Cycle lanes on roundabouts

Tim Woodall said:

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is
shown in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in
that the cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only
have one location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they
must not assume they have priority."

Does this really mean that cyclists on the roundabout are expected to
give way to traffic joining the roundabout?

I think that is their expectation, yes. Or at least, that car drivers
should be entitled to get away with assuming that cyclists will defer
to them. Heaven forbid that cyclists assume that drivers will drive
in accordance with the rules. (You'll also note in 7.42 that
motorists are confused when they have to give way "once for cyclists
and secondly for traffic".)

I really don't understand teh justification for this - at roundabouts,
you give way to all traffic approaching from teh right. If you're
dumb enough not to understand that, your really not suitable to
be let out in control of car, surely?

This document appears to be a year old, yet I've not heard of it
before. The only hope for the situation is the fact that few
roundabouts have cycle lanes marked.

regards, Ian SMith

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:04:30 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is shown
in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in that the
cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only have one
location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they must not assume
they have priority."

I have a better idea: get rid of the fatuous cycle lane and remind the
cyclists to ride in the primary position. At which point drivers
still only have one location to give way and cyclists retain the
priority. Job done.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Tim Woodall said:

Increasing Understanding of Traffic Signs:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_033646.pdf
(Warning ~4.7MB download)

Pages 61/62

Section 7.44

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is shown
in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in that the
cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only have one
location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they must not assume
they have priority."

Does this really mean that cyclists on the roundabout are expected to
give way to traffic joining the roundabout?

It seems that way, which, as Mr. Larrington would say, is this: [censored].

Quoted message said:

You missed the para preceeding it:

7.42 The problem identified with the circulatory cycle lane on
roundabouts was the use of the double ‘give way’ marking at entry
roads. Driving instructors told us that drivers were uncertain as to
when to stop and give way. The research team do not accept this since
drivers must give way at both locations, once for cyclists and
secondly for traffic from the right. However, the observation caused
us to consider whether it was possible to improve the traffic
management and hence safety of the installation.

7.43 Although cycle lanes on roundabouts are not a prescribed marking,
some local highway

Which is bollocks. The problem with the circulatory cycle lane is that
it's dangerous. I see the CTC were consulted. Surely a good answer
from them would be to get the things scrapped.

Quoted message said:

I can understand if they were talking about traffic exiting the
roundabout while the cycle lane was painted around the outside because
now you have cyclists going round in the wrong position compared to
the majority of traffic. But for traffic joining there is no excuse
regardless of whether cyclists are in the "normal" traffic position or
in the outside lane.

Looking at fig 7.1 it would seem that the only those in the
circulatory cycle lane would be affected. The whole thing sounds like
a recipe for disaster.

Tim (another one)

Tim Woodall said:

Increasing Understanding of Traffic Signs:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_033646.pdf
(Warning ~4.7MB download)

Pages 61/62

Section 7.44

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is shown
in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in that the
cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only have one
location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they must not assume
they have priority."

Does this really mean that cyclists on the roundabout are expected to
give way to traffic joining the roundabout?

With a continuous outer circle cycle lane a cyclist might assume that
they have priority joining the roundabout. With the broken cycle lane
recommended there should be no such assumption. Of course a cyclist
already on a roundabout should have priority crossing an entry point.

Quoted message said:

I can understand if they were talking about traffic exiting the
roundabout while the cycle lane was painted around the outside because
now you have cyclists going round in the wrong position compared to
the majority of traffic. But for traffic joining there is no excuse
regardless of whether cyclists are in the "normal" traffic position or
in the outside lane.

Tim.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:52:58 +0100, Tilly <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

With a continuous outer circle cycle lane a cyclist might assume that
they have priority joining the roundabout. With the broken cycle lane
recommended there should be no such assumption.

But what, exactly, does the cycle lane add, other than confusion?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Tim Hall said:

Looking at fig 7.1 it would seem that the only those in the
circulatory cycle lane would be affected. The whole thing sounds
like a recipe for disaster.

Especially as both the cyclist foolish enough to be using the lane, and
the motorist entering the roundabout have to cross a dotted line. It
looks to me as if they're both expected to give way. Surely in this
case the vehicle on the right, i.e. the cyclist, has priority but the
document doesn't make this clear. What it does make clear is that the
document's authors do not regard cyclists as traffic.

Circulatory cycle lanes are hideously dangerous to start with. This
crackpot idea will simply increase the danger for cyclists.

--
Dave...

Just zis Guy said:

But what, exactly, does the cycle lane add, other than confusion?

The grim reaper.

--
Dave...

Tony W said:

Under these circumstances which Johnny Plonker in his BMW do
I assume is going to kill me -- the one entering the roundabout
without giving way to traffic already circulating OR, if I give
way to him, the one 'circulating with thumb in bum, brain in
neutral and phone strapped to head who rams me up the jacksey.

I doesn't matter. They will both be exonerated because you were not in
the cycle lane.

Quoted message said:

What pillocks concoct such Total Bollox (TM).

I cannot begin to imagine.

--
Dave...

in message <[email hidden]>, Tim Hall

(') said:

7.42 The problem identified with the circulatory cycle lane on
roundabouts was the use of the double ‘give way’ marking at entry
roads. Driving instructors told us that drivers were uncertain as to
when to stop and give way. The research team do not accept this since
drivers must give way at both locations, once for cyclists and
secondly for traffic from the right. However, the observation caused
us to consider whether it was possible to improve the traffic
management and hence safety of the installation.

Which is bollocks. The problem with the circulatory cycle lane is that
it's dangerous. I see the CTC were consulted. Surely a good answer
from them would be to get the things scrapped.

Absolutely. Cycle lanes in general are a bad idea, but on roundabouts
they're lethal.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Generally Not Used
;; Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:04:30 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

"The suggestion from the consultants for improving the situation is shown
in Figure 7.1 and differs from the current arrangements in that the
cycle lane is disontinuous at the entry points Drivers only have one
location to Give Way and cyclist will be aware that they must not assume
they have priority."

I have a better idea: get rid of the fatuous cycle lane and remind the
cyclists to ride in the primary position. At which point drivers
still only have one location to give way and cyclists retain the
priority. Job done.

Guy

And as for the foolish, brain-dead moron who drew up the offending text, who
is he/she, where is he/she & when is the ritual shooting & burning of the
body??

Cheers, helen s

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which Johnny Plonker in his BMW do I assume is going to kill me

It's quite easy:

1. If there's a car behind you the one entering will imagine you're not
there, but give way to the car behind you - giving way to you as a
consequence.
2. If there's no car behind you, the one entering will imagine you're
not there and pull out.

In number 2, if you have the audacity to fail to stop in time and get
run over, the driver will claim you entered from the same road as them,
on their right and swerved across in front of them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what is the situation with the wise cyclist who looks at the

colourfully
painted gutter round the roundabout and thinks 'that's pretty' -- and
'I'm
going nowhere near that, its a death trap' while adopting the correct
position on the road as set out for all traffic in the highway code?

Unfortunately, the situation for the wise cyclist, is that if they do
happen to be run down, it will count against them because of HC rule 49
"Keep within the lane wherever possible." Although this is not a
"MUST", it will be used to show that the cyclist was not following the
highway code and therefore was partly to blame.

you know? said:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:52:58 +0100, Tilly <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

With a continuous outer circle cycle lane a cyclist might assume that
they have priority joining the roundabout. With the broken cycle lane
recommended there should be no such assumption.

But what, exactly, does the cycle lane add, other than confusion?

Possibly not within this context, confusion can be a good thing. Mini
roundabouts are said to cause confusion, therefore road users approach
them with a certain caution. Allegedly.

Round here, their influence on speed and course of an X5 is
immeasurably small.

you know? said:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:52:58 +0100, Tilly <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

With a continuous outer circle cycle lane a cyclist might assume that
they have priority joining the roundabout. With the broken cycle lane
recommended there should be no such assumption.

But what, exactly, does the cycle lane add, other than confusion?

If you read my reply again, you will note I made no judgement on the
right or wrong of such a cycle lane, I simply tried to clear the case
of priority up.

I agree that it looks horrendous - but perhaps a mild improvement on
those signs instructing cyclists to dismount!

Tilly said:

I agree that it looks horrendous - but perhaps a mild improvement on
those signs instructing cyclists to dismount!

I thought those signs were for pavement riders crossing roundabout
junctions.

In Peterborough there's a cycle path on the tow path, which then joins
a car park access road, before joining the main road. At the junction
with the main road there are two large signs "Cyclists Dismount" -
which always makes me wonder - dismount and then what? walk along the
pavement presumably. Where would you be expected to remount?

iakobski said:

In Peterborough there's a cycle path on the tow path, which then joins
a car park access road, before joining the main road. At the junction
with the main road there are two large signs "Cyclists Dismount" -
which always makes me wonder - dismount and then what? walk along the
pavement presumably. Where would you be expected to remount?

You remount when you get to the next sign with a bicycle on a blue
background. If no such sign shows itself then you have to walk home!

Colin

On 20/4/05 11:26 am, in article [email hidden], "Colin

Blackburn said:

iakobski said:

In Peterborough there's a cycle path on the tow path, which then joins
a car park access road, before joining the main road. At the junction
with the main road there are two large signs "Cyclists Dismount" -
which always makes me wonder - dismount and then what? walk along the
pavement presumably. Where would you be expected to remount?

You remount when you get to the next sign with a bicycle on a blue
background. If no such sign shows itself then you have to walk home!

No, you stop. Get off, get back on again and ride off on your way. You have
complied with the instruction.

...d

David Martin said:

On 20/4/05 11:26 am, in article [email hidden], "Colin

Blackburn said:

iakobski said:

In Peterborough there's a cycle path on the tow path, which then joins
a car park access road, before joining the main road. At the junction
with the main road there are two large signs "Cyclists Dismount" -
which always makes me wonder - dismount and then what? walk along the
pavement presumably. Where would you be expected to remount?

You remount when you get to the next sign with a bicycle on a blue
background. If no such sign shows itself then you have to walk home!

No, you stop. Get off, get back on again and ride off on your way. You have
complied with the instruction.

Instruction? Surely its a statement of inevitability.

Colin