And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

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

User avatar
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

Post by Debaser »

Herned wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 09:46 I don't know why for roundabouts like that we never build subways. The Dutch build them everywhere.
Historically poor design has given subways a bad name in Britain. For example Dutch subways under dual carriageways use the central reserve to locate a light well to bring in natural light - a design detail precious few UK engineers would think of including, leading to dark and dingy sewers. They also raise the carriageway to keep the subway level, rather than burying it or making it feel like the ramps you're descending are taking you into the bowels of the Earth. And how many British subways start and end in 90 degree turns, providing a nice hiding place for anyone up to no good?
Herned wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 09:46 And if not that, why not have the cycle lane as part of the roundabout so that joining traffic has to give way to cycles as well?
Magic roundabouts do exist. There's at least one in York. Unfortunately for 'normal' roundabouts two of the most common crashes involving cyclists are drivers exiting or entering the roundabout and colliding with cyclists on the circulatory. A peripheral on-carriageway lane does nothing to remove this risk - in fact it can exacerbate it by placing cyclists out in the peripheral vision of drivers, places they tend not to look in detail.
Herned wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 09:46 So much of what is done for cycling provision could be so much better for not much more cost. Why the insistence on using paths split with a white line which virtually no pedestrians pay attention to? Would it really be that much more expensive to have an extra curb and a raised path for pedestrians?
Again, I think this is down to a lack of knowledge on the part of designers about users wants and needs and the actual design guidance.
Herned wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:53 Why would that be any more of an issue if the kerb splits a cycleway from a pedestrian path than a normal road/pavement? Kerbs are a pretty universal feature of streets... something like this is all that is needed
I wouldn't use full upstand kerbs to delineate a cycleway. Best practice is 45 or, now they're available, 30 degree splayed kerbs with a 60mm upstand - helps avoid pedal strike but still detectable by blind or partially-sighted pedestrians using rollercanes or sticks.
Big L wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 13:09 We don't build subways because "people don't like them".
We don't build subways because "people have very good reasons not to like them" as designed in the UK.
crb11 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:08 Bear in mind the cycle-only bit in that example is about as wide as a a typical shared-use path, so you're effectively needing to build an entire new pedestrian section alongside existing paths. Plus modify numerous junctions. All nice to have, but overkill for most locations where things work fine provided there's a bit of consideration on both sides.
This comes down to who as engineers we are designing for. People exactly like ourselves, or do we take into account the preferences of different sections of the population? Shared footway/cycleways do not work fine for the elderly, for the blind and partially-sighted, nor, if there are a large number of pedestrians or dog-walkers, for cyclists.


Image
From: www.infracgi.com
marconaf
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 14:42

Re: And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

Post by marconaf »

Hah that’s a good picture!

Although the entrance ways are far too wide for the car, and there isn’t a sign instructing the driver to get out and push their car for a bit at right angles to their desired direction of travel.
Herned
Member
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

Post by Herned »

Missing the obligatory broken glass and brambles too!
User avatar
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

Post by Debaser »

See also...

Image
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

Post by FosseWay »

Debaser wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 14:46 Shared footway/cycleways do not work fine for the elderly, for the blind and partially-sighted, nor, if there are a large number of pedestrians or dog-walkers, for cyclists.
That may be true from an overall perspective, and as a cyclist and a pedestrian I would very happily see far more properly segregated facilities. But it hides a range of factors that mean that shared paths are not necessarily always a problem, and, given resource limitations, may be preferable to no cycle provision at all.

Shared facilities in towns are definitely suboptimal. The volume of traffic of both modes is simply incompatible with sharing, especially given that most such facilities generally simply add cyclists to an existing pavement rather than improving the facility in any way. At the same time, the road alongside is in a large number of cases limited to 30 mph or lower.

Out of town, or on major through routes in towns, the balance changes somewhat. Here the volume of non-motorised traffic reduces considerably, but especially regarding pedestrians. Plenty of people walk around the countryside for leisure, of course, but they generally avoid walking on major roads, with or without pavements. Here, combining the cycling and walking facilities causes much less of a problem, while dealing with the larger problem of having cyclists doing <20 mph on S2s where the motor traffic is doing 50 or 60.

Clearly, new developments and new roads should be designed with all users in mind from the outset. But even if these developments were perfect, it doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of roads and pavements are what we already have, with all their inherent inadequacies. In these cases I think we need to do two things specifically regarding cyclists. First, we need to establish in any given situation which is the more important problem: cyclists on the roadway or cyclists on the footway. This should basically be an analysis of how much use there is of the stretch in question by cars, bikes and pedestrians, with any KSI statistics thrown in (the latter may be problematic simply because in most places most of the time, people aren't getting killed or seriously injured). If it's reasonable to expect someone whose ability to cycle at least includes being able to follow the Highway Code to cycle on the roadway (low speed limit, low traffic density, reasonable width etc.), then you get cyclists to use the roadway. If not, you explore alternatives but you factor in the needs of pedestrians.

Then, secondly, I think we need to stop being quite so tolerant of individuals' hang-ups and incompetence. Catering for people with disabilities is one thing; catering for able-bodied people who either refuse to up their game when interacting with the rest of society or who get a cob on when they have to share the bit of highway they think they're entitled to is quite another. If you can't cycle in a straight line, look behind you before turning, follow signs, signals and the HC, and generally behave in a civilised fashion on the roads, you have no more place on the highway than a driver who can't do those things. We shouldn't be giving incompetent or inconsiderate cyclists a get-out of letting them cycle on the pavement as a way of avoiding the inevitable aggro or accidents that result from them cycling on the roads.

Something similar needs to apply to pedestrians too. I was frankly gobsmacked when someone wrote to my local paper claiming that she was "nearly run down" by a cyclist on the disused railway that is the main cycle route from here to the city, when she "saw a rare flower on the other side and went to look at it". Yes, if you walk straight across a live traffic lane without looking, you may have and cause problems. You wouldn't do that on the E6, and you shouldn't do it on a shared-use path either. I'm not suggesting that we impose legally binding requirements on pedestrians - that would be silly - and all road users have to accept that some pedestrians are genuinely unable to behave in what we may think is a reasonable way, yet we all have a right to walk on the highway. But we need to get away from this idea that anyone can do pretty much anything in any context for any reason as a pedestrian. If the nature of the highway as a whole is such that it benefits society overall for cyclists and pedestrians to share a path, rather than having cyclists and cars sharing, then pedestrians must accept that as much as car drivers have to when the cyclists are on the roadway.
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
jgharston
Member
Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 18:06
Location: Sheffield/Whitby

Re: And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

Post by jgharston »

FosseWay wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 11:05 Something similar needs to apply to pedestrians too. I was frankly gobsmacked when someone wrote to my local paper claiming that she was "nearly run down" by a cyclist on the disused railway that is the main cycle route from here to the city, when she "saw a rare flower on the other side and went to look at it". Yes, if you walk straight across a live traffic lane without looking, you may have and cause problems. You wouldn't do that on the E6, and you shouldn't do it on a shared-use path either.
This!
A while back I was cycling along the Cinder Track to Whitby when up ahead there was a family group aimlessly wandering around, blind to the universe around them. I slowed down and moved further left. They wandered into my path. I slowed down more and tracked further left. Their Brownian Motion increased. I slowed further and further leftwards, ending up wobbling to a halt and falling over. The lady of the group then said "Oh, should we have kept left?"
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

Post by FosseWay »

jgharston wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 13:44 The lady of the group then said "Oh, should we have kept left?"
There has been a somewhat publicised campaign here to encourage people to walk on the left on shared-use facilities (so the equivalent of walking on the right in the UK), which mirrors the advice which is fairly universal to walk facing oncoming traffic on roads with no pavement. I happen to think this is wrong, and that in the context of the speed differential and the % of total road width that pedestrians need on, say, a disused railway compared to an S2, both pedestrians and cyclists are better off on the same side as each other. If you do that, cyclists just need to follow pedestrians at their pace until it's safe to pass, much as drivers do with tractors or cyclists. If you meet pedestrians coming towards you on your side, and you've got oncoming traffic that makes it unsafe to pass, you and the pedestrian have to grind to a halt, or at least the pedestrian feels they have to step off the roadway, which they shouldn't have to do - they've as much right to be there as the cyclist. This is particularly problematic in heavy traffic, when you end up with a slalom.

But unless there really are a lot of pedestrians (and/or a lot of cyclists), to an extent it's fairly irrelevant which side pedestrians walk on. What's far more important is that they walk on one side or the other, and not either take up the whole width or meander in the middle where approaching cyclists don't know which side it's best to pass on. Basically, the same basic duty of using roadways in a safe and considerate fashion applies to pedestrians as it does to cyclists and drivers. The skills, experience and knowledge required to be able to do that differ from mode to mode, which is why we impose different legal requirements on different modes. But sometimes I think that pedestrians seem to believe that, because they need neither to take a test/have a licence nor to conform to a range of rules that can get them into hot water if ignored, they have no responsibilities or duties when out in public. The same is de facto true of some cyclists, even though they do theoretically have to conform to binding rules.
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
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

Post by jervi »

FosseWay wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 15:06 There has been a somewhat publicised campaign here to encourage people to walk on the left on shared-use facilities (so the equivalent of walking on the right in the UK), which mirrors the advice which is fairly universal to walk facing oncoming traffic on roads with no pavement. I happen to think this is wrong, and that in the context of the speed differential and the % of total road width that pedestrians need on, say, a disused railway compared to an S2, both pedestrians and cyclists are better off on the same side as each other. If you do that, cyclists just need to follow pedestrians at their pace until it's safe to pass, much as drivers do with tractors or cyclists. If you meet pedestrians coming towards you on your side, and you've got oncoming traffic that makes it unsafe to pass, you and the pedestrian have to grind to a halt, or at least the pedestrian feels they have to step off the roadway, which they shouldn't have to do - they've as much right to be there as the cyclist. This is particularly problematic in heavy traffic, when you end up with a slalom.

But unless there really are a lot of pedestrians (and/or a lot of cyclists), to an extent it's fairly irrelevant which side pedestrians walk on. What's far more important is that they walk on one side or the other, and not either take up the whole width or meander in the middle where approaching cyclists don't know which side it's best to pass on. Basically, the same basic duty of using roadways in a safe and considerate fashion applies to pedestrians as it does to cyclists and drivers. The skills, experience and knowledge required to be able to do that differ from mode to mode, which is why we impose different legal requirements on different modes. But sometimes I think that pedestrians seem to believe that, because they need neither to take a test/have a licence nor to conform to a range of rules that can get them into hot water if ignored, they have no responsibilities or duties when out in public. The same is de facto true of some cyclists, even though they do theoretically have to conform to binding rules.
When I'm out of shared paths like old railways I don't really care what side people walk on, as long as they are all on the same side. However when passing other cycles I wish people would stick to the left, and look before moving sides.

I had an incident a few weeks ago when I was out cycling with my brother on a shared use path on an old railway. There was a couple ahead of us and the man (who was at the back) called out to his lady that me and my brother were passing. For whatever reason she went to the right side, and he
did so too. My brother was leading and passed them on their left (since they were on the right), and I shortly followed (about 2 bike lengths behind). As I was passing this lady, she yeeted herself to the left into me, I managed to stay upright but she fell off her bike and started blaming me for not having a bell.
I was utter gobsmacked that she was blaming me for her switching sides without looking. She was about 25 or so, but it baffles me that someone is out on a path where people ride at 20-25 mph and she playing around like its a corridor in an office building.
If I am passing a child I expect them to be unpredictable and slow down while passing them, but shouldn't have to do that with an adult.
We turned around a few miles up the path to head back and passed them again, I just held down my horn as I passed them just to make sure she could hear & see me coming.
I usually have my camera rolling, but this was the one time I didn't charged it before riding.

p.s. I do use my horn to warn people I am coming past if they are unaware of my presence, if I'm following close to someone else or they have seen me I don't use my horn since that would be excessive and rude.
AlexBr967
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2020 21:08

Re: And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

Post by AlexBr967 »

This is truly awful. It's literally on the verge. Seems painting a bicycle on the very edge of a road constitutes a cycle lane.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: And the award for worst cycle lane goes to...

Post by jervi »

Post Reply