UK and Europe · Public discussion

help me design a cycle facility

Started by Ian Smith · · Last activity · 40 posts · 1,055 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
26 January 2007
Last activity
30 January 2007
Original author
Ian Smith
Posts
40
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,055
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–40 of 40
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Peter Fox said:

    For this you'll need to mark out the road with 'chalk' lines and
    video an articulated lorry going through the junction a few times
    to see how it swings out right before turning left.

    Actually no, we do all that on computer. The same package does
    aeroplanes and monster road-trains and all sorts. It's quite
    entertaining - I can plot out how a taxiing 747 wouldn't make the bend
    if I want....

    Very occasionally we do hire a vehicle and video it failing to make
    the manoeuvre, but only when a client refuses to believe the computer.
    We've never proved the computer wrong (though occasionally we've
    proved it a better driver than the real driver at first attempt).

    Quoted message said:

    a mini-roundabout or lights are required.

    Mini-roundabout is my current favourite solution. Lights are not
    acceptable (for reasons I don't understand, but who pays the piper...)

    Quoted message said:

    The whole thing sounds like a dog's dinner.

    That's what I'm trying to avoid.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  2. Brian G said:
    Ian Smith said:

    We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

    I find myself trying to design a road junction, and the council is
    amenable to incorporate special measures to accommodate cycles, but
    it's actually proving a pain in the neck. Hence, I'm seeking
    inspiration.

    Assuming major engineering (such as underpasses) isn't on, I wonder
    whether a mini roundabout (hateful though they are) would work.

    Aha.

    That's actually just the inspiration I was looking for. It _just_
    works - we have less than one metre more space than the absolute
    minimum legally required to squeeze one in.

    It's been drawn out, and looks feasible, so as of now is my personal
    preferred option. You'd probably win a prize if I had one available.
    Of course, it now disappears into some local authority black hole for
    who-knows how long, and when it emerges it will probably be
    unrecognisable.

    Still keen to hear other options, if anyone has them.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  3. Ian Smith said the following on 26/01/2007 12:42:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Why is the straight on bit being blocked?

    Big hole.

    That's as good a reason as any :-)

    --
    Paul Boyd
    http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

  4. Ian Smith said the following on 26/01/2007 12:51:

    Quoted message said:

    Actually no, we do all that on computer. The same package does
    aeroplanes and monster road-trains and all sorts. It's quite
    entertaining - I can plot out how a taxiing 747 wouldn't make the bend
    if I want....

    Screenshot please!

    --
    Paul Boyd
    http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

  5. Theres a junction like this at the junction of West Street and Trinity
    Street in Fareham, Hants. The way it is worked there is that there is a
    small filter lane on the incoming right leg that the cyclist can take. There
    are two sets of traffic lights, one for the small filter lane, one for the
    rest of the traffic being forced to bear left. When one is red, the other is
    green. The cyclist who wishes to go straight on moves into the filter lane,
    stops at the (usually) red light with traffic proceeding to be forced to
    turn left flowing round in front of him. The lights detect his presence and
    then switch, stopping the main flow of traffic in both directions along the
    top bar of the "T", while he proceeds straight ahead.

    The advantage is that if a cyclist doesn't want to go straight ahead, but
    bear left with the main traffic flow, he just stays out of the filter lane
    and so doesn't get delayed. Its not ideal because it makes the cyclist wait
    to go straight on, but it is safe as long as everyone respects the red
    lights!

    Dave.
    "Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

    I find myself trying to design a road junction, and the council is
    amenable to incorporate special measures to accommodate cycles, but
    it's actually proving a pain in the neck. Hence, I'm seeking
    inspiration.

    Consider a T-junction.

    For various reasons, traffic proceeding across the top right-to-left
    has now been stopped in one direction and must turn left down the
    stem. This is easy, if we force all traffic to do it, but actually, I
    could let bicycles go straight on.

    However, I can't see a way to do so. Motor traffic, which is going to
    be forced to turn left, will assume that all traffic will turn left,
    and will not notice that bikes may go straight on - resulting in too
    many clashes. Further, even if the cyclist avoids that, the stuff
    coming up the stem, which must turn right, needs to be brought forward
    to the middle of the road for visibility reasons, so there's a second
    clash with the cyclist crossing through a stationary queue.

    If you're having trouble visualising it, there's a sketch at
    http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/TMsketch.pdf

    What to do? I really want to let cycles go straight on, because
    otherwise it's a miles long detour. However, my highways department
    insists the stuff coming up the stem gets a stop line at what was the
    middle of the road, and I can't see any way to avoid conflicts.

    My best solution so far is to make the footway across the top a shared
    use cycle path, so cycles going along that (which is what I expect
    they will do) are at least decriminalised. However, I'll hate myself
    forever for causing a shared-use-pavement to be brought into being....

    Thoughts?

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  6. Ian Smith said:

    http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/TMsketch.pdf

    The bottom right corner ("motor traffic turning left"😉:

    Could the corner be more rounded and the road widened? If so, some more
    separation between lef turning and straight ahead areas could be created -
    with cross hatching if not an island. This would make it clearer to
    everyone that there is a lane going straight ahead, even if it's not used
    much.

    What is on and near that corner? Narrow pavement? Brick wall? House?

    ~PB

  7. Ian Smith said:


    If you're having trouble visualising it, there's a sketch at
    http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/TMsketch.pdf

    What to do? I really want to let cycles go straight on, because
    otherwise it's a miles long detour. However, my highways department
    insists the stuff coming up the stem gets a stop line at what was the
    middle of the road, and I can't see any way to avoid conflicts.

    I'm assuming that there is no cycle lane on the road from the right.
    Looking at your diagram: add a new stop line at 90 degrees to the one at
    the end of the stem, for bicycles coming across from the right. There
    could be a triangularish 'patch' on the road between it and the road
    lane going around the corner from the the right, the same colour as the
    "shut to motor traffic" piece. No traffic lights, no roundabout, no
    obstruction to traffic passing from the left or from the right. Just a
    new "stop" for cyclists coming from the right.

    You'd keep the original stop-line as specified above too!

    --
    Matt B

  8. p.k. wrote on 26/01/2007 10:20 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    More seriously, make it a light controlled junction. The traffic coming up
    the leg does not then need to be in the middle of the road and the lights
    sequence can include a "cyclists only" straight on phase.

    There is just such a facility in Cambridge although there is also a
    right hand lane of traffic going straight on and a left hand lane
    turning left with a straight on and left cycle lane to the left of both
    http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/original/lle000.133868n52.192152a002m315o_20001125_172948.jpg
    http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5143/

    --
    Tony

    "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
    wildly inaccurate..."
    Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

  9. Ian Smith <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:
    Paul - censored said:

    Ian Smith <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:

    We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

    Heheheh

    Quoted message said:

    What to do? I really want to let cycles go straight on, because
    otherwise it's a miles long detour.

    So it's OK to stop cyclists having longer journeys but OK to force
    car drivers to do them?

    It is physically impossible for cars to traverse the obstacle (unless
    they are chitty-chitty-bang-bang) but there's no physical reason to
    stop cycles.

    OK, just sounded a bit odd.

    Quoted message said:

    The choices are stop all traffic, or stop all motor traffic.

    Quoted message said:

    If it's a reasonable and workable solution to an otherwise
    insurmountable problem, what's the problem?

    Shared use are [censored].

    Shared use are dangerous.

    This shared use would make the cyclist cross the road twice.

    But does appear to be the only cheap, workable 'solution'.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Is this a 'permanent' or transient solution?

    Semi-permanent. Lifetime measured in years.

    Quoted message said:

    Why is the straight on bit being blocked?

    Big hole.

    Hmmm ... no-one got a truckfull, or three, of [censored] to fill it with? 😉

    --
    Paul - [censored]

  10. Paul - censored said:

    Ian Smith <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:


    Big hole.

    Hmmm ... no-one got a truckfull, or three, of [censored] to fill it with? 😉

    That would make doing the works at the bottom a bit more tricky.

    Trust me, we didn't say "I know, let's devise a scheme to
    inconvenience motorists and endanger cyclists for no good reason
    whatsoever" and then persuaded a local authority to do it on the
    grounds that it would give them something to spend their excess cash
    on which would otherwise have to be squandered on something trivial
    like schools or meals for vulnerable pensioners.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  11. Ian Smith said:

    Consider a T-junction.

    For various reasons, traffic proceeding across the top right-to-left
    has now been stopped in one direction and must turn left down the
    stem. This is easy, if we force all traffic to do it, but actually, I
    could let bicycles go straight on.

    My first thought is to change the priorities, so that traffic coming up
    the stem can continue to the right unimpeded, traffic turning left down
    the stem can continue unimpeded, and traffic coming from the left would
    give way:
    http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-junction.jpg

    Cyclists travelling from right to left are then effectively making a
    right turn. At the very least I would expect this to make them more
    cautious and more likely to get into an appropriate, middle of the road
    position before reaching the junction, which in turn will make them more
    visible to motorists coming up behind them.

    Of course, with no knowledge of traffic flow in the area I have no idea
    whether this is workable.

    --
    Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
    Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

  12. In article <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

    I find myself trying to design a road junction, and the council is
    amenable to incorporate special measures to accommodate cycles, but
    it's actually proving a pain in the neck. Hence, I'm seeking
    inspiration.

    Consider a T-junction.

    For various reasons, traffic proceeding across the top right-to-left
    has now been stopped in one direction and must turn left down the
    stem. This is easy, if we force all traffic to do it, but actually, I
    could let bicycles go straight on.

    However, I can't see a way to do so. Motor traffic, which is going to
    be forced to turn left, will assume that all traffic will turn left,
    and will not notice that bikes may go straight on - resulting in too
    many clashes. Further, even if the cyclist avoids that, the stuff
    coming up the stem, which must turn right, needs to be brought forward
    to the middle of the road for visibility reasons, so there's a second
    clash with the cyclist crossing through a stationary queue.

    If you're having trouble visualising it, there's a sketch at
    http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/TMsketch.pdf

    What to do? I really want to let cycles go straight on, because
    otherwise it's a miles long detour. However, my highways department
    insists the stuff coming up the stem gets a stop line at what was the
    middle of the road, and I can't see any way to avoid conflicts.

    My best solution so far is to make the footway across the top a shared
    use cycle path, so cycles going along that (which is what I expect
    they will do) are at least decriminalised. However, I'll hate myself
    forever for causing a shared-use-pavement to be brought into being....

    Thoughts?


    Zebra crossing, shared use path on the pavement approaching it and a
    "cyclists dismount" sign?
    Without knowing the traffic conditions it's hard to tell what might
    work.

  13. "Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Brian G said:
    Ian Smith said:

    We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

    I find myself trying to design a road junction, and the council is
    amenable to incorporate special measures to accommodate cycles, but
    it's actually proving a pain in the neck. Hence, I'm seeking
    inspiration.

    Assuming major engineering (such as underpasses) isn't on, I wonder
    whether a mini roundabout (hateful though they are) would work.

    Aha.

    That's actually just the inspiration I was looking for. It _just_
    works - we have less than one metre more space than the absolute
    minimum legally required to squeeze one in.

    Sounds good to me.

    Jc.

  14. Rob Morley said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:


    We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

    Zebra crossing, shared use path on the pavement approaching it and a
    "cyclists dismount" sign?

    Yuck.

    Actually, at least one good thing has come out of it - I got the
    opportunity to have a little rant at our highway department when they
    suggested using that particular sign. I recommended they use it no
    more frequently than they use "motorists get out and push".

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  15. In article <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:
    Rob Morley said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:


    We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

    Zebra crossing, shared use path on the pavement approaching it and a
    "cyclists dismount" sign?

    Yuck.

    Glad you liked it ;-)

    Quoted message said:


    Actually, at least one good thing has come out of it - I got the
    opportunity to have a little rant at our highway department when they
    suggested using that particular sign. I recommended they use it no
    more frequently than they use "motorists get out and push".


    How did they take that?

  16. Ian Smith said:

    Consider a T-junction.

    For various reasons, traffic proceeding across the top right-to-left
    has now been stopped in one direction and must turn left down the
    stem. This is easy, if we force all traffic to do it, but actually, I
    could let bicycles go straight on.

    How about a miniroundabout? http://getdown.org.uk/t-junction.png

    That way, it's clear to traffic coming up the stem that they may have
    to give way to whatever's approaching from the right, and it is less
    obvious that it will only be cyclists.

    --
    Stevie D
    \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
    \\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
    ___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

  17. Brian G said:

    Assuming major engineering (such as underpasses) isn't on, I wonder
    whether a mini roundabout (hateful though they are) would work. It would
    need careful and perhaps complicated signage to ensure motorists did not
    drive straight on when coming from the right but exited to the left and
    to ensure motorists coming up the stem were made aware of the
    possibility of cyclists coming from the right.

    No complicated signage needed, just a traffic island in the middle of
    the road, and a bollard in the middle of the lane. Most motorists will
    be capable of figuring out that means they can't drive down there!

    --
    Stevie D
    \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
    \\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
    ___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

  18. On 26/01/2007 19:26, Ian Smith said,

    Quoted message said:

    That would make doing the works at the bottom a bit more tricky.

    Actually, if there's a bloody great hole in the way, are you sure it's
    OK for cyclists to go straight on? :-)

    --
    Paul Boyd
    http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

  19. Paul Boyd said:

    On 26/01/2007 19:26, Ian Smith said,

    Quoted message said:

    That would make doing the works at the bottom a bit more tricky.

    Actually, if there's a bloody great hole in the way, are you sure it's
    OK for cyclists to go straight on? :-)

    I thought they'd bunny-hop?

    In fact, the obstacle is narrow. At one stage we were hoping for a
    motor traffic lane each side of it, but that turned out not to fit. A
    motor traffic one side and a cycles only the other is fine, however.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  20. Peter Fox said:

    Following on from Ian Smith's message. . .

    Quoted message said:

    We all know how appalling most cycle facilities are.

    I find myself trying to design a road junction, and the council is
    amenable to incorporate special measures to accommodate cycles, but
    it's actually proving a pain in the neck. Hence, I'm seeking
    inspiration.

    This response is probably too late, but anyway.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Consider a T-junction.

    No. Consider a bend with a minor road (top left bit of T) joining at
    the corner. That is in effect what you will have. ...

    The 'real least worst' answer (subject to adequate approach distances)
    is to flip the 'bend with a side road on the apex' concept so that the
    major road sweeps top left to bottom while traffic approaching from the
    right has to give way. This has the effect of calming the R-L traffic
    and puts a central pedestrian bollard for a crossing at the give way
    line (in the right branch). Pedestrians have a relatively simple way to
    get across and cyclists can stay as part of the normal traffic as they
    approach (from the right) what is now a T-junction. If there isn't much
    bottom to right traffic then this will work fine but if there's lots
    then there will never be an opportunity to get across the road for right
    turning and a mini-roundabout or lights are required.

    I agree with this. My main thoughts are:
    - if cyclists are avoiding a big detour, it's reasonable to ask them
    to give way.
    - if right to bottom traffic is severely slowed down, it will be easy
    for cyclists to take the lane and then move further right.
    - if anything is going to be painted on the road, it should probably
    be bike symbols rather than bike lanes.
    - I don't like the mini roundabout solution, unless there is a *lot*
    of cycle traffic. Bottom to right traffic will get used to not
    looking, and traffic from the left arm will only get a gap in the
    traffic it has to give way to when a cyclist goes right to left.
    - What are the relative traffic movements on the 4 routes motor
    traffic can take? That should determine priority - probably by making
    the highest flows give way.

    Colin McKenzie

    --
    No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
    the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
    walking.
    Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.