Steady rider wrote:Some cycling solutions for the UK could come from;
1)
passing clearance required by law, 1.2m (4 feet) in 30 mph zones or less, 1.8m (6 feet) for 40 mph speed zones or higher.
Keep it simple - make it 1.5m in all circumstances -ie any overtaking driver should be able to avoid a cyclist falling over at the instant before overtaking.
I think the chances of enforcement are minimal in any case.
2)
50 mph national speed limit for roads without centre lines, minor roads, country lanes, (unless signed lower)
With the speed limit review, 50 mph is becoming the norm for many single carriageway A roads.
I would go for 40 on country lanes and 20 as the default in towns (in line with cycle friendly countries).
3)
Standards for cycling facilities (not guidelines) providing a legal basis to provide high quality facilities.
and until such standards exist then we need to be united in our opposition to the implementation of any cycle facilities as they are universally c**p at the moment.
4)
a - traffic speeds higher than 50 mph and busy road, separate cycle paths as a rule, priority over minor side roads, sensor signals for crossing major roads.
The only roads suitable for for this sort of speed or treatment are purpose built highway with very few side roads (at least a mile apart) They are designed to serve long distance journies of the sort that cyclists tend not to make.
b - traffic speed from 30 to 40 mph, either separate cycle path or wide cycle lane 1.8m where frequent junctions occur.
Any form of segregation is bad news with frequent junctions irrespective of speed.
What you need in this situation is wide kerb side lanes (4.5-5m) so that the lane can be shared comfortably.
Cyclists need 2m of road space to make safe progress so any cycle lane thinner than that is reallocating road space from cyclists to motor vehicles.
c - traffic speeds 30mph or below, wide cycle lane 1.8m on busy roads
1.8m is less than the minimum space cyclists need - and you should only consider this form of treatment where there are few conflicting movements no likelyhood of parking or loading. Generally if a road is wide enough to paint cycle lanes in the first place then that means that it will be already be cycle friendly. The problematic road for cyclists are those where there is insufficient width to share. Cycle lanes can be useful when they reallocate one general traffic lane from a dual carriageway.
d - if road is not suitable for above, eg cycle paths or wide cycle lane, reduce speed limit option.=
This is turning the hierarchy of provision on its head.
Reducing traffic speed should be at the top of the list (after traffic reduction) - segregation should be a last resort.
I think a bicycle needs are different to vehicle needs
Bicycles ARE vehicles.
and training does help (provided the trainer really knows what they are doing), same as teaching kids to stand where they can see traffic and traffic can see them when crossing a road.
ie ride on the road where other drivers can see you and expect to see other traffic - rather than on a cycle path where you are sure not to be noticed.
A cyclist trying to make a right hand turn on a busy road, if you behave like a vehicle, look, signal, move etc you could be putting yourself in more danger than using other techniques.
Do you recommend not looking, not signalling and swerving across at the last minute?
Now, I would not hesitate to advise cyclists to use the pavement in order to tackle an intimidating junction as a pedestrian - but if they do they should get off and walk.
just depends on circumstances and the rider to some extent. Part 1 above would be for cyclists, not all vehicles, one example of treating the bicycle as a bicycle, they may have to move out for a pot hole.
The way to avoid this is not to ride too close to the kerb (like other vehicles) - so you have the option of moving left to avoid potholes.
This is difficult and intimidating when cycle lanes are provided forcing you to ride in the gutter.
You also need to avoid other hazards such as the door zone - again cycle lanes make this tricky.
Occasionally cycle routes avoid traffic lights etc, eg river side routes, making them quicker than roads perhaps depending on where you are going.
And this should be the real purpose of facilities - not as an alternative to the road network, but as useful supplement to it - to provide routes that would otherwise be unavailable.
