Re: Cycle paths unsafe?
Posted: 14 Jan 2011, 7:08pm
If it was not possible to provide to this standard for some reason then it would be a sub-standard path and signed for low speed and care, narrow path - care.
Having a standard would provide the basis for designers to follow, rather than guidelines.
Designers would try to avoid providing something they had to sign as below standard.
Possible motions for the CTC AGM 2011, mentions providing a standard but no one has offered to second the motions so far. To save the trouble of looking it up;
4
That ‘standards’ for cycling facilities (not guidelines) should be implemented by 2012 or as soon as possible.
Reason
Standards would provide a legal basis to install high quality facilities to suitable design specifications, unlike guidelines allowing for lower requirements. Junction requirements forming part of standards. Safety for cyclists would be improved.
Having a standard would provide the basis for designers to follow, rather than guidelines.
Designers would try to avoid providing something they had to sign as below standard.
Possible motions for the CTC AGM 2011, mentions providing a standard but no one has offered to second the motions so far. To save the trouble of looking it up;
4
That ‘standards’ for cycling facilities (not guidelines) should be implemented by 2012 or as soon as possible.
Reason
Standards would provide a legal basis to install high quality facilities to suitable design specifications, unlike guidelines allowing for lower requirements. Junction requirements forming part of standards. Safety for cyclists would be improved.