Two stage right turn and bus bypass

[gjkathome]

I just read the item about Edinburgh that was featured in Cycling UK's Cycleclips email newsletter. Both seem highly dubious to me.

The right turn requires a cyclist to:
1. Wait for a light
2. Drift slightly left
3. Turn bike through 90 degrees clockwise
4. Wait for a light
5. Proceed

The bus bypass operates at a bus stop. It requires a cyclist to leave the main highway and divert onto the pavement. S/he is then routed round the back of the bus shelter where there is obvious conflict with pedestrians. Two miniature zebra crossings make it clear who has priority - but the cyclist is told not to expect pedestrians to use these crossings so to be ready stop at any point. The cyclist then has to merge back in to the traffic on the main highway.

I note the dead hand of Sustrans in all this.

Go to http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/articl ... leith_walk to read all about it and view a video showing the delights in store for Edinburgh cyclists.

[meic]

I just read the item about Edinburgh that was featured in Cycling UK's Cycleclips email newsletter. Both seem highly dubious to me.

The right turn requires a cyclist to:
1. Wait for a light
2. Drift slightly left
3. Turn bike through 90 degrees clockwise
4. Wait for a light
5. Proceed

The bus bypass operates at a bus stop. It requires a cyclist to leave the main highway and divert onto the pavement. S/he is then routed round the back of the bus shelter where there is obvious conflict with pedestrians. Two miniature zebra crossings make it clear who has priority - but the cyclist is told not to expect pedestrians to use these crossings so to be ready stop at any point. The cyclist then has to merge back in to the traffic on the main highway.

I note the dead hand of Sustrans in all this.

Go to http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/articl ... leith_walk to read all about it and view a video showing the delights in store for Edinburgh cyclists.

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.

[Pete Owens]

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.

[AndyK]

I've watched the video. Sheesh. How the heck is anyone going to understand that right-turn thing?

We should have some posters made and sent out to Sustrans and all the highway authorities:


10 signs you should rip up your cycle facility plan and start again:

(1) It's so complicated, it needs an instructional video just to explain how to use it.

(2) You are about to order a Cyclists Dismount sign. (No! Step away from the keyboard!)

(3) It involves cyclists randomly bouncing onto the pavement then off again, then on again, then...

(4) ...

[AlaninWales]

I've watched the video. Sheesh. How the heck is anyone going to understand that right-turn thing?

We should have some posters made and sent out to Sustrans and all the highway authorities:


10 signs you should rip up your cycle facility plan and start again:

(1) It's so complicated, it needs an instructional video just to explain how to use it.

(2) You are about to order a Cyclists Dismount sign. (No! Step away from the keyboard!)

(3) It involves cyclists randomly bouncing onto the pavement then off again, then on again, then...

(4) ...

(4) It involves cyclists making sharp 90 degree turns which, even animated cannot be made to look smooth but rather as if the rear wheel has been kicked around.

[thirdcrank]

... 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.

Except that there's a growing belief among drivers that farcilities are compulsory, whatever it might say in the HC. This is especially so when they appear to amount to more than a few blue signs. While the less confident - or sometimes selfish - riders have often used the footway anyway, those who decide to stay on the carriageway now have to be "confident" to the point of being quixotic.

I've picked this bus stop among many because it's just before Bob Jackson's premises on Stanningley Road.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.80658 ... 312!8i6656

OK so long as nobody uses the bus.

[Tigerbiten]

This two stage right turn looks about doable on a "standard" bike.

But I'd like somebody in charge try and do it on a non-standard bike, a recumbent, a cargo bike, a tandem or even a bike with a kiddy trailer behind it. On none of those bikes can you swing the back end around easily.
If I tried to use it with my recumbent trike-trailer rig, my trailer will probably block the left turn after the first lights. So to move it I'd first have to get off, manhandle the trike around so it points in the right direction, then manhandle the trailer around, the get back on. At which point the lights would probably be turning red .......

What happens if a dozen riders try and use it at the same time ??
Will there be enough room for them all to wait or will they also block the left turn.

[mjr]

I've watched the video. Sheesh. How the heck is anyone going to understand that right-turn thing?

We've had one in Norwich for over 20 years (although without cycle early-start lights) and I don't recall anyone complaining, nor any user guide videos. Other large crossroads sometimes get used in a similar way even without markings. The good burghers of Edin can't be that much thicker, can they?

[mjr]

Except that there's a growing belief among drivers that farcilities are compulsory, whatever it might say in the HC.

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

I've picked this bus stop among many because it's just before Bob Jackson's premises on Stanningley Road.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.80658 ... 312!8i6656

OK so long as nobody uses the bus.

And as long as no-one has a wide trailer, or wants to cycle next to their friend, or...

I expect Edinburgh are building better stuff than the crap Leeds does.

But I'd like somebody in charge try and do it on a non-standard bike, a recumbent, a cargo bike, a tandem or even a bike with a kiddy trailer behind it. On none of those bikes can you swing the back end around easily.
If I tried to use it with my recumbent trike-trailer rig, my trailer will probably block the left turn after the first lights. So to move it I'd first have to get off, manhandle the trike around so it points in the right direction, then manhandle the trailer around, the get back on. At which point the lights would probably be turning red .......

I really don't understand why they've produced a crap animation showing someone bizarrely kicking the back end of the bike round when they could have mirror-imaged a video of any of many junctions in Denmark - as you can see, most people only complete the turn after the crossways light turns green.
[youtube]996Hg2GeUvo[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=996Hg2GeUvo

They could even send people down to London to record a less shaky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FtmjouuHnE

What happens if a dozen riders try and use it at the same time ??
Will there be enough room for them all to wait or will they also block the left turn.

Yes, that junction doesn't have much capacity, probably because they're trying to avoid taking an all-traffic lane out. Hopefully they've done some counts and forecasts of how many people will actually want to turn right, plus some sort of sensors to detect a queue blocking the left turn.

[AndyK]

I've watched the video. Sheesh. How the heck is anyone going to understand that right-turn thing?

We've had one in Norwich for over 20 years (although without cycle early-start lights) and I don't recall anyone complaining, nor any user guide videos. Other large crossroads sometimes get used in a similar way even without markings. The good burghers of Edin can't be that much thicker, can they?

Maybe you're just all very clever in Norwich.

[Pete Owens]

... 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.

Except that there's a growing belief among drivers that farcilities are compulsory, whatever it might say in the HC.

And in the Edinburgh video they appear to be reinforcing the compulsion to use their farcilities by sticking in humps to forcibly dismount any cyclist attempting to filter into the correct lane for their manoeuvre. Similar things that are starting to appear in Manchester.

Looks like a recipe for left hooks to me.

[mjr]

Alternatively, those humps could be an attempt to deter motorists from driving into the cycle lane. Not my preferred solution in an urban area (I think posts aka wands are better for that - easier for walkers crossing the road to see), but not really likely to "forcibly dismount" any but the least observant cyclist, who probably won't even get that far before crashing out on a pothole.

[Pete Owens]

Alternatively, those humps could be an attempt to deter motorists from driving into the cycle lane.

Indeed, they are probably aimed at preventing left turning motors getting into the correct lane just as much as preventing cyclists from keeping themselves safe - thus maximising the number of conflicting movements through the junction. However, while this represents a minor bump should a motor vehicle go over the hump it is seriously dangerous for cyclists.

Not my preferred solution in an urban area

How about mind-numbingly stupid in any place where cycles may need to ride - urban or rural.

Heck it would even be stupid in places where cyclists don't ride. Though it would be less of a hazard to us if we could campaign for the entire world production of armadillos to be used as lane dividers on the M25.

(I think posts aka wands are better for that - easier for walkers crossing the road to see),

I really can't see navigating an obstacle course of posts being any improvement on an obstacle course of humps. Especially when trying to change lanes, thus needing to devote some attention behind.

but not really likely to "forcibly dismount" any but the least observant cyclist, who probably won't even get that far before crashing out on a pothole.

Potholes are nasty hazards which can kill cyclists - which is why I campaign for them to be repaired rather than deliberately installed.

[SA_SA_SA]

Except that there's a growing belief among drivers that farcilities are compulsory, whatever it might say in the HC.

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.


*how likely is that?

[mjr]

Alternatively, those humps could be an attempt to deter motorists from driving into the cycle lane.

Indeed, they are probably aimed at preventing left turning motors getting into the correct lane just as much as preventing cyclists from keeping themselves safe - thus maximising the number of conflicting movements through the junction.

What are you counting as the number of conflicts on each method of turning right at the junction?

(I think posts aka wands are better for that - easier for walkers crossing the road to see),

I really can't see navigating an obstacle course of posts being any improvement on an obstacle course of humps. Especially when trying to change lanes, thus needing to devote some attention behind.

Posts don't block as much of the length of the lane as armadillos, plus are taller so any reflective bits are more likely to be spotted in bike headlights - but I think the main reason they were removed in Camden was because they were trip hazards for walkers.

I realise that many current happy road cyclists will not feel that protected cycleways offer them any benefit at present, but the feedback we get is that even many current unhappy road cyclists like them - if they are built properly: not handlaid washboard, not paint+sign pavement conversions and not disappearing at every flaming junction.

Except that there's a growing belief among drivers that farcilities are compulsory, whatever it might say in the HC.

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.

*how likely is that?

It's very unlikely, but what's really unhelpful is suggesting that road layout changes should be stopped until that near-impossible task is completed. 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?