Cycling UK Forum

I don't know Dutch law. Nevertheless while yielding to traffic coming from your nearside (commonplace on the continent) is one thing, yielding to fast traffic coming from an angle of almost 180 degrees on your nearside is pretty difficult. Whatever the legal position, I wouldn't recommend passing traffic on the nearside when not only is it moving but also approaching a turning on the nearside.

Alas far too many cyclists in this country, where there is no obligation for traffic to yield to the nearside, are in the habit of undertaking moving traffic on the approach to junctions. Encouraged by feeder lanes to Advanced Stop Zones.

George Riches wrote:I don't know Dutch law. Nevertheless while yielding to traffic coming from your nearside (commonplace on the continent) is one thing, yielding to fast traffic coming from an angle of almost 180 degrees on your nearside is pretty difficult. Whatever the legal position, I wouldn't recommend passing traffic on the nearside when not only is it moving but also approaching a turning on the nearside.

Reading the subtitles on the video, the cyclist first comments on the possibility of conflict, then he confirms seeing the brake lights, so rightly maintains his course through the junction. If the cyclist had held back, confusion would have reigned, with both car and bicycle waiting for each other to move.
It takes a little nerve to complete that (cycle) manoeuvre when one is used to UK driving conventions !

I think the junction design is pretty poor. Note that in the case of pedestrian traffic, motorists have the chance to first make the turn then check for pedestrians. This means that the pedestrians (who aren't moving very fast) are in a direction of less than 90 degrees from straight-on.

At the speed that a velomobile can go, it should be in the main traffic stream in a road like that.

Richard Mann wrote:

Speshact wrote:Here the motorists have right of way turning into the road unless the pedestrian is already on the road.

Are you absolutely sure? I thought it was undefined (neither party has priority). Plus I thought advice to faster road users is to accept responsibility and defer to pedestrians in such situations; whether they do so is of course another matter.

Geometry/visibility/vertical deflection certainly helps though.

"170
Take extra care at junctions. You should
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070332

Speshact wrote:"170
Take extra care at junctions. You should
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070332

I read that too. It doesn't say who has priority if the pedestrian has not started to cross - it's just undefined.

Richard

Experience says that few motorists believe in any of that paragraph. I also doubt you would be prosecuted for not giving way to a crossing pedestrian (whom you then run over).

Nevertheless, at least the wording implies you should be ready to take some sort of action with respect to crossing pedestrians!

(and there's something elsewhere about having a duty to avoid accidents - it shouldn't matter whether you or the pedestrian "has priority" . )

An interesting article about the effect of infrastructure on cycling safety.
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47
associated table (summary of results)...
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47/table/T3

Although the infrastructure studied is mainly North American, I don't think that limits the interest or applicability.

Definitely interesting. I've posted a comment citing the Franklin research summary, and we'll see if there's a response. Would like to get some consensus...

drossall wrote:Would like to get some consensus...

Dream on. What works is going to depend on urban form, road layout, acceptability of volume reduction / speed restriction, money available, type of cyclist (etc etc).

We do know a few things:
fast (especially contraflow) cycling / moped use on cycle tracks at side-road junctions is not sensible (humps help; setting back helps; putting the cyclists on the road helps)
cycle lanes close alongside parked cars are not sensible (buffer zone helps, low traffic speed helps, wider cycle lane helps, banning mopeds helps)
discontinuing cycle lanes at side road junctions is not sensible (continuing them helps)
cycle tracks right up to signalled junctions are not sensible (separate cycle signal helps, lane across junction helps, lane approaching junction helps)
fast roundabouts are not sensible (continental geometry helps)

and also:
cycle tracks away from properties aren't that popular unless clear shortcut
fast roads aren't that popular (with or without cycle lanes/tracks)
big junctions aren't at all popular
cycle lanes on busy-but-not-too-fast roads are popular
quiet routes are popular, especially near schools (but not as well-used as cycle lanes on busy-but-not-too-fast roads)

the main debate seems to be whether cycle lanes are safe (and if safe, whether they are necessary); it mostly depends on traffic speed

Richard

http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2010/ ... #more-4623

If designed properly in the right location they can both increase cycling levels and improve safety. Putting into practice seems a major UK problem.

That's belief rather than evidence though. Unlike the previous item cited, nothing in particular to disprove the idea that they're safer because they are in the Netherlands rather than because of the paths, and they'd be even safer on the road.

From page 15
-------
If cycling doubles, the relative risk become 0.66, a decrease in 34% in risk
If cycling halves, the relative risk becomes 1.52, an increase of 52% in risk.

100 cyclists in UK without cycling facilities, risk 100 accidents, health benefits outweigh risk by 20 to 1, 1900 gain (2000 - 100).

200 cyclists with cycling facilities, risk 132 accidents, health benefits 4000, gain 3860.

Cycling facilities also help pedestrians in both health and safety.
-----------
From page 13.

2005 data, Km cycled per km of road

Rural 'A' roads 2814
Urban 'A' roads 44891
Minor rural roads 4335
Minor urban roads 22321
All above roads 11453
Sustrans built routes 142857

People probably cycle a lot more when there is little or no traffic.

------------------------
see page 1 for risk levels
----------------------
From page 10,
My estimate of the risk for 'cycling facilities', R-cf, compared to 'on road' cycling R-or, is;
Rural roads 'A' - R-or 24, R-cf 6
Urban roads 'A' - R-or 4.7, R-cf 2.4

For 'other' roads, rural and urban the risk will vary and depending on traffic volumes. Roughly I would expect;
Rural roads 'other' R-or 3.2, R-cf 1.6
Urban roads 'other' R-or 0.5, R -cf 0.25

It is obvious from the proportion cycling that providing cycling facilities does help increase cycling levels,
2% of trips UK,
27% in NL,
18% Denmark,
12% Sweden,
10% Germany,
-------------------------
If all the data is collectively considered in detail, progress in providing for cyclists can be made. A full strategy write up could detail what would be best practice. In addition a few changes to laws and national policy are also required.

My view is that whether a cyclepath is safe depends on the detailed design.

However, potential cyclists always want cyclepaths because they feel safe which they do not on the roads. To be honest I prefer good cyclepaths to the main roads.

If we want cycling to escape the ghetto it's got trapped in and become a mass activity again as in other countries, good quality cyclepaths seem to me to be the only way to go. It'll be difficult and take a long time but it'll be worth it.

So let's dump those painted on lanes that are always invaded by cars, lets dump giving way at every minor road and all the other problems with English style cyclepaths and look to those countries where cycling is a mass activity for inspiration.

I think its time for the CTC to lead us out of the ghetto towards cycling as a mass rather than niche activity. I want pensioners, children, teenagers and all the rest of us to use a bike in normal clothes as naturally as we put on a pair of shoes.

I really don't care about cycling on all the roads if the cyclepaths are good enough.

I suspect that whatever BS standard is accepted,( after the in-fighting and backstabbing ), it would lead to the closing of all cycle paths that do not meet the standard ... Cycle Paths .. closed down by cyclists ... mmmmmmmmm

LANDSURFER74 wrote:I suspect that whatever BS standard is accepted ...

Is there a proposed British Standard?

Even if there is, and it is adopted, why would that lead to closure of non-compliant paths? (We can, of course, buy non-BS-compliant lights.)