Feed aggregator

Re: Lewes Road Brighton- new facility any good?

CTC Forum - On the road - 1 hour 24 min ago
niggle wrote:Pete Owens wrote:That cycle lane is very much thinner than 2m and will result in buses passing very much closer than they would if they were simply sharing the same overal width.

As that is just some sort of digital 'artists impression' I would hope that the lane is actually a genuine 2m as promised.

Well if you look at the detailed scale drawings of the giratory you can see the narrow cycle lane (heading towards Brighton) - much less than the space cyclists need for safety. To see how much worse 1.5m cycle lanes like that make conditions for cyclists take a look at:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... -lanes.pdf

It is a shame because the scheme does look to involve genuine roadspace reallocation. They have not just converted one lane of the dual carriageway to a bus and cycle lane but actually increased the width of that lane so that there is sufficient space for buses and cyclists to pass each other. If only they didn't insist on subdividing that space it wouyld be very very good.


Pete Owens wrote:And that plan looks positively lethal. Cyclists are taken off the road to go behind a bus stop then re-emerge onto the carriageway brom behind a stopped bus just at the approach to a junction.

I see what your saying, but the issue will only be with other traffic wanting to enter the left turn lane for Hollingdean Road,

I was thinking more of vehicles turning into the car park imediately after the bus stop. The cycle lane to the right of the left hand filter for Hollingdean Road is much less of an issue.
the cycle lane is continuous and compulsory before

Not according to the drawing. What I see is a narrow advisory on-carrageway cycle lane heading north up Lewes Road and across the mouth of Upper Lewes Road. This is then diverted off the carrageway and behind the bus stop.
and immediately after the bus stop and protected by being raised by 50mm then 25mm before finally continuing as a distinct marked lane- traffic going up the main(?) route straight ahead will not be in conflict with the cycle lane but cyclists wanting to turn right at the 'top' of the 'gyratory' will be needing to take more care and make movements across 'all vehicles' lanes, but hard to see how to avoid that.

It is only hard to see that if you insist on separating streams of traffic by vehicle type rather than direction of travel. Once you segregate by type you are bound to cause conflict at junctions where those streams have to cross each other. This is the explanation why parallel off-carriageway cycle paths have such a poor safety record at junctions.
Another issue will be how pedestrians are enabled to cross the cycle lane to reach the bus stop- opportunity for conflict there.

Indeed so. And here we get to the real purpose of bus stop bypasses. If you start with an off-carriagway cycle path running alongside a bus route then this will inevitably lead to conflict at the bus stops. It is a bad idea to send cyclists through a bus shelter (though this doesn't seem to occur to some designers (see http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... il2013.htm - and others). And to have the cycle path going imedieately adjacent to the bus as people are stepping off is obviously dangerous (though commonly implemented). So to arrange for the cycle path to be routed behind the bus stop is the least bad solution - a way to minimise the unavoidable conflict.

However, these things seem to have become fashionable as a good thing in their own right - so now we are starting to see on-carriagway cycle lanes diverted round the back of bus stops then back on to the carriageway. This is a really bad idea - you are creating conflict where there was none before. To do this on the approach to a junction is plain daft.

Whenever anybody criticises a facility I do think they should back it up with their solution, or to say up front that they are opposed to all facilities...

Well if the problem is the danger caused to cyclists by a proposal to implement a daft cycle path then the simple solution is don't do it. As with medics the first thing is to avoid making the situation worse that it was to start with.

However, the real question is: "How do we improve conditions for cyclists through this cycle-hostile road layout". Unfortunately, rather too many people interpret this question as "Where can we fit in some cycle facilities" with the implicit extension on the part of highway engineers: "without inconveniencing motor traffic in any way whatsoever".

So. This is what I would do:
First I would start by getting to the root cause of the problem - and remove the giratory itself. The entire purpose of giratories is to speed up motor traffic by creating multi-lane roads which require high-speed merging and filtering. Theyare nasty for pedestrians and cyclists and really have no place in any liveable city. This might be politically tricky in some places - but this is Brighton where the Greens are in power - and do show a willingness to take on auto-centric assumptions.

Lewes road would then be a continuous conventional 2-way street similar to the way it is towards the town centre. (though where it becomes a shopping street further to the south I would consider something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... vzDDMzq7d0) There would be a single general traffic lane in each direction and I would maintain a shared bus/cycle lane southbound. I would make the northbound traffic lane as wide as possible and the southbound general traffic lane as narrow as possible.

There would be a traffic light controlled cross-roads (or possibly a contintental geometry roundabout) at the north end (where Hollingdon Rd & Bear Rd Cross) and a traffic light controled T junction (or continental roundabout) at the south end for Upper Lewes Rd. The current Northbound part of the giratory would be blocked to through traffic (possibly with a bus gate) and accessed from the north.

The speed limit would be reduced to 20mph, and enforced by average speed cameras.

Re: Non driving cyclists

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 11:11pm
Totally agree that DRL's are a nuisance - some are brighter than others, most obscure the (often badly located) indicators, and ALL cause your eyes to register the lights, but not the vehicle- nor vehicles without lights (vehicle in this context includes cars, bikes and cycles. And wheelchairs!)

Why do I mention indicators - how many times have you approached a traffic island, looked for the indicators for a car coming around the island to see if it's going to turn - and simply couldn't see the damn things even if they are being used? Means you have to stop even if sometimes it shouldn't be necessary, not much fun if you've got to pedal uphill to get going again.

Re: Jens gets Hour record

CTC Forum - Racing - 20 September 2014 - 10:59pm
Well done Jens, proper hero!

Re: Why do we do it?

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 10:56pm
bensonboo wrote:I don't question the fact that many motorists jump lights, but it's just not true to say that the majority do it. Just watch any junction, you MAY see jumpers, they WILL be a minority.
Not really, on any given sequence noone behind the first "non jumper" is given the choice, so 1RLJ is 50%, 2 is 66%, 3 is 75%

On every junction I see at least one or two taking the mick...

Re: Why do we do it?

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 10:46pm
Actually, this year, it seems rare that I arrive at traffic lights and no motorist either drives blatantly through red, or stops well over the line, often so as to obstruct any pedestrian or toucan cruising. I'd probably agree that the only thing stopping most drivers from RLJing seems to be the vehicle in front, rather than their own morals.

Re: FillThatHole - Dying ? Come on CTC

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 10:06pm
Lance Dopestrong wrote:I've given up reporting them round here. The standard reply, to some quite shocking holes or damage, is "already scheduled for future repair." The fact that someone could be hurt in the mean time just doesn't seem to register with Northamptonshire County Council Highways department.

What is unreasonable about that - so long as it is genuinely scheduled for repair within a reasonable timescale. You don't expect an emergency response tarmac team to set of with blue lights and sirenens the minute you report a pothole. Of course if it isn't genuinely scheduled for repair then that is all the more reason to report it to fillthathole.

If someone gets hurt on an unreported hole and makes a claim from the council then they will get the standard brush off reply that the council regularly inspects its roads and the fault wasn't there last time they looked. That again is entirely reasonable - again you cannot expect them to inspect the entire road network every afternoon incase a pothole shows up in the morning.

If on the other hand someone gets hurt - and the look up the fault on fillthathole - and see that it was reported to the council several months ago then there is clear evidence of negligence. The council cannot simply claim they were unaware of the pothole.

Re: Show your touring bikes !!!!

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 20 September 2014 - 9:20pm
Aushiker wrote:slogfester wrote:Meet Peru (Van Nicholas Pioneer) .... Hasn't been to Peru... yet, but did 4000 km round Europe last year and will soon be off to New Zealand

Nice bike. Where in the Long White Cloud are you planning to ride?

Andrew

Not sure yet. A bit late, but just starting to plan for 6 week trip mid-Dec to end of Jan. Gut feeling says just stick to the South Island at that time of year. We like to get off the beaten track and off-road as long as its not too tough.

Re: FillThatHole - Dying ? Come on CTC

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 9:20pm
And the FillThatHole web site announces "Thanks to additional funding secured from the Department for Transport, an update to the iPhone app is in progress and will be issued in early 2014." And the latest release dates back to 2011. It does all raise questions about the CTC's abilities to manage such software projects.

Ian

Re: Why do we do it?

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 9:07pm
Of course this is all playing with statistics again. At any one junction, most motorists will arrive at the green phase, and go on, or at the full red phase, and (usually) stop. It's at the relatively short amber phase that some stop, but some go on (as they are permitted to do, if they have "already crossed the line, or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident"). The problem is the way that this get-out is interpreted. When an approaching driver has plenty of time to see the amber, and plenty of space to stop in a controlled, non-emergency manner without endangering anyone, and yet they still drive on, they are jumping the lights and breaking the law. I see that happening routinely at virtually every set of traffic lights that I am waiting at, every time.

Of course, like, I hope, nearly all other cyclists, I'm wise to this sort of behaviour so I watch out for it: if I see a vehicle approaching to cross my path, on amber, I wait just in case. No sense in being in the right - and dead.

So in a sense, yes, almost all motorists will have broken the law at traffic lights at some time in their driving career - and many do repeatedly. I regret to confess I have done so. As I've got older, I like to think I take fewer risks than I used to...

Re: Why do we do it?

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 8:35pm
I would expect that more than 50% of motorists have gone through a light on red.

However, most people do not do so habitually, so at any given time, or junction, only a minority are doing it.

I don't have any data on this for the UK, but in other countries, as many as 80% of drivers have admitted to driving through a red light, though this typically includes losing on amber gambling.

Re: tablet for touring

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 20 September 2014 - 8:18pm
robing wrote:al_yrpal wrote:Got the new Which mag today. The Hudl is recommended as the best cheap tablet. At only £99 its a bargain.

Al

You can get a refurbished one off eBay for £59. At 350g though it's quite hefty.
A Nexus 7 is 60g lighter, so not really here or there if you want that larger screen size than a smartphone can offer.

Apropos of nothing we have a Hudl coming from the Tesco Outlet at the moment. We had issues with a couple of the very early ones that had screen touch blind spots, but I think that's all fixed.

Re: Trail A Bike For Tourer?

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 20 September 2014 - 8:01pm
Burley are the standard trailer bike used at Center Parcs.

I'd expect that they get retired after a reasonable life span and some must suffer accidents. Perhaps an e-mail to enquire about obtaining a rack from a towing bike that's now out-of-service.

Or buy one new, although currently out of stock .

Trail A Bike For Tourer?

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 20 September 2014 - 7:55pm
I've pretty much rebuilt the Piccolo I bought so it feels 'like new' to my daughter. I'll change the hub and the bearings in the crankset when I have more disposable!

However my thoughts are not to do a bodge job on my current rack and get a proper Burley Moose Rack. If anyone has an old one knocking about or knows of someone who does I would be interested in a purchase. Many thanks...hc

Re: Why do we do it?

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 7:54pm
[XAP]Bob wrote:bensonboo wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:Note I'm not advocating RLJ or other law breaking, but to let that become the debate is silly - the debate is why we let motorists kill thousands each year, not why a minority of cyclists do the same as a majority of motorists (RLJ)
Majority of motorists RLJ?

Utter rubbish.
Nope, you find a junction where cars don't continue to cross the line well after it's gone amber (and often red), or one where they wait for it to go green before proceeding.

The reason more don't jump the lights more often is thay it is harder to move round other vehicles in a car.

I don't question the fact that many motorists jump lights, but it's just not true to say that the majority do it. Just watch any junction, you MAY see jumpers, they WILL be a minority.

Re: tablet for touring

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 20 September 2014 - 7:48pm
I'm not very tech savy but I saw a Peli case in an outdoor shop today and thought that could be handy. I also am getting a quote to have a Surly with a USB connection/charging facility via a dyno-hub on my next bike....hc

Re: FillThatHole - Dying ? Come on CTC

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 6:13pm
One of the LAs I deal with has an app supporting it's on-line reporting site, the other does not. Of no consequence to me as I don't have any device compatible with apps .

Re: FillThatHole - Dying ? Come on CTC

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 5:57pm
Reason I like apps is that it is so quick; and as a result I tend to report more (I've reported over 200 in the last year). With an app you just press a couple of buttons ("locate" and take a pic) and that's done until you get home. So it hardly disrupts the ride. Noting the street name, location, etc. then writing an e-mail all gets quite a delay/interruption to the ride. And that is where the Fix My Street app is not so good (but at least it works which puts it a long long way ahead of the CTC FillThatHole).

I used to just take a photo and then when I got home, use the geolocation tag to find the position and log everything into Fix My Street. But that gets quite time consuming as well (given the state of the roads).

Council tends to repair reported hazards eventually. But also, I feel that at least if they are reported the onus switches to the authority to repair them and if anybody is injured or suffers vehicle damage, then the Council are he ones who have to take responsibility once they have been told and had reasonable opportunity to repair things.

Hence I really feel systems like FillThatHole are very important both in helping the Council save money (repairing a hole early is cheaper and easier than waiting until it grows enormous) and saves them the need to inspect quite as often (as when they attend to repair they in effect inspect the road at the same time). So helps everybody.

Ian

Re: FillThatHole - Dying ? Come on CTC

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 5:36pm
I just email my County Council and it gets done in 7-14 days as they say so far so good

Re: FillThatHole - Dying ? Come on CTC

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 5:23pm
I've given up reporting them round here. The standard reply, to some quite shocking holes or damage, is "already scheduled for future repair." The fact that someone could be hurt in the mean time just doesn't seem to register with Northamptonshire County Council Highways department.

Re: FillThatHole - Dying ? Come on CTC

CTC Forum - On the road - 20 September 2014 - 5:11pm
My regular rides cover two Local Authorities, MoD and Highways Agency. Fortunately I know where the boundaries are.

One LA already had an on-line reporting system with mapping. I always used that in preference to fth. They've since added a photo upload.

The other LA had an antiquated system that allowed you to advise the road name and type in a description. No mapping to guide you, no reference to allow tracking or follow up and worst of all it wouldn't locate my own address as I live outside that LA. Fth was much simpler.

That LA changed it's online reporting. It now has mapping, references and photo upload; ending my own need for fth.

That doesn't change your points at all. CTC trumpted receiving the funding for an updated all-singing all-dancing fth and they've yet to deliver the goods.
Syndicate content

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions