# Cycle lane priority over side roads



## swansonj (24 Jul 2013)

First, apologies, I suspect that the information I need will be in this forum somewhere already, but I don't frequent this area so much so am not familiar with it.

Surrey County Council are consulting about cycle provision on my local A road, the A24 from Leatherhead to Ashtead. Their proposal, predictably, is just to redesignate the pavement as a shared use cycle path (to be scrupulously fair to them, they are proposing to reduce the carriageway width in places to get enough width for a 3 m path). Equally predictably, their proposed cycle path would give way to every single side road.

I will put the arguments for on-road provision, but I know local feeling well enough to think that's a lost cause, most parents round here would love their children to have an off-road cycle path however poor. So I also want to argue that if there is to be an off-carriageway provision, it shouldn't give way to side roads. I know it's almost universal that cycle paths do this in the UK, but my specific question is, is there anything in any of the various design guides or rules that require this, and are there any precedents for cycle paths that follow the priority of the main road through junctions, with the side road give way line moved back accordingly?

Thanks for any pointers.


----------



## jonesy (24 Jul 2013)

DfT's current guidance is LTN2/08:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3808/ltn-2-08.pdf

See section 10.4 on side road crossings:

_As a result of concerns over the safety of parallel cycle tracks crossing side roads, it is becoming common European practice to reintroduce cyclists to the main road in advance of a junction. Cyclists pass the junction on the carriageway and then rejoin the cycle track._

_Cyclists join the road in line with the main flow on buildouts ramped to carriageway level (see Figure 10.6) and use an advisory cycle lane that continues past the junction until it rejoins the cycle track. If a buildout is not possible, the cycle track may need to give way where it joins the carriageway_
_10.4.3 The advantage of this arrangement is that it gives the cyclist unambiguous priority at the junction. The solution precludes two way use of the cycle track. The merge onto the carriageway should be at least 30 metres from the junction to reduce the risk of conflict with left turning traffic._

Some other sources:

The Irish cycle manual is an excellent online guidance manual, drawing on a lot of the European guidance:
www.cyclemanual.ie/

it provides lots of different examples of how to manage side road crossings.

There are a lot of references to sources of design guidance on the CILT website, which hosts most of the former Cycling England material:
http://www.ciltuk.org.uk/ExploreCIL...elPlanning/Cycling/TheHub/Infrastructure.aspx


see also TfL's London Cycling Design Standards:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx


----------



## GrasB (24 Jul 2013)

swansonj said:


> ...and are there any precedents for cycle paths that follow the priority of the main road through junctions, with the side road give way line moved back accordingly?


2 examples in Cambridge that I can think of both are completely ignored by motorists. Often the positioning of vehicles at these junctions leads to cyclists having to enter the road space to pass stationary vehicles which are 'trapped' by traffic on the major road. Of course due to the nature of how cyclists enter the road space (& in one of the two examples the junction is semi-hidden by parked vehicles) they are often put in a much more risky situation than they would have been otherwise.


----------



## snorri (24 Jul 2013)

Cycling by Design has some drawings which may help. 
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...lications-and-consultations/cycling-by-design
Section 7
Para 7.2.2.2
Fig 7.7 & 7.8


----------



## GrasB (24 Jul 2013)

The give-way markings shows in Fig 7.8 are completely ignored by motorists in Cambridge.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Jul 2013)

Tell them to go to Oxford and take a look at the Woodstock Road amongst other places. It works there.


----------



## siadwell (24 Jul 2013)

I thought there might be an example on your own doorstep where the road to Westhumble joins the A24 (https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=we...humble,+Surrey,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&t=h&z=20).
How wrong I was. This is a classic example of how NOT to cross a side road with a cycle path. Although there are heavy dotted lines across the side road the denote where the path crosses, the give way triangles are painted across the "path", encouraging drivers to block it as they give way to the main road.
Good luck with the council!


----------



## StuartG (24 Jul 2013)

My (pootling) club cycles down that road occasionally. Usually 8/12 cyclists. Using such a path/crossing is impractical and we will continue to use the road to everyone's annoyance. We are not dogmatic about cycle paths - we use the ones either side of the Dorking bound dual carriageway where the benefits outweigh the disbenefits.

But here the council is proposing to spend money to provide something that will not be used by many (most?) cyclists for their own safety. Not good value. Is that a line to take?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Jul 2013)

Surrey will just want to paint lines to meet some sustainable transport infrastructure target somewhere. They, like West Sussex, don't give a fig if actual cyclists actually use said facilities.


----------



## snailracer (24 Jul 2013)

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/s...and/2011/01/b02_road_crossings_side_roads.pdf


----------



## Richard Mann (24 Jul 2013)

The "best" approach is to set the crossing back by 5m from the main road (then it can happily be given priority, if it's on a hump, and turning speeds are kept down).

If there's not enough room to bend the cycle track away from the main road, you can just have it close to the road, but motorists won't wait behind the crossing if they can't see along the main road, or if the main road is so busy/fast that they feel they have to be ready to go at the drop of a hat (and obviously, they'll then drive into any bike trying to squeeze in front of them).

So unless the side road is pretty quiet, in poor-visibility situations it's better to have the second give-way on the side road about 8m back from the main road, and an 8m speed table, so that cars can pull forward to the junction, and bikes can divert round the back of a car when there's one in the way.

(In my opinion)


----------



## benb (24 Jul 2013)

I agree with Richard above. You want to have space for one car to wait at the side road ready to join the carriageway, and the cycle path would lead behind that car, with priority over the road it is crossing.


----------



## benb (24 Jul 2013)

User said:


> Which is what diagram 7.8 in the Cyling by Design describes. As far as I am aware, nowhere in the UK has put in place the design in diagram 7.8 - they've put in place b******ised poor relation versions...


 

I don't think I've ever seen an example of a cycle lane in the UK that I would actually want to cycle on.


----------



## StuartG (24 Jul 2013)

benb said:


> I don't think I've ever seen an example of a cycle lane in the UK that I would actually want to cycle on.


 
Do you avoid cycle lanes that double up as bus lanes?
In London that would make you part of a very small minority.


----------



## benb (24 Jul 2013)

StuartG said:


> Do you avoid cycle lanes that double up as bus lanes?
> In London that would make you part of a very small minority.


 

Oh yeah, those are OK, I'd forgotten about them. There aren't any bus lanes on my commute.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Jul 2013)

What's a bus lane? Oima yokel


----------



## StuartG (24 Jul 2013)

User said:


> The reason being that under the current law cycles can use bus lanes ...


Cycles cannot use bus lanes unless allowed to do so. There are a good many places where they cannot and you can get ticketed.

The non pedantic point is the traditional criticism of cycle lanes as being too narrow, in the gutter and having insufficient priority are negated when they are built the width of a bus lane. Obviously there are very few places where you can have two such lanes for cycles and buses so they are shared. The traffic sign shows it to be a lane for cycles so I shall continue to call them cycle lanes as well as bus lanes.


----------



## GrasB (24 Jul 2013)

User said:


> Where in Cambridge has those particular markings? I can't think of anywhere which has that particular layout (which is modelled on the Dutch layout).


Not exactly the same layout but the road markings are the same - 
Madingley Rise (University West Site, north of Madingley Rd); the shared cycle path is set a good vans length back from the main road. Give way markings are ignored as routine, also pedestrians & cyclists are intimidated if they dare to take their priority.
Grange rd; same set of markings, though mostly worn away now. Never worked again same problems as with Madingley Rise.


----------



## sheddy (24 Jul 2013)

Aylesbury have used the red tarmac across side roads with dragons teeth to emphasise the cycle path.
There were pix on the cycling england website, but it may have been pulled down.


----------



## StuartG (24 Jul 2013)

User said:


> I think my post was fairly clear that the issue was about those bus lanes to which cycles were admitted...


 
Your sentence was specific and wrong. I tried to point that out politely. I thought you might enjoy a whiff of pedantry.

Obviously not and really you should dispense with re-writing history if you aim is to inform, educate and be taken seriously. Toodooloo!


----------



## StuartG (24 Jul 2013)

User said:


> Whatever! I think you can join srw in the stalker troll pen...


 
???????
My apologies, I didn't realise you were so paranoid. Hence I won't be troubling you anymore.
I do find @srw a very good and nice chappie. So no worries sharing any pen with him. 
Peace.


----------



## Richard Mann (24 Jul 2013)

Actually what I was trying to describe is the situation where the visibility is poor and bending out is impractical. An example is a bit further south along Woodstock Road from the one that Greg posted:

http://goo.gl/maps/Cspwf

You can see the hump is only the width of the pavement (about 3m), and there are new drains just behind the hump. What they should do is tighten up the radii, and make the hump a lot deeper, so there's room for a car to be at the junction and for pedestrians/cyclists to go behind without dropping down a kerb. That isn't bending out because the deviation from the straight line is too tight. So pedestrians and cyclists won't deviate unless there's a car in the way.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Jul 2013)

all the drivers in Ashtead are on drugs. Fact. Every time I've gone through Ashtead with Agent Hilda I've said 'look out, sweetiepie, all the drivers are on drugs' and every time we've come out the other side she's said 'no shoot, Sherlock, they're all on drugs'.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Jul 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> all the drivers in Ashtead are on drugs. Fact. Every time I've gone through Ashtead with Agent Hilda I've said 'look out, sweetiepie, all the drivers are on drugs' and every time we've come out the other side she's said 'no s***, Sherlock, they're all on drugs'.


Ain't just Ashstead boss, south of the A3 they're all on something...


----------



## swansonj (25 Jul 2013)

Thanks everyone (well, nearly everyone) for the helpful responses. What I think I have learned is that for practical purposes you can only give an off-highway cycle path priority over side roads if you've got space to make it cross the side road at least one car's length out from the main road (or if it can be made a one-way side road, which is difficult considering several of these are cul-de-sacs!) That ain't going to happen in this case.

I don't know for certain, because Surrey haven't put out any explanatory material that I can find on their website, but I'm guessing the pressure to do this scheme comes partly from a desire to increase cycling to the local comprehensive. I've got some sympathy that the A24 is a pretty lousy road to cycle on. I do it, and if they put in this two-way, shared-use path with give-ways every hundred yards and trees scattered down the middle I'll carry on cycling on the carriageway, and I'm going to respond to their questionnaire opposing the scheme, but in all honesty, I wouldn't blame a parent who saw it as a step forward.


----------



## swansonj (25 Jul 2013)

StuartG said:


> My (pootling) club cycles down that road occasionally. Usually 8/12 cyclists. Using such a path/crossing is impractical and we will continue to use the road to everyone's annoyance. We are not dogmatic about cycle paths - we use the ones either side of the Dorking bound dual carriageway where the benefits outweigh the disbenefits.


Agreed - me too. The differences include (a) the western A24 cyclepath is a decent width all the way except that short narrow bit over the tunnel at Westhumble and (b) although there are technically speaking give way signs at several entrances along the length, there's enough visibility, and few enough cars using them, that you don't actually have to slow, and you can go all the way from the Givon's Grove to the Denbeigh's roundabout only having to give way once, at Westhumble again. OK, that's once more than on the carriageway, but that's a price worth paying IMO.


----------



## summerdays (25 Jul 2013)

I use a shared path beside a ring road, so although I may have to stop at junctions they are relatively few and far between, and if I was on the road I may have to stop at the same junctions as they are all traffic light controlled. What I would be concerned about is making sure that there are good sight lines at the crossing points (one of mine is staggered on an island which leaves you having to look almost directly behind you for traffic), and that if there is an island in the middle of a junction that it is big enough to fit a bike (multiple bikes) onto. For a long time there was one junction where you couldn't fit the bike onto the island as it was only about 3 ft deep, luckily they fixed this earlier this year so that you can get 4 or 5 bikes on and deep enough that they don't protrude from the island. The path needs to be wide enough that it isn't completely blocked by bikes waiting to cross the side road either.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Jul 2013)

swansonj said:


> Thanks everyone (well, nearly everyone) for the helpful responses. What I think I have learned is that for practical purposes you can only give an off-highway cycle path priority over side roads if you've got space to make it cross the side road at least one car's length out from the main road (or if it can be made a one-way side road, which is difficult considering several of these are cul-de-sacs!) That ain't going to happen in this case.
> 
> I don't know for certain, because Surrey haven't put out any explanatory material that I can find on their website, but I'm guessing the pressure to do this scheme comes partly from a desire to increase cycling to the local comprehensive. I've got some sympathy that the A24 is a pretty lousy road to cycle on. I do it, and if they put in this two-way, shared-use path with give-ways every hundred yards and trees scattered down the middle I'll carry on cycling on the carriageway, and I'm going to respond to their questionnaire opposing the scheme, but in all honesty, I wouldn't blame a parent who saw it as a step forward.


Can a confident 12-year-old cycle safely on the A24. Hmmmm, maybe, maybe not. Personally I doubt it.
Would the parents of a confident 12-year-old allow said child to cycle on the A24? Never.Gonna.Happen.


----------



## snorri (25 Jul 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> r, so there's room for a car to be at the junction and for pedestrians/cyclists to go behind without dropping down a kerb. That isn't bending out because the deviation from the straight line is too tight. So pedestrians and cyclists won't deviate unless there's a car in the way.


I don't think cyclists on the path should be required to have to decide to deviate or otherwise. Suppose a car and cycle are approaching the junction at the same time, the cyclist has to decide to go ahead in front of the car or slow down and go round behind the car, ie give way. If a second car comes up to the junction will it leave sufficient space for cycle traffic to pass between the two cars? A lorry or longer vehicle would further complicate the issue. Is it reasonable to require the young and inexperienced cyclist to handle this situation?
Motor vehicles should be required to give way to cycle traffic on the main route or cycle path running parallel to the main route..


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Jul 2013)

snorri said:


> Motor vehicles should be required to give way to cycle traffic on the main route or cycle path running parallel to the main route..


Less vulnerable road users should be required to give way to more vulnerable road users on any route in any situation perhaps?


----------



## Richard Mann (25 Jul 2013)

snorri said:


> I don't think cyclists on the path should be required to have to decide to deviate or otherwise...


 
This is just what pedestrians do as a matter of course. An 8m speed table just makes it reasonably possible for a cyclist to do it too.


----------



## snorri (25 Jul 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> This is just what pedestrians do as a matter of course. An 8m speed table just makes it reasonably possible for a cyclist to do it too.


Pedestrians are treated even worse than cyclists by present design standards.
It's reasonably possible but the inconvenience would result in the majority of cyclists staying on the main road, I would think.


----------



## benb (26 Jul 2013)

I don't think it's particularly inconvenient.
Casual cyclists, I'm sure, would prefer to use something like this rather than be on the carriageway.


----------



## snailracer (26 Jul 2013)

benb said:


> I don't think it's particularly inconvenient.
> Casual cyclists, I'm sure, would prefer to use something like this rather than be on the carriageway.


I presume this is a photo from somewhere where folks drive on the right, so it doesn't show the bit of the junction we are interested in - the bit where the traffic on the main road gives way to the cyclist crossing the side road.


----------



## qigong chimp (21 Aug 2013)

swansonj said:


> ...Surrey County Council are consulting about cycle provision on my local A road, the A24 from Leatherhead to Ashtead. Their proposal, predictably, is just to redesignate the pavement as a shared use cycle path..


Ask them if they propose to consolidate the re-designation of this sliver of highway with a Traffic Restriction Order, ensuring right of way over it is exclusive to pedestrians and cyclists.


----------



## buggi (21 Aug 2013)

can we please just start a petition to get rid of all cycle lanes and paths. they are just a danger to cyclists in so many ways.


----------



## fattyowls (1 Oct 2013)

Hi! I don't think "bending" is a good idea. I know that the dutch engeneers seem to love that form, but accident research in Germany proved this to be the most dangerous of all forms. Look at this stats:

http://bernd.sluka.de/folien/gif/mitLZA1.gif

Notice that they merged the stats for cycle lanes and mixed traffic, because otherwise it would have been to obvious that mixed traffic is the safest form.

Translation: 
Fahrbahn=cyclists on the carriageway (mixed traffic)
Radfahrstreifen=cycle lane
Radweg=cyclepath
Furtabsetzung: measure on how far the cyclepath is removed from the main road in junctions
gering=slight (0-2 meters)
mittel=middle (2-4 meters)
weit=far (>4 meters)

black are the accidents with cyclist in the right direction, white are the accidents with salmon cyclists, checkers are miscancellous accidents


----------



## mr_cellophane (11 Oct 2013)

fattyowls said:


> black are the accidents with cyclist in the right direction, white are the accidents with salmon cyclists, checkers are miscancellous accidents


So it's safer to cycle against the traffic flow


----------



## HLaB (11 Oct 2013)

qigong chimp said:


> Ask them if they propose to consolidate the re-designation of this sliver of highway with a Traffic Restriction Order, ensuring right of way over it is exclusive to pedestrians and cyclists.


FWIW, its Traffic Regulation Order.
I don't hold much faith in driver behaving to them legal or not


----------



## fattyowls (24 Oct 2013)

mr_cellophane said:


> So it's safer to cycle against the traffic flow



No. The data you see is for one way cycle facilities. There is, however, a certain number of cyclists riding against the prescribed direction. Their involvement in accidents is higher than their actual numbers, so its more dangerous to cycle on the wrong side.


----------

