thirdcrank wrote:The implication that GIVE WAY lines across a cycle track at every minor access somehow acts as a form of "cycle-calming" to the benefit of pedestrians seems bizarre. IMO, all we have here is that under the pretence of promoting cycling, cyclists have been practically, if not quite legally, forced of the carriageway onto an obviously substandard route. A curate's egg: straight bits are OK, junctions are rotten. When something utterly predictable goes wrong - in that the type of incident described in the OP has been regularly anticipated by the despised "vehicular" riders who have the effrontery to post - we end up pointing out that the rider involved seems to have failed to conform with a traffic sign.
The best argument for those give way lines are that even if they weren't there the only safe way to use that cycle track is to do a shoulder check every time you pass a junction. So they might encourgae some cyclists to do that. Having right of way doesn't mean it will be given. Motorists won't change their behaviour if that bit of paint is removed.
No give way lines might make getting compensation easier but I don't think it would reduce the accident rate.
irc wrote:The best argument for those give way lines are that even if they weren't there the only safe way to use that cycle track is to do a shoulder check every time you pass a junction. So they might encourgae some cyclists to do that. Having right of way doesn't mean it will be given. Motorists won't change their behaviour if that bit of paint is removed.
The safer way to use any road is to do a shoulder check every time you pass a junction. Having priority doesn't mean it will be given. Motorists don't all change their behaviour just because there's a give-way line painted across their path.
irc wrote:No give way lines might make getting compensation easier but I don't think it would reduce the accident rate.
Maybe not no give way lines, but I suspect give-way lines across the road would reduce the collision rate slightly, as some motorists would notice the lines and look for other road users, possibly stopping as a consequence. It would also probably reduce the number of car drivers who seem to think there's nothing wrong with stopping blocking a crossing instead of leaving a decent space for people to cross through (but maybe not - plenty stop on top of zebras and pelicans/puffins/toucans). I'm not sure it'll be significant and I'm fairly sure that the current collision statistics aren't detailed enough to make a comparison easy.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Well the safe option is no give-way lines on the path; bollards forcing any vehicle approaching from the road to turn at 90 degrees, so slowing them; stop signs and lines and a gate (that can detect a stationary vehicle waiting and lift to allow them through) to ensure vehicles stop before crossing the cycle path. The automatic gate would be the expensive bit, but if those motor vehicles need to access the seafront, this can surely be financed by VED .
MikeF wrote: I'm struggling with Surrey CC to repair a minor public road that has now become impassable on foot or bicycle.
I had one of those. I was kindly informed several times by the Essex CC highways dept. that they left it that way to discourage motor vehicle using it. Apparently some GPS systems thought it was good alternative to the main road. I would guess they had been giving this answer since the advent of GPS.
I reported an obstruction to the ROW office and got someone to come out and look at it with me. He agreed that it was impassable, and it was improved a few months later.
That's similar to Surrey's effective response and I can understand why they want to keep motor traffic to a minimum - it's signed unsuitable for motor vehicles in one direction. I haven't contacted anyone in ROW, because it's part of the road network.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
MikeF wrote: I'm struggling with Surrey CC to repair a minor public road that has now become impassable on foot or bicycle.
I had one of those. I was kindly informed several times by the Essex CC highways dept. that they left it that way to discourage motor vehicle using it. Apparently some GPS systems thought it was good alternative to the main road. I would guess they had been giving this answer since the advent of GPS.
I reported an obstruction to the ROW office and got someone to come out and look at it with me. He agreed that it was impassable, and it was improved a few months later.
That's similar to Surrey's effective response and I can understand why they want to keep motor traffic to a minimum - it's signed unsuitable for motor vehicles in one direction. I haven't contacted anyone in ROW, because it's part of the road network.
I didn't check the actual status. I think the one I had problems with was a BOAT, and there were two driveways off it at each end. The section between the driveways, though was completely impassable to horse or pedal cycle traffic, and almost impassable on foot most of the time.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
I originally contacted Brighton and Hove Council about the very poor design of the junctions back in 2011 and was fobbed off. I then contacted them again in 2015 after witnessing an accident similar to yours and was told by the Road Safety team that this was not their area and it was instead covered by the travel planning team.
As has been mentioned on here, chasing the driver for damages or getting the police to prosecute will be difficult due to the poor junction design, but as the council are obviously aware of this (and are aware of previous injuries here) and have done nothing they may be liable. Even if you don’t get your damages covered, it may at least force the council to fix the design. Have you contacted the Cyclist’s Defence Fund (https://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/) to see if they would be able to start a case against the council?
I still have my emails and the council responses, which could help build a case. If you want them, please let me know.
Hootsy wrote:I originally contacted Brighton and Hove Council about the very poor design of the junctions back in 2011 and was fobbed off. I then contacted them again in 2015 after witnessing an accident similar to yours and was told by the Road Safety team that this was not their area and it was instead covered by the travel planning team.
Other than that, yes, try to sue the negligent council.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
.
I would guess they had been giving this answer since the advent of GPS.