PW wrote:It's there to reduce the perceived road width. In other words it is traffic calming for motons, the label is a con. - That came from a highwayman at a council meeting 10 or more years ago.
Nye Bevan wrote:No amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Point taken. Nevertheless; in my experience motorists overtake me closer when I'm inside a cycle lane (they seem to think that they can go close to the lane marking) so I would rather the lane was not there. As I said above; there are better ways of making motorists aware that they may be sharing the road with cyclists.meic wrote:That is very specifically for and only for country lanes with very low traffic levels.
The advice is given in a list of things to consider to heighten motorists' awareness of the fact they dont have the roads to themselves and it was not at the top of the list.
anothereye wrote:This is incredible (from Sustrans):
"Advisory cycle lanes will act as a continuous warning to drivers of the presence of cyclists".
I have no doubt that there are better ways of warning drivers.
How about painting cycle logo roundels in the primary and secondary positions on the road at regular distances. Not only would this remind drivers that the cyclists position is legitimate but also guide cyclist as to the best position to be on the road.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests