Cycle lane priority over side roads

[GrumpyGregry]

What's a bus lane? Oima yokel

 

[StuartG]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?