Near Miss of the Day 656: Driver cuts across rider at cyclist priority junction

nicmason wrote:

This is one of the problems I find with cycle lanes and makes me feel unsafe on them.

I dont trust cars to give way at the right point going over them leaving or joining the main road.

I prefer the idea of a slow 20 mph speed limit properly enforced in urban areas and cycles on the road..

I'm also suspicious of UK rubbish infra for reasons we all know and indeed if I'm in a hurry I may avoid sections that I don't know. However where done properly this is exactly what's needed. Speed limits are a great tool and we should make more use of them but they don't by themselves infallibly reduce speeds without far more enforcement than we can afford. They also won't lead to lots more people cycling. For that we need a reduction in interactions with lorries and cars - so that means a lot less cars or separate infra for bikes. The roads are designed for motor vehicles, not bikes. The fact that roadies can make use of them has little bearing on getting the general population out of their cars and on to bikes (a virtuous cycle!).

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2009/05/lower-speed-limits-are-not-enough.html

In my ideal world (the one that would never happen) there would be long distance cycle lanes clearly seperated from the road in rural areas and a lower speed limit and vehicular cycling in urban areas.  I drive in to North London sometimes and once I reach the 20mph zone I'm aware I'm driving at almost the same speed as most cyclists. Safer for everyone.   

nicmason wrote:

In my ideal world (the one that would never happen) there would be long distance cycle lanes clearly seperated from the road in rural areas and a lower speed limit and vehicular cycling in urban areas.  I drive in to North London sometimes and once I reach the 20mph zone I'm aware I'm driving at almost the same speed as most cyclists. Safer for everyone.   

I'll agree on the country part. I know what that looks like - and actually we have the space there so there's lots to do but politically easier. In my imaginary world I'd like to see urban cycling being common for kids, old people and those with disabilities - because that's friends and relatives. Vehicular cycling ain't going to do that nor are all these folks going to go at 20mph. (Agree with eBurtthebike that sometimes that is too much). That's why I want good infra (e.g. suitable for speedy and efficient as well as safe) in towns. Often the focus is (rightly) on crossings and junctions but the best kind is when you just use a totally different route than (most of) the cars. I see this daily - I'm lucky to be on a couple of off-road paved paths which traverse the city in two directions. No interaction with cars at all, outside of having to share with dog walkers (grr!) I go faster than on main roads - no traffic lights!

nicmason wrote:

This is one of the problems I find with cycle lanes and makes me feel unsafe on them.

I dont trust cars to give way at the right point going over them leaving or joining the main road.

I prefer the idea of a slow 20 mph speed limit properly enforced in urban areas and cycles on the road..

20mph is good, but 20kph is better.  That is the speed limit in woonerfs in Holland, and it really makes a difference.

Yip, it's the idea of a continuous footway. The unnecessary sign clutter would just be ignored and distract from the pedestrian/cyclist/footway. The whole design with ramps, changes in road surface with a clear continuous line presents a nice clear image that the driver is entering at permission and not automatically entitled. It works well in Europe but not with the numpties in the UK. Which says to me yet again we need to back these things up with presumed/strict liability and not more infrastructure to be ignored

Like all these improvements they work well if done well. They don't stand a chance if you don't do them properly. The more I look at this one the more it's clearly a "cargo cult" version of a good design. The "real" one is not magic - these interventions just work with physics and human psychology. They convey clearly whose space this is (whether vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian), what you should be doing and they aim to reduce risk and cognitive load. Our current designs also work with psychology - they convey "drive fast, only worry about looking for cars, we have made this place for your convenience".

As well as having suitable design goals and principles for these to "work" relies on designs being standard. Not like the colours and markings here!  The less consistent the designs the more confusing. Finally when introducing new designs it will always take some time before people get their head round them.

Presumed liability - everywhere this occurs it just affects civil compensation claims. Won't have any preventative effect. Beefing up enforcement and penalties would be what you're looking for. We should but that also comes to your aid after you've been squashed which is too late as far as I'm concerned.

Unfortunately I think you can build the optimum design but if a numptie is a numptie is doesn't matter how good the infrastructure is. We have to change the mindset of those numpties. Strict liability is just one tool to start making those numpties think twice. It's not rocket science to look at the countries near by who have been getting it right for years.

Go, guy, go!

Brilliant persuasive comments - BOUND to convince those who don't currently share your opinion to change their minds.

How do you do it?

What are you on about?

I am coming to the conclusion that you don't understand what a forum is.

Do you ever post anything that is relevant to the main topic under discussion?

hirsute wrote:

I am coming to the conclusion that you don't understand what a forum is.

Do you ever post anything that is relevant to the main topic under discussion?

It's not a troll, it's a bot!

.

Good spot that the ramp should not be set back from the kerb line (unless there’s space for a whole car length). Many Kingston side junctions with crossing cycle tracks have actually done it the “correct” way, so it’s unclear why Gordon Rd hasn’t. Given the way people drive in SE England though, the ramps maybe should be twice as high.

On the surface changes, the fact that there is a colour change of some sort for pedestrians is fair enough, because the footway leading up to it is the original light grey tarmac, presumably to keep costs down, while it’s possible that some of the footway by the self-storage warehouse is owned by the warehouse proprietors (and I'm speculating that they refused a bus stop bypass).

Heaven knows how you improve driver compliance - it’s another aspect of traffic and infrastructure in the UK that is 40 years behind high cycling countries. In this case you might build a big arch with flashing lights saying “give way to people cycling and walking in both directions”, perhaps triggered by sensors when active travellers pass.

Domo arigato gozaimasu!

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Not the finest cycle lane in the world.  The bit straight after the junction appears to be horribly thought out.  Mixed use pedestrain/bike with no warning for either.

Yeah, that was also pretty poor (you get a tiny "shared use" symbol on a bollard) - probably the money had run out by that point.  Although again for most of the UK "luxury, that!"

chrisonatrike wrote:

"luxury, that!"

Sad but true.

Agreed. Road culture has to change and that will take a consistent and concerted effort nationwide.

So what you are saying is you would ignore the big red signs alerting drivers to the fact they need to give way (there is one at the very start of the video so expect the same in the other direction), and only concentrate on the oncoming cars and nothing else. 

TBH another case of the one car flashing the other one which makes the turning driver assume it is safe for whatever manouvre they now has planned, whether there are cyclists, or kids crossing. 

I think this highlights the problem with bidirectional cycle paths on one side of the road. Without wanting to excuse the driver (who is clearly in the wrong), they are conditioned to look for oncoming traffic when turning.