Denmead Hampshire - Traffic Calming Facilities



Danny Colyer wrote:
> I don't have a better suggestion, except perhaps to avoid the use of
> cycle lanes altogether. I'm reluctant to suggest avoiding the use of
> pinch points, because as a ped there are times when I find pedestrian
> refuges very useful.
>
Surely the point is don't put pedestrian refuges in situations where
the carriageway is reduced below ~4.5m? I've no objection to making it
easier for peds to cross a road by dividing it into 2 operations (you
used to be OK doing this without a refuge - don't think I'd try it
these days tho') - just that the overall road width needs to flare to
maintain the carriageway width. Pinch points per see are a 'cyclist's
nightmare', IMHO (OK, OK - 'require skill to negotiate safely' - I'd
still rather they weren't used tho').
 
Danny Colyer wrote:
> I don't have a better suggestion, except perhaps to avoid the use of
> cycle lanes altogether. I'm reluctant to suggest avoiding the use of
> pinch points, because as a ped there are times when I find pedestrian
> refuges very useful.
>
Surely the point is don't put pedestrian refuges in situations where
the carriageway is reduced below ~4.5m? I've no objection to making it
easier for peds to cross a road by dividing it into 2 operations (you
used to be OK doing this without a refuge - don't think I'd try it
these days tho') - just that the overall road width needs to flare to
maintain the carriageway width. Pinch points per see are a 'cyclist's
nightmare', IMHO (OK, OK - 'require skill to negotiate safely' - I'd
still rather they weren't used tho').
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
>>I'm canvassing for the views of cyclists that use the roads of Denmead,
>>in particular the traffic calming measures consisting of the pedestrian
>>refuges and the adjacent short cycle lanes.
>
>
>
> Not ridden through these but I have used those at Colden Common.

The Colden Common lanes are narrower than these appear to be. You can
drive throught he pinch point without going in the cycle lanes, which it
appears is not possible in Denmead.
>
> My view is it would be better to highlight the whole pinch point in
> coloured tarmac and leave the cyclist to determine the best line
> through. The purpose of cycle lanes is to segregate and that is not
> possible here.


I'm not sure about this. If I am cycling in the cycle lane, a motorist
would appreciate that he is moving into my lane and that by the normal
rules of the road I have priority. The Denmead set-up appears to
enforce this lane-change and therefore discourage squeezing through.

I don't believe that changing the colour of the whole width of the road
would achieve the same effect - it would tend to suggest equal priority
and encourage the race a to the gap.
>
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Tim Woodall wrote on 29/07/2006 11:48 +0100:
>
>>
>>
>> There's a road near here when you are travelling from Hatch End into
>> Pinner which I had the misfortune to cycle along once a few years ago.
>> They've painted very thin cycle lanes through the pinch points they've
>> constructed and I was forced off the road by cars deliberately driving
>> at me though the pinch points because I'd taken the middle of the main
>> lane. (and I was travelling at 20mph+ in a 30mph limit). Needless to
>> say, I've never been back there.
>>
>
> Better than one (now removed) in Royston, Herts where the narrow cycle
> lanes stopped at each pinch point because the road was too narrow!
>

Sounds like Grange Road in Hedge End. The wide, dual carriageway bit
has cycle lanes, but as soon as it becomes a narrow single carriageway,
the lanes stop.

That the surface is unrideable is academic.
 
Paul Boyd wrote:
> I assumed "Not Responding" was writing tongue in cheek. I sincerely
> hope so, anyway.

I hope so, too. I think the main reason that his comments scared me
apply regardless of whether he was writing tongue in cheek, though.

I know of two South Gloucestershire councillors who are keen cyclists.
I would hope that they'd support me in opposing any such idiocy that
might be suggested by the council, but NR's post served as a valuable
reminder that even a committed, experienced cyclist might just come out
in favour of such a harebrained scheme. Like the S Glos cycling officer
who dismissed my safety concerns after approving the installation of
bollards across the Bristol-Bath cyclepath.

There were a couple of other things that scared me. One is that, if one
local authority tries a scheme and decides it's a success, others are
likely to copy. The other is that I remembered him posting in the past
about Waterlooville, which is where my mum lives, cycles and complains
about the crappy shared use pavements. I had formed the impression that
he was a councillor for Waterlooville[1], and I didn't like the idea
that a councillor for my mum's area was impressed by something that
might make cycling less safe or less pleasant for her.

[1]Google tells me that I'm wrong about that, and that he's actually on
Fareham Borough Council.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
Danny Colyer wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
> > I assumed "Not Responding" was writing tongue in cheek. I sincerely
> > hope so, anyway.
>
> I hope so, too. I think the main reason that his comments scared me
> apply regardless of whether he was writing tongue in cheek, though.
>
> I know of two South Gloucestershire councillors who are keen cyclists.
> I would hope that they'd support me in opposing any such idiocy that
> might be suggested by the council, but NR's post served as a valuable
> reminder that even a committed, experienced cyclist might just come out
> in favour of such a harebrained scheme. Like the S Glos cycling officer
> who dismissed my safety concerns after approving the installation of
> bollards across the Bristol-Bath cyclepath.

Hang on a minute, chaps.

I will explain my logic in a moment. First, however, please don't
equate an off the cuff observation on usenet with a considered, real
life decision I might make when putting infrastructure in. If this were
a real life proposal on my patch I would (a) visit the site, (b) have
detailed plans, risk assessments, survey results, officer advice etc to
hand and (c) canvas local opinion. This, however, is usenet - I glanced
at a .pdf containing a single image and offered my instinctive opinion.

Back to my opinion and my logic. Pinch points and pedestrian islands
are real problem for cyclists and you generally see either no attempt
made to address the problem or, worse, dangerously unsafe "solutions"
such as 50cm lanes that actively encourage squeezing.

This solution, to my mind appears to be better than that. And, subject
to detailed plans, measurements, site visits etc etc etc, /may/ be
actually better than nothing. As I pointed out in my first post, the
proof the pudding etc

This is the first layout I have seen that makes it crystal clear to
drivers that they will be straying into cyclists' territory if they
attempt to squeeze through. You don't get that impact on an unmarked
road and you don't get it when 50cm cycle lanes are painted on. An
experienced cyclist will make his territory clear through road
positioning but most cyclists lack this awareness and, through
gutter-hugging, encourage dangerous driving.

There's a further point I should raise seeing as we're shifting towards
slagging off councillors. That is that in RL, unlike usenet, there are
1001 interested parties and viewpoints to accomodate. As a cyclist, I
loathe pedestrian refuges. But I realise how valuable they can be as
traffic calming and as a means to break the barrier that a road can
become to those on foot. Sure, a better solution would be a 20mph limit
but if the police don't support it, the govt advice won't back you up
and the local people don't want it, then, however much better a
solution it may be, you ain't going to get it.

> There were a couple of other things that scared me. One is that, if one
> local authority tries a scheme and decides it's a success, others are
> likely to copy. The other is that I remembered him posting in the past
> about Waterlooville, which is where my mum lives, cycles and complains
> about the crappy shared use pavements. I had formed the impression that
> he was a councillor for Waterlooville[1], and I didn't like the idea
> that a councillor for my mum's area was impressed by something that
> might make cycling less safe or less pleasant for her.
>
> [1]Google tells me that I'm wrong about that, and that he's actually on
> Fareham Borough Council.
>

Indeed. And, this may or may not reassure you, in the last two months I
have done two cycle related things. Firstly, I blocked the creation of
a cycle lane and, secondly, I've changed our (previously) "car parking
strategy" to become a "parking strategy".

And my opinion of pavement cyclists (blue sign assisted or not) is well
known - should be hanged from the nearest lamp-post.
 
Al C-F wrote:

> The Colden Common lanes are narrower than these appear to be. You can
> drive throught he pinch point without going in the cycle lanes, which it
> appears is not possible in Denmead.

As you say the Colden Common ones are narrower and marked with a solid
white line so vehicles legally must not enter the lane. Though the
vehicle lane is too narrow for large 4x4s and wider. My concern with
them is three-fold:

### the minimal lane width appears to start at the kerb so the safe
usable width is narrower still. Correct positioning is at the far right
of them.

### they encourage drivers to drive too close to the cyclists at a
hazard. See the report on: http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

### the white line is where I would correctly position myself to pass
through the pinch point. Legally I must not ride on it and, with zero
skid resistance when wet, it ironically creates a new hazard


> I'm not sure about this. If I am cycling in the cycle lane, a motorist
> would appreciate that he is moving into my lane and that by the normal
> rules of the road I have priority. The Denmead set-up appears to
> enforce this lane-change and therefore discourage squeezing through.

The normal rules of the road mean the bike or vehicle in front has
priority in all circumstances not just over cycle lanes. The driver
behind should safely over-take without impeding the bike or vehicle in
front, or oncoming vehicles. If they are too impatient or inattentive
red tarmac is not going to stop them.

> I don't believe that changing the colour of the whole width of the road
> would achieve the same effect - it would tend to suggest equal priority
> and encourage the race a to the gap.

I experienced cars speeding through or braking heavily entering the
un-laned St Cross Road and Worthy Lane kerbed refuges [in Winchester]
when they were first installed. Drivers were unfamiliar with them and
hence some were late to react or impatient. I do not think cycle lanes
per se would have made any difference. In my view, the over-riding
requirement is the visual impact on the approach to alert them and
create hazard awareness.

rgds,

Ian
 
Not Responding wrote on 31/07/2006 20:13 +0100:
>
> I will explain my logic in a moment. First, however, please don't
> equate an off the cuff observation on usenet with a considered, real
> life decision I might make when putting infrastructure in. If this were
> a real life proposal on my patch I would (a) visit the site, (b) have
> detailed plans, risk assessments, survey results, officer advice etc to
> hand and (c) canvas local opinion. This, however, is usenet - I glanced
> at a .pdf containing a single image and offered my instinctive opinion.
>


If this is true, how come so many **** schemes get installed? The one
illustrated at Denmead for example would appear to go against everything
written in Section 7 of Cycling Friendly Infrastructure: Guidelines for
Planning and Design and in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/97 'Cyclists at
Road Narrowings'. And HCC are installing such contravening schemes
across the county at the moment.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Not Responding wrote:
> This is the first layout I have seen that makes it crystal clear to
> drivers that they will be straying into cyclists' territory if they
> attempt to squeeze through. You don't get that impact on an unmarked
> road and you don't get it when 50cm cycle lanes are painted on. An
> experienced cyclist will make his territory clear through road
> positioning but most cyclists lack this awareness and, through
> gutter-hugging, encourage dangerous driving.

I see where you're coming from. I still don't agree with you, but we
all know that if you ask two cyclists for their thoughts about cycle
lanes you'll end up with at least three different opinions.

> There's a further point I should raise seeing as we're shifting towards
> slagging off councillors.

I wasn't intending to **** off councillors. Although I often disagree
with their decisions, I respect them for getting involved and (for the
most part) working hard for their communities and trying to do the right
thing.

Of course, the fact that I often disagree with their decisions is part
of the reason that I make an effort to get involved myself. I'm not
ready yet, though, for that level of commitment to anything outside of
work and family.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
[email protected] wrote on 31/07/2006 21:04 +0100:
>
> The normal rules of the road mean the bike or vehicle in front has
> priority in all circumstances not just over cycle lanes. The driver
> behind should safely over-take without impeding the bike or vehicle in
> front, or oncoming vehicles. If they are too impatient or inattentive
> red tarmac is not going to stop them.
>

TRL found that over 70% of motorists would attempt to overtake a cyclist
at a road narrowing.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Al C-F wrote:
>
>
>>The Colden Common lanes are narrower than these appear to be. You can
>>drive throught he pinch point without going in the cycle lanes, which it
>>appears is not possible in Denmead.
>
>
> As you say the Colden Common ones are narrower and marked with a solid
> white line so vehicles legally must not enter the lane.

Are you sure about the solid line? Not that I'm about to rush out and check.

>
>
>
>>I'm not sure about this. If I am cycling in the cycle lane, a motorist
>>would appreciate that he is moving into my lane and that by the normal
>>rules of the road I have priority. The Denmead set-up appears to
>>enforce this lane-change and therefore discourage squeezing through.
>
>
> The normal rules of the road mean the bike or vehicle in front has
> priority in all circumstances not just over cycle lanes. The driver
> behind should safely over-take without impeding the bike or vehicle in
> front, or oncoming vehicles. If they are too impatient or inattentive
> red tarmac is not going to stop them.

Well the normal rules are seldom respected, in my experience. I have a
feeling that road markings may make more impression on the consciousness
of some motorists than a cyclist would.
>
 
Al C-F said the following on 01/08/2006 00:11:

> Are you sure about the solid line? Not that I'm about to rush out and
> check.

If you mean are you sure that vehicles are not allowed to cross it, then
that is correct. Crossing a solid single or double white line is
definitely a no-no. HC section 119 makes it very clear as far as cycle
lanes are concerned. This does mean that vehicles area are allowed to
cross into the cycle line in the original example, which makes it pretty
pointless.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/11.htm for referrence

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Al C-F said the following on 01/08/2006 00:11:

> Are you sure about the solid line? Not that I'm about to rush out and
check.


If you mean are you sure that vehicles are not allowed to cross it, then
that is correct. Crossing a solid single or double white line is
definitely a no-no. HC section 119 makes it very clear as far as cycle
lanes are concerned. This does mean that vehicles are allowed to cross
into the cycle line in the original example, which makes it pretty
pointless.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/11.htm for referrence

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


--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Paul Boyd wrote:
> Al C-F said the following on 01/08/2006 00:11:
>
>> Are you sure about the solid line? Not that I'm about to rush out and
>> check.
>
>
> If you mean are you sure that vehicles are not allowed to cross it, then
> that is correct. Crossing a solid single or double white line is
> definitely a no-no. HC section 119 makes it very clear as far as cycle
> lanes are concerned.

No, I meant 'were you sure that the lines in CC were solid'. I thought
they were dashed, but I could be wrong.

> This does mean that vehicles area are allowed to
> cross into the cycle line in the original example, which makes it pretty
> pointless.

No more so than any other cycle lane.
 
Not Responding said the following on 31/07/2006 20:13:

> I will explain my logic in a moment. First, however, please don't
> equate an off the cuff observation on usenet with a considered, real
> life decision I might make when putting infrastructure in. If this were
> a real life proposal on my patch I would (a) visit the site, (b) have
> detailed plans, risk assessments, survey results, officer advice etc to
> hand and (c) canvas local opinion. This, however, is usenet - I glanced
> at a .pdf containing a single image and offered my instinctive opinion.

If this was a real-life proposal on your patch, presumably you would
have stopped at (a) :)

> This is the first layout I have seen that makes it crystal clear to
> drivers that they will be straying into cyclists' territory if they
> attempt to squeeze through.

It's not cyclist's territory though, it's a road. Most car drivers
wouldn't give a stuff about crossing into the cyclist's "territory" if
that was the only way to get past the island. If that island has a
particular problem, then surely a huge speed bump (with a gap for
cyclists) would be a better solution? It might also reduce any
anti-cyclist feelings by changing the emphasis from "there's another
bloody cycle lane in my way" to "why do they keep putting these bloody
speed bumps everywhere?" (And I do understand that this isn't on your
patch!!)

> And my opinion of pavement cyclists (blue sign assisted or not) is well
> known - should be hanged from the nearest lamp-post.

Is that just the cyclists, or the councillors who think a splash of
white paint and a blue sign makes a cyclepath???

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Al C-F wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Al C-F wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The Colden Common lanes are narrower than these appear to be. You can
>>> drive throught he pinch point without going in the cycle lanes, which it
>>> appears is not possible in Denmead.
>>
>>
>> As you say the Colden Common ones are narrower and marked with a solid
>> white line so vehicles legally must not enter the lane.
>
> Are you sure about the solid line? Not that I'm about to rush out and
> check.

They are dashed lines.

http://www.tradebit.com/get/820164
 
Paul Boyd suggested:
> If that island has a
> particular problem, then surely a huge speed bump (with a gap for
> cyclists) would be a better solution?

As long as the gap is in a sensible place, not in the gutter ...

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> TRL found that over 70% of motorists would attempt to overtake a cyclist
> at a road narrowing.

That's not a very helpful answer in itself.

Was the road too narrow to safely overtake a cyclist in some/all
cases?

What road position was the cyclist taking?

What road markings were in play?

What other factors may have influenced the drivers?

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
 
Stevie D wrote on 02/08/2006 00:21 +0100:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> TRL found that over 70% of motorists would attempt to overtake a cyclist
>> at a road narrowing.
>
> That's not a very helpful answer in itself.
>
> Was the road too narrow to safely overtake a cyclist in some/all
> cases?
>
> What road position was the cyclist taking?
>
> What road markings were in play?
>
> What other factors may have influenced the drivers?
>

"The extent to which motorists will overtake cyclists within a narrowing
will vary depending on the characteristics of the site. In the schemes
studied, this was less sensitive to running lane widths than to other
site specific characteristics. It should normally be anticipated that at
least 70% of drivers will attempt to overtake a cyclist within or close
to a 3.5m narrowing."
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504706.hcsp

I believe the data comes from TRL Report 241: Cyclists at Road Narrowings

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Denmead 100 tomorrow
Replies
33
Views
921
UK and Europe
Dave Larrington
D
D
RR: Denmead Summer Randonnee
Replies
0
Views
400
UK and Europe
Dave Larrington
D
M
Denmead brevet cards?
Replies
3
Views
482
UK and Europe
MartinM
M
M
Denmead 200 RR
Replies
28
Views
898
UK and Europe
MartinM
M
M
Denmead next week
Replies
13
Views
539
UK and Europe
MartinM
M
Top Bottom Back