Cycling UK Forum

thirdcrank wrote:I suspect that this sort of intellectual bankruptcy is what marks British Standard kitemarked farcilities from what he's seen done by these cunning Johnny Foreigner types.

I notice that the British are finally about to give a trial to something Cunning Johnny Foreigner has been doing for at least 20 years in relation to cycle routes at traffic lights. Specifically, they are about to trial the method of allowing the cycle light to turn green a few seconds before it turns green for other traffic travelling in the same direction.

But amusing that something demonstrated as effective in countries with high cycle use has to be "trialled" here.

History suggests a risk that they'll botch the implementation, conclude it doesn't work here, and banish it from our shores for ever.

iviehoff wrote: ... History suggests a risk that they'll botch the implementation, conclude it doesn't work here, and banish it from our shores for ever.

Experience suggests to me that it will also be used as a way to preserve capacity for motor vehicles.

I once represented the CTC at a public inquiry into a big traffic scheme where the light timings were, as usual, imprtant to cyclists. The line taken by the traffic light man was along the lines that they had done everything possible for pedestrians. In plain English, this meant that the timings of the lights had been fine-tuned to get the maximum number of motor vehicles through the junction and green men were displayed whenever a particular queue was stationary. Ipso facto, it would be impossible to make any sort of provision for cyclists in the timings since this would inevitably be to the detriment of pedestrians (or "peds" in the jargon these people use.)

Record-Ace wrote:With the advent of cycle tracks/paths, many of which are shared with pedestrians, I would have thought that the same provision should apply.

Bicycles are vehicles, which are fundamentally different from pedestrians. As others have said, the logic wouldn't apply.

I was looking at the TRL report cited earlier. Basically it says "set back if you can".

But thinking about it, maybe the key thing is widening the hump so that you can cycle behind a car waiting to pull out (this is what pedestrians do). The hump would need to stretch about 7m from the junction, and you'd need to be able to get to the back of the hump without cutting corners too much, but it might work quite well.

Has anyone tried this anywhere?

The hump idea probably slows all traffic and makes the road less users friendly plus adds to costs for users / installation / repairs / pollution and potential accidents. A critical evaluation to see what the results would be for a layout without the humps may be helpful. If alternatives to the hump approach can be found, may be worth looking at. e.g. mark a section of road from the junction where turning is occurring and across the cycle path, as a 20 mph limit, zig zaz markings (are these in the Highway Code? and subject to a lower speed limit or should they be?) , meaning this would be the maximum speed, 20 mph, for crossing the cycle path. How practical would this be?

I think you are probably referring to 2 types of set up,
1, where a car length is provided between the junction and cycle path
2, where the cycle path may be a shorter distance from the junction, say for example 1 metre.

In (2) the cyclist should be in view if not obstructed by trees or other features. This would take up less space and more suited to in town situations I expect, at lower speeds where if a motorist has to wait they do not cause serious braking problems for other traffic.

In (1), a car waiting to cross could obstruct the view, longer vehicles may overhang into the cycle path ( a case of shorter lorries being better). But the space provided allows for turning vehicles to stop without holding up traffic on the main highway, if not longer vehicle.

On high speed roads special arrangements may be needed? .

The humps are really useful for a number of users:
- Pedestrians don't have to deal with two steps. This is of particular importance to the elderly, the disabled, parents with toddlers, parents with pushchairs...
- Cyclists don't encounter randomly angled surface changes - which can easily kick a wheel sideways


They also make motorised road users pay attention. A splash of paint doesn't, contrary to popular political opinion, alter the behaviour of very many motorists.

In Oxford, we've tried various ways of improving the pedestrian crossing, and ended up with humps and imprinted blockwork lined up with the tactile to give a linear feel, and as clear a run to pedestrians as possible. The smoother/flatter/straighter you make it for pedestrians, the less they hesitate. Humps are quite important to this, though tight geometry is an alternative (the maintenance guys prefer humps to tight geometry; humps are pretty resilient, and drain better than tight geometry+flush drops). Humps aren't so great for on-road cyclists, but I think we can cope.

This works fine if there are few vehicles coming out of the side road, and the main road isn't too busy. If they have good visibility, drivers wait behind the hump, and tend to be relaxed enough to wait further if someone wants to cross while they're there. If there's poor visibility, the driver waits on the hump, but delays are minimal. Most pedestrians will divert round the back of the car (or wait).

If the side/main road is busier, and there's room to set back the crossing from the junction, that's probably the best option. It means a small detour for pedestrians, but probably tolerable.

If the side/main road is busier, and visibility poor, delays for cyclists/pedestrians get more significant, and the driver is more inclined to pull out suddenly. Traditionally we try to get the motorist to wait further back, but if they can't see then they'll inevitably pull forward. Nipping in front of the car is downright risky, so I'm concluding that a wider hump, so you can nip round the back of the car might be a better bet. In these tight situations, you probably wouldn't try to make that the "normal" route, but it might work well as an alternative route, so cyclists don't have to stop.

I'd love to know if anyone has an example of this being done, and whether it works.

The junctions I've seen that make the most sense have the "non road" sections of the carriageway set back by the length of a van.

The first vehicle (you can never deal with an HGV) then waits ahead of the path, with "normal" visibility.
The second vehicle waits behind the path.
Vehicles turning into the road can clear the main road and stop before the path if it is in use.

Of course the above requires that some section of brain is engaged - at least until it becomes second nature. Unfortunately I have a very low opinion of the capability of most motorists to apply even a modicum of common sense in this regard (as evidenced by the lemming overtakes/pinch point manoeuvres we see all too often)

CJ wrote:I do not know what exactly it is that makes drivers in those countries more scared of bumping into a cyclist than cyclists are of being bumped, but I WANT IT HERE ALREADY!!!

Because you are right, without cycle priority over side roads AND a way of motivating drivers to respect it, cyclepaths will always be crap - except where side roads are less frequent than about one per mile.

Absolutely and one reason I keep to the roads rather than risk life and limb on poorly surfaced, badly sited and generally despised by councils 'cycle paths'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBwMRGxtZ9k

Possibly worth a study and see how much space is required to copy this design, allowing for easy turning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=rB ... feature=iv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=Fl ... feature=iv

The examples given by SteadyRider involve traffic lights on all roads at major junctions. I assume that this thread is mostly concerned with smaller side roads with "give way" markings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYjUHKl ... ure=relmfu

Separate cycle path next to dual carriageway in the Netherlands.

There is a variety of road situations to consider for how best to provide for cyclists.
Each would probably have pros and cons.

In the Netherlands it appears that for speeds under 20 mph cyclists and motor traffic generally mix but the driving attitude appears to be better with more care and passing clearance.

Above 20 mph they try to separate by providing cycling infrastructure.

Crossing minor side roads usually the cyclist has right to way, as the link above shows for the first minute.

For the UK each typical road situation would need considering in detail. the links previously shows the cross road situations and traffic lights. There could be a similar layout for a cross roads without traffic lights or a major/minor cross roads or T junctions. Urban and rural situations and traffic flow rates would also be factors to consider.

One starting point could be for the government to require all verge areas adjacent to roads to be kept clear or for any installation designed for ease of relocating, to allow for cycle paths to be built if required at some stage.

I'm at a loss to understand why anybody thinks that the traffic authorities in the UK could care less about providing for cycling as a transport mode*. A white line up the middle of the pavement is normally the limit of of their wit and aspirations, and the relevant blue signs are now increasingly being supplemented with instructions to cyclists to give way to pedestrians. ie they want cyclists off the road and the only thing that that is deterring them from doing it more is the potential - and completely understandable - objection from pedestrians. Actions speak louder than words, especially when those words involve politicians moving their lips.

* I'm not talking about leisure routes etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIdQ8RMD ... ure=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOR6zm_Y ... ure=relmfu

The UK has a problem 'supplemented with instructions to cyclists to give way to pedestrians'
This promotes a bad attitude between cyclists and pedestrians.

In NL often a seperate footpath is provided where pedestrian use may be expected on a regular basis. 'Shared path - cyclist take care near pedestrians - pedestrains single out for cyclists'.

NL also tend to have bells on bikes and we do not follow this method in many cases, I use my brake levels but no bell.

One reason the UK should care about increasing cycling is that traffic pollution kills 5000 per year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17704116

I note the many responses, and it seems to me that most envisage the problems arising with traffic leaving the side road as it enters the main road. The problem I fear is the traffic turning into the side road from the main road, from behind the moving cyclist. I know it happens that even when both are on the main road it is considered fair game for the motorist to overtake the cyclist whilst turning left; if the cyclist is on a path he/she is even more remote from being aware of the motorist's manoeuvre.