deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
Now that the CS2 débâcle has seen the legal non-status of our blue road surfaces exposed and the news that Barclays is pulling out of London bike hire sponsorship, I've found myself wondering how could all that blue paint serve a real use.
Given that the most dangerous spots for cyclists seem to be junctions, particularly the left turn, and pinch points, it strikes me that a BPZ (Bicycle Priority Zone/blue paint zone) that takes up the whole lane preceding the left hand lane of major junctions and pinch points where there is no room to safely overtake cyclists, if it had legal status could deal with a major source of cycling KSIs.
If there's a cyclist already on the shortish blue paint strip, traffic cannot squeeze past, or start to overtake and forget that the cyclist is there when it gets narrower. A bit like the priority of zebra crossings with pedestrians, once a cyclist is on it, bigger motorised vehicles have to give way - and not stop but merge behind those cyclists. So at the classic lorry left hook fatality at junctions, the lorry is simply not allowed to overtake. And there would be presumed liability on the part of the motorised vehicle driver.
Similarly before traffic islands, etc, where there isn't room for a bike and large vehicle to go side by side, the blue paint establishes a Bike Priority Zone where a driver would have difficulty arguing away an accident with a bike because their responsibility (legal) is to not overtake but merge behind a bike already in the BPZ.
So, short strips of paint with legal status that appear at danger points rather than the current ''disappear when it gets dangerous'' default. It seems preferable to long, narrow strips of blue with no legal status.
So, I've used up about a third of the spare supply of blue paint. Where would you use the other 2/3rds?
(Incidentally, does anybody know whether any intermittent priority zones other than zebra crossings have been trialled for traffic flow, etc? Not that I believe in traffic flow priority, just that I know we'll get nothing if we risk significantly threatening the rule of the motor.)
Given that the most dangerous spots for cyclists seem to be junctions, particularly the left turn, and pinch points, it strikes me that a BPZ (Bicycle Priority Zone/blue paint zone) that takes up the whole lane preceding the left hand lane of major junctions and pinch points where there is no room to safely overtake cyclists, if it had legal status could deal with a major source of cycling KSIs.
If there's a cyclist already on the shortish blue paint strip, traffic cannot squeeze past, or start to overtake and forget that the cyclist is there when it gets narrower. A bit like the priority of zebra crossings with pedestrians, once a cyclist is on it, bigger motorised vehicles have to give way - and not stop but merge behind those cyclists. So at the classic lorry left hook fatality at junctions, the lorry is simply not allowed to overtake. And there would be presumed liability on the part of the motorised vehicle driver.
Similarly before traffic islands, etc, where there isn't room for a bike and large vehicle to go side by side, the blue paint establishes a Bike Priority Zone where a driver would have difficulty arguing away an accident with a bike because their responsibility (legal) is to not overtake but merge behind a bike already in the BPZ.
So, short strips of paint with legal status that appear at danger points rather than the current ''disappear when it gets dangerous'' default. It seems preferable to long, narrow strips of blue with no legal status.
So, I've used up about a third of the spare supply of blue paint. Where would you use the other 2/3rds?
(Incidentally, does anybody know whether any intermittent priority zones other than zebra crossings have been trialled for traffic flow, etc? Not that I believe in traffic flow priority, just that I know we'll get nothing if we risk significantly threatening the rule of the motor.)
