Sustrans Report "UK Cycle Network is unsafe for children"

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13742
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Sustrans Report "UK Cycle Network is unsafe for children"

Postby gaz » 21 Nov 2018, 4:58pm

MikeF wrote:Cycling direction signs need to be much bigger. They are all too easy to miss. In many places they could be included on the 'normal' road signs. That would also make drivers aware that cyclists use the roads as well!!

Like this one? Although I feel that bit of carriageway may not be suitable as a NCN route :wink: .

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14025
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Sustrans Report "UK Cycle Network is unsafe for children"

Postby mjr » 21 Nov 2018, 5:23pm

MikeF wrote:
Flinders wrote: I can use the roads anyway. And special junctions put in are, in my experience, more dangerous than if they had been left as they were before.

It's not a Sustrans route, but here is a route for cyclists at a roundabout. Cyclists need to cross 4 carriageways to turn right following the route provided, [...]

Unless I've overlooked something, it looks like a two-way cycleway all the way around the roundabout, so cyclists only need to cross 2 carriageways to turn right (the exit of the one they're arriving on and the entry of the one they're leaving) or 3 if they pulled onto the left-hand cycleway on their approach instead of merging at the end of the lane.

That said, the cycle track still far more dangerous than it needs to be because the crossings don't have perpendicular approaches and there's no adverse camber or tight angles to reduce motorists' speeds - the attached image from http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... lists.html summarises the problems - but let's not be silly and claim we have to go clockwise only.
Image Attachments
roundabout_comparison_safe_unsafe.png
Roundabout comparison
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.

MikeF
Posts: 3770
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Sustrans Report "UK Cycle Network is unsafe for children"

Postby MikeF » 21 Nov 2018, 7:06pm

mjr wrote:
MikeF wrote:
Flinders wrote: I can use the roads anyway. And special junctions put in are, in my experience, more dangerous than if they had been left as they were before.

It's not a Sustrans route, but here is a route for cyclists at a roundabout. Cyclists need to cross 4 carriageways to turn right following the route provided, [...]

Unless I've overlooked something, it looks like a two-way cycleway all the way around the roundabout, so cyclists only need to cross 2 carriageways to turn right (the exit of the one they're arriving on and the entry of the one they're leaving) or 3 if they pulled onto the left-hand cycleway on their approach instead of merging at the end of the lane.

That said, the cycle track still far more dangerous than it needs to be because the crossings don't have perpendicular approaches and there's no adverse camber or tight angles to reduce motorists' speeds - the attached image from http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... lists.html summarises the problems - but let's not be silly and claim we have to go clockwise only.
Confusion by my use of carriageway perhaps? I counted each direction of traffic flow as a carriageway. You are right you could possibly turn right by crossing just 3 carriageways, if you start cycling from the centre island of the exit.
To go straight ahead you need to cross the left exit to the central island and then cross the opposite lane from the central island so that's 2 carriageway crossings. To turn right you need to do that and then cross the carriageway you were using but on the opposite side of the r/a, and then cross the approaching carriageway so that makes 4 crosses
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14025
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Sustrans Report "UK Cycle Network is unsafe for children"

Postby mjr » 21 Nov 2018, 7:39pm

MikeF wrote:To go straight ahead you need to cross the left exit to the central island and then cross the opposite lane from the central island so that's 2 carriageway crossings. To turn right you need to do that and then cross the carriageway you were using but on the opposite side of the r/a, and then cross the approaching carriageway so that makes 4 crosses

No, you don't: turn right onto the central island that you arrive at first, cross the oncoming exit carriageway, then cross the roundabout entry carriageway of the arm you will leave on, then turn right onto the exit carriageway from the central island so that makes 2 crosses.

As I mentioned, that's an unnecessarily dangerous design, but let's not double the danger by making more crosses than needed.
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.

MikeF
Posts: 3770
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Sustrans Report "UK Cycle Network is unsafe for children"

Postby MikeF » 22 Nov 2018, 7:11pm

mjr wrote:
MikeF wrote:To go straight ahead you need to cross the left exit to the central island and then cross the opposite lane from the central island so that's 2 carriageway crossings. To turn right you need to do that and then cross the carriageway you were using but on the opposite side of the r/a, and then cross the approaching carriageway so that makes 4 crosses

No, you don't: turn right onto the central island that you arrive at first, cross the oncoming exit carriageway, then cross the roundabout entry carriageway of the arm you will leave on, then turn right onto the exit carriageway from the central island so that makes 2 crosses.

As I mentioned, that's an unnecessarily dangerous design, but let's not double the danger by making more crosses than needed.
Turn right onto the central island. :shock: You can do that only from the carriageway. Might as well turn right on the r/a than do that.

From the cycle track on the left hand side of the road the minimum number of crossed carriageways is 3.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14025
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Sustrans Report "UK Cycle Network is unsafe for children"

Postby mjr » 22 Nov 2018, 9:29pm

MikeF wrote:Turn right onto the central island. :shock: You can do that only from the carriageway. Might as well turn right on the r/a than do that.

From the cycle track on the left hand side of the road the minimum number of crossed carriageways is 3.

According to the images, no arms have cycle tracks more than a couple hundred metres long, so you're going to have approached on the carriageway, so why would you ever pull left onto a cycle track to turn right, especially in this country where it's optional and very rare such roundabout crossings are correctly angled?

Sure, you could use the roundabout if you want to go the long way round and put your safety even more into motorists' hands, risking two SMIDSYs and possibly two left hooks if you get your line slightly off. Still doesn't make the minimum crossings for an experienced cyclist more than 2.
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.

MikeF
Posts: 3770
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Sustrans Report "UK Cycle Network is unsafe for children"

Postby MikeF » 23 Nov 2018, 10:20am

mjr wrote:
MikeF wrote:Turn right onto the central island. :shock: You can do that only from the carriageway. Might as well turn right on the r/a than do that.

From the cycle track on the left hand side of the road the minimum number of crossed carriageways is 3.

According to the images, no arms have cycle tracks more than a couple hundred metres long, so you're going to have approached on the carriageway, so why would you ever pull left onto a cycle track to turn right, especially in this country where it's optional and very rare such roundabout crossings are correctly angled?

Sure, you could use the roundabout if you want to go the long way round and put your safety even more into motorists' hands, risking two SMIDSYs and possibly two left hooks if you get your line slightly off. Still doesn't make the minimum crossings for an experienced cyclist more than 2.
The A25 has painted cycle lanes for quite long stretches near this r/a (and also elsewhere). The problem with these is a separate issue. However on the approach to the r/a Surrey CC? has constructed a cycle friendly :roll: shared path for cyclists to use. The problem for cyclists is they need to stop and start at every carriageway crossing. If it had been constructed like the Dutch might have done (cyclists priority) then that wouldn't be necessary. Instead Surrey CC has adopted a "get cyclists off the road option" because that's safe for them approach. This also removes the hassle of motorists having to stop/give way to them - win/win and box ticked in their view. Problem solved. :roll:
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14025
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Sustrans Report "UK Cycle Network is unsafe for children"

Postby mjr » 23 Nov 2018, 11:09am

MikeF wrote:... a separate issue. However on the approach to the r/a Surrey CC? has constructed a cycle friendly :roll: shared path for cyclists to use. The problem for cyclists is they need to stop and start at every carriageway crossing. If it had been constructed like the Dutch might have done (cyclists priority) then that wouldn't be necessary. Instead Surrey CC has adopted a "get cyclists off the road option" because that's safe for them approach. This also removes the hassle of motorists having to stop/give way to them - win/win and box ticked in their view. Problem solved. :roll:

I agree it's rubbish but for a different reason: it's because they've botched the crossing approach angles so that any cyclist using the cycle tracks will be needing to look over their shoulder at at least one crossing. Would they dare build something with similar junction angles for motorists to use? Probably not, because motorists usually destroy other stuff/people when they crash and cyclists usually don't.

Priority? Surely we've been SMIDSY'd often enough to know that priority markings are basically just paint and we still have to look out for errant motorists? That's why we don't ride close to the side when riding through T junctions on the major route, for example. So I don't think priority markings would rescue that screw-up and I'm not sure the Dutch would have given an orbital cycle track priority (although many motorists do still give way at junctions like https://mapstreetview.com/#v4s93_2ozyi_z.0_-kh43 despite the markings).

That junction is rubbish because the approach angles are stupid and there's little to slow motorists on it, not because of priority or number of crossing conflict points.
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.

MikeF
Posts: 3770
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Sustrans Report "UK Cycle Network is unsafe for children"

Postby MikeF » 23 Nov 2018, 1:35pm

mjr wrote:
MikeF wrote:... a separate issue. However on the approach to the r/a Surrey CC? has constructed a cycle friendly :roll: shared path for cyclists to use. The problem for cyclists is they need to stop and start at every carriageway crossing. If it had been constructed like the Dutch might have done (cyclists priority) then that wouldn't be necessary. Instead Surrey CC has adopted a "get cyclists off the road option" because that's safe for them approach. This also removes the hassle of motorists having to stop/give way to them - win/win and box ticked in their view. Problem solved. :roll:

I agree it's rubbish but for a different reason: it's because they've botched the crossing approach angles so that any cyclist using the cycle tracks will be needing to look over their shoulder at at least one crossing. Would they dare build something with similar junction angles for motorists to use? Probably not, because motorists usually destroy other stuff/people when they crash and cyclists usually don't.

Priority? Surely we've been SMIDSY'd often enough to know that priority markings are basically just paint and we still have to look out for errant motorists? That's why we don't ride close to the side when riding through T junctions on the major route, for example. So I don't think priority markings would rescue that screw-up and I'm not sure the Dutch would have given an orbital cycle track priority (although many motorists do still give way at junctions like https://mapstreetview.com/#v4s93_2ozyi_z.0_-kh43 despite the markings).

That junction is rubbish because the approach angles are stupid and there's little to slow motorists on it, not because of priority or number of crossing conflict points.

I agree the junction is rubbish and there are millions like it. Dotted line paint marks aren't much good on their own, but they can be reinforced by design so motor traffic has to slow. Unfortunately here road designs are usually such that motor vehicle speeds can be maintained.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master