Bonefishblues wrote:Clearly doesn't, assuming that you cite it accurately, but I understand it to be the diametric opposite of that, ie NSL unless otherwise indicated.
If there are street lights, 30mph (OK they have to be spaced at 200 yards or less):
The Highway Code wrote:A speed limit of 30 miles per hour (mph) or 48 kilometres per hour (km/h) usually applies, unless you see signs showing otherwise.
In effect, therefore, in built-up areas the limit is 30mph unless indicated otherwise, and in the country it's NSL unless indicated otherwise. Pretty basic point (sorry).
But in all cases the limit will be indicated somewhere, even if it is half a mile back and you missed it.
Normally yes. But you may have started within the limit, you may have turned out of a private road with no signs, and so on. As I understand it, the existence of street lights spaced at 200 yards or less is, in and of itself, enough to mean a 30mph limit unless signs indicate otherwise. The idea is that you drive at 30mph in the presence of street lights unless you see signs to the contrary.
mattsccm wrote:"How much do I have to slow down? How much speed can I safely keep?"
You slow enough to stop at all times given the chances of something happening. Round a bend your view must be more than your stopping distance. I think that the cycleways with lots of roads crossing them are a pain and a good incentive not to use them. However if you do then you accept that and all that comes. I do if there is heavy fast traffic on the road and don't if its light.
For me its more I use the cycle lanes going uphill, so not much momentum to lose and greater speed differential between the cars and me. I dont use them downhill as I dont want to slow down or lose momentum for all the junctions and barriers and right angle turns and I am much nearer to the speed of the cars.
mjr wrote:it looks like the car arrived first and the cycle struck the front wing. If that was a headcam or helmetcam, then the cyclist doesn't seem to check for approaching vehicles much.
Just to clarify a small point. It's borderline whether I rode into the car or the car drove into me; the head cam footage doesn't make this clear. However, the lack of damage to the side of her car and the swellings I had in my right lower leg make me think that the first impact was the car bumper into the side of my bike. I'm not saying this to try to apportion blame to the driver, but maybe just to ask for the benefit of your doubt.
Freely given. I didn't go any stronger than "looks like". You know what the aftermath feels like, which is probably more reliable.
Postboxer wrote:In fact I might calculate the distance I'd cover at 15mph using the same energy it takes me to get to 15mph, simple enough but I can't be bothered right now. Even just the time it would lose from the journey would be fairly substantial added over a few junctions.
meic wrote:For me its more I use the cycle lanes going uphill, so not much momentum to lose and greater speed differential between the cars and me. I dont use them downhill as I dont want to slow down or lose momentum for all the junctions and barriers and right angle turns and I am much nearer to the speed of the cars.
If you ride like that, then the first motorist to fail to give way and stick their vehicle's nose into your lane may spill you across the road. It's not safe to speed through junctions just because you're on the carriageway - painted lines won't stop cars. You need to ride so you can stop within what you can see to be clear, but if you want to carry on riding as if what you can see will be clear, then it's your funeral...
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
If you ride like that, then the first motorist to fail to give way and stick their vehicle's nose into your lane may spill you across the road. It's not safe to speed through junctions just because you're on the carriageway - painted lines won't stop cars. You need to ride so you can stop within what you can see to be clear, but if you want to carry on riding as if what you can see will be clear, then it's your funeral...
Do you think that you are talking to a 12 year old novice? Really, save your learner level advice for children, not for riders who manage junctions successfully. I seem to have avoided my funeral through decades as a motorcycle courier and tens of thousands of cycle miles, not just my funeral, I havent even done an emergency stop on my bike for as long as I can remember. There are such things as observation and anticipation, some of us know how to use them both!
meic wrote:For me its more I use the cycle lanes going uphill, so not much momentum to lose and greater speed differential between the cars and me. I dont use them downhill as I dont want to slow down or lose momentum for all the junctions and barriers and right angle turns and I am much nearer to the speed of the cars.
If you ride like that, then the first motorist to fail to give way and stick their vehicle's nose into your lane may spill you across the road. It's not safe to speed through junctions just because you're on the carriageway - painted lines won't stop cars. You need to ride so you can stop within what you can see to be clear, but if you want to carry on riding as if what you can see will be clear, then it's your funeral...
As it happens, I do the same thing that meic does; use the lane (or the path) going up hill, and the main carriageway going down. I usually go down in primary. I think meic means that he doesn't want to have to slow down *unnecessarily* for junctions and barriers. There's a big difference between slowing down a bit if you see a car approaching when you're riding in the main carriageway, and slowing down a lot or giving way when you're on a path. I also usually slow a appropriately where I can't see it to be clear, cars coming out of drives and what have you. You know, generally behaving as if other road users might do something stupid. That's completely different to slowing down because somebody put some stupid barriers up just to slow cyclists down.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Government advice used to be that cyclists doing 18mph or more should probably be on the road. That advice quietly disappeared some time back; it's not really clear whether because of a change of thinking, or some other reason. However, you can still see it on the Way Back Machine.
This suggests a general, official view that cycle facilities are really designed for those going at modest speeds. Note also the point on being able to stop in time, but we've covered that.
If there are barriers, fair enough, but the few we had here in that sort of location have been removed and there aren't any in the video. Other than that, the difference in how much you need to slow when crossing the mouth of a side road is just differing probabilities, which is irrelevant because you have to prepare for the worst, even if you hope for the best.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
drossall wrote:Government advice used to be that cyclists doing 18mph or more should probably be on the road. That advice quietly disappeared some time back; it's not really clear whether because of a change of thinking, or some other reason. However, you can still see it on the Way Back Machine.
This suggests a general, official view that cycle facilities are really designed for those going at modest speeds.
Note that's a consultation draft from 2004 which died a death and was never official advice, whereas actual adopted advice from 2008 is that they should be designed for up to 20mph average. As you can see on Streetview, the cycleway concerned is a recent rebuild. It should be safe for good speeds. The junction position, vegetation cutting and position of that sign are all wrong.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
mjr wrote:Note that's a consultation draft from 2004 which died a death and was never official advice, whereas actual adopted advice from 2008 is that they should be designed for up to 20mph average. As you can see on Streetview, the cycleway concerned is a recent rebuild. It should be safe for good speeds. The junction position, vegetation cutting and position of that sign are all wrong.
I don't think I've ever been on a cycle path where I can average 20 mph, or a road for that matter. I read the advice as up to 20 mph, but it's a small point. The DfT Cycle Infrastructure Design is worth a read, pity so few of our planners seem to have done so.
8.2 Design speed 8.2.1 On commuter routes, cyclists usually want to be able to travel at speeds of between 12 mph and 20 mph, preferably without having to lose momentum. Frequent road crossings, tight corner radii, the presence of other users and restricted width or forward visibility all affect the speed with which cyclists can travel and the effort required. Cyclists tend not to favour cycle routes that frequently require them to adjust their speed or stop.
8.2.2 A design speed of 20 mph is preferred for offroad routes intended predominantly for utility cycling. This provides a margin of safety for most cyclists. The average speed of cyclists on a level surface is around 12 mph.
8.2.3 Where cyclists share a route with pedestrians, a lower design speed may be required. Routes with design speeds significantly below 20 mph are unlikely to be attractive to regular commuter cyclists, and it may be necessary to ensure there is an alternative oncarriageway route for this user category.
The discussions on cycle paths and their design does raise something I fear. Everyone points out places like the netherlands etc and the great infrastructure for cycling as well as the multitudes who do. That would seem the ideal in many respects in fact many on here including myself state that we should have many more using bikes and not the car.
But when I see the huge numbers of people cycling along with a mix of faster cyclists, cyclists riding across your path, cyclist riding towards you with another overtaking into your lane( seen a few on the london superhighway vids doing this ), it puts me off cycling. The cycling superhighways seem strewn with delineating kerbs, shared bus stops( i.e you cycle behind them with peds crossing ), black and white plastic posts etc....... all extra hazards to concentrate on beyond the super fast stealth cyclist about to fly past as you need to manoevre past something( they installed "armadillos" on stretches in my city, I'd not like to hit one on a bike ). Also if you have a sudden mechanical, chain off, pedal unclip etc with a pile of cyclists behind you and little room for them to effectively get by due to kerbs etc. It just appears to make cycling become what I hate about driving, congested, full of other drivers concentrating on their own goals and the drivers who do erratic acts to endanger others and spoil their day.
Perhaps it wouldn't be so but the videos I've seen from uk and abroad just remind me of the charity rides and sportives I gave up because they became a frantic battle at the start with bunching, barging, slow riders, fast riders...... I like the freedom of cycling, the open road, the quietude. I also like the right to use the highway in a shared fashion where drivers are educated enough to accept their place in the queue, rather than view me as a poor cousin with no rights. This is why cycle infrastructure is created to avoid the conflict of interests that lead to accidents but I find wide roads in and outside of cities with limited kerbs and barriers my preference, theres still plenty of hazards to watch for even without. I know why we've arrived at this( and being overpopulated has an important part to play ) but I think it may make cycling as unpleasant as driving with the same personalities on 2 wheels instead of 4. Just like the stealth audi drivers on A-roads bombing up above the speed limit but without thought to your own need to lane change. I just feel many cyclists may take the freedom and pleasure away and a pleasant journey becomes simply a stressful one.
Don't think there is an ideal solution on the whole as there are just too many of us wanting to share too little space.
I am extremely critical of UK cycle path design here where there is no priority marked. This is very usual bad UK cycle design intended to have 5-year old cyclists to be cut down. There is also a pointless waste of money on tactile paving and kerb stones.
The A10 cycle path south of Cambridge recently had a 1 mile extension added costing £300,000. This extension basically widened and smoothed (slightly) the existing path. The existing 5 blind junctions with no priority markings were maintained and the A10 had a crossing island added.
I tried very hard to hammer home to the campaign group that cyclists are injured at junctions and when crossing the road. IMHO from a safety point of view the new path was as dangerous as the old. I also reported this lack of priority markings to the local councillor who told me to report this to the campaign group (which I did not do). A few weeks later the priority markings appeared on the new cycle path giving priority to the cars. However this still does not make the path safe for 5-year old cyclists or for mobility riders with limited vision.
My belief is non-stop cycle / pedestrian paths are required with priority given to the vulnerable road users. A better solution is to use paint to halt the drivers and a continuous level to the cycle path. This happens in France, Austria, Germany, Netherlands etc etc.
Back to the A10 cycle path extension it is worth pointing out that a fresh rainbow trout is able to cross (under) the A10 and to travel an equivalent distance to the A10 cycle path extension without stopping. This because we build bridges to allow the fish unimpeded travel. If we can do this for fish then why not for 5-year old cyclists or vulnerable road users?
Last edited by atlas_shrugged on 4 Jul 2017, 12:55pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the video the driver would register the junction with the cycle path as giving him/her priority because the double yellow lines continue across the end of the cycle path, making the road look continuous and the cycle path look broken. I know there should be give way lines, either on the road or the path, but in their absence the road looks continuous and the cycle path looks very much like a footway ending at the road. Put that together with the fact that the driver only gets a moment to clock all that and you can see that from the driver's angle it looks like they have priority. If I had been cycling there that would have been my assumption, given the yellow lines. Pretty poor effort by the paint people though.
Any fool can mark an advisory cycle lane along a straight road or display shared-use signs on a footway alongside one, so they often do. The bit that's generally beyond their limited competence is providing for cyclists at junctions. Their options have been reduced since "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" signs received unfavourable comment.
Completely your fault mate. Sorry. The only mitigation is that there was no give way signs on the path.
Just reinforces my opinion that cycle lanes like this are both inconvenient and dangerous. If you'd been on the road you'd have clearly had priority and the driver would have at least been looking to see if there was anything coming. On this occasion he/she probably never even looked and would have been rightly concentrating on what was on the road instead. From the driver's perspective, it looks just like a footway and pedestrians don't normally go at the sort of speed you were doing.
I also think that shared paths like this one should be shared responsibly by cyclists by keeping to moderate speeds, if you want to go at road racing speeds, go on the road.
