Make it clear that turning traffic should give way!

[Dan B]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.