BC corner campaign

[Bmblbzzz]

Beware the layout of the markings.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.97072 ... 312!8i6656 the cycle lane has priority, as it is in front of the give way line (so part of the main carraigway).

I think that's the best example posted so far of a cycle lane that continues across a side road.

[PH]

Beware the layout of the markings.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.97072 ... 312!8i6656 the cycle lane has priority, as it is in front of the give way line (so part of the main carraigway).

I think that's the best example posted so far of a cycle lane that continues across a side road.

I agree, but do drivers know what to do? It's possible and completely legitimate for the cycle user in the cycle lane to be traveling at the same speed as the user in the main lane. It would be their responsibility to not cross that lane unless it was clear (Think exiting motorway from the middle lane) I can imagine a scenario where a motorist stops to allow a cyclist to continue and gets rear ended.
This proposal would make that the case for all junctions, whether there was a marked lane or not. IMO a lot less confusing than the hotchpotch of different rules for different junctions we have now.

[MikeF]

Beware the layout of the markings.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.97072 ... 312!8i6656 the cycle lane has priority, as it is in front of the give way line (so part of the main carraigway).

I think that's the best example posted so far of a cycle lane that continues across a side road.

Those sweeping curves to the side road are a bad design.
There's a better example here and it even has a cycle symbol as well, but this one has an inexplicable give way marking.

[Bmblbzzz]

Best example not best design! As in clearly the cycle lane continues across the junction.

I think it's pretty clear why your second example has give way markings; it's because it moves from pavement to carriageway at that point. Drivers will expect cyclists on the pavement to behave as pedestrians. Very bad design.

[Bmblbzzz]

A few more examples:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.67913 ... 56!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.68279 ... 56!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.68343 ... 56!6m1!1e1

That last one has actually been repainted since Street View went along there. Much more distinct now.

[Bmblbzzz]

Beware the layout of the markings.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.97072 ... 312!8i6656 the cycle lane has priority, as it is in front of the give way line (so part of the main carraigway).

I think that's the best example posted so far of a cycle lane that continues across a side road.

I agree, but do drivers know what to do? It's possible and completely legitimate for the cycle user in the cycle lane to be traveling at the same speed as the user in the main lane. It would be their responsibility to not cross that lane unless it was clear (Think exiting motorway from the middle lane) I can imagine a scenario where a motorist stops to allow a cyclist to continue and gets rear ended.
This proposal would make that the case for all junctions, whether there was a marked lane or not. IMO a lot less confusing than the hotchpotch of different rules for different junctions we have now.

I suppose this would be an additional advantage to the California rule (which Uber was fined because its semi-autonomous cars were not observing) that right (there) turns are to be made by entering the cycle lane and turning from it rather than across it; though its purpose is to prevent right-hooks.

[meic]

I do not understand what HSBC/BC is proposing. Can someone please explain simply the before and after situations, with diagrams if possible?

Diolch yn fawr iawn

This applies to me too, the only wording that I have seen for this petition does, indeed, raise all sorts of stupid scenarios (as pointed out on this thread) which I dont think could possibly be Chris Boardman's intent.

Chris Boardman explains it in his usual clear style
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campa ... campaign-0

I finally found a time of day with enough broadband to watch the video.
He does make it clear in the video what his intent is and I can go along with that.
I am not sure at all that I agree with his closing line that "it is clear and simple" the wording that I have seen offered doesnt quite match the intent and it also seems to allow for actions (mentioned in this thread) which are not its intent.

[Pete Owens]

He blows the case in the the answer to the very first question.
"Surely what you are suggesting is undertaking?"

Now in this thread it has been pointed out how stupidly dangerous it is to overtake turning vehicles - this seems to be be universally accepted when the example involves a car overtaking a cyclist, and why the Highway Code tells us not to do it on the approach to a junction. But the apologists for the petition have tried to deny this is what the petition is about at all and somehow undertaking is different - and that quoting the actual words of the petition is somehow misrepresenting it.

Boardman makes it abundantly clear that in his view that cycling on the left is the natural place to be so overtaking on that side is legitimate. Fair enough - we do permit overtaking on the left past queuing traffic - but it is still overtaking. So should be treated with the same rules of priority as normal overtaking on the right. Indeed, because the normal rule is to overtake on the right you need to take greater care when overtaking on the wrong side.

And that is before he gets to cycle lanes. When he says "We need to start thinking of cycle lanes as a legitimate lane of traffic" he is quite right. A traffic engineer would never put a lane for left turning traffic to the right of a lane for left turning traffic. You would never ever ever see markings such as this: http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2001.htm for legitimate traffic lanes., but he uses the stupidity of the lane markings to argue for changing the rules - rather than to remove the dangerous lane markings. He brings up the case of bus lanes, but bus lanes are interrupted on the approach to junctions so that turning traffic can merge into the lane on the approach to a junction, rather than be forced to swerve across at the last minute.

So on to the second question:
"Why would I trust a car to wait for me, isn't it better not to take the risk?"
To which he answers "He wouldn't" - quite b***y right. case holed below the waterline.
It is not the rules that make overtaking turning traffic dangerous - the rules are there because of how dangerous it is. It is not about whether you are driving a bus or a car or a bicycle - or whether you are overtaking on the right or the left. It is that when we are driving or cycling we are facing forwards and paying most attention to what is in our natural field of view. The driver or cyclist coming from behind has a much better view of the emerging situation which is why the highway code makes overtaking the responsibility of the overtaker rather than the overtakee.

Then we come to the "big benefits for drivers that this campaign hopes to unlock". Here hes is talking about removing pedestrian stages at traffic lights or the motoring organisations put it "dead time when no ones crossing" No wonder he can boast of the support from the RAC & AA for the proposed changes.

[Cyril Haearn]

... the "big benefits for drivers that this campaign hopes to unlock". Here hes is talking about removing pedestrian stages at traffic lights or the motoring organisations put it "dead time when no ones crossing" No wonder he can boast of the support from the RAC & AA for the proposed changes.

"dead time". How (in)appropriate. IMHO "pedestrians" (people, wheelchair users, children) should be put first, not last. Yes, before cyclists. Make enough room for people first

[meic]

He blows the case in the the answer to the very first question.
"Surely what you are suggesting is undertaking?"

Now in this thread it has been pointed out how stupidly dangerous it is to overtake turning vehicles - this seems to be be universally accepted when the example involves a car overtaking a cyclist, and why the Highway Code tells us not to do it on the approach to a junction. But the apologists for the petition have tried to deny this is what the petition is about at all and somehow undertaking is different - and that quoting the actual words of the petition is somehow misrepresenting it.

Boardman makes it abundantly clear that in his view that cycling on the left is the natural place to be so overtaking on that side is legitimate. Fair enough - we do permit overtaking on the left past queuing traffic - but it is still overtaking. So should be treated with the same rules of priority as normal overtaking on the right. Indeed, because the normal rule is to overtake on the right you need to take greater care when overtaking on the wrong side.

And that is before he gets to cycle lanes. When he says "We need to start thinking of cycle lanes as a legitimate lane of traffic" he is quite right. A traffic engineer would never put a lane for left turning traffic to the right of a lane for left turning traffic. You would never ever ever see markings such as this: http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2001.htm for legitimate traffic lanes., but he uses the stupidity of the lane markings to argue for changing the rules - rather than to remove the dangerous lane markings. He brings up the case of bus lanes, but bus lanes are interrupted on the approach to junctions so that turning traffic can merge into the lane on the approach to a junction, rather than be forced to swerve across at the last minute.

So on to the second question:
"Why would I trust a car to wait for me, isn't it better not to take the risk?"
To which he answers "He wouldn't" - quite b***y right. case holed below the waterline.
It is not the rules that make overtaking turning traffic dangerous - the rules are there because of how dangerous it is. It is not about whether you are driving a bus or a car or a bicycle - or whether you are overtaking on the right or the left. It is that when we are driving or cycling we are facing forwards and paying most attention to what is in our natural field of view. The driver or cyclist coming from behind has a much better view of the emerging situation which is why the highway code makes overtaking the responsibility of the overtaker rather than the overtakee.

Then we come to the "big benefits for drivers that this campaign hopes to unlock". Here hes is talking about removing pedestrian stages at traffic lights or the motoring organisations put it "dead time when no ones crossing" No wonder he can boast of the support from the RAC & AA for the proposed changes.

All well and good to do a theoretical destruction of this system on the internet, how about the bit in the video where he says it is already tested and in operation in funny lands overseas? That empirical evidence has more validity than a bit of logical deduction. Or possibly the logical deduction is making some assumptions which are contradictory to the proposed idea if not to the reader's interpretation of the written version.
I do agree that the written version is too vague to leap in and support but not that the worst possible interpretation of it should be adopted to try and attack it in a hostile manner as if it contains some great personal affront by even being suggested.

[pjclinch]

All well and good to do a theoretical destruction of this system on the internet, how about the bit in the video where he says it is already tested and in operation in funny lands overseas? That empirical evidence has more validity than a bit of logical deduction.

You beat me to it.

It's like presumed liability, where any number of arguments are put forward that its terribly unfair and won't work in a place just a short ferry ride away from places where it's a given.

Pete.

[reohn2]

The main objection to this proposed rule is that motorists will have to taken extra care around vulnerable road users,and the main problem in the UK from a motorists POV is that they don't think they should,as the common belief among motorists its that might is right.
The simple widely held belief needs challenging,this rule like presumed liability does that.
But we live in a backward and belligerent land where the attitude to cycling is concerned,the more that's challenged the better IMHO.

[Ruadh495]

Those examples in Rownhams lane are familiar to me being local. I have driven the road but not cycled it. The fist two would be a lot clearer if the cyclist was presented with give way markings either side of the access.
As for the cycle lane shown in the last photo, it was very apparent when it was first marked out 5 or so years ago. It uses a greater percentage of the width of the highway than any other I have ever seen. You really did feel like you should be driving in the middle of the road. However, what is very apparent in the intervening years is the wear to the road markings and a "what the heck am I supposed to do here?" feeling. But maybe that's the prime driver in it's design. Doubtful, confused motorists tend to slow down.
This driver here would clearly loose a wing mirror to a passing vehicle if he avoided the cycle lane altogether. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.97092 ... 312!8i6656

It's not a particularly wide cycle lane though. Most drivers now seem to drive in the cycle lane unless there is a cyclist present. I do it myself. I also will not attempt to pass a cyclist here if there is a vehicle coming the other way. Unfortunately many drivers seem to see the road markings as a justification to do exactly this. I get many more close passes on Rownhams Lane than anywhere else, to the point where I avoid using it if possible. Ironically the pavements here are distinctly wider than the single shared use path further along Rownhams Lane, so it would have made sense to make one of them shared use and leave the carriageway alone.

There are "give way" markings on the cycleway at the motorway services junctions, but not on the industrial estate entrance (which appears to give the cyclist priority). Standardization would be a good start.

[mjr]

The only way I can see of turning right from a fully protected lane is a "jug handle".

...which is already the way that many cyclists turn right. Possibly even most, although I doubt many on these forums will admit to doing it because it'll be seen as not being a Real Cyclist. Stopping next to the people walking and then riding straight across feels much nicer than being sat between two lanes of live fast traffic (because even if the road's too narrow, those continuing straight on will usually drive on the left-hand footway to get round you). It's mentioned in the Highway Code (rule 74), although it's missing from official Bikeability training which seems strange when it's such a useful tactic for getting through some traffic light crossroads more quickly than motorists.

So the only function I can see for painted cycle lanes is to "encourage" cyclists to keep left so they can be passed.

Should we be campaigning to get all painted on road cycle lanes removed?

I think some vehicular zealots would like that. Personally, I think painted cycle lanes are OK when they're wide enough to ride two abreast, or on the approaches to junctions where motorists often queue because they allow cycles to reach the early-stop line and avoid being the filling in the motorists' frequent nose-tail shunt sandwiches.

[Ruadh495]

The only way I can see of turning right from a fully protected lane is a "jug handle".

...which is already the way that many cyclists turn right. Possibly even most, although I doubt many on these forums will admit to doing it because it'll be seen as not being a Real Cyclist. Stopping next to the people walking and then riding straight across feels much nicer than being sat between two lanes of live fast traffic (because even if the road's too narrow, those continuing straight on will usually drive on the left-hand footway to get round you). It's mentioned in the Highway Code (rule 74), although it's missing from official Bikeability training which seems strange when it's such a useful tactic for getting through some traffic light crossroads more quickly than motorists.

I've tried both and settled on "vehicular" for the right turns I regularly make. I feel safer doing it that way. I don't find traffic pushes past on the left much, they generally wait, while they will squash you up against the kerb if you try to "jug handle".

So the only function I can see for painted cycle lanes is to "encourage" cyclists to keep left so they can be passed.

Should we be campaigning to get all painted on road cycle lanes removed?

I think some vehicular zealots would like that. Personally, I think painted cycle lanes are OK when they're wide enough to ride two abreast, or on the approaches to junctions where motorists often queue because they allow cycles to reach the early-stop line and avoid being the filling in the motorists' frequent nose-tail shunt sandwiches.

Never seen one that wide. Generally they are barely wider than your handlebars and if you ride in primary you will be outside them. No advance stop lines here either, just narrow lanes that end at the junction.