Make it clear that turning traffic should give way!

[mjr]

"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]

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

 

[growingvegetables]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[theclaud]

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]

It's it the slip road type junctions?

 

[byegad]

The main reason why I never use cycle lanes.

 

[summerdays]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 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.

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]

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]

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.

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.