advertisement


Complete moron on a bike

Q. If a cyclist approaches a Toucan crossing from the road, as opposed to approaching with a view to crossing pavement to pavement, can a cyclist proceed to travel through the crossing when the toucan crossing shows green for pedestrians and cyclists? Or is it only for pedestrians and cyclists who crossing pavement to pavement, as it were?
 
windhoek said:
Q. If a cyclist approaches a Toucan crossing from the road, as opposed to approaching with a view to crossing pavement to pavement, can a cyclist proceed to travel through the crossing when the toucan crossing shows green for pedestrians and cyclists? Or is it only for pedestrians and cyclists who crossing pavement to pavement, as it were?
Click to expand...
A toucan is a shared-use crossing for non-motorised users to cross the carriageway from footway to footway. The primary function of a controlled crossing is safety.
 
windhoek said:
Q. If a cyclist approaches a Toucan crossing from the road, as opposed to approaching with a view to crossing pavement to pavement, can a cyclist proceed to travel through the crossing when the toucan crossing shows green for pedestrians and cyclists? Or is it only for pedestrians and cyclists who crossing pavement to pavement, as it were?
Click to expand...
It's for crossing. A cyclist using the road is a road user, and has to stop for the red light.
 
jimbob75 said:
A toucan is a shared-use crossing for non-motorised users to cross the carriageway from footway to footway. The primary function of a controlled crossing is safety.
Click to expand...

awkwardbydesign said:
It's for crossing. A cyclist using the road is a road user, and has to stop for the red light.
Click to expand...

I've always assumed it meant crossing footpath to footpath but just wanted to confirm in case I've been waiting at Toucan lights needlessly.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Apart from dedicated cycle paths, toucan crossings, Dutch roundabouts, advanced stop lines, lycra...
Click to expand...
Dedicated cycling lanes don’t really exist, they are nearly always shared use or a narrow strip of road where all the gutters & debris reside. How many Dutch roundabouts in this country vs normal ones? I’m aware of two &, guess what, motorists don’t like them, far too confusing for their little brains. They will be torn out before long.
 
I’ve been on holiday this week in Tynemouth (lovely place btw) & am dismayed at the provision for cyclists. On one level it is good, lots of shared use paths & some interesting traffic free sections like the ‘Hadrian’s Cycle Way’ but they don’t work for road bikes doing 18+mph.

There seems to be loads of big A-roads, thankfully pretty quiet, but no little lanes to explore. I think I am probably a little spoilt living so close to the Peak District. So, if they can just change the entire road system to suit me I will definitely come again;)

Ultimately we need to use our cars less but it’s impossible to achieve this without some effective infrastructure to make cycling more attractive. It absolutely can be done but I worry that there isn’t the political will.
 
Reallocation of road space in urban areas is always a challenge, but as a highways designer I can assure you the design guides put the needs of cyclists and other non-motorised users at the top of the priority hierarchy (see also recent proposals to Highway Code) and suitable justification is required for not providing it. Of course ultimately the Overseeing Organisation will make the decision and there is always a cost implication, but there certainly seems to be politcal pressure and investment in this area so I see reason for optimism.
 
jimbob75 said:
Reallocation of road space in urban areas is always a challenge, but as a highways designer I can assure you the design guides put the needs of cyclists and other non-motorised users at the top of the priority hierarchy (see also recent proposals to Highway Code) and suitable justification is required for not providing it. Of course ultimately the Overseeing Organisation will make the decision and there is always a cost implication, but there certainly seems to be politcal pressure and investment in this area so I see reason for optimism.
Click to expand...
I can only go off what is here now & I do wonder whether such infrastructure is ever actually stress tested by cyclists? I am not sure the near side is ever the safest place for a cycling lane to be? Look at all the temporary cycle lanes that have been ripped out post lockdown.

Cycling lanes are nearly always too narrow IME. I really hope something gets done about this, it will help with congestion & the environment.
 
It's very hard to apply rigid design standards since existing roads and streets have evolved over time, and each situation has its own geometric constraints.
There are key critical dimensions but a lot is guidance rather than 'standards' - eg a non-standard carriageway design would require a formal departure from standard.
Provision of the cycle network must also consider the differing needs of the user, eg fast commuter, leisure cyclist, children, and continuity to the wider strategic network.

There has been poor cycling infrastructure design for sure.

In terms of narrow cycle lanes, it may be better to increase the width of the nearside lane on multi-lane roads to allow safe passing of vehicles without crossing the centreline and remove the need for a cycle lane altogether. This also makes avoiding surface hazards (eg drain covers) easier. Or provide off-carriageway cycle-paths / segregated or non-segregated shared-use.

Ultimately all road users will need to learn to share the space. In 'some' instances removing lane markings / segregation between motorised and non-motorised traffic has been shown to actually increase safety since users are more alert to the needs of others. It will certainly require a culture change.
 
Woodface said:
I’ve been on holiday this week in Tynemouth (lovely place btw) & am dismayed at the provision for cyclists. On one level it is good, lots of shared use paths & some interesting traffic free sections like the ‘Hadrian’s Cycle Way’ but they don’t work for road bikes doing 18+mph.
Click to expand...

Don't bring your bike to Cape Cod in Massachusetts then. Non-cyclists think the Cape is great for cycling because there's a few converted rail lines (shared with walkers, roller skaters, kids on scooters), but a total lack of urban planning means everyone must drive in order to do anything at all on narrow 40-50mph roads with no bike lanes, and often no sidewalks. It's absolutely grim for cycling. If only the houses had been built around town centers instead of just plopped down absolutely everywhere on a 1/4 acre then the residents wouldn't need to drive absolutely everywhere. End of rant.
 
Woodface said:
Really, well I’m also a motorist so part of that problem. Enjoy the gridlocked roads of Manchester.
Click to expand...

Went on the train thanks :D

All I am saying is we all have to use the roads and they’re not perfect for any type of road user but if we all worked together, obeyed the rules a bit more and accepted compromise on all sides they’d be a lot better for everyone.
 
tiggers said:
Went on the train thanks :D

All I am saying is we all have to use the roads and they’re not perfect for any type of road user but if we all worked together, obeyed the rules a bit more and accepted compromise on all sides they’d be a lot better for everyone.
Click to expand...
I don’t really understand how I am part of the problem. I work from home, use my car sparingly & cycle mainly in Peak District for exercise. I get a lot of aggression from drivers & close passes because some see country lanes as a racetrack. I don’t see any equivalence between me or another cyclist potentially holding up a motorist for 10 seconds & they taking risks with my life to get past.

We’ve had this discussion before & I can no longer be bothered.
 
Woodface said:
Cycling lanes are nearly always too narrow IME. I really hope something gets done about this, it will help with congestion & the environment.
Click to expand...

John McGuinness can keep his bike within 2" of the racing line all the way around the TT at an average of 130+ mph so why does a bicycle need 6' wide lanes to do 5mph?
 
Guinnless said:
John McGuinness can keep his bike within 2" of the racing line all the way around the TT at an average of 130+ mph so why does a bicycle need 6' wide lanes to do 5mph?
Click to expand...
1.5 meters would be ideal thanks. I go at more than 5 mph as does any cyclist.

Riders on the TT use the whole road so your point is utter nonsense. They also have the road to themselves with no traffic coming the other way.

Most cycle lanes are barely 2 foot wide.
 
Woodface said:
1.5 meters would be ideal thanks. I go at more than 5 mph as does any cyclist.

Riders on the TT use the whole road so your point is utter nonsense. They also have the road to themselves with no traffic coming the other way.

Most cycle lanes are barely 2 foot wide.
Click to expand...

I was being slightly tongue in cheek but since you didn't notice and don't understand how racing works I'll explain. The "racing line" is a very narrow line that offers the fastest way round a motor racing circuit. If you stray from this too far then you will lose time and won't win, racers can manage this at 200mph. So they don't use the whole road, if they did you have lost.

The dickhead on a bicycle did have traffic coming the other way as he was riding on the wrong side of the road. He turned right out of a side junction straight in front of the white transit I was driving. Why would one do this? I gave home room and he then swapped to road for the footpath. Do a pair of Tena knickers make you invincible?

There are dicks in cars too but percentage wise it's much smaller.
 
Guinnless said:
I was being slightly tongue in cheek but since you didn't notice and don't understand how racing works I'll explain. The "racing line" is a very narrow line that offers the fastest way round a motor racing circuit. If you stray from this too far then you will lose time and won't win, racers can manage this at 200mph. So they don't use the whole road, if they did you have lost.

The dickhead on a bicycle did have traffic coming the other way as he was riding on the wrong side of the road. He turned right out of a side junction straight in front of the white transit I was driving. Why would one do this? I gave home room and he then swapped to road for the footpath. Do a pair of Tena knickers make you invincible?

There are dicks in cars too but percentage wise it's much smaller.
Click to expand...
I know what the racing line is, I’ve done track days. They do use the whole road as the line dictates.

I have no idea what else you are talking about but I guess you had a bad experience with a person on a cycle?

I had a friend nearly killed by a car turning right across him. I have no evidence on the dick percentage by mode of travel but I do know who causes the most harm.
 
Guinnless said:
John McGuinness can keep his bike within 2" of the racing line all the way around the TT at an average of 130+ mph so why does a bicycle need 6' wide lanes to do 5mph?
Click to expand...

Because the Highway Code requires that drivers give cyclists 1.5m of room. Because this is an absolute minimum if drivers are passing cyclists at any kind of speed. Because have you ever stood on a railway platform when an express goes through? This is what it's like being on a bike when you get a close pass.
Drivers seem to think that the white line of a bike lane is some kind of invisible wall that protects cyclists and removes the need to respect the 1.5m distance. And that's when the bike lane isn't potholed, full of gravel and litter and blocked with parked cars that force the cyclist out into the middle of the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top