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.