UK and Europe · Public discussion

Cycle lane chicanes

Started by Mark · · Last activity · 34 posts · 1,351 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
10 April 2008
Last activity
21 April 2008
Original author
Mark
Posts
34
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,351
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 34
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Martin Way, running from the A298 in Raynes Park (London) to Morden
    has recently had some roadworks including resurfacing and building
    some dreadful things that I can only describe as "bike lane chicanes".
    Some bits of Martin Way have cycle gutters -- you know, a 60cm wide
    strip separated from the rest of the road with a white line -- some
    bits have pictures of bikes painted on the left-hand side of the road
    and other bits have no cycle facilities or markings at all. But along
    the length of the road there's perhaps 7 or 8 of these chicane things
    which I'll attempt to describe.

    Right. On the left side of the road is a bollard on a red road
    surface, and to the left of that is a 60cm wide gap into a "lane" for
    cyclists, complete with a picture of a bike. Some of the lanes rise to
    pavement level. At the end of the "lane", where the red road ends, is
    a give way line. About 3 metres from this point, in the centre of the
    road (which isn't wide, but perfectly wide enough for a cyclist and
    car to occupy one half of it side-by-side), is another bollard or
    perhaps a pair of them and a streetlight or something. If anyone's
    interested I'll try to find a place to stick a photo of one. If you're
    seeing this post with a fixed-width font here's some bad ASCII art:

    |

    #O#
    # # <-- bollards/island
    #O#

    |
    =| <-- give way
    # |
    O <-- bollard
    # |
    #
    ^ | <-- central white line
    |
    bike "lane"

    # = red paint, white lines, etc

    If a cyclist and a car go into this thing at the same time the effect
    is that the car overtakes the cyclist and is then forced directly into
    the path of the cyclist by the central bollard. Yes, there's a give
    way line for the cycle "lane" but that's hardly convenient. Should I
    be stopping every 100m at one of these contraptions? More worryingly
    the whole thing provides a perfect opportunity, by physically
    splitting the cyclist from the rest of the traffic, however briefly,
    for a car (or lorry, etc) to overtake a cyclist when there's not
    enough room or time. On the few occasions when I've used the "lane"
    about 50% of them have resulted in a car passing me without enough
    room. I generally ride in the middle of the traffic lane in the
    primary position when passing through, risking irritating drivers
    behind me (but that doesn't stop me -- my safety's more important).

    My only guess is that they're for traffic calming. In which case, why
    can't the whole lane be chicaned so there's not enough room for a
    vehicle to pass without room? Trying to provide space for both vehicle
    and cyclist, side-by-side, in a chicane just doesn't work. Thinking
    more about it I suppose the only redeeming feature is that it gives an
    escape path for a cyclist if a car and cyclist do try to enter side-by-
    side.

    I'm not trying to be inflammatory or overly sensational about these
    things; I genuinely think they're dangerous and badly thought-out.
    Traffic might need calming but that's no excuse for features that
    (IMHO) push the danger onto other road users.

    Mark

  2. "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Martin Way, running from the A298 in Raynes Park (London) to Morden
    has recently had some roadworks including resurfacing and building
    some dreadful things that I can only describe as "bike lane chicanes".
    Some bits of Martin Way have cycle gutters -- you know, a 60cm wide
    strip separated from the rest of the road with a white line -- some
    bits have pictures of bikes painted on the left-hand side of the road
    and other bits have no cycle facilities or markings at all. But along
    the length of the road there's perhaps 7 or 8 of these chicane things.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm not trying to be inflammatory or overly sensational about these


    things; I genuinely think they're dangerous and badly thought-out.
    Traffic might need calming but that's no excuse for features that
    (IMHO) push the danger onto other road users.

    Mark

    From your description this setup sounds very similar to the chicanes along
    DuCane Road in West London.

    The effect of these at the exits from them is that motorised traffic is
    directed slightly to the left whilst a cyclist is diverted to the right to
    avoid the legally parked cars a few yards ahead. Bloody terrible design.
    I won't go near them and like you always stay in the primary position in the
    main traffic flow.
    I wish cycling advocates would stop banging on about how we need facilities.
    Just leave the roads unclutterd and educate all parties.

    Toby

  3. Mark said:

    I'm not trying to be inflammatory or overly sensational about these
    things; I genuinely think they're dangerous and badly thought-out.
    Traffic might need calming but that's no excuse for features that
    (IMHO) push the danger onto other road users.

    I'd hate to imagine what 'overly sensational' would look like when
    describing such a terrible design!

    Maybe a letter or phone call to the council to ask how they work?

    In my experience, the standard narrowings with a cycle down one side
    and no central bollards are bad enough as cars go through the narrowing
    then swerve back over into the path of cyclists going along the cycle
    lane.

    peter

  4. On 10 Apr, 18:23, naked_draughtsman <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Mark said:

    I'm not trying to be inflammatory or overly sensational about these
    things; I genuinely think they're dangerous and badly thought-out.
    Traffic might need calming but that's no excuse for features that
    (IMHO) push the danger onto other road users.

    I'd hate to imagine what 'overly sensational' would look like when
    describing such a terrible design!

    Maybe a letter or phone call to the council to ask how they work?

    Yep, that's exactly the plan. I'm sure these things are accidents
    waiting to happen.

    Here's a couple of photos:

    http://tinyurl.com/5d4nyz

    Cheers,

    Mark


  5. Quoted message said:


    Yep, that's exactly the plan. I'm sure these things are accidents
    waiting to happen.

    Here's a couple of photos:

    http://tinyurl.com/5d4nyz

    Cheers,

    Mark

    Mark,

    thanks for the pix. Quite literally unbelievable. If you hadn't posted the
    pix I would have assumed you were exaggerating.

    Couple of things you might like to try: the council must have done a safety
    check on the design, ask for it. Also find out if they did a cycle audit -
    I'm not sure if they are legally obliged to do so, but any responsible
    council would have done so - ask for that too. Also worth asking who is
    responsible for the design, and what design guidelines they were following -
    if they don't mention Cycle Friendly Infrastructure or the London Cycle
    Network Design Manual, then what were they using? Also find out if they
    consulted local cyclists.

    Point out to them that if a cyclist is involved in a collision at these
    sites, they could be legally liable for failing in their duty to make the
    roads safe for all users, and this would cost the council taxpayers
    millions, and that council officers could be individually legally liable.
    Make sure you copy this to the exec member for transport, the director of
    transport, and the heads of the opposition parties on the council.

    When they have deliberately avoided answering any of the above questions,
    get in touch with your local media, organise protest rides, get local
    cyclists involved, whatever it takes.

    but DON'T LET THE [censored] GET AWAY WITH IT!!

    Best of luck, and please keep this forum infomed.

  6. "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On 10 Apr, 18:23, naked_draughtsman <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Mark said:

    I'm not trying to be inflammatory or overly sensational about these
    things; I genuinely think they're dangerous and badly thought-out.
    Traffic might need calming but that's no excuse for features that
    (IMHO) push the danger onto other road users.

    I'd hate to imagine what 'overly sensational' would look like when
    describing such a terrible design!

    Maybe a letter or phone call to the council to ask how they work?

    Yep, that's exactly the plan. I'm sure these things are accidents
    waiting to happen.

    Here's a couple of photos:

    http://tinyurl.com/5d4nyz


    Look at the tyre marks on the far ends of the islands - on both sides. I've
    never seen anything designed to deliberately bring cyclists and motorists
    into conflict like this. Lunacy. The only safe way through it is to take the
    course intended for cars. A bike can straight-line it, whereas cars will
    have to slow down to cycling speed, so at least the speed differential will
    be minimal as you ease into the/any stream of cars.

    Motorists are going to be complaining about it as much as cyclists. Worth
    taking it up with the council & local papers.

    Mark

  7. Mark wrote:
    Here's a couple of photos:

    Quoted message said:


    http://tinyurl.com/5d4nyz

    These are extremely dangerous. If you use them, then traffic not using
    the psycle lane *directly behind you* will have right of way over you.

    My advice is to follow the highway code,

    Quoted message said:

    63

    Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

    I suspect very few cyclists would have the experience and skills to
    safely use lanes like this one.
    Thus pull out into the primary position a long way before the lane, and
    cycle in the primary position past the lane. This way motorists should
    not assume that you will dart down the psycle lane.

    I also see that there is another death trap on the opposite side of the
    road.

    btw have you sent a copy of these pics to Warringtons fotm.

  8. "burtthebike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Couple of things you might like to try: the council must have done a
    safety check on the design, ask for it. Also find out if they did a cycle
    audit - I'm not sure if they are legally obliged to do so, but any
    responsible council would have done so - ask for that too. Also worth
    asking who is responsible for the design, and what design guidelines they
    were following - if they don't mention Cycle Friendly Infrastructure or
    the London Cycle Network Design Manual, then what were they using? Also
    find out if they consulted local cyclists.

    I live in the same area and the councilor for the ward in question is a
    personal friend.

    I will have a word in the morning!

    PK

  9. "PK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "burtthebike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Couple of things you might like to try: the council must have done a
    safety check on the design, ask for it. Also find out if they did a
    cycle audit - I'm not sure if they are legally obliged to do so, but any
    responsible council would have done so - ask for that too. Also worth
    asking who is responsible for the design, and what design guidelines they
    were following - if they don't mention Cycle Friendly Infrastructure or
    the London Cycle Network Design Manual, then what were they using? Also
    find out if they consulted local cyclists.

    I live in the same area and the councilor for the ward in question is a
    personal friend.

    I will have a word in the morning!

    PK

    Bad form I know responding to my own post, but it keeps it together.

    I suspect the drive behind the traffic calming was a fatal accident on the
    crossing 100m over the brow of the hill in the picture (actually a bridge
    over a railway cutting) - there have been flowers taped to the crossing post
    for a couple of years now.

    They are already the subject of adverse comment in the local rag;

    http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/search/display.var.2150611.0.i_have_really_got_the_hump.php

    http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/interactive/letters/wimbledonletters/display.var.2150518.0.roadworks_cost_would_build_schools.php

    pk

  10. Mark said:

    On 10 Apr, 18:23, naked_draughtsman <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Mark said:

    I'm not trying to be inflammatory or overly sensational about these
    things; I genuinely think they're dangerous and badly thought-out.
    Traffic might need calming but that's no excuse for features that
    (IMHO) push the danger onto other road users.

    I'd hate to imagine what 'overly sensational' would look like when
    describing such a terrible design!

    Maybe a letter or phone call to the council to ask how they work?

    Yep, that's exactly the plan. I'm sure these things are accidents
    waiting to happen.

    Here's a couple of photos:

    http://tinyurl.com/5d4nyz

    Cheers,

    Mark

    heh ooh lovely, yes worth contacting coucil and maybe local press.

    there some traffic carlming with out the give ways but with plants in
    the bike lane nr Weybridge. quite exilrating at night coming down the
    hill at night...

    roger
    --
    www.rogermerriman.com

  11. On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:02:52 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Mark
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    Here's a couple of photos:

    http://tinyurl.com/5d4nyz

    The product of someone who looks at the world only through a
    windscreen.

    At the very least the give way line and triangle should be across
    the general road.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh
    I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

  12. MarkK said:

    Look at the tyre marks on the far ends of the islands - on both sides.
    I've never seen anything designed to deliberately bring cyclists and
    motorists into conflict like this. Lunacy. The only safe way through it
    is to take the course intended for cars. A bike can straight-line it,
    whereas cars will have to slow down to cycling speed, so at least the
    speed differential will be minimal as you ease into the/any stream of
    cars.

    I would certainly avoid the deadly cycle lane and go through the main
    gap, occupying the middle of the lane. The problem is that this is
    likely to provoke aggressive reactions from motorists. I can deal with
    that but why should we be put in that situation?

    The other way is to go through as the designer clearly intended. I.e.
    approach the gap at a stately 12 mph. Come to a complete stop at the
    give way line, treating the cycle lane as a refuge. Wait for the
    important motorised to traffic to pass, tug your forelock, and resume
    your journey to the soup kitchen.

    --
    Dave...

  13. On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:55:36 GMT, Martin Dann <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    Mark wrote:
    Here's a couple of photos:

    Quoted message said:


    http://tinyurl.com/5d4nyz

    These are extremely dangerous. If you use them, then traffic not using
    the psycle lane *directly behind you* will have right of way over you.

    My advice is to follow the highway code,

    Quoted message said:

    63

    Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken)

    I suspect very few cyclists would have the experience and skills to
    safely use lanes like this one.
    Thus pull out into the primary position a long way before the lane, and
    cycle in the primary position past the lane. This way motorists should
    not assume that you will dart down the psycle lane.

    And have over agressive motorists try to run into you?

    M.

  14. Mark said:

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:55:36 GMT, Martin Dann <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Thus pull out into the primary position a long way before the lane, and
    cycle in the primary position past the lane. This way motorists should
    not assume that you will dart down the psycle lane.

    And have over agressive motorists try to run into you?

    On a similar (but not quite as bad) arrangement near me, I've had
    motorists hoot, rev wildly and swear equally wildly, but never
    actually drive over the top of me. You do have to be right in the
    middle of the lane, however - they won't actually drive into you if it
    might crack their windscreen, but if there's the slightest chance they
    could squeeze past they'll try it.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  15. Mark said:


    Yep, that's exactly the plan. I'm sure these things are accidents
    waiting to happen.

    Indeed but they have got that solved as it will be the cyclists fault as
    they have painted those give way lines.

    I'll be staying in the main traffic flow to get abuse from the motorists.

  16. Ian Smith said:
    Mark said:

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:55:36 GMT, Martin Dann <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Thus pull out into the primary position a long way before the lane, and
    cycle in the primary position past the lane. This way motorists should
    not assume that you will dart down the psycle lane.

    And have over agressive motorists try to run into you?

    On a similar (but not quite as bad) arrangement near me, I've had
    motorists hoot, rev wildly and swear equally wildly, but never
    actually drive over the top of me. You do have to be right in the
    middle of the lane, however - they won't actually drive into you if it
    might crack their windscreen, but if there's the slightest chance they
    could squeeze past they'll try it.

    I've had several occasions where I believe I would have been hit if I
    hadn't taken rapid avoiding action.

    BTW: Why are these road arrangements called "traffic calming"? IMHO
    they should be named "traffic agitators" or "Crash increasors"

    M.

  17. In article <[email hidden]>, Mark
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    On 11 Apr 2008 12:32:27 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
    they won't actually drive into you if it

    Quoted message said:

    might crack their windscreen, but if there's the slightest chance they
    could squeeze past they'll try it.

    I've had several occasions where I believe I would have been hit if I
    hadn't taken rapid avoiding action.


    You need to take more road in situations where you don't want to be
    overtaken or squeezed. I often do this by wobbling, or pulling out in
    front of an approaching vehicle without looking - that get's much more
    room than following a predictable path, when the driver might assume
    it's OK to pass with inches to spare.

  18. On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:45:14 +0100, Rob Morley <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Mark
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    On 11 Apr 2008 12:32:27 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
    they won't actually drive into you if it

    Quoted message said:

    might crack their windscreen, but if there's the slightest chance they
    could squeeze past they'll try it.

    I've had several occasions where I believe I would have been hit if I
    hadn't taken rapid avoiding action.


    You need to take more road in situations where you don't want to be
    overtaken or squeezed. I often do this by wobbling, or pulling out in
    front of an approaching vehicle without looking - that get's much more
    room than following a predictable path, when the driver might assume
    it's OK to pass with inches to spare.

    What the driver is not looking? Occasionally some drivers seem to
    deliberatly drive at a cyclist.

    M.

  19. In article <[email hidden]>, Mark
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:45:14 +0100, Rob Morley <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You need to take more road in situations where you don't want to be
    overtaken or squeezed. I often do this by wobbling, or pulling out in
    front of an approaching vehicle without looking - that get's much more
    room than following a predictable path, when the driver might assume
    it's OK to pass with inches to spare.

    What the driver is not looking?

    He's more likely to see you if you move across his field of vision than
    if you're just pootling along in the gutter.

    Quoted message said:

    Occasionally some drivers seem to deliberatly drive at a cyclist.


    Occasionally I deliberately ride at cars just to remind the drivers that
    I am also a vehicular road user - this unexpected behaviour usually
    seems to arouse them from their semi-comatose autopilot mode.

  20. On 10/04/2008 22:55, Martin Dann said,

    Quoted message said:


    Mark wrote:
    Here's a couple of photos:

    Quoted message said:


    http://tinyurl.com/5d4nyz


    These are extremely dangerous. If you use them, then traffic not using
    the psycle lane *directly behind you* will have right of way over you.

    [censored] - how on earth can anyone "designing" those chicanes not see
    just how dangerous they are?

    I'll go along with everyone who says to use the road.

    --
    Paul Boyd
    http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.