A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycle Infrastructure Design



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 1st 08, 02:47 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Paul Luton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 123
Default 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
Ads
  #2  
Old November 1st 08, 02:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,166
Default 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-----
  #3  
Old November 1st 08, 03:44 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,961
Default 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
  #4  
Old November 1st 08, 03:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Colin McKenzie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 517
Default 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.
  #5  
Old November 1st 08, 05:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Paul Luton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 123
Default 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 [email protected]@@@.


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
  #6  
Old November 1st 08, 08:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,166
Default 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-----
  #7  
Old November 1st 08, 08:38 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
John[_15_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default Cycle Infrastructure Design

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Strict liability would also be a huge plus.


What is that?

--
John
  #8  
Old November 1st 08, 08:40 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,166
Default 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-----
  #9  
Old November 1st 08, 09:01 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
John[_15_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default 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
  #10  
Old November 1st 08, 09:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,961
Default 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures? damyth Techniques 61 September 22nd 07 04:10 AM
help me design a cycle facility Ian Smith UK 39 January 30th 07 10:02 PM
Design of cycle bridges Mike Causer UK 27 November 8th 06 08:24 PM
BNE: Infrastructure planning Duracell Bunny Australia 2 October 5th 06 11:01 AM
Cycle design / fashion - sloping top tubes, high seat-post etc 26" etc Hywel & Ros UK 37 October 28th 03 04:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.