How not to do road markings at a crossing.
Moderator: Site Management Team
How not to do road markings at a crossing.
Currently works are taking place to move the NCN2 cycle lane from the promenade onto the carriageway, as a result of this the road is becoming one-way with a bi-directional on-carriageway cycle lane.
However the markings at the Toucan crossing are extremely bad. I counted 9 issues at the crossing, some of which are very illegal whilst others are not that important. 6 or 7 of these issues can be seen from this one picture, how many can you spot?
It is to note it is still under construction, however all but one of these issues are also on the TRO plan. I have sent a email to B&H's Highways Project team pointing out all of the issues, so I am hoping they can be addressed in the coming weeks before the new lane opens.
- Conekicker
- Member
- Posts: 3790
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
- Location: South Yorks
Re: How not to do road markings at a crossing.
What in god's name are those c(one)ylinders supposed to be? Tell me they wont be part of the finished scheme?!jervi wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 16:18
Currently works are taking place to move the NCN2 cycle lane from the promenade onto the carriageway, as a result of this the road is becoming one-way with a bi-directional on-carriageway cycle lane.
However the markings at the Toucan crossing are extremely bad. I counted 9 issues at the crossing, some of which are very illegal whilst others are not that important. 6 or 7 of these issues can be seen from this one picture, how many can you spot?
It is to note it is still under construction, however all but one of these issues are also on the TRO plan. I have sent a email to B&H's Highways Project team pointing out all of the issues, so I am hoping they can be addressed in the coming weeks before the new lane opens.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Re: How not to do road markings at a crossing.
They are an 'innovation' so effectiveness and lawfulness is irrelevant.Conekicker wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 16:54What in god's name are those c(one)ylinders supposed to be? Tell me they wont be part of the finished scheme?!jervi wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 16:18
Currently works are taking place to move the NCN2 cycle lane from the promenade onto the carriageway, as a result of this the road is becoming one-way with a bi-directional on-carriageway cycle lane.
However the markings at the Toucan crossing are extremely bad. I counted 9 issues at the crossing, some of which are very illegal whilst others are not that important. 6 or 7 of these issues can be seen from this one picture, how many can you spot?
It is to note it is still under construction, however all but one of these issues are also on the TRO plan. I have sent a email to B&H's Highways Project team pointing out all of the issues, so I am hoping they can be addressed in the coming weeks before the new lane opens.
Re: How not to do road markings at a crossing.
The wands without the cones will be part of the final scheme.Conekicker wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 16:54 What in god's name are those c(one)ylinders supposed to be? Tell me they wont be part of the finished scheme?!
They couldn't install a kerb segregated track due to the function of Madeira Drive of hosting events, as such they have opted to go with paint and removeable wands, which is an okay compromise.
I'm not too sure, but I guess the base of the wands need to be glued/embedded into the surface of the road, so I'm thinking they have just glued them in and using the cones as a support to ensure they are upright and remain in the correct position while it sets.
- Conekicker
- Member
- Posts: 3790
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
- Location: South Yorks
Re: How not to do road markings at a crossing.
Traffic cylinders (not wands) have two methods of fixing. You can either inset a bog standard catseye base into the road surface then simply screw the cylinder into it or bolt a rubber housing to the road and screw the cylinder into that. The really cheap and nasty way to do it is to glue the rubber housing to the road surface - guess how long they last, especially if you try to glue it to a wet/damp surface?jervi wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 17:52The wands without the cones will be part of the final scheme.Conekicker wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 16:54 What in god's name are those c(one)ylinders supposed to be? Tell me they wont be part of the finished scheme?!
They couldn't install a kerb segregated track due to the function of Madeira Drive of hosting events, as such they have opted to go with paint and removeable wands, which is an okay compromise.
I'm not too sure, but I guess the base of the wands need to be glued/embedded into the surface of the road, so I'm thinking they have just glued them in and using the cones as a support to ensure they are upright and remain in the correct position while it sets.
Unless it's some proprietary product, in which case who knows how it will be fixed.
The best way is with a catseye housing though.
Innovation - the battle-cry of the hordes of clueless designers that infest the industry these days, I'm sorry to say.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Re: How not to do road markings at a crossing.
Cylinders and not wands noted.Conekicker wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 18:13Traffic cylinders (not wands) have two methods of fixing. You can either inset a bog standard catseye base into the road surface then simply screw the cylinder into it or bolt a rubber housing to the road and screw the cylinder into that. The really cheap and nasty way to do it is to glue the rubber housing to the road surface - guess how long they last, especially if you try to glue it to a wet/damp surface?jervi wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 17:52The wands without the cones will be part of the final scheme.Conekicker wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 16:54 What in god's name are those c(one)ylinders supposed to be? Tell me they wont be part of the finished scheme?!
They couldn't install a kerb segregated track due to the function of Madeira Drive of hosting events, as such they have opted to go with paint and removeable wands, which is an okay compromise.
I'm not too sure, but I guess the base of the wands need to be glued/embedded into the surface of the road, so I'm thinking they have just glued them in and using the cones as a support to ensure they are upright and remain in the correct position while it sets.
Unless it's some proprietary product, in which case who knows how it will be fixed.
The best way is with a catseye housing though.
Innovation - the battle-cry of the hordes of clueless designers that infest the industry these days, I'm sorry to say.
Here is a close-up of their mounting method NGL, I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to these cylinders. The method used I think is closer to the cat-eyes one mentioned. There is a base part flush within the surface of the carriageway, and then the cylinder screwed into that. However I assume some adhesive is used to glue the base into the carriageway, that is why I think the cones are supporting the cylinder in this picture.
- Conekicker
- Member
- Posts: 3790
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
- Location: South Yorks
Re: How not to do road markings at a crossing.
That looks like a proprietary fixing. So good luck to B&H replacing the cylinders 10-15 years hence when they get clobbered. I hope they've bought a goodly number of spares now, because the likelihood of them being available in future may not be all that great.
There's a lot to be said for using bog-standard kit. Just saying like...
There's a lot to be said for using bog-standard kit. Just saying like...
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Re: How not to do road markings at a crossing.
So I pointed out all the issues to B&HCC and they said
"Once the scheme is complete we will carry out a full review and will pick up any snagging and amendments as well as implementing any necessary changes as part of the formal Road Safety Audits Review, your points raise will form part of that review. "
The issues I raised were:
*Giveway markings used at stop line for cycleway - illegal
*Signal heads not aligned to cycleway, these lights are really dim anyway but appear practically off when cycling eastbound - Suggested realigning and providing LLCS.
*Zigzag markings on the cycleway - not required, however due to the width and popularity of the cycleway as well as large amount of pedestrians movements it ought to have them.
*Stop line all the way across the far side of the crossing, as well as the exit of the eastbound side of the cycleway.
*Signal heads facing westbound (cycle only) traffic should have cycle aspects on them, this isn't required but would be good.
*Stop line has no tapered and dashed edge to pass cycles though - not really that important though.
*Right side of the bike box has zig zag lines - this needs to be a straight edge...
*What is the overall point of the ADS here? There is no need for one as there is the cycle track beside it that is easily accessible and has no obstructions.
*No Zig zag markings on the far side of the crossing, this is illegal as minimum of 2 zig zags are required.
*Toucan crossing is still a toucan crossing even though not both sides of the crossing have no rights to cycle on. It should be downgraded to a pelican crossing (or even better a puffin, however the crossing is due to be removed in the next few years as the roundabout is being replaced with a traffic light controlled crossroads it isn't worth investing much money into this crossing)
The cycleway officially opened on the 28th May, however by this they meant when the section moved from the pavement to the carriageway was on the 28th May, the rest of the cycleway widening and improvements are still taking place, video below is what it looked like a few days ago https://youtu.be/oKeuOMc7TxE
"Once the scheme is complete we will carry out a full review and will pick up any snagging and amendments as well as implementing any necessary changes as part of the formal Road Safety Audits Review, your points raise will form part of that review. "
The issues I raised were:
*Giveway markings used at stop line for cycleway - illegal
*Signal heads not aligned to cycleway, these lights are really dim anyway but appear practically off when cycling eastbound - Suggested realigning and providing LLCS.
*Zigzag markings on the cycleway - not required, however due to the width and popularity of the cycleway as well as large amount of pedestrians movements it ought to have them.
*Stop line all the way across the far side of the crossing, as well as the exit of the eastbound side of the cycleway.
*Signal heads facing westbound (cycle only) traffic should have cycle aspects on them, this isn't required but would be good.
*Stop line has no tapered and dashed edge to pass cycles though - not really that important though.
*Right side of the bike box has zig zag lines - this needs to be a straight edge...
*What is the overall point of the ADS here? There is no need for one as there is the cycle track beside it that is easily accessible and has no obstructions.
*No Zig zag markings on the far side of the crossing, this is illegal as minimum of 2 zig zags are required.
*Toucan crossing is still a toucan crossing even though not both sides of the crossing have no rights to cycle on. It should be downgraded to a pelican crossing (or even better a puffin, however the crossing is due to be removed in the next few years as the roundabout is being replaced with a traffic light controlled crossroads it isn't worth investing much money into this crossing)
The cycleway officially opened on the 28th May, however by this they meant when the section moved from the pavement to the carriageway was on the 28th May, the rest of the cycleway widening and improvements are still taking place, video below is what it looked like a few days ago https://youtu.be/oKeuOMc7TxE
Re: How not to do road markings at a crossing.
I thought I had said something about the posts the last time this came up, but apparently not. I'm pretty sure the posts are Pexco City Posts (from the US), which are designed to be easily removed. Seattle tried them on a bike lane project where they were supposed to be removed for a weekly farmers' market, but unfortunately they seem to have been too easy to remove and disappeared very quickly, so they were replaced with standard, non-removable ones.