Tiger Crossing (UK) - who uses one ?

[figbat]

I didn't know it was called a Tiger Crossing.

Strictly, it's not - it's a "parallel crossing". The colloquial term "Tiger crossing" is officially avoided as it is not defined and there are alternative interpretations.

 

[figbat]

There is at least one in Cardiff Here. I've used it in the past, although usually coming out from the shared use path and turning onto the road, and my normal commute now is all along that road.

And here is an example of a parallel crossing installed badly. The idea is that they are supposed to be installed such that a cyclist, on approach, can get a good view both ways up the road without having to make an exaggerated effort. So ideally the approach to the crossing would be perpendicular to the road (or close to it). Having the approach parallel to the road means you have to make a big look over a shoulder to check for traffic, which can be destabilising and take your eye off of your direction of travel.

 

[mjr]

Strictly, it's not - it's a "parallel crossing". The colloquial term "Tiger crossing" is officially avoided as it is not defined and there are alternative interpretations.

"Tiger crossing" is defined somewhere in a trial report (maybe TRL) which I can't find right now. I believe it looks like a zebra but has yellow/black stripes, hence the name. There was only one in the UK, in Aylesbury.

It was not taken forwards, with the parallel crossing design of a zebra with parallel lines of so-called "elephants feet" squares next to it adopted instead in TSRGD 2016.

 

[Alex321]

And here is an example of a parallel crossing installed badly. The idea is that they are supposed to be installed such that a cyclist, on approach, can get a good view both ways up the road without having to make an exaggerated effort. So ideally the approach to the crossing would be perpendicular to the road (or close to it). Having the approach parallel to the road means you have to make a big look over a shoulder to check for traffic, which can be destabilising and take your eye off of your direction of travel.

That image doesn't really show that very well, but you do have a good view, certainly when coming from the right. It looks parallel-ish but isn't really, it is quite a wide angle, and both sides have come from perpendicular within a few yards of the crossing.

And TBH, it is the hard to see what else they could have done. The banking is too steep to put the crossing closer to the bridge, and bringing the trail perpendicular to the road from further away would have meant knocking houses down.

I have used it, as a cyclist, from all directions, and have never felt any difficulty in seeing approaching traffic.

 

[T4tomo]

"Tiger crossing" is defined somewhere in a trial report (maybe TRL) which I can't find right now. I believe it looks like a zebra but has yellow/black stripes, hence the name. There was only one in the UK, in Aylesbury.

It was not taken forwards, with the parallel crossing design of a zebra with parallel lines of so-called "elephants feet" squares next to it adopted instead in TSRGD 2016.

I'm pretty sure Elephant don't have square feet?

BTW if an Elephant's foot covers an area of 50 sq inch (approx 322 sq cm) what does it tail cover?

 

[mjr]

I'm pretty sure Elephant don't have square feet?

And zebra stripes aren't rectangles, sharks have more than 2 teeth and pelicans rarely shine red and green lights.

BTW if an Elephant's foot covers an area of 50 sq inch (approx 322 sq cm) what does it tail cover?

Its bumhole.

 

[presta]

do some cyclists take a chance

The issue is not having right of way, it's whether you trust motorists to respect it when many of them think you have no right to be on the road because you don't pay road tax.

a mess of legal ambiguity

It's a lot quicker, simpler, cheaper, and less confusing to change or clarify the law than add to a proliferation of confusing different crossings.

motor traffic DOES generally give way

Motorists generally gave way to the cyclist who was put in a wheelchair by the one who didn't.

 

[mjr]

It's a lot quicker, simpler, cheaper, and less confusing to change or clarify the law than add to a proliferation of confusing different crossings.

I agree but it's not what they did. I suspect that any attempt to give almost-as-good-as-walking priority to cycling across zebras would lead to the proposal coming under attack by the various walking lobby groups as well as the motoring lobby, so a new type of crossing gets developed, which only the motoring lobby hate.