Peter Fox wrote:
> Following on from Mark's message. . .
>
>> This is probably one of the most important messages posted on this group
>> recently and really should not be overlooked.
>
> They're quite good. Obviously written by somebody who knows their
> stuff. The IHT bit (try ALL on-road options first before looking at
> cycle paths etc) is very encouraging.
I agree I think it’s much better than anything else I read to date,
including "The the Cycling Friendly Infrastructure: Guidelines for
Planning and Design." and "A Road Safety Good Practice Guide".
>
> Worth downloading and keeping in the library.
Agreed.
>
>>
>> The current draft does *for example* still allow for the dangerous and
>> intimidating 3m carriageway gap:
>>
>> "4.3.12 Horizontal measures include build-outs, chicanes, and central
>> refuges. Motorists will not usually attempt to overtake cyclists where
>> the available width is 3.0m or less (TAL 9/94 Horizontal Deflections,
>> and TAL 1/97 Cyclists at Road Narrowings). Widths between 3.1m and 3.9m
>> should be avoided as it is in this range that motorists will often
>> attempt to overtake cyclists where there is insufficient room to pass
>> safely. Cycle bypasses should be provided where possible, but careful
>> design detailing is needed to avoid problems with drainage, sweeping and
>> to prevent obstruction by parked vehicles. A bypass should not require
>> cyclists to travel additional distance, or require them to give way
>> before rejoining the main carriageway. Central refuges are helpful to
>> pedestrians, and can encourage people to cross the carriageway at places
>> where there is good visibility. For a central refuge to safely
>> accommodate cyclists, wheelchair users and pedestrians with pushchairs,
>> it needs to be at least 2.0m wide "
>
> I'm not sure what your gripe is with this. The undesirability is
> clearly stated and reasons given but recognises the needs of others may
> affect the solution in a real world. What would you have it say instead?
The the Cycling Friendly Infrastructure: Guidelines for Planning and
Design. (Produced by the D.E.T.R and the Institute of Highways and
Transport, 1996). Uses very similar words, in fact adds additional caveats:
“Central refuges should not be used unless there is a pedestrian
crossing requirement or the safety of cyclists is not adversely
affected. Where a bypass is not possible, the remaining gap should be
either sufficiently wide to allow vehicles to pass cyclists in safety,
or sufficiently narrow to prevent attempted overtaking within the
narrowing. Gaps of 3.1-3.9m seem to be least satisfactory from the
cyclist's perspective. A gap of 4.4.5m is recommended (LTN 2/95 The
Design of Pedestrian Crossings paragraph 3.3) although if the aim is to
control vehicle speed this will have little effect.”
“In schemes designed for speeds in excess of 30 miles/h or where wide
vehicles are common, the gap should be a minimum of 4.5m for one-way
traffic; where speeds are below 30 miles/h and traffic is light, a
narrower gap of 3m may be acceptable if the 4.5m gap cannot be achieved.”
And
“Cyclists should not be “used” as traffic calming devices – for example
as a means of slowing motorists at a road narrowing by leaving
insufficient room for the two to pass through at the same time.”
My local authority thought that this allowed them to use 3m gaps in a
30MPH road with heavy traffic. The words need to be far more explicit.
Do you realise what it feels like to cycle down a busy road with a 3m
narrowing offset from the centre-line?
http://www.victory.plus.com/temp/26.JPG is a 3.08m gap.
I can confirm my perception of more danger and it is intimidating. This
has been confirmed by others, reasearch and expert advice.
My words would be *along the lines* of:
“Central refuges must leave a carriageway gap of at least 4m, unless a
bypass is installed, or traffic is already calmed to below 20MPH by
other methods. (e.g. A Home Zone).
>
> I was a bit disappointed wrt trunk roads.
>
>>
>> It is important that it is responded to, as individuals and as cycling
>> groups, as it will for the basis of the advice given to local
>> authorities.
>>
>> It is *our* opportunity to do something about the future of cycling in
>> the UK.
>
> So tell us the headings of your response.
I am working on my response.
Do you intend to respond?