Cycling UK Forum

The Ministry of Transport has just published a review of traffic sign policy.

http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/publications/signing-the-way

I got down the bit about stakeholders and the weltschmerz took over so I've not read it.

Implementation seems to be dependent on SoS authorisation quite a lot (eg for No Entry except cycles), so I'm unclear whether there's really much change on the current situation until they get round to updating the regs.

The area controlled parking zones could save our council quite a bit on some planned schemes (many fewer signs required than currently).

The Department has decided to withdraw authorisation for the "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" sign. After extensive consultation, we have discovered that cyclists don't like being told to get off and walk. We will create regulations that fine local authorities £1 for every day that every sign that appears within their jurisdiction. If existing signs are not removed, we estimate this will raise £6 million per year.

Sorry, I made that bit up. The closest the document comes is:

DfT wrote:To encourage cycling, junctions and crossings need to facilitate safe passage while avoiding undue delay and interruptions to progress such as having to dismount.

... which isn't particularly strong or helpful.

The biggest change for us is that we'll be allowed to enter ASLs, not just through feeder lanes, but "gates". Yes, that's what it says. I don't think they mean physical gates. Or perhaps they do.

A "gate" in an ASL is a nominal zero length cycle lane. (ie just the diagnonal start of cycle lane stripes)
At the moment the regs state that you can only enter via a lane or a gate, which is usually a bad idea as it forces you to undertake.
What is proposed is that you can enter it wherever is safest and most sensible.

The biggest gain however is that they will be able to install ASLs without installing cycle lanes and also where there isn't space to install even token cycle lanes.

Other positives in the document.
* Approval of the "EXCEPT CYCLISTS" plate under "NO ENTRY" signs, which will remove most of the obstructions to installing contraflow cycling arrangements.
* Relaxing the rules on 20mph signage - and lighting requirements for all signs within 20mph limits, which will mean that 20mph limits should save councils cash.

Some Dodgy things.
* allowing smaller signs for cyclists
* putting on journey times rather than distances (at what speed?)
* motorbikes in bus lanes
* putting cycle lanes across junctions - which will encourage bad positioning and conflict with turning vehicles.

Pete Owens wrote:
putting on journey times rather than distances (at what speed?)

Hurrah! I've waited all my life for this. At last, the final admission - journeys are not based on distance but on time - which means that every traffic scheme from around 1951 has been a complete waste of money: people simply increase their distance to "compensate" for the saving of time. So everyone's commute to work is about the same as it has been since 1911. So much for the destruction of the urban and rural landscapes to accommodate the fatuous theory that increasing road size will cut journey times Ho Ho.

We were discussing the Tamar Bridge the other evening down the boozer.

The car commuters are complaining that it takes a long time to get to work in Plymouth because they are resurfacing the bridge roadway. Ha Ha said I!

"Can you remember before the Saltash Tunnel?" I asked. "No, why?" said most people.
"Because the traffic used to back up from the bridge all the way to the other side of Saltash!"
"???"
" ...... and what about before the Parkway A38? Traffic was backed up from Marsh Mills Roundabout, all the way up Forder Valley, all the way through Crownhill and West Park - AND - all the way to the other side of Saltash!"

They shut up then, and we went on to chatting about before the Tamar Bridge was built and how Gunnislake was clogged with traffic!

Times have not changed. Peak congestion was huge, still is and will continue.

horizon wrote:

Pete Owens wrote:
putting on journey times rather than distances (at what speed?)

Hurrah! I've waited all my life for this. At last, the final admission - journeys are not based on distance but on time - which means that every traffic scheme from around 1951 has been a complete waste of money: people simply increase their distance to "compensate" for the saving of time. So everyone's commute to work is about the same as it has been since 1911. So much for the destruction of the urban and rural landscapes to accommodate the fatuous theory that increasing road size will cut journey times Ho Ho.

Travel to work times have generally had a median peak of 1 hour for around 1000 years if not longer, and a critical cut-off coming in at around 2 hours. Most London commuters at at the upper end of the 1-2 hour band, and cycling with rail and motor vehicle use can cut around 60 minutes from door to desk journeys (typically 20 days more me-time per year). CTC Forum had a thread on time & cash savings for rail commuters who swapped from car and tube to cycling at each end of their rail journey.

Something that cannot be measured is the pure pleasure to be gained from cycling to and from work, epecially working shifts. There can be irritations, of course, eg thinking up different answers to "You haven't come on your bike in this weather have you?" ("No - I drove here in my cycling togs then stood in the car wash for a couple of minutes..." ) Probably the best thing of all for me, was finishing work with all the crap of the day (or night) filling my head and setting off down the road and clearing my mind instantly. I used to explain to disbelieving colleagues that all the blood being pumped around rinses the brains.
===================================================================
Edit to add: this is my thread so I understand the protocol is that I can go off thread as much as I like (as I usually do anyway ) To get back to traffic signs, perhaps we need one conveying the message Frustrated drivers should beware of happy cyclists. Probably some sort of combination of and

More on topic

Some of the initiatives will be hard to deliver unless the legal backing (RTA) and Highway Code Rules enforce the position.

Rule 170 for example covers pedestrians travelling on a footway having priority over turning traffic from the parallel carriageway, but has failed to catch up with the creation of cycleways - and since these were conceived in the 1930's (Great West Road), I wonder if 80 years is a bit long to wait?

My work on Level Crossings suggests that a restoration of signage that alerts road users to the uneven surfaces should be added to that about large and long vehicles (although the signage for the latter is completely at odds with good practice - less words clearer messages) and the signs for gated and open crossings are frankly a bit dated.

The wide use of slippery and dangerously profiled thermoplastic road markings needs to be more closely managed (2" tar banding is the limit but 4" road markings (and wider) can be as slippery, with the added issue of a step right in the danger range, of 6-20mm.)

MickF It is presumably faster now to use the Torpoint ferry when the queues build up for the bridge - and prompts a point to wonder how best to sign a route which is more suitable for cycling and walking.

In Warrington - en route for a CTC campaigns event I found the only route with signage to Liverpool was the M62 (OK it was quiet enough at 4 am to cycle - but later in the day what option? One person seriously suggested using the unlit TPTrail with the ship canal on one side and rough bushes on the other - mud, steps etc in the pitch dark.

Head over the Forth Bridge and the sign for Perth directs you on to the M90, or if a route is signposted you get sent onto dangerous and poor quality footpaths.

dave h

That reflects something I posted on the "worst town for cycling" thread, about the importance of local knowledge for cycling in any town. Motor traffic route signing is aimed at keeping drivers on the "fastest" routes and away from local roads. That's usually the last thing a cyclist needs. Unfortunately, the only signed alternatives tend to be equally unsuitable for cyclists. A canal towing path may be perfect for a bit of fair weather leisure riding, but anybody regularly riding a bike as their main transport needs public roads. IMO.