Oxford quickways

User avatar
6.5_lives_left
Posts: 112
Joined: 9 Oct 2020, 9:27pm

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by 6.5_lives_left »

Slightly off topic but elsewhere in Oxfordshire, they have just resurfaced the bridge that crosses the Thames in the middle of Wallingford. When they repainted the white lines, they got rid of the pair of less than a meter wide "cycle lanes". They have now put painted bicycle symbols in the centre of the road.

For those not familiar with this bridge, it is traffic light controlled with only one lane of traffic available. Vehicles wanting to cross have to take turns to use this single lane. It is long too, probably more than 200 meters.

I think it is an improvement, or at least it will be when they get rid of the temporary lights and reinstate the full time lights.
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by mattheus »

6.5_lives_left wrote: 2 Aug 2022, 11:58pm Slightly off topic but elsewhere in Oxfordshire, they have just resurfaced the bridge that crosses the Thames in the middle of Wallingford. When they repainted the white lines, they got rid of the pair of less than a meter wide "cycle lanes". They have now put painted bicycle symbols in the centre of the road.

For those not familiar with this bridge, it is traffic light controlled with only one lane of traffic available. Vehicles wanting to cross have to take turns to use this single lane. It is long too, probably more than 200 meters.

I think it is an improvement, or at least it will be when they get rid of the temporary lights and reinstate the full time lights.
Yes, it sounds good 👍

At the weekend I only saw fresh tarmac, but no paint yet. Saturday morning was fun - no working lights of any kind!!! :O

(I think another Wally resident said that letting bikes through all the time was discussed - but not for very long ... )
AndyK
Posts: 1495
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm
Location: Mid Hampshire

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by AndyK »

mattheus wrote: 3 Aug 2022, 8:57am
6.5_lives_left wrote: 2 Aug 2022, 11:58pm Slightly off topic but elsewhere in Oxfordshire, they have just resurfaced the bridge that crosses the Thames in the middle of Wallingford. When they repainted the white lines, they got rid of the pair of less than a meter wide "cycle lanes". They have now put painted bicycle symbols in the centre of the road.

For those not familiar with this bridge, it is traffic light controlled with only one lane of traffic available. Vehicles wanting to cross have to take turns to use this single lane. It is long too, probably more than 200 meters.

I think it is an improvement, or at least it will be when they get rid of the temporary lights and reinstate the full time lights.
Yes, it sounds good 👍

At the weekend I only saw fresh tarmac, but no paint yet. Saturday morning was fun - no working lights of any kind!!! :O

(I think another Wally resident said that letting bikes through all the time was discussed - but not for very long ... )
Yes - only been over that bridge a few times, but it sticks in my mind as an unpleasant experience, arguably the worst point of NCN 5 between Abingdon and Reading. The cycle lanes were an open invitation for drivers to squeeze you off the road (or even over the parapet!). Obviously it doesn't entirely solve the problem: if you're at the front of the traffic queue you're going to feel intimidated by the vehicles behind you, so it's still a deterrent to cycling. That location is really crying out for an elegant foot/cycle bridge just upstream, like the Christchurch Bridge further downriver in Reading/Caversham.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by Jdsk »

The Wallingford bridge and how the change was effected:

"Is this too narrow to pass and who do I tell?":
viewtopic.php?t=151398

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 3 Aug 2022, 11:51am The Wallingford bridge and how the change was effected:

"Is this too narrow to pass and who do I tell?":
viewtopic.php?t=151398

Jonathan
Thanks - I'd never have noticed that topic otherwise! (it sounds like yet-another-close-pass-topic).
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by Stevek76 »

As I mentioned in that thread, that change is also more oxford(shire) paint rubbish, the obvious solution is shut the bridge to private motor traffic who have a perfectly good and far higher standard bridge that was actually built with motor vehicles in mind (!) to use under a mile to the south.


Re NL, it is not my understanding that roundabouts are particularly a preferred solution there, it depends on location and context, as does the choice on whether cyclists or motor vehicles should be the ones yielding. Cycles yielding tends to be the option in quieter rural areas though the longer term goal where roads are in any way busy is to just grade separate them altogether.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Pete Owens
Posts: 2440
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by Pete Owens »

6.5_lives_left wrote: 2 Aug 2022, 11:58pm Slightly off topic but elsewhere in Oxfordshire, they have just resurfaced the bridge that crosses the Thames in the middle of Wallingford. When they repainted the white lines, they got rid of the pair of less than a meter wide "cycle lanes". They have now put painted bicycle symbols in the centre of the road.
Excellent news
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by mattheus »

Stevek76 wrote: 3 Aug 2022, 12:20pm As I mentioned in that thread, that change is also more oxford(shire) paint rubbish, the obvious solution is shut the bridge to private motor traffic who have a perfectly good and far higher standard bridge that was actually built with motor vehicles in mind (!) to use under a mile to the south.
... but a lot less convenient for getting to Waitrose.
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by Stevek76 »

Entirely part of the point and benefit of such a closure! Same idea as LTNs in general, dramatically increase perceived 'cost' of using a car for short walk/cyclable trips and decrease perceived 'cost' of walk/cycle at the same time by providing a quiet and pleasant bridge that isn't full of impatient motons in 2.5t ****panzers trying to run them over.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6249
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Good news about Wallingford. I don't live in the area but use the bridge a fair amount. And yes, complete closure to motor vehicles would be even better, but it's still an improvement.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by mjr »

Pete Owens wrote: 2 Aug 2022, 6:18pm
mjr wrote: 2 Aug 2022, 5:00pm
Pete Owens wrote: 2 Aug 2022, 2:43pm
A simple priority junction - ie the vast majority of junctions on the road network.
Yes, but which priority? This is like getting blood out of a stone.
The danger is caused by parallel streams of traffic crossing each other through a junction - whatever priority rules apply.

Whether the stream approaching in the right hand lane and heading to the left has priority or whether the stream approaching in the left hand lane and heading right has priority it is dangerous, because you put road users in the position of having to give way to traffic coming from behind.
Which is why standard layouts and priority rules mitigate against that hazard. If we believed your "danger is caused by parallel streams of traffic crossing each other through a junction" was unavoidable, junctions like the A52/A601 junction in Derby or the A45/A428/A508/others sequence in Northampton should be required have even more flyovers, spaghetti junction style, so someone entering from the left and leaving eventually on the right doesn't have to cross parallel streams.

That's far more absurd than the idea of requiring motorists approaching from behind (as in lane 2 of a 🚲 ↰ ⭡ ↱ layout) to obey the law and give way to cyclists in lane 1 as they turn.
If you still fail to grasp this why not post the image on the left to a motoring forum as a suggestion for an improved lane arrangement for motorway junctions - and report back to us if anyone posts back a reply along the lines of "what a good idea, why has no one ever thought of that".
Because it would be spectacularly uninformative! Firstly, that layout is substandard anyway because the left and ahead should not be combined in that situation. But moreover, many on motoring forums spit their dummies at perfectly standard roundabout geometry and have multiple coronary infarctions at the sight of any layout that puts left-turning traffic to the right of right-turning traffic, regardless of whether they are safer than alternatives. Many motorists just don't like to slow down, whether for roundabouts, lights or give-ways.

More generally, I'm amazed that you seem to be arguing we should keep motoring forums happy.
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.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2440
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by Pete Owens »

mjr wrote: 3 Aug 2022, 1:43pm
Pete Owens wrote: 2 Aug 2022, 6:18pm
mjr wrote: 2 Aug 2022, 5:00pm
Yes, but which priority? This is like getting blood out of a stone.
The danger is caused by parallel streams of traffic crossing each other through a junction - whatever priority rules apply.

Whether the stream approaching in the right hand lane and heading to the left has priority or whether the stream approaching in the left hand lane and heading right has priority it is dangerous, because you put road users in the position of having to give way to traffic coming from behind.
Which is why standard layouts and priority rules mitigate against that hazard.
And they do this by arranging for left turning traffic to approach in the left most lane and right turning traffic to approach in the right most lane - thus avoiding conflicting movements through the junction. And they do this every single time without fail when they are dealing with the proper motorised traffic that they care about because they understand that to do otherwise would be stupidly dangerous.
If we believed your "danger is caused by parallel streams of traffic crossing each other through a junction" was unavoidable, junctions like the A52/A601 junction in Derby
Where at the approach to every single R/L bifurcation there are overhead signs indicating the the appropriate lane. And in every single case traffic heading for the LEFT hand arm is instructed to use the LEFT hand lane or lanes and traffic heading for the RIGHT hand arm is instructed to use the RIGHT hand lane or lanes. This ensures that streams of traffic do not cross each others paths through the junction.
or the A45/A428/A508/others sequence in Northampton should be required have even more flyovers, spaghetti junction style, so someone entering from the left and leaving eventually on the right doesn't have to cross parallel streams.
Both those junctions are roundabouts with a flyovers for the A45. If you approach in either direction on the A45 there are overhead gantry signs instructing traffic exiting LEFT on the slip road to take the LEFT hand lanes and all traffic continuing on the A45 to use the RIGHT hand lanes. This ensures that streams of traffic do not cross each others paths through the junction.

At the approaches to the roundabout there signs directing traffic to get into the appropriate lane for their destination. With traffic taking the first exit in the LEFT lane(s) and traffic taking the last exit in the RIGHT lane(s) Those lanes continue round the roundabout, spiralling outwards, so by the time you reach your exit you will be in the left most lane. This ensures that streams of traffic do not cross each others paths through the junction.

The only conflicting traffic movements remaining are the entrances to the roundabout - and ALL of those are signal controlled.
That's far more absurd than the idea of requiring motorists approaching from behind (as in lane 2 of a 🚲 ↰ ⭡ ↱ layout) to obey the law and give way to cyclists in lane 1 as they turn.
Well it would be IF the signs on the A45 instructed traffic heading over the flyover to approach in the LEFT hand lane and traffic exiting to the slip road to the LEFT to approach in the RIGHT hand lane. BUT THEY DON'T because that would be dangerous (whichever rule of priority was adopted) - NOT ONE of your examples supports your case; traffic engineers simply do not subject motorists to such stupidity.

And of course it is much worse still for two way cycle farcilities where you are requiring drivers to give way to traffic coming from behind on the other side of the road hidden behind the stream of oncoming traffic.
⭡ ↱ v v 🚲

You will not find a real world case of ⭡ ↰ ⭡ lane makings or more generally any case of ↱↰ unless one of those lanes is a cycle facility.
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-th ... il2004.htm
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-th ... st2001.htm
These look obviously absurd because of the explicit lane marking arrows, but the problem is intrinsic to all cycleways where they cross junctions.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by mjr »

mjr wrote: 3 Aug 2022, 1:43pm
Pete Owens wrote: 2 Aug 2022, 6:18pm
The danger is caused by parallel streams of traffic crossing each other through a junction - whatever priority rules apply.[...]
Which is why standard layouts and priority rules mitigate against that hazard.
And they do this by arranging for left turning traffic to approach in the left most lane and right turning traffic to approach in the right most lane - thus avoiding conflicting movements through the junction.
That's one option. Others include bending the streams out of parallel or, as discussed previously, signals or flyovers. Interestingly, most of the big bending streams examples I knew (both hook turns and Michigan turns) have now had lights festooned on them or been converted into flyover junctions, probably in yet another attempt to wring every last theoretical bit of capacity from it.
And they do this every single time without fail when they are dealing with the proper motorised traffic that they care about because they understand that to do otherwise would be stupidly dangerous.
I am disappointed but not surprised to see you imply that cycle traffic is not proper traffic.
If we believed your "danger is caused by parallel streams of traffic crossing each other through a junction" was unavoidable, junctions like the A52/A601 junction in Derby
Where at the approach to every single R/L bifurcation there are overhead signs indicating the the appropriate lane. And in every single case traffic heading for the LEFT hand arm is instructed to use the LEFT hand lane or lanes and traffic heading for the RIGHT hand arm is instructed to use the RIGHT hand lane or lanes. This ensures that streams of traffic do not cross each others paths through the junction.
I see! By the simple magic of declaring the complex Eastgate junction to actually be a sequence of single R/L bifurcation junctions, it is declared to meet the Pete Owens safety standard.

Therefore, I declare every cycleway/carriageway junction to be distinct from the neighbouring carriageway/carriageway junction, ergo also safe because there the streams are crossing perpendicularly, whether or not there is sufficient clearance.
or the A45/A428/A508/others sequence in Northampton should be required have even more flyovers, spaghetti junction style, so someone entering from the left and leaving eventually on the right doesn't have to cross parallel streams.
Both those junctions are roundabouts with a flyovers for the A45.
No, they are not. The A45 only has a flyover over the A428. You might want to check you looked at the right junction.

And I would say it is effectively a single junction, as you need to select your lane as signed on entry to avoid having to dive across lanes later, but if you are declaring Derby Eastgate to be multiple junctions, there's no hope here!
[...] You will not find a real world case of ⭡ ↰ ⭡ lane makings or more generally any case of ↱↰ unless one of those lanes is a cycle facility.
There definitely are cases of ↱↰ like the A30 / A308 junction, but they now paint them as ↰ ⭡ until after the first stage of the junction to stop morons turning right without pulling left. Similar to how they now paint the right-turn lane on entry to a roundabout as a ⭡ or at most a slight right bend.

If you want to talk about world cases, of course hook turns are widely used in other countries. Melbourne drivers really kicked off when they were introduced for them.
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-th ... il2004.htm
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-th ... st2001.htm
These look obviously absurd because of the explicit lane marking arrows, but the problem is intrinsic to all cycleways where they cross junctions.
April 2004's example was probably substandard then and it definitely is now. August 2001's definitely was. Warrington is rubbish. We all agree on that. Where we disagree is whether Warrington should have to bring this nonsense up to standard or its motoring-first highways officers should be rewarded for their long hate by being allowed to remove all cycling infrastructure and give the roads back to bullying motorists.
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.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by Jdsk »

Jdsk wrote: 31 Jul 2022, 10:09am Cowley Road Quickway starts on 10 August 2022.
I cycled down and up this afternoon. Some new road markings and lots burnt off and work clearly not finished. Not much traffic.

I was thinking that not much had changed. Then I got to the climb up past the police station. There's a new short cycle lane which ends at the junction with Temple Road. The traffic was stationary, backed up from either Temple Road or the lights at Hollow Way: this is common. Every one of the cars was occupying some part of the cycle lane. There was room for me to pass them all on the left. I had a chat with as many as I could before they started moving.

I need to have another look but I suspect that the drivers found it too uncomfortable to position their vehicles far enough to the right to avoid the cycle lane. Something else needs to change if this isn't going to continue.

Jonathan

Image
Last edited by Jdsk on 21 Aug 2022, 7:38pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Oxford quickways

Post by Jdsk »

Post Reply