Cycle lanes for undertaking buses

[anothereye]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/c ... 28588.html
OK, so cycle path takes us 'round the back of the bus stop then it creates a danger as we re-enter the road in front of the bus?

[gaz]

There are plenty of prototypes for this type of scheme, here's a shared use bus stop in Kent.

It doesn't operate in exactly the same way as the proposed scheme. In this case the approach and exit to the shared use bus stop are both on a shared use footway.

HPIM0824.JPG

If anyone is waiting for a bus, boarding a bus or disembarking from a bus the space is too narrow for a cyclist to pass without risk of accident.

Adopting such an approach in the London scheme will deter cyclists from re-joining the road until after the bus has gone.

[anothereye]

Adopting such an approach in the London scheme will deter cyclists from re-joining the road until after the bus has gone.

and cyclists still have the choice of using the road, does that put an extra burden on the bus driver, having to look to both sides when pulling away?

BTW, since posting I've seen this:
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/transport-fo ... tee-safety
In this example the cyclists stay on the path until arriving at the junction.

[thirdcrank]

The fact that local public transport - buses, trolley buses and trams - need to stop frequently to pick up and set down passengers is likely to be a perennial problem for other modes, especially cyclists. When we used to have trams in Leeds - and they ran here later than most other places till 1959 - the lines generally ran up the middle of the road and passengers walked to and from the kerb to the tram, but there were loads of passengers and far fewer vehicles. When the stillborn Leeds Supertram was being planned, I asked about this and was told that there would be platforms in the middle of the road, with passengers entering and leaving the trams on the offside, with pelican crossings to take passengers to the pavement (Anybody spot a problem?)

If you accept that most of the people in the transport planning system are focused on the motor vehicle and in spite of all the fine words, other modes will generally be left to scrabble over the leftovers, you'll get the picture.

Cry "Humbug!" and release the RLJers. I may have that as my motto.

[gaz]

The bus stop in my own example is in a rural part of Medway. I have ridden through it when people have been waiting for the bus; giving prior warning, proceeding at walking pace, and taking care.

Bus volumes are low (half hourly maximum), pedestrian and cycle volumes are also low. The on road alternative is an alleged 40mph dual carriageway, with a roundabout thrown in for good measure.

I am not familiar with the likely volume of cyclists, buses, pedestrians, etc. at the Bow scheme but I imagine them all to be very high. Personally I'd agree with the conclusion that the scheme is fundamentally flawed in terms of increasing potential conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians.

[PRL]

. When the stillborn Leeds Supertram was being planned, I asked about this and was told that there would be platforms in the middle of the road, with passengers entering and leaving the trams on the offside, with pelican crossings to take passengers to the pavement (Anybody spot a problem?)

That precise system seems to work in Geneva

[thirdcrank]

The problem I had in mind was the general disregard shown by drivers in the UK - including pedal cyclists - for the traffic lights at pedestrian crossings.

[BertYardbrush]

It's just wrong.
Cycles should be segregated from pedestrians in a clear and consistent way.

On my one and only visit to Amsterdam, I wandered as a pedestrian into the cycle lane - I moved back out of it pdq.
It's treating the cyclist as an add-on, an afterthought, the damned nuisance road user who they wish wasn't there.

It's not good enough. There needs to be clear common practice that is understood by all road users, all these local fudges just add to doubt, confusion and conflict.
Someone's going to get hurt - probably a pedestrian - and cyclists will be blamed.

[Vorpal]

. When the stillborn Leeds Supertram was being planned, I asked about this and was told that there would be platforms in the middle of the road, with passengers entering and leaving the trams on the offside, with pelican crossings to take passengers to the pavement (Anybody spot a problem?)

That precise system seems to work in Geneva

It works in Oslo, too. Though they only have the equivalent of zebra crossings*. On some streets, the trams have their own lane and the platform is between the tram lane and the lane used by most other traffic. The nice thing about that arrangement is that cyclists may use either lane.

On a few streets, cyclists and trams are the only allowed traffic. Learning to cross the tram tracks whilst travelling parallel to them takes a little practice, but once a cyclist gets to the middle of the tracks, it is a nice place to ride, and much faster in heavy traffic than the lanes used by all other traffic. Tram tracks can be hazardous, so it's obviously a trade-off. And in places where trams don't have a separate lane, the tracks are a real pain.

*Norwegian drivers seem to obey zebra crossings better than any place I've been before, even to the point of coming to a screeching halt when a pedestrian approaches the crossing but has not yet stepped onto it.

[thirdcrank]

Two ways of looking at something like this:

Drivers respecting pedestrian crossings is a good thing.

BUT, pedestrian crossings are just another type of farcility which restrict the movement of pedestrians, rather than enhance it.

According to CJ - and I've no reason to doubt him, pavements were introduced as a nice bit for walking on to save pedestrians from the mud and horse muck (and worse ) that used to pass as the carriageway. The downside of that has been that drivers, of everything from mules to juggernauts, have assumed that pedestrians have no rights whatsoever between the kerbs. This is a bad thing

I've posted before that in one of the "On this day" items in The Times where old articles are republished, they had something from around 1925 when the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis had issued an instruction that any reports for summons of drivers endangering people between a tram and the pavement must be referred to his office for a decision. A nod's as good as a wink.

[Ayesha]

The "Pavement" is any thoroughfare constructed for pedestrian or vehicular transit. There are some 'Pavements' that are now under the sea, they are that old.
The 'Sidewalk' is a raise footway alongside the pavement for pedestrians. al la CJ.

Henry Ford invented 'Sidewalks' BTW. Henry Ford invented everything

The 'Sidewalk' is for just that, walking beside a pavement with motorised vehicles on it. Non motorised vehicles do NOT use the 'Sidewalk'.

[Anglian]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cycle-lanes-for-undertaking-buses-8428588.html
OK, so cycle path takes us 'round the back of the bus stop then it creates a danger as we re-enter the road in front of the bus?

If there's room to build that little road for bikes to the left of the bus stop, then there ought to be room to build a stopping bay for the bus instead, so that a following cyclist can proceed without leaving his lane when the bus pulls over to stop.

Warmest regards,
Anglian

[PaulCumbria]

Hi Anglian, bus bays used to be commonplace.The problem is that drivers wouldn't let buses back out of the bays into the general traffic. That meant buses ran late and were less popular. Losing the bays was part of the move to prioritise buses.

[gaz]

The idea's a non-starter.

Cycle lanes aren't wide enough for an Undertaking Bus.