Poor driving from someone who should have known better.

[Jody]

Yes. I don’t think the self-nominated Great and the Good of CycleChat have finished giving the OP ‘a good kicking’ yet.

Not sure anyone has agreed with the OP but he's still fighting his corner. No sign of yet.

I can't side with the van driver being wrong but the infrastructure looks rubbish and a little confusing. Think I would have preferred riding there before the "improvements".

 

[monkers]

I think it's a work in progress: https://transport.southampton.gov.uk/projects-archive/third-avenue-cycle-scheme/ There is a confusing mixture of existing cycle lane signage and markings still in situ and new infrastructure. The schedule of works listed in the link above suggests that further work is planned. This will hopefully make things a bit clearer and less dangerous to navigate.

To try and answer your first question, if a parallel crossing is still planned, I'd expect elephant footprints to delineate the crossing. If it's just a cycle crossing, I'd still expect them to be employed. It used to be the case that DfT authorisation was required for their implementation. To be honest, as they don't relate to priority they are really the equivalent of a highlight marker on an essay...

Thank you for your reply. It seems between yourself and @Archie_tect there's a wealth of useful knowledge here.

I understand your point about the EFs not relating to priority, but as a layperson, I just think they may add clarity.

 

[I like Skol]

Not sure anyone has agreed with the OP but he's still fighting his corner. No sign of yet.

Going off previous interactions I think the OP arrived looking for a fight, much like his approach to cycling. He got what he wanted....

 

[Archie_tect]

The green coloured crossing point isn't very obvious- to allow road users to cross over any white lining it has to be dotted- so yes I agree elephant feet squares would help, in the absence of any street lighting, to define the edges of crossing point for approaching traffic.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Is there a typo in the thread title? It appears to say driving when it should say cycling. Maybe a mod could fix it.

 

[Origamist]

Thank you for your reply. It seems between yourself and @Archie_tect there's a wealth of useful knowledge here.

I understand your point about the EFs not relating to priority, but as a layperson, I just think they may add clarity.

Yes, they usefully highlight the crossing.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I predict that @rr's new toy is going to offer him plenty to bump his gums about for at least the rest of the year. But I suggest that this is not going to enhance his mental well-being and I recommend to him (though likely he has me on ignore ) that he thinks carefully about this in the round. Of course, a counter argument is that this is all 'chat',. And the last few pages have offered some interesting insights into cycle path/road interface/design (so thanks to @Archie_tect and @Origamist ).

 

[Jody]

Going off previous interactions I think the OP arrived looking for a fight, much like his approach to cycling. He got what he wanted....

I've not seen any of his posts in a while

 

[Archie_tect]

Yes. I don’t think the self-nominated Great and the Good of CycleChat have finished giving the OP ‘a good kicking’ yet.

Clarity is important... is anyone local to the crossing able to let the Local Authority know that the crossing is ambiguously set out so that RR's experience using it leads to a useful adjustment?

 

[I like Skol]

Clarity is important... is anyone local to the crossing able to let the Local Authority know that the crossing is ambiguously set out so that RR's experience using it leads to a useful adjustment?

I'm not sure any alterations are necessary. The OP crossed a giveway and attempted to cycle in front of an oncoming vehicle. My understanding of giveway is that it means cross only if your path is clear, which it very obviously wasn't.

 

[Archie_tect]

I agree that users shouldn't flout the Highway Code.

The green crossing should, by Highway standards, be perpendicular to the Highway and isn't, so it needs to be adjusted and ideally a small 'give way' triangle be painted on the cycle lane, there should be white lining defining the edge of the green surfacing unless street lighting is provided and the two bicycle symbols painted on the green surfacing repositioned on the shared path edge on the cyclepath side of the pedestrian raised paving inbound of the drop kerbs.

There are set standards for everything in Highway Design manuals.

 

[Racing roadkill]

@classic33 - I've never heard before that there is a speed above which cyclists are expected to be on the road rather than follow a dedicated or shared route.

I rarely use cycle paths/routes but would be interested to have this bit of info.

Thanks

There isn’t anything written in stone, just flakey ‘guidance’ which really means nothing.

 

[Racing roadkill]

I'm not sure any alterations are necessary. The OP crossed a giveway and attempted to cycle in front of an oncoming vehicle. My understanding of giveway is that it means cross only if your path is clear, which it very obviously wasn't.

Yeah that’s right, I was going to cycle “in front of the van” of course I was. I was never going to risk going straight over expecting the van driver to obey the clear give way sign, hardly any drivers ever do there, I know this.

 

[classic33]

There isn’t anything written in stone, just flakey ‘guidance’ which really means nothing.

DFT guidelines which say if you are travelling at over 18mph you should be on the road.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

There isn’t anything written in stone, just flakey ‘guidance’ which really means nothing.

You are Dominic Cummings AICMFP