Cambridge sees sense at last

Pete Owens
Posts: 1894
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Cambridge sees sense at last

Postby Pete Owens » 5 Sep 2020, 12:52am

It looks like Cambridgeshire Council has finally realised the danger that cycle lanes cause at junctions, so is putting up signs to warn cyclists not to use the cycle lanes they have installed: https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/151001/

drossall
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Cambridge sees sense at last

Postby drossall » 5 Sep 2020, 10:11am

I don't know the local conditions, so comment can only be general. However, it is prima facie improbable that any undertaking could occur there:
  • In free-flowing traffic, the lorries would be faster. Therefore conflict would be caused by the driver wrongly overtaking and turning across the cyclist.
  • In stationary traffic, it is filtering that occurs, not undertaking. Filtering is allowed (though not necessarily sensible in all circumstances). The lorries should be signalling any left turn, in which case filtering would be suicidal. It may be that the County Council know that lorries make unsignalled turns, although the drivers are professionals, and possibly less prone to it than the bulk of motorists.
It's difficult for a cyclist who has to assume that any vehicle might at any moment turn without warning into any entrance, and that of course is what makes such lanes a mixed blessing. Add the fact that they look too narrow to give spacing from overtaking vehicles, and yes, the Council seems to be seeing the problems, albeit from a victim-blaming perspective.

Plainly, when traffic is a bit slow, it's perfectly reasonable to go faster in the left lane than in the right, because that's what we do all the time in our cars on dual carriageways and motorways. That's not considered undertaking, and removing two wheels from the vehicle does not change that, or any other general principle of highway law. Hence the use of the term filtering. In the Highway Code, I think the only mention of undertaking specific to cyclists is a warning that, when turning left, we should watch out for other cyclists undertaking us! (Because, as above, undertaking happens in free-flowing traffic, where the vast majority of cyclists are physically incapable of undertaking cars.)

None of the above, of course, addresses the need for cyclists to ignore what is allowed and ride in a highly cautious, defensive manner to make up for unsignalled and unexpected actions from other road users in large vehicles!

Jdsk
Posts: 2499
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Cambridge sees sense at last

Postby Jdsk » 5 Sep 2020, 10:23am

drossall wrote:In free-flowing traffic, the lorries would be faster. Therefore conflict would be caused by the driver wrongly overtaking and turning across the cyclist.
In stationary traffic, it is filtering that occurs, not undertaking.

Mostly agree with the ideas in that post, but a question about that differential nomenclature, please...

... what do you call passing on the L in slow-moving or stop-start traffic? Undertaking or filtering?

Thanks

Jonathan

drossall
Posts: 4945
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Cambridge sees sense at last

Postby drossall » 5 Sep 2020, 10:49am

The Highway Code is substantially about principles, although it obviously sums up road law as well. So expect grey areas. That's where courts come in, deciding in individual cases. So don't expect a definition that separates the two completely.

But there is nothing whatever in road law that I have seen that would make the definitions different for bikes from those for motor vehicles. We're talking here about cycle lanes so, if it would be reasonable in law for a motorist in the left-hand of two lanes, it has to be reasonable for a cyclist in the left-hand of two lanes. If the right-hand lane were stationary, I'd expect either category of road user in the left-hand lane to proceed with caution, watching out for someone in the right-hand lane suddenly and unpredictably switching. That's probably filtering - certainly that's what we call it when cars in a left-turn lane proceed when those going ahead are stopped.

Equally, if a car were stopped on the right of the carriageway, while waiting to turn right, it would be reasonable for any class of road user to pass on the left in order to go ahead.

Two-wheelers, just on width grounds, have the additional possibility of filtering when all lanes of traffic are stopped. That's allowed (with caution) because there's advice on how to do it (mainly for motor-cyclists, I think, but again the basic road law is not dependent on vehicle type).

Again, this is doesn't really address necessary caution in particular circumstances. Does it clarify what I'm arguing?

Jdsk
Posts: 2499
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Cambridge sees sense at last

Postby Jdsk » 5 Sep 2020, 11:00am

As above, I see it very similarly.

The nomenclature problem crops up when referring to the Highway Code. There is specific advice for cyclists in Rules 72 and 73 which mentions "undertaking" by others.

But I think that they use "filtering" to mean passing in the same lane.

Jonathan

atlas_shrugged
Posts: 411
Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm

Re: Cambridge sees sense at last

Postby atlas_shrugged » 6 Sep 2020, 6:52pm

This is just irresponsible routing of the cycleway by Cranebridge planners. What should happen is the UNINTERRUPTED continuation of the DNA cycleway alongside the rail line.

A bit of background. This is in an area of completely new build. The area seems to attract bad anti-cycling infrastructure (e.g. anti-cycling gates).

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16095
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cambridge sees sense at last

Postby mjr » 6 Sep 2020, 7:01pm

That looks like a construction company sign, which would be nothing to do with the county council. A city council development control officer might have ok'd it, but they don't seem to understand much to do with highways.

The cycle lanes are too narrow but I think the planning permission for that site dates from years ago, when they couldn't reject applications for crap lanes. Hopefully no more would be approved now.
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.