Cycle route lane divider

squeaker said:

A new (official - as opposed to cycling on a footpath) cycle route
(between Shoreham-by-Sea and west Lancing) is to use a 'white
thermoplastic lane line' on the route where cylists and peds have their
own bit of 1.5m wide '55/10 granite HRA'.

Is that not a standard white paint line (road paint is not paint but a
thermoplastic coating.
Paint wears off too quickly.

55/10 HRA is a kind of tarmac (Hot rolled Asphalt)?

Quoted message said:

Question is, "What's riding over a 'white thermoplastic lane line'
going to be like in the wet?" Anyone had any bad experiences of this
type of lane divider? Or is this just a generic description that could
cover a multitude of sins?

...d

David Martin said:

squeaker said:

A new (official - as opposed to cycling on a footpath) cycle route
(between Shoreham-by-Sea and west Lancing) is to use a 'white
thermoplastic lane line' on the route where cylists and peds have their
own bit of 1.5m wide '55/10 granite HRA'.

Is that not a standard white paint line (road paint is not paint but a
thermoplastic coating.
Paint wears off too quickly.

55/10 HRA is a kind of tarmac (Hot rolled Asphalt)?

GIYF

55/10 HRA is hot rolled asphalt but the lowest quality acceptable for
carriageway use (housing estate roads, not distributor roads). It's
rated to 3-8 kN when laid on a 40mm thickness. It is supposed to be
self texturing (ie the tar bit wears down leaving the stones sticking
out) so is probably very similar to pavement tarmac. ie smooth and
could be very slippery when new or with wet leaves/frost.

As to the white line, it will be as bad to ride over as any other road
marking.

...d

On 15 May 2006 06:34:44 -0700 someone who may be "squeaker"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Question is, "What's riding over a 'white thermoplastic lane line'
going to be like in the wet?"

Like any other paint on the road, best avoided.

Are they proposing the dangerous tactile markings? If so I suggest
you ride on the pedestrian side, where the tactile markings will be
the right way round for cycling over.

--
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

On 15/05/2006 16:44, David Hansen said,

Quoted message said:

Are they proposing the dangerous tactile markings? If so I suggest
you ride on the pedestrian side, where the tactile markings will be
the right way round for cycling over.

Just out of curiosity, what do "they" think is the right way? My local
paths have them in random orientations, and I prefer to ride over them
at right angles. A slight vibration, but better than the squirming you
get if you cycle in the same direction as them.

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

Paul Boyd said:

Just out of curiosity, what do "they" think is the right way? My local
paths have them in random orientations, and I prefer to ride over them
at right angles. A slight vibration, but better than the squirming you
get if you cycle in the same direction as them.

You got it. The 'right' way (according to the official guidance) is
the way obliging cyclists to cycle over the squirming (which varies
from disconcerting to dangerous, depending upon actual profile,
condition, and bike tyre). The official guidance even refers to this
orientation as 'like tram lines' - presumably because everyone knows
what an afinity cyclists have for riding along tram tracks.

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

Simon Brooke said:

The right way is the wrong way.

According to the standard, the bicycle side of the path should have the
corrugations parallel with the direction of travel, and the walking side
should have them at right angles to to the direction of travel.

For a single track vehicle to have its wheels in a corrugation is of
course lethally dangerous, but what does the safety of cyclists matter?

While the standard is clearly broken for that reason, anyone cycling
on the side with corrugations at right angles should remember they are
there for the benefit of blind pedestrians, and take appropriate care.

David Hansen said:

On 15 May 2006 06:34:44 -0700 someone who may be "squeaker"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Question is, "What's riding over a 'white thermoplastic lane line'
going to be like in the wet?"

Like any other paint on the road, best avoided.

Point taken 😉

Quoted message said:

Are they proposing the dangerous tactile markings?

Oh yes! I have suggested that they are not put on, or at the entry to,
bends in the path, unlike other cycle routes in this area 🙁

Quoted message said:

If so I suggest
you ride on the pedestrian side, where the tactile markings will be
the right way round for cycling over.

That's what I do when it's wet now (not to mention the fact that the
surface of the pedestrian side of the East Worthing seafront path is
much smoother / faster than the cycle side....)
And if anyone's interested, the tactile paving disaster is specified
at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_mobility/documents/page/dft_mobility_503283.hcsp

Quoted message said:

--
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

David Hansen said:

On 15 May 2006 06:34:44 -0700 someone who may be "squeaker"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Question is, "What's riding over a 'white thermoplastic lane line'
going to be like in the wet?"

Like any other paint on the road, best avoided.

Are they proposing the dangerous tactile markings? If so I suggest
you ride on the pedestrian side, where the tactile markings will be
the right way round for cycling over.

Less glass on the pedestrian side too, cos the chavscum smash the
bottles on cycle path 'for a laugh'.
I've always ignored the pedestrian/cycle side of those paths, unless it
is to pass pedestrians (who are probabley doing the same too), or other
cyclists (often going 'the wrong way'😉.
Do those grooved tactile surfaces actually serve any useful purpose in
the first place? (I know the bobbled ones at crossings do for blind people).

--
AndyM

Simon Brooke said:

For a single track vehicle to have its wheels in a corrugation is of
course lethally dangerous, but what does the safety of cyclists matter?

.... and if you are pushing a pushchair with four small wheels, it is
usually easier (and certainly kinder on the occupant) to use the cycle
side rather than crash across the corrugations.

The standard is clearly wrong!

PhilD

--
<><

Andy M said:

Do those grooved tactile surfaces actually serve any useful purpose in
the first place? (I know the bobbled ones at crossings do for blind people).

--
AndyM

Probably not too many seriously visually impaired members of
uk.rec.cycling to comment 😉

Following on from squeaker's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Andy M said:

Do those grooved tactile surfaces actually serve any useful purpose in
the first place? (I know the bobbled ones at crossings do for blind people).

--
AndyM

Probably not too many seriously visually impaired members of
uk.rec.cycling to comment 😉

Let's think this through. If you're sufficiently visually impaired to
not be able to see the big bike or stick man paint (I know it can wear
off) then how will you see the edges of the path and not end up in the
undergrowth or not wander onto 'the wrong' side if all there is is a
white line? Do guide dogs know the difference between the direction of
the paving? (I doubt it.)

Surely, by this logic, if you can manage the length of the path then you
don't need the tiles.

I would also suggest that people for whom these tiles are intended would
explore the paths with an assistant the first time and then know. Even
getting off a bus at a strange location with some further walking needs
more information first time.

I'm a great believer that *nobody*, particularly vulnerable people
(children, old, disabled), should be denied access to public facilities
either for physical reasons or fear of harm... ...But perhaps the money
could be better spent.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bookshop idea was shelved
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

squeaker said the following on 15/05/2006 23:48:

Quoted message said:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_mobility/documents/page/dft_mobility_503283.hcsp

They really do refer to them as tramlines, like wot Ian said! Surely
you would have thought that would have given the DfT a bit of a clue,
wouldn't you?

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

Peter Fox said the following on 16/05/2006 10:07:

Quoted message said:

I'm a great believer that *nobody*, particularly vulnerable people
(children, old, disabled), should be denied access to public facilities
either for physical reasons or fear of harm... ...But perhaps the money
could be better spent.

You put into words what I was thinking. Round here, they could spend
the money on pedestrian crossings that have an audible signal for instance.

I hadn't even given this a thought, until I saw a blind person waiting
at a crossing. The green man was lit, traffic was stopped, and he
didn't move. How could he know it was safe to cross? He had a guide
dog, but I don't know if that would have been expected to know - I
wouldn't have thought so. Since then, I've noticed a load of silent
crossings, one of which even requires a sighted person to stand almost
with their back to the road to be able to see the briefly lit green man
- the ones on the opposite side seem to be carefully aligned so that you
can't see them unless you stand out of the "sensor" zone on your side,
then you lose your slot.

Mutter, mumble...

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

Quoted message said:

You put into words what I was thinking. Round here, they could spend
the money on pedestrian crossings that have an audible signal for instance.

Quoted message said:

I hadn't even given this a thought, until I saw a blind person waiting
at a crossing. The green man was lit, traffic was stopped, and he
didn't move. How could he know it was safe to cross? >

Since then, I've noticed a load of silent
crossings, one of which even requires a sighted person to stand almost
with their back to the road to be able to see the briefly lit green man

- the ones on the opposite side seem to be carefully aligned so that
you
can't see them unless you stand out of the "sensor" zone on your side,
then you lose your slot.

If you put your hand under the button box at a ped crossing you will
find a knurled knob, this knob spins when the light is green to cross.
They are designed like this to cut down on noise pollution, would you
like tolive next to a crossing that beeps loudly everytime someone
wants to cross , day or night?

On 16 May 2006 00:23:22 -0700 someone who may be "PhilD"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

... and if you are pushing a pushchair with four small wheels, it is
usually easier (and certainly kinder on the occupant) to use the cycle
side rather than crash across the corrugations.

An interesting observation, which I will try and remember when
tackling people about this stupidity.

Perhaps people should paint chicanes on the path at the approach to
these stupid things.

--
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

David Hansen said:

On 16 May 2006 00:23:22 -0700 someone who may be "PhilD"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

... and if you are pushing a pushchair with four small wheels, it is
usually easier (and certainly kinder on the occupant) to use the cycle
side rather than crash across the corrugations.

An interesting observation, which I will try and remember when
tackling people about this stupidity.

Perhaps people should paint chicanes on the path at the approach to
these stupid things.

I'm reminded of the crossover track in Scalextric... :-)

R.

Paul Boyd said:

squeaker said the following on 15/05/2006 23:48:

Quoted message said:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_mobility/documents/page/dft_mobility_503283.hcsp

They really do refer to them as tramlines, like wot Ian said! Surely
you would have thought that would have given the DfT a bit of a clue,
wouldn't you?

Not only that but it also says "This arrangement was chosen because it
was felt the rumble effect created by the transverse pattern would
deter cyclists from entering on the pedestrian side."

Confirmation, if it were needed, that not only was no testing done, but
no-one even bothered to talk to a cyclist.

--
Dave...

marcwales said the following on 16/05/2006 13:17:

Quoted message said:

If you put your hand under the button box at a ped crossing you will
find a knurled knob, this knob spins when the light is green to cross.

Well, I never knew that! Obviously the blind person I saw didn't know
it either. Guess what I'll be looking out for next time I use these
silent crossings??? :-)

I can quite understand the noise problems - I do live near a crossing
that bleeps every five minutes, but not near enough for it to be a real
issue except in summer when the windows are all open.

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

dkahn400 said:

Paul Boyd said:

squeaker said the following on 15/05/2006 23:48:

Quoted message said:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_mobility/documents/page/dft_mobility_503283.hcsp

They really do refer to them as tramlines, like wot Ian said! Surely
you would have thought that would have given the DfT a bit of a clue,
wouldn't you?

Not only that but it also says "This arrangement was chosen because it
was felt the rumble effect created by the transverse pattern would
deter cyclists from entering on the pedestrian side."

Confirmation, if it were needed, that not only was no testing done,
but no-one even bothered to talk to a cyclist.

Don't jump to conclusions. The committee probably has a cyclist's
representative who was consulted and very clear on what an idiotic idea it
was. The cyclist probably objected long and loud to the proposal, but when
it came to a vote, everyone else voted the common sense way, and now they
dislike the cyclist for being such a contrary smart [censored].

I have come off on one of those. There's one which is unavoidable in Stoke
town centre (it's a reserved turning lane for bikes without which you have
to negotiate the one way system), and is on a turn.

Fortunately, I was going at my normal 'facilities' speed, and merely layed
the bike down, remaining standing and annoyed myself.

--
Ambrose