Accident waiting to happen.
Accident waiting to happen.
http://postimg.org/image/tm1a65edl/
The idea of combined Zebra crossings and cycle paths was done away with years ago. Bristol has implemented a new separate cycle path, which incorporates this travesty.
URL for google Earth of old junction.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4532794,-2.5933302,130m/data=!3m1!1e3
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
MrD wrote:The idea of combined Zebra crossings and cycle paths was done away with years ago.
What makes you think that?
MrD wrote:Bristol has implemented a new separate cycle path, which incorporates this travesty.
URL for google Earth of old junction.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4532794,-2.5933302,130m/data=!3m1!1e3
Streetview. As I don't know the levels of motor/cycle/pedestrian traffic through the junction I can't rate it. I also don't know Bristol. It certainly looks better for pedestrians.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
They are still building them around here.
And, it seems, that virtually no one knows the rules about cycling across them.
And, it seems, that virtually no one knows the rules about cycling across them.
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
Si wrote:They are still building them around here.
And, it seems, that virtually no one knows the rules about cycling across them.
I think you just have to muddle through.
============================================================================================
Edit to add. This prompted me to try to do some research and I've been back to the Bedford Turbo Roundabout thread and posted this:
viewtopic.php?p=849937#p849937
It seems that the highway authority there has designed the new pedestrian crossings so that if and when the regs are changed, cyclists will have precedence over traffic.
Unless the regs have changed recently - and there's nothing obvious on the internet - then the crossing which prompted this thread may have been installed in anticipation of those regs. It's hard to see any other explanation. If so, we could be in a situation where there are couple of serious casualties to discredit the arrangement even before it becomes lawful.
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
gaz wrote:MrD wrote:The idea of combined Zebra crossings and cycle paths was done away with years ago.
What makes you think that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_cro ... r_crossing
Tiger crossings were tried out about a decade ago, and replaced with Toucans in Aylesbury
gaz wrote:MrD wrote:Bristol has implemented a new separate cycle path, which incorporates this travesty.
URL for google Earth of old junction.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4532794,-2.5933302,130m/data=!3m1!1e3
Streetview. As I don't know the levels of motor/cycle/pedestrian traffic through the junction I can't rate it. I also don't know Bristol. It certainly looks better for pedestrians.
It is quite busy all day, both for pedestrians and road traffic. I agree it is better for pedestrians.
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
MrD wrote:gaz wrote:MrD wrote:The idea of combined Zebra crossings and cycle paths was done away with years ago.
What makes you think that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_cro ... r_crossing
Tiger crossings were tried out about a decade ago, and replaced with Toucans in Aylesbury.
Yes, but you said zebra crossings. It is quite common for shared use paths either side of roads to be joined by zebra crossings. Cyclists are expected to cede priority or to wheel their bikes as pedestrians.
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
Bicycler wrote:Yes, but you said zebra crossings. It is quite common for shared use paths either side of roads to be joined by zebra crossings. Cyclists are expected to cede priority or to wheel their bikes as pedestrians.
The 2015 TSRGD (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions) has, among other things for cyclists, introduced a combined crossing. I've included links to, I hope, relevant documents in the Bedford topic (here).
Rick.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
Thanks for that. Though still at the draft stage it appears they were expecting it's introduction into the regs (or maybe even had specific permission from the dft for this one location).
I'll admit I didn't look at the OP's links and just assumed he was talking about the way zebras are used on cycle routes.
I'll admit I didn't look at the OP's links and just assumed he was talking about the way zebras are used on cycle routes.
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
I'm not sure I understand why this is an accident waiting to happen? It is common in other countries to have parallel crossings for cyclists and pedestrians. It's not as beneficial an arrangement in the UK because there is no legal obligation to give way to cyclists in an uncontrolled crossing, but I doubt that drivers will deliberately run someone over just to be right. Anyway, for the time being, most drivers are not familiar with the legal details of cyclists using crossings, and will probably err on the side of caution.
In Denmark it is illegal for cyclists to use pedestrian crossings (there are usually separate/delineated parallel crossings, if a route is shared), but drivers stop for them, anyway.
In Denmark it is illegal for cyclists to use pedestrian crossings (there are usually separate/delineated parallel crossings, if a route is shared), but drivers stop for them, anyway.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
I think this is largely about attitudes, so it's of limited value to compare something like this with societies where attitudes to vulnerable road users are different.
I suspect that careful considerate drivers ie the type of people who wouldn't use their vehicle as a means of imposing their will on others, will continue to stop or slow down for people "in the road" whether they are at a crossing or not. Others, and this includes some careful considerate drivers who change camp when pressed for time, will stick to their own interpretation of the law which is that they need only give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing and even then, only when they have to. Pedestrians come in different types: some wait patiently for opportunities to cross, others create them by stepping off the pavement to assert their precedence.
It seems to me that in the absence of any publicity - remember even we members of a cycling forum are pretty much in the dark about what's happening - there's likely to be misunderstanding, which is in nobody's interest, especially the type of rider who might be attracted to using farcilities rather than the carriageway. Back to pedestrians who assert their priority, they are likely to do it with circumspection. An assertive cyclist might be travelling faster than a pedestrian counterpart but has less ability to retreat or dodge if things don't go as planned.
At present there's no specific prohibition against riding across a zebra crossing (although it may be illegal to ride on the adjoining pavements) and the only thing to remember is that the crossing regulations give no precedence or protection to a cyclist who does especially as it's against the advice of the HC, but this is not the saloon bar lawyers' interpretation. I've been admonished by a pedestrian for doing it "I thought pedestrian crossings were for pedestrians" even when I was nowhere near him and hadn't used the pavement.
Could work, but it needs good publicity and it's not going to be enforced in the foreseeable future.
I suspect that careful considerate drivers ie the type of people who wouldn't use their vehicle as a means of imposing their will on others, will continue to stop or slow down for people "in the road" whether they are at a crossing or not. Others, and this includes some careful considerate drivers who change camp when pressed for time, will stick to their own interpretation of the law which is that they need only give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing and even then, only when they have to. Pedestrians come in different types: some wait patiently for opportunities to cross, others create them by stepping off the pavement to assert their precedence.
It seems to me that in the absence of any publicity - remember even we members of a cycling forum are pretty much in the dark about what's happening - there's likely to be misunderstanding, which is in nobody's interest, especially the type of rider who might be attracted to using farcilities rather than the carriageway. Back to pedestrians who assert their priority, they are likely to do it with circumspection. An assertive cyclist might be travelling faster than a pedestrian counterpart but has less ability to retreat or dodge if things don't go as planned.
At present there's no specific prohibition against riding across a zebra crossing (although it may be illegal to ride on the adjoining pavements) and the only thing to remember is that the crossing regulations give no precedence or protection to a cyclist who does especially as it's against the advice of the HC, but this is not the saloon bar lawyers' interpretation. I've been admonished by a pedestrian for doing it "I thought pedestrian crossings were for pedestrians" even when I was nowhere near him and hadn't used the pavement.
Could work, but it needs good publicity and it's not going to be enforced in the foreseeable future.
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
That's fair enough, and I agree that comparisons with other driving cultures may have limited value. On the other hand, if people will campaign for segregated infrastructure, this kind of thing is a likely outcome, as there are a limited number of ways that junctions and crossings can be designed. A controlled crossing would probably be better, but that might <gasp> hold up motor traffic.
And, if designers are going to borrow solutions form other countries, a comparison becomes necessary, even if not entirely applicable.
The phrase 'accident waiting to happen' is emotive and imprecise, and doesn't really belong in a logical argument.
And, if designers are going to borrow solutions form other countries, a comparison becomes necessary, even if not entirely applicable.
The phrase 'accident waiting to happen' is emotive and imprecise, and doesn't really belong in a logical argument.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
Like Bedford, this scheme is part funded from the Cycle Safety Fund, scheme X125.
Plans, etc here: https://bristol.citizenspace.com/city-d ... und-scheme
Plans, etc here: https://bristol.citizenspace.com/city-d ... und-scheme
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
Vorpal
A few issues there which have been thrashed out on the turbo roundabout and elsewhere. eg Problems with making farcilities (another unscientific word but well-done! to whoever coined it) safe where they meet a main carriageway is one of the reasons some people are opposed to them. Then, I think the general view is that, subject to proper behaviour by drivers, a well-used pedestrian crossing does not maximise traffic capacity which is why highwaymen like light-controlled crossings (although the official plan on the current "deathtrap" thread refers to crossings being converted to zebras to achieve it.)
All I really was trying to say is that a lack of clarity is unhelpful to the point of being dangerous and that's even more likely when the existing arrangement (zebra crossings for pedestrians) has been in operation for some eighty years and is still widely abused by drivers. IMO, there is value in comparison with other societies and in this context, I'd say the starting point is the attitudes towards vulnerable road users. The infrastructure can only follow.
I didn't write the thread title, but it's only the same as the pseudo-scientific stuff highwaymen trot out to supress suggestions they don't like. Indeed "This would confuse drivers" is one I have often heard. And I think that's a large part of what I've been trying to say here. Attitudes won't change quickly but one thing we don't want is drivers deciding it's their duty to discipline cyclists riding across zebra crossings, especially in locations where they are entitled to do so. Local publicity is of limited value because drivers have a tendency to go all over the place. I can think of several experimental schemes - around here we had X crossings - which were not followed up because of the confusion, which must largely have involved strangers to Leeds, rather than Leeds Loiners being too thick to grasp the concept. In the present economic climate, I think that national publicity is unlikely.
A few issues there which have been thrashed out on the turbo roundabout and elsewhere. eg Problems with making farcilities (another unscientific word but well-done! to whoever coined it) safe where they meet a main carriageway is one of the reasons some people are opposed to them. Then, I think the general view is that, subject to proper behaviour by drivers, a well-used pedestrian crossing does not maximise traffic capacity which is why highwaymen like light-controlled crossings (although the official plan on the current "deathtrap" thread refers to crossings being converted to zebras to achieve it.)
All I really was trying to say is that a lack of clarity is unhelpful to the point of being dangerous and that's even more likely when the existing arrangement (zebra crossings for pedestrians) has been in operation for some eighty years and is still widely abused by drivers. IMO, there is value in comparison with other societies and in this context, I'd say the starting point is the attitudes towards vulnerable road users. The infrastructure can only follow.
I didn't write the thread title, but it's only the same as the pseudo-scientific stuff highwaymen trot out to supress suggestions they don't like. Indeed "This would confuse drivers" is one I have often heard. And I think that's a large part of what I've been trying to say here. Attitudes won't change quickly but one thing we don't want is drivers deciding it's their duty to discipline cyclists riding across zebra crossings, especially in locations where they are entitled to do so. Local publicity is of limited value because drivers have a tendency to go all over the place. I can think of several experimental schemes - around here we had X crossings - which were not followed up because of the confusion, which must largely have involved strangers to Leeds, rather than Leeds Loiners being too thick to grasp the concept. In the present economic climate, I think that national publicity is unlikely.
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
The plans for the scheme are intriguing.
Road traffic heading south on Queen Charlotte Street meets a "Give Way" marking before the cycle section of the Zebra Crossing .
There is no such marking for road traffic heading northbound .
In any case the finished item on the ground might not match the plans.
Road traffic heading south on Queen Charlotte Street meets a "Give Way" marking before the cycle section of the Zebra Crossing .
There is no such marking for road traffic heading northbound .
In any case the finished item on the ground might not match the plans.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: Accident waiting to happen.
gaz wrote:The plans for the scheme are intriguing.
Road traffic heading south on Queen Charlotte Street meets a "Give Way" marking before the cycle section of the Zebra Crossing .
There is no such marking for road traffic heading northbound .
In any case the finished item on the ground might not match the plans.
There is no give way marking for road traffic heading south, and I don't recall any give way signs.