Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 12937
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby mjr » 15 Jan 2019, 8:08pm

reohn2 wrote:
mjr wrote:Survey results don't completely support that. Even in the most danger-inclined-IMO survey (Mintel's Bicycles in the UK), "too dangerous" is still more often not mentioned than it is (about 40-45% IIRC).

Every non cyclist I've spoken to complains that the roads are too dangerous to cycle on,their next fear is punctures along with a fear of getting wet

Which just shows that those you talk to are unrepresentative.
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.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 12937
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby mjr » 15 Jan 2019, 8:12pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
mjr wrote:Sorry but thinking that any government in the forseeable is going to clamp down on lawbreaking motorists in any significant way is the real "dreamland pie in the sky thinking" - I reckon there's more chance we get another Eric Pickles who encourages cars to be dumped irresponsibly with no real risk of a parking ticket because he bans enforcement with even 1990s tech like mobile CCTV.

It's not too late, though - we can build more cycleways so that cyclists don't have to share at motorists at the troublespots, unless they're masochists who enjoy that sort of thing.


And yet it's having an effect on the roads already, more so than non existent segregated infra. So far from you saying my thinking is pie in the sky, there's already movement in that direction. Maybe you think stuff like the close pass initiative that police forces have rolled out does not exist?? Maybe you think CUK and others efforts re chnages aren't worth following up because it's all 'pie in the sky'? It's having a bigger effect than where there is no segregated infra and where there will continue to be no segregated infra for the foreseeable future, isn't it!

Close Pass is not a clamp down! It's great PR and is having an effect for that reason, but they're catching something like 5 motorists each day they do it. Is that a clamp down? Do you think there's only 5 lawbreaking motorists a day in each police area?

Protected infrastructure is being built and we need more. Kitting out all A roads would cost a fraction of HS2.
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.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 392
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby Wanlock Dod » 15 Jan 2019, 8:16pm

pwa wrote:.... But in other towns where congestion doesn't actually make a bike a no-brainer, government would have to adopt punitive measures against car users to get the effect you desire. Elected representatives would have to choose to do that...

Surely it can't be all that long before air pollution starts to be a sufficient encouragement, at least for some areas.

reohn2
Posts: 34274
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby reohn2 » 15 Jan 2019, 8:22pm

Wanlock Dod wrote:
pwa wrote:.... But in other towns where congestion doesn't actually make a bike a no-brainer, government would have to adopt punitive measures against car users to get the effect you desire. Elected representatives would have to choose to do that...

Surely it can't be all that long before air pollution starts to be a sufficient encouragement, at least for some areas.

You'd hope so,meanwhile we build more and more roads and steadfastly refuse to stop ICE powered motors entering towns and cities where 0ollution is worst :?
It's not looking good is it?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 12937
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby mjr » 15 Jan 2019, 8:30pm

pwa wrote:It is the link between Bridgend centre and north to meet NCN4, which effectively links an area called Sarn to Bridgend. Sarn has lots of housing and the route comes out beside a medium sized Tesco at the Bridgend side.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5334139 ... 3?hl=en-GB
Here, looking north, you see where it emerges onto a couple of hundred metres of quiet road before going onto a "traffic free" section again.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5090541 ... 3?hl=en-GB
Here it is as it nears the centre of town. Tesco is around the corner to the left.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5181039 ... 6?hl=en-GB
Bridge put in by my former employer, with help from a big crane.

Okay, a few barriers there you might object to, but even so... Most are now gone anyway.


Have a root around on Streetview, See what you think. I'd probably use it if it lined up with any jobs I had to do.

Starting from the Bridgend end, ignoring the barriers, the signs seem tiny, it rarely has priority over the tiniest of side roads, I don't understand how anyone's meant to follow it across the first part of Lewis Ave and the cycle lanes across the second crossing of Lewis Avenue are dangerous gutter lanes. The cut through to the industrial estate is obstructed by cars and cycling through an industrial estate seems less attractive than Brewery Lane and Quarella Road - isn't it?

That leaves the northern bit to Sarn. Is that any more popular? It looks useful but the crossing of the dual carriageway seems to be designed to discourage cycling - how fast do the lights react? Are there sensors on the approach or are button-pushes required? Is the move between Sarn Hill and cycleway as clunky as it looks?

I wouldn't call that mostly good standard. Parts of it are clearly substandard, even. It all looks a bit like bad old boxticking to me, sorry. Motoring there looks to flow obviously, while cycling is a paperchase crossed with an obstacle course. :-(
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.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 392
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby Wanlock Dod » 15 Jan 2019, 8:35pm

reohn2 wrote:It's not looking good is it?

This can only mean that the problems will be all the more severe when we do eventually come to address them, but that might mean that they trigger action a bit more quickly too. Catch 22 anyone?

reohn2
Posts: 34274
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby reohn2 » 15 Jan 2019, 8:50pm

Wanlock Dod wrote:
reohn2 wrote:It's not looking good is it?

This can only mean that the problems will be all the more severe when we do eventually come to address them, but that might mean that they trigger action a bit more quickly too. Catch 22 anyone?

It seems to me as a country we're in complete denial.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby thirdcrank » 15 Jan 2019, 8:59pm

Is there a proposal for signs on the front of loories:-

LOW BRIDGES BEWARE OF GETTING IN FRONT OF THIS VEHICLE

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-46882786

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13525
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby gaz » 15 Jan 2019, 9:41pm


pwa
Posts: 9423
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby pwa » 15 Jan 2019, 10:01pm

mjr wrote:
pwa wrote:It is the link between Bridgend centre and north to meet NCN4, which effectively links an area called Sarn to Bridgend. Sarn has lots of housing and the route comes out beside a medium sized Tesco at the Bridgend side.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5334139 ... 3?hl=en-GB
Here, looking north, you see where it emerges onto a couple of hundred metres of quiet road before going onto a "traffic free" section again.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5090541 ... 3?hl=en-GB
Here it is as it nears the centre of town. Tesco is around the corner to the left.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5181039 ... 6?hl=en-GB
Bridge put in by my former employer, with help from a big crane.

Okay, a few barriers there you might object to, but even so... Most are now gone anyway.


Have a root around on Streetview, See what you think. I'd probably use it if it lined up with any jobs I had to do.

Starting from the Bridgend end, ignoring the barriers, the signs seem tiny, it rarely has priority over the tiniest of side roads, I don't understand how anyone's meant to follow it across the first part of Lewis Ave and the cycle lanes across the second crossing of Lewis Avenue are dangerous gutter lanes. The cut through to the industrial estate is obstructed by cars and cycling through an industrial estate seems less attractive than Brewery Lane and Quarella Road - isn't it?

That leaves the northern bit to Sarn. Is that any more popular? It looks useful but the crossing of the dual carriageway seems to be designed to discourage cycling - how fast do the lights react? Are there sensors on the approach or are button-pushes required? Is the move between Sarn Hill and cycleway as clunky as it looks?

I wouldn't call that mostly good standard. Parts of it are clearly substandard, even. It all looks a bit like bad old boxticking to me, sorry. Motoring there looks to flow obviously, while cycling is a paperchase crossed with an obstacle course. :-(

Streetview doesn't take you onto the lengthy shared use traffic free bits which are attractive and wide. The Bridgend side is a bit patched together, as you say, but the "industrial estate" is basically one quiet road with a string of businesses on it, none generating much traffic. Nine times out of ten you would cycle down that without meeting a moving car. It is quieter than the alternatives. And though the blue signs are too small (as usual) you would get to know the route after one use. The push button crossing of the dual carriageway at the Sarn end works very quickly if nobody else has just used it before you. After crossing that (heading away from Bridgend) the route doesn't go up the hill under the rail bridge. Instead it turns left down a lane that is now a dead end for motor traffic. So that is quiet too. The main point is, it looks safe and it is safe. But not busy with people popping to Tesco. The flaws in the route don't explain that.

Just for your interest, the bridge was put in at enormous expense as an alternative to taking the route down Quarella Road, which feels a bit narrow and sometimes busy. There was a lot of agonising over that choice. That bridge didn't come cheap. But locals on the Wildmill estate beside the bridge wanted a bridge there and were delighted when the got it, so I think it was a good call.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 392
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby Wanlock Dod » 15 Jan 2019, 10:13pm

pwa wrote:... The main point is, it looks safe and it is safe. But not busy with people popping to Tesco. The flaws in the route don't explain that.

The real beauty of a system that is aimed primarily at getting the bloody cyclists out of the way of the important traffic generally means that routes are well away from queuing motorists so that they will not be subject to the temptation to cycle themselves. Those that cycle do so by secret networks of routes rather like the magical passages of Hogwarts so that they can do so unseen by motorists, thus further ensuring that nobody else is tempted to give it a try.

On the other hand if you sat in a queue of traffic watching hundreds of cyclists cruising by you might be tempted to give it a try after a while.

pwa
Posts: 9423
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby pwa » 15 Jan 2019, 10:18pm

Wanlock Dod wrote:
pwa wrote:... The main point is, it looks safe and it is safe. But not busy with people popping to Tesco. The flaws in the route don't explain that.

The real beauty of a system that is aimed primarily at getting the bloody cyclists out of the way of the important traffic generally means that routes are well away from queuing motorists so that they will not be subject to the temptation to cycle themselves. Those that cycle do so by secret networks of routes rather like the magical passages of Hogwarts so that they can do so unseen by motorists, thus further ensuring that nobody else is tempted to give it a try.

On the other hand if you sat in a queue of traffic watching hundreds of cyclists cruising by you might be tempted to give it a try after a while.

That's a thought. With this particular track the designer was looking to make the route as pleasant and hassle free as possible. He cycles himself but dislikes being on roads. But I do see what you mean. An out of the way track may be nice but doesn't sell itself.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 12937
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby mjr » 15 Jan 2019, 11:01pm

pwa wrote:Streetview doesn't take you onto the lengthy shared use traffic free bits which are attractive and wide.

Acknowledged, but there's nothing on http://www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/ yet and https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2711411 shows a substandard-width boardwalk, which is also not a good smooth cycling surface.

pwa wrote:The Bridgend side is a bit patched together, as you say, but the "industrial estate" is basically one quiet road with a string of businesses on it, none generating much traffic. Nine times out of ten you would cycle down that without meeting a moving car. It is quieter than the alternatives.

Industrial estates are still not as nice as residential areas to cycle through, plus it screams "HGV" to most people, festooned with anti-cycling driver-excusing signs. When Google's car drove through, it was a narrowed to a single car-door-chicken alley where you'd be facing off against any moving car you did meet.

pwa wrote:And though the blue signs are too small (as usual) you would get to know the route after one use.

But why would any non-cyclist ever think of trying one use? Edit: Wanlock Dod made the "self-advertising cycle routes" point more eloquently while I had this draft saved over dinner.

pwa wrote:The push button crossing of the dual carriageway at the Sarn end works very quickly if nobody else has just used it before you. After crossing that (heading away from Bridgend) the route doesn't go up the hill under the rail bridge. Instead it turns left down a lane that is now a dead end for motor traffic. So that is quiet too.

It's quiet because almost no-one lives down there. The route doing that way looks like a detour, doing two sides of a square to get to most places in Sarn, so that the local council can avoid the work of a road diet on Sarn Hill. So if you want to go up Sarn Hill, you're emerging dodgily at the corner of a T-junction, and coming the other way means you have to turn across traffic leaving the dual carriageway. Personally, I'd stay on road through the traffic lights and filter off left at the southern crossing, but that's not a move many do - they're more likely to try waiting for the pushbutton lights a few times and then decide they got through the junction more easily in a car and go back to doing that.

There seem to be no signs to Bridgend at the Sarn end, not at Sarn Hill, not at Lower Llansantffraid and not at Heol Cwrdy. How would people in Sarn guess this is a way to cycle to Bridgend?

This is something I've seen Cornwall get right recently. Here's the route to Falmouth signposted at Devoran - not huge, but enough for motorists to notice IMO. In Norfolk, they've been getting a bit silly lately...

pwa wrote:The main point is, it looks safe and it is safe. But not busy with people popping to Tesco. The flaws in the route don't explain that.

It doesn't look safe. It looks like an obstacle course to me. It looks like more of the worst parts of my local cycleways with fewer of the good bits. Plus I don't see how people are going to guess it's there.

pwa wrote:Just for your interest, the bridge was put in at enormous expense as an alternative to taking the route down Quarella Road, which feels a bit narrow and sometimes busy. There was a lot of agonising over that choice. That bridge didn't come cheap. But locals on the Wildmill estate beside the bridge wanted a bridge there and were delighted when the got it, so I think it was a good call.

I think there are things that could be done but I'll take your word on Quarella Road. Even so, I think the route should have been taken up alongside the dual carriageway where there's plenty of room, it would be more visible and less at risk of turning traffic, instead of through the industrial estate.
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.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 392
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby Wanlock Dod » 16 Jan 2019, 6:10am

mjr wrote:... - not huge, but enough for motorists to notice IMO...

That's the great thing about signage, it does nothing to address the reasons that put ordinary people off cycling, they know where they need to go because they drive there every day. It does, however, signal very clearly to motorists that something has been provided for cyclists and probably at vast expense.
mjr wrote:... the whole country seems to be designed to discourage cycling ...

fixed that for you

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16682
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Trucks Do Not Have Cyclist-Obscuring Blind Spots

Postby Vorpal » 16 Jan 2019, 9:18am

mjr wrote:This is something I've seen Cornwall get right recently. Here's the route to Falmouth signposted at Devoran - not huge, but enough for motorists to notice IMO. In Norfolk, they've been getting a bit silly lately...

Well, that's better than either a signpost with nothing, or the little Sustrans stickers which are more typical in Essex. I once spent 20 minutes looking for a path. It was 'signposted' with one of those little stickers on a fence post. I eventually gave up and used the road. When someone showed me where it was a few weeks later, it was about 20 feet from the fence post and started behind a hedgerow. A single proper sign post would have done the job. :roll: I have to admit that if they had done some maintenance/infrastructure work to make the entrance more obvious, that would have helped. I mgiht even have found the path. But erecting a sign post must be cheaper.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom