Flinders wrote:Pete Owens wrote:Flinders wrote:Paths on footpaths are rarely other than dangerous for everyone, at least round here, not least because they make cyclists give way at all junctions, often where a cyclist simply cannot get into any position where they can see all the traffic that could hit them if they crossed.
Actually that is getting cause and effect mixed up. They make cyclists give way
because cycle paths are dangerous - not vice-versa. The problem you describe re. inter-visability of conflicting traffic applies every bit as much to drivers approaching a junction where cyclists have priority. In either case the cyclist or driver is put in a position where they have to stop for vehicles coming from behind. The logic of making cyclists rather than drivers perform this difficult task is that cyclists, being more vulnerable, are more likely to take greater care and that we have better all round visibility and awareness of our surroundings.
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.
What - that drivers are more likely to notice something in fron of them than coming from behind? It is exactly the same difficulty you describe for cyclists where cyclists have to give way.
You don't know the junctions in question, and I do.
If it involves a cycle path running parallel to a road and passing through a juncton where streams of traffic cross each others paths then you are creating conflict and this will result in more crashes. If you think your junction has some novel design feature that avoids this ineviatable conflict then perhaps you could post a google earth link so we can see what you mean.
If the path were to be regarded as part of the road and not the pavement,
Then it would be a cycle lane not a cycle path. The problems here are less severe in that case due to the greater intervisibility. Indeed, one recommended way of mitigating the danger of cycle paths is to merge with the carriageway as you approach junctions - though you can only do this for one-way cycle paths.
with side road junctions set back,
If the path is set back then the it cannot be considered part of the road. You are simply exacerbating the problem by reducing the intervisibility. The greater the degree of seperation the less the likelyhood of drivers and cyclists noticing each other.
the cyclists would have priority and drivers would be able to see them perfectly well.
That reduces the chance of drivers noticing the cyclist even when traffic is free-flowing and it is the driver coming from behind. From their perspective, even if they notice a cyclist on the path as they approach the junction, the geometry you describe will make it look as if the cyclist is turning away from the road - until they swerve across their path at the last moment.
Drivers would never have to stop for vehicles 'coming from behind'.
If a cycle track is running parallel to the road a driver is driving along and a cyclist is riding faster than the car and priority is marked for the cycle track the the driver very much does have to give way to a vehicle coming from behind.
As it stands, cyclists can't see the traffic that may be about to smash into them.
Visibility works both ways. If a cyclists can't see the traffic then the drivers can't see the cyclist.
As for 'coming from behind' at some junctions drivers aren't just coming from behind, they're coming from all directions.
Indeed, but it is the ones coming from behind that are most difficult to see.