|
Cycle Infrastructure Design
DfT have come up with a new set of recommendations:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf which at first sight look remarkably sensible : At pinch points : "in the absence of a cycle bypass) a minimum gap of 4 metres is recommended unless additional features to significantly reduce motor vehicle speeds are incorporated" END marking and the END OF ROUTE sign are often provided unnecessarily. The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign is another overused sign. On a well designed cycle facility, it is very rarely appropriate. Now we only have to get traffic engineers to read them ! Regards Paul -- CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames |
Cycle Infrastructure Design
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Paul Luton wrote: At pinch points : "in the absence of a cycle bypass) a minimum gap of 4 metres is recommended unless additional features to significantly reduce motor vehicle speeds are incorporated" Pinch points are a work of Stan. A 4m wide pinch point is not a pinch point at all, but if there is a cycle bypass you are faced with an unappealing choice of using the main carriageway and suffering occasional harassment or using the bypass and entering a traffic stream where drivers are not expecting you and will automatically assume priority even if they do. I think the best means to reduce vehicle speeds is to stop isolating drivers from perceiving the people they place at risk - shared space, in other words. Strict liability would also be a huge plus. Guy - -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound ** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code ** GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJDG5fHBDrsD+jvN4RAs1rAJ4wOUCuMrgX1PHhETp4Qp aYoOYU4gCdHZWw 8E3dTzQtobSPBWy/MrF7cSc= =7wal -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Cycle Infrastructure Design
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:57:35 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Luton wrote: At pinch points : "in the absence of a cycle bypass) a minimum gap of 4 metres is recommended unless additional features to significantly reduce motor vehicle speeds are incorporated" Pinch points are a work of Stan. A 4m wide pinch point is not a pinch point at all, but if there is a cycle bypass you are faced with an unappealing choice of using the main carriageway and suffering occasional harassment or using the bypass and entering a traffic stream where drivers are not expecting you and will automatically assume priority even if they do. I think the best means to reduce vehicle speeds is to stop isolating drivers from perceiving the people they place at risk - shared space, in other words. Strict liability would also be a huge plus. Guy Hello Guy - who is this "Stan" - one of your mates in the CTC. Have you got that letter yet? What about identifying these people you say I have previously lied about contacting? -- I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads. (Guy Chapman) I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie. He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date of last amendment |
Cycle Infrastructure Design
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Luton wrote: At pinch points : "in the absence of a cycle bypass) a minimum gap of 4 metres is recommended unless additional features to significantly reduce motor vehicle speeds are incorporated" Pinch points are a work of Stan. A 4m wide pinch point is not a pinch point at all, It is if the vehicle trying to overtake is a bus or lorry. This is what annoys me about this document (which I have read). There's some really good stuff in section 2 about cyclists' dynamic envelopes, sensible distances to ride from the kerb, and the amount of clearance to leave when overtaking a cyclist. Follow that guidance, and at 30mph or more nothing wider than a motorbike should pass a cyclist in a 4m-wide gap. For a bus to pass at 30 or more, you'd need 5.05m (table 2.3) and even this assumes the bus grazes the island. These dimensions are then ignored throughout the rest of the document, in favour of figures for which no justification is given. It appears that the original document has been heavily edited before release by someone who didn't understand section 2. 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. |
Cycle Infrastructure Design
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Luton wrote: At pinch points : "in the absence of a cycle bypass) a minimum gap of 4 metres is recommended unless additional features to significantly reduce motor vehicle speeds are incorporated" Pinch points are a work of Stan. A 4m wide pinch point is not a pinch point at all, all to the good then. but if there is a cycle bypass you are faced with an unappealing choice of using the main carriageway and suffering occasional harassment or using the bypass and entering a traffic stream where drivers are not expecting you and will automatically assume priority even if they do. depends on the geometry - a kerb build out could deflect drivers out of the way. Bypass then give way !!!!@@@@. I think the best means to reduce vehicle speeds is to stop isolating drivers from perceiving the people they place at risk - shared space, in other words. Strict liability would also be a huge plus. Strict liability first then shared space but this may take a while to achieve! Until then some decent infrastructure will bet more bums on saddles. Paul -- CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames |
Cycle Infrastructure Design
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Colin McKenzie wrote: Pinch points are a work of Stan. A 4m wide pinch point is not a pinch point at all, It is if the vehicle trying to overtake is a bus or lorry. True, but it's not the buses and lorries whose speed pinch points are there to regulate. Most PCV and LGV drivers keep to the limits, especially around towns. This is what annoys me about this document (which I have read). There's some really good stuff in section 2 about cyclists' dynamic envelopes, sensible distances to ride from the kerb, and the amount of clearance to leave when overtaking a cyclist. Follow that guidance, and at 30mph or more nothing wider than a motorbike should pass a cyclist in a 4m-wide gap. For a bus to pass at 30 or more, you'd need 5.05m (table 2.3) and even this assumes the bus grazes the island. In Oz, I think it is, the minimum permitted passing distance is 1.5m. Add that to the 0.5m recommended minimum distance form the kerb and yes you are getting close to the 4m. These dimensions are then ignored throughout the rest of the document, in favour of figures for which no justification is given. Correct. And so are the minimum recommended widths for cycle "facilities", with cycle lanes considerably narrower than 0.5m being found in some places; this will in turn lead to some cyclists being harassed for failing to ride closer to the kerb than is generally considered safe. It appears that the original document has been heavily edited before release by someone who didn't understand section 2. Probably the DSA, they have no clue whatsoever about cycling but are still allowed to write the rules for cyclists in the HC. Guy - -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound ** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code ** GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJDLc+HBDrsD+jvN4RApbYAJ4wtEt2d97ZwyAXLn3OEH mPZnZYJACfSgh0 C/50+n4ZUDe8RO2gMv38o/U= =HnvN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Cycle Infrastructure Design
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Strict liability would also be a huge plus. What is that? -- John |
Cycle Infrastructure Design
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 John wrote: Strict liability would also be a huge plus. What is that? There's a good description on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability It's the system they have in the Netherlands whereby there is liability regardless of negligence. Guy - -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound ** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code ** GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJDL7bHBDrsD+jvN4RAlJ9AJ9vB5XBnZ9Gb8LT763S2l LOoIws+gCeKWBz Ag05KtiwZdZtKVrTlaEVHOU= =+riC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Cycle Infrastructure Design
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
John wrote: Strict liability would also be a huge plus. What is that? There's a good description on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability Ah, as I thought, the concept from the British common law on tort. It's the system they have in the Netherlands whereby there is liability regardless of negligence. They don't have "common law" there. I guess you are probably confusing it with their (and much of the rest of Europe's) insurance convention of providing cover for "no-fault liability", a system where motorists' insurance companies are expected to part-compensate vulnerable road users that might suffer loss in a collision involving their insured's car, up to 100% if the vulnerable road user is a minor. There, like here, criminal fault has to be proven, based on evidence. -- John |
Cycle Infrastructure Design
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:08:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "PGP protected" **** snipped Probably the DSA, they have no clue whatsoever about cycling but are still allowed to write the rules for cyclists in the HC. Guy Any chance of identifying where I "previously lied about having contacted people" -- I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads. (Guy Chapman) I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie. He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date of last amendment |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com