A good reason to bar cyclists

[[XAP]Bob]

The right approach is to make alternative provision, not randomly ban people.

If you have a road junction where motorists behave like over indulged teenagers then maybe a grade separated cyclist and pedestrian junction should've created

[Lance Dopestrong]

Its insanity. If pickpockets were on the loose in a town centre, you wouldn't ban shoppers. Its staggering to any thinking person that a sector of society can cause such massive danger, yet instead of addressing the causes of that danger we penalise and segregate the victims so the offenders can carry on as before.

We might, and I mean might, now be seeing the first cracks in this crazy convention, as tailpipe pollution has reached crisis point. Suddenly there's a need to address the actual problem caused by cars, although I fear that response may prove ineffective if being "fair" to those who bought diesels is deemed more important than stopping people from dying.

[reohn2]

Its insanity. If pickpockets were on the loose in a town centre, you wouldn't ban shoppers. Its staggering to any thinking person that a sector of society can cause such massive danger, yet instead of addressing the causes of that danger we penalise and segregate the victims so the offenders can carry on as before.

Spot on!

We might, and I mean might, now be seeing the first cracks in this crazy convention, as tailpipe pollution has reached crisis point. Suddenly there's a need to address the actual problem caused by cars, although I fear that response may prove ineffective if being "fair" to those who bought diesels is deemed more important than stopping people from dying.

We're about to leave the EU and as result it's laws around pollution levels.
I'm not holding any hope out that should the Tories win the up coming GE,they'll tighten any such laws.
More likely they'll do the opposite claiming the justification being that it'll hamper business interests.
It's even less likely they'll cough up any more funding for decent cycling provision or curb the use of ICE powered vehicles in densely populated cities and towns,nor will they improve public transport in such areas.
It's more likely they'll continue to repeat their mantra of 'let the market decide',whilst public health continues to suffer.

[peetee]

Its insanity. If pickpockets were on the loose in a town centre, you wouldn't ban shoppers.

So what does the highway authority do? Cyclists are rare at this junction and I believe this fact contributed to the incident first mentioned. Nevertheless, any single cyclist using a junction should expect provision for their safe passage when riding lawfully. However, putting such a safety margin into that sort of junction would result in 99.99% of road users being delayed excessively between light phases and, more significantly for the highways authority, a significant percentage of the days traffic flow is lost.
Can't see a winner here.

[Vorpal]

Its insanity. If pickpockets were on the loose in a town centre, you wouldn't ban shoppers.

So what does the highway authority do?

Either redesign the junction so that it isn't so hostile, or build decent segregated infrastructure.

[gaz]

... putting such a safety margin into that sort of junction would result in 99.99% of road users being delayed excessively between light phases ...

How can a delay that delivers the required safety margin be excessive?

The highway authority are unlikely to change anything. If they do it will probably involve a scenario with multiple toucan crossings, creating excessive delays between light phases for "the safety of the cyclists" without inconveniencing motorists.

[Vorpal]

Can't see a winner here.

The winner is more people cycling, and fewer people driving.

The loser is nothing except the attitude that motor traffic flow is the be all & end all of infrastructure design.

[drossall]

So what does the highway authority do? Cyclists are rare at this junction and I believe this fact contributed to the incident first mentioned.

It's a classic case of knowing which is the cause and which the effect. Is the junction designed like that because few cyclists want to go west from the centre, or do few cyclists want to go that way because the junction is designed like that?

In an ideal world, the road wouldn't be built like that, because it's taken road space belonging to all users and devoted it to those who are largest in number, without addressing the rest at all. Further west, by the look of it, the high-speed road has been built on top of the line of the road needed by the public in general.

On the whole, I suspect that looking at the junction in isolation is the wrong question. Instead, figure out where cyclists would want to go to and from, and provide for that (ideally with the same aim in mind as for the dual carriageway, i.e. providing an efficient means of getting travellers to and from their destinations, which rather precludes roundabout routes or gaz's endless string of toucans).

[mjr]

Just put zebras with parallel cycling crossings on all arms of the junction. They have no impact on junction capacity in the most common theoretical models

[peetee]

It's a classic case of knowing which is the cause and which the effect. Is the junction designed like that because few cyclists want to go west from the centre, or do few cyclists want to go that way because the junction is designed like that?

It's designed like that because there are few cyclists using it because it leads to what is effectively a 3 lane urban motorway. There is a designated cycling route avoiding the road but this junction and a large proportion of the West Quay local has been redeveloped since the construction of the bike route and the cycle route signage in this area is very poor. I might also say that what cyclist I have seen riding on the 3 lane section do not appear to be of the type that ride with any concession to hi-vis clothing, protective headgear or efficient bike set up. It's difficult not to draw the conclusion that those that are aware and road savvy are 1/4 mile away on the designated cycle route and don't mind the additional mileage and time penalty that incurs. And what a time penalty! If you wish to follow this route all the way to the outskirts of the city you will have to be very patient and prepared to weave around and about (sometimes crossing unprotected junctions using guesswork ) the feeder lanes of what is very nearly a dead straight road.

[Lance Dopestrong]

So what does the highway authority do? Cyclists are rare at this junction and I believe this fact contributed to the incident first mentioned.

Design a safe junction, and suddenly cyclists will not be rare any more. Its not difficult - there are ten of thousands around the country they can emulate.

I've little sympathy for car drivers who get delayed, particularly as most of them are taking up such a vast amount of real estate to move a single person. It is their vehicles clogging up the road which causes congestion and delays, not cyclists.

[pwa]

There are not many bits of road that are so extremely hostile for cycling that I would favour a ban. Very few indeed. And we need the great majority of roads to remain open to us if we are to retain a proper, comprehensive network. Closing a bit of road to cyclists should only happen in very extreme circumstances. But in those circumstances it should happen. And to preserve life, it should happen straight away, as a first measure, even before an alternative is thought about. It is regrettable that bad planning gets us to that point, but in that situation the priority has to be saving life. Providing alternatives, though essential, takes time. We cannot have people in unacceptably high danger during that time. I emphasis again that I am talking about a very small minority of roads, very extreme examples. My nearest town is Bridgend and I can think of no roads there that fall into that category. I can think of one in Cardiff (mentioned earlier) but cyclists do not use it anyway.

[pwa]

So what does the highway authority do? Cyclists are rare at this junction and I believe this fact contributed to the incident first mentioned.

Design a safe junction, and suddenly cyclists will not be rare any more. Its not difficult - there are ten of thousands around the country they can emulate.

I've little sympathy for car drivers who get delayed, particularly as most of them are taking up such a vast amount of real estate to move a single person. It is their vehicles clogging up the road which causes congestion and delays, not cyclists.

The problem with your last statement is that it is very Them and Us, and in this case Them are a lot more numerous than Us. If you want to improve things on the ground you have to win people over to your way of thinking. And you need to win over motorists who don't cycle much. Saying you don't care about motorists, as though they are a separate species, won't help.

[Lance Dopestrong]

The problem with that is that it then sets a precedent. Next time someone wants to close a road to cyclists it is a little bit easier to justify, and the next, and the next, and once accepted it will become routine. We should be no more banning cyclists from roads than we would ban ladies from wearing short skirts on a night out.

Cycling seems to be unique in the eyes of society, in that where risk is identified it is the cyclist that is targeted for attention instead of the cause of that risk.

Target the problem, and if its urgent target it urgently. Treating the symptoms alone never works, and serves only to allow the disease to progress and worsen.

[pwa]

The problem with that is that it then sets a precedent. Next time someone wants to close a road to cyclists it is a little bit easier to justify, and the next, and the next, and once accepted it will become routine. We should be no more banning cyclists from roads than we would ban ladies from wearing short skirts on a night out.

Cycling seems to be unique in the eyes of society, in that where risk is identified it is the cyclist that is targeted for attention instead of the cause of that risk.

Target the problem, and if its urgent target it urgently. Treating the symptoms alone never works, and serves only to allow the disease to progress and worsen.

I take your point about setting a precedent. That is a consideration.