Cycle slip road signs
Moderator: Site Management Team
Cycle slip road signs
If it's busy it's eminently sensible to use that area and wait for a break in the traffic on the slip, but it seems to contradict the legislation.
- RichardA35
- Elected Committee Member
- Posts: 5710
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
- Location: Dorset
Re: Cycle slip road signs
No, because the sign in the second photo does not require you to use the part of the road in the third photo.solocle wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:12 Like so:
82133ED5-5660-465D-B95F-C177BE7B4792.jpeg
But the question is, like the A3 at Wisely:
83741875-796F-41A0-A61C-06B568DECD5B.jpeg
09CAACD5-FDCD-49CF-806B-460795D021A8.jpeg
Are these signs telling you to break the law by crossing a solid hatched marking?
If it's busy it's eminently sensible to use that area and wait for a break in the traffic on the slip, but it seems to contradict the legislation.
Using the overhead view it's possible to work out what the layout is.
200m after the sign in the second photo there is a gap in the barrier allowing cyclists to get onto the parallel slip road.
( It's an odd S-bend layout to allow the two sections of barrier to overlap. )
The solid hatched marking in the third photo is about 400m past the barrier gap.
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Cycle slip road signs
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15765
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Cycle slip road signs
It clearly depends on how attracted you are by the challenge of trying, and whether you consider the risk worth taking. And whether you want your name in the papers under the heading "Cyclist killed/seriously injured" on expressway".the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 13:06 A64 York bypass has some as well. Another question is whether cycling along such roads is likely or wise.
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!
Re: Cycle slip road signs
The sort of S bend that the typical cyclist using a dual carriageway is going to go sailing right past... the sign hasn't been varied to reflect the layout whatsoever. Thing is, using the gore point is recommended practice for dealing with busy slip roads, but requires potentially stopping (probably on a clearway!), and contravening those markings.Pendlemac wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:50No, because the sign in the second photo does not require you to use the part of the road in the third photo.solocle wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:12 Like so:
82133ED5-5660-465D-B95F-C177BE7B4792.jpeg
But the question is, like the A3 at Wisely:
83741875-796F-41A0-A61C-06B568DECD5B.jpeg
09CAACD5-FDCD-49CF-806B-460795D021A8.jpeg
Are these signs telling you to break the law by crossing a solid hatched marking?
If it's busy it's eminently sensible to use that area and wait for a break in the traffic on the slip, but it seems to contradict the legislation.
Using the overhead view it's possible to work out what the layout is.
200m after the sign in the second photo there is a gap in the barrier allowing cyclists to get onto the parallel slip road.
( It's an odd S-bend layout to allow the two sections of barrier to overlap. )
The solid hatched marking in the third photo is about 400m past the barrier gap.
Here's an example on the A34 where they've put a cycle lane behind the hatchings - but I'm not sure you'd make that turning circle without going onto the hatchings.
Personally, I don't tend to be cycling on dual carriageways when it's busy enough to bother with this - I'll instead hold position in lane 1. But, were it substantially safer to do this, I'd do it, legal or not. For a really extreme example, consider the A2 around Darenth:
I'd actually be fairly happy using that road if necessary, stick to the hard shoulder, carefully cross any slip roads you need to. Potentially better than a lot of dual carriageways.
It depends on the risk/reward. Big fast dual carriageways are invariably good routes for making progress on a long ride. The exposure to traffic determines risk.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 13:30It clearly depends on how attracted you are by the challenge of trying, and whether you consider the risk worth taking. And whether you want your name in the papers under the heading "Cyclist killed/seriously injured" on expressway".the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 13:06 A64 York bypass has some as well. Another question is whether cycling along such roads is likely or wise.
Consider, for instance, back in June, when I cycled along the A31 from the Cadnam Interchange to Ferndown.
So, traffic straight off the M27, a busy holiday route, around sunset.
So, how was it? Delightful. No, seriously. I joined as the motorway mainline got closed off, which meant quite a bit of traffic coming up the on slip as I was. But, after about a dozen vehicles passed, it was shut off behind me. I had the road to myself - whereas my more usual route across the New Forest, the A35, was the official diversion route and would have seen quite a bit of extra traffic. The road after Ringwood was open, but still very quiet without the long distance stuff.
OK, so that's hardly typical traffic conditions. But the line is drawn somewhere, and where that line is drawn depends on the individual. For instance, I was quite happy tootling along the A303 at 2-5 am.
The A30 would have been quieter and more pleasant, sure. But for one, hugely important, factor. Services. Keeping places to get food and drink close by (only options at that time of night), outweighed the little bit of traffic that was still using the road. But I had my options and decided on the night.
From the SABRE Wiki: Cadnam Interchange :
Cadnam Interchange is junction 1 of the M27.
It is the only motorway junction inside a national park, though until the national park was created, the New Forest boundary skirted the junction. Despite being the western terminus of the M27, the junction has three lanes through it, but the A31 to the west is only two lanes. This creates a bottleneck where the 3-lane M27 and 2-lane on-slip merge into the 2-lane A31 in a short distance.
Most maps published in the
Re: Cycle slip road signs
-
- Member
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 19:45
Re: Cycle slip road signs
PS are you an Audaxer by any chance
- FosseWay
- Assistant Site Manager
- Posts: 19679
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Re: Cycle slip road signs
I don't honestly see the point of it. By putting it there at all, the authorities are in effect making that a recommended cycling route, which it surely can't be. Add to that the fact that any cyclist actually using this kind of dual carriageway will be confident in that environment and will choose their own way of negotiating on and off slips that match their speed, their confidence, their acceptable risk level and the current level of motor traffic.
The S-bend thing round barriers suffers from exactly the issue solocle mentioned, that the typical confident cyclist (the only kind likely to be using the road) will be going far too fast to suddenly make that turn, and will then have to set off from zero having made it. It's a widespread problem that signs telling cyclists to go somewhere specific or use a specific lane don't give nearly enough notice for cyclists travelling at a normal, legal and social speed to act on them. I realise this thread is about rural DCs, but in towns where the motor traffic is doing max 30 mph, cycle direction signage needs to give basically as much advance warning as that intended for motors, since the speeds are often pretty similar. But no, cyclists are expected to react to signs written in 8pt font that are parallel to the line of travel and erected 50 cm ahead of the turn they need to make.
As to the signs encouraging/mandating cyclists breaking the law by crossing solid lines - meh. As far as I'm concerned any rule-breaking is only a problem if it causes a problem to someone else, and it is surely better to cycle on a hatched area if it gives you more protection than to religiously avoid it when common sense tells you you're more of an obstruction and at greater risk by doing so.
At some point we as a society are going to have to get to grips with the fact that cycles aren't motor vehicles, and that consequently rules that apply to motor vehicles aren't necessarily relevant or appropriate to cycles and vice versa. In the current context, it's surely far more important to discuss whether it's a good idea to allow (never mind encourage through signage!) cyclists to use this kind of road, along with all the attendant issues of providing a reasonable alternative where one doesn't exist, than whether it's acceptable for cyclists to break a rule that has been conceived and created purely with high-speed motor traffic in mind.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
- MotorwayGuy
- Member
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
- Location: S.E. London
Re: Cycle slip road signs
Yes I think this hits the nail on the head - solid line chevrons and the rules around them exist as a direct response to the speed, size and manoeuvrability of motor vehicles only. Ignoring the issues around the suitability of the roads where they appear for cycle traffic, it seems clear to me that cyclists should be able to (and will) take the position which allows them the safest onward progress, taking note of but not necessarily complying with chevrons of any kind. It would be interesting to know when they were conceived of and whether any thought was given to the implications for cyclists - I would suspect that either it wasn't or if it was just assumed that they'd either be ignored where appropriate or only used in places a cyclist wouldn't generally want to be.FosseWay wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:56 At some point we as a society are going to have to get to grips with the fact that cycles aren't motor vehicles, and that consequently rules that apply to motor vehicles aren't necessarily relevant or appropriate to cycles and vice versa. In the current context, it's surely far more important to discuss whether it's a good idea to allow (never mind encourage through signage!) cyclists to use this kind of road, along with all the attendant issues of providing a reasonable alternative where one doesn't exist, than whether it's acceptable for cyclists to break a rule that has been conceived and created purely with high-speed motor traffic in mind.
In any case I'd be deeply surprised if a cyclist was pulled over and fined for being on the chevrons in the situations described. More likely they'd be pulled over and offered a lift, I think!
- FosseWay
- Assistant Site Manager
- Posts: 19679
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Re: Cycle slip road signs
Personally I'd be a lot more worried by the skid characteristics of cycling on a lot of paint, plus the tendency for puncture-causing crap to accumulate on hatched areas, than the possibility of being hauled over the coals for crossing a solid line in that circumstance.jnty wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 12:59Yes I think this hits the nail on the head - solid line chevrons and the rules around them exist as a direct response to the speed, size and manoeuvrability of motor vehicles only. Ignoring the issues around the suitability of the roads where they appear for cycle traffic, it seems clear to me that cyclists should be able to (and will) take the position which allows them the safest onward progress, taking note of but not necessarily complying with chevrons of any kind. It would be interesting to know when they were conceived of and whether any thought was given to the implications for cyclists - I would suspect that either it wasn't or if it was just assumed that they'd either be ignored where appropriate or only used in places a cyclist wouldn't generally want to be.FosseWay wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:56 At some point we as a society are going to have to get to grips with the fact that cycles aren't motor vehicles, and that consequently rules that apply to motor vehicles aren't necessarily relevant or appropriate to cycles and vice versa. In the current context, it's surely far more important to discuss whether it's a good idea to allow (never mind encourage through signage!) cyclists to use this kind of road, along with all the attendant issues of providing a reasonable alternative where one doesn't exist, than whether it's acceptable for cyclists to break a rule that has been conceived and created purely with high-speed motor traffic in mind.
In any case I'd be deeply surprised if a cyclist was pulled over and fined for being on the chevrons in the situations described. More likely they'd be pulled over and offered a lift, I think!
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Re: Cycle slip road signs
It's frankly insane to invite such a conflict point of this style but this sort of thing is in the design manuals as best practice!
Anyone who has design responsibility and seriously thinks a 70 limit dual carriageway is cycle infrastructure needs a good wobble and a career change.
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