault - not Mr Fishwick's.
ReplyDeleteI walk my dog along the canal and I always use the toucan to cross to the other side. It's slow but I intend living a little bit longer.
Guess what is the Woking side of the cyclist's traffic island, on the bridlepath/cycleway: A set of steps!!
ReplyDeleteThere is also a near-identical crossing in Woking town centre, where they have not placed a traffic island (Chobham Rd. / Victoria Way).
As already pointed out - the island is not even wide enough to accomodate a bicycle - How dangerous is this?!
I've seen cyclists squeezed by traffic overtaking alongside the traffic island as they ride soutbound. How long before a cyclist is injured or worse?
Friends and colleagues in Knaphill advise that traffic now backs up to The Broadway, which never happened before.
I live in Brookwwod and this piece of traffic planning is so much of a farce Brian Rix would have been proud.
ReplyDeleteOn more than one occasion I have seen groups of cyclists using the traffic light crossing point as the island provides no safety for them as most cycles are over four feet long..
As a law abiding motorist I will not go on the wrong side of the road to get around it. If you are stuck and the petrol station is clear drive through that as that could not be deemed illegal!! The sooner this waste of money gets removed the safer the area will become again.
I'm a cyclist and a driver but also feel this island is inappropriate due to the nature of peak hour queues. The traffic light cycle crossing may not be perfect but the additional time it takes for a cyclist to cross should be balanced against the additional time for motorists to get through -- and at the moment there is a clear imbalance. I would also question having the island so near the petrol station as there are now many "obstacles" to be aware of whether a pedestrian / cyclist or motorist. Perhaps a better solution would be another toucan crossing nearer the Sainsburys side of Bagshot road but to be honest there are about 30 sets of lights already on the A322 between Brookwood and Lightwater so perhaps not !!
ReplyDeleteOverall I think this island should go.
I'm a driver, cyclist & pedestrian, regular from Bisley to Brookwood station. I didn't see the 'New road layout' sign until a day later. It wasn't in a very good place, just at the bend! Love the squiggily arrow pointing to the right hand lane, are we meant to drive like that too? Haven't seen that in the highway code.
ReplyDeletePointless island, dangerous there as not visable until you're almost on it. I'd rather use the crossing at the lights a few metres away, far safer. I cycle too, but wouldn't use that as a crossing point because of lack of view.
Having just read the article about the island in Brookwood I felt I had to write & say that as a previous resident of Connaught Road, the whole thing is yet another example of wasted money-better to have spent the monies on all the pot holes on our local roads which are wrecking our cars! The crossroads have never been right also & have caused mayhem for traffic since they were set up, & now an island which is yet another congestion generator-& yet of course we must think of our cyclists-they pay road tax dont they?! Worlds gone mad! Lets not all forget who ultimately pays for these do gooders ideas that are pointless!
ReplyDeleteI don't buy the reasoning that this is to help the cyclists. That island is a death trap for cyclists, and is the last place I would have my kids poised to cross the road. This junction has been troublesome for years. It was completely rebuilt in around 2002 in order to "solve shortcomings and improve safety" and yet it remains a bad example of road planning and management.
ReplyDeleteI think this island was put into place to ensure that no more than 5 or 6 cars can turn right into Brookwood at one time (whereas cars 7,8, and sometimes even 9 would be jumping the lights prior to the island being installed). They probably also thought it would solve the problem of drivers speeding up the right hand side of the queue from as far back as the Meadows in order to get into the filter in time for the next green light.
This island has not solved those problems. As have been observed by so many, people are simply driving around the island because they can’t reach the (empty) filter lane on the other side of it. Simple fact is, the more frustrated a driver is, the more likely they are to do something foolish and dangerous – again which is why I would stay well away from this island as a pedestrian.
The decision to install this island was made by somebody who is clearly out of their depth and should not be involved with highways planning. This complete lack of foresight does nothing but put lives at risk. I fear it is only a matter of time....
WBC has spent yet more public, money, wages, time, etc, etc on yet another WHITE ELEPHANT - do you all remember the curley wurley bridge connecting Goldsworth Road to the marketplace? Ha ha ha! Yes, have experienced all as above, except the illegal going round on the wrong side of the road, but suppose I will soon. Am so glad I am due to move to another county council soon, I've never known a county council to make so many public money mistakes. Why don't they simply ask the public their opinion BEFORE making decision, HUGE amounts of money would be saved and everyone benefitting. That poor woman who now has the grotesque cycling signs outside her home, and in a beautiful area too. If we wanted to put up signs like that on our OWN property I dare say the council would ask us to take them down before suing us!!! I AM A CYCLIST BY THE WAY - Sharon
ReplyDeleteOh sorry, forgot to say, the island is definitely NOT for cyclist. The main junction was built many years ago at GREAT GREAT expense so that pedestrians and cyclist could cross safely - so what happened to that reasoning, traffic is already held up at a complicated junction for these reasons - which work by the way! However, we ALL know the junction should have been a roundabout, at a much less cost and better traffic flow, don't we? - Sharon once again
ReplyDeleteSo surely the issue here is that some people are just wxnkers who drive on the wrong side of the road to save 5 minutes?
ReplyDeleteUsing derogatory terms to describe drivers lowers the impact of your argument here.
ReplyDeleteI think the point here is that cyclists and pedestrians would rather put their lives at risk by crossing in an inappropriate spot to avoid waiting 2 minutes (as was the original situation with the Toucan crossing a few metres away).
The solution (according to Cycle Woking, specifically one man) is to place an island in the middle of a filter lane with no real consultation (deliberately as our FOI requests show), fudge the survey results to show it is necessary and then blame motorists for dangerous driving who are frustrated by it.
Incidentally, even cyclists have been witnessed going round the island on the wrong side as the space left to go through is quite often too narrow!
Surrey County Council procedures with regard to cycle provision are seriously at fault as a quick Google shows.
I to am a driver but not so self-centred to moan without purpose and well being of all road users. I use a bicycle for pure fun/therapy (anything to get away from traffic fumes).
ReplyDelete1. abysmal planning has lead to a designated cycle path on the North side of the canal instead of the South (so an easy diversion to cross at Brookwood lights)
2. Please, Please build a small roundabout (cuts pollution at a stroke(I turn off my engine while stuck here!))
3. With the money our council is so free with "extend width of the bridge so path and steps can be properly accommodated" then I won't have to breath in the pollution generated and dodge unreasonable/dangerous motorists intent on "self"
4. Buy up and close the petrol station (it truly is in a dangerous position)
In fairness should point out I live along the canal near Langmans bridge (another planned hazard).
The problems with this island are significantly exaggerated. Because so few people use the filter lane (only a tenth of those approaching the lights) it is not a problem. Those going round the wrong side of the island are clearly breaking the law anyway. It is a great help to many pedestrians and cyclists.
ReplyDeleteWhile somewhat dangerous if I’m not mistaken it is not breaking the law to go on the wrong side of the road at this location. (I will check tomorrow for solid white lines). I bike down this road going towards Brookwood and come back the other direction. I’m a bad cyclist and I tend to cross the road before the “island” I do this as you can not fit your bike past the cars etc at the island and I don’t want to loose speed while going up the hill. Ps I am a car driver so I know I would more than likely sometimes tut tut at myself. The island I have to say it is the most pointless waste of money I have ever seen, it is a good example of bad road design that can and will create an accident. I personally think no objects that you can crash into should be installed in the middle of a road. (I know of a taxi driver who drove into a traffic calming bollard at 30mph because he forgot it had been installed a few months before, he was just used to being able to drive down that road as normal like he had done for 20 years.) As for the roads in the general area (ie most of the South East) I was some what surprised when I moved down from the North West just how truly crap they are. Traffic doesn’t move, and I have no idea why as it is just as busy if not more so in many parts of the North West. It seems all the councils are only interested in trains and buses and have just totally forgot about good road improvements. The best example of a truly badly designed road for traffic flow is the A322 leading to the M3 jun (both directions) this could be very easily improved without much effort, but hey that’s a problem for another website altogether.
ReplyDeleteconsidering cyclists contribute nothing to the roads why should they get priority?
ReplyDeletepeople dont cycle in the huge volumes that cyclists like to pretend exist
and turning that awkward enough junction into a plethora of ugly lights for the sake of one or two bikes is ridiculous.
cyclists and pedestrians never want to blame themselves in most if not all actions with vehicles when in fact they - as the most manoeouverable things on the roads and crossingspay the least attention when travelling. diriving is a skill that not many are good at, but any idiot can get ona bike and assume that they are somehow immune from common sense and logic despite the fact that they are usually alone and in a teeny tiny minority of people who cycle as much so they can say they cycle rather than genuine interest in the environment or whatever. smug cyclists irriatate me the most because of the lack of a real life they have, hence the free time to cycle badly throughout this county.
it's a bad choice of a junction and the 10 bikes per day and 20 pedestrans dont justify it. i remember when you used to be able to turn right out of cementery pales that was because the junction past the golf course entrance was efficient!!!!!!!!!!
DUH!
I've come to the end of my tether with this island and I delighted to read that so many others have a similar experience.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand why the cc decided that an island was safer than adding a proper crossing to the lights.
Has anyone voiced this to the council yet?
In reply to jjjez@hotmail.com:
ReplyDeleteCyclists who live in the area pay council tax which pays for the upkeep of the roads.
Car tax (or VED) does not contribute to the roads, it gets collected by the government and is used for numerous things. Just like taxes collected on alcohol don't improve your local pub. Such taxes also go the government.
Motorists are likely to live further out and may actually not be paying council tax to the authority who built the island.
Therefore cyclists are contributing when some motorists aren't.
As for the island, it does seem a bit pointless when it is so close to an existing crossing.
There was an article in the local free paper this week about the Lib Dem Surrey County Councillor & Sustrans advocating KEEPING Fishwick island.
ReplyDeleteA quick search online shows this page below in support of KEEPING the island: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fishwick-island/
Maybe supporters of REMOVAL should use the "contact petition owner" link to make their views felt.
Oh how I HATE Fishwick Island. It is so frustrating to be stuck in the traffic queue sometimes right next to the island seeing an empty right turning lane ahead, the traffic lights changing and not being able to get to them!I use that junction sometimes 4 times a day and I have NEVER even seen any pedestrians or cyclists using the island. I don't see why motorists should be subjected to all this unnessary hassle just because people can't be bothered to walk a few metres to a proper crossing. Get rid of it is what I say.
ReplyDeleteSend this to Councillor Will Foster who has some very hard things to say about those who want this removed.
ReplyDeleteForgot to add that others are on your side. See this blog:- http://spotlightonwoking.blogspot.com/2011/02/woking-brookwood-fishwick-island-to-go.html
ReplyDeleteAs a cyclist who crosses that area at leat 10 times a week, I can honestly say Fishwick island is usually awful.
ReplyDeleteDuring peak times, you end up not being able to use it because a car is either blocking access to it, or when the light turns red, you need to wait for cars to fill up and stop (and hopefully not block the way) so you can cross, and let's not talk about how you jut out from either side of it.
Good riddance, wish we could say the same of whomever it was that thought it good to waste £25K on it!
Woking cyclists should all be shot on sight... FACT
ReplyDeleteReplace the junction by a Dutch style low speed roundabout with priority for cyclists and pedestrians on their own wide paths. The space is there! Then scrap the right turn line and build a sufficently wide and long traffic island for the canalpath. Now consider giving priority to cycling at the canal as well or installing a signaled cycle crossing there.
ReplyDeleteNow you have almost reached Dutch minimum standards for this junction. The price tag is a bit higher (600k) than the ridiculus 15k spend on this substandard island. The Dutch feel they owe that to their children whose independence in getting places depends entirely on good cycling infrastructure, but again the people of Woking are just guilty of not loving their kids. Otherwise the would have used some real money and expertise to get their new cyclepath right!