Morning all, got this through the post the other day and I want to respond to ‘object’ to the plans but in a positive way. This is a local forum so I want to ensure I don’t just shoot down their plans but I think they’re in the wrong.

They seem to be of the seperate cycle lane at junctions school. I cycle all the time around here, the most irritating aspect is when well meaning improvements create these short pointless cycle lanes. They end up creating unnecessary give way junctions and I’m sure they add to the risk. The two Rectory road plans are like this and it’s fine how it is.

Additionally they want to have widespread double yellows around junctions. Currently a lot of the junctions are packed with cars and as a result motorists have to creep around and it causes slight delays at busy times. I’m firmly of the belief that this causes natural slowing of traffic and allows pedestrians to cross and generally slows everyone down. The routes that are all double yellows are basically non stop 30mph cars and there’s no possibility of crossing them at peak times.

Does anyone know of any evidence to support the above theories? I’d like to object but steer their enthusiasm.

Cheers,

James

At a quick glance – the second one with narrowing creates pinch points at junctions – dangerous for cycles

The third one the offroad bypass looks good but the detail of the exit needs to have a good blend in for bikes otherwise if its a give way for the bikes its useless – you need a slip on to the main road with a widening of the road to be useful and safe.  this also applies to the first one.  clearly designed by somone who does not cycle

Just a comment on double yellows at junctions. They shouldn’t be necessary as you are not supposed to park within 10m of a junction. Of course that’s another rule totally ignored by those who feel they have a right to dump their cars wherever they see fit.

Whoever designed that has never ridden a bike through busy junctions…

1. Bikes rejoining the road after being diverted around the junction will have to give way to cars already in the road. Depending on how aggressively drivers head through the junction this will lead to squashed cyclists as the road is fairly narrow and it’s probably not obvious that bikes will merge.

2. Cars ignore extended “give way” markings where they protect a cycle path. Cyclists will just end up being forced to give way to a continuous stream of joining traffic or will just ride in the road.

3. In the top image it looks like cyclists are being forced back into the lane with the impetus on them to give way to cars behind or overtaking.

Usual shit implementation by local authorities paying lip service to more vulnerable road users. Suggest the planner rides a bike to work for a week and see if his design changes.

First one:

Pedestrians waiting to cross will have to wait on the entry and exit of the shared cycle lane. The refuges should not be directly opposite the cycle path entry/exit.

Having to swerve off, then re-join, via a shared path introduces three issues / challenges to slow down.

Having no cycle lane on Lawrence road yet a cycle by-pass on Rectory road is inconsistent and causes confusion.

Second one:

Pinch points on junctions for cyclists is not good news, especially as the cycle lane is not apparent as you approach. Cars will be tempted to ‘pinch’ cyclists here.

Then you are expected to swerve into a cycle lane set back from junction, a space that due to paint or kerb lines cars will be tempted to pull fully out into, so blocking the short cycle lane.

Why no crossings for Terrings Avenue? Why no cycle lane on Pelham and St Andrews? Again, inconsistency.

Last one

Again, I don’t like the swerve off, then rejoin (giving way, natch) to cars via a shared path. Introduces more risk through a moving / swerving / speed changing cyclist – and temps a car into the overtake.

This is basically what they are proposing – a swerve left, bumping up ramp, onto pavement that carries three schools, two nurseries and a university of pedestrian traffic, down ramp into un-clean / gravelly road surface. At least here you are ‘released’ back into the cycle lane, not main road way.

https://goo.gl/maps/8nV4sd7CYqG2

Thanks people, I’ll take some time to generate a considered response. The fact that a group of volunteers want to make things better is a good thing. I want to encourage them but I agree, they’re creating issues that don’t exist.

1.  Pinch point/ [pedestrian refuge  is at the exact point cyclists have to exit or rejoin the  road  thereby  forcing a users into the same limited space

Using the  cycle lane  means you have lots of  junctions and  give ways and then have to rejoin the carriageway by giving way  where pedestrians are trying to cross. i cannot see any reason to use it personally as its just more dangerous

2. Protective cycle lane is i assume some paint on a road.They have also added a cycle lane on both sides and narrowed the road- hard to see how <span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”> this has helped tbh</span>

3. advisory cycle lanes that take me off the road  to go straight on where there is no junction WTF? this  just give me the needless hazard of having to rejoin a highway with a shit view whilst rejoining  the highway possibly on /at the pinch point /pedestrian crossing point.

I tend to agree poor views and narrow lanes slow cars down  more than clear roads.

They need to read

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_content_type/sustrans_handbook_for_cycle-friendly_design_11_04_14.pdf

http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org

content.tfl.gov.uk/international-cycling-infrastructure-best-practice-study.pdf

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/cycle-paths-are-unsafe

On the second diagram, why not use a dedicated, kerbed-off cycle lane to narrow the road, rather than painting something on the tarmac or bumping cyclists up onto a shared use pavement?

There are decent design standards out there for cycle infrastructure – maybe try showing them what TfL have come up with? https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/draft-london-cycling-design-standards/user_uploads/ch4-junctions-and-crossings.pdf

I had the same plans through my door last week.

I also shouted out loud about the plans but haven’t managed to do anything constructive with them yet.

I was planning on putting my feedback in the post to them for what its worth.

In general I don’t like the central refuge pinch-points and I don’t like shared cycle paths. As you point out, more yellow lines will mean fewer parked cars and faster traffic

1) St Lawrence Ave to join the pale blue shared cycle lane will be interesting, especially if you have a wedge of peds/cyclists waiting at the kerb. Do they really want you to stop on a roundabout?
2) Cycle lane is outside the proposed road line on Terringes Ave, meaning that you somehow have to merge in to traffic
3) No give way lines
Cycle lane merges into R to L Rectory Rd traffic that’s forced nearside by the traffic refuge. Not sure how L to R cyclists rejoin Rectory Rd

This might help…Traffic signs manual ch5