Narrow Cycle Lanes?
J. Chisholm
to create (Coldham's Lane) narrow cycle lanes (1.2m) adjacent to
authorised parking spaces.
Given that the Highway Code says (para.52):
"You should: Leave plenty of room when passing parked cars and watch out
for car doors being opened into your path"
And that HC also says (Introduction):
"Although failure to comply with the other rules [ie 'You should'] of
the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The
Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the
Road Traffic Acts to establish liability"
Does this mean a cyclist could be considered liable for an accident (or
at least partly negligent) if cycling in such a lane?
Alternatively does 'plenty of room' mean just failing to hit mirrors of
parked vehicles?
Government Guidance (Cycle Friendly Infrastructure) says: "links should
be a minimum width of 1.5m. and 2.0m wherever possible. If flows are
heavy (above 150 cyclists in the peak) 2.5m may be
required"(para.11.3.2). It also says (para.11.3.5) "Treatment at parking
bays: Adequate width must be left between parked cars and the edge of
the cycle lane to separate cyclists from car doors opening: 1m is
prefered."
"Cycle Friendly Infrastructure- Guildelines for Planning and Design" is
a 1996 joint 'Department of Transport' & 'The Institution of Highways
and Transport' publication.
Jim Chisholm
Tony Finch
>
>The local councils have created (on Trumpington Rd), and are proposing
>to create (Coldham's Lane) narrow cycle lanes (1.2m) adjacent to
>authorised parking spaces.
I.e. a "don't cycle here" lane, similar to the parking lanes on Gilbert Road.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
NORTH FORELAND TO SELSEY BILL: VARIABLE BECOMING SOUTHEAST 2 OR 3, VEERING
SOUTHWEST 4 OR 5 LATER. DRY, FAIR, BECOMING CLOUDY, RAIN THEN SHOWERS FOR A
TIME. GOOD FALLING MODERATE IN RAIN OR SHOWERS. SMOOTH INCREASING SLT LOCALLY
MODERATE.
Tim Ward
news:3EDE0101...@cam.ac.uk...
>
> Government Guidance (Cycle Friendly Infrastructure) says: "links should
> be a minimum width of 1.5m. and 2.0m wherever possible. If flows are
> heavy (above 150 cyclists in the peak) 2.5m may be
> required"(para.11.3.2). It also says (para.11.3.5) "Treatment at parking
> bays: Adequate width must be left between parked cars and the edge of
> the cycle lane to separate cyclists from car doors opening: 1m is
> prefered."
I see here words like "should" and "preferred", not words like "must".
You do not quote what the Government Guidance says should be done if 1.5m is
not possible. Does it say that there can be a 1.2m cycle lane, or does it
say that there should, in preference, be no cycle lane? And does it give
evidence?
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Martin Lucas-Smith
> > Government Guidance (Cycle Friendly Infrastructure) says: "links
> > should be a minimum width of 1.5m. and 2.0m wherever possible.
>
> You do not quote what the Government Guidance says should be done if
> 1.5m is not possible. Does it say that there can be a 1.2m cycle lane,
> or does it say that there should, in preference, be no cycle lane? And
> does it give evidence?
Surely standards which have been developed over many years and after much
research say that 1.5m is a minimum[1] for a reason.
If not, why quote a minimum? Surely this point is obvious..?
If researchers producing guidance had thought that 1.2m would be better if
1.5m can't be reached, that guidance would have stated 1.2m as the
minimum, etc..
In any case, how on earth does installation of an extremely thin cycle
lane encourage more people to cycle?
[1] http://dictionary.com/search?q=minimum : "The least possible quantity
or degree." I.e. in this case, the least possible width of a cycle lane..
Martin
Tim Ward
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.030604...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>
> > > Government Guidance (Cycle Friendly Infrastructure) says: "links
> > > should be a minimum width of 1.5m. and 2.0m wherever possible.
> >
> > You do not quote what the Government Guidance says should be done if
> > 1.5m is not possible. Does it say that there can be a 1.2m cycle lane,
> > or does it say that there should, in preference, be no cycle lane? And
> > does it give evidence?
>
> Surely standards which have been developed over many years and after much
> research say that 1.5m is a minimum[1] for a reason.
One might hope so. I'm asking if anyone knows what it is.
> In any case, how on earth does installation of an extremely thin cycle
> lane encourage more people to cycle?
Nobody's talking "extremely" thin. They're talking 80% of the desired width.
Ludicrous exaggeration tends not to help political cases.
Simon Proven
> "Martin Lucas-Smith" <mv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.030604...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>
>>>>Government Guidance (Cycle Friendly Infrastructure) says: "links
>>>>should be a minimum width of 1.5m. and 2.0m wherever possible.
>>>
>>>You do not quote what the Government Guidance says should be done if
>>>1.5m is not possible. Does it say that there can be a 1.2m cycle lane,
>>>or does it say that there should, in preference, be no cycle lane? And
>>>does it give evidence?
>>
>>Surely standards which have been developed over many years and after much
>>research say that 1.5m is a minimum[1] for a reason.
>
>
> One might hope so. I'm asking if anyone knows what it is.
Can't be bothered. I've presented the evidence before, and it was
dismissed as "irrelevant". Apparently Cambridge is a special case.
>>In any case, how on earth does installation of an extremely thin cycle
>>lane encourage more people to cycle?
>
>
> Nobody's talking "extremely" thin. They're talking 80% of the desired width.
> Ludicrous exaggeration tends not to help political cases.
My interpretation is that the desired width is 2.0m. 1.2m is 60% of
the desired width. And 1.2m is unacceptably narrow, particularly
next to parked cars. Cambridge has some cycle lanes less than 1m wide.
These are worse than useless.
Simon
Simon Proven
> Can't be bothered. I've presented the evidence before, and it was
> dismissed as "irrelevant". Apparently Cambridge is a special case.
It seems I can be bothered:
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html
Simon
Tim Ward
news:7trDa.331$0d7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>
> Can't be bothered
Well, that's not much help to me in tomorrow's committee, is it. "People who
say that not having a cycle lane at all would be better than 1.2m claim to
have the evidence but can't be bothered to submit it to councillors." Yeah,
I can just see myself saying that. Gee thanks.
> > Nobody's talking "extremely" thin. They're talking 80% of the desired
width.
> > Ludicrous exaggeration tends not to help political cases.
>
> My interpretation is that the desired width is 2.0m.
From what I've had time to read of today's documents from the cycling
campaign (cutting it a bit fine for tomorrow's meeting) they're asking for
1.5m.
Simon Proven
> "Simon Proven" <simon....@ntlworld.ptang.com> wrote in message
> news:7trDa.331$0d7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>
>>Can't be bothered
>
>
> Well, that's not much help to me in tomorrow's committee, is it. "People who
> say that not having a cycle lane at all would be better than 1.2m claim to
> have the evidence but can't be bothered to submit it to councillors." Yeah,
> I can just see myself saying that. Gee thanks.
I've posted a link to John Franklin's summary of research
into safety of cycle lanes and cycle tracks alongside roads.
In particular, note the finding that "cycle lanes less than
1.8m wide are particularly hazardous".
Simon
Simon Proven
> The local councils have created (on Trumpington Rd), and are proposing
> to create (Coldham's Lane) narrow cycle lanes (1.2m) adjacent to
> authorised parking spaces.
I've just realised this refers to Coldhams lane. 1.2m cycle lanes
there is lunacy.
Simon
Martin Lucas-Smith
I don't regard 1.2m as an acceptable width, and I don't believe that's an
extreme view. I'm actually quite surprised that there should be such
fervent disagreement on this! I find riding in such a lane with traffic
nearby intimidating and does not feel safe. Standards exist as an attempt
to stop poor provision.
Notably, though is that it is depressing that argument should have to be
held over what is an acceptable minimum, rather than how standards can be
*raised*.
Better standards I would have thought would encourage cycling, much as the
high quality of the Park and Ride services have got more people using
them. Whilst I personally have reservations on P&R as an effective traffic
reduction measure, as Colin R and others are aware, I would have no
hesitation in stating that their high quality has the effect of actively
encouraging people to use them.
Martin
Tim Ward
>
> In particular, note the finding that "cycle lanes less than
> 1.8m wide are particularly hazardous".
I think that the answers to my questions about evidence behind current UK
government guidelines would have greater officer-convincing potential than
an 11 year old Dutch study.
Tim Ward
>
> I don't regard 1.2m as an acceptable width, and I don't believe that's an
> extreme view. I'm actually quite surprised that there should be such
> fervent disagreement on this!
The question is not as to whether a 1.2m cycle track is an excellent
provision: everybody agrees that its less than ideal. I am not aware of any
disagreement at all, let alone "fervent disagreement", on this point.
There are however people saying that given a choice between
(1) no cycle track at all
(2) a 1.2m cycle track
then (1) is "better".
What nobody has given me is any *evidence* to support this contention.
Therefore as far as I'm aware it's just someone's opinion, and someone else
could have an equally valid different opinion, and I have no basis on which
to choose between them. In which case there's an obvious leaning towards the
professional engineers' professional judgement (just as I hope my clients
would tend to trust my judgement as an engineer in the absence of any hard
evidence one way or the other).
> Notably, though is that it is depressing that argument should have to be
> held over what is an acceptable minimum, rather than how standards can be
> *raised*.
In this particular case you can get wider cycle tracks by spending vast
amounts of money rebuilding the parking spaces and the pavements and taking
a foot off all the front gardens. That just isn't on this time around; the
vast amounts of money aren't on offer and the property owners haven't been
asked whether they mind losing some of their gardens. (And that's before you
even start looking into how many trees might be lost, which for those with
short memories is a total and utter political no-no with respect to
Cambridge road schemes.)
Tim Ward
news:bblic5$apbms$1...@ID-154437.news.dfncis.de...
>
> ... and the property owners haven't been
> asked whether they mind losing some of their gardens.
Whoops, better declare an interest here (although it is of course already on
public record): I am a part owner of one of the properties in question.
Alun Morris
> > be a minimum width of 1.5m. and 2.0m wherever possible. If flows are
> > heavy (above 150 cyclists in the peak) 2.5m may be
> > required"(para.11.3.2). It also says (para.11.3.5) "Treatment at parking
> > bays: Adequate width must be left between parked cars and the edge of
> > the cycle lane to separate cyclists from car doors opening: 1m is
> > prefered."
>
> I see here words like "should" and "preferred", not words like "must".
I can see one. Can you?
Alun
Paul Rudin
> ...spending vast amounts of money rebuilding the parking spaces ...
Usually parking space are a few bits of paint on the road. Presuambly
"rebuilding" such for the purpose of providing better cycle lanes can
often be simply removing the paint?
Tim Ward
news:m3he75b...@ntlworld.com...
Not in Coldham's Lane - go and have a look.
Tim Ward
news:bbljf8$ar6fv$1...@ID-166984.news.dfncis.de...
Well, that one's a requirement on the people parking the cars, isn't it?
Simon Proven
> "Simon Proven" <simon....@ntlworld.ptang.com> wrote in message
> news:nIrDa.342$0d7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>
>>In particular, note the finding that "cycle lanes less than
>>1.8m wide are particularly hazardous".
>
>
> I think that the answers to my questions about evidence behind current UK
> government guidelines would have greater officer-convincing potential than
> an 11 year old Dutch study.
In that case I suggest that the council might wish to
ask the publishers of the guidelines what evidence they
used:
http://www.iht.org/IHT.org/pub/CycleFriendly.html
Simon
Paul Rudin
> "Alun Morris" <alun.mor...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bbljf8$ar6fv$1...@ID-166984.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > Government Guidance (Cycle Friendly Infrastructure) says: "links
> should
> > > > be a minimum width of 1.5m. and 2.0m wherever possible. If flows are
> > > > heavy (above 150 cyclists in the peak) 2.5m may be
> > > > required"(para.11.3.2). It also says (para.11.3.5) "Treatment at
> parking
> > > > bays: Adequate width must be left between parked cars and the edge of
> > > > the cycle lane to separate cyclists from car doors opening: 1m is
> > > > prefered."
> > >
> > > I see here words like "should" and "preferred", not words like "must".
> >
> > I can see one. Can you?
>
> Well, that one's a requirement on the people parking the cars, isn't it?
That rather depends on the width of the parking spaces .. people can't
use the parking space with parking close too close to the cycle lane
unless there is sufficient space. Or are you suggesting that there
should be a maximum car width specified for using particular parking
spaces? :-)
If there is sufficient room to park a car in the indicated space and
have a cycle lane complying with the adive in the govenrment
guidelines then why are the road markings painting so as to make the
two immediatly adjacent?
Simon Proven
> "Martin Lucas-Smith" <mv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.030604...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>
>>I don't regard 1.2m as an acceptable width, and I don't believe that's an
>>extreme view. I'm actually quite surprised that there should be such
>>fervent disagreement on this!
>
>
> The question is not as to whether a 1.2m cycle track is an excellent
> provision: everybody agrees that its less than ideal. I am not aware of any
> disagreement at all, let alone "fervent disagreement", on this point.
>
> There are however people saying that given a choice between
>
> (1) no cycle track at all
> (2) a 1.2m cycle track
>
> then (1) is "better".
>
> What nobody has given me is any *evidence* to support this contention.
I suggest that when failing to follow established guidelines
the onus should be on the council to demonstrate that doing
so is safe.
Jonathan Larmour
>"Simon Proven" <simon....@ntlworld.ptang.com> wrote in message
>news:nIrDa.342$0d7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>>
>> In particular, note the finding that "cycle lanes less than
>> 1.8m wide are particularly hazardous".
>
>I think that the answers to my questions about evidence behind current UK
>government guidelines would have greater officer-convincing potential than
>an 11 year old Dutch study.
Shouldn't it be the officer's job to find out why they should be allowed
to ignore a government guideline, rather than the other way round?
What evidence does the officer have about the statistical safety of
cycle lanes under 1.5m? If he can present none, then there's no reason
to believe his "judgement" is substantiated.
At worst, Dutch cars aren't made of different things, and there hasn't
exactly been a major revolution in transport patterns in 11 years. You
may not consider the report conclusive... okay, but I think it still
puts the ball in the officer's court.
Jifl
--
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine
Jonathan Larmour
>news:bbljf8$ar6fv$1...@ID-166984.news.dfncis.de...
>> > > Government Guidance (Cycle Friendly Infrastructure) says: "links
>should
>> > > be a minimum width of 1.5m. and 2.0m wherever possible. If flows are
>> > > heavy (above 150 cyclists in the peak) 2.5m may be
>> > > required"(para.11.3.2). It also says (para.11.3.5) "Treatment at
>parking
>> > > bays: Adequate width must be left between parked cars and the edge of
>> > > the cycle lane to separate cyclists from car doors opening: 1m is
>> > > prefered."
>> >
>> > I see here words like "should" and "preferred", not words like "must".
>>
>> I can see one. Can you?
>
>Well, that one's a requirement on the people parking the cars, isn't it?
Depends who the statement is addressed to. The Guidance isn't addressed
to motorists AFAIK, it's to planners.
Alun Morris
of
> > > > the cycle lane to separate cyclists from car doors opening: 1m is
> > > > prefered."
> > >
> > > I see here words like "should" and "preferred", not words like "must".
> >
> > I can see one. Can you?
>
> Well, that one's a requirement on the people parking the cars, isn't it?
>
Alun
Tim Ward
I don't have a case. I'm trying to work out what the various cases are, and
not getting very far.
Colin Rosenstiel
simon....@ntlworld.ptang.com (Simon Proven) wrote:
As I've said already today, the only relevant experience (in cycle lanes
at the side of the road and in the UK) appears to be Oxford whose
experience is similar to ours in Cambridge:
"Study of Oxford, UK, where 25km of cycle lanes have been introduced in
last 20 years. Some accident savings along cycle lanes away from junction,
mainly due to reduction in traffic speed as a result of the lanes taking
space from motor traffic. At junctions, cycle lanes can increase
accidents, especially if the lanes are not carried through the junction.
Main benefits lie in reducing perceived risk, and assisting cyclists to
pass other traffic in congested urban centres."
This doesn't say that a 1.2M cycle lane is worse than no lane does it?
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
simon....@ntlworld.ptang.com (Simon Proven) wrote:
What does this have to say where there isn't room for the desirable
minimum? Does it say that no facility should be provided? Thought not.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
simon....@ntlworld.ptang.com (Simon Proven) wrote:
> I suggest that when failing to follow established guidelines
> the onus should be on the council to demonstrate that doing
> so is safe.
Safety is not an absolute.
For the nth time what evidence do you adduce that 1.2M cycle lanes will be
*less* safe than the status quo?
The point of the exercise is to reduce the high number of accidents there.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
simon....@ntlworld.ptang.com (Simon Proven) wrote:
Evidence (unless you are referring to yourself)?
It seems to me that *all* the hazards ascribed to 1.2M cycle lanes already
exist without cycle lanes.
The biggest gain, supported by the Oxford study, is that the presence of
cycle lanes will make the carriageway appear narrower to motorists and
they will therefore drive slower.
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Rudin
> In article <%KrDa.345$0d7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>,
> simon....@ntlworld.ptang.com (Simon Proven) wrote:
>
> > J. Chisholm wrote:
> > > The local councils have created (on Trumpington Rd), and are proposing
> > > to create (Coldham's Lane) narrow cycle lanes (1.2m) adjacent to
> > > authorised parking spaces.
> >
> > I've just realised this refers to Coldhams lane. 1.2m cycle lanes
> > there is lunacy.
>
> Evidence (unless you are referring to yourself)?
>
> It seems to me that *all* the hazards ascribed to 1.2M cycle lanes already
> exist without cycle lanes.
>
This isn't so - some motorists simply drive immediately adjacent to
the lane, thereby failing to leave adequate space when passing
bikes. In the absence of a lane they're less likely to attempt to
overtake when there isn't space to do so.
DR de Lacey
> "Simon Proven" <simon....@ntlworld.ptang.com> wrote in message
> news:7trDa.331$0d7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>
>>Can't be bothered
>
>
> Well, that's not much help to me in tomorrow's committee, is it. "People who
> say that not having a cycle lane at all would be better than 1.2m claim to
> have the evidence but can't be bothered to submit it to councillors." Yeah,
> I can just see myself saying that. Gee thanks.
Perhaps they [I'm not one of your constituents] expect their councillors
to do some work on their behalf? Perhaps they fantasise that you have
access to data, resopurces, &c that we the Great Unwashed do not?
{Perhaps they hope you remember the arguments from the last time they
were rehearsed here? Or the time before that?
>
>
>>>Nobody's talking "extremely" thin. They're talking 80% of the desired
>>
> width.
>
>>>Ludicrous exaggeration tends not to help political cases.
>>
>>My interpretation is that the desired width is 2.0m.
Indeed. Anything less than the *minimum* is surely extreme?
> From what I've had time to read of today's documents from the cycling
> campaign (cutting it a bit fine for tomorrow's meeting) they're asking for
> 1.5m.
ie prepared to compromise for the minimum. Good for them. As someone
else said, anything less than that is *worse* than useless. It's dangerous.
Douglas de Lacey.
DR de Lacey
> "Martin Lucas-Smith" <mv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.030604...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>
>>I don't regard 1.2m as an acceptable width, and I don't believe that's an
>>extreme view. I'm actually quite surprised that there should be such
>>fervent disagreement on this!
>
>
> The question is not as to whether a 1.2m cycle track is an excellent
> provision: everybody agrees that its less than ideal. I am not aware of any
> disagreement at all, let alone "fervent disagreement", on this point.
>
> There are however people saying that given a choice between
>
> (1) no cycle track at all
> (2) a 1.2m cycle track
>
> then (1) is "better".
>
> What nobody has given me is any *evidence* to support this contention.
You're saying that the *absolute minimum* spec of 1.5 is based on no
evidence? What evidence is there that extremely narrow lanes (a) provide
safety or (b) encourage safely? Why do you think the onus is all on one
side?
> Therefore as far as I'm aware it's just someone's opinion, and someone else
> could have an equally valid different opinion, and I have no basis on which
> to choose between them. In which case there's an obvious leaning towards the
> professional engineers' professional judgement
Whereas those who specified the minima are rank amateurs? Do your
professionals have "evidence"? If not, are they not acting unprofessionally?
> In this particular case you can get wider cycle tracks by spending vast
> amounts of money rebuilding the parking spaces and the pavements and taking
> a foot off all the front gardens. That just isn't on this time around; the
Ah. I thought this was about standards, professionalism, evidence. It's
just about money.
Douglas de Lacey.
DR de Lacey
> As I've said already today, the only relevant experience (in cycle lanes
> at the side of the road and in the UK) appears to be Oxford whose
> experience is similar to ours in Cambridge:
>
> "Study of Oxford, UK, where 25km of cycle lanes have been introduced in
> last 20 years. Some accident savings along cycle lanes away from
junction,
> mainly due to reduction in traffic speed as a result of the lanes taking
> space from motor traffic. At junctions, cycle lanes can increase
> accidents, especially if the lanes are not carried through the junction.
> Main benefits lie in reducing perceived risk, and assisting cyclists to
> pass other traffic in congested urban centres."
>
> This doesn't say that a 1.2M cycle lane is worse than no lane does it?
>
> Colin Rosenstiel
No but it provides little support for you. There's no *figure* of the
reduced speeds: was this from 30 to 25, or (more likely) from 40 to 39
in a 30 zone? I like "cycle lanes can increase accidents". And were
figures gathered on whether the nett effect (as with helmet enforecment
in Oz) is simply an even greater *reduction* in cycling? No, I don't
suppose so.
>>http://www.iht.org/IHT.org/pub/CycleFriendly.html
>
>
> What does this have to say where there isn't room for the desirable
> minimum? Does it say that no facility should be provided? Thought not.
You're a better politician than I realised, Colin. "Facility". So it
*must* be a good thing. Can you get it into your head that a dangerously
substandard provision is *not* a facility?
> The biggest gain, supported by the Oxford study, is that the presence of
> cycle lanes will make the carriageway appear narrower to motorists and
> they will therefore drive slower.
<fx: hysterical laughter>
> Safety is not an absolute.
>
> For the nth time what evidence do you adduce that 1.2M cycle lanes
will be
> *less* safe than the status quo?
And what evidence will you adduce on the other side?
>
> The point of the exercise is to reduce the high number of accidents
there.
Even at the expence of reducing the cycling population? Good on yer.
Douglas de Lacey.
Paul Rudin
> In several messages Colin Rosenstiel said:
> > What does this have to say where there isn't room for the desirable
> > minimum? Does it say that no facility should be provided? Thought not.
>
>
> You're a better politician than I realised, Colin. "Facility". So it
> *must* be a good thing. Can you get it into your head that a
> dangerously substandard provision is *not* a facility?
>
The road itself is a "facility" for cyclists whether or not the cycle
lane exists.
William Turner
> As I've said already today, the only relevant experience (in cycle lanes
> at the side of the road and in the UK) appears to be Oxford whose
> experience is similar to ours in Cambridge:
>
> "Study of Oxford, UK, where 25km of cycle lanes have been introduced in
> last 20 years. Some accident savings along cycle lanes away from junction,
> mainly due to reduction in traffic speed as a result of the lanes taking
> space from motor traffic. At junctions, cycle lanes can increase
> accidents, especially if the lanes are not carried through the junction.
> Main benefits lie in reducing perceived risk, and assisting cyclists to
> pass other traffic in congested urban centres."
>
> This doesn't say that a 1.2M cycle lane is worse than no lane does it?
No, it doesn't. Neither does it say that a 1.2M cycle lane is
better than no lane. In fact, it doesn't mention the width of
the cycle lane at all. Neither does it give the accident
increase/decrease in either of open roads or junctions...
w
Ian Cowley
> The local councils have created (on Trumpington Rd), and are proposing
> to create (Coldham's Lane) narrow cycle lanes (1.2m) adjacent to
> authorised parking spaces.
>
>
> "You should: Leave plenty of room when passing parked cars and watch
> out for car doors being opened into your path"
>
> And that HC also says (Introduction):
>
> "Although failure to comply with the other rules [ie 'You should'] of
> the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The
> Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under
> the Road Traffic Acts to establish liability"
>
> Does this mean a cyclist could be considered liable for an accident
> (or at least partly negligent) if cycling in such a lane?
>
> Alternatively does 'plenty of room' mean just failing to hit mirrors
> of parked vehicles?
>
>
> Government Guidance (Cycle Friendly Infrastructure) says: "links
> should be a minimum width of 1.5m. and 2.0m wherever possible. If
> flows are heavy (above 150 cyclists in the peak) 2.5m may be
> required"(para.11.3.2). It also says (para.11.3.5) "Treatment at
> edge of the cycle lane to separate cyclists from car doors opening:
> 1m is prefered."
>
> is a 1996 joint 'Department of Transport' & 'The Institution of
> Highways and Transport' publication.
Am I the only person here that thinks that 2m is ludicrously wide, and that
1.2 is fine? And that even 1m is OK for cycling in?
My bike is not a metre wide, so why do I need a lane any wider? Sheesh,
some people are never happy with what they're given - do you want a cycle
lane or not? Perhaps you want a 10 metre wide lane and no cars?
--
Ian Cowley (Who cycles 12 miles straight through town every day)
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!"
J. Chisholm
>
> The local councils have created (on Trumpington Rd), and are proposing
> to create (Coldham's Lane) narrow cycle lanes (1.2m) adjacent to
> authorised parking spaces.
>
> Given that the Highway Code says (para.52):
>
> "You should: Leave plenty of room when passing parked cars and watch out
> for car doors being opened into your path"
>
> And that HC also says (Introduction):
>
> "Although failure to comply with the other rules [ie 'You should'] of
> the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The
> Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the
> Road Traffic Acts to establish liability"
>
> Does this mean a cyclist could be considered liable for an accident (or
> at least partly negligent) if cycling in such a lane?
>
> Alternatively does 'plenty of room' mean just failing to hit mirrors of
> parked vehicles?
>
Do they really think that some 6 inches is what the Highway Code means
by 'Plenty of Room'?
Nor have they refered to CFI guidance that a 'prefered' 1m buffer strip
should be left beteween parking bays and a cycle lane.
Would they also care to quote how many accidents in Cambridge (total and
%) involve cylists being hit by opening car doors?
Jim Chisholm
Paul Rudin
>
> Am I the only person here that thinks that 2m is ludicrously wide, and that
> 1.2 is fine? And that even 1m is OK for cycling in?
>
> My bike is not a metre wide, so why do I need a lane any wider? Sheesh,
> some people are never happy with what they're given - do you want a cycle
> lane or not? Perhaps you want a 10 metre wide lane and no cars?
>
>
The main problem - I suggest - is that a excessively narrow lanes
encourage cars to attempt to pass you without leaving adequate space -
something a sizable minorioty of drivers are keen on doing in any
case, but a narrow cycle lane exacerbates the problem. Personally I'd
rather no cycle lane at all than a very narrow one.
(In fact I'm pretty ambivalent about cycle lanes at all - the main
benefit is to be able to pass queues of (near-)stationary cars. But if
there is sufficient space for a decent cycle lane then you normally
have space to overtake on the outside in the absence of a lane.)
D.A. Galletly
Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>The main problem - I suggest - is that a excessively narrow lanes
>encourage cars to attempt to pass you without leaving adequate space -
>something a sizable minorioty of drivers are keen on doing in any
>case, but a narrow cycle lane exacerbates the problem. Personally I'd
>rather no cycle lane at all than a very narrow one.
Yes, I have a rant to post on this subject, but I need to go and measure
the width of the cycle lane first. Will report back later ...
--
+ Diana Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> +
+ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/ +
+ NEW: Sign up for a Poldovian T-shirt today ! +
+ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/poldovia.html +
William Turner
> The main problem - I suggest - is that a excessively narrow lanes
> encourage cars to attempt to pass you without leaving adequate space -
> something a sizable minorioty of drivers are keen on doing in any
> case, but a narrow cycle lane exacerbates the problem. Personally I'd
> rather no cycle lane at all than a very narrow one.
Don't forget that the road is narrow to start with, hence the narrow
lanes, so the problem is magnified even more, as the driver has even
less room to leave in the first place if there's any oncoming traffic
(as the oncoming car will be further from the kerb).
> (In fact I'm pretty ambivalent about cycle lanes at all - the main
> benefit is to be able to pass queues of (near-)stationary cars. But if
> there is sufficient space for a decent cycle lane then you normally
> have space to overtake on the outside in the absence of a lane.)
Agreed entirely - the only properly useful cycle lanes are those
on faster roads that are actually separated from the carriageway. That
doesn't include separation by virtue of a kerb, such as shared-use
paths.
w
DR de Lacey
> Am I the only person here that thinks that 2m is ludicrously wide, and that
> 1.2 is fine? And that even 1m is OK for cycling in?
I sincerely hope so.
>
> My bike is not a metre wide, so why do I need a lane any wider? Sheesh,
> some people are never happy with what they're given - do you want a cycle
> lane or not? Perhaps you want a 10 metre wide lane and no cars?
Lots of people *don't* want a cycle lane, if it's to be smaller than 1.5
meters; I would have thought that had been made abundantly clear. You
seem to be ignoring the fact that whatever the width of a cycle, the
fact that it only has 2 wheels[1] means that all cyclists wobble. By
analogy with your argument surely we should have a car lane which is
exactly the width of a car (since they don't need to wobble) and all the
rest as a cycle lane?
Douglas de Lacey.
[1] Some of us have even pointed out that HPVs with >2 wheels tend to
have greater problems with cycle-lane mentality...
Mark Ayliffe
Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> In article <%KrDa.345$0d7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>,
> simon....@ntlworld.ptang.com (Simon Proven) wrote:
>
>> J. Chisholm wrote:
>> > The local councils have created (on Trumpington Rd), and are proposing
>> > to create (Coldham's Lane) narrow cycle lanes (1.2m) adjacent to
>> > authorised parking spaces.
>>
>> I've just realised this refers to Coldhams lane. 1.2m cycle lanes
>> there is lunacy.
>
> Evidence (unless you are referring to yourself)?
>
> It seems to me that *all* the hazards ascribed to 1.2M cycle lanes already
> exist without cycle lanes.
Given you & Tim are banging on about evidence, you might like to refrain
from dropping your own opinions in.
> The biggest gain, supported by the Oxford study, is that the presence of
> cycle lanes will make the carriageway appear narrower to motorists and
> they will therefore drive slower.
Another effect is that drivers will assume cyclists are staying within the
cycle lane boundaries and position their vehicles accordingly (i.e. closer).
In the absence of a lane, cyclists will tend to cycle further from the kerb
and drivers will have to make a proper overtaking manouvre.
--
Mark
Please remove nospam |
to reply by email. | Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark.
www.ayliffe.org |
Mark Ayliffe
Ian Cowley <new...@iancowley.co.uk.spam> illuminated us with:
>
> Am I the only person here that thinks that 2m is ludicrously wide,
I'd say comfortable.
> and that
> 1.2 is fine?
OK
> And that even 1m is OK for cycling in?
Tight. At a guess this is the width of the lane on Mowbray road or
therabouts? Ring road, near Addy's.
> My bike is not a metre wide, so why do I need a lane any wider? Sheesh,
> some people are never happy with what they're given - do you want a cycle
> lane or not?
At these widths I'd say that the road surface condition becomes very
important, it need to be free from bumps, rubbish etc. that might otherwise
cause a cycle to swerve out of the lane. Contra Gilbert Road. Am I correct
in thinking we're talking advisory lanes here anyway? In which case they are
councillor-and-officer conscience measures and of no practical use anyway.
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | You never really learn to swear until
to reply by email. | you learn to drive.
www.ayliffe.org |
D.A. Galletly
D.A. Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <m3isrl9...@ntlworld.com>,
>Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>The main problem - I suggest - is that a excessively narrow lanes
>>encourage cars to attempt to pass you without leaving adequate space -
>>something a sizable minorioty of drivers are keen on doing in any
>>case, but a narrow cycle lane exacerbates the problem. Personally I'd
>>rather no cycle lane at all than a very narrow one.
>
>Yes, I have a rant to post on this subject, but I need to go and measure
>the width of the cycle lane first. Will report back later ...
Right, have now measured the cycle lane in question -- 1.09m at the
point the incident occurred.
I am becoming increasingly concerned over the number of (particularly
lorries and buses) that appear to be unaware of the length of their
vehicles when they perform overtaking manoeuvres. The front end of
their vehicle may pass the cyclist with just about enough room to
spare, but they then swing back in in front of one without taking
sufficient care that the back of their vehicle doesn't swipe the
cyclist off. A particularly bad occurrence of this happened last
Thursday. I was cyclind soutyh down Histon Road and, just as I was
passing the sign to Borrowdale, a bus overtook me. It then
proceeded to pull back in very sharply, moving into the cycle lane
(of width 1.09m) and occupying about half of it. I had to brake
very hard to avoid being knocked off.
ISTM that there is an increasing prevalence of motor vehicles thinking
they can saunter merrily into the cycle lane if circumstances so
require -- these circumstances seemingly including if there is any
motor vehicle at all proceeding on the opposite carriageway. If the
cycle lanes were a little wider then this wouldn't be so much of a problem,
but at 1.09m wide this is just asking for trouble.
There is also the related problem of the line's presence mesmerising
the unwary motorist into following it in a zombified fashion, rather
than taking note of what vehicles might actually be present in that
patch of road. If the line weren't there I think it is likely that
motorists would have to actually observe what was present rather
than relying on that reassuring band of white telling them that they
must be doing the right thing ...
I would definitely prefer it if that 1.09m cycle lane were removed.
Colin Rosenstiel
Rudin) wrote:
And they don't do that without a lane? Not in my universe.
Colin Rosenstiel
Ara
> I don't have a case. I'm trying to work out what the various cases are, and
> not getting very far.
I don't quite understand why you are prepared to place your faith
in the "professional engineers' professional judgement" on this matter,
when said professionals almost certainly do not cycle. Why not
place your faith in actual cyclists' judgement? Either is just what
it says, though -- a position of faith. As such, hard and fast
judgements about which has a greater "value" than the other are simply
positions of faith too.
But I digress: mainly I just wish to re-iterate that, from my point
of view as a cyclist and a driver, a narrow cycle lane is WORSE than
no cycle lane.
Ara
Paul Rudin
Some do, but a naarow lane makes tha problem worse than without any
lane.
Daniel Dignam
> The local councils have created (on Trumpington Rd), and are proposing
> to create (Coldham's Lane) narrow cycle lanes (1.2m) adjacent to
> authorised parking spaces.
>
>
> "You should: Leave plenty of room when passing parked cars and watch out
> for car doors being opened into your path"
>
It's quite simple, treat the cycle lane, painted red, as an
indication of the danger area and don't cycle in it. Cycle lanes next
to parking areas are stupid, and encouraging cyclists to cycle that
closely to a parked vehicle is almost criminally negligent, IMHO.
When cycling along the Trumpington Road I will stay in the nice
large lane outside of the reach of cars doors until I have passed all
of the parked cars.
Let them mark the danger area, and don't use it.
--
Daniel Dignam
Ian Cowley
>
> ISTM that there is an increasing prevalence of motor vehicles thinking
> they can saunter merrily into the cycle lane if circumstances so
> require -- these circumstances seemingly including if there is any
> motor vehicle at all proceeding on the opposite carriageway. If the
> cycle lanes were a little wider then this wouldn't be so much of a
> problem, but at 1.09m wide this is just asking for trouble.
If the cyle lanes were wider on your side of the road only, then the cars
would still occupy the same place in the road with regards to oncoming
traffic etc. if the lanes were wider on both sides, the oncoming traffic
(well, some of it, according to you) would be closer to the middle of the
road, thereby pushing your lane of traffic further into your cycle lane.
The fact of the matter is that roads aren;t usually wide enough for cycle
lanes and car lanes - I've seen a lot of witter about campaigns to make
cycle lanes wider, but there seems to be no concept of what that does to
motorised tarffic.
yes, situations aren't ideal, but hey, this is Britain.
--
Ian Cowley (Not Reverend) - Perfecting pedantry through practice
"Uh, we object to the phrase 'urine-soaked hellhole', when the defendent
could have used the phrase 'pee-pee soaked heckhole'"
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
> You're saying that the *absolute minimum* spec of 1.5 is based on no
> evidence? What evidence is there that extremely narrow lanes (a)
> provide safety or (b) encourage safely? Why do you think the onus is
> all on one side?
Because Cambridge has cycle lanes narrower than 1.5M with no evidence that
their safety record is any different from that of wider lanes.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
> Perhaps they fantasise that you have
> access to data, resopurces, &c that we the Great Unwashed do not?
Good word "fantasise". Accurate too. :-(
Remember that councillors have a lot of information to absorb already when
making decisions like these. You expect us to absorb a lot more?
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) wrote:
> > The biggest gain, supported by the Oxford study, is that the presence
> > of cycle lanes will make the carriageway appear narrower to motorists
> > and they will therefore drive slower.
>
> Another effect is that drivers will assume cyclists are staying within
> the cycle lane boundaries and position their vehicles accordingly (i.e.
> closer). In the absence of a lane, cyclists will tend to cycle further
> from the kerb and drivers will have to make a proper overtaking
> manouvre.
You cycle a lot in Coldham's Lane?
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) wrote:
> > And that even 1m is OK for cycling in?
>
> Tight. At a guess this is the width of the lane on Mowbray road or
> therabouts? Ring road, near Addy's.
That's one we asked about. 1.1M we are advised.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
> In several messages Colin Rosenstiel said:
> >>http://www.iht.org/IHT.org/pub/CycleFriendly.html
> >
> >
> > What does this have to say where there isn't room for the desirable
> > minimum? Does it say that no facility should be provided? Thought
> > not.
>
>
> You're a better politician than I realised, Colin. "Facility". So it
> *must* be a good thing. Can you get it into your head that a
> dangerously substandard provision is *not* a facility?
>
>
> > The biggest gain, supported by the Oxford study, is that the
> > presence of cycle lanes will make the carriageway appear narrower to
> > motorists and they will therefore drive slower.
>
> <fx: hysterical laughter>
Why so funny. It's been observed here too.
> > Safety is not an absolute.
> >
> > For the nth time what evidence do you adduce that 1.2M cycle lanes
> > will be *less* safe than the status quo?
>
> And what evidence will you adduce on the other side?
>
> > The point of the exercise is to reduce the high number of accidents
> > there.
>
> Even at the expence of reducing the cycling population? Good on yer.
On the contrary. The clincher in my mind is that my experience tells me it
will help cycle safety. Cycle lanes are cheap to install. We will have a
safety audit after the changes when we will know who is right.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
(D.A. Galletly) wrote:
I hope you reported the bus to the police but would understand if you
didn't. I had a not dissimilar problem with a white van driver in London
on Tuesday and was too shaken, much to my subsequent annoyance (because
there was an independent witness).
However, I fail to see why you think the bus driver's behaviour would
improve if there was no cycle lane. I would expect them all to behave like
that, not just the bad ones. I've certainly had a similar experience in
Cambridge on Mill Road railway bridge. No cycle lanes there.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
> Would they also care to quote how many accidents in Cambridge (total and
> %) involve cylists being hit by opening car doors?
I don't know. But are you saying that people don't open doors if there is
no cycle lane?
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Rudin
No, but clueless cyclists are encouraged to cycle too close to parked
cars. What is the point of putting in a cycle lane that you can't
safely cycle in?
Matthew Garrett
If there is a cycle lane, people expect cyclists to be in it. This is
difficult if there's a risk of people opening doors into the cyclists. You
then either have cyclists using the lane and being put at greater risk of
injury from parked cars, or cyclists not using the lane and being put at
greater risk by other road users who believe that cyclists should damn
well be in the cycle lanes that their taxes paid for.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-cam...@srcf.ucam.org
I am currently angry about:
GConf
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~mjg59/angry/3.html
Jonathan Larmour
I frequently do.
And elsewhere in the city, my judgement is as Mark describes. Hell, as
a motorist I find it difficult to avoid doing the same myself. You focus
on the lane not the cyclist because as you pass the cyclist it's easier
to adjust road position to the lane (which goes ahead of you) than the
cyclist (who is on the left of you). And if the cyclist is near the edge
of the white line due to the lane being narrower, a motorist won't
adjust.
It's still not clear to me why an officer is allowed to counterdemand
government guidelines without having to justify how the guidelines are
wrong. If they want evidence then surely it's up to the officer to find
out what the guidelines were based on. That should be his job if he
wishes to go against government guidelines. Not ours or yours. Not that
we would be able to get an answer out of the DoT anyway (but he should).
Has any proper study between made in Cambridge about the number of
accidents in narrow lanes than proper lanes? Looking at each lane
individually by waiting for a safety report will produce results without
statistical significance as the accident rate for an individual lane
would be too low. It may even be too low across the whole city. That's
why bodies like central government compile statistics and why they
would know when an individual city wouldn't.
Jifl
--
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine
Steve Hunt
> already exist without cycle lanes.
I disagree. I find that drivers pass more closely when there is a narrow
cycle lane than where there is no cycle lane at all. I put this down to
the assumption that provided they don't enter the cycle lane, they're OK.
-- Steve
J. Chisholm
We will have a safety audit after the changes when we will know who is
right.
I thought it was traditional to have a Safety Audit *before*. A number
of items that would have benefited cyclists have been deleted from other
plans because of safety concerns.
Jim Chisholm
james g
> minimum? Does it say that no facility should be provided? Thought not.
>
mandatory cycle lane, than an advisory cycle lane of that width or greater
should be used instead.
http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/cycle/01_97/index.htm#lanes
David Braben
> "Martin Lucas-Smith" <mv...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.030604...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> > > > Government Guidance (Cycle Friendly Infrastructure) says: "links
> > > > should be a minimum width of 1.5m. and 2.0m wherever possible.
> > >
> > > You do not quote what the Government Guidance says should be done if
> > > 1.5m is not possible. Does it say that there can be a 1.2m cycle lane,
> > > or does it say that there should, in preference, be no cycle lane? And
> > > does it give evidence?
> >
> > Surely standards which have been developed over many years and after
much
> > research say that 1.5m is a minimum[1] for a reason.
>
> One might hope so. I'm asking if anyone knows what it is.
>
> > In any case, how on earth does installation of an extremely thin cycle
> > lane encourage more people to cycle?
>
> Nobody's talking "extremely" thin. They're talking 80% of the desired
width.
You have conveniently snipped out the bit about a 1m gap between the parking
bays and the edge of a cycle lane - making the total desired width 3m when
alongside parking bays, ie the proposed lanes are 40% of this desired
width - or less than half of the MINIMUM given in the government's planning
guidlines (1m + 1.5m).
> Ludicrous exaggeration tends not to help political cases.
Indeed.
For you to go against government guidlines in my opinion requires a higher
level of proof than that you appear to be demanding from this group. It
seems there is a strong consensus from people's personal experience that
narrow lanes are worse than none at all (I would agree based on the ones on
Grange Road) as the cars seem to come a lot closer. Whether the safety stats
back this up or not is secondary, as they can be influenced by many other
factors, but it is important cyclists feel safe in order to encourage more
people to cycle.
Your (and Colin R's) views are clearly highly partisan - it is as if your
minds are already made up about this.
David
james g
> You have conveniently snipped out the bit about a 1m gap between the
parking
> bays and the edge of a cycle lane - making the total desired width 3m when
> alongside parking bays, ie the proposed lanes are 40% of this desired
> width - or less than half of the MINIMUM given in the government's
planning
> guidlines (1m + 1.5m).
>
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-07.asp
Tim Ward
news:3EDF04CC...@cam.ac.uk...
>
> Perhaps they [I'm not one of your constituents] expect their councillors
> to do some work on their behalf?
Like losing half a day's income to attend the committee perhaps? Yes, we do.
> Perhaps they fantasise that you have
> access to data, resopurces, &c that we the Great Unwashed do not?
I expect they do, yes.
> {Perhaps they hope you remember the arguments from the last time they
> were rehearsed here? Or the time before that?
I wasn't talking about "rehearsing arguments", I'm quite happy with that, I
was talking about "facts" and "evidence".
> ie prepared to compromise for the minimum. Good for them. As someone
> else said, anything less than that is *worse* than useless. It's
dangerous.
Evidence?
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Tim Ward
>
> Ah. I thought this was about standards, professionalism, evidence. It's
> just about money.
It's about saving as many lives as possible for a finite amount of money,
yes. If you spend it all on one scheme you can't do the other ten, and you
end up saving fewer lives. This is normal everyday life; if you want it any
different, just give the state direct access to your bank account for them
to help themselves to whatever they need.
Tim Ward
news:a78f0809.03060...@posting.google.com...
>
> I don't quite understand why you are prepared to place your faith
> in the "professional engineers' professional judgement" on this matter,
> when said professionals almost certainly do not cycle.
What on earth as that got to do with anything???!*!*!???
As a professional software engineer I've worked on software for all sorts of
fields of which I have no experience. Just to pick a trivial example, most
people who write software for spacecraft have never been in space. That's
how the world works.
It's perfectly reasonable that not every traffic engineer has personal
experience of every stretch of road using every possible means of transport.
Mark Ayliffe
Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> illuminated us with:
2-3 times per year, more if my teeth need fixing. From Sainsbury's
roundabout to the entrance to Coldhams common. I shall continue to cycle
clear of the parked cars, so your new white line will be a nice "do not cycle
to the left of this line" marker. Thank you. Pity we have to actually pay
for it.
BTW a much better assistance for bikes would be some sort of facility for
the right turn into Coldhams common. Hint "get off and use the pedestrian
crossing" isn't an option.
--
Mark
Please remove nospam |
to reply by email. | You always find something in the last place you look.
www.ayliffe.org |
Mark Ayliffe
Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> illuminated us with:
Well, they are better than they were, at a guess about 0.9m. As I've said
before here. But a lorry or bus only just fits exactly between the centre
line and the cycle lane line there. I only use that bit of road on the same
occasions as I use Coldham's Lane, but IIRC the cycle lane is in reasonably
decent nick, which makes a big difference. I think the edgo of Coldham's
lane isn't from recollection.
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | If at first you don't succeed,
to reply by email. | destroy all evidence that you tried.
www.ayliffe.org |
Patrick Gosling
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>Nobody's talking "extremely" thin. They're talking 80% of the desired width.
What matters, when you're trying to fit a thing of width "X" in a thing
of width "Y", is _not_ whether "Y" is 80% of the recommended size, but
what percentage of the recommended "Y-X" the actual "Y-X" is ...
-patrick.
Colin Rosenstiel
Rudin) wrote:
I think you're making a few assumptions there which will only become
apparent if and when the lane is installed.
Colin Rosenstiel
Jonathan Larmour
>"Ara" <coraz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a78f0809.03060...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> I don't quite understand why you are prepared to place your faith
>> in the "professional engineers' professional judgement" on this matter,
>> when said professionals almost certainly do not cycle.
>
>What on earth as that got to do with anything???!*!*!???
>
>As a professional software engineer I've worked on software for all sorts of
>fields of which I have no experience. Just to pick a trivial example, most
>people who write software for spacecraft have never been in space. That's
>how the world works.
>
>It's perfectly reasonable that not every traffic engineer has personal
>experience of every stretch of road using every possible means of transport.
But if an astronaut said "I've seen what happens when you do it like
this and it's bad". Would you expect the software engineer to say
"well it works in our computer models". And would you expect the software
engineer to be the one who has the final word?
Paul Rudin
> In article <m38ysga...@ntlworld.com>, paul....@ntlworld.com (Paul
> Rudin) wrote:
>
> > rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
> >
> > > In article <3EDEFD5B...@cam.ac.uk>, jc...@cam.ac.uk (J.
> > > Chisholm) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would they also care to quote how many accidents in Cambridge
> > > > (total and %) involve cylists being hit by opening car doors?
> > >
> > > I don't know. But are you saying that people don't open doors if
> > > there is no cycle lane?
> >
> > No, but clueless cyclists are encouraged to cycle too close to parked
> > cars. What is the point of putting in a cycle lane that you can't
> > safely cycle in?
>
> I think you're making a few assumptions there which will only become
> apparent if and when the lane is installed.
We've already got at least one example of exactly this kind of thing
in Cambridge - Trumpington road.
Steve Hunt
> experience of every stretch of road using every possible means of
> transport.
What was that about wild exaggeration not helping an argument?
No one has suggested that "every" traffic engineer should - just that
you pick one who has.
-- Steve
Meldrew of Meldreth
Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> writes
>
>Remember that councillors have a lot of information to absorb already when
>making decisions like these. You expect us to absorb a lot more?
If you were saying that you were too overworked to make proper [1]
decisions, then I might be worried.
[1] Based on a sufficient amount of information.
--
"It used to be that what a writer did was type a bit and the stare out of the
window a bit, type a bit, stare out of the window a bit. Networked computers
make these two activities converge, because now the thing you type on and the
window you stare out of are the same thing" - Douglas Adams 28/1/99.
John Joyce
wrote:
>"DR de Lacey" <de...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:3EDF04CC...@cam.ac.uk...
>> ie prepared to compromise for the minimum. Good for them. As someone
>> else said, anything less than that is *worse* than useless. It's
>dangerous.
>
>Evidence?
"Proof by vigorous assertion" one poster to uk.railway calls it :-)
FWIW I'd say the opposite - any sort of indication of a cycle lane is
better than none. At least there is some chance of getting past
stationary traffic easily, even if one has to reduce speed to do so.
IMLE traffic rarely stops with the extremities of its mirrors less
than a foot from the kerb / cycle lane / edge of the road anyway.
Also IMO such indications would be particularly useful where one can
cycle against the traffic, eg outside Woolies (at least, there's that
funny little post with a sign on it, which I assume means you can
cycle through the gap and past Woolies, but it's on the wrong side of
the road so I've never tried), St Andrews St, Bene't St, étc.
John Joyce
Patrick Gosling
John Joyce <jcj...@iee.org> wrote:
>FWIW I'd say the opposite - any sort of indication of a cycle lane is
>better than none. At least there is some chance of getting past
>stationary traffic easily, even if one has to reduce speed to do so.
I'll go with that. It requires some (quite gentle) stretching of
interpretation (no more than motor vehicles do regularly) of the
relevant bit of the highway code to justify travelling on the inside
of stationary or slow moving queues; the addition of even a
non-mandatory cycle lane makes it unarguably acceptable (providing
it is done with appropriate care and attention).
[ never thought I'd find myself arguing for cycle lanes ... ]
-patrick.
J. Chisholm
> > > rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
> >
> > I think you're making a few assumptions there which will only become
> > apparent if and when the lane is installed.
>
> We've already got at least one example of exactly this kind of thing
> in Cambridge - Trumpington road.
And there are photos of what occurs there:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/37/article3.html
Jim Chisholm
Colin Rosenstiel
(David Braben) wrote:
> Your (and Colin R's) views are clearly highly partisan - it is as if
> your> minds are already made up about this.
Interestingly, at this afternoon's meeting, the speech firmly in favour of
the proposals as advertised was made by one of the ward councillors (Lib
Dem), supported in every particular by the ward county councillor
(Labour). Neither Tim nor I had to add anything. IIRC the decision to
accept the lane was unanimous.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
neu...@linuxmail.org (james g) wrote:
Not in the photos on that page!
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
> Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
Yes. Before and after, of course.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
(Steve Hunt) wrote:
Not supported by the accident records.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) wrote:
> On or about Thu, 05 Jun 2003 at 10:51 GMT,
> Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> > In article <l9d3r-...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> > mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) wrote:
> >
> >> > The biggest gain, supported by the Oxford study, is that the
> >> > presence of cycle lanes will make the carriageway appear narrower
> >> > to motorists and they will therefore drive slower.
> >>
> >> Another effect is that drivers will assume cyclists are staying
> >> within the cycle lane boundaries and position their vehicles
> >> accordingly (i.e. closer). In the absence of a lane, cyclists will
> >> tend to cycle further from the kerb and drivers will have to make a
> >> proper overtaking manouvre.
> >
> > You cycle a lot in Coldham's Lane?
>
> 2-3 times per year, more if my teeth need fixing. From Sainsbury's
> roundabout to the entrance to Coldhams common. I shall continue to cycle
> clear of the parked cars, so your new white line will be a nice "do not
> cycle to the left of this line" marker. Thank you. Pity we have to
> actually pay for it.
White paint is cheap. As each accident avoided saves nearly £70K (as we
were advised today), we can afford a lot of it even if we save only one
accident ever. I'm sure we'll do better than that too.
> BTW a much better assistance for bikes would be some sort of facility
> for the right turn into Coldhams common. Hint "get off and use the
> pedestrian crossing" isn't an option.
Isn't it catered for in the traffic light phasing? I've not had a problem
there myself.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
jifl...@jifvik.org.removethis.invalid (Jonathan Larmour) wrote:
> It's still not clear to me why an officer is allowed to counterdemand
> government guidelines without having to justify how the guidelines are
> wrong. If they want evidence then surely it's up to the officer to find
> out what the guidelines were based on. That should be his job if he
> wishes to go against government guidelines. Not ours or yours. Not that
> we would be able to get an answer out of the DoT anyway (but he should).
It's been accepted by councillors of all parties for many years. The
Government's guidelines are just advice. It is often not that applicable
to environments like our with much higher levels of cycling than the
average.
> Has any proper study between made in Cambridge about the number of
> accidents in narrow lanes than proper lanes? Looking at each lane
> individually by waiting for a safety report will produce results without
> statistical significance as the accident rate for an individual lane
> would be too low. It may even be too low across the whole city. That's
> why bodies like central government compile statistics and why they
> would know when an individual city wouldn't.
There are few studies but the one from Oxford I referred to and the
Cambridge accident records suggest lane width is not a significant factor.
Colin Rosenstiel
Tim Ward
news:memo.2003060...@a01-09-5548.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
>
> Neither Tim nor I had to add anything.
I did say that it would be easier to decide if we actually had some facts.
Response: laughter.
[Note for newcomers: if there's just one provably right technical solution
officers tend to just get on with it. Only where guesswork, gut feel,
prejudice and so on need to be involved are politicians asked to make
decisions. This is so that they get to take the blame if they guess wrong.]
Paul Rudin
> [Note for newcomers: if there's just one provably right technical solution
> officers tend to just get on with it.
So that never happens then...
Paul Rudin
So were are the accident records that prove conclusively that a thin
cycle lane is better than no cycle lane _on the same stretch of road_.
Arguments I've seen relating to cycle lanes based on accident records
are full of bogus assumptions. An obvious one being that the roads
with cycle lanes are not the same roads as those without. People tend
to put cycle lanes where there is plenty of space for cars to pass
cycles safely anyway. So it's hardly surprising that the the accident
records are better on those roads. You need records for the same road
with and without a (in this case: thin) cycle lane.
Martin Lucas-Smith
> > I don't quite understand why you are prepared to place your faith in
> > the "professional engineers' professional judgement" on this matter,
> > when said professionals almost certainly do not cycle.
>
> It's perfectly reasonable that not every traffic engineer has personal
> experience of every stretch of road using every possible means of
> transport.
This is true, but it sounds to me as if what you're saying is that traffic
engineers who don't cycle are generally in a better position to judge
cycle safety than experienced cyclists.
> It seems there is a strong consensus from people's personal experience
> that narrow lanes are worse than none at all
Indeed, it seems particularly noticable that almost the only people
disagreeing are the Councillors actually making the decision.
Martin
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
> Paul Rudin wrote:
Not showing any problems for the cyclists, despite this being (unlike
Coldham's Lane) a major tourist parking area). How many recorded accidents
before and after involving doors being opened, please?
The Hull example is laughable. If we had room for a *dual carriageway* in
Trumpington Road we might do the same. We don't, neither in terms of funds
being available nor in terms of such a property grab being acceptable.
A wonderful example of the perfectionist attitude causing paralysis.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
Rudin) wrote:
Yes it does. We had five schemes before us yesterday because the sixth (in
Mowbray Road) had gone through without objection.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
Rudin) wrote:
> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
>
> > In article <105481831...@echo.uk.clara.net>,
> > st...@pSoPgAgMle.org (Steve Hunt) wrote:
> >
> > > > It seems to me that *all* the hazards ascribed to 1.2M cycle lanes
> > > > already exist without cycle lanes.
> > >
> > > I disagree. I find that drivers pass more closely when there is a
> > > narrow cycle lane than where there is no cycle lane at all. I put
> > > this down to the assumption that provided they don't enter the cycle
> > > lane, they're OK.
> >
> > Not supported by the accident records.
>
> So were are the accident records that prove conclusively that a thin
> cycle lane is better than no cycle lane _on the same stretch of road_.
If you think those are viable alternatives you haven't been following the
discussion. The road isn't wide enough to allow wider cycle lanes.
> Arguments I've seen relating to cycle lanes based on accident records
> are full of bogus assumptions. An obvious one being that the roads
> with cycle lanes are not the same roads as those without. People tend
> to put cycle lanes where there is plenty of space for cars to pass
> cycles safely anyway. So it's hardly surprising that the the accident
> records are better on those roads. You need records for the same road
> with and without a (in this case: thin) cycle lane.
The schemes before the Committee yesterday were all about reducing
accidents at some of the County's 200-odd worst accident sites.
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Rudin
I was commenting on the "provable right technical solution" really. I
think people are deluding themselves if they believe such a thing
exists when it comes to road design.
Paul Rudin
> In article <m3ptls8...@ntlworld.com>, paul....@ntlworld.com (Paul
> Rudin) wrote:
>
> > rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) writes:
> >
> > > In article <105481831...@echo.uk.clara.net>,
> > > st...@pSoPgAgMle.org (Steve Hunt) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > It seems to me that *all* the hazards ascribed to 1.2M cycle lanes
> > > > > already exist without cycle lanes.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree. I find that drivers pass more closely when there is a
> > > > narrow cycle lane than where there is no cycle lane at all. I put
> > > > this down to the assumption that provided they don't enter the cycle
> > > > lane, they're OK.
> > >
> > > Not supported by the accident records.
> >
> > So were are the accident records that prove conclusively that a thin
> > cycle lane is better than no cycle lane _on the same stretch of road_.
>
> If you think those are viable alternatives you haven't been following the
> discussion. The road isn't wide enough to allow wider cycle lanes.
I did propose an alternative, I commented on your unsubstatiated claim
about accident records.
If you want a viable alteranive on such is not to have a cycle lane.
>
> > Arguments I've seen relating to cycle lanes based on accident records
> > are full of bogus assumptions. An obvious one being that the roads
> > with cycle lanes are not the same roads as those without. People tend
> > to put cycle lanes where there is plenty of space for cars to pass
> > cycles safely anyway. So it's hardly surprising that the the accident
> > records are better on those roads. You need records for the same road
> > with and without a (in this case: thin) cycle lane.
>
> The schemes before the Committee yesterday were all about reducing
> accidents at some of the County's 200-odd worst accident sites.
>
Of course it's good to try and reduce accidents; but proceeding on the
basis of drawing incorrect conclusions from accident records is not
necessarily going to help.
DR de Lacey
>
>>Ah. I thought this was about standards, professionalism, evidence. It's
>>just about money.
>
>
> It's about saving as many lives as possible for a finite amount of money,
Er, to quote one T Ward: "Evidence?"
Douglas de Lacey.
DR de Lacey
>>I think you're making a few assumptions there which will only become
>>apparent if and when the lane is installed.
>
>
>
> We've already got at least one example of exactly this kind of thing
> in Cambridge - Trumpington road.
And a stretch at the top of Castle Hill...
Douglas de Lacey.
Meldrew of Meldreth
<paul....@ntlworld.com> writes
>> The schemes before the Committee yesterday were all about reducing
>> accidents at some of the County's 200-odd worst accident sites.
>>
>
>Of course it's good to try and reduce accidents; but proceeding on the
>basis of drawing incorrect conclusions from accident records is not
>necessarily going to help.
If accidents *do* go down, than a completely different set of people
will claim it was all due to speed cameras!
Which brings us back to the discussions in the book "Risk", and how
regression to mean will probably account for most of the accident
reduction at the places Colin's just decided to splatter with loads more
white paint. Which also means that other places will experience higher
(compared to the new average) accident rates, so there'll be a new and
different top-200 sites to play with next year... and so on.
Meldrew of Meldreth
writes
>> We've already got at least one example of exactly this kind of thing
>> in Cambridge - Trumpington road.
>
>And there are photos of what occurs there:
>
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/37/article3.html
"In some cases this can mean the situation is worse than if
there was no facility, and Trumpington Road is a bad example of
such a case."
Isn't actually a *good* example ... of a bad practice?
DR de Lacey
> In article <3EDF07B9...@cam.ac.uk>, de...@cam.ac.uk (DR de Lacey)
> wrote:
>
>
>>In several messages Colin Rosenstiel said:
>
>
>> >>http://www.iht.org/IHT.org/pub/CycleFriendly.html
>> >
>> >
>> > What does this have to say where there isn't room for the desirable
>> > minimum? Does it say that no facility should be provided? Thought
>>
>>>not.
>>
>>
>>*must* be a good thing. Can you get it into your head that a
>>dangerously substandard provision is *not* a facility?
>>
>>
>>
>>>The biggest gain, supported by the Oxford study, is that the
>>>presence of cycle lanes will make the carriageway appear narrower to
>>>motorists and they will therefore drive slower.
>>
>
>
> Why so funny. It's been observed here too.
What's been observed: hysterical laughter at the suggestion that the
sight of a cycle lane is so soothing it slows cars down? Look, there are
even *20 mph signs* hidden^W on Grange Road, and cycle lanes (admittedly
veeeeeeeeeery thin, but they are there) and do drivers do less than 20?
Or 30? Do they heck.
>
>>>Safety is not an absolute.
>>>
>>>For the nth time what evidence do you adduce that 1.2M cycle lanes
>>>will be *less* safe than the status quo?
>>
>>And what evidence will you adduce on the other side?
>>
I notice your answer to this ...
>>
>>>The point of the exercise is to reduce the high number of accidents
>>>there.
>>
>>Even at the expence of reducing the cycling population? Good on yer.
>
>
> On the contrary. The clincher in my mind is that my experience tells me it
> will help cycle safety.
... is this. Now when people like the CCC cite "experience" you just
scream "Evidence?" Why is *your* experience so dogmatically superior,
please?
Douglas de Lacey.
Michael M Mason
Rosenstiel) wrote:
>The Hull example is laughable. If we had room for a *dual carriageway* in
>Trumpington Road we might do the same.
Well, you *could* have a dual carriageway if you made the lanes narrow
enough...
--
Michael
Mark Ayliffe
Well I only use it very occasionally as I said, but I usually find I'm
turing right into the Coldham's common entrance against the oncoming traffic
coming off the railway bridge which is a touch scary[1] as I'd guess that
only some vehicles are keeping within the speed limit. AFAIK there is no
green phase only for traffic heading towards the bridge, BICBW as I say.
OK, so this is going ahead, now I need an alternate route from Glebe road to
SJIC avoiding Coldham's lane, ah I see there's a back street one[2], which
though no doubt slower will be safer modulo Cromwell road[3]. I wonder if I
can rememebr that?
[1] And rest assured that if _I_ find it scary many cyclists will avoid it
altogether.
[2] http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/sub/eandt/highways/cambridge/cycmap.jpg[5]
[3] At least I'll be Northbound, it may be a little less problematic than
Southbound where a cyclist needs patient drivers[4] behind.
[4] FX Hollow laughter
[5] Looking at that I'm inclined to wonder why there is no cycle/footpath
across the common from the Sainsburys roundabout to the other paths?
--
Mark
Please remove nospam |
to reply by email. | Only dead fish go with the flow.
www.ayliffe.org |