MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Surely the bigger hazard is to you?!
copy and paste letter maybe?
Being generous, it seems to me that the sentence is just missing a comma - highlighting the hazards present, to drivers.
Ie signage/markings which help inform drivers of possible hazards, as in the 'hazard perception' test that new drivers have to pass. I don't think anyone is suggesting that you represent a danger to them.
Yea, I agree with Martin, not even sure it needs a comma? Highlighting to drivers the hazards present?
Starts to sound a bit:
Ah yes - I see the wording is slightly ambiguous. So a big flashing signin the middle of the road "YOU ARE ABOUT TO CROSS A CYCLE LANE, IT'S BLOODY DANGEROUS TO THE CYCLISTS SO MAKE SURE YOU LOOK BEFORE CROSSING!!"
or maybe
"CAUTION! YOU MAY GET A SCRATCH ON YOUR PAINTWORK AHEAD" that should do it.
To be fair, I don't think the signs differentiate who is the hazard and who is at risk. A Triangle with a fence on it and a triangle with old people are both warning you of a hazard, one's moving at 70mph and weighs 100 tonnes, the other 2mph and has arthritis.
I think more needs to be added to the driving test about awareness of cyclists, as others have said it's more of an issue with the mentality of most drivers as it's unrealistic to change all road infrastructure to accommodate cyclists safely (as much as I would love it to happen).
Anyone who's driven in the Netherlands would know that you need a swivel head at junctions to keep track of cycles lanes (where they often have right of way over cars) but it really does change your mindset as a car driver to be far more aware of cyclists.
I think more needs to be added to the driving test about awareness of cyclists
Maybe, just maybe, one good thing to come out of this lockdown situation is all the folk who have been riding bikes around, when they get back in their cars, their awareness of cyclists should have increased. (Badly worded, but you get my drift)
Car driver at fault but accident easily avoidable. Filtering past a van without slowing right down is an obvious risk. It is riding into a blind spot. Would you ride round a blind corner at high speed?
As for here comments? No crashes in decades of bike commuting. So either I've been really lucky or I have been able to anticipate hazards and have a plan to deal with them
I am always wary when filtering. There is always a risk of getting doomed passing cars passing busses or Van's ads risks like the OP incident or peds running in front of you. Filtering is best avoided where possible by altering route, sometimes going outside, and appropriate speed when filtering.
always a risk of getting doomed
Not sure if that is overly melodramatic, or not.
considerate drivers are the ones who make things worse. The ones who in a slow moving line of traffic will make a space and flash to let an oncoming car right turn across a cycle lane/bit of paint on road. I mean I'm guilty - you see someone waiting to turn and so let them, just hoping no one comes flying down the cycle lane. I also fly down cycle lanes in these circs, though prefer middle of the road. I've gone across one bonnet, though that was someone flashed to come out of a side road. At the bottom of a hill. See also considerate bus drivers, letting folk out before the stop when stuck in traffic, into the cycle lane. Cycle lanes eh?
I suppose one low cost option would be to extend the keep clear box well back from the junction so the cycle lane is more obvious? Maybe suggest that.
Playing devil's advocate,
That's just a shit junction design. If you get a van keeping clear in front of the Keep Clear sign then visibility will be close to zero. There's nothing to indicate to a cyclist that it might be hazardous to do anything other than just steam straight through (and whilst no doubt we're all riding gods, inexperienced cyclists exist) and by the time a turning driver has visibility down the cycle lane they're practically crossing it (and who's going to do that anyway rather than just look where they're heading?). By the looks of it, both cyclist and driver would need to be going through that at walking pace to avoid a collision if the timings were just so - the driver would technically be at fault for failing to give way but I really couldn't lay too much blame on them.
I reckon the best thing they can do there is remove the Keep Clear box. Either that or a Give Way on the cycle lane to give turning traffic priority, which rather defeats the point of having it in the first place.
I suppose one low cost option would be to extend the keep clear box well back from the junction so the cycle lane is more obvious? Maybe suggest that.
Ooh, that's not a bad idea either.
Did you see that this was an update bump?
Did you see that this was an update bump?
Maybe put a hazard sign and a bigger keep clear box either side of it to draw peoples attention and warn them of the potential hazard?
Think it would be fair to point out that the "Posted NN minutes ago" text is too small? 😀
Did you see that this was an update bump?
1) Actually I read the entire three-month old thread before replying, so yes.
2) Please stop being a condescending oik. You've done that several times on this thread now. You don't get to post in a public forum and then dictate what replies you get, that's not how the Internet works.
2) Please stop being a condescending oik. You’ve done that several times on this thread now. You don’t get to post in a public forum and then dictate what replies you get, that’s not how the Internet works.
That's more condescending than anything I wrote.
So, I don't get to dictate what replies I get, but you can dictate how I reply to those replies? Gotcha.
Was going to edit that, to say how I did learn a lesson from this thread, but there's no edit button. Oh well.
When I’m king I’ll decree that we just stop building cycle infrastructure – just stop completely for 5 years, 10 years, whatever it takes..
During that time we’d have a national debate – involve all the stakeholders in roads and the public realm – what should cycling infrastructure be? Who is it for? How should it built? Importantly – who is qualified to build it.
We really don't need to do this, a country just across the channel has spent the last 40 years refining just how to build safe cycle infrastructure that works for everyone, and publish a guide (in English) that sets it all out.
The latest version you do have to pay for but you can download and see the previous edition somewhere that I can't find right now....
https://crowplatform.com/product/design-manual-for-bicycle-traffic/
So, I don’t get to dictate what replies I get, but you can dictate how I reply to those replies?
Well, actually I do, but I didn't. It was a request as a user not an instruction as a moderator. You're perfectly at liberty to carry on being condescending if you like, it's just terribly tedious.
There are some things that we can learn from Dutch cycling infrastructure but I feel a lot of it isn't possible. They will often have a footpath, a cycle path then the road, all separated.
It should be implemented in new developments but in a lot of existing areas I can't see that there is space unless the road itself is narrowed. I think as a nation we're still a long way from getting away from our reliance on cars so reducing road capacity is unlikely to happen.
Just looked at it, and not read the responses, as they'll be the usual mix.
I don't think you could've done much else, and the drivers not at fault really either, just a shite road layout.
Just looked at it, and not read the responses, as they’ll be the usual mix.
Its like the bit in the Matrix or Terminator where the machine becomes self aware.
They will often have a footpath, a cycle path then the road, all separated.
It should be implemented in new developments but in a lot of existing areas I can’t see that there is space unless the road itself is narrowed
Thats exactly what the dutch did. They took space from cars and gave it to bikes
there are other aspects tho for the dutch. Urban streets usually do NOT have cycle lanes - they are 30 kph limits and cyclists have priority - ie assumed liability. so yo have the small urban streets with 30 kph limit - no cycle lanes, then the urban main roads do have cycle lanes with a higher speed limit. Main roads outside of urban areas have cycle lanes.
Another solution for that junction would be to raise the cycle lane, make it into a speed bump when crossed perpendicularly. Whether that's legal or not under current regulations I don't know.
That road layout is always going to create conflict, you can be a very aware driver but without enough visibility to see a cyclist until the last second (if there's high-sided vehicles queuing) all you can do is proceed slowly. Whilst the cyclist is entitled to filter unless they also slow right down then there's always a chance of a collision.
I can't see how you can make it much better without implementing a mini-roundabout or traffic lights (which have their own drawbacks). Maybe yellow boxing a much bigger area (starting say 5 metres before the side road) so that there's a clear gap between where vehicles are queuing and where the hazard area is, allowing more time for a driver to stop or a cyclist to react to a careless driver)