Two stage right turn and bus bypass

[PRL]

They both appear to be additional options available to cyclists (aimed at the less confident), rather than a requirement for confident, or any other, cyclists.

So what about he less confident bus passengers - do they get the option of stepping off the bus onto the pavement rather than into the path of aggressive cyclists who have now been given the option of blasting past on the left.

They do step off the bus onto the pavement. They will have to cross a cycle lane afterwards - well they will probably have to cross a road at some point so a cycle lane is nothing.

[PRL]

Turning right at the north end of Vauxhall bridge a while ago in the dusk I did a 2 stage turn without the markings. My guess would be that few cyclists enjoy forcing their way across 3 lanes of traffic and then getting stuck in the middle.

[mjr]

Today I read something on facebook from a Norwich cyclist claiming that turning right in a two stage turn was "tricky" (not actually the 20+-year-old one but a newer two-stage turn nearby on the same road). Which of you has been getting them to undermine my earlier claim? For what it's worth, the process was explained to her and I won't be surprised if she says it's clear enough but she'd only recently moved to the city and not seen it before.

[thirdcrank]

We've had what the highwaymen around here call "jug handles" (right turns at a toucan) for some time. If they do improve conditions for cyclists, IMO that's quite incidental to their principle purpose of getting cyclists out of the equation at junctions to maximise capacity. That Sustrans animation was created somewhere on another planet far away. If the illustrated level of priority is going to be given to riders wanting to turn right, it won't last long. I fancy the reality will be riders waiting endlessly while the system detects a break in the traffic flow.

IMO, the bypass-around-the back-of-the-bus-stop arrangement is the inevitable result of displacing cyclists into space pedestrians understandably see as theirs. I can't speak for other parts of the country but around here, when there's separation, pedestrians don't differentiate between the space intended for cyclists and that for pedestrians. I find the idea of a mini zebra crossing at a location like that laughable. Does anybody really think that a pedestrian dashing to catch a bus is going to do a bit of Green Cross Code at a cycle track? Many, but by no means all, pavement cyclists are fairly cautious in the presence of pedestrians. A marked cycle route is an invitation to ride that bit faster.

[SA_SA_SA]

NB I wasn't commenting on the OP farcilty just to your dismissal of anyone bemoaning their experience of the results of some separate farcilities in UK ( the example that appeared in my head was separate 2 way routes cut out of a wider road thus both narrow and no buffer space between either) . Although surely cyclists can turn right like that on their own initiative without unnecessary messing around with traffic light sequences*) and surelyeven then a cyclist-only right filter arrow would be simpler (if it existed of course:) ).

So some drivers need re-education. Not exactly news.

Thats not very helpful. If drivers aren't 're-educated'* before adding obvious facilities (which may be of dubious/no quality) it just makes difficult for current cyclists who do not wish to use them.

what's really unhelpful is suggesting that road layout changes should be stopped until that near-impossible task is completed.

Why should I not object to such changes when they make life more difficult/less pleasant? Road lanes are nice and wide compared to that on most cycle routes. And I do not see how the promised separate-route-ist utopia can work if anarchy due to no enforcement is accepted on the roads etc. And cycle priority crossing of side roads requires such anarchy to be missing.... I feel such anarchy in drivers will/has? spread to others....

If asking for something almost always makes things worse why would you keep asking for it rather than wait till the attitude of the implementing body improved so that things were not made worse or it became unnecessary anyway?

Such changes often make life more difficult for me by spoiling a road I was happy to cycle on. Every separate two way cycle route I have seen has always been too narrow,
thus leaves no buffer space between kerb to easily avoid errant pedestrians, thus are slower (cyclists end up closer to kerb, when there are oncoming cyclists),
in my experience they virtually always have too little separation from passing motor vehicles which won't move out like they might to pass cyclist in same lane,
they complicate crossing for pedestrians who now have to cross 2 or 3 'roads' in succession.


I agree with Chris Judens idea that the shared use sign should be replaced by a pedestrian sign with small discreet 'cycling permitted' text plate (a la(das? ) Germany)

As a painted white line is pointless to separate pedestrians most 'round blue sign of cycle with vertical white bar and pedestrian figure' signs should go: as a kerb is needed for separation, these would just become share used.


We must not let cycling be limited to motorists beliefs: 81% of motorists believe cyclists are legally required to keep to the left edge of the lane - should we let that stop us taking the lane when it's the safest thing to do? 53% believe we are banned from all dual carriageways, 73% believe two-abreast is illegal, 56% think e-bikes aren't allowed to overtake cars... Do you really want to ride a lonely (as you can't ride alongside someone chatting, as me and Mrs R do), risky (as you can't take the lane), circuitous (as you can't use any dual carriageway) route and have to wait in every flaming queue of cars?
Thats absurd: how did I say any of that ?
But it makes life less pleasant for me if the installation of a visible farcity results in hassle I did not get before. The problem was not there before it appeared.....

I have simply directly observed that avoiding farcilities for good reason (eg wet leaves never mind quality/narrowness etc) results in hassle I did not experience before they were there.
(and using the narrow separate facility is slower when I do).

.

EDIT Perhaps in future separate routes could be requested built as B roads or not at all but then a no motor vehicles sign/TRO used to make them nice wide cycle routes.
EDIT perhaps in future non-shared-footway separate route should not be parallel to an all-purpose road thus cyclists continuing to use all-purpose road would not 'stick-out'.

[mjr]

Please don't misquote and abuse colour. It's very difficult to follow and means some people have to quote your post and replace color tags with quote ones and hit Preview before it makes any sense, especially on monochrome e-readers like some Kindles.

NB I wasn't commenting on the OP farcilty just to your dismissal of anyone bemoaning their experience of the results of some separate farcilities in UK ( the example that appeared in my head was separate 2 way routes cut out of a wider road thus both narrow and no buffer space between either) .

OK, well I was commenting on how unhelpful it is to condemn even this reasonable-looking facility apparently just because something else somewhere else built by another council another time was crap. Surely we've experienced often enough that that doesn't work.

Why should I not object to such changes when they make life more difficult/less pleasant?

There's no reason not to object to specific changes that don't work for you, with reasons, but don't just be a wrecker that mindlessly objects to everything - that just gets your views dismissed as irrational and unreasoned.

If asking for something almost always makes things worse why would you keep asking for it rather than wait till the attitude of the implementing body improved so that things were not made worse or it became unnecessary anyway?

And how do you test that attitude improvement if you never ask for anything?

Such changes often make life more difficult for me by spoiling a road I was happy to cycle on. Every separate two way cycle route I have seen has always been too narrow,
thus leaves no buffer space between kerb to easily avoid errant pedestrians, thus are slower (cyclists end up closer to kerb, when there are oncoming cyclists),
in my experience they virtually always have too little separation from passing motor vehicles which won't move out like they might to pass cyclist in same lane,
they complicate crossing for pedestrians who now have to cross 2 or 3 'roads' in succession.

Oh well, that's the ones you've seen. As I've mentioned, even Norfolk, which has built a lot of crap in the past, has some 9m separated cycle routes and isn't currently building any new two-ways narrower than 3m as far as I know - it's even been controversial that they left one old city cycleway at 2.5m when resurfacing it, as I understand it. That's how far practice and expectations have moved on.

I agree with Chris Judens idea that the shared use sign should be replaced by a pedestrian sign with small discreet 'cycling permitted' text plate (a la(das? ) Germany)

The Netherlands has that too and the only objection I have is that the current shared use sign is already too small for many people to notice in good time (I've experienced it from people cycling, walking and driving).

As a painted white line is pointless to separate pedestrians most 'round blue sign of cycle with vertical white bar and pedestrian figure' signs should go: as a kerb is needed for separation, these would just become share used.

I'd also love to see that happen. Painted white lines are currently treated as centre lines or edge markers on most routes around here anyway.

We must not let cycling be limited to motorists beliefs: 81% of motorists believe cyclists are legally required to keep to the left edge of the lane - should we let that stop us taking the lane when it's the safest thing to do? 53% believe we are banned from all dual carriageways, 73% believe two-abreast is illegal, 56% think e-bikes aren't allowed to overtake cars... Do you really want to ride a lonely (as you can't ride alongside someone chatting, as me and Mrs R do), risky (as you can't take the lane), circuitous (as you can't use any dual carriageway) route and have to wait in every flaming queue of cars?

Thats absurd: how did I say any of that ?

It's the logical conclusion of saying something shouldn't be done until motorists understand it, isn't it?

But it makes life less pleasant for me if the installation of a visible farcity results in hassle I did not get before. The problem was not there before it appeared.....

I have simply directly observed that avoiding farcilities for good reason (eg wet leaves never mind quality/narrowness etc) results in hassle I did not experience before they were there.
(and using the narrow separate facility is slower when I do).

This is a frequent claim by existing cyclists but I've long held that it's more connected with the increase in people cycling a route than the existence or an adjacent route, based on my experience cycling on routes where cycling has been increasing strongly. The increase in hassle doesn't leap up depending on whether that stretch has a cycleway alongside or not.

EDIT Perhaps in future separate routes could be requested built as B roads or not at all but then a no motor vehicles sign/TRO used to make them nice wide cycle routes.
EDIT perhaps in future non-shared-footway separate route should not be parallel to an all-purpose road thus cyclists continuing to use all-purpose road would not 'stick-out'.

I'd have only one problem with the B road idea, or even a C road - France builds some separate routes as D roads and they seem fine, better than most of what we get in the UK - crap councils would look at the classification and see little reason to amend the TRO and progressively allow more and more motor vehicles on more and more of it, even when the route is physically unsuitable for it. I've recently objected to a proposed amendment to the TRO for Norfolk U23679 Hardings Way (I think it's always been a U unlike most of the cycleways which are stuff like 2Y13 because it's vehicle access to a park) that would put HGVs driving along and turning across what was originally built by a "safe route to school" project for a housing estate that's still being built, potentially snuffing out active travel before it gets chance to become a habit.

The big problem with banning cycleways from existing highways would be that existing highways often go where they go because that's where people historically have wanted to travel, the best way to connect departure points and destinations for various reasons - often most direct, flattest and so on. That would at best be condemning cycleway users to long detours and it's difficult enough to encourage modal shift without extra self-inflicted difficulties like that. I'd be more in favour of closing selected existing highways except for cycles, buses and access, but that's politically difficult while there are still so many motorists who see nothing wrong with polluting streets where people live, work and shop.

So by all means, object to flaws, push for driver education or whatever you want to do that helps, but trying to be Cycling's King Canute is a waste of expertise.

[Bmblbzzz]

I've yet to encounter a two-stage or jug-handle turn on the road, but there are a couple of things that strike me from the Sustrans animation, the videos of London and Copenhagen, and previous knowledge (they have been talked about for a couple of years, after all).

It's clear how they address the nervousness many cyclists feel about turning right across busy traffic by bring the manoeuvre under control; breaking it into stages and directing it with lights. I think it will be successful in this. That doesn't mean it alone will be enough to encourage new cyclists on to the roads, of course, but it does mean some nervous cyclists will feel able to ride through junctions they currently walk.

The waiting zone looks like a problem. It's not big enough in either width or length to allow more than a few cyclists to turn round in it and wait. Bear in mind that the cyclists who will benefit most from this system, the nervous ones, are also most likely to be less confident in bike handling. Add in adults with kids, either on tagalongs, in box bikes or similar, or simply accompanying on their own bikes, and it soon gets crowded. Also this waiting zone is just where pedestrians will want to cross the road; sure, it's not on the actual crossing but in practice it's near enough that people will want to walk there. The Copenhagen example (linked to in this thread) seems to avoid this by not having a designated waiting zone and instead having a much wider cycle crossing, but then it is a larger junction altogether.

Finally, there is the specific cycle light. Presumably this is meant to avoid left-hooking of the cyclists waiting in the waiting zone by giving them a headstart. Three potential problems: is the headstart long enough? That's going to depend on the popularity of the zone. Will drivers respect the cycle green and not treat it as green for them too? And will it be installed at every two-stage turn?

[MikeF]

Here is a bus stop bypass in Brighton. It's one of many. I haven't cycled this route but I think these are regarded favourably by cyclists. It contrasts with the Edinburgh one

in that it is well defined with kerbs and gradual curves. There isn't any confusion which is cycle lane and which is pavement. That may not stop every pedestrian from wandering into the cycle lane, but it is obvious they are stepping off the pavement and should encourage them to look. That's the difference between a bit of paint, as in Edinburgh, and proper infrastructure, as in Brighton.

Can anyone explain to me the purpose of this cycle marking at right angles to the traffic flow

Sustrans promote some good designs on paper and publications, but they never seem to be implemented in practice.

[jgurney]

a bus stop bypass in Brighton. It's one of many. I haven't cycled this route but I think these are regarded favourably by cyclists. It contrasts with the Edinburgh one in that it is well defined with kerbs and gradual curves.

Instead of a cycle path between the bus lane and the footway (and moving away from it to weave behind the bus stop) why not just merge the two and use the same space for a bus/cycle lane wide enough to allow busses and cyclists to overtake each other within it. Then busses in motion pass cyclists just as they would in the illustrated design, and cyclists overtake stationary busses at stops on the outside thus avoiding all conflict with bus passengers accessing the stop?

[mjr]

Because then the bus can't depart until there's a lull in the cyclists riding past.

[MikeF]

a bus stop bypass in Brighton. It's one of many. I haven't cycled this route but I think these are regarded favourably by cyclists. It contrasts with the Edinburgh one in that it is well defined with kerbs and gradual curves.

Instead of a cycle path between the bus lane and the footway (and moving away from it to weave behind the bus stop) why not just merge the two and use the same space for a bus/cycle lane wide enough to allow busses and cyclists to overtake each other within it. Then busses in motion pass cyclists just as they would in the illustrated design, and cyclists overtake stationary busses at stops on the outside thus avoiding all conflict with bus passengers accessing the stop?

Have you looked at or driven the A270 in Brighton? I know what my choice would be.

[mjr]

Instead of a cycle path between the bus lane and the footway (and moving away from it to weave behind the bus stop) why not just merge the two and use the same space for a bus/cycle lane wide enough to allow busses and cyclists to overtake each other within it. Then busses in motion pass cyclists just as they would in the illustrated design, and cyclists overtake stationary busses at stops on the outside thus avoiding all conflict with bus passengers accessing the stop?

Have you looked at or driven the A270 in Brighton? I know what my choice would be.

Me too - I'd be using bypasses like this:

from https://www.instantstreetview.com/@50.8 ... .95p,1.71z

Seems an improvement the previous widespread practices of having buses drawing up to stops squash cyclists to the kerb too often, or routing cycles onto the footway through a bus stop as often criticised on the Farcility site.

[mjr]

Can anyone explain to me the purpose of this cycle marking at right angles to the traffic flow

Do you mean the right arrow with the cycle symbol under it? I think it's a suggested waiting area, although I'm unsure why they've not put it against the kerb because there shouldn't be any cross traffic there when it can be used. It's also somewhat interesting in that there's no stop line, so I suspect you could legally proceed before even the green cycle symbol appears, if the traffic from where you came stops, because you wouldn't cross a stop line or proceeded past the primary traffic light (which is behind you as you wait in that space - you can only see the secondary repeater). That sort-of makes sense because you could have legally turned right in the normal vehicular way while the perpendicular secondary signals were on red, but I can see why they don't publicise it because I'm sure the cyclist would be considered at fault if they misjudge the way being clear when effectively turning right from the left lane.

Sustrans promote some good designs on paper and publications, but they never seem to be implemented in practice.

Not never, but very rarely. The Sustrans design handbook is just advice and most Highways Engineers seem unwilling to accept that some of their long-held practices were unhelpful, sometimes dangerous, so they tinker with the handbook designs and often undermine them. There are a few who try to do the right thing, but then you also have to hope they get the best design past the safety auditors, some of whom seem so steeped in the bad designs of the recent past that they're unwilling to let better designs through unmodified. So it's a lottery.

Things should improve on the Strategic Road Network (most A/B roads) a bit now that the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges has been updated with IAN 195/16 containing more explicit design requirements supported by an elearning package but we'll have to wait and see if it's actually implemented in full and whether the learning spreads to actually getting Sustrans handbook designs or even Manual for Streets and LTNs implemented in full, about 10 years late.

[Bmblbzzz]

Those dedicated cycle lights in the design are a missed opportunity, I reckon. The design as it stands hopes to allay cyclists' nervousness of right turns in heavy traffic by taking them out of that traffic and splitting the turn into two stages; making a simple manoeuvre into one inherently more complicated. We get safety (or perceived safety, as the actual dangers are slim; but perceptions are important in encouraging uptake) at the cost of convenience. Isn't it strange, in some ways self-defeating, to try to improve conditions for cyclists by making them less convenient? And it does nothing to address the speed, density and behaviour of that traffic, which is the source of that nervousness (and of many other problems for cyclists, pedestrians, residents; everyone... ).

What they could have done is to treat the cycle-green seriously, make it an separate set of full lights giving cyclists not just a few seconds head start but their own phase of the lights. Cycle numbers and speeds are probably low enough to make this an all-directions cycle-only green, as seen on some of those (in)famous Dutch vids. This would give cyclists total protection from motor traffic while turning or going ahead, without any cost in convenience; in fact compared to the current standard way of turning right it would probably be quicker, since you would only have to wait for a few other cyclists (small, nimble, swift), not a lot of motor vehicles (large, cumbersome, slow on the uptake).

[mjr]

Cycle numbers and speeds are probably low enough to make this an all-directions cycle-only green, as seen on some of those (in)famous Dutch vids.

Yes, but that would be a noticeable chunk of time in one stage that all motorists would have to sit and watch and basically be shown that cyclists are road users who are being accommodated by the traffic management and planning systems. Few UK politicians would approve being that overt yet - can you imagine the newspaper headlines? Even current timid projects get flamed to a crisp.