PDQ Mobile wrote:mjr wrote:rotavator wrote:But is that post in the middle of the cycle track safe or necessary?
Not safe, although risk looks minimised with white paint and reflective band.
While I hesitate to do so,
Clearly not for long enough.
PDQ Mobile wrote:mjr wrote:rotavator wrote:But is that post in the middle of the cycle track safe or necessary?
Not safe, although risk looks minimised with white paint and reflective band.
While I hesitate to do so,
PDQ Mobile wrote::shock: Now you know why I hesitated!
And your answer to the (what I see as) a polite and valid point is?
I guess the edited quote means you don't have one?
mattheus wrote:PDQ Mobile wrote::shock: Now you know why I hesitated!
And your answer to the (what I see as) a polite and valid point is?
I guess the edited quote means you don't have one?
My answer is that a more useful comparison would be with other furniture on rights-of-way e.g. bollards, signposts, arm-co, manhole covers whatever.
Comparing with human beings seems … less valuable. IMO.
mattheus wrote:Do you sink in water mjr? That's good news - at least you're not a witch
PDQ Mobile wrote:mattheus wrote:PDQ Mobile wrote::shock: Now you know why I hesitated!
And your answer to the (what I see as) a polite and valid point is?
I guess the edited quote means you don't have one?
My answer is that a more useful comparison would be with other furniture on rights-of-way e.g. bollards, signposts, arm-co, manhole covers whatever.
Comparing with human beings seems … less valuable. IMO.
Well I fail to see the logic of that at all.
If it makes something more visible then it is surely more useful to all road users?
To me that seems a reasonable conclusion to draw.
sjs wrote:mattheus wrote:Do you sink in water mjr? That's good news - at least you're not a witch
I imagine his bath isn't deep enough to float in. Whether it is or not, he'll displace a volume of water equal to the volume of MJR under it. If he's floating the weight of that water will equal his own weight.
Bmblbzzz wrote:I don't think I'd call the post unsafe and for certain it's far preferable to a slalom or chicane as usually installed on UK cycle paths.
It's a shame to lose priority. With the square corners reducing car speed and ensuring decent angles, it should be possible to maintain priority there. Even the UK is catching up with this one! Of course, if -- as it looks -- it's a rural road with low traffic and the side roads are not frequent, then it's less of a problem.
mjr wrote:Pete Owens wrote:mjr wrote:Ah, the classic old chestnut of an ancient dodgy risk calculation from a different design being applied to everything!
No the compilation of a large body of research over many years and different countries on the relative danger of cycle paths of various designs crossing priority junctions. It is no "dodgy" because it happens not to confirm your bias.
It's dodgy for many reasons, including: 1. it confounds a wide variety of designs
- some are good, some are bad - from a wide range of countries - each with different reporting practices - and a wide variety of collision types,
2. even if you don't accept that, 1993's Pete Owens claimed it was "a factor of 3 to 10" - what's changed?
At least it's not the notorious "11.3 times more dangerous" used by 1995's Pete Owens.
But we've had this discussion about this exact dodgy claim many times before, always inconclusively and usually with you stopping replying, like at viewtopic.php?p=870054#p870054 and viewtopic.php?f=7&t=119879&p=1206380#p1206380
mattheus wrote:PDQ Mobile wrote::shock: Now you know why I hesitated!
And your answer to the (what I see as) a polite and valid point is?
I guess the edited quote means you don't have one?
My answer is that a more useful comparison would be with other furniture on rights-of-way e.g. bollards, signposts, arm-co, manhole covers whatever.
Comparing with human beings seems … less valuable. IMO.
- some are good, some are bad - from a wide range of countries - each with different reporting practices - and a wide variety of collision types,
That is a strength - not a weakness. The fact that we see the same pattern repeatedly for different designs means that we can be confident that what we are seeing is a fundamental flaw in the concept of an at grade priority side road crossing (rather obvious when you consider that you are arranging for two parallel streams of traffic to cross each other from out of sight of each other), and can rule out design tweeks in the junction layout.
A factor of 11.3 will have from one of the individual studies and is entirely consistent with an overall figure of 10. We are taking about an order of magnitude here - not trying to tie down exactly how much more dangerous cycle path junctions are to 15 decimal places.
But we've had this discussion about this exact dodgy claim many times before, always inconclusively and usually with you stopping replying, like at viewtopic.php?p=870054#p870054 and viewtopic.php?f=7&t=119879&p=1206380#p1206380
And I'm sure that within minutes you will have replied to this one. I have better things to do with my time than engage in an endless oh-yes-it-is-oh-no-it-isn't exchange.
[XAP]Bob wrote:I'm yet to see a council put a road around a telegraph pole such that it obstructs one lane, or install some 'path' lighting by putting a lamppost in the middle of a carriageway.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Bollards and armco by design won't be on a right of way (they might serve to remark the extend of said ROW.