Making a difference.

It makes a change to have a verbal response to a complaint.All I got from Wakefield MDC when I
complained about a narrowed carriageway being too narrow for a cyclist and a vehicle was that it
conforms to the regulations,end of story.Hope they will still be of the same mind at the funeral.

Sam Salt

John Tomlinson said:

Following on from the thread I started "How Tall are you" I have just received some updated plans
from the Ipswich Borough Council Engineers. Apart from the rather low sign cyclists are expected
to cycle under - which I proved was lower than the drawing specified - my main concern was that
the advisory cycle lane was too narrow and forced cyclists too far to the left of a roundabout
entrance. Hence the current design puts cyclists who want to go straight on at risk from cars
turning left.

This is the sign - sorry I have posted this here before:
btinternet.comKIF 1458.JPGOpen ↗

And this is the current narrow cycle lane on the entrance to the roundabout.
btinternet.comKIF 1472.JPGOpen ↗.

Following on from my complaints. This is the new design the Engineer has come up with. I would
rather there were no markings on the road but I feel that we have reached a reasonable
compromise. So I am about to write and say that I am happy with the new layout. Anybody have
anything to add to it?

The council drawings: btinternet.comwoodrdeast.docOpen ↗

One comment from the county cycle safety officer asks that the warning sign, indicated on the
drawing, shows the road layout ahead with two cycle lanes clearly marked.

I am not sure I like the responsibility of commenting on this sort work - after all, I am a
complete amateur. Still thats what you get for complaining :-|

John T. Remove the singers of Spam before replying

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/2003

John Tomlinson said:

Following on from the thread I started "How Tall are you" I have just received some updated plans
from the Ipswich Borough Council Engineers. Apart from the rather low sign cyclists are expected
to cycle under - which I proved was lower than the drawing specified - my main concern was that
the advisory cycle lane was too narrow and forced cyclists too far to the left of a roundabout
entrance. Hence the current design puts cyclists who want to go straight on at risk from cars
turning left.

This is the sign - sorry I have posted this here before:
btinternet.comKIF 1458.JPGOpen ↗

And this is the current narrow cycle lane on the entrance to the roundabout.
btinternet.comKIF 1472.JPGOpen ↗.

Following on from my complaints. This is the new design the Engineer has come up with. I would
rather there were no markings on the road but I feel that we have reached a reasonable
compromise. So I am about to write and say that I am happy with the new layout. Anybody have
anything to add to it?

The council drawings: btinternet.comwoodrdeast.docOpen ↗

One comment from the county cycle safety officer asks that the warning sign, indicated on the
drawing, shows the road layout ahead with two cycle lanes clearly marked.

I am not sure I like the responsibility of commenting on this sort work - after all, I am a
complete amateur. Still thats what you get for complaining :-|

Well, I guess we're all complete amateurs on this matter, including, considering the original design
that was passed, the county cycle safety officer.

One of the critical points wrt the cycle lane is whether parking is allowed on it. If it is it is
actively dangerous, because it encourages inexperienced and unconfident cyclists to 'weave',
suddenly popping out into faster moving traffic every time there's a parked car. I admit it's a
difficult issue and don't pretend to know the answer but in my view these 'in the gutter' style
cycle lanes are inherently dangerous anyway, because they encourage faster moving traffic to pass
too close to cyclists.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel has been switched off.

John Tomlinson must be edykated coz e writed:

Quoted message said:

btinternet.comwoodrdeast.docOpen ↗

One comment from the county cycle safety officer asks that the warning sign, indicated on the
drawing, shows the road layout ahead with two cycle lanes clearly marked.

I am not sure I like the responsibility of commenting on this sort work - after all, I am a
complete amateur. Still thats what you get for complaining :-|

John T. Remove the singers of Spam before replying

You seem to have achieved an awful lot, well done!

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (John

Tomlinson) said:

work - after all, I am a complete amateur.

Not so.

Jon

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

Quoted message said:

Following on from the thread I started "How Tall are you" I have just received some updated plans
from the Ipswich Borough Council Engineers. Apart from the rather low sign cyclists are expected
to cycle under - which I proved was lower than the drawing specified - my main concern was that
the advisory cycle lane was too narrow and forced cyclists too far to the left of a roundabout
entrance. Hence the current design puts cyclists who want to go straight on at risk from cars
turning left.

This is the sign - sorry I have posted this here before:
btinternet.comKIF 1458.JPGOpen ↗

And this is the current narrow cycle lane on the entrance to the roundabout.
btinternet.comKIF 1472.JPGOpen ↗.

Following on from my complaints. This is the new design the Engineer has come up with. I would
rather there were no markings on the road but I feel that we have reached a reasonable
compromise. So I am about to write and say that I am happy with the new layout. Anybody have
anything to add to it?

The council drawings: btinternet.comwoodrdeast.docOpen ↗

Firstly, I'm local & know the road in question, though it's not on a route I use. Although the extra
straight-on lane is a bit better there is still the problem that a following motorist will not know
until the very last second which lane you intend to take. Cyclists not signalling could be going
straight on or turning left without signalling. The motorist will have very little time to plan
whether to stick behind or nip round. Really, the cyclist needs to be out in the left hand car lane
blocking any possible overtake at that point. As there appears to be enough room for 2 cycle lanes
and 2 car lanes (surprises me, it isn't that wide) going into the junction, how about ending the
cycle lane 20m back and having 3 car lanes - left-only
+ 2 straight-on. The cyclist can then select the appropriate lane and block any overtakes whilst
clearly indicating his intentions by the lane he's in. I feel that would be much safer for the
competent cyclist, but it may not suit the less assertive/slower type.

Incidentally, after a number of incidents with errant pedestrians on the shared cycle* path through
Ravenswood I want to write to the council to point out how pointless and dangerous they are. Peds
are not educated how to use them and it's unrealistic to expect them ever to be able so share a path
safely with us. They should either make it cycle-only or scrap it and paint white lines down the
sides of roads instead.

Who should I write to?

* It's wide enough for 2 mums to walk side-by-side with pushchairs, and has a white line down the
middle to segregate us lot doing a silent 15-20mph from peds wandering along with their backs to
you. It really is pointless, but I usually find it ped-free, so continue to use it from time to
time, though Nacton Rd is better if a little longer.

Mark K (Yes we do work for the same firm, John :-)

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by John Tomlinson
Following on from the thread I started "How Tall are you" I have just received some updated plans.... This is the new design the Engineer has come up with. I would
rather there were no markings on the road but I feel that we have reached a reasonable
compromise. So I am about to write and say that I am happy with the new layout. Anybody have
anything to add to it?

The council drawings: btinternet.comwoodrdeast.docOpen ↗

I have to say that I do not think the new plans are an improvement. Having a straighton lane to left of a left turn lane is never going to be safe. I think your idea of stopping the lane around the contentious *low* sign and having a large cycle glyph painted in each traffic lane leading in to the roundabout (sorry cannot recall the tsrgd diag number).

It sounds like the engineer is trying so it would seem worthwhile to have a chat to try to get the best solution

best wishes
james

John Tomlinson said:

I am not sure I like the responsibility of commenting on this sort work - after all, I am a
complete amateur. Still thats what you get for complaining :-|

Well, complete amateurs taht cycle are likely to make a better job of it than teh ignorant
professionals that seem to inhabit highways departments.

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

Simon Brooke said:

Well, I guess we're all complete amateurs on this matter, including, considering the original
design that was passed, the county cycle safety officer.

Credit where it is due - the original layout was not designed by the County Cycling Officer - it was
done my the Borough Engineers. I just thought it would be a good idea to get him involved.
Thankfully he was willing.

John T. Remove the singers of Spam before replying

Sam Salt said:

It makes a change to have a verbal response to a complaint

It was more than a verbal response. I actually met with the Borough Engineer and the County Cycling
Officer on the site.

John T. Remove the singers of Spam before replying

MarkK said:

Really, the cyclist needs to be out in the left hand car lane blocking any possible overtake at
that point.

Agreed, this is how I ride the junction at the moment. I raised this when I met with the Engineer
and the Cycling officer at the site. Their response was that the cycle lane was to get cyclists past
the queues of traffic that normally forms at the junction.

Quoted message said:

As there appears to be enough room for 2 cycle lanes and 2 car lanes (surprises me, it isn't that
wide) going into the junction, how about ending the cycle lane 20m back and having 3 car lanes -
left-only
+ 2 straight-on. The cyclist can then select the appropriate lane and block any overtakes whilst
clearly indicating his intentions by the lane he's in. I feel that would be much safer for the
competent cyclist, but it may not suit the less assertive/slower type.

All the suggestion I made to the council were based on the _competent cyclist_. However their
response was usually based on the less confident rider as you have point out above.

Quoted message said:

Who should I write to?

Graham Rankin, who I assume is based in the Borough Offices (Civic Drive?)

Quoted message said:

John T. Remove the singers of Spam before replying

John Tomlinson <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Agreed, this is how I ride the junction at the moment. I raised this when I met with the Engineer
: and the Cycling officer at the site. Their response was that the cycle lane was to get cyclists
: past the queues of traffic that normally forms at the junction.

This can be a valid reason for a cycle lane (I haven't looked at your case since it's a word doc).

There's a road in York (Bisthopthorpe Rd from the shops heading down to the river crossing for those
that now it) where there's now some fairly narrow painted cycle lanes.

These are utterly useless during most of the day (too narrow, too far
in) but really, really useful during rush hour. That stretch of road is always solid. Before the
lanes were painted, drivers would always stop right next to the curb. Now there's a nice clear
area to ride down past all the stationary traffic.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook