Advanced Driving Hub

martine wrote:

IcedKiwi wrote:I think the proposal is that if there's a cyclist behind you who intends to continue straight on, then you should have to stop, wait for him to undertake you, and then turn in.

I think you are right but it is just one of many proposals in the cycling research paper linked above. Much of the report makes sense but I have grave misgivings about the 'cyclists going ahead have priority' bit.

Why encourage cyclists to take up an unsafe position (undertaking a vehicle turning left) by giving them them legal priority? The nearside blindspot is bad enough in a car, let alone a van or HGV.

Because the road "engineers" in the UK are incapable (for the most part) of designing the facilities correctly, despite our near neighbours having (after making the same errors we do) come up with excellent and workable design standards. UK is just too ?stubborn? to learn from these pesky foriegners I guess .

I can see the issue ref. cycle lanes - but:
- that is to see them as completely separate transport systems not open to other vehicles - in which case, like bus lanes they must stop at junctions to allow other motor vehicles to cross... you can't have a system where a user of a cycle lane has priority it is unworkable - exactly how far behind would a vehicle have to allow for? In London you would basically stop traffic from crossing the cycle lane into a side road as there would be continuous cyclist - not logical...
- a bicycle with priority - how is that decided, do they have to overlap the vehicle (rather like boats racing around a mark) in which case they can call priority and the other must give way?! - if not, you will simply increase hugely claims by cyclists against vehicles, difficult to substantiate and difficult to avoid...
- it is encouraging cyclists into the most dangerous game they can play - as I understand it one of the biggest causes of cyclist deaths in cities is blind-siding lorries this would increase it...
- I think more consideration needs to be given to road planning - separation of vulnerable users etc. we are very poor at it in this country

I don't see this as an answer other than frustrating lots of people in steel boxes - that is not going to work well...

Alasdair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M

The Dutch do it very well as indeed do the Danes and many other countries

sussex2 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M

The Dutch do it very well as indeed do the Danes and many other countries

Look at all those cyclists obeying the road markings and lights!

Seriously though remember that a large amount of Holland's cycling and roads infrastructure were new build. We have long established narrow roads with housing close to each other. Segregation will never happen here other than in small pockets of new housing estates.

sussex2 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M

The Dutch do it very well as indeed do the Danes and many other countries

And the both the gruff Northerners and soft Southerners in the UK, it seems
http://road.cc/content/news/110661-uks- ... ay-bedford
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/tfl-abandons ... ing-design
(albeit May 2016 Streetview seems to show an 'ordinary' roundabout)

Cyclists are a different demographic over there. Make cycling feel unsafe and uncomfortable and you get mainly young risk-takers cycling (UK). Make it comfortable and mainstream and you get normal behaviour (Netherlands, Denmark etc).
When I cycle in London (rare nowadays but it happens), I see more drivers (particularly taxis and trucks) jumping red lights than cyclists; although it probably depends on the route. This is probably because the congestion makes cycling a much better choice for most people, and the risk-takers are therefore a smaller proportion. I have never been run over by a RLJing cyclist, but have been driven into by RLJing cars and a bus. Can we drop this constant baiting please? It doesn't achieve anything towards a discussion apart from being divisive.
The Dutch have plenty of older towns with narrow streets and standards for keeping cycles and motor vehicles safe in them. The reason these are not adopted here was clarified to the Parliamentary committee investigating the matter: The traffic engineers are taught nothing about how to build a safe and inclusive network and have no interest in learning (according to the senior representative summoned).

ancient wrote:Cyclists are a different demographic over there. Make cycling feel unsafe and uncomfortable and you get mainly young risk-takers cycling (UK). Make it comfortable and mainstream and you get normal behaviour (Netherlands, Denmark etc).
When I cycle in London (rare nowadays but it happens), I see more drivers (particularly taxis and trucks) jumping red lights than cyclists; although it probably depends on the route. This is probably because the congestion makes cycling a much better choice for most people, and the risk-takers are therefore a smaller proportion. I have never been run over by a RLJing cyclist, but have been driven into by RLJing cars and a bus. Can we drop this constant baiting please? It doesn't achieve anything towards a discussion apart from being divisive.
The Dutch have plenty of older towns with narrow streets and standards for keeping cycles and motor vehicles safe in them. The reason these are not adopted here was clarified to the Parliamentary committee investigating the matter: The traffic engineers are taught nothing about how to build a safe and inclusive network and have no interest in learning (according to the senior representative summoned).

Interesting last words and about what I have always suspected.
The entire transport planning system in the UK seems embedded in the 1970s; it is certainly true that 'cars go first' is as much a norm today as it was 50 years ago.

sussex2 wrote:The entire transport planning system in the UK seems embedded in the 1970s; it is certainly true that 'cars go first' is as much a norm today as it was 50 years ago.

Perhaps up for [consideration of] change?
The 'two stage turn':
https://trl.co.uk/media/399636/ppr717_l ... ctions.pdf

This has been in place for a few years:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/St+ ... 9983?hl=en
Sadly, it mainly seems to serve as a confusion for drivers as to whether circulating cyclists have priority.

Horse wrote:

sussex2 wrote:The entire transport planning system in the UK seems embedded in the 1970s; it is certainly true that 'cars go first' is as much a norm today as it was 50 years ago.

Perhaps up for [consideration of] change?
The 'two stage turn':
https://trl.co.uk/media/399636/ppr717_l ... ctions.pdf

This has been in place for a few years:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/St+ ... 9983?hl=en
Sadly, it mainly seems to serve as a confusion for drivers as to whether circulating cyclists have priority.

Both hideously complicated; unless you are in the business of selling paint

sussex2 wrote: Both hideously complicated; unless you are in the business of selling paint

Have you seen the TfL 'Cycle Superhighways' in blue paint?

"Slippery sh1t" (C) Ricey, on another forum