Cambridge - 2 left hooks in 2 days

[atlas_shrugged]

This is highly depressing. Cambridge has always had a large number of cyclist KSI'd at road junctions. The CC has responded by adding segregated cycleways beside the roads. At some junctions this segregation has continued with priority given to cycles on the main route just like motor vehicles have priority if they are on the main route. This protection (of a coloured grade segregated route) appears to be inadequate:

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/c ... n-16003673

Just like the Ely low bridge just to the North of Cambridge some drivers seems to be unable to see warning signs, or in the case of segregated cycleways to be able to see cycles.

.... So what is the best solution

1) Put in Greenway underpasses at side junctions
2) Vehicles to be fitted with kill transponders and cameras at junctions bring vehicles to instant stop when there is danger
3) 5 mph turning speed limits with cameras issuing fines
4) Default liability with automatic 10M fines
5) Continue wringing liberal bedwetter hands and say aint this awful

[squeaker]

Presumed liability: simples

[Pete Owens]

Since segregated cycleways are known to dramatically increase the likelihood of collisions at junctions the solution is simple:
Remove the cycleways.

[mjr]

For every problem, there is an answer that is simple, obvious and wrong... and the claim that cycleways increase collision risk depends on some very dodgy statistics.

Bateman Street where the first left hook happened hasn't had a cycleway added, has it? And Hills Road cycleway where the van one happened isn't grade-segregated like many in MK else the left hooks would be physically impossible.

The Homerton College Hills Road entrance should have had the pavement relaid across its entrance or at least had bollards installed to force turning vehicles to slow and turn across the cycleway more carefully and slowly but UK local governments don't want to spend the money.

Homerton College Cambridge entrance https://mapstreetview.com/#v2jmy_2y0b_44.f_-8g39

University College Groningen entrance https://mapstreetview.com/#vol6c_3wh7d_19_f_dk39

[Vorpal]

How do we know these were left hooks?

[mjr]

How do we know these were left hooks?

Good question. The Bateman Road one: the description and photo suggests a left turning bus and I've had Mil-Ken do similar to me before. The Hills Road one is much less certain to me as the picture of a van seems unrelated, but the Homerton College entrance is still a rubbish layout. I may be trusting the OP too much.

[Pete Owens]

For every problem, there is an answer that is simple, obvious and wrong... and the claim that cycleways increase collision risk depends on some very dodgy statistics.

No it depends on basing policy on evidence (and a significant and longstanding body of research at that) - rather than succumbing to confirmation bias and rejecting any evidence that happens contradict you personal preconceptions. We are not talking about some marginal effect here with small signal difficult to tease out from other confounding factors, but a factor of 3 - 10 increase.

And what is more the reason for the danger is obvious and easy to understand. If you arrange the lanes approaching a junction so that traffic heading to the left is approaching in a lane to the right of traffic heading right you will get collisions at the crossover point.

Simply dismissing all the research as "dodgy statistics" is no more convincing than Donald Trump describing climate science as "fake news"

[atlas_shrugged]

The coach and the Grey van (assumed this was the van at issue) were both turning left according to the photos.

The coach accident it appears does not fit the definition of a left hook as some reports suggest the cyclist was exiting from the side junction rather than travelling in the direction of the coach.

I have to admit a difficulty in finding out what happened in these accidents. Cambridge accidents are investigated by a police unit In Huntingdon and then inquests are held in Peterborough. Near relatives of victims are often not given details of the accident until more than 1 year later. So I hold my hand up to not being able to provide proper evidence.

[mjr]

For every problem, there is an answer that is simple, obvious and wrong... and the claim that cycleways increase collision risk depends on some very dodgy statistics.

No it depends on basing policy on evidence (and a significant and longstanding body of research at that) - rather than succumbing to confirmation bias and rejecting any evidence that happens contradict you personal preconceptions.

No, it's based on interpreting evidence in a way that succumbs to your own confirmation bias, such as the Jensen study discussed in other threads.

We are not talking about some marginal effect here with small signal difficult to tease out from other confounding factors, but a factor of 3 - 10 increase. And what is more the reason for the danger is obvious and easy to understand. If you arrange the lanes approaching a junction so that traffic heading to the left is approaching in a lane to the right of traffic heading right you will get collisions at the crossover point.

That danger happens anywhere there are multiple conflicting lanes. Removing its source by removing the left-turn would be best, but at places like college entrances, there's no other access, so there will always be conflicts and what should be low-speed turning conflicts at a well-designed junction will be far less injurious than the higher speed merge and overtaking/sideswipe conflicts that happen in wide lanes shared between cyclists and motorists of the sort Pete Owens has advocated in the past.

Simply dismissing all the research as "dodgy statistics" is no more convincing than Donald Trump describing climate science as "fake news"

OK, to be clearer, we've discussed some of those studies at length on here before after a death (and in other threads and on other sites - generally a common theme is Pete Owens simply stops replying) and I feel the claim of cycleways being more dangerous relies on interpretations of evidence that were dubious when published decades ago. I'm happy to discuss the evidence yet again, but now I dismiss the assertion simply because it's been presented before and the holes shown. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=88619 may be a better topic for it, to allow this one to continue with these specific incidents.

[atlas_shrugged]

So if you had a budget of £10M to reengineer these junctions so that accidents that affected cyclists / walkers never happed at these junctions what would you recommend?

[mjr]

So if you had a budget of £10M to reengineer these junctions so that accidents that affected cyclists / walkers never happed at these junctions what would you recommend?

Hard to say on Bateman Street until we know what occurred, but ideally I'd close Homerton site's current entrances, give them a new one off the west end of Luard whose junction with Hills is already a lot better, plus that would allow some of its traffic to use Long Road instead.

As a minimum, Homerton should be narrowed with tighter corners and have signs and double give-ways like Luards and I don't understand why it doesn't already - powerful college?

[CliveyT]

I passed by the Homerton college incident just as the ambulance was turning up. (Didn't stop, there were enough people there already, didn't see the incident itself). I do cycle that route nearly every day and I can see both sides of the argument. I'm not even sure what the official status of the cycle lane is, there's no blue sign anywhere, and no white painted line. The cycle lane is a different colour, has the bike symbol painted on it and is separated by a line of white bricks. Cars generally avoid it, (unless they want to undertake vehicles turning right and it provides a convenient place for delivery drivers to park).
I also cycle quite cautiously in town and I don't undertake vehicles indicating left, but when I do stop for them I will very often be overtaken by other cyclists. I've also been left-hooked along here, by someone who got fed-up with the traffic and decided to turn off the main road without bothering to look or indicate. Fortunately the spidey sense was operating at full-strength that day and I managed to make most of the turn alongside them before quite gently sliding into the side of the car. I've also seen and avoided right hooks along here because pre-9am the traffic heading into town is generally not moving and occasionally they are kind enough to leave gaps so cars heading in the other direction can turn across them (sometimes they go slowly and look out for cyclists, often they're fed up of sitting waiting for a gap that they just go for it).
It's a great cycle lane, well-surfaced (won't last) and wide enough for two cyclists side-by-side, but it isn't perfect and like most things, it requires both sides to take a bit more care.

[CliveyT]

So if you had a budget of £10M to reengineer these junctions so that accidents that affected cyclists / walkers never happed at these junctions what would you recommend?

Hard to say on Bateman Street until we know what occurred, but ideally I'd close Homerton site's current entrances, give them a new one off the west end of Luard whose junction with Hills is already a lot better, plus that would allow some of its traffic to use Long Road instead.

As a minimum, Homerton should be narrowed with tighter corners and have signs and double give-ways like Luards and I don't understand why it doesn't already - powerful college?

I would say Homerton is probably one of the least powerful of all the Cambridge Colleges. Luard street has its own traffic problems. It's used as a rat-run for traffic trying to avoid Hills Rd and the pupils for two different 6th form colleges are heading up and down it in the morning so there is already a lot of cycle traffic on there. The double give-ways (for people that don't know it, there is also a shared use path on the footway as well as the red cycle path) don't work because the view of Hills Rd is too restricted so you have to go to the second line before you realise something's coming and have to stop).
You'd also have to buy one of the houses along Luards to put the entrance in. I Cambridge in that area that's £1M+ before you can do anything

[mjr]

Luard street has its own traffic problems. It's used as a rat-run for traffic trying to avoid Hills Rd and the pupils for two different 6th form colleges are heading up and down it in the morning so there is already a lot of cycle traffic on there. The double give-ways (for people that don't know it, there is also a shared use path on the footway as well as the red cycle path) don't work because the view of Hills Rd is too restricted so you have to go to the second line before you realise something's coming and have to stop).

I thought the shared-use had gone now the cycleway was finished? Looks like they've even painted walking symbols on it to make it clearer:
https://mapstreetview.com/#v2ho2_2zbq_62.d_-fh41
I last rode that cycleway last week but I was watching for cyclists on the cycleway and motorists on the carriageway more than cyclists on the footway!

The layout may be imperfect (what would perfection be, other than closing the turning or big earthworks?), but it seems far better than Homerton's exit with no give-ways or signs and hasn't yet had a collision.

You'd also have to buy one of the houses along Luards to put the entrance in. I Cambridge in that area that's £1M+ before you can do anything

Yeah, but we've got £10M... but the west end of Luard Road actually terminates in a gate into open space, so no house purchase required - maybe we'd have to buy some land: https://mapstreetview.com/#v2gx4_2uoa_6v.s_-2h41

[MikeF]

Presumed liability: simples

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with prosecution for an offence or even blame.