Traffic calming, paint & ...

[anothereye]

I've just drafted this, I'm looking for feedback before Friday: some ways of reducing danger for cyclists:
http://www.roadusers.net/draft.html

thanks

[kwackers]

Most of it looks pretty good, but I've a problem with the angled speed bump...

It's angled to reduce the relative angle to the cyclist right? But won't it have exactly the same effect on a car? In fact since the effect is simply to reduce the angle to any vehicle going straight over it why not reduce it in the first place...

But (I know what you're going to say) since hitting it in a car will cause wheels to hit alternatively (e.g. front left, front right, rear left, rear right etc) then as mentioned on your site this creates a weave that slows motorists down. Well, perhaps. Much more likely is it would increase the chances of them losing control since it increases the odds of the wheel being wrenched out of their hands - and they're pretty good at losing control over standard bumps as is.

I reckon you should lose the speed bump idea, I like the bicycle in the middle of the pinch points though.

[anothereye]

Most of it looks pretty good, but I've a problem with the angled speed bump...

It's angled to reduce the relative angle to the cyclist right? But won't it have exactly the same effect on a car? In fact since the effect is simply to reduce the angle to any vehicle going straight over it why not reduce it in the first place...

But (I know what you're going to say) since hitting it in a car will cause wheels to hit alternatively (e.g. front left, front right, rear left, rear right etc) then as mentioned on your site this creates a weave that slows motorists down. Well, perhaps. Much more likely is it would increase the chances of them losing control since it increases the odds of the wheel being wrenched out of their hands - and they're pretty good at losing control over standard bumps as is.

Point taken, it might need some kind of warning sign? If the driver has never encountered an angled hump then it could be tricky. Nevertheless, if it were commonplace the driver would know the danger & respond accordingly. Of course the motorists might decide to take it at an angle (ie. perpendicular to the bump) but surely that still means slowing down enough to swerve safely?

[Steady rider]

The yellow sign with keep left blue sign, Pinch point photo,

Could another sign be added below the blue sign on the yellow mount, it could be a 'No overtaking' but showing a car and bicycle.

The Highway Code shows a No overtaking sign with a red and black cars in a red circle and white background. The black car image would be replaced with a bicycle image.

The suggestion of adding the new sign would make it illegal to overtake a cyclist at the refuge and discourage overtaking.

Could someone provide a suitable sign? To make the sign clear an oval shape could give more space and allow for a bigger image of car and bicycle, easier to see but the yellow mounting may need to be wider.

ps the photo shows 2 clear pinch point and a third some way off, minimum spacing could be an issue, so that vehicles can overtake without too much difficulty before reaching the next refuge, at least 100m spacing may be required.

[thirdcrank]

It's a quite a while now since I submitted anything to anybody about traffic calming but I always tried to make several general points.

Speed reduction is to be welcomed, but:-

Any sort of vertical deviation (humps, bumps etc) which is sufficiently robust to affect traffic is likely to be a danger to cyclists.

Bearing in mind that so-called traffic calming is usually only installed when drivers are driving at inappropriate speed (ie impatiently) anything in the form of narrowings etc which puts cyclists in competion for road space with impatient drivers will risk fostering driver aggression towards cyclists.

I was less alert in those days to the uselessness of most cycle lanes than I am now and I would add to the above points that cycle lanes restrict the freedom of cyclists to chose the best route (eg past your parked cars) without giving any real protection from motor traffic.

Of course, the missing element is enforcement, which is not the responsibility of the highwaymen (nor even the responsibility of the police, or so it seems.)

[snibgo]

Good stuff. I'm not convinced by the angled humps. Perhaps when they are in pairs, they should be angled in opposite directions? That would really confuse motorists. But I fear that any angling is asking for trouble, ie loss of control.

No cycle lane is a safer option than a lane less than 1.5 meres wide.

Ignoring the typo, this is ambiguous. It could be read as, "The safest possible cycle lane is one that is less than 1.5 metres wide."

What you mean is, "If a cycle lane cannot be at least 1.5 metres wide, it is safer to have none at all."

[Pete Owens]

But cyclists actually need 2m of lateral space - see LTN 2-08 chaper 2 for an explanation:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/l ... n-2-08.pdf
1.5m is just rehashing existing crap standards that take no acount of cyclists needs.

1.5m cycle lanes result in cyclists getting less space than they would otherwise.
see:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... -lanes.pdf

[Richard Mann]

But cyclists actually need 2m of lateral space - see LTN 2-08 chaper 2 for an explanation:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/l ... n-2-08.pdf
1.5m is just rehashing existing crap standards that take no acount of cyclists needs.

1.5m cycle lanes result in cyclists getting less space than they would otherwise.
see:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... -lanes.pdf

That last report compares a 30mph site to a 40mph site, so tells us little other than that people pass wider at faster speeds. The assertion in the report that the two sites are identical except for the cycle lane is not true.

Ch2 of LTN2/08 says that the width of cyclist including wobbling can be taken to be about a metre, and that cars need to leave 1.05m clearance when overtaking at 30mph for the cyclist to be reasonably comfortable. Given the width of a car, that creates a requirement for 4.3m per direction for a design speed of 30mph. It's the lack of this width at the refuge that is the underlying problem. Ripping the refuge (and the turning lane) out and installing a Zebra would be a better option.

[snibgo]

It's difficult to know when to stop. In addition to the minimum=crap problem, I'd like to see something about mandatory vs advisory vs nothing at all, eg the silly blue paint that motorists can entirely ignore. And parking on bike lanes. And "cyclists dismount".

[thirdcrank]

I think there is a wider issue here than individual examples. Frankly, we have guidelines coming out of our lugs and we don't need more - a genuine attempt to follow existing official advice would achieve a great deal.

I've unsuccessfully tried to open the PDF reached by following a series of links but I fear there is something wrong with my computer.

The real danger of any deviation from the line "follow the guidelines" is that highwaymen pick and choose what to listen to or imagine they hear. This provokes the usual sneering response of "The troiuble with cyclists is they don't know what they want" and the almost inevitable result is more shabby shared-use farcilties.

[Steady rider]

Reconsidering the photo of a Pinch point, adding another sign showing a bicycle and car side by side, may to some drivers indicate they can go side by side at a refuge point, opposite to that intended of no overtaking.

A clearer sign would be needed. a red triangular sign with a bicycle and words saying 'No overtaking' may be better.

[[XAP]Bob]

The pinch point.

Why not widen the cycle lane - making it "optional", but dominant.

The humps.

Those with trikes and trailers rather rely on the humps being straight. I'd have to virtually stop when towing my kids to go over that...

[anothereye]

Thanks to all who have commented. The final (considerably amended) version is here:
http://fs10n2.sendspace.com/dl/fcddab6b ... _Ctee2.pdf

[[XAP]Bob]

Thanks to all who have commented. The final (considerably amended) version is here:
http://fs10n2.sendspace.com/dl/fcddab6b ... _Ctee2.pdf

Is there a real link to that?

[anothereye]

Thanks to all who have commented. The final (considerably amended) version is here:
http://fs10n2.sendspace.com/dl/fcddab6b ... _Ctee2.pdf

Is there a real link to that?

Just click on 'Download" at the bottom of the page it takes you to.