Make it clear that turning traffic should give way!

[mjr]

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.

First, Pete Owens just can't stop himself from building strawmen to attack. I am not "a proponent of road side cycle paths" - in fact, I feel they have no place in most developments - but I recognise that they exist and are currently less safe than they could be, that PO's avoid-and-oppose approach is not working and that people I know and care about are being injured out there.

Second, the ideal is to use layouts where neither vehicle will be coming from behind, but if that won't happen, then it's more likely that the vehicle on the right will be overtaking (assuming a cycleway to the left of the carriageway), so they should give way as they turn. Arguably that's the case already in many situations, but clearer law would help.

Thirdly, I note that PO doesn't feel like supporting his claim that side paths are necessarily more dangerous since the last datasets were debunked.

Diverting cyclists and pedestrians away from their desire line has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the convenience of motorists.

Who's diverting cyclists and pedestrians any more? I'm suggesting tightening the corners, diverting the carriageway user from their desire line and slowing motorists. I feel like I'm replying mainly to highlight that PO seems to be arguing against imagined points rather than the actual suggestion.

Many such junctions already divert people walking and cycling from their desire line, but by simply making the crossing square instead of turned into the side road, it can improve safety a bit with no extra distance travelled. Of course, I'd prefer the cycleway and footway to keep a straight line like in the above Brighton example.

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.

That sounds like a description of the current layouts, where people walking and cycling are turned into the side road and then turn back to cross it.

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.

So how do we explain that in practice, one party simply slows or accelerates to cross in a gap if possible:

View: http://youtube.com/v/q664_GjTyoE

That's a more open example than many, but the basic idea is the same.

 

[Pete Owens]

I am not "a proponent of road side cycle paths"

ROFL

 

[anothersam]

Of course it would be even safer yet if the cyclist were just to stay at home

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vvNl-Lr1Bw

 

[Pete Owens]

View: http://youtube.com/v/q664_GjTyoE

Given the title of the thread, that seems a astonishing choice of video to use as an example.

 

[mjr]

Awww are some small minds astonished by topic drift and the idea that the short term palliative and long term ideal are different?