Derestricted urban roads.

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

tipsynurse
Banned
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 13:37

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by tipsynurse »

NICK 647063 wrote:One thing I did point out at the consultation was that this section is one of the safest sections of road in the area as pedestrians are rare due to footbridges and subways but I reckon this will change once it’s 40 and easier access is available for pedestrians.
That is probably making exactly the opposite point to what you intend. The trend at the moment is to have permeable roads that pedestrians can cross, because subways and foot bridges tend to deter them. Here the council have filled in subways and put at-grade pedestrian crossings in instead.

If pedestrians and cyclists are put off using the road, then in an urban area the speed limit should be cut, except for something like the North Circular where even if the speed limit was reduced to 20mph throughout it would just be too dangerous.

Peter - congrats on the post count.
User avatar
ajuk
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 23:59
Location: Bristol

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by ajuk »

ANiceEnglishman wrote:The A4051 Cwmbran Drive is mainly NSL and in an urban area, but perhaps doesn't count as the NSL parts are segregated without junctions or frontages
Cwmbran along with Yate is a Mecca for non-uniform speed limits, in some cases incredibly generous, and elsewhere incredibly unrealistic.
NICK 647063
Member
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 17:48
Location: Leeds

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by NICK 647063 »

That is probably making exactly the opposite point to what you intend. The trend at the moment is to have permeable roads that pedestrians can cross, because subways and foot bridges tend to deter them. Here the council have filled in subways and put at-grade pedestrian crossings in instead.

If pedestrians and cyclists are put off using the road, then in an urban area the speed limit should be cut, except for something like the North Circular where even if the speed limit was reduced to 20mph throughout it would just be too dangerous.
I do understand your point but think my point is still valid, the fact is pedestrians are still catered for and still cross easily via the footbridge, this is in effect the seacroft bypass which removed the A64 from seacroft village so you still have the old York Road for cyclists and pedestrians.

You only need to look further down the A64 into Leeds they removed a footbridge back around 2001 near torre road flyover and replaced with a signal crossing, since which people then started crossing all over the place and after a large number of fatal accidents the road that had been opened up for pedestrians then had a large steel fence put down the middle with only the signal crossing left accessible and still now people are often knocked down so maybe the well used footbridge should have stayed.......I can see the same happening on the A64/A6120 multiplex when it’s opened up to pedestrians.
A9NWIL
Member
Posts: 3319
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 02:36

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by A9NWIL »

tipsynurse wrote:
NICK 647063 wrote:One thing I did point out at the consultation was that this section is one of the safest sections of road in the area as pedestrians are rare due to footbridges and subways but I reckon this will change once it’s 40 and easier access is available for pedestrians.
That is probably making exactly the opposite point to what you intend. The trend at the moment is to have permeable roads that pedestrians can cross, because subways and foot bridges tend to deter them. Here the council have filled in subways and put at-grade pedestrian crossings in instead.

If pedestrians and cyclists are put off using the road, then in an urban area the speed limit should be cut, except for something like the North Circular where even if the speed limit was reduced to 20mph throughout it would just be too dangerous.

Peter - congrats on the post count.
So more people cross the road at the road level and accident levels could possibly increase?

I guess the safest is having urban dual carriageways in cuttings and then the foot bridges would be the same as the ground level either side of the cutting.
That way pedestrians can cross at level, but over a bridge and the fast traffic is well segregated from non motorised users, unless a cyclists was brave "cough"stupid"cough" to use it!
Formerly known as 'lortjw'
A9NWIL
Member
Posts: 3319
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 02:36

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by A9NWIL »

NICK 647063 wrote:
That is probably making exactly the opposite point to what you intend. The trend at the moment is to have permeable roads that pedestrians can cross, because subways and foot bridges tend to deter them. Here the council have filled in subways and put at-grade pedestrian crossings in instead.

If pedestrians and cyclists are put off using the road, then in an urban area the speed limit should be cut, except for something like the North Circular where even if the speed limit was reduced to 20mph throughout it would just be too dangerous.
I do understand your point but think my point is still valid, the fact is pedestrians are still catered for and still cross easily via the footbridge, this is in effect the seacroft bypass which removed the A64 from seacroft village so you still have the old York Road for cyclists and pedestrians.

You only need to look further down the A64 into Leeds they removed a footbridge back around 2001 near torre road flyover and replaced with a signal crossing, since which people then started crossing all over the place and after a large number of fatal accidents the road that had been opened up for pedestrians then had a large steel fence put down the middle with only the signal crossing left accessible and still now people are often knocked down so maybe the well used footbridge should have stayed.......I can see the same happening on the A64/A6120 multiplex when it’s opened up to pedestrians.
This shows a lack of road safety from pedestrians that they refuse to cross a busy dual carriageway at a proper crossing! I suspect that also people using the crossing dont wait for the pedestrian cycle to start before crossing.

I guess this is why the Americans have jay-walking laws!
Formerly known as 'lortjw'
tipsynurse
Banned
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 13:37

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by tipsynurse »

lotrjw wrote:
tipsynurse wrote:
NICK 647063 wrote:One thing I did point out at the consultation was that this section is one of the safest sections of road in the area as pedestrians are rare due to footbridges and subways but I reckon this will change once it’s 40 and easier access is available for pedestrians.
That is probably making exactly the opposite point to what you intend. The trend at the moment is to have permeable roads that pedestrians can cross, because subways and foot bridges tend to deter them. Here the council have filled in subways and put at-grade pedestrian crossings in instead.

If pedestrians and cyclists are put off using the road, then in an urban area the speed limit should be cut, except for something like the North Circular where even if the speed limit was reduced to 20mph throughout it would just be too dangerous.

Peter - congrats on the post count.
So more people cross the road at the road level and accident levels could possibly increase?

I guess the safest is having urban dual carriageways in cuttings and then the foot bridges would be the same as the ground level either side of the cutting.
That way pedestrians can cross at level, but over a bridge and the fast traffic is well segregated from non motorised users, unless a cyclists was brave "cough"stupid"cough" to use it!
I would imagine on a road enthusiast forum you would understand that you can design a road so that pedestrian safety is maintained or enhanced. Your suggestion is actually very good, if the foot bridges are in the right place then having the bridge at level is a good thing, albeit massive cuttings are better to avoid in terms of aesthetics in an urban setting. You would need to look at why that level of traffic needs to be so close to pedestrians.

It is very basic highway engineering that if you don't cater for desire lines, then people will just follow them anyway. I appreciate you are clearly very anti-cyclist but if someone wants to cycle through a busy underpass that probably paints a picture of how rubbish the way designers expect the cyclist to go are. For instance, my commute to work is 11 miles along a 60mph road or 16 miles along a ponderous, poorly surfaced National Cycle Route. Why would I take a route that takes almost twice as long?
User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14805
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by nowster »

tipsynurse wrote:It is very basic highway engineering that if you don't cater for desire lines, then people will just follow them anyway
Not just highways. There's often a bare strip across some grassed area where an architect hasn't considered a desire line and has neglected to put a path in.
A9NWIL
Member
Posts: 3319
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 02:36

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by A9NWIL »

tipsynurse wrote:I would imagine on a road enthusiast forum you would understand that you can design a road so that pedestrian safety is maintained or enhanced. Your suggestion is actually very good, if the foot bridges are in the right place then having the bridge at level is a good thing, albeit massive cuttings are better to avoid in terms of aesthetics in an urban setting. You would need to look at why that level of traffic needs to be so close to pedestrians.

It is very basic highway engineering that if you don't cater for desire lines, then people will just follow them anyway. I appreciate you are clearly very anti-cyclist but if someone wants to cycle through a busy underpass that probably paints a picture of how rubbish the way designers expect the cyclist to go are. For instance, my commute to work is 11 miles along a 60mph road or 16 miles along a ponderous, poorly surfaced National Cycle Route. Why would I take a route that takes almost twice as long?
What I was meaning about cyclists is about them using a busy dual carriageway in a cutting, yes if they want to use it they can but there is no escape when lane 1 is likely to be up against a wall! So with HGVs thundering past cycling on such a road would be very dangerous! Hence my comment!
Formerly known as 'lortjw'
tipsynurse
Banned
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 13:37

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by tipsynurse »

lotrjw wrote:What I was meaning about cyclists is about them using a busy dual carriageway in a cutting, yes if they want to use it they can but there is no escape when lane 1 is likely to be up against a wall! So with HGVs thundering past cycling on such a road would be very dangerous! Hence my comment!
Generally if a HGV thunders up through where you are cycling on any road you are totally screwed, not just underpasses. Luckily almost all lorry drivers are highly trained and courteous not to run cyclists over on a frequent basis. In fact I generally find lorry drivers the best of all road users at being patient and waiting for a safe overtaking opportunity.

Believe it or not it is quite safe to cycle on an urban dual carriageway. You just cycle far enough out in lane 1 that traffic has to use lane 2 to pass you. Part of my commute is on a short dual carriageway where I have to move into lane 2 to turn right at a roundabout. Again, most motorists are skilled enough to be able to deal with this shocking event.

I suppose in your world we should all have mirrors on our bikes and dive off the carriageway whenever a motorists wants to use the lane.
User avatar
jonnyf90
Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 22:53
Location: Between Derby and Nottingham

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by jonnyf90 »

What is it with you and your unnecessarily terse comments with regards to motorists and cyclists? This thread and HERE

Maybe if cycling is such a challenge alongside motorists, and everything they do seem to infuriate you enough to cycle into a post at your own accord (HERE), maybe you should opt to take a bus, or drive instead? :)

Cheers
Una vida, bien vivida.
Veni, vidi, vici.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by Bryn666 »

Ah yes, let's improve road safety by having more cars... come on; you know that's a rubbish idea.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
tipsynurse
Banned
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 13:37

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by tipsynurse »

jonnyf90 wrote:What is it with you and your unnecessarily terse comments with regards to motorists and cyclists? This thread and HERE

Maybe if cycling is such a challenge alongside motorists, and everything they do seem to infuriate you enough to cycle into a post at your own accord (HERE), maybe you should opt to take a bus, or drive instead? :)

Cheers
Ah I see your point now. Traffic lights for cycle paths! Great idea! Sorry for not being more enthusiastic about it in the first place!!!

The issue is that most cycle infrastructure is designed by drivers, which is why it's crap. As the increasingly desperate suggestions for a non-issue showed.

Interestingly for my cycle crash the council have admitted that the kerbing is wrongly installed, dangerous and are speaking to their contractor to (I would imagine) rip it all up. But of course, that must be the fault of cyclists for not appreciating the rubbish cycle lane in your mind, I suppose.
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by Truvelo »

Here's another suburban NSL. This is on the A461 about a mile north of Walsall town centre.
Attachments
a461.jpg
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15744
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by Chris Bertram »

Truvelo wrote:Here's another suburban NSL. This is on the A461 about a mile north of Walsall town centre.
Hey, don't tell them, they'll slap a 30 limit on it as soon as breathe once they realise it's there.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17468
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by Truvelo »

Chris Bertram wrote:
Truvelo wrote:Here's another suburban NSL. This is on the A461 about a mile north of Walsall town centre.
Hey, don't tell them, they'll slap a 30 limit on it as soon as breathe once they realise it's there.
Too late. It's been 30 for the last 15 years :@
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Nader
Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 14:10
Location: Milton Keynes

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by Nader »

mnb20 wrote:
Bryn666 wrote:I thought the A3 NSL lasted well into the 1990s.
Yes, I remember driving on it, which would have been 1996 at the earliest. The lanes did feel a little narrow at 70mph. I think, though, that it wasn't NSL all the way up to Roehampton? It was definitely NSL from outside London as far as Tolworth (A240), but I think that at some point between there and the Robin Hood a lower speed limit started?
I grew up next to the Kingston bypass, through the early and mid-90s the NSL lasted up until a few hundred metres before the Robin Hood traffic lights (if you were coming into London) where there is a lane drop, from there it became 40, which lasted until the D3 -> S2 merge where it became 30.

The NSL became 50 in the late 90s (I'd guess maybe 1997 or 1998), and still reduces to 40 in the same place it used to - Here https://goo.gl/maps/QEHAfJ3bkb32

I'm not sure when the 40 limit from the point above to the S2 section was put in place, but it was certainly before my conscious memory of it (ie pre-90s).
Nader
Member
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 14:10
Location: Milton Keynes

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by Nader »

Also, as somebody else pointed out, most of the MK grid roads are NSL. Whilst not strictly 'urban' as there are no house frontages onto them, they run between housing neighbourhoods, and whilst fairly heavily tree-lined, there are points where you can clearly see residential areas from them, eg here https://goo.gl/maps/YZHqkJMYHFD2
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9708
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by WHBM »

tipsynurse wrote:The issue is that most cycle infrastructure is designed by drivers, which is why it's crap.
Actually the infrastructure is designed not so much by drivers as by people ... who almost certainly can drive AND can ride a bicycle. This is quite reasonable. Would you want the chief pilot of an airline responsible for devising their procedures to be someone who can't fly.
tipsynurse
Banned
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 13:37

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by tipsynurse »

WHBM wrote:
tipsynurse wrote:The issue is that most cycle infrastructure is designed by drivers, which is why it's crap.
Actually the infrastructure is designed not so much by drivers as by people ... who almost certainly can drive AND can ride a bicycle. This is quite reasonable. Would you want the chief pilot of an airline responsible for devising their procedures to be someone who can't fly.
The problem is someone who can ride a bike and someone who commutes or cycles regularly are two different things. A path wide and suitable for commuters can be used by three year olds, but a path suitable for three year olds isn't suitable for commuters.

As an analogy imagine if a council puts in a new parallel road. But the road is narrow and has loads of speed bumps and mini roundabouts. So you think no problem, I'll keep on using the old road. But it turns out everyone on the old road now thinks you should be using the new road because it LOOKS new and shiny and after all, it's been built for you using THEIR money. So to prove the point a minority of drivers deliberately overtake you close and cut you up.

So now you have the choice of using the slow, rubbish, new road. Or the old road, which is suddenly a lot more dangerous and stressful but also much quicker. But of course you're not surrounded by 2 tonnes of metal, if someone misjudges their close overtake wrong then you are very likely to get injured.

That's the frustration for cyclists, when poor infrastructure is built you actually end up from one good/indifferent option to two bad options.

If you want to see what suggestions get thrown up by people who can ride a bike and therefore design cycle infrastructure look at these.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/157848 ... d_s_roads/

Non-reflective blobs of plastic that cars can drive over but will throw a cyclist off their bike.

I would go so far as to say that cycle infrastructure needs specialist design, because retrofitting anything to existing infrastructure is difficult and not as simple as just drawing a line on a plan. This is especially the case with junctions. It would benefit from someone like the DfT or TfL having a team which councils are obliged to contract when putting in new cycle lanes.

That may sound like overkill but effectively a lot of money is being wasted on rubbish new infrastructure, and as I said about it's better not to do anything then to put in something unsuitable.
User avatar
jonnyf90
Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 22:53
Location: Between Derby and Nottingham

Re: Derestricted urban roads.

Post by jonnyf90 »

Let’s spend a shed load of cash on new cycle lanes and the associated infrastructure, only for cyclists to ignore them and use the road anyway.

Brilliant!
Una vida, bien vivida.
Veni, vidi, vici.
Post Reply