Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

prestavalve
Posts: 126
Joined: 24 Dec 2020, 8:03pm

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by prestavalve »

PT1029 wrote: I see where you are coming from, I am happy to take a lane. Being told you should ride out in the road to keep safe/hold up the traffic (depends on your view) is exactly the reason why people don't cycle - they think the roads are just too dangerous/drivers aggressive to cycle safely on..
But they are wrong.

Why should policy be based on a misperception held by non-cyclists? Doesn't creating special conditions for cyclists (like these lights) accept, and even promulgate, the premise that cycling is dangerous and requires such allowances if it is to be done safely?
Pete Owens wrote: The cyclist at 1:11 demonstrates how not to perform a right turn - approaching from the extreme left and swerving in front of a van driver demonstrating how not to stop at a red light.
Maybe he needs a special kind of light to tell him not to do that.
Bmblbzzz wrote: It's not so much a junction as a small gyratory.
I don't care if it's the magic roundabout, you take the lane.
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by mattheus »

prestavalve wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 11:11am
PT1029 wrote: I see where you are coming from, I am happy to take a lane. Being told you should ride out in the road to keep safe/hold up the traffic (depends on your view) is exactly the reason why people don't cycle - they think the roads are just too dangerous/drivers aggressive to cycle safely on..
But they are wrong.

Why should policy be based on a misperception held by non-cyclists?
Many many new/inexperienced cyclists have a strong reluctance to "take the lane". (as I think PT made clear in his first post).
Pete Owens
Posts: 2440
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by Pete Owens »

PT1029 wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 7:32am "If it is that long then you start to get unintended and undesirable consequences. If you add 15 seconds to each stage of the sequence than that increases the overall length of the cycle by 30 seconds"
Because of the traffic flows, the advanced green is only at 1 stop light at the junction, so it is 15 sec per cycle. Like all traffic lights, it is a balance between how often the green light come around, vs short light cycles which results in more time wasted in between green periods..
"You don't need speed of confidence to occupy the lane "
I see where you are coming from, I am happy to take a lane.
Presumaly like me you do this because you are a cautious competent cyclist you know this will make life safer and more comfortable for youself not as some daring act of bravado.
Being told you should ride out in the road to keep safe/hold up the traffic (depends on your view) is exactly the reason why people don't cycle
Unfortunately, they are not told to do this, they are told to ride in the gutter to facilitate close passes by motor traffic - and road markings are painted on the road to encourage them to do just that.
- they thinkte the roads are just too dangerous/drivers aggressive to cycle safely on..[
Well certainly if you ride in a narrow cycle lane you will experience the nasty close passes that those are designed to facilitate.
Being a confident cyclist is fine, but if you want to increase the number of people cycling, you need to understand the view point of "thise who do not cycle and offer a solution.
Certainly the viepoint of some of "those who do not cycle" aka motorists is that cyclists should ride in the gutter or better still on the pavement to keep out of their way. Hence the popularity of cycle lanes among the auto-supremicist traffic planners.

If you want to improve conditions for cyclist then seek the views of cyclists not motorists. Of course this is anathema for auto-supremicist planners, but it politically correct to pretend to promote cycling so their great con is to promote the view of motorists as "potential cyclists", while dismissing the views of people who actually ride bikes as "brave" or "fast" or "comfident" - when the appropriate adjectives are "cautious" and "competent".
"I can see the merits of an advanced green for cyclists - particularly for turning right at larger junctions - to allow cyclists to clear the junction before oncoming traffic gets started - but allowing time for cyclists to scuttle back into the gutter isn't one of them"
It is a busy urban street with a marked cycle lane (you can see it on streetview if you want). Skuttling back into the gutter is not the intention, just giving cycle users the time to single out having started as a crowd in an ASL box
Exactly... Singling out - to ride in a narrow marked cycle lane - which is painted in the gutter.
When they are approaching a pinch point when that is the last place they should be riding - unless your overiding consideration is to facilitate overtaking by motorists.
A wider road would be useful, trying to get land purchase plus a 200 year old stone wall moved in a historic city isn't going to happen. Like a lot of roads, it was designed to a now historic standard (so it is too narrow)
Only from the auto-supremacist point of view that mere cyclists must never impede the flow of proper traffic - and what is needed is bigger wider roads to carry more and faster motor traffic. If you look at the sort of medieval cities where the buildings are valued sufficiently to prevent the highway enginners driving their bigger roads through you see higher cycling levels.
prestavalve
Posts: 126
Joined: 24 Dec 2020, 8:03pm

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by prestavalve »

mattheus wrote: Many many new/inexperienced cyclists have a strong reluctance to "take the lane". (as I think PT made clear in his first post).
Yes. Not arguing that. :?:
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by mattheus »

prestavalve wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 1:38pm
mattheus wrote: Many many new/inexperienced cyclists have a strong reluctance to "take the lane". (as I think PT made clear in his first post).
Yes. Not arguing that. :?:
So when you posted: "Why should policy be based on a misperception held by non-cyclists?"
the answer should clearly be that the policy is based on the behavoiur of new/inexxperienced cyclists.
prestavalve
Posts: 126
Joined: 24 Dec 2020, 8:03pm

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by prestavalve »

mattheus wrote: So when you posted: "Why should policy be based on a misperception held by non-cyclists?"
the answer should clearly be that the policy is based on the behavoiur of new/inexxperienced cyclists.
prestavalve wrote:
PT1029 wrote: I see where you are coming from, I am happy to take a lane. Being told you should ride out in the road to keep safe/hold up the traffic (depends on your view) is exactly the reason why people don't cycle - they think the roads are just too dangerous/drivers aggressive to cycle safely on..
But they are wrong.

Why should policy be based on a misperception held by non-cyclists? Doesn't creating special conditions for cyclists (like these lights) accept, and even promulgate, the premise that cycling is dangerous and requires such allowances if it is to be done safely?
Question still stands: why should policy be based on the concerns of people who are not speaking from a position of actual experience?

Let's use an analogy, if it helps: I don't like submarines, because I think submarines are dangerous. I could be persuaded to go aboard a submarine only if it was painted pink (for visibility) and I was allowed to wear waterwings (which I associate with nautical safety because although I know nothing about the subject but they seem to fit the bill, even though they impede my ability to move around safely once I am inside the boat). Is the problem in this scenario me, and the odd way I perceive reality, or the genuine and intrinsic threat posed by underwater travel?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by thirdcrank »

I think the problem in this scenario may be the introduction of a straw man - if I've got the current terminology right.
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by mattheus »

I understand your point (I think!), but there are many cyclists who DO have SOME experience, but are still very cautious/nervous.

Unless you have a scheme that will make sure all cyclists on that road will have the knowledge/wisdom to take the lane (where appropriate) - and without impacting the numbers of riders - it seems pragmatic to try to keep the less wise riders safe by engineering means.

Think of it like removing adverse cambers from roads: sure, the experienced road-user should not get caught out by such things ... !
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6249
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by Bmblbzzz »

"I can see the merits of an advanced green for cyclists - particularly for turning right at larger junctions - to allow cyclists to clear the junction before oncoming traffic gets started - but allowing time for cyclists to scuttle back into the gutter isn't one of them"
It is a busy urban street with a marked cycle lane (you can see it on streetview if you want). Skuttling back into the gutter is not the intention, just giving cycle users the time to single out having started as a crowd in an ASL box
The cycle lane is only on one side of the Triangle. Taking the lane is both more useful and more difficult on the side without a cycle lane, where there are two lanes, of which the r/h one goes both straight on (Whiteladies Road, to the right of the neo-classical building you can see on Streetview) and further right.

https://goo.gl/maps/a6ppJHJtBtta6CtU7
Pete Owens
Posts: 2440
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by Pete Owens »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 10:26am Yep, it seems to be 4s from cycle green to car green, only about 3s from cycle green to car red+amber.
Which isn't long enough for a right turning cyclist to clear the junction before oncoming traffic is given a green. (and the red+amber should show for 2 seconds)
On the other side they've got a completely separate set of mini lights so cyclists get their own red+amber as well as their own green.
And this starts to get worrying because cycle traffic lights are being used in different ways with different meanings even at the same junction.

If you approach a normal set of traffic lights with red/amber/green and maybe green L/R arrows you know what each of those signals means.
If you see a green cycle light you dont know whether that means a dedicated stage with conflicting traffic held at red long enough for you to clear the junction or just a little bit of a head start. That is a significant difference if you are turning right.

Then there is the red cycle light. What does this mean if the general light is showing green at the time?
prestavalve
Posts: 126
Joined: 24 Dec 2020, 8:03pm

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by prestavalve »

mattheus wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 3:08pm Unless you have a scheme that will make sure all cyclists on that road will have the knowledge/wisdom to take the lane (where appropriate) - and without impacting the numbers of riders - it seems pragmatic to try to keep the less wise riders safe by engineering means.
I have no problem with a scheme, in fact, that's what I think we should be doing first and foremost.

Pragmatic solutions are rarely the best option in anything but the shortest term or narrowest set of circumstances. If we end up with town centre cyclepaths, special lights and other furniture everywhere, we will do so at the cost not only of being perceived as co-equal road users, but in actually possessing that status.

There is no such thing as a zero risk environment, especially not on the road, regardless of what type of road user you are. The same people who say cycling is "too dangerous" are very likely to a) drive and b) speed (as many drivers habitually do as a matter of course). Yet, they see cycling as prohibitively dangerous. They are wrong and we should stop imagining that our aim in life should be to appeal to their misguided perspective. Let's change their mind and make use of the cycling infrastructure (i.e. roads) that already exists everywhere.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2440
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by Pete Owens »

mattheus wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 3:08pm Unless you have a scheme that will make sure all cyclists on that road will have the knowledge/wisdom to take the lane (where appropriate) - and without impacting the numbers of riders - it seems pragmatic to try to keep the less wise riders safe by engineering means.
Not if those engineering measures a modelled on the behaviour of the incompetent cyclists thus positively discouraging safe cycling. In this case we have a situation approaching a pinch point where gutter riding is particularly inadvisable yet the engineering measure is to paint a narrow cycle lane in the gutter. Occasionally there are accounts of disorientated pensionners driving the wrong way down a motorway - you don't find the authorities placing signs directing drivers onto the wrong carriageway to be helpful to incompetent drivers.

The engineering measure that would be helpful in this situation is the dutch style fietsstraat or bicycle boulevard - narrowing the traffic lane to such an extent that overtaking is not possible and the cyclists position is entirely irrelevent. Or if you are going to paint cycle symbols paint them on the road position that a competent rider would adopt, rather than the position an impatient motorist would prefer them to be.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by mjr »

prestavalve wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 4:07pm If we end up with town centre cyclepaths, special lights and other furniture everywhere, we will do so at the cost not only of being perceived as co-equal road users, but in actually possessing that status.
1. We are not "co-equal road users". We have a right to ride on roads, but motorists are only there by licence. Generally, the only things with more rights to the road than cyclists are walkers and wild animals. The roads should be reshaped to benefit walking and cycling.

But claiming the opposite is what I expect from motoring supremacists aka vehicularists who want to destroy every cycling support introduced to the roads and probably would prefer us to make brrm brrm noises as we pedal around, in the interests of being "co-equal road users"!
Let's change their mind and make use of the cycling infrastructure (i.e. roads) that already exists everywhere.
2. That's trivial to write but much more difficult to do. And writing nonsense like someone else above that claiming taking the lane doesn't require confidence or speed won't change the mind of anyone who has ever tried it.
Last edited by mjr on 14 Apr 2021, 4:23pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by Cyril Haearn »

I am a very experienced cyclist. I would not take the lane. I do not trust any driver to S-T-O-P, engage neutral and apply the handbrake
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Traffic lights giving cyclists a head start - Bristol

Post by Jdsk »

Cyril Haearn wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 4:23pm I am a very experienced cyclist. I would not take the lane. I do not trust any driver to S-T-O-P, engage neutral and apply the handbrake
In the preceding discussion I understand "take the lane" to mean adopting a position that protects the cyclist who does it from being squeezed into a dangerous position, typically too far to the left "into the gutter". That could be either while moving or when stopped.

Is that what you mean... or are you only referring to moving in front of motorised vehicles at stop lines, advanced stop lines and similar?

Thanks

Jonathan
Post Reply