Feedback please: calming traffic, paint & .....

[AnotherEye]

I've just drafted this, I'm looking for feedback before Friday: some ways of reducing danger for cyclists:
http://www.roadusers.net/draft.html

thanks

 

[amasidlover]

Apart from the angled speed hump (which I'd be very dubious about in the wet) I think its one of the best pieces I've seen on the subject. Plenty of clear illustrations, concise and addresses some of the main traffic layout issues.

As for speed humps I'd liked them banned; when I'm on a road trying to be aware of all the traffic/pedestrians around me I could really do without having to worry about how flat the road is - they're as dangerous as pot-holes in some cases... Instead 20 limits and enforcement would be better.

You could add a link to some of the lists of completely insane cycle lane layouts that councils occasionally come up with, to highlight things not to do, but that may detract from the succintness.

 

[AnotherEye]

Apart from the angled speed hump (which I'd be very dubious about in the wet) .

I've not thought about this. why do you think they might be dangerous when wet?

 

[amasidlover]

Well I find any significant slope/road imperfection is best approached at right angles in the wet, otherwise there is a tendency to slide along it in the direction of travel (like tacking when sailing) - when there's plenty of grip it doesn't make a difference. For the same reason I tend to avoid the edges of speed cushions in the wet - preferring the center if I can't safely hit the gap between them.

 

[AnotherEye]

Well I find any significant slope/road imperfection is best approached at right angles in the wet, otherwise there is a tendency to slide along it in the direction of travel (like tacking when sailing) - when there's plenty of grip it doesn't make a difference. For the same reason I tend to avoid the edges of speed cushions in the wet - preferring the center if I can't safely hit the gap between them.

Interesting, I wanted comments & this is not something that I'd considered, thank you.
To expand the inquiry, do you have wide or narrow tires, is this a factor in the wet? Secondly, would it matter considering that the slope would be considerably less?

 

[dellzeqq]

the bit on 'pedestrian refuges' creating pinch points is mistaken. It's not sensible to break the cycle zone/lane/area (arguably it's more sensible not to have it at all) - the pinch point should be removed. If we are looking to make it easier for pedestrians to cross, put in a pedestrian crossing

Both the CTC and LCC argue against pedestrian refuges and pinch points.

 

[benborp]

Hitting an angled rise while riding fixed can give a considerable kick. Another factor to consider with raised traffic calming features is that sometimes by design, sometimes by shoddy installation there will be a change in surface quality, the boundary between the two can tramline a bicycle wheel when not approached at ninety degrees.

...

a typical London road hump. The problem here is that it not only slows down motor vehicles but it also slows down cyclists. This should be reduced by making the hump a sinusoidal shape, the rise and fall are more gradual. The same shape should be used at table, or raised, junctions.​

"The problem here is that it not only slows down motor vehicles but that its abrupt changes in level are hazardous to cyclists. This hazard should be reduced by making the hump a sinusoidal shape..."

I know of a path where speed bumps have been installed. As it's a dedicated cycling facility sinusoidal bumps have been specced. The speed bumps serve no purpose other than to provide the illusion that 'something has been done'. The people that spend that much money on pointless infrastructure probably shouldn't be told that hazardous lumps are a good way to slow down cyclists.

 

[benb]

the bit on 'pedestrian refuges' creating pinch points is mistaken. It's not sensible to break the cycle zone/lane/area (arguably it's more sensible not to have it at all) - the pinch point should be removed. If we are looking to make it easier for pedestrians to cross, put in a pedestrian crossing

Both the CTC and LCC argue against pedestrian refuges and pinch points.

I agree. "Pinch points" are unsatisfactory for both pedestrians and cyclists. Everywhere where there is currently a pinch point it should be removed and replaced by a zebra crossing or lights.

I hate speed humps too - both types, and would prefer a chicane system to slow traffic, with a narrow lane to allow cyclists to go straight without chicaning. This would have to be very carefully designed to make sure there was no conflict when the cycle rejoined after the chicane.

 

[benb]

And check this out. A pinch point with a speed cushion right in the middle - discouraging cyclists from taking primary through it.
http://goo.gl/maps/dTQ0

 

[AnotherEye]

And check this out. A pinch point with a speed cushion right in the middle - discouraging cyclists from taking primary through it.
http://goo.gl/maps/dTQ0

Awful, personally I'd go round the outside of the cushion (indicating first). Also I might wobble a bit or anything else that might confuse the friver behind?

 

[benb]

Awful, personally I'd go round the outside of the cushion (indicating first). Also I might wobble a bit or anything else that might confuse the friver behind?

I go primary and just accept the bump, unless it's clear behind me.

 

[Richard Mann]

On a typical 9.1m (ie 30ft) road, you can just about get away with a 1.5m refuge (leaves 3.8m either side) IF the prevailing speed has been brought down to about 20mph. It's the isolated nature of the pinchpoint that's the problem.

 

[AnotherEye]

Thanks to all who have commented. The final (considerably amended) version is here:
http://fs10n2.sendspace.com/dl/fcdd...5b785ad/l620hq/G_Platt_to_Transport_Ctee2.pdf