View Full Version : Your Chance to HELP Cyclists!
Hi all,
I’m new to this group, but have been a ‘lurking’ for a
while.
I live in Denmead, Hampshire and have become very concerned
about some traffic calming measures being proposed by
Hampshire County Council (HCC). The proposals include eight
pedestrian refuges that will reduce the carriage way to less
than 3.1m. From all the best practice and research I can
find, gaps of 3m may be acceptable where the speed limit is
below 30MPH and the traffic is light. The road in question
is subject to heavy traffic and subject to a 30MPH limit.
I’m in communication with HCC about the matter but they
seem set on building these refuges, as early as August this
year. I have presented them with the best practice
documents and advice, offered alternatives, got endorsement
from my MP Mark Oaten), backing from Sustrans and CTC, but
they seem hell bent on going ahead, and I’m at a loss on
what I can do now.
I’ve knocked up a quick website with a photograph for
you to see:
http://denmead.netfirms.com/
I’ve also created an online petition that I’d really like
you to sign and pass around your contacts / groups, etc.
http://www.petitiononline.com/denmead/petition.html
(If you use a real e-mail address, you’ll get one e-mail
confirming that you’ve voted, and won’t get spammed).
I’m still persevering with HCC with help of the CTC, and am
considering a leaflet drop, and have written to my local
news paper (not published yet).
Any support would be welcomed!
Thanks,
Mark.
"Mark" <notvalid@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:c707is$5ur$4@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi all,
>
> I’m new to this group, but have been a ‘lurking’ for
> a while.
>
> I live in Denmead, Hampshire and have become very
> concerned about some traffic calming measures being
> proposed by Hampshire County Council (HCC). The proposals
> include eight pedestrian refuges that will reduce the
> carriage way to less than 3.1m. From all the best practice
> and research I can find, gaps of 3m may be acceptable
> where the speed limit is below 30MPH and the traffic is
> light. The road in question is subject to heavy traffic
> and subject to a 30MPH limit.
I go through dozens of pinch points every day and have
never once been cut up by a motorist, albeit in 20 mph
zones. Interestingly enough, the guy who you refer to in
your links lives a mile away from me and we cycle along the
same roads, so it shows how people's perception of the same
calming measures can differ so widely!
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net (http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/)
Mark wrote:
>
> Any support would be welcomed!
>
If you haven't already done so, read http://www.thebikezone- (http://www.thebikezone-/)
.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinchpoints.html which
includes useful information on how to tackle a reluctant
authority and the relevant standards for central refuges
etc. It does though recognise a 3m gap as acceptable if
traffic speeds are below 30mph.
Tony
Simon Mason wrote:
> "Mark" <notvalid@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:c707is$5ur$4@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I’m new to this group, but have been a ‘lurking’ for
>>a while.
>>
>>I live in Denmead, Hampshire and have become very
>>concerned about some traffic calming measures being
>>proposed by Hampshire County Council (HCC). The proposals
>>include eight pedestrian refuges that will reduce the
>>carriage way to less than 3.1m. From all the best practice
>>and research I can find, gaps of 3m may be acceptable
>>where the speed limit is below 30MPH and the traffic is
>>light. The road in question is subject to heavy traffic
>>and subject to a 30MPH limit.
>
>
> I go through dozens of pinch points every day and have
> never once been cut up by a motorist, albeit in 20 mph
> zones. Interestingly enough, the guy who you refer to in
> your links lives a mile away from me and we cycle along
> the same roads, so it shows how people's perception of
> the same calming measures can differ so widely!
The recommendations I quoted did say that a 3m gap may
acceptable where the speed limit is below 30MPH and the
traffic is light. Do the pinch points you encounter always
meet these two criteria, and are they 3m or less? Would you
expect a problem with heavy traffic in a 30MPH zone?
This is useful information, as it may make a case to drop
the speed limit to 20MPH, bearing in mind there's a school
on the road.
Thanks,
Mark.
"Mark" <notvalid@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:c70as5$n08
> The recommendations I quoted did say that a 3m gap may
> acceptable where the speed limit is below 30MPH and the
> traffic is light. Do the pinch points you encounter always
> meet these two criteria, and are they 3m or less? Would
> you expect a problem with heavy traffic in a 30MPH zone?
I can't really say Mark - I've never measure them. I think
the main reason I've never been passed by a car immediately
before one, is that the driver can see that if they try
overtaking and get it wrong, then they will stove in the
front of their car on the keep left sign.
--
Simon M.
On Sat, 1 May 2004 14:22:39 +0100, "Simon Mason"
<simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
<nrGcnQgO7IA9OQ7dSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk>:
> I go through dozens of pinch points every day and have
> never once been cut up by a motorist,
Lucky you. It used to be a regular occurrence before I
changed jobs to one with no pinch points.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
On Sat, 01 May 2004 14:09:52 +0100, Mark <notvalid@mailinator.com>
wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I’m new to this group, but have been a ‘lurking’ for a
>while.
>
>I live in Denmead, Hampshire and have become very
>concerned about some traffic calming measures being
>proposed by Hampshire County Council (HCC). The proposals
>include eight pedestrian refuges that will reduce the
>carriage way to less than 3.1m. From all the best practice
>and research I can find, gaps of 3m may be acceptable
>where the speed limit is below 30MPH and the traffic is
>light. The road in question is subject to heavy traffic
>and subject to a 30MPH limit.
On Howard's page (that you link to), there's a picture of
narrowings that include a marked cycle lane that leaves less
than a bike-width of black tarmac. I wonder (a) if this
works to make drivers think twice and (b) whether this might
mitigate the impact of this scheme as it stands.
>I’m in communication with HCC about the matter but they
>seem set on building these refuges, as early as August this
>year. I have presented them with the best practice
>documents and advice, offered alternatives, got endorsement
>from my MP Mark Oaten), backing from Sustrans and CTC, but
>they seem hell bent on going ahead, and I’m at a loss on
>what I can do now.
I hate to say this but HCC do not have the faintest inkling
how to provide for or encourage cycling. IME they will ride
roughshod over comments made by CTC, Sustrans etc if they
are counter to the advice of the 'cycling' officer. (Caveat:
HCC has two cycling officers; one for leisure and one for
roads. The leisure one's OK).
HCC's *intentions* for cycling are good but the culture
remains focused on designing road layout for efficient
(motor) traffic flow and cycling provision is measured only
by its degree of safety (ie separatin from cars).
HCC is on line for nearly all the targets set in the LTP
with the exception of cycling which continues its year-on-
year decline in Hampshire. If you read the LTP, there are
many examples cited of cycle provision but the pictures show
them to be nearly all poor.
>I’ve knocked up a quick website with a photograph for
>you to see:
>
>http://denmead.netfirms.com/
>
>I’ve also created an online petition that I’d really like
>you to sign and pass around your contacts / groups, etc.
>
>http://www.petitiononline.com/denmead/petition.html
>
>(If you use a real e-mail address, you’ll get one e-mail
>confirming that you’ve voted, and won’t get spammed).
>
>I’m still persevering with HCC with help of the CTC, and am
>considering a leaflet drop, and have written to my local
>news paper (not published yet).
>
>Any support would be welcomed!
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Mark.
--
Transport & Urban Planning Blog
now at http://notonmywatch.blogs.com (http://notonmywatch.blogs.com/)
On Sat, 01 May 2004 17:12:38 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 1 May 2004 14:22:39 +0100, "Simon Mason"
><simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
><nrGcnQgO7IA9OQ7dSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk>:
>
>> I go through dozens of pinch points every day and have
>> never once been cut up by a motorist,
>
>Lucky you. It used to be a regular occurrence before I
>changed jobs to one with no pinch points.
Yep. Happens to me all the time.
--
Dave...
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain
On Sat, 1 May 2004 14:22:39 +0100, "Simon Mason"
<simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I go through dozens of pinch points every day and have
> never once been cut up by a motorist,
We've had these locally since around Xmas (Fishponds Road,
Bristol, by the new Lidl) and I've already had to take
evading action twice.
The problem seems to be that the road (a fairly busy
suburban high street) is adequately wide for the accepted
level of parking, but there's always a few extra cars just
before the refuge, where they shouldn't be. A cyclist who
has just passed these parked cars is too far into the centre
of the lane to be safely passed by a car that veers left to
avoid the refuge. It's particularly bad if the cyclist goes
left immediately after the parked car, because they're now
hidden behind it. A car doing 40-50mph (which isn't unusual,
if the traffic lights didn't stop them) and an unfamiliar
driver sees the refuge too late, veers left sharply and is
likely to catch any cyclist in the hidden area.
--
Smert' spamionam
Tony Raven wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
>>Any support would be welcomed!
>>
>
>
> If you haven't already done so, read http://www.thebikezo- (http://www.thebikezo-/)
> ne.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinchpoints.html which
> includes useful information on how to tackle a reluctant
> authority and the relevant standards for central refuges
> etc. It does though recognise a 3m gap as acceptable if
> traffic speeds are below 30mph.
>
> Tony
>
>
Tony, thanks for the information. I have read that web page
(must be the best one out there!) One hope may be that they
lower the speed level to 20MPH, as there's a school on the
route, although I can't see that happening for the
foreseeable future.
The other issue is that there are parked cars along the
route, especially near school times, so I expect it to
become a chicane, and a "challenge" to some drivers.
Cheers.
Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> The problem seems to be that the road (a fairly busy
> suburban high street) is adequately wide for the accepted
> level of parking, but there's always a few extra cars just
> before the refuge, where they shouldn't be. A cyclist who
> has just passed these parked cars is too far into the
> centre of the lane to be safely passed by a car that veers
> left to avoid the refuge. It's particularly bad if the
> cyclist goes left immediately after the parked car,
> because they're now hidden behind it. A car doing 40-50mph
> (which isn't unusual, if the traffic lights didn't stop
> them) and an unfamiliar driver sees the refuge too late,
> veers left sharply and is likely to catch any cyclist in
> the hidden area.
Which is why you should not pull in after the parked cars
but move further out to control the lane through the pinch
point and then pull back in once you are on the other side.
Even with central refuges on a clear straight road I will
move out well before to the middle of the lane and then pull
back in quickly once past to let the cars pass and make it
obvious why I did it. If you are in the right place it is
very obvious to the following car that they cannot get past.
Tony
On Sat, 01 May 2004 20:39:48 +0100, Andy Dingley
<dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
<nsu7905gb1tserm7cgesjqf98f6bbhovch@4ax.com>:
>We've had these locally since around Xmas (Fishponds Road,
>Bristol, by the new Lidl) and I've already had to take
>evading action twice.
I recommend an Air Zound. It doesn't cure the problem, but
it wakes the dozy bastards up :-)
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
[Not Responding] wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2004 14:09:52 +0100, Mark
> <notvalid@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I’m new to this group, but have been a ‘lurking’ for
>>a while.
>>
>>I live in Denmead, Hampshire and have become very
>>concerned about some traffic calming measures being
>>proposed by Hampshire County Council (HCC). The proposals
>>include eight pedestrian refuges that will reduce the
>>carriage way to less than 3.1m. From all the best practice
>>and research I can find, gaps of 3m may be acceptable
>>where the speed limit is below 30MPH and the traffic is
>>light. The road in question is subject to heavy traffic
>>and subject to a 30MPH limit.
>
>
> On Howard's page (that you link to), there's a picture
> of narrowings that include a marked cycle lane that
> leaves less than a bike-width of black tarmac. I wonder
> (a) if this works to make drivers think twice and (b)
> whether this might mitigate the impact of this scheme as
> it stands.
Thanks for your comments. If they do go ahead with it, and
I've run out of options to stop them I will ask them to at
least mark a bike lane as you suggest. (I didn't want to go
in and ask that straight away, as it might be seen as an
easy option, rather than the required fundamental redesign.
>
>
>>I’m in communication with HCC about the matter but they
>>seem set on building these refuges, as early as August
>>this year. I have presented them with the best practice
>>documents and advice, offered alternatives, got
>>endorsement from my MP Mark Oaten), backing from Sustrans
>>and CTC, but they seem hell bent on going ahead, and I’m
>>at a loss on what I can do now.
>
>
> I hate to say this but HCC do not have the faintest
> inkling how to provide for or encourage cycling. IME they
> will ride roughshod over comments made by CTC, Sustrans
> etc if they are counter to the advice of the 'cycling'
> officer. (Caveat: HCC has two cycling officers; one for
> leisure and one for roads. The leisure one's OK).
>
> HCC's *intentions* for cycling are good but the culture
> remains focused on designing road layout for efficient
> (motor) traffic flow and cycling provision is measured
> only by its degree of safety (ie separatin from cars).
>
> HCC is on line for nearly all the targets set in the LTP
> with the exception of cycling which continues its year-on-
> year decline in Hampshire. If you read the LTP, there are
> many examples cited of cycle provision but the pictures
> show them to be nearly all poor.
This backs up my already poor view of HCC. I even wonder if
the cycling officer I'm dealing with is a regular cyclist,
or has even visited the site.
>
>
>>I’ve knocked up a quick website with a photograph for
>>you to see:
>>
>>http://denmead.netfirms.com/
>>
>>I’ve also created an online petition that I’d really like
>>you to sign and pass around your contacts / groups, etc.
>>
>>http://www.petitiononline.com/denmead/petition.html
>>
>>(If you use a real e-mail address, you’ll get one e-mail
>>confirming that you’ve voted, and won’t get spammed).
>>
>>I’m still persevering with HCC with help of the CTC, and
>>am considering a leaflet drop, and have written to my
>>local news paper (not published yet).
>>
>>Any support would be welcomed!
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>
>>Mark.
>
>
> --
>
> Transport & Urban Planning Blog
>
> now at http://notonmywatch.blogs.com (http://notonmywatch.blogs.com/)
On Sat, 1 May 2004 14:41:10 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
<c70b3b$gahqb$1@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinc-
>hpoints.html
The problem here is that the council responds to criticism
of the pinch points being cyclist unfriendly by asserting
that we should be on the pavement, to whose street furniture
and other obstacles they have added little pictures of
bikes. Needless to say this involves crossing frequent
junctions, including the entrance to a filling station
(where I have had several close calls even when riding on
the road).
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
Hi Mark,
Good luck with your campaign. I have updated the page a
little and signed your petition. To be honest I wrote that
stuff when I was working as an assistant traffic engineer
and was simply trying to get my fellow engineers to take
due notice of the current best practice. I would now
simply say there is no place for such features on any
road. Even when a 4- 4.5 m gap can be maintained drivers
who overtake a cyclist are still contravening the advice
in the 'Highway Code' relating to overtaking a cyclist.
Try pointing this out.
Regards,
Howard Peel.
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 1 May 2004 14:41:10 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-
> family.com> wrote in message <c70b3b$gahqb$1@ID-178940.news.uni-
> berlin.de>:
>
>> http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pi-
>> nchpoints.html
>
> The problem here is that the council responds to criticism
> of the pinch points being cyclist unfriendly by asserting
> that we should be on the pavement, to whose street
> furniture and other obstacles they have added little
> pictures of bikes. Needless to say this involves crossing
> frequent junctions, including the entrance to a filling
> station (where I have had several close calls even when
> riding on the road).
>
In which case you need to point them to Cycle Audit and
Cycle Review guidelines from DfT which provide a hierarchy
of measures:
a.. Traffic reduction
b.. Traffic calming
c.. Junction treatment and traffic management
d.. Redistribution of the carriageway
e.. Off-road provision Off-road provision is the last
resort when all other options are exhausted.
Tony
Howard wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Good luck with your campaign.
Thanks Howard, I think I'm going to need it. I'll update the
group with the outcome.
I have updated the page a little and
> signed your petition. To be honest I wrote that stuff when
> I was working as an assistant traffic engineer and was
> simply trying to get my fellow engineers to take due
> notice of the current best practice. I would now simply
> say there is no place for such features on any road. Even
> when a 4- 4.5 m gap can be maintained drivers who overtake
> a cyclist are still contravening the advice in the
> 'Highway Code' relating to overtaking a cyclist. Try
> pointing this out.
I've just looked at my copy of the highway code, and
you're right:
131. traffic calming measures. ...
Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them.
...
You should not overtake other moving vehicles whilst in
these areas.
132. Overtaking.
... Give motorcyclists and cyclists and horse riders as
least as much room as you would a car when overtaking.
189 and 191
...give them plenty of room..
I also read that "The Highway Code may be used in evidence
in any court proceedings under the traffic acts to establish
liability".
Cheers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Howard Peel.
On Sat, 01 May 2004 22:13:57 +0100, Mark <notvalid@mailinator.com> wrote:
> 139. Overtaking.
>
> ... Give motorcyclists and cyclists and horse riders as
> least as much room as you would a car when overtaking.
Out of curiosity, how do people interpret that?
Is it, leave as big a gap beween teh edge of teh cyclist and
your vehicle as you would between teh edge of a car and your
vehicle, or is it, pull out as far across the road to go
past a bike as you would to go past a car (thus leaving
_more_ space).
Of course, it's academic, since so few cagers appear to
consider any of teh highway code, but it's not particularly
explicit wording.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
>> Give motorcyclists and cyclists and horse riders as
>> least as much room as you would a car when overtaking.
>
> Out of curiosity, how do people interpret that?
>
> Is it, leave as big a gap beween teh edge of teh cyclist
> and your vehicle as you would between teh edge of a car
> and your vehicle, or is it, pull out as far across the
> road to go past a bike as you would to go past a car (thus
> leaving _more_ space).
>
> Of course, it's academic, since so few cagers appear to
> consider any of teh highway code, but it's not
> particularly explicit wording.
I've always given 'em the same distance as in the first one,
but for horses I get as far away from the bloody things as
possible (but drive really slowly, so I can gaze at the
rider in her tight breeches for as long as possible).
Ian Smith wrote:
>> Give motorcyclists and cyclists and horse riders as least
>> as much room as you would a car when overtaking.
> Out of curiosity, how do people interpret that?
I interpret it as "ambiguous" ;-)
One reason why I think it should be changed.
Guy
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
