Cyclist killed after crash on 'inadequately marked crossing'

Runningwolf wrote:

To be honest this could happen to anyone of us who cycle regually. 

Actually I don't think it could. It's far more likely to result in hurting a novice or casual cyclist who rides less defensively.  
Blaming the motorist isn't right for this one unless they were driving illegally. 99% down to the people who built such a poor crossing. 

Raised "table tops" are never a bad idea, makes the motorist consider slowing.

The problem with raised sections in this country is that there's a discontinuity between the pavement and the table top - it sends the message that motorists have priority.

Was it these? Ranty Highwayman, Robert Weetman's series (I'd recommend as much of his site as you've time for) [1] [2], a collection from the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain (I think they're just here for the Ferrero Rocher), Not Just Bikes. Edinburgh has about 4 different generations of these, most are "cargo cult" quality e.g. junk. The latest efforts are almost there but still missing the most important thing. That is making it totally clear the car is entering a pedestrian / cycling space. So the driver should a) expect pedestrians and cyclists to be there and b) not park / linger while waiting for the road to clear / bully others out of their way because it is not their space.

Raised tables - a bit like speed bumps I'm not a huge fan because of course in the UK you end up having to go over them on your bike. It normally hurts you more than a driver. Plus in my experience they tend to wear faster than the surrounding road surface and then you've got a cyclocross facility.

Thanks, that first link was what I was thinking of.

ktache wrote:

Raised "table tops" are never a bad idea, makes the motorist consider slowing.

With respect, I disagree. Table tops and sleeping policeman simply encourage more 4x4 vehicles with long travel or air suspension that can be driven without due care and attention over such obstacles. I suggest that better alternatives exist, e.g. alternate priority reduction to single track. Thus one track must give way to the other and slow down regardless of suspension properties. Typically these are used so that leaving the area has priority over entering. I don't know if that is appropriate in this case, but it's often a good answer.

lonpfrb wrote:

 With respect, I disagree. Table tops and sleeping policeman simply encourage more 4x4 vehicles with long travel or air suspension that can be driven without due care and attention over such obstacles.

With respect I don't think there is any evidence to support that statement. 

ktache wrote:

Raised "table tops" are never a bad idea, makes the motorist consider slowing.

if a zebra crossing is not appropriate because the road is 40mph, then raised table tops are surely not appropriate. Much as I want to reduce car dominance, I don't think launching them is a good idea.

I would think starting with a 30mph limit and a zebra might be best, if that is not acceptable, then lights with a button controled crossing. And not press the button wait for a minute then cross, just change immediately, there is no reason to believe that motorists who might be arriving in 60seconds will be less inconvenienced than motorists who might be arriving now, I don't see why pedestrians are normally subjected to this wait, is it supposed to disincentive crossing the road 

The real objection is probably that zebra or pelican crossing will require power to the location where currently there is none.

Thanks for the link - those are good photos.

It appears that it is possible to cross the road from the path without having to slow down; if that's the case, it surprises me. Round here, we have lots of 'staggered bollards', such that on your bike you HAVE to slow down. They can be a pain in the neck (or worse), but must surely be better than being wiped out by passing traffic.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

It appears that it is possible to cross the road from the path without having to slow down; if that's the case, it surprises me. Round here, we have lots of 'staggered bollards', such that on your bike you HAVE to slow down. They can be a pain in the neck (or worse), but must surely be better than being wiped out by passing traffic.

Hmm... if they're worse than a pain in the neck (eg. you come off and break yours) then not better than the traffic.

Again - having no "official crossing" might be entirely appropriate in this particular circumstance. My complaint is that where we roll out the bollards / pedestrian fences to "keep people safe from the cars" it rather begs the question. Why should people walking and wheeling divert so that the motor vehicles can go straight on? Or rather when we design a road and spend tons of money on it why can't we make it so people can cross the road safely and conveniently? "Grade separation" where needed.

The other one is "slow down the cyclists". a) The numbers suggest that this is not really a problem and b) if cyclists and pedestrians are coming into conflict maybe consider giving them their own space.

Thanks - it looks like it's here on Google streetview. So a trail crosses an A road and then continues alongside a side road.

Reading their comments:

"A number of options were considered how to treat this crossing.As Zebra crossings are not permitted in 40mph zones this option was discounted. A Puffin crossing would be need to be a 3 way system due to the proximity of the Western amenity site junction. This option was discounted as being inappropriate for a rural road. It was concluded that highlighting the presence of the existing informal crossing was the most appropriate solution"

It depends - if this is just "occasional recreational" then I'd probably agree. If this trail was either more heavily used or also envisaged as a "route" then that answer is simply saying "we're not going to pay to do a properly safe job". (To be fair it looks like they have done some work on the far side of the road crossing to connect it with the onward trail.) Their design is pretty but - as with everything we seem to do in a non-standard fashion - doesn't actually convey anything to the average road user. That's why we have standardised signs and road markings / layout - like you can find in the highway code (bingo!).

Quote:

"A number of options were considered how to treat this crossing.As Zebra crossings are not permitted in 40mph zones this option was discounted."

Sounds like lowering the speed limit to 30mph was also discounted.

Tom_77 wrote:

Sounds like lowering the speed limit to 30mph was also discounted.

Well it's an A road, innit? Can't suddenly have 30mph on an A road.

This is exactly my point about many other interventions to protect vulnerable road users. The logic always starts with "convenience for the motorist" as the first, given point. Then everything else is made to fit "as best we can" given a much smaller budget. Because we expect to spend large sums of money on the roads and not on cyclists and pedestrians because that's how it is. Even though you may actually have as many or more non-car users who use or want to use a particular route. Despite any "hierarchy of road users" in practice and in people's mindsets the motor vehicle is at the top.

Again - in this particular case it might be a perfectly reasonable compromise. It may make sense to impede those on this path, make them wait and put the risk of crossing a road with fast traffic on them. * I would certainly hope this prompts a re-evaluation of ways to alert the drivers in advance though. Which should be done in a standard way which clearly conveys what the hazard ahead is. So not just a spash of Celtic knotwork on the road, nice though that looks.

* Taking into account relative volumes of traffic, constraints of the site, costs etc. Being aware of arguments like "the road was there first" That may be true but has little bearing on the now.  And of course the pedestrians, horses and carts were usually there first if you want to get historical...