Cycling Infrastructure Design now out
Martin
Just published today.
Local transport note 2/08 - Cycle infrastructure design
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf
(3 Mb file)
Let's see what it says about cycle lane widths, for Colin's benefit:
7.4 Cycle lane widths
7.4.1 A cycle lane offers cyclists some separation from motor traffic.
Under the National Cycle Training Standards, cyclists are trained to ride
in a safe position in the carriageway which is usually at least 1 metre
from the kerb edge to avoid gulley grates and debris, and to ensure that
they are within the sightlines of drivers waiting at side roads.
7.4.2 Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy roads, or where traffic
is travelling in excess of 40 mph. A minimum width of 1.5 metres may be
generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit. For cycle feeder lanes
to advanced stop line arrangements, a minimum width of 1.2m may be
acceptable. Cycle lanes less than 1.2 metres wide cannot easily
accommodate tricycles or childcarrying cycle trailers wholly within the
lane.
7.4.3 Cyclists can overtake each other within a 2-metre wide lane and
easily remain within it when looking back to check for traffic, or when
avoiding kerbside drainage grates, etc. Drivers do not always realise that
cyclists need to move away from the kerb to avoid surface hazards and may
expect cyclists to stay in lane regardless of its width. A narrow cycle
lane may therefore give motorists (misplaced) confidence to provide less
clearance while overtaking than they would in the absence of a cycle lane.
At localised carriageway width restrictions, designers can continue a
full-width advisory cycle lane alongside a substandard all-purpose lane,
or the cycle lane can simply be discontinued. A narrow cycle lane should
not be used here.
7.5.2 Cycle lanes can be marked on the offside of a line of parallel
parking bays (see Figure 7.5). A buffer zone between the bays and the
cycle lane of between 0.5 and 1 metre is generally recommended. The angle
between the cycle lane and the kerb on the approach to the parking bays
should be 1 in 10.
Martin
suer
<alpine.LSU.2.00.0...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Just published today.
>
> Local transport note 2/08 - Cycle infrastructure design
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf
> (3 Mb file)
Good theory, let's see it in practice.
What does it say about cyclepath design?
BTW the length of Gravel Bridge Road between Longstanton and the Ramper
Road junction (where you used to turn left for Swavesey or go straight
onto Over windmill) is now closed permanently to all traffic as it's
being dug-up for the west Longstanton bypass.
So to travel from Longstanton to Over or Swavesey you now go through
Longstanton to the golfcourse and a new roundabout, where you turn left
onto a new 60mph road with arnco down the side with a steep ditch and no
cycle provision whatsoever, then straight across another new roundabout
and along another ditto piece of road which turns into Ramper Road
towards Swavesey, which you can turn right off into the remaining part
of Gravel Bridge Road for Over.
So Sustrans route 51 has a bit missing, or is rerouted onto the route
above? I emailed Nigel Brigham last week to let him know.
Swavesey parish council complained at lack of cycle provision and asked
that the old road be re-opened at least to non-motorised users but the
county council's reply was it can't be because there will be a large
ditch alongside the new bypass and they're not putting a bridge in
across it, plus we'd have to cross the byway. But there will be more
cycling provision longterm, as more of West Longstanton housing gets
built ... so we just have to wait until then or cycle/ride/walk along
the new bit of road.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk (Martin) wrote:
Good stuff. You're still not taking into account the width of the road, I
see.
It would be nice to see a coherent case where 2M cycle lanes could be
provided on an existing road in Cambridge.
Note that the City Council's aspiration is to reduce all 40MPH roads in
the City to 30MPH limits and the County Council has recently announced
such a reduction for Huntingdon Road to the national limit start point
beyond Girton College.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Tim B
> In article
> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0810311215170.29...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Ta - is this the roundabout at http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/12474/
?
Tim
Mark T.B. Carroll
> It would be nice to see a coherent case where 2M cycle lanes could be
> provided on an existing road in Cambridge.
True. Luckily, as far as I know, there's no requirement to paint
mandatory cycle lanes on the roads where a suitable one can't be
provided.
Mark
Alan Braggins
>
>It would be nice to see a coherent case where 2M cycle lanes could be
>provided on an existing road in Cambridge.
So when you told us such lanes existed, you were not merely mistaken
but incoherent?
Chris
Indeed.
I can understand the point of having a full-width cycle lane for busy or
fast moving roads. No problems there.
I can't imagine why you'd want a narrow cycle lane on other roads. Surely
no lane at all is better, for exactly the reasons given in the quoted piece?
And the less said about feeble lanes and advanced stop lines, the better.
The whole concept is deeply flawed, and dangerous on several levels.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris
> Note that the City Council's aspiration is to reduce all 40MPH roads in
> the City to 30MPH limits and the County Council has recently announced
> such a reduction for Huntingdon Road to the national limit start point
> beyond Girton College.
Is that an official policy, now? What is the basis for it? Are there really
fewer accidents on Trumpington Road since the limit was reduced? (More
telling, perhaps: do drivers on that road actually keep to 30mph anyway?)
Would it really help anyone to reduce the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph
on the Barnwell Road stretch between Sainsbury's and the start of the main
housing estate, or on the stretch of Coldham's Lane out from Sainsbury's
towards Cherry Hinton?
When you set inappropriately low speed limits, all that happens is that
drivers lose respect for speed limits. Safe drivers are criminalised, and
dangerous drivers are even less likely to mitigate their behaviour since
they're speeding already anyway. Am I really the only one who finds that
the more we get new traffic lights and bus lanes and artificially low speed
limits and ASLs, the more idiot car drivers there seem to be on the roads
who just go through on red, cut up the cyclists, and overtake like crazy
people on roundabouts?
I note the marked contrast between this statement about the City Council's
"aspiration", and the previous defensive claims by councillors about 20mph
limits only being introduced one-by-one and in response to local pressure.
Has there been significant local pressure in every 40mph area in the city
to reduce the limit to 30mph, then?
Cheers,
Chris
Mark Goodge
finger to keyboard and typed:
>Note that the City Council's aspiration is to reduce all 40MPH roads in
>the City to 30MPH limits
Why?
Mark
--
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff
Tony Raven
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:01:31 -0500, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
> finger to keyboard and typed:
>
> >Note that the City Council's aspiration is to reduce all 40MPH roads in
> >the City to 30MPH limits
>
> Why?
>
Maybe because if something does go wrong and you hit a pedestrian or
cyclist they have an 80% chance of surviving the collision instead of a
10% chance.
Of course against that you have to set the very important fact of being
delayed a few seconds getting to the back of the next queue.
--
Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
Mike
"Chris" <none@all> wrote in message
news:490b5af0$0$2529$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> Note that the City Council's aspiration is to reduce all 40MPH roads in
>> the City to 30MPH limits and the County Council has recently announced
>> such a reduction for Huntingdon Road to the national limit start point
>> beyond Girton College.
>
> Is that an official policy, now? What is the basis for it?
The County Council are reviewing all A & B road speed limits, triggered by
central government. They have documents about it at:
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/managing/speed/speed_limit_policy.htm
They are doing the review in order of accident rate, which is why roads like
Huntingdon Road are being looked at first.
They have a clear statement on what sort of suburban road could have a 40
limit:
"Higher quality suburban roads or those on the outskirts of urban areas
where there is little development and few vulnerable road users.
Should have good width and layout, parking and waiting restrictions in
operation and buildings set back from the road.
Should wherever possible cater for the needs of non-motorised users through
segregation of road space and have adequate footways and crossing places."
It's hard to think of any such roads in the City.
Theo Markettos
> Is that an official policy, now? What is the basis for it? Are there really
> fewer accidents on Trumpington Road since the limit was reduced? (More
> telling, perhaps: do drivers on that road actually keep to 30mph anyway?)
>
> drivers lose respect for speed limits.
In general I agree with you (with the proviso that drivers typically are
badly placed to objectively determine what 'inappropriate' means). But
the Trumpington Road case is an interesting one... It's a choice between the
substandard cyclepath and the road. A minority of brave cyclists, perfectly
acceptably, choose to use the artificially-narrow road. They get abuse from
motorists for their trouble. How much more hostile or dangerous would it be
if the traffic was passing at 40mph not 30mph?
While I've been undertaken using the bus lane a number of times, in my
experience generally traffic obeys the 30mph rule, though perhaps some is
going more like 35.
Theo
Tim Ward
news:MPG.23756f96...@news.nildram.co.uk...
>
> Maybe because if something does go wrong and you hit a pedestrian or
> cyclist they have an 80% chance of surviving the collision instead of a
> 10% chance.
Why would a petrolhead care about that? Only losers walk, after all.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
We've established that roads have to be wide enough to fit traffic and 2M
cycle lanes. I want someone to tell me where such a road exists in
Cambridge, preferably that already has cycle lanes.
TBH I thought Huntingdon and Hills Road cycle lane were 2M wide along at
least part of their lengths but I've not had the chance to check and, as I
said, bus/cycle lanes are well over 2M wide.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Tony Raven
says...
> "Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MPG.23756f96...@news.nildram.co.uk...
> >
> > Maybe because if something does go wrong and you hit a pedestrian or
> > cyclist they have an 80% chance of surviving the collision instead of a
> > 10% chance.
>
> Why would a petrolhead care about that? Only losers walk, after all.
>
Yebbut even petrolhead Councillors, might be worried by there being one
less person to vote for them ;-)
judith
<ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
>In article <ikmmg4dgmkhlkqijg...@news.markshouse.net>,
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:01:31 -0500, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
>> finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >Note that the City Council's aspiration is to reduce all 40MPH roads in
>> >the City to 30MPH limits
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
>Maybe because if something does go wrong and you hit a pedestrian or
>cyclist they have an 80% chance of surviving the collision instead of a
>10% chance.
>
>Of course against that you have to set the very important fact of being
>delayed a few seconds getting to the back of the next queue.
Hello Raven - any chance of clarifying why you post under different
names sometimes?
I must admit you've made Myra look a right numpty - don't you think
you owe at least her an apology?
Chris
> In general I agree with you (with the proviso that drivers typically are
> badly placed to objectively determine what 'inappropriate' means).
While I take your point that it's a biased crowd, it turns out that the 85%
rule is remarkably accurate across all kinds of roads and many different
countries. In some places, it is actually the recognised basis for setting
speed limits. This is one of the reasons I am so suspicious of authorities
setting speed limits dogmatically where they do not agree with the
judgement of the people actually on that specific piece of road under the
prevailing conditions at the time.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris
> In article <ikmmg4dgmkhlkqijg...@news.markshouse.net>,
> use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:01:31 -0500, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
>> finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>>> Note that the City Council's aspiration is to reduce all 40MPH roads in
>>> the City to 30MPH limits
>> Why?
>
> Maybe because if something does go wrong and you hit a pedestrian or
> cyclist they have an 80% chance of surviving the collision instead of a
> 10% chance.
And if impact speeds were equal to the speed limit, that would be a useful
argument. As it is, it's just a cute sound-bite. The numbers you are
talking about are not one but two degrees removed from the legal speed
limit, which is what we are discussing here. Then you are assuming that
there are pedestrians or cyclists to be hit, which usually there aren't on
most of the 40mph stretches around the outskirts of Cambridge. Even if
there are, you are assuming that the impact happens with no attempt at
avoidance or slowing down, with the car travelling right up at the speed
limit, and with the other party stationary, none of which is likely with
the road layouts and other characteristics of the surrounding area on the
roads concerned.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris
> "Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MPG.23756f96...@news.nildram.co.uk...
>> Maybe because if something does go wrong and you hit a pedestrian or
>> cyclist they have an 80% chance of surviving the collision instead of a
>> 10% chance.
>
> Why would a petrolhead care about that? Only losers walk, after all.
Yes, anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics and physics and the
ability to read the research for themselves is a petrolhead. None of us
ever walk or cycle anywhere, and it's not even possible that what we
actually care about is road safety rather than dogmatic adherence to the
Gospel of St GATSO.
Cheers,
Chris
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
grebair...@ntlworld.com (Mike) wrote:
> The County Council are reviewing all A & B road speed limits,
> triggered by central government. They have documents about it at:
>
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/managing/speed/speed_limit_polic
y.htm
> They are doing the review in order of accident rate, which is why
> roads like Huntingdon Road are being looked at first.
>
> They have a clear statement on what sort of suburban road could
> have a 40 limit:
> "Higher quality suburban roads or those on the outskirts of urban
> areas where there is little development and few vulnerable road users.
> Should have good width and layout, parking and waiting restrictions
> in operation and buildings set back from the road.
>
> Should wherever possible cater for the needs of non-motorised users
> through segregation of road space and have adequate footways and
> crossing places."
>
> It's hard to think of any such roads in the City.
As far as I can see only the usual exception to most classifications will
escape, Worts Causeway.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <ikmmg4dgmkhlkqijg...@news.markshouse.net>,
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:01:31 -0500, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
>> finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >Note that the City Council's aspiration is to reduce all 40MPH roads in
>> >the City to 30MPH limits
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
>Maybe because if something does go wrong and you hit a pedestrian or
>cyclist they have an 80% chance of surviving the collision instead of a
>10% chance.
Yes, but that's not an answer to the question I'm asking. Obviously,
lower speed limits reduce the effect of certain types of accidents,
but that's not the only factor in setting them - otherwise, we'd have
30mph limits everywhere, even on motorways. In reality, though, limits
are set according to what is appropriate and safe at that particular
location.
If this principle was followed when the 40mph limits in Cambridge were
first set, then that speed must have been considered appropriate and
safe at the time. What I'm trying to ascertain by my question is what
has changed since then. Basically, there are two main possible reasons
for reducing a limit from 40mph to 30mph:
1. The limit was set incorrectly to begin with, and the proposals are
simply to rectify that error.
2. The limit was appropriate at the time it was set, but changing
patterns of traffic and/or roadside development mean that the limit
is no longer appropriate and should be changed accordingly.
Either of these is a perfectly reasonable answer, and for any
individual road where a change in the limit is proposed then it's
quite likely that one (or possibly even both) applies and can be shown
to apply. And it should, of course, be noted that either reason can
also be gounds for increasing, rather than reducing, the limit
(although it's probably fair to say that the second reason is far more
likely to justify a reduction than an increase).
But what puzzles me about Colin's statement is that it appears to be a
proposal for a blanket reduction of the limit on *all* 40mph roads.
Now, if it really is the case that every single 40mph road in
Cambridge has been evaluated and found to have a limit that either was
never appropriate or is no longer appropriate, then that's
justifiable. But my suspicion is that this is not, in fact, the case,
and that there are at least some roads where 40mph was, and remains,
the appropriate limit. If that is the case, then either Colin's
statement is false (and the proposals aren't for a reduction in all
40mph limits, but only those that have been found to be
inaproppriate), or the proposals are based on reasons other than what
is appropriate and safe for the roads in question (ie, they are being
made on political, rather than safety or traffic management, grounds).
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:
> But what puzzles me about Colin's statement is that it appears to be a
> proposal for a blanket reduction of the limit on *all* 40mph roads.
> Now, if it really is the case that every single 40mph road in
> Cambridge has been evaluated and found to have a limit that either was
> never appropriate or is no longer appropriate, then that's
> justifiable. But my suspicion is that this is not, in fact, the case,
> and that there are at least some roads where 40mph was, and remains,
> the appropriate limit. If that is the case, then either Colin's
> statement is false (and the proposals aren't for a reduction in all
> 40mph limits, but only those that have been found to be
> inaproppriate), or the proposals are based on reasons other than what
> is appropriate and safe for the roads in question (ie, they are being
> made on political, rather than safety or traffic management, grounds).
As someone else posted this is a nationally-initiated review of all speed
limits on "A" roads. There are only three "A" roads in Cambridge with 40
MPH limits. Huntingdon Road is already agreed for reduction to 30 MPH. The
others are Madingley Road to the foot of Madingley Hill and Long Road.
Both will be reviewed in the next year or so.
There are other roads within the city with limits above 30MPH but they are
not "A" roads and are not being reviewed. AIUI Worts Causeway is one.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Goodge
finger to keyboard and typed:
>In article <hiumg41ja7do2m7nt...@news.markshouse.net>,
Right. So it's not the case, then, that the City Council's aspiration
is to reduce all 40mph roads in the City to 30mph limits. Glad you
cleared that up.
Tony Raven
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>
> If this principle was followed when the 40mph limits in Cambridge were
> first set, then that speed must have been considered appropriate and
> safe at the time. What I'm trying to ascertain by my question is what
> has changed since then. Basically, there are two main possible reasons
> for reducing a limit from 40mph to 30mph:
>
> 1. The limit was set incorrectly to begin with, and the proposals are
> simply to rectify that error.
>
> 2. The limit was appropriate at the time it was set, but changing
> patterns of traffic and/or roadside development mean that the limit
> is no longer appropriate and should be changed accordingly.
>
You missed the third reason I posted before. Government has found the
continuing death rate on the roads unacceptable (and lets face it, at
3,000 people a year killed it is) and have decided, having tried lots of
different measures to reduce it, that slowing down motorists in towns
and cities so that the fatality rate of accidents when they do occur is
reduced by a factor eight, might be worth a try.
What exactly is the need to drive in town at 40mph - is it so you can
get to the next queue quicker?
Tony Raven
> And if impact speeds were equal to the speed limit, that would be a useful
> argument. As it is, it's just a cute sound-bite. The numbers you are
> talking about are not one but two degrees removed from the legal speed
> limit, which is what we are discussing here. Then you are assuming that
> there are pedestrians or cyclists to be hit, which usually there aren't on
> most of the 40mph stretches around the outskirts of Cambridge. Even if
> there are, you are assuming that the impact happens with no attempt at
> avoidance or slowing down, with the car travelling right up at the speed
> limit, and with the other party stationary, none of which is likely with
> the road layouts and other characteristics of the surrounding area on the
> roads concerned.
>
Well as something you seem to regard as theoretical motorists must have
to try very hard to achieve the ~700 pedestrian deaths and ~140 cyclist
deaths a year that they achieve. Do you think more, the same or fewer
would survive if the speed limits were reduced so all speeds in any
accident are scaled down proportionately?
Tim Ward
>
> You missed the third reason I posted before. Government has found the
> continuing death rate on the roads unacceptable (and lets face it, at
> 3,000 people a year killed it is)
That is a major change. I can remember when the death rate was 6,000 per
year and considered ... well, not "acceptable", but "how things are".
Tony Raven
says...
> "Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2375958d4...@news.nildram.co.uk...
> >
> > You missed the third reason I posted before. Government has found the
> > continuing death rate on the roads unacceptable (and lets face it, at
> > 3,000 people a year killed it is)
>
> That is a major change. I can remember when the death rate was 6,000 per
> year and considered ... well, not "acceptable", but "how things are".
>
Are you attempting to say 3,000 deaths a year is acceptable?
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <490b6920$0$2526$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, none@all says...
In most urban streets, reducing the speed limit probably wouldn't have
a significant effect. In most cases, it isn't the immediate impact
with a vehicle which kills pedestrians or cyclists anyway - it's more
often something secondary, such as the impact with the road after
falling off a bike, or being squashed under the wheels of a car, or
being crushed on the nearside of a trick or bus, which deals the fatal
blow. And these are things which aren't directly speed related - most
crush injuries happen at speeds under 20mph. Reducing the speed limit
isn't going to make cyclists any less likely to be caught between
guard rails and the nearside of a truck, or to suffer head injuries
after falling off their bike. If anything, it's possible that reducing
the limit may actually *increase* the death rate from some forms of
incident, such as nearside crush injuries, as lower speeds would
increase the probability of cyclists being caught in the nearside
blind spot of bus and truck drivers.
Removing pavement barriers from corners where large vehicles turn left
would probably save more cyclist lives than reducing speed limits.
Removing chicanes and pinch points that force cyclists into conflict
with motorised vehicles would probably be even better. Wider pavements
with higher kerbs would improve pedestrian safety considerably.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <hiumg41ja7do2m7nt...@news.markshouse.net>,
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>>
>> If this principle was followed when the 40mph limits in Cambridge were
>> first set, then that speed must have been considered appropriate and
>> safe at the time. What I'm trying to ascertain by my question is what
>> has changed since then. Basically, there are two main possible reasons
>> for reducing a limit from 40mph to 30mph:
>>
>> 1. The limit was set incorrectly to begin with, and the proposals are
>> simply to rectify that error.
>>
>> 2. The limit was appropriate at the time it was set, but changing
>> patterns of traffic and/or roadside development mean that the limit
>> is no longer appropriate and should be changed accordingly.
>>
>
>You missed the third reason I posted before. Government has found the
>continuing death rate on the roads unacceptable (and lets face it, at
>3,000 people a year killed it is) and have decided, having tried lots of
>different measures to reduce it, that slowing down motorists in towns
>and cities so that the fatality rate of accidents when they do occur is
>reduced by a factor eight, might be worth a try.
No; that's my reason 1. If reducing the limit from 40mph to 30mph will
result in a significant safety improvement, then the limit was
inappropriately high to begin with. When I say that the limit was
considered appropriate at the time it was set I don't mean that it
necessarily *was* appropriate at the time it was set - it could well
be that political pressures at the time led to a higher limit than a
more balanced approach would imply. Back in the days when the car was
king, that's quite likely to have been the case in many situations.
And these are the roads where a review of the limit is likely to lead
to a reduction.
>What exactly is the need to drive in town at 40mph - is it so you can
>get to the next queue quicker?
Not all traffic in urban areas is in a permanent stop-start queue.
Tony Raven
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>
> In most urban streets, reducing the speed limit probably wouldn't have
> a significant effect.
Do you really believe that?
"Traffic accident casualties fall with lower speed limits
The evidence of increased pedestrian safety at 20 mph is strong. The
chance of a pedestrian being seriously injured or killed if struck by a
car is 45% if the car is travelling at 30 mph but only 5% at 20 mph.
Government research showed that 20 mph zones reduced the incidence of
traffic accidents by 60% and cut child pedestrian and child cyclist
accidents by 67%, while overall vehicle speeds fell by an average 9.3
mph (14.9 kph). There was no evidence that accidents increased on
surrounding roads. Research by local councils produces similar results.
For example, Havant Borough Council has imposed a 20 mph limit on 20
miles of road and has seen traffic accident casualties drop by a
significant 40%. "
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7243/1160
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:
Yes it is in practice, but I mentioned Wort's Causeway as one of very few
truly rural roads within the City boundary. The City Council has been
calling for the Madingley Road limit to be reduced for many years and the
development of the Southern fringe will make the 40MPH limit in Long Road
no longer appropriate.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Chris
> In article <3s2ng4hv6qjvopsoc...@news.markshouse.net>,
> use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>> In most urban streets, reducing the speed limit probably wouldn't have
>> a significant effect.
>
> Do you really believe that?
>
> "Traffic accident casualties fall with lower speed limits
> The evidence of increased pedestrian safety at 20 mph is strong. The
> chance of a pedestrian being seriously injured or killed if struck by a
> car is 45% if the car is travelling at 30 mph but only 5% at 20 mph.
> Government research showed that 20 mph zones reduced the incidence of
> traffic accidents by 60% and cut child pedestrian and child cyclist
> accidents by 67%, while overall vehicle speeds fell by an average 9.3
> mph (14.9 kph). There was no evidence that accidents increased on
> surrounding roads. Research by local councils produces similar results.
> For example, Havant Borough Council has imposed a 20 mph limit on 20
> miles of road and has seen traffic accident casualties drop by a
> significant 40%. "
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7243/1160
Of course there are times when lower speeds limits are more appropriate,
including 20mph ones. However, reducing all limits across a whole city with
diverse road types is a blunt instrument, an easy option.
More to the point, we are talking about 40->30mph on parts of the ring road
and major arterial routes in Cambridge, not the sort of 20mph zone on local
residential streets that has been successful elsewhere. You can't just
assume that the same conclusions generalise. Indeed, looking at the
council's own accident data on their web site, the most obvious
characteristic of the roads currently with a 40mph limit is that most of
them seem to be among the safest in the city.
Of course, if our local authorities really think that most people support
these big, city-wide speed restrictions, they are welcome to try to impose
blanket lower limits and heavy enforcement here. The following election
should be interesting.
Cheers,
Chris
judith
<ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
>In article <6n1fsvF...@mid.individual.net>, t...@brettward.co.uk
>says...
>> "Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2375958d4...@news.nildram.co.uk...
>> >
>> > You missed the third reason I posted before. Government has found the
>> > continuing death rate on the roads unacceptable (and lets face it, at
>> > 3,000 people a year killed it is)
>>
>> That is a major change. I can remember when the death rate was 6,000 per
>> year and considered ... well, not "acceptable", but "how things are".
>>
>
>Are you attempting to say 3,000 deaths a year is acceptable?
ffs
Not only posts under other names to hide his views but tries to
distort what others say.
Martin
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> We've established that roads have to be wide enough to fit traffic and
> 2M cycle lanes. I want someone to tell me where such a road exists in
> Cambridge, preferably that already has cycle lanes.
East Road outbound - plenty of space but the cycle lane is currently
pointlessly narrow:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/10913/
East Road inbound:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5058/
Newmarket Road (section nearest town):
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/13247/
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/10666/
Elizabeth Way Bridge, in both directions:
(I will laugh if you tell me there is no space here.) This could easily be
done and make a better pedestrian environment here.
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5338/
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5367/
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5257/
Chesterton Road (11m wide)
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/4679/
Brooks Road:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/12319/
Perne Road maybe?
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/11467/
Lensfield Road:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/8959/
though you'd have to remove that very hazardous stretch of parked cars
(that being the parking down the road from Queen Anne Car park)
Huntingdon Road:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/1209/
I'd be surprised if that was not 11m wide for most of its length.
Those are a few examples. I'm sure others will add more.
Martin
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk (Martin) wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> > We've established that roads have to be wide enough to fit
> > traffic and 2M cycle lanes. I want someone to tell me where such
> > a road exists in Cambridge, preferably that already has cycle
> > lanes.
>
> East Road outbound - plenty of space but the cycle lane is currently
> pointlessly narrow:
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/10913/
Only if you remove a lane which provides important queuing capacity on
Cambridge's busiest urban road. Why do you call this lane pointlessly
narrow and on the linked page dangerous? What's the evidence? It's well
used by cyclists and I'm not aware of an accident record.
> East Road inbound:
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5058/
See above. I use these lanes almost daily.
> Newmarket Road (section nearest town):
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/13247/
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/10666/
You've got the first link wrong. It's not on the section marked on the
map. Again, this is queuing space on one of the City's busiest roads whose
capacity would be dramatically reduced if restricted to one motor vehicle
lane.
> Elizabeth Way Bridge, in both directions:
> (I will laugh if you tell me there is no space here.) This could
> easily be done and make a better pedestrian environment here.
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5338/
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5367/
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5257/
You really are taking the mickey! There is a northbound bus lane which
cyclists can use.
> Chesterton Road (11m wide)
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/4679/
We have already discussed why an 11M carriageway isn't wide enough for 2M
cycle lanes.
> Brooks Road:
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/12319/
>
> Perne Road maybe?
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/11467/
Not wide enough to widen the cycle lanes safely.
> Lensfield Road:
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/8959/
> though you'd have to remove that very hazardous stretch of parked
> cars (that being the parking down the road from Queen Anne Car park)
There are no parked cars by the church/St Alban's School entrance.
> Huntingdon Road:
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/1209/
> I'd be surprised if that was not 11m wide for most of its length.
Only 11M again.
> Those are a few examples. I'm sure others will add more.
Sorry, Martin, but your either totally misunderstand traffic management or
you are taking the piss. Your ideas would gridlock Cambridge for minimal
cyclist gain.
Or are you saying cycle lanes should be advisory only? That was not the
consensus of cyclist opinion when most of the Cambridge cycle lane network
was set up. Cyclists wanted the better assurance of mandatory lanes. I
tend to agree but it wasn't my decision.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Espen Koht
wrote:
AFAIK the numbers come from a study using accident reports as it source
material, so your assumption about the numbers being based on vehicles
travelling at the speed limit at the point of impact isn't necessarily
correct For one I would hope that in real-life cases avoidance and
slowing down would be attempted, and that the estimated speed would be
that of the vehicle when the incident occurs rather than at the moment
of impact.
Robin Stevens
> Sorry, Martin, but your either totally misunderstand traffic management or
> you are taking the piss. Your ideas would gridlock Cambridge for minimal
> cyclist gain.
It seems to me that *however* wide the road is, you're always going to
come up with some pathetic reason as to why some other class of road
user has more right to the road space instead of making cycle lanes that
even come *close* to the national standards. Perhaps they should be
reissued with an addendum to the effect that "these of course do not
apply to Cambridge".
--
Robin Stevens <re...@cynic.org.uk>
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
re...@cynic.org.uk (Robin Stevens) wrote:
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in cam.transport:
>
> > Sorry, Martin, but your either totally misunderstand traffic
> > management or you are taking the piss. Your ideas would gridlock
> > Cambridge for minimal cyclist gain.
>
> It seems to me that *however* wide the road is, you're always going to
> come up with some pathetic reason as to why some other class of road
> user has more right to the road space instead of making cycle lanes that
> even come *close* to the national standards. Perhaps they should be
> reissued with an addendum to the effect that "these of course do not
> apply to Cambridge".
You're being silly too. A traffic lane has to be 3M wide or else traffic
in it will encroach on adjacent lanes due to vehicle size. That's why 1.5M
cycle lanes fit in Chesterton Road but not 2M lanes.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Theo Markettos
> Or are you saying cycle lanes should be advisory only? That was not the
> consensus of cyclist opinion when most of the Cambridge cycle lane network
> was set up. Cyclists wanted the better assurance of mandatory lanes. I
> tend to agree but it wasn't my decision.
I agree with you in general, but what's the motivation for the advisory lane
within the bus lane on Elizabeth Way bridge northbound? There's no room for
buses to overtake cycles without straying out of the bus lane. And the
advisory lane only serves to push cyclists into the gutter despite having
the full use of the bus lane.
As this is only a short length of bus lane, its only real use is when
traffic is queuing on the bridge. If a bus gets stuck behind a cyclist,
travelling at cyclist speed for the length of the bridge is still a useful
improvement on stationary traffic. So there shouldn't be any need for buses
to overtake except when they are able to use the main traffic lane.
Would it make sense to remove advisory lanes within other bus lanes on the
same basis?
Theo
Theo Markettos
> You're being silly too. A traffic lane has to be 3M wide or else traffic
> in it will encroach on adjacent lanes due to vehicle size. That's why 1.5M
> cycle lanes fit in Chesterton Road but not 2M lanes.
Non comprendo. 1.5m+3m+3m+1.5m = 9m. Is there a 2m central reservation? I
haven't been up there recently, but from the camcycle pictures it doesn't
look 11m wide (excluding pavements). Or do you mean the traffic lane has to
be 4m wide? A curtain sided truck seems to be about 2.5m wide internally,
which would be less than 3m externally.
Theo
Robin Stevens
They do come with mirrors, which add to the width, and you need a little
additional room for the vehicle to move/sway around in. So 3-3.5m is
probably reasonable. I'm not sure why Colin can understand the needs of
large vehicles to fit within their lanes but not that some of the more
absurd cycle lanes are too small to take a bicycle, which due to its
inherent instability and lesser tolerance of obstacles such as dodgy
road surfaces is likely to move around much more within its lane.
I suspect his missing 2m comes from traffic islands, but they're an
occasional feature - I wouldn't object to slight narrowings of the lanes
to accommodate them, though in some places a proper crossing might be a
better idea.
Chris
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk considered Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:23:12
> -0500 the perfect time to write:
>> Sorry, Martin, but your either totally misunderstand traffic management or
>> you are taking the piss. Your ideas would gridlock Cambridge for minimal
>> cyclist gain.
>
> The reason Cambridge gets gridlocked is because so many cars are
> encouraged (by extra lanes providing more queueing space) to travel
> there. If you keep trying to squeeze more cars in, the gridlock will
> get worse, if you reduce the capacity for queues, the gridlock will
> get better.
> Is that simple enough?
It's simple, but I don't buy it. Cambridge as a whole very rarely actually
gridlocks. It usually only happens if there is a serious accident,
roadworks or weather-related problem that completely blocks a major route
around one side of the city. There is a lot of congestion in certain
places, but much of it is artificial, and as soon as you get past a certain
point the queues just disappear, in all onward directions.
Ironically, an effective way to improve this in some cases probably would
be to have two traffic lanes coming into a junction instead of one, to
avoid blocked traffic going one way holding up traffic going another way
that is clear. This typically applies at traffic lights with filters or at
roundabouts, where there is only a single lane on approach until very close
to the junction, e.g., the end of Coldham's Lane coming onto Newmarket
Road, or the junction complex at the top of Castle Hill, or the Newmarket
Road/Barnwell Road roundabout. Many of these areas were made worse rather
than better by changes in recent years.
Other congestion has been created by silliness like the Newmarket Road
sheds being allowed numerous different sets of traffic lights with turns in
all directions permitted. Congestion on that road went through the roof
almost overnight as those were added a few years ago, and despite whinging
from councillors about how the proper consultation process wasn't followed,
several years later they still don't seem willing to do anything about it.
It doesn't really matter how many lanes you have if you're going to add
inefficiency to the whole traffic flow like this (though actually, the bus
lanes do cause the same filtering problems mentioned above in some cases).
There isn't much point debating the congestion on places like Lensfield
Road, Gonville Place, and East Road, or the Newmarket Road, Jesus Lane and
Victoria Avenue area. This was inevitable when local authorities decided to
close the other through routes as part of the grand plan for the city
centre, and there is little scope for doing anything about that other than
providing more attractive routes further out from the city centre to try to
take some of the traffic away. Local traffic is still going to be stuffed,
because various journeys have gone from being a few hundred metres to being
a diversion of a mile or two via some of the busiest roads in the city;
obviously that is going to mess up traffic flow.
You're right that encouraging more cars to come into Cambridge isn't a good
idea, but unless the relevant authorities are willing to address this via
the wider planning process, the odd traffic lane added or removed is like
building a sandcastle to stop a tidal wave. Promoting more cycle use for
local journeys probably is the most effective possibility to help with the
traffic that is already here, and we seem to be in complete agreement on
the cycle lane arguments.
Cheers,
Chris
Tim Ward
news:490cb95d$0$2523$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> Other congestion has been created by silliness like the Newmarket Road
> sheds being allowed numerous different sets of traffic lights with turns
> in all directions permitted. Congestion on that road went through the roof
> almost overnight as those were added a few years ago, and despite whinging
> from councillors about how the proper consultation process wasn't
> followed, several years later they still don't seem willing to do anything
> about it.
Dunno where you get that from. Plenty of councillors, from more than one
party, are plenty willing enough to "do anything about it", but lack the
votes to get the Tories on the county council to change their minds about
their wonderful scheme.
The solution lies in the hands of the voters of South Norway and other
places who elect Tory county councillors from deeply foreign places, and who
like what they're doing, because they don't live in Cambridge and don't give
a shit about congestion affecting the residents just so long as they can
drive to the sheds once every couple of months.
Roland Perry
on Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> remarked:
>What exactly is the need to drive in town at 40mph - is it so you can
>get to the next queue quicker?
That depends where the next queue is. Outside of the rush hour it may
well be further away than your destination.
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Theo Markettos) wrote:
I don't know the width of the Elizabeth Way bus lane but the cycle lane
within it is standard practice if a bus lane is wide enough.
That bus lane has limited benefits for buses, though bus usage of that
route has grown since it was installed. At least as great a reason for me
(and I suspect others) voting to install it was to prevent the dodgy
driving by cars trying to get first in the queue where the lanes merge at
the North side of the bridge. That problem has been entirely fixed by
introducing the bus lane, as far as I can see.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
re...@cynic.org.uk (Robin Stevens) wrote:
The recent advice which started this thread is quite clear that 1.5M is a
suitable width for urban cycle lanes. I never asked for more than 3M for a
vehicle lane. So don't ascribe any idea of 3.5M lanes to me.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk considered Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:23:12
> -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
> >We have already discussed why an 11M carriageway isn't wide enough for
> >2M cycle lanes.
> >
> You seem to need some primary education - 3m general traffic lanes
> each way leaves 5m to be divided into 2 equal 2.5m cycle lanes, or has
> maths changed since I was at school?
Did you read the Chesterton Road toucan crossing thread? If you did you
wouldn't overlook the 2M traffic islands in the middle of the road.
> The fact that the council have chosen to waste much of this width with
> pointless obstructions up the middle is a complete irrelevance,
> particularly since these obstructions are the very thing that make the
> cycle lanes necessary int he first place.
They are very far from pointless!
> >> Huntingdon Road:
> >> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/1209/
> >> I'd be surprised if that was not 11m wide for most of its length.
> >
> >Only 11M again.
>
> Then clearly more than adequate, you really should get a primary
> school teacher to give you some remedial maths.
Try learning some traffic engineering.
> >> Those are a few examples. I'm sure others will add more.
> >
> >Sorry, Martin, but your either totally misunderstand traffic
> >management or you are taking the piss. Your ideas would gridlock
> >Cambridge for minimal cyclist gain.
>
> It seems he understands it rather better than you do.
> The reason Cambridge gets gridlocked is because so many cars are
> encouraged (by extra lanes providing more queueing space) to travel
> there. If you keep trying to squeeze more cars in, the gridlock will
> get worse, if you reduce the capacity for queues, the gridlock will
> get better.
> Is that simple enough?
Ho, ho. The sites mentioned are points of network constraint. You only
have to see when unrelated and otherwise better capacity parts of the
network suffer from obstructions to know that is wrong.
> >Or are you saying cycle lanes should be advisory only? That was not
> >the consensus of cyclist opinion when most of the Cambridge cycle lane
> >network was set up. Cyclists wanted the better assurance of mandatory
> >lanes. I tend to agree but it wasn't my decision.
>
> You need to read the Cycle Infrastructure Design guidelines (available
> from the DfT), to get the full version of why inadequate cycle lanes
> are worse than none.
> The same document specifies why so many of the cycle facilities in
> Cambridge are either useless or actually dangerous.
>
> What's the point in being a cycling demonstration town if we can't
> even have facilities that meet the minimum standards set out by
> central government?
I have looked at that document and don't agree with your interpretation.
However, what I think matters rather less than what local traffic
engineers, who are also largely cyclists, think of its advice in terms of
local cycling provision. Or are you claiming to be better qualified in
highway engineering than they are?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Theo Markettos) wrote:
If you recall the recent discussion about the Chesterton Road toucan
crossing, the island there has to be 2M wide to accommodate bicycles and
pushchairs safely. There are other islands along the road which contribute
to road safety, mostly by inhibiting overtaking and associated speeding.
The carriageway is 11M wide.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
R. Crowston
> In article <alpine.LSU.2.00.0...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
> mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk (Martin) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> We've established that roads have to be wide enough to fit
>>> traffic and 2M cycle lanes. I want someone to tell me where such
>>> a road exists in Cambridge, preferably that already has cycle
>>> lanes.
>>
>> East Road outbound - plenty of space but the cycle lane is currently
>> pointlessly narrow:
>> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/10913/
>
> Only if you remove a lane which provides important queuing capacity on
> Cambridge's busiest urban road. Why do you call this lane pointlessly
> narrow and on the linked page dangerous? What's the evidence? It's well
> used by cyclists and I'm not aware of an accident record.
>
>> East Road inbound:
>> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5058/
>
> See above. I use these lanes almost daily.
To bypass queues or when the road is free flowing? The quality of the
road surface in places makes them only really useful for the former for
me.
I'm struggling to understand how it is a symmetric situation. Outbound,
the multiple lanes *might* help improve capacity, by providing
queueing space for the St Matthew's Street Junction/roundabout, although I
can't imagine this capacity to be amazingly useful, given the limited flow
arriving into it from the west.
But inbound, the capacity/flow is limited by the single lane stretch to
the Mill Road/Gonville Place junction, and the flow is even more
restrained by the Norfolk Street crossing. Hence the majority of the two
lane stretch between St Matthew's Street and Norfolk Street junctions
could be removed without any adverse affects on capacity - we would just
replace a 2-lane queue with a longer 1-lane queue.
I would argue that the flow rate for the St Matthew's Street junction is
likely to be far higher than that at the Norfolk Street lights, so
having only 1 lane through here will not decrease overall flow noticably.
Hence there should be room for a wide cycle lane from the end of a short
2-lane section at the start of East Road (to ensure that capacity of the
roundabout isn't restricted), the Norfolk Street Junction.
That probably gives us enough space for 2m cycle lanes in each direction,
without any loss in capacity.
Robert
Chris
> I don't know the width of the Elizabeth Way bus lane but the cycle lane
> within it is standard practice if a bus lane is wide enough.
>
> That bus lane has limited benefits for buses, though bus usage of that
> route has grown since it was installed. At least as great a reason for me
> (and I suspect others) voting to install it was to prevent the dodgy
> driving by cars trying to get first in the queue where the lanes merge at
> the North side of the bridge. That problem has been entirely fixed by
> introducing the bus lane, as far as I can see.
I thought that lane was for taxis, who are of course exempt from the 30mph
speed limit. A remarkably large number of such vehicles cut me up at
precisely the point where you think the problem has been entirely fixed.
Cheers,
Chris
judith
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Well, since I seem to be able to both read and do basic arithmetic,
>and they apparently can do neither, what would be your conclusion?
Hello Anchor
eeeer .....conclusion????
How about you are a fuckwit?
You should stick to matters legal:
I loved your advice when commenting on a legal gate in a public park:
you said " I'd think it comes under the heading of "causing an
obstruction", and should be investigated by the police as such."
Mind I think you put IANAL just in case we thought you were, which
was good of you ;-)
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
cam.tr...@robertc.me.uk (R. Crowston) wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article
> > <alpine.LSU.2.00.0...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
> > mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk (Martin) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>> We've established that roads have to be wide enough to fit
> >>> traffic and 2M cycle lanes. I want someone to tell me where such
> >>> a road exists in Cambridge, preferably that already has cycle
> >>> lanes.
> >>
> >> East Road outbound - plenty of space but the cycle lane is currently
> >> pointlessly narrow:
> >> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/10913/
> >
> > Only if you remove a lane which provides important queuing capacity on
> > Cambridge's busiest urban road. Why do you call this lane pointlessly
> > narrow and on the linked page dangerous? What's the evidence? It's
> > well used by cyclists and I'm not aware of an accident record.
> >
> >> East Road inbound:
> >> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5058/
> >
> > See above. I use these lanes almost daily.
>
> To bypass queues or when the road is free flowing? The quality of
> the road surface in places makes them only really useful for the
> former for me.
Both. I don't agree with your description of the road surface.
> I'm struggling to understand how it is a symmetric situation.
> Outbound, the multiple lanes *might* help improve capacity, by
> providing queueing space for the St Matthew's Street
> Junction/roundabout, although I can't imagine this capacity to be
> amazingly useful, given the limited flow arriving into it from the
> west.
Observe and learn.
> But inbound, the capacity/flow is limited by the single lane
> stretch to the Mill Road/Gonville Place junction, and the flow is
> even more restrained by the Norfolk Street crossing. Hence the
> majority of the two lane stretch between St Matthew's Street and
> Norfolk Street junctions could be removed without any adverse
> affects on capacity - we would just replace a 2-lane queue with a
> longer 1-lane queue.
Your understanding is lacking. What would happen if the South-Westbound
queue was longer?
> I would argue that the flow rate for the St Matthew's Street
> junction is likely to be far higher than that at the Norfolk Street
> lights, so having only 1 lane through here will not decrease
> overall flow noticably. Hence there should be room for a wide cycle
> lane from the end of a short 2-lane section at the start of East
> Road (to ensure that capacity of the roundabout isn't restricted),
> the Norfolk Street Junction.
>
> That probably gives us enough space for 2m cycle lanes in each
> direction, without any loss in capacity.
A theory founded on sand, I'm afraid.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk considered Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:58:43
> -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
> >Your understanding is lacking. What would happen if the
> >South-Westbound queue was longer?
> >
> Pwople would obsever the queues, see the huge numbers of cyclists
> passing them and change to ussing a bike.
> Or at least enough of them would.
See what I mean? If the Queue was much longer it would frequently back
into and through the Elizabeth Way roundabout and cause gridlock. Because
of the short distance between that junction and Coldham's Lane it is
alarmingly easy to cause gridlock there anyway.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Tony Raven
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> says...
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk considered Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:58:43
> -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
> >queue was longer?
> >
> passing them and change to ussing a bike.
> Or at least enough of them would.
>
Unfortunately people would die in their cars from starvation and old age
while queueing rather than abandon their cars for other forms of
transport. Remember the Doctor Who episode (where the joke got lost on
most people) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gridlock_(Doctor_Who)?
--
Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
judith
<ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Unfortunately people would die in their cars from starvation and old age
>while queueing rather than abandon their cars for other forms of
>transport.
Hello - it's "Tom Crispin" or "Wile E Coyote" posting as Tony Raven
today.
Poor old Myra - you made her look really daft.
Talking of looking daft:
--
Commenting on a legal gate in a public park:
"I'd think it comes under the heading of "causing an obstruction", and
should be investigated by the police as such." - Phil Anchor Lee
R. Crowston
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
> cam.tr...@robertc.me.uk (R. Crowston) wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> I'm struggling to understand how it is a symmetric situation.
>> Outbound, the multiple lanes *might* help improve capacity, by
>> providing queueing space for the St Matthew's Street
>> Junction/roundabout, although I can't imagine this capacity to be
>> amazingly useful, given the limited flow arriving into it from the
>> west.
>
> Observe and learn.
>
>> But inbound, the capacity/flow is limited by the single lane
>> stretch to the Mill Road/Gonville Place junction, and the flow is
>> even more restrained by the Norfolk Street crossing. Hence the
>> majority of the two lane stretch between St Matthew's Street and
>> Norfolk Street junctions could be removed without any adverse
>> affects on capacity - we would just replace a 2-lane queue with a
>> longer 1-lane queue.
>
> Your understanding is lacking. What would happen if the South-Westbound
> queue was longer?
Can you please be more concrete, on a time delayed system, playing
guessing games is just boring (see find-the-2m-cycle-lane, for example).
Yes, I realise if the queue was sufficiently long, it would back up to the
roundabout (I assume this is what you are referring to, please specify the
first point you think my argument fails if not). I'm not sure that this
can make things any worse then present though. Even if the queue gets this
long, the traffic lights should ensure fair distribution of access time to
East Road. Some yellow boxes+enforcement might be required, to ensure
north/eastern flows aren't affected. So the only problem we have left is
if this queue then gets back to the Coldnham Lane junction. But the real
problem here is the lack of right-turn capcity, which isn't a problem I
have created, and won't be made notably worse. The amount of queueing
traffic holding up non-queueing traffic isn't going to be high enough to
worry about (at least, I can't see it being any worse than the Fen
Causeway situation).
Of course, in reality the changes should have some effect on traffic flows
- making the queue to visually appear the same size as it is, and have it
alongside a high-quality cycling alternative should encourage people to
make their journeys by bike instead (the push hasn't really changed, but
we now have a nice pull). A little bit of work on integrating this, and
you have a high-quality cycle route from Newmarket Road, to the City
Centre.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
You have obviously not observed when the car park queue has got too long.
They have to shut the right turn into the car park to avoid gridlock. A
queue backing into the roundabout causes gridlock which can only be
relieved with great difficulty.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
R. Crowston
> You have obviously not observed when the car park queue has got too long.
> They have to shut the right turn into the car park to avoid gridlock. A
> queue backing into the roundabout causes gridlock which can only be
> relieved with great difficulty.
Obviously not, but irrelevent. There was a reason why I mentioned the fact
that yellow boxes, or something more clever, might be needed, to ensure
traffic queueing at the roundabout did not obstruct traffic that could
flow through the roundabout. All your claim does is emphasise that there
is a need for the yellow paint to come out here to prevent a queue sitting
in the roundabout (one could also make the traffic lights more
intelligent at the same time, e.g. let flow out of Elizabeth Way when
there is room to exit onto East Road, have a left filter light out of
Elizabeth Way).
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
cam.tr...@robertc.me.uk (R. Crowston) wrote:
You just don't get it, do you? I bet that yellow boxes would not be
effective even if you can put them on roundabouts. The traffic lights are
the most jumped in Cambridge.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
R. Crowston
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
> cam.tr...@robertc.me.uk (R. Crowston) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> You have obviously not observed when the car park queue has got too
>>> long. They have to shut the right turn into the car park to avoid
>>> gridlock. A queue backing into the roundabout causes gridlock which
>>> can only be relieved with great difficulty.
>>
>> Obviously not, but irrelevent. There was a reason why I mentioned
>> the fact that yellow boxes, or something more clever, might be
>> needed, to ensure traffic queueing at the roundabout did not
>> obstruct traffic that could flow through the roundabout. All your
>> claim does is emphasise that there is a need for the yellow paint
>> to come out here to prevent a queue sitting in the roundabout (one
>> could also make the traffic lights more intelligent at the same
>> time, e.g. let flow out of Elizabeth Way when there is room to exit
>> onto East Road, have a left filter light out of Elizabeth Way).
>
> You just don't get it, do you? I bet that yellow boxes would not be
> effective even if you can put them on roundabouts.
You can put yellow boxes on signalled roundabouts. [1]
> The traffic lights are the most jumped in Cambridge.
Stick some traffic light cameras up then. People will soon learn.
[1] Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5, 8.39
Alan Braggins
>>
>> You just don't get it, do you? I bet that yellow boxes would not be
>> effective even if you can put them on roundabouts.
>
>You can put yellow boxes on signalled roundabouts. [1]
>
>> The traffic lights are the most jumped in Cambridge.
>
>Stick some traffic light cameras up then. People will soon learn.
Relies on legislation that only covers London, IIRC.
Otherwise it would be great - and if they could be used as evidence
of yellow box violations, even better.
Tony Raven
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>, R. Crowston wrote:
> >
> >Stick some traffic light cameras up then. People will soon learn.
>
> Relies on legislation that only covers London, IIRC.
>
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure it comes under the same legislation as
speed cameras and I've seen red light cameras all over the country.
judith
Braggins) wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>, R. Crowston wrote:
>>>
>>> You just don't get it, do you? I bet that yellow boxes would not be
>>> effective even if you can put them on roundabouts.
>>
>>You can put yellow boxes on signalled roundabouts. [1]
>>
>>> The traffic lights are the most jumped in Cambridge.
>>
>>Stick some traffic light cameras up then. People will soon learn.
>
>Relies on legislation that only covers London, IIRC.
Hello Bilbo
I think that you are wrong - you see such all over the country.
Alan Braggins
>In article <slrnggrc3...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>, R. Crowston wrote:
>> >
>> >Stick some traffic light cameras up then. People will soon learn.
>>
>> Relies on legislation that only covers London, IIRC.
>
>Are you sure? I'm pretty sure it comes under the same legislation as
>speed cameras and I've seen red light cameras all over the country.
No, I'm not sure, it's just something I thought I'd seen claimed in past
threads on the subject, e.g.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam.transport/msg/d411dfe9fe80d7ad
That might be outdated, or might have been wrong at the time.
Tony Raven
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>
> No, I'm not sure, it's just something I thought I'd seen claimed in past
> threads on the subject, e.g.
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam.transport/msg/d411dfe9fe80d7ad
> That might be outdated, or might have been wrong at the time.
>
Unless Colin can tell different I think speed and red light cameras are
both the same. The relevant legislation AFAIK is s36(1) of the Road
Traffic Act 1988 and s38(2e) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 for red
light cameras.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ju...@raven-family.invalid (Tony Raven) wrote:
> In article <slrnggs5r...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>
> > No, I'm not sure, it's just something I thought I'd seen claimed
> > in past threads on the subject, e.g.
> >
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam.transport/msg/d411dfe9fe80d7ad
> > That might be outdated, or might have been wrong at the time.
>
> Unless Colin can tell different I think speed and red light cameras
> are both the same. The relevant legislation AFAIK is s36(1) of the
> Road Traffic Act 1988 and s38(2e) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001
> for red light cameras.
Not for the first time in this newsgroup, the discussion has wandered
somewhat off the point.
Neither red light cameras nor yellow boxes will help avoid the gridlock
that would frequently ensue from removing the two queuing lanes in East
Road from the Newmarket Road roundabout to Burleigh Street. There is no
way that yellow boxes will work at all well in that situation. They are
not very effective in some other junctions.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Tony Raven
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk says...
>
> Not for the first time in this newsgroup, the discussion has wandered
> somewhat off the point.
>
So welcome to Usenet. But when you said "Rupert is wrong. Cameras
outside London can only be used to enforce speed limits." in
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam.transport/msg/d411dfe9fe80d7ad
was it another 2m cycle lane moment?
> Neither red light cameras nor yellow boxes will help avoid the gridlock
> that would frequently ensue from removing the two queuing lanes in East
> Road from the Newmarket Road roundabout to Burleigh Street. There is no
> way that yellow boxes will work at all well in that situation. They are
> not very effective in some other junctions.
>
Not so sure as the roundabout is frequently blocked by people who have
crossed a line with nowhere to go and sit blocking it for everyone else.
OTOH the deliberate traffic policy of making virtually all city transits
have to go that way has done more to create the problem. I guess it was
to encourage people not to drive in the city but it underestimated the
willingness of people to sit in traffic for long periods rather than
contemplate other more practical forms of transport.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ju...@raven-family.invalid (Tony Raven) wrote:
> In article <UNmdnc0kIY95wpPU...@giganews.com>,
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk says...
> >
> > Not for the first time in this newsgroup, the discussion has
> > wandered somewhat off the point.
>
> So welcome to Usenet. But when you said "Rupert is wrong. Cameras
> outside London can only be used to enforce speed limits." in
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam.transport/msg/d411dfe9fe80d7ad
> was it another 2m cycle lane moment?
Not me. They're irrelevant to the discussion of East Road's capacity.
> > Neither red light cameras nor yellow boxes will help avoid the
> > gridlock that would frequently ensue from removing the two
> > queuing lanes in East Road from the Newmarket Road roundabout to
> > Burleigh Street. There is no way that yellow boxes will work at
> > all well in that situation. They are not very effective in some
> > other junctions.
>
> Not so sure as the roundabout is frequently blocked by people who
> have crossed a line with nowhere to go and sit blocking it for
> everyone else. OTOH the deliberate traffic policy of making
> virtually all city transits have to go that way has done more to
> create the problem. I guess it was to encourage people not to
> drive in the city but it underestimated the willingness of people
> to sit in traffic for long periods rather than contemplate other
> more practical forms of transport.
The point of this discussion is that the roundabout would much more
frequently become blocked for lack of queuing space in East Road caused by
removing a traffic lane just to get a slightly wider cycle lane.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
_
You know, that could be an effective tool if it were more obvious.
Assuming one could construct a "city wall" through which motorcars entering
could be counted and controlled, allow no more than a certain number
inside; less on market days, etcetera. One could have special gates for
HGV's and similar (ommnibuses, horse-drawn vehicles, ambulances, and so
on).
a)
Tony Raven
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk says...
>
> The point of this discussion is that the roundabout would much more
> frequently become blocked for lack of queuing space in East Road caused by
> removing a traffic lane just to get a slightly wider cycle lane.
>
Not necessarily. Merges are a major cause of traffic queueing (unless
you can engineer a "zipper merge" which UK drivers are very reluctant to
allow) and the merge on East Road at Norfolk St is likely a major cause
of the queueing in the first place. Reducing the rest of East Rd to one
lane might well improve matters.
Ian Bidwell
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message news:7aCdnQQczLvN->>
Huntingdon Road:
>> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/1209/
>> I'd be surprised if that was not 11m wide for most of its length.
>
> Only 11M again.
>
Colin Rosenstiel
That's not true!
Huntingdon road from Richmond Road junction going past the start of the 40
limit by Sherlock Road to the end of the cycle line at Girton corner is
widened at all the traffic island pinch points .
Thus leaving at least 11 m useable road width.
Why don't you admit that rather than providing proper cycle facilities along
with the County council you'd rather get the boxes as providing X miles of
(substandard) cycle lanes
Ian
Andrew Mobbs
>
>As someone else posted this is a nationally-initiated review of all speed
>limits on "A" roads. There are only three "A" roads in Cambridge with 40
>MPH limits. Huntingdon Road is already agreed for reduction to 30 MPH. The
>others are Madingley Road to the foot of Madingley Hill and Long Road.
>Both will be reviewed in the next year or so.
What about Hauxton Road (A1309)? I believe that the city boundaries
extend to the M11/A10 junction, and it's 40mph for a fair section of it.
>There are other roads within the city with limits above 30MPH but they are
>not "A" roads and are not being reviewed. AIUI Worts Causeway is one.
--
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/
Martin
Because Colin seems to see no problem with 1.2m wide lanes.
Aside from the safety problem of moving motorists away from the mindset
clearly set out in the Highway Code that cars should overtake with
sufficient width, narrow lanes do nothing to *encourage more people to
cycle*.
If on-road cycle lanes like this were created, in the locations I
suggested:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/14235/
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/14230/
they would encourage a lot more people to cycle, compared to this kind of
rubbish:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5058/
which does nothing to encourage new cycling.
For me, that aspect of encouragement is the most important aspect of
whether to have a cycle lane. The question is then ensuring the design
doesn't cause harm to existing cyclists, and I don't think 2m wide lanes
generally would, whereas 1.2m lanes often do.
I wish Colin and others were more in the mindset of *encouraging* cycling.
Martin
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ju...@raven-family.invalid (Tony Raven) wrote:
> In article <Y-2dnfSs-N1mQpPU...@giganews.com>,
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk says...
>
> > The point of this discussion is that the roundabout would much
> > more frequently become blocked for lack of queuing space in East
> > Road caused by removing a traffic lane just to get a slightly
> > wider cycle lane.
>
> Not necessarily. Merges are a major cause of traffic queueing
> (unless you can engineer a "zipper merge" which UK drivers are very
> reluctant to allow) and the merge on East Road at Norfolk St is
> likely a major cause of the queueing in the first place. Reducing
> the rest of East Rd to one lane might well improve matters.
I don't agree and I go that way very frequently. That merge looks pretty
close to optimal to me.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
and...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Andrew Mobbs) wrote:
Hmm. That's true but it wasn't on the AJC list. It may be waiting for the
Addenbrookes' Access Road to open. I would expect the section between that
junction and the city to be reduced to 30 MPH some time.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Ian Bidwell wrote:
>
> > <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:7aCdnQQczLvN->> Huntingdon Road:
> > >> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/1209/
> > >> I'd be surprised if that was not 11m wide for most of its length.
> > >
> > > Only 11M again.
> > >
> > Colin Rosenstiel
> >
> > That's not true!
> >
> > Huntingdon road from Richmond Road junction going past the
> > start of the 40 limit by Sherlock Road to the end of the cycle
> > line at Girton corner is widened at all the traffic island pinch
> > points. Thus leaving at least 11 m useable road width.
> >
> > Why don't you admit that rather than providing proper cycle
> > facilities along with the County council you'd rather get the
> > boxes as providing X miles of (substandard) cycle lanes
>
> Because Colin seems to see no problem with 1.2m wide lanes.
>
> Aside from the safety problem of moving motorists away from the
> mindset clearly set out in the Highway Code that cars should
> overtake with sufficient width, narrow lanes do nothing to
> *encourage more people to cycle*.
>
> If on-road cycle lanes like this were created, in the locations I
> suggested:
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/14235/
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/14230/
>
> they would encourage a lot more people to cycle, compared to this
> kind of rubbish:
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/5058/
> which does nothing to encourage new cycling.
>
> For me, that aspect of encouragement is the most important aspect
> of whether to have a cycle lane. The question is then ensuring the
> design doesn't cause harm to existing cyclists, and I don't think
> 2m wide lanes generally would, whereas 1.2m lanes often do.
>
> I wish Colin and others were more in the mindset of *encouraging*
> cycling.
Where are there 1.2M cycle lanes on Huntingdon Road? They look like 1.5M
to me. They have certainly been effective at encouraging cycling over many
years.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Theo Markettos
> Hmm. That's true but it wasn't on the AJC list. It may be waiting for the
> Addenbrookes' Access Road to open. I would expect the section between that
> junction and the city to be reduced to 30 MPH some time.
Yes, I think it's already on the plan to reduce the limit from the M11
junction northwards to 30mph. Particularly given the junctions for
the AAR and Trumpington Meadows will appear south of the P&R so it's going
to become a good deal more residential.
Theo
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Theo Markettos) wrote:
That's my thinking but I'm not fully up to date on the details there.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Ian Bidwell
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Qt-dnbeWxbzfYJPU...@giganews.com...
>>
> Where are there 1.2M cycle lanes on Huntingdon Road? They look like 1.5M
> to me. They have certainly been effective at encouraging cycling over many
> years.
There certainly not wide enough to allow overtaking of cyclists towing baby
carriers or to overtake any cyclist avoiding the gutter/ drains and other
obstructions as noted in the DfT memos
Ian
Mark Ayliffe
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> illuminated us with:
>
> Where are there 1.2M cycle lanes on Huntingdon Road? They look like 1.5M
> to me. They have certainly been effective at encouraging cycling over many
> years.
In the SE bound approach to the Victoria road junction.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6yu7ju But those are advisory lanes, so
probably not what you were after.
--
Mark
Real email address | A clear conscience is usually
is mark at | the sign of a bad memory.
ayliffe dot org |
Douglas de Lacey
Hmmm, a moment ago you were saying
> TBH I thought Huntingdon and Hills Road cycle lane were 2M wide along at
> least part of their lengths
As I recall there is nowhere where Huntingdon Road lanes are as much as
1.5.
> They have certainly been effective at encouraging cycling over many
> years.
Really? I often hear residents of Girton say they have stopped cycling
into town because it is too dangerous. A proper (ie 2m) lane might
actually encourage people to take it up [again]. It's one of the many
improvements the Parish Council has been fighting for over the past two
years, but we-know-better-than-the-DfT officers are determined to
frustrate us.
Douglas de Lacey
Alan Braggins
>ju...@raven-family.invalid (Tony Raven) wrote:
>> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk says...
>> >
>> > Not for the first time in this newsgroup, the discussion has
>> > wandered somewhat off the point.
>>
>> So welcome to Usenet. But when you said "Rupert is wrong. Cameras
>> outside London can only be used to enforce speed limits." in
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam.transport/msg/d411dfe9fe80d7ad
>> was it another 2m cycle lane moment?
>
>Not me.
A forgery, or some other rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel)?
Martin
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> Where are there 1.2M cycle lanes on Huntingdon Road? They look like 1.5M
> to me. They have certainly been effective at encouraging cycling over
> many years.
(Obviously I was not specifically refering to that location.)
Colin - you seem to be coming up with lots of excuses why wider lanes are
supposedly not possible, but I get no sense that you recognise the
*principle* of decent widths.
Do you, or do you not, agree that - where there is space - a
(well-constructed and configured) 2m wide cycle lane would promote cycling
and provide more benefits for cyclists, compared to 1.2m or 1.5m?
Martin
Mike Clark
Douglas de Lacey <de...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
[snip]
> > TBH I thought Huntingdon and Hills Road cycle lane were 2M wide
> > along at least part of their lengths
>
> As I recall there is nowhere where Huntingdon Road lanes are as much
> as 1.5.
>
> > They have certainly been effective at encouraging cycling over many
> > years.
>
> Really? I often hear residents of Girton say they have stopped cycling
> into town because it is too dangerous. A proper (ie 2m) lane might
> actually encourage people to take it up [again]. It's one of the many
> improvements the Parish Council has been fighting for over the past
> two years, but we-know-better-than-the-DfT officers are determined to
> frustrate us.
>
I ride that stretch of road most days. There are particular problems
travelling SE associated with parking bays and the potential dooring
zone. To avoid this I tend to ride on the outer edge of the lane but
this then causes problems at pinch points where there are central
islands, such as the one with the speed camera on, because most larger
(and some of the smaller) vehicles tend to encroach inwards on the cycle
lane.
Also many vehicles when pulling out of side roads tend to stick their
front ends out into the cycle lane on the assumption that blocking
cyclists is OK in order to get a better view.
Finally as you approach the junction with Victoria Road you frequently
encounter vehicles pulling into and then driving in the cycle lane in
order to try and undertake other vehicles to get into the left turning
lane at the junction.
What I have noticed on that road, which might go to support Douglas'
view are many cyclists who cycle the length of Huntingdon Road entirely
on the pavement even though it is not designated as dual use. There must
be a reason why they consider cycling on the pavement preferable to the
cycle lanes?
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Tony Raven
mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk says...
>
> Do you, or do you not, agree that - where there is space - a
> (well-constructed and configured) 2m wide cycle lane would promote cycling
> and provide more benefits for cyclists, compared to 1.2m or 1.5m?
>
The problem is there is no evidence that even as you describe them, they
would promote cycling (as in encourage more people to cycle. A study by
the University of Leeds found that if an (infeasible) ubiquitous
segregated cycle network that went to every destination could be
constructed in the UK it would at best increase cycling by 50% over its
current levels. OTOH paying people £2 a day to cycle would double the
number of cyclists.
judith
Braggins) wrote:
A forgery?
It could be Tony Raven - he uses different posting names - but won't
admit to it.
(Poor old Myra - he did make her look daft when she said he would
never do such a thing)
Chris
> Aside from the safety problem of moving motorists away from the mindset
> clearly set out in the Highway Code that cars should overtake with
> sufficient width, narrow lanes do nothing to *encourage more people to
> cycle*.
I would argue that it's worse for (safe) drivers as well: I'm getting fed
up with driving patiently behind a cyclist who is trundling along doing
their best, only to have someone behind me overtake me with much gesturing,
horn blasting and rapid acceleration because I held them up for five
seconds rather than overtake too close or at some otherwise dangerous
hazard. I dislike having to choose the lesser of evils between passing a
cyclist closer than I would like and holding up someone who is obviously
aggressive enough to be a threat to both me and the cyclist anyway. You
never seem to get this attitude on roads that don't have silly cycle lanes,
but it's very common on the handlebars+6" variety.
Cheers,
Chris
Dave Lloyd
> "Chris" <none@all> wrote in message
> news:490cb95d$0$2523$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Other congestion has been created by silliness like the Newmarket Road
>> sheds being allowed numerous different sets of traffic lights with turns
>> in all directions permitted. Congestion on that road went through the roof
>> almost overnight as those were added a few years ago, and despite whinging
>> from councillors about how the proper consultation process wasn't
>> followed, several years later they still don't seem willing to do anything
>> about it.
>
> Dunno where you get that from. Plenty of councillors, from more than one
> party, are plenty willing enough to "do anything about it", but lack the
> votes to get the Tories on the county council to change their minds about
> their wonderful scheme.
>
> The solution lies in the hands of the voters of South Norway and other
> places who elect Tory county councillors from deeply foreign places, and who
> like what they're doing, because they don't live in Cambridge and don't give
> a shit about congestion affecting the residents just so long as they can
> drive to the sheds once every couple of months.
>
So why are you so opposed to taking Cambridge into a unitary authority
or other mechanism to avoid County control? Would that be because you'd
actually have to do something other than blame the County council for
every fucking little thing instead of having a nice safe party political
debating society?
As I've said many times before, you're worse than useless because you
help perpetuate the fraud that is our local democracy.
Dave Lloyd
> I have looked at that document and don't agree with your interpretation.
> However, what I think matters rather less than what local traffic
> engineers, who are also largely cyclists, think of its advice in terms of
> local cycling provision. Or are you claiming to be better qualified in
> highway engineering than they are?
>
Oh FFS stop arguing by absent authority - it stinks - unless you're
prepared to post some attributed quotes by our local traffic engineers
with their qualifications as why they think the provisions are adequate
and comply with the guidelines.
I've been debating with you for nigh on 15 years now Colin and back in
the day you were capable of coherent argument but now you've got an
advanced case of incumbent politico disease, there really is little
point. As Sir Humphrey would say, "You're a pleasure to work with".
Andrew Haylett
> > They have certainly been effective at encouraging cycling over many
> > years.
> Really? I often hear residents of Girton say they have stopped cycling
> into town because it is too dangerous. A proper (ie 2m) lane might
> actually encourage people to take it up [again]. It's one of the many
> improvements the Parish Council has been fighting for over the past two
> years, but we-know-better-than-the-DfT officers are determined to
> frustrate us.
Surely if said residents find Huntingdon Road cycle lane too dangerous then
there's little point in improving its width. Unless their journey stops short
of the lights at the bottom, they'll be even more terrified when they get any
nearer town (2m lanes thereafter being a pipe dream), so is it likely to be an
effective (as opposed to nice-to-have, with which I wouldn't disagree)
measure?
Andrew Haylett
They are cycle lanes, not cycle dual carriageways...it's not difficult in
practice to merge with traffic on the occasions when overtaking is necessary
and I don't recall having experienced driver hostility when doing so.
Ian Bidwell
"Mike Clark" <mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cf9287f84f....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
>>
> I ride that stretch of road most days. There are particular problems
> travelling SE associated with parking bays and the potential dooring
> zone. To avoid this I tend to ride on the outer edge of the lane but
> this then causes problems at pinch points where there are central
> islands, such as the one with the speed camera on, because most larger
> (and some of the smaller) vehicles tend to encroach inwards on the cycle
> lane.
Agreed, see below
>
> Also many vehicles when pulling out of side roads tend to stick their
> front ends out into the cycle lane on the assumption that blocking
> cyclists is OK in order to get a better view.
This is not the motorists fault but the fault of the traffic engineers who '
designed' the road layout.
Unless you pull out into the cycle lane it is impossable to see
approaching traffic and so avoid accidents. The cycle lane or the parking
spaces should be removed if it is impossable to add at least 1M to the cycle
lane. This would solve both problems
Ian
>
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> Tim Ward wrote:
>>
>> The solution lies in the hands of the voters of South Norway and other
>> places who elect Tory county councillors from deeply foreign places,
>> and who like what they're doing, because they don't live in Cambridge
>> and don't give a shit about congestion affecting the residents just so
>> long as they can drive to the sheds once every couple of months.
>>
>
> So why are you so opposed to taking Cambridge into a unitary authority
> or other mechanism to avoid County control? Would that be because you'd
> actually have to do something other than blame the County council for
> every fucking little thing instead of having a nice safe party political
> debating society?
>
> As I've said many times before, you're worse than useless because you
> help perpetuate the fraud that is our local democracy.
I don't believe that Tim has expressed opposition to a unitary mechanism
to avoid County control.
Tim Ward
news:45VPk.142887$N11....@newsfe13.ams2...
>
> I don't believe that Tim has expressed opposition to a unitary mechanism
> to avoid County control.
Neither do I, I would be in favour of such a thing. But I may have said I'm
against a unitary mechanism that gives *all* control to the county.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Jonathan Amery
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>Note that the City Council's aspiration is to reduce all 40MPH roads in
>the City to 30MPH limits
Which, with the exception of Huntingdon Road, still won't make the
cycle lanes on them 1.5m wide.
--
Jonathan Amery. "Just imagine what would happen if there
##### was a world shortage of semicolons."
#######__o
#######'/ - Jamie Cruise on C Programming.