# Make it clear that turning traffic should give way!



## mjr (21 Apr 2015)

"Over the shoulder" junctions - where riders are expected to look simultaneously left into a side road, ahead at oncoming traffic and over the shoulder at overtaking traffic - are the most common lethal layout in the country. We're slowly getting them replaced with priority when we can and better visibility everywhere, but isn't it long overdue there was a change to make the highway code rules on giving way to cycle lanes and people crossing mandatory rather than advisory?


----------



## Drago (21 Apr 2015)

The sort of people who would be benefit most from reading the highway code are those least likely to actually read it.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> but isn't it long overdue there was a change to make the highway code rules



Yup.

Along with one addition - "Cyclists should ride about 1 metre from the kerb, or in the middle of the left hand lane." Hey - a whole generation of primary school kids being taught this at Bikeability ........ and some dimwit forgot to tell all the drivers!

And a bit of clarity - "Motor vehicles should leave at least 1 metre space when overtaking cyclists or horses."

Damn - common sense, maybe; but still wishful thinking.


----------



## summerdays (22 Apr 2015)

Could you explain what you mean by an over the shoulder junction? I don't think I've heard that term before though I presume I've used them? Is it just a normal junction?


----------



## mjr (22 Apr 2015)

One where the cycle lane or path hugs the edge of the carriageway. I refuse to call it normal because there is no norm telling anyone to use that layout - it's basically thoughtlessness or lack of care for people cycling - although I suspect it's currently the most common layout. I can post some pictures once I'm at work.


----------



## summerdays (22 Apr 2015)

So on road cycle lanes? Even if the lanes weren't there that's where most cyclists would be anyway.


----------



## theclaud (22 Apr 2015)

summerdays said:


> So on road cycle lanes? Even if the lanes weren't there that's where most cyclists would be anyway.


I think he means segregated paths parallel and adjacent to the carriageway, which are not continuous across side roads.


----------



## lee1980sim (22 Apr 2015)

It's it the slip road type junctions?


----------



## byegad (22 Apr 2015)

The main reason why I never use cycle lanes.


----------



## summerdays (22 Apr 2015)

theclaud said:


> I think he means segregated paths parallel and adjacent to the carriageway, which are not continuous across side roads.


Ahh - I will see what the photos show but I'll be at work by then!


----------



## ianrauk (22 Apr 2015)

I've never heard of the expression and don't think most cyclists have either.
Will be interesting to see a pic, though I think I get what he means with @theclaud 's description.


----------



## mjr (22 Apr 2015)

Right. Coffee break time  "Over the shoulder" junctions are most often the sort of thing pictured below but I'd include any other layout where people seem expected (in theory or practice) to look backwards and forwards simultaneously, such as on-road cycle lanes that have give-way markings at side-road junctions.



(EDIT: That's looking against the direction of carriageway travel, although you are allowed to cycle along this track in both directions.)

In practice, you have to be wary of on-road lanes that are continuous too, because loads of motorists don't consider cycle lanes as "real" lanes that they need to give way to before moving across. You can tell that Rule 170 (including, basically, give way to people crossing) doesn't apply in practice when pedestrians are blamed for a collision following a car failing to yield when turning into a side road they were crossing.

My current preferred layout is what's shown under "2. Priority at sideroads (meeting secondary streets)" on www.MakingSpaceForCycling.org 






Being a car length back from the junction mouth means your paths are crossing at right angles and you can see a nobber who won't yield coming before they hit you, so at least you have a chance. In ordinary use, it improves your chances of rolling across non-stop, which outweighs the kink.

We have a few of this style near me (but not quite as good as the second picture) and more are being built this year, some with priority and some without. The first-pictured junction and its similar neighbours to the south are being rebuilt as part of the King's Lynn Transport Infrastructure project but was not improved enough in the last plans I saw, and I think they've overruled KLWNBUG's safety objections due to insufficient funds. I fear when the next collision occurs there, we'll be saying "we told you so" in the media 

Where corners are constrained (such as landowner walls right up to the current footway edge - not by shrubs like in the first picture), then the highway authorities simply must do something else if they want to add a cycleway safely. One option is to tighten the radius of the junction mouth, which may free enough space for a kink and also reduces the danger by slowing turning motorists.

I don't think I'd include slip-road crossings because the traffic there should only be coming from behind - but the I think the common designs for those have a whole other bunch of dangerous flaws.

Giving explicit legal force to the highway code rules advising turning traffic (motorised or not) to give way when turning across lanes on their left and when entering side roads that people are crossing might do a lot to make walking and cycling safer.


----------



## theclaud (22 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> Right. Coffee break time  "Over the shoulder" junctions are most often the sort of thing pictured below but I'd include any other layout where people seem expected (in theory or practice) to look backwards and forwards simultaneously, such as on-road cycle lanes that have give-way markings at side-road junctions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The first pic isn't a cycle lane at all - it's just a pointless and tokenistic painting of stuff on the pavement. The answer is to be on the road, which is already continuous. The second is obviously better in terms of cyclist priority _if one has already decided to use the path_, but is arguably unnecessary. The other important thing to note is that there isn't room in the top picture for the infrastructure in the second.


----------



## ianrauk (22 Apr 2015)

Well the first pic junction is easy enough to negotiate if you are using the 'cycle lane'. Stop - then look both ways. Pretty simple really. Other option is not to use the crappy lane in the first place.


----------



## mjr (22 Apr 2015)

theclaud said:


> The first pic isn't a cycle lane at all - it's just a pointless and tokenistic painting of stuff on the pavement. The answer is to be on the road, which is already continuous. The second is obviously better in terms of cyclist priority _if one has already decided to use the path_, but is arguably unnecessary. The other important thing to note is that there isn't room in the top picture for the infrastructure in the second.


No, it's a roadside cycleway and I know it's surprising, but that path was actually rebuilt to be like that, long before I was as involved as I am now. It was a total flattening of what was there before, so there was plenty of room to build most layouts. Even now, if some of the shrubs were moved, there's enough room to lay it out a little better without moving boundaries, if only there was the political will.

Being on the road isn't currently the answer because it's a one-way with no contraflow cycling. (I notice now that the picture doesn't include any signs suggesting that, so it's an understandable oversight.)

That's also the A148, the busy 30mph main road through the town centre. You're not going to convince many people to ride on that road (although I do sometimes) until there's a Cambridge-style overwhelming proportion of people on bikes.


ianrauk said:


> Well the first pic junction is easy enough to negotiate if you are using the 'cycle lane'. Stop - then look both ways. Pretty simple really. Other option is not to use the crappy lane in the first place.


If you're heading towards the camera in the first pic, in the time it takes most people to look through 270 degrees from one direction to the other, a motorist from the other direction can change course enough to cause a collision that the person on the bike can't avoid... and why should the bike have to stop anyway? The highway authority claims it wants to encourage cycling, which slowing bike journeys like that does not.


----------



## summerdays (22 Apr 2015)

Ok I give you the best one in Bristol that I can think of:

These are screenshots from google and depending on the position it just so happens to show the before and after view.

Before:






After:







I use that one quite often going to or from Queen's Square to the left, and I have to say it works. Though I tend to approach from the roundabout and join it when going to Queen's Square.

As you can see the position of the roundabout has moved and the cyclists and pedestrians now have a much more direct line. The surface of the crossing is raised to the level of the pavement which adds to the sense that the road traffic should give way to the crossing traffic.


----------



## Markymark (22 Apr 2015)

I'm confused. Pic 1(mrjay's post, not summerdays) the cyclist is supposed to give way (big old white triangle). They should stop if it's too difficult to see all around. It is EXACTLY what pedestrians manage to do millions of times a day. I don;t run across the roads, I stop and have a look around. Same applies to cyclists. If you don't like having to stop at give way signs, cycle on the road or walk...except they're also be give way signs there too.

Maybe I'm missing something.....


----------



## sidevalve (22 Apr 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I'm confused. Pic 1(mrjay's post, not summerdays) the cyclist is supposed to give way (big old white triangle). They should stop if it's too difficult to see all around. It is EXACTLY what pedestrians manage to do millions of times a day. I don;t run across the roads, I stop and have a look around. Same applies to cyclists. If you don't like having to stop at give way signs, cycle on the road or walk...except they're also be give way signs there too.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something.....


Nope - you're not missing something. As you say the triangle means give way. It defines the 'road' as a 'secondary' one. This is not purely a cycle lane either as it has the tactile paving for blind/partially sighted pedestrians installed.


----------



## mjr (22 Apr 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I'm confused. Pic 1(mrjay's post, not summerdays) the cyclist is supposed to give way (big old white triangle). They should stop if it's too difficult to see all around. It is EXACTLY what pedestrians manage to do millions of times a day. I don;t run across the roads, I stop and have a look around. Same applies to cyclists. If you don't like having to stop at give way signs, cycle on the road or walk...except they're also be give way signs there too.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something.....


Are you missing that we're supposed to be _encouraging_ cycling (which "stop, cycle on the road or walk" doesn't do) and that pedestrians also fail to do it a lot and then get blamed by police for stepping onto the carriageway? (Fortunately our local chief constable seems to have realised the limits of human ability and is starting to call for better highway design.)

Any combination of design and laws that expects the more vulnerable road user to do a physically impossible act like look two or three ways at once should be reformed as soon as possible to make less demands on them and more on the faster ones.

@summerdays - I used the old layout there quite a few times. It was pretty dodgy (I think it was worse than your picture suggests in one direction - did the cycleway do something strange approaching from Portwall?) and it's good that it was changed shortly before I left.

@sidevalve - technically, you're correct in that it's a mixed path, but most pedestrians seem to be on the other side of the A road or walking through the petrol station forecourt. The road being crossed is a car park and delivery bay entrance. There is no good reason for it to have priority and even less for the crossing to be so close to the corner.


----------



## Markymark (22 Apr 2015)

S encourage cycling by insisting infrastructure accommodates cyvling not to do what pedestrians and cars do in navigating with other road users? Seriously? I'm all for getting balance for cyclists but that is plain silly. When walking, drivibg or cycling, give way tends to mean stop, look and proceed when safe. No special measures for cyclists.

Pedesrtrians are already giving space to cyclists. Quite frankly dump all cycle lanes and ride on the road.


----------



## summerdays (22 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> @summerdays - I used the old layout there quite a few times. It was pretty dodgy (I think it was worse than your picture suggests in one direction - did the cycleway do something strange approaching from Portwall?) and it's good that it was changed shortly before I left.


I can't really remember the old version that well, I didn't used to come in from that direction, very often I think it probably changed before we changed office. I think I used to come around the roundabout and up a dropped kerb. How long has it been like that if it changed before you left?


----------



## jonesy (22 Apr 2015)

theclaud said:


> I think he means segregated paths parallel and adjacent to the carriageway, which are not continuous across side roads.


And the corner has a large turning radius, so that turning vehicles don't have to slow, and sightlines difficult for cyclists trying to cross the junction, so you have to look over your shoulder to see if someone is about to turn across your path.


----------



## mjr (22 Apr 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> S encourage cycling by insisting infrastructure accommodates cyvling not to do what pedestrians and cars do in navigating with other road users? Seriously? I'm all for getting balance for cyclists but that is plain silly. When walking, drivibg or cycling, give way tends to mean stop, look and proceed when safe. No special measures for cyclists.


Give way should mean only give way, but here it means doing something physically impossible before proceeding. This isn't a special measure for cycling - it's a measure for pedestrians too and an end to the special measure that motorists currently have. The only silly thing is someone on a cycling forum advocating continuing special measures favouring motorists.



> Pedesrtrians are already giving space to cyclists. Quite frankly dump all cycle lanes and ride on the road.


We know that doesn't work, but I agree it'd be better for cycleways to take space from the carriageway rather than the footway.


----------



## mjr (22 Apr 2015)

summerdays said:


> How long has it been like that if it changed before you left?


2+ years. They might have been working on it when I left and I've been back since...


----------



## Arrowfoot (23 Apr 2015)

Agree with OP. There is a lot of doubt created by the various designs that exist. The experienced cyclists will take to the roads rather than cycleways for the flow that it allows. 

We do need to address and come to a common set of standards for those who are young and those who are new to cycling or feel more comfortable using the cycleways. 

Giving way to turning traffic is also counter intuitive. I have seen drivers stop and allow cyclist to carry on as the natural reaction is to give way. Sadly there will be more accidents until we fix it.


----------



## Markymark (23 Apr 2015)

Oh, when you're driving do you not stop at give way signs? I'd suggest handing your driving license back in please.

Oh and drivers never needed to look behind and forwards at the same time. Except when changing lanes, merging onto motorway, turning left across cycle paths....


----------



## mjr (23 Apr 2015)

Usually I don't stop at give way signs: I alter my speed so I can roll out into a safe space. If you always stop at give ways, then you fall below the required standard and should hand your licence back.

When merging onto a motorway or similar, there is not usually oncoming traffic, so as long as it's clear, it should only fill from behind and you can look there. Similarly when changing lanes. And drivers almost never give way when turning across the most common UK design of bidirectional cycleway crossings, which is where we came in...


----------



## Dan B (23 Apr 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Oh, when you're driving do you not stop at give way signs?


When I'm driving in the carriageway along a major road, there is no requirement to five way at each minor road joining it. However if I'm cycling along the major road in a segregated cycleway, often there is such a requirement.

In not sure there is a good way to make this better without the use of RPGs, though


----------



## Tin Pot (23 Apr 2015)

[insert pic of molehill and a mountain here]

If you don't want to ride on the cycle lane, ride on the road.

End.


----------



## Markymark (23 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> When I'm driving in the carriageway along a major road, there is no requirement to five way at each minor road joining it. However if I'm cycling along the major road in a segregated cycleway, often there is such a requirement.


Ride on the road then. Cycle paths stuck n the pavement are taking away (mostly) pedestrian space and will be compromised as often as pedestrians are at crossing.


----------



## Dan B (23 Apr 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Ride on the road then. Cycle paths stuck n the pavement are taking away (mostly) pedestrian space and will be compromised as often as pedestrians are at crossing.


I think you're missing the point that the OP was trying to make


----------



## Markymark (23 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> Usually I don't stop at give way signs: I alter my speed so I can roll out into a safe space..



Did I saw always? No. If you usually don't, you sir are a shitty driver and are part of the problem. Cycling along and seeing a car failing to stop from a side rode and 'rolling into a safe place' (their perception) is a menace on the roads.

Finally, most drivers do look behind them when crossing cycle paths where they are obliged to look behind and in the direction of travel. Some don't and they are dicks. You seem to be suggesting cyclists also should be allowed to behave like these dicks and change the whole infrastructure to allow them to do so.


----------



## Pete Owens (23 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> "Over the shoulder" junctions - where riders are expected to look simultaneously left into a side road, ahead at oncoming traffic and over the shoulder at overtaking traffic - are the most common lethal layout in the country


Which is the reason why roadside cyclepaths are such an extrodinarily bad idea - and why anyone remotely interested in the safety of cyclists opposes them. And it is not a marginal difference - there is a three fold increase in the crash rate if the cyclists is riding with the traffic and a factor of ten in the case of wrong way cyclists on a bi-diectional track.


> We're slowly getting them replaced with priority when we can and better visibility everywhere,


Changing the priority just means that a different vehicle operator has to give way to vehicles comning from behind them. Indeed, the reason that the UK tends to change the priority in favour of turning traffic is that cyclists have better all round vision - and being the more vulnerable users are presumed to take greater care. Of course this tends to ignore the fact that the more competent cyclists who are aware of the danger of cycle tracks will tend to avoid the danger by riding on the carriageway. Where the Dutch studied the difference at roundabouts (where they had examples of both priority arrangements) they found it was indeed much safer for the cycle track to give way.

The only safe way to tacke such an inherently dangerous junction arrangement (whichever way the priority is arranged) is to get off and walk across - hence the Cyclists Dismount signs. Cyclists then can more easily look all around them and they will be in the field of view of approaching motorists.


----------



## Dan B (23 Apr 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> Changing the priority just means that a different vehicle operator has to give way to vehicles comning from behind them. Indeed, the reason that the UK tends to change the priority in favour of turning traffic is that cyclists have better all round vision - and being the more vulnerable users are presumed to take greater care. Of course this tends to ignore the fact that the more competent cyclists who are aware of the danger of cycle tracks will tend to avoid the danger by riding on the carriageway. Where the Dutch studied the difference at roundabouts (where they had examples of both priority arrangements) they found it was indeed much safer for the cycle track to give way.


Of course it would be even safer yet if the cyclist were just to stay at home


----------



## Markymark (23 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> Of course it would be even safer yet if the cyclist were just to stay at home


...or accept that giving way often means stopping as it does for cars and pedstrians and probably trains, planes, helicopters are tuktuks.


----------



## Dan B (23 Apr 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> ...or accept that giving way often means stopping as it does for cars and pedstrians and probably trains, planes, helicopters are tuktuks.


Cars don't have to give way at side roads when they are in the carriageway on the major road
Cyclists don't have to give way at side roads when they are in the carriageway on the major road
Cyclists _do_ have to give way at side roads when they are in the cycleway that forms part of the major road

Why is this? Instead of saying "that's how it is, use the road and suck it up", how about considering what the effects would be if it were changed? I'm no real fan of segregated facilities, but I don't think that's any reason for blocking attempts to make them better.


----------



## Markymark (23 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> Cyclists _do_ have to give way at side roads when they are in the cycleway that forms part of the major road


Do they? It looks to me that they only have to do that when they're on a cycle way that forms part of *a pavement*. Just like the pedestrians on that pavement. If it's *on the major road* they'd be alongside the cars and have the same priorities as the cars.


----------



## Dan B (23 Apr 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Do they? It looks to me that they only have to do that when they're on a cycle way that forms part of *a pavement*. Just like the pedestrians on that pavement. If it's *on the major road* they'd be alongside the cars and have the same priorities as the cars.


I'm not really interested in whether the cycle lane was previously allocated for the use of all road users or for pedestrians alone, I want to know why it is that it means people using it have to give way to turning vehicles and what would be the effect of changing it so they don't have to. Personally I think the effect would be to make drivers take more care and make cycling and walking more pleasant, but I may have overlooked something

Note that there is already advice in the highway code that turning drivers should give way to pedestrians crossing the side road, not that most drivers know or care


----------



## mjr (23 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> Brighton and Hove seems to be ahead of the game here: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/article/inspiring-infrastructure-old-shoreham-road-brighton
> 
> View attachment 86538


Close but no cookie: the footway should continue across and the right-hand (as we look at it) lane line of the cycleway should be painted across, dashed.


----------



## mjr (23 Apr 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> And it is not a marginal difference - there is a three fold increase in the crash rate if the cyclists is riding with the traffic and a factor of ten in the case of wrong way cyclists on a bi-diectional track.


I wonder which crusty old data would be said to support that claim this time. Suffice to say, it ain't necessarily so and anyway, at the moment we have cyclists riding the wrong way on cycleways protected by nothing more than paint.



> Changing the priority just means that a different vehicle operator has to give way to vehicles comning from behind them. Indeed, the reason that the UK tends to change the priority in favour of turning traffic is that cyclists have better all round vision - and being the more vulnerable users are presumed to take greater care.


Better, but still not omnidirectional, so crashes still happen. To be clear, we're also getting layouts changed so that users meet in at more crossroad-like angles.



> Of course this tends to ignore the fact that the more competent cyclists who are aware of the danger of cycle tracks will tend to avoid the danger by riding on the carriageway. Where the Dutch studied the difference at roundabouts (where they had examples of both priority arrangements) they found it was indeed much safer for the cycle track to give way.


Dutch cyclists aren't incompetent! We would do well to imitate their junction rules:





but as a stop-gap band-aid, I'd take waving a legislative mace to give clearer legal support to the Highway Code advisory rules about crossings.



> The only safe way to tacke such an inherently dangerous junction arrangement (whichever way the priority is arranged) is to get off and walk across - hence the Cyclists Dismount signs.


That's not safe, as the numbers of pedestrians knocked down crossing junction mouths show.


----------



## mjr (23 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> That's one opinion I suppose. It works fine as it is.


Oh yeah, it's close. Much better than the bog standard. I'd love a video of it in action with a motorist giving way if you ever get one.

I was mildly surprised on the ride to/from town today that two motorists didn't give way... OK, it was on one of the three road crossings on that section where the cycleway gives way (there are at least as many where it doesn't), but most wait, partly because they're not going to pull out onto the busy road any time soon and they don't really like people riding around the back of them in case we misjudge it and scratch their car.


----------



## Arrowfoot (23 Apr 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Oh, when you're driving do you not stop at give way signs? I'd suggest handing your driving license back in please.
> 
> Oh and drivers never needed to look behind and forwards at the same time. Except when changing lanes, merging onto motorway, turning left across cycle paths....



They do not put give way signs on a straight road but on a smaller road joining in. To allow built up traffic to join a bigger road, you put traffic lights. You never ever put a give way signs.


----------



## Pete Owens (24 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> I think you're missing the point that the OP was trying to make


The point the OP was making was that roadside cycle paths are very dangerous at side road junctions because it means that road users have to give way to vehicles coming from behind. This is the reason why safety concious cyclists avoid using them and oppose their construction. However, the OP is a proponent of road side cycle pathis so is attempting to argue that it would be somehow better if different road users had to spot the vehicles coming from behind.


----------



## summerdays (24 Apr 2015)

Part of the problem is that the very people who might use paths such as children won't be the ones who will look properly and will associate being safe with being on the path not necessarily recognising the hazards at junctions.


----------



## Pete Owens (24 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> My current preferred layout is what's shown under "2. Priority at sideroads (meeting secondary streets)" on www.MakingSpaceForCycling.or
> Being a car length back from the junction mouth means your paths are crossing at right angles and you can see a nobber who won't yield coming before they hit you, so at least you have a chance. In ordinary use, it improves your chances of rolling across non-stop, which outweighs the kink.


Diverting cyclists and pedestrians away from their desire line has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the convenience of motorists. The one and only purpose of this is so that if a car needs to stop at the crossing it does not hold up traffic on the main road. When a cyclist approaches the crossing it will appear to mororists (if they notice them at all) as if they are making the turn - only to swerve across their path at the last moment when the motorist is accelerating way from the junction.

As for the supposed benefits of crossing at right angles - this takes no account whatsoever of the time and distance it takes to bring a vehicle (whether motorised or human powered) to a stop. By the time the two are approaching at right angles it is very much too late for either party to do anything about it. In order to give way at that point they need to have decided to stop before they reach the turn.


----------



## mjr (24 Apr 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> This is the reason why safety concious cyclists avoid using them and oppose their construction. However, the OP is a proponent of road side cycle pathis so is attempting to argue that it would be somehow better if different road users had to spot the vehicles coming from behind.


First, Pete Owens just can't stop himself from building strawmen to attack. I am not "a proponent of road side cycle paths" - in fact, I feel they have no place in most developments - but I recognise that they exist and are currently less safe than they could be, that PO's avoid-and-oppose approach is not working and that people I know and care about are being injured out there.

Second, the ideal is to use layouts where neither vehicle will be coming from behind, but if that won't happen, then it's more likely that the vehicle on the right will be overtaking (assuming a cycleway to the left of the carriageway), so they should give way as they turn. Arguably that's the case already in many situations, but clearer law would help.

Thirdly, I note that PO doesn't feel like supporting his claim that side paths are necessarily more dangerous since the last datasets were debunked.


Pete Owens said:


> Diverting cyclists and pedestrians away from their desire line has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the convenience of motorists.


Who's diverting cyclists and pedestrians any more? I'm suggesting tightening the corners, diverting the carriageway user from their desire line and slowing motorists. I feel like I'm replying mainly to highlight that PO seems to be arguing against imagined points rather than the actual suggestion.

Many such junctions already divert people walking and cycling from their desire line, but by simply making the crossing square instead of turned into the side road, it can improve safety a bit with no extra distance travelled. Of course, I'd prefer the cycleway and footway to keep a straight line like in the above Brighton example.


> The one and only purpose of this is so that if a car needs to stop at the crossing it does not hold up traffic on the main road. When a cyclist approaches the crossing it will appear to mororists (if they notice them at all) as if they are making the turn - only to swerve across their path at the last moment when the motorist is accelerating way from the junction.


That sounds like a description of the current layouts, where people walking and cycling are turned into the side road and then turn back to cross it.



> As for the supposed benefits of crossing at right angles - this takes no account whatsoever of the time and distance it takes to bring a vehicle (whether motorised or human powered) to a stop. By the time the two are approaching at right angles it is very much too late for either party to do anything about it. In order to give way at that point they need to have decided to stop before they reach the turn.


So how do we explain that in practice, one party simply slows or accelerates to cross in a gap if possible:

View: http://youtube.com/v/q664_GjTyoE

That's a more open example than many, but the basic idea is the same.


----------



## Pete Owens (25 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> I am not "a proponent of road side cycle paths"


ROFL


----------



## anothersam (25 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> Of course it would be even safer yet if the cyclist were just to stay at home



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vvNl-Lr1Bw


----------



## Pete Owens (28 Apr 2015)

mjray said:


> View: http://youtube.com/v/q664_GjTyoE



Given the title of the thread, that seems a astonishing choice of video to use as an example.


----------



## mjr (29 Apr 2015)

Awww are some small minds astonished by topic drift and the idea that the short term palliative and long term ideal are different?


----------

