Is this right?

[Derek]

A new cycle priority crossing being built on Dereham Road in Norwich on what is a really good scheme. It features raised tables across side roads with cycle priority. But some have these road markings for traffic entering the side road from the main road. It's a combination of a give way line and triangles to show the hump. Is it correct, ie allowed?

[SteelCamel]

A new cycle priority crossing being built on Dereham Road in Norwich on what is a really good scheme. It features raised tables across side roads with cycle priority. But some have these road markings for traffic entering the side road from the main road. It's a combination of a give way line and triangles to show the hump. Is it correct, ie allowed?

I would have thought it was basic common sense that you can't paint different markings on top of each other. If nothing else, I'd have thought the triangles need to be on the side where traffic is approaching. But does this road really have traffic driving on the right?

[Derek]

No, the give way applies to traffic entering the side road.

I don't like the way the marking overlap

[B1040]

Looks confusing

[Bryn666]

The overlap would be less confusing if the give way pads were at the tip of the triangles and not the base.

[deadly]

Utterly confusing. It looks like you are supposed to drive on the other side of the road.

What are the "entry" single-dashed lines supposed to mean? Surely they should still be "give way" markings (to give way to traffic on the through road).

[Bryn666]

Utterly confusing. It looks like you are supposed to drive on the other side of the road.

What are the "entry" single-dashed lines supposed to mean? Surely they should still be "give way" markings (to give way to traffic on the through road).

Looking at it again on a laptop, it appears they've painted the give way lines back to front making you drive on the right. I had thought it was an unfinished contraflow from mobile phone resolution.

[jervi]

Nothing about this is correct

[B1040]

I see the cycle symbols now.
Looks like a life changing incident waiting to happen. What's the advanced signage like?
Sooner or later a vehicle is going to hit someone.
As a cyclist, I'd rather wait for a gap in the traffic or ride in the road.

[Derek]

Here's a wider shot of the junction. There will be two traffic lanes heading this way where I'm standing, the inner one being a bus lane which will finish a little way behind me so that cars can pull into the left lane before turning into the side road.

[Chris5156]

Looks like a complete mess to me. There are ways of marking cycle and pedestrian priority across the mouth of a junction like this - I don't know why you'd avoid them in favour of implying that the side road drives on the right.

[Debaser]

I'd suggest someone has seriously misinterpreted one of the layouts in Figure 10.13: Priority crossings of cycle tracks at side roads, of LTN 1/20 (see the rightmost image, 2nd from bottom).

[tom1977]

Wrong and dangerous. There has to be a give way marking at the mouth of the minor arm at a priority junction

Good luck to any partially sighted pedestrians trying to negotiate this route

[skiddaw05]

It would be interesting to see if this has been through a safety audit

[Herned]

Wow. All of those markings look completely wrong. I would seriously hope that's a cock-up by whoever did the lining rather than the intended design

[Vierwielen]

It looks to me that the main road is a few centimetres higher than the side road and that the the triangles shoudl have been on the slope, not on the junction (ie moved back by about a metre). ALso, it woudl have helped if the slope was a slightly different colour.

[Piatkow]

It makes sense in a messy way when I look at the second photo when I look at it for a second or two but then I am not making decision about the lives of other road users while travelling at 20mph.

When I expand the second photo slightly so that it coincides better with a driver's viewpoint my immediate reaction is to assume that there is a badly placed no entry sign just out of view

[DB617]

I'd suggest someone has seriously misinterpreted one of the layouts in Figure 10.13: Priority crossings of cycle tracks at side roads, of LTN 1/20 (see the rightmost image, 2nd from bottom).

Yes, definitely. Almost as if because there were space constraints the designer decided that it was OK to move the give way lines entering the side road up to the very mouth of the junction. The extra 300mm or so of spacing provided by the triangles being 'first' matters.

In a way, I'm OK with engineers trying and failing to use LTN 1/20. There are many who still just make stuff up. Questions like this - what to do if the space or alignment constraints make it impossible to perfectly replicate the manual - should probably be referred back to the authors or DfT. I know the author has retired from teaching but I suspect he's still more than willing to provide tutorship to budding cycleway designers and has plenty of understudies at UWE who are equally keen.

[deadly]

I'd suggest someone has seriously misinterpreted one of the layouts in Figure 10.13: Priority crossings of cycle tracks at side roads, of LTN 1/20 (see the rightmost image, 2nd from bottom).

Looks like it, but they've missed out the highligted "Kerbed island required", which provides the essential space for the give way markings to be less confusing. Exiting the side road, that layout also has the give way markings after where pedestrians cross (unlike all of the other layouts) - presumably this is because there's no separate give way to the main road after the cycle path, and it gives better visibility of the road.

There's also a post in the middle of the cycle lane.

[FosseWay]

There's also a post in the middle of the cycle lane.

That was the first thing that caught my eye. "There's a gurt post right in the way," I thought, except there was another word between "a" and "gurt" which I've left out

The give way markings are completely wrong though. As others have said, it looks like they're designed for right-hand traffic. There is potential for confusion for traffic wanting to turn into the side road, as it looks like it might be a one-way in the other direction. But the worst outcome of that is probably just that someone who legally could make the turn chooses not to. That isn't in itself unsafe - just silly. But the absence of give way markings on the other side of the road is another thing. Yes, you want to get drivers to give way to cyclists and pedestrians, but in their eagerness to put this across, the council seems to have forgotten that drivers also need to give way to whatever traffic is passing by on the main road.

There shouldn't need to be a special marking to signify the need to give way to pedestrians and cyclists, because they have priority in that situation whatever. What you do need to do is highlight that this is a route specially recommended for cyclists so the chances of encountering them and needing to give way to them is higher here than it may be elsewhere. My personal preference in this case is to have coloured tarmac; please, not paint and certainly not setts, cobbles or bricks, because paint is slippery and the latter are uneven.