Some benefit for light segregation, more for full
Study (and note limitations which are reasonable - parts of the route/destination estimated via TfL's cynemon model) here:
https://findingspress.org/article/18226 ... astructure
Some benefit for light segregation, more for full
On balance, I'd take the floppy wands. They're highly visible; if driving, I think I'd be more inclined to instinctively avoid them than a kerb.Nearholmer wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 1:56pm I don’t know what objective facts or careful estimates might say, but I personally don’t like little sticky-up curbs or flimsy posts as demarcations either, both feel as if they could themselves become the cause of trouble.
Somewhere (France? Brighton? I dunno!) I saw some raised hump things which seemed quite good, only maybe 100mm high and 300mm wide, white, forming a continuous demarcation between a good, wide shared-use path that looked to have been created by widening a pavement, and the carriageway.
Locally we have a section of a good option turned bad, in the form of a full spec crash barrier between road and shared use path. Super you may think, but the form of the posts supporting the barrier is such that if you clipped one as you were cycling it would inflict grievous bodily harm, all sharp edges of press-formed steel sheet so that it’s like cycling past a field of razor blades up to waist height!
To see how much worse cycle lanes make conditions for cyclists take a look at:
Surely that risk — if indeed it still exists with current designs and not only the 1980s ones that old estimate relies upon — is included in that study's collected data and so is more than overcome by the other benefits?Pete Owens wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 3:01pmOnly if you count increasing the risk of collisions at junctions by a factor of 3 a "benefit".
No part of that study suggests that any cycling specific infrastructure leads to a factor 3 increase risk at junctions.Pete Owens wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 3:01pmOnly if you count increasing the risk of collisions at junctions by a factor of 3 a "benefit".
The increase risk which most certainly exists and has been known and well understood long before the 1980s - it was the reason that our parliament in the 1930s (being rather more rational and somewhat less authoritarian than those on the continent at the time) refused to legislate for their use to be compulsory - much to the chagrin of the highway planners who have always wanted us off the roads to keep the motor traffic flowing.mjr wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 3:12pmSurely that risk — if indeed it still exists with current designs and not only the 1980s ones that old estimate relies upon — is included in that study's collected data and so is more than overcome by the other benefits?Pete Owens wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 3:01pmOnly if you count increasing the risk of collisions at junctions by a factor of 3 a "benefit".
As a cyclist I tend to put a greater priority the safety of cyclists than facilitating the free flow of motor traffic - which is and always has been the purpose of segregation.and so is more than overcome by the other benefits?
Indeed. so let us agree simply agree to campaign to remove them, rather than adding even more hazards such as posts cluttering up what is already a restrictive narrow space.Let's rejoice in what we can all agree upon: advisory lanes are generally awful.
People keep posting that image and ignoring the reply: whether it is safe or not depends on the lights or controls of the junction ahead.Pete Owens wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 5:15pm
Any traffic engineer would be sacked for implementing the obviously dangerous lane markings on the left, yet they have spent decades (ever since they failed to make their use compulsory) trying to persuade us that the identical situation on the right is somehow for our benefit.
Nice way to avoid the question. So I guess you also see that the data says they are less injurious overall, even if you're right about the junctions.As a cyclist I tend to put a greater priority the safety of cyclists than facilitating the free flow of motor traffic - which is and always has been the purpose of segregation.and so is more than overcome by the other benefits?
No, because that would give the space back to motoring domination and drive most cycling off those roads. It would be much better to widen and protect the lanes, but some might be OK if motorists are slowed to 20mph and encouraged to use other routes.Indeed. so let us agree simply agree to campaign to remove them, rather than adding even more hazards such as posts cluttering up what is already a restrictive narrow space.Let's rejoice in what we can all agree upon: advisory lanes are generally awful.
Not so sure on that, I'd rather painted stuff was consigned to the bin entirely. Either you filter the road such that the motor vehicle demand is low enough that they become effective guests or routes are fully protected. The wide paint seen in some places in NL that these 'quickways' seem partly inspired by (though badly, in dutch equivalents these marked lanes tend to be 2.5m + wide, even if that leaves the central part of the carriagway narrower than a single motor vehicle) are falling out of favour from what I gather in much the way that the older junction designs are.
A simple priority junction - ie the vast majority of junctions on the road network.mjr wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 5:28pmPeople keep posting that image and ignoring the reply: whether it is safe or not depends on the lights or controls of the junction ahead.Pete Owens wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 5:15pm
Any traffic engineer would be sacked for implementing the obviously dangerous lane markings on the left, yet they have spent decades (ever since they failed to make their use compulsory) trying to persuade us that the identical situation on the right is somehow for our benefit.
Actually roundabouts are now the preferred junction arrangement in the NL since they have proved to be safer. And cycleways now give way to the carriageway, because giving the cycleway priority doubles the collision risk.Stevek76 wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 6:49pm
If we hop over to the netherlands where they've been observing and reacting to this for decades now. There has been transition to junctions that are fully protected (i.e. time and space) and older designs that rely upon e.g. right turning (our left) drivers yielding to ahead bound cyclists phased out.
Which brings us back to the topic under discussion - because that is what the Oxford quickways are.
Yes, but which priority? This is like getting blood out of a stone.Pete Owens wrote: ↑2 Aug 2022, 2:43pmA simple priority junction - ie the vast majority of junctions on the road network.mjr wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 5:28pmPeople keep posting that image and ignoring the reply: whether it is safe or not depends on the lights or controls of the junction ahead.Pete Owens wrote: ↑1 Aug 2022, 5:15pm
Any traffic engineer would be sacked for implementing the obviously dangerous lane markings on the left, yet they have spent decades (ever since they failed to make their use compulsory) trying to persuade us that the identical situation on the right is somehow for our benefit.
Ah, congratulations, you've remembered to put "parallel" in this time to exclude the huge number of traffic lights where motorists are expected to give way when turning right even on a green light.Yes, it is possible (though rare) for the minority of junctions that are signal controlled to provide a separate stage for a the cycleway - and indeed this would be universal rather than rare if highway engineers considered cycles to be legitimate traffic; they would undoubtedly do it if there were two parallel streams of motors crossing through a junction.
Side streets and driveways don't have road markings like the above implying that the left turn is available.But, back in the real world, until every single side street and driveway is equipped with a subway or set of traffic lights - and those lights are provided with a separate signal stage for the cycleway then the danger will remain.
But it's largely immaterial because you can usually judge your arrival for a gap in the motor traffic and if you don't, the vast majority of motorists will give way anyway because of some mix of cyclists being respected as valid transport, the motorist's way ahead being blocked by other motorists anyway and other factors.Pete Owens wrote: ↑2 Aug 2022, 2:52pm [...] And cycleways now give way to the carriageway, because giving the cycleway priority doubles the collision risk.
Only if you think turning a lot of cyclists back into motorists and discouraging others from starting cycling is an improvement in their conditions!Pete Owens wrote: ↑2 Aug 2022, 2:56pm Probably the easiest way to quickly improve conditions for cyclists in Oxford would be to paint out their entire network of painted cycle lanes - there are a lot of them and they are particularly poor.
The danger is caused by parallel streams of traffic crossing each other through a junction - whatever priority rules apply.mjr wrote: ↑2 Aug 2022, 5:00pmYes, but which priority? This is like getting blood out of a stone.Pete Owens wrote: ↑2 Aug 2022, 2:43pmA simple priority junction - ie the vast majority of junctions on the road network.