Cycle lanes on roundabouts

Increasing Understanding of Traffic Signs:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ads_033646.pdf
(Warning ~4.7MB download)

Pages 61/62

Section 7.44

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is shown
in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in that the
cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only have one
location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they must not assume
they have priority."

Does this really mean that cyclists on the roundabout are expected to
give way to traffic joining the roundabout?

I can understand if they were talking about traffic exiting the
roundabout while the cycle lane was painted around the outside because
now you have cyclists going round in the wrong position compared to
the majority of traffic. But for traffic joining there is no excuse
regardless of whether cyclists are in the "normal" traffic position or
in the outside lane.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Tim Woodall wrote:

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is
shown in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in
that the cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only
have one location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they
must not assume they have priority."

Does this really mean that cyclists on the roundabout are expected to
give way to traffic joining the roundabout?

I think that is their expectation, yes. Or at least, that car drivers
should be entitled to get away with assuming that cyclists will defer
to them. Heaven forbid that cyclists assume that drivers will drive
in accordance with the rules. (You'll also note in 7.42 that
motorists are confused when they have to give way "once for cyclists
and secondly for traffic".)

I really don't understand teh justification for this - at roundabouts,
you give way to all traffic approaching from teh right. If you're
dumb enough not to understand that, your really not suitable to
be let out in control of car, surely?

This document appears to be a year old, yet I've not heard of it
before. The only hope for the situation is the fact that few
roundabouts have cycle lanes marked.

regards, Ian SMith

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:04:30 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote in message
:

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is shown
in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in that the
cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only have one
location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they must not assume
they have priority."

I have a better idea: get rid of the fatuous cycle lane and remind the
cyclists to ride in the primary position. At which point drivers
still only have one location to give way and cyclists retain the
priority. Job done.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:04:30 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote:

Increasing Understanding of Traffic Signs:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ads_033646.pdf
(Warning ~4.7MB download)

Pages 61/62

Section 7.44

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is shown
in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in that the
cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only have one
location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they must not assume
they have priority."

Does this really mean that cyclists on the roundabout are expected to
give way to traffic joining the roundabout?

It seems that way, which, as Mr. Larrington would say, is this: Crap.



You missed the para preceeding it:

7.42 The problem identified with the circulatory cycle lane on
roundabouts was the use of the double ‘give way’ marking at entry
roads. Driving instructors told us that drivers were uncertain as to
when to stop and give way. The research team do not accept this since
drivers must give way at both locations, once for cyclists and
secondly for traffic from the right. However, the observation caused
us to consider whether it was possible to improve the traffic
management and hence safety of the installation.

7.43 Although cycle lanes on roundabouts are not a prescribed marking,
some local highway


Which is ********. The problem with the circulatory cycle lane is that
it's dangerous. I see the CTC were consulted. Surely a good answer
from them would be to get the things scrapped.

I can understand if they were talking about traffic exiting the
roundabout while the cycle lane was painted around the outside because
now you have cyclists going round in the wrong position compared to
the majority of traffic. But for traffic joining there is no excuse
regardless of whether cyclists are in the "normal" traffic position or
in the outside lane.

Looking at fig 7.1 it would seem that the only those in the
circulatory cycle lane would be affected. The whole thing sounds like
a recipe for disaster.


Tim (another one)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:04:30 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote:

Increasing Understanding of Traffic Signs:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ads_033646.pdf
(Warning ~4.7MB download)

Pages 61/62

Section 7.44

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is shown
in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in that the
cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only have one
location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they must not assume
they have priority."

Does this really mean that cyclists on the roundabout are expected to
give way to traffic joining the roundabout?

With a continuous outer circle cycle lane a cyclist might assume that
they have priority joining the roundabout. With the broken cycle lane
recommended there should be no such assumption. Of course a cyclist
already on a roundabout should have priority crossing an entry point.

I can understand if they were talking about traffic exiting the
roundabout while the cycle lane was painted around the outside because
now you have cyclists going round in the wrong position compared to
the majority of traffic. But for traffic joining there is no excuse
regardless of whether cyclists are in the "normal" traffic position or
in the outside lane.

Tim.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:52:58 +0100, Tilly
wrote in message :

With a continuous outer circle cycle lane a cyclist might assume that
they have priority joining the roundabout. With the broken cycle lane
recommended there should be no such assumption.

But what, exactly, does the cycle lane add, other than confusion?


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Tim Woodall" wrote in message
e.uk...
Increasing Understanding of Traffic Signs:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ads_033646.pdf
(Warning ~4.7MB download)

Pages 61/62

Section 7.44

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is shown
in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in that the
cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only have one
location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they must not assume
they have priority."

Does this really mean that cyclists on the roundabout are expected to
give way to traffic joining the roundabout?

I can understand if they were talking about traffic exiting the
roundabout while the cycle lane was painted around the outside because
now you have cyclists going round in the wrong position compared to
the majority of traffic. But for traffic joining there is no excuse
regardless of whether cyclists are in the "normal" traffic position or
in the outside lane.

So what is the situation with the wise cyclist who looks at the colourfully
painted gutter round the roundabout and thinks 'that's pretty' -- and 'I'm
going nowhere near that, its a death trap' while adopting the correct
position on the road as set out for all traffic in the highway code?

Is s/he still expected to defer to traffic entering the roundabout? If so
we would have two incompatible rules operating on one piece of road. Under
these circumstances which Johnny Plonker in his BMW do I assume is going to
kill me -- the one entering the roundabout without giving way to traffic
already circulating OR, if I give way to him, the one 'circulating with
thumb in bum, brain in neutral and phone strapped to head who rams me up the
jacksey.

What pillocks concoct such Total Bollox (TM).

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:04:30 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote in message
:

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is shown
in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in that the
cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only have one
location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they must not assume
they have priority."

I have a better idea: get rid of the fatuous cycle lane and remind the
cyclists to ride in the primary position. At which point drivers
still only have one location to give way and cyclists retain the
priority. Job done.

Is the right answer.

No chance it will be adopted then :~(

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:52:58 +0100, Tilly
wrote in message :

With a continuous outer circle cycle lane a cyclist might assume that
they have priority joining the roundabout. With the broken cycle lane
recommended there should be no such assumption.

But what, exactly, does the cycle lane add, other than confusion?

Paint

Tim Hall wrote:

Looking at fig 7.1 it would seem that the only those in the
circulatory cycle lane would be affected. The whole thing sounds
like a recipe for disaster.

Especially as both the cyclist foolish enough to be using the lane, and
the motorist entering the roundabout have to cross a dotted line. It
looks to me as if they're both expected to give way. Surely in this
case the vehicle on the right, i.e. the cyclist, has priority but the
document doesn't make this clear. What it does make clear is that the
document's authors do not regard cyclists as traffic.

Circulatory cycle lanes are hideously dangerous to start with. This
crackpot idea will simply increase the danger for cyclists.

--
Dave...