Accident waiting to happen.

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
MrD
Posts: 9
Joined: 5 Mar 2007, 11:59pm

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by MrD »

Vorpal wrote: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.


The width of the crossing is the same as the width of the footpath plus the segregated cycle route. It implies to me that cyclists on the cycle route have priority over road traffic. There are no signs for cyclists to say otherwise.

Whenever I use a zebra with my bike, I will get off and walk. Most of the time I see other cyclists using zebras, they either walk, or cycle at no more than about five mph. Once cyclists start thinking they have priority, some will start moving a lot faster, and motorists generally won't be on the lookout for fast moving cyclists, looking only for people at walking speed.

Road traffic heading west, and turning left into Queen Charlotte Street will have cycle path traffic on their nearside, where it is harder to see. Cyclists heading west should cede priority to traffic possibly behind them, on to their right.

When the design of junctions confuses priorities, makes people think they have priority when they don't, bad things will happen.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by gaz »

MrD wrote:There is no give way marking for road traffic heading south, and I don't recall any give way signs.


If all works seem complete I'd suggest that you ask Bristol City Council why the scheme has not been delivered "to plan".
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by Pete Owens »



And from those plans I would say the zebra crossing is probably one of the least objectionable features of an utterly miserable farcility.

To start with 2-way shared use facilities are the worst form of provision - even if some thought had gone into it.

For a cyclist headng east:
First you have to make a right turn off Baldwin Street to reach the facility.
Then after a few metres you need to stop at the zebra crossing at Queen Charlotte Street (A road you would not need to cross in the first place had you stayed on the carriageway)
A few metres on you have to give way to a toucan crossing re-aligned to a set of steps (why a toucan if there is no ridable route on the other side?)
Another few metres and you reach the floating bus stop (and have to give way twice)
Then another give way marking at the pedestrian crossing near the junction.
Then finally you reach the end of the facility at High Street.

That gives you a total of 7 extra interruptions in along a total length of about 150m - including making a right turn across the flow of traffic that the facility is presumably intended to protect you from.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by Pete Owens »

gaz wrote:
MrD wrote:There is no give way marking for road traffic heading south, and I don't recall any give way signs.


If all works seem complete I'd suggest that you ask Bristol City Council why the scheme has not been delivered "to plan".


It was probably picked up during the safety audit; zebra crossings are not supposed to feature give way markings.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by Vorpal »

Pete Owens wrote:
gaz wrote:
MrD wrote:There is no give way marking for road traffic heading south, and I don't recall any give way signs.


If all works seem complete I'd suggest that you ask Bristol City Council why the scheme has not been delivered "to plan".


It was probably picked up during the safety audit; zebra crossings are not supposed to feature give way markings.


But a shared crossing with a cycle route using a zebra is also unusual. The give way markings may be the only way to legally cede priority to cyclists. I don't expect that the autditors (if that's what happened) considered that.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by Bicycler »

Can anybody confirm that cyclists do have priority with that layout as it has been built? It is entirely possible that they are waiting for priority cycle crossings to be permitted before marking it as such. At the moment it just looks like a place for cyclists to cross with no reason to assume priority.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by thirdcrank »

Bicycler wrote:Can anybody confirm that cyclists do have priority with that layout as it has been built? It is entirely possible that they are waiting for priority cycle crossings to be permitted before marking it as such. At the moment it just looks like a place for cyclists to cross with no reason to assume priority.


The assumption must be that when / if the new regs come into force they will have priority

A new type of crossing is prescribed for use by both pedestrians and cyclists. This shared-use crossing uses the familiar zebra crossing layout for pedestrians with a parallel cycle route indicated by 'elephant's footprint' markings, zig-zags and yellow globes. Drivers must give way to cyclists and pedestrians at the give-way line.


That's from the draft circular which is intended to introduce the new regs. It's only a working document. Presumably it must be close enough to reality for highway authorities to be anticipating it. Bear in mind it's dated 2015, which is still over a week away, but it implies "before 2016."

The menagerie of pedestrian crossings has previously been housed in its own set of regulations but is now being brought under the TSRGD with other traffic signs. There is currently a difference in that the current crossing regs say "give precedence" where the TSRGD refer to "give way." This may be academic but the former has been interpreted by the courts as meaning "allow to pass first" whereas the definition of "give way" (and this is from memory) is along the lines that the driver must not cause danger to the other or cause the other to change speed or direction. In the TSRGD, "give way" lines are the familiar two parallel dotted lines across the carriageway, which are supplemented by an inverted triangle if there's a GIVE WAY sign. The 1997 crossings regs refer to "give way" lines, but the relevant schedule prescribes them as the single dotted line edging a zebra crossing, which logically is a "give precedence" line. Does this legal waffle matter? Not really, till something goes wrong and the lawyers get going.

It all seems to be imminent but there's no publicity. As I've already posted, who's to know what's happening. Will drivers know they are supposed to give way to cyclists? They are often reluctant to give precedence to pedestrians.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by Vorpal »

There is currently no legal obligation to give way (or cede priority) to cyclists who cycle across a zebra. The only way they can currently obtain the legal priority at an uncontrolled crossing is to dismount and use it as pedestrians.

It's possible that the design of a facility could make a difference in a legal ruling in the event of an incident; that is, if a fecility were clearly designed to allow cyclists to pedal across, drivers *should* cede priority and a legal decision might at least note that. But of course, there is no guarantee of that.

edited to add: I expect that exceptions would be taken for cyclists who use their pedal cycles as mobility aids, but that has never been tested.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by beardy »

edited to add: I expect that exceptions would be taken for cyclists who use their pedal cycles as mobility aids, but that has never been tested.


How would a motorist know which cyclists they were allowed to mow down and which that they are not?
You can not have priority decided on factors that are not visible to everybody when the decisions have to be made.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by gaz »

thirdcrank wrote:... the definition of "give way" (and this is from memory) is along the lines that the driver must not cause danger to the other or cause the other to change speed or direction. ...

IIRC (and all too often I don't :wink: ) the current definition of "give way", at least in terms of road markings and signs, applies only to other vehicles not to pedestrians. My memory comes from something posted on here and my guess would be that it was posted by tc. I've tried to find it again a few times, without success, so maybe I just thought it up and it has no basis in fact.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by thirdcrank »

This is again IIRC, because I've looked all this up and linked before. There are three GIVE WAY situations in the current TSRGD (remember, pedestrian crossing are not at present in the TSRGD)

These are: at the junction with a main road; at a signed chicane; and at a level crossing. In none of those situations does a driver have to give way to pedestrians. Bringing pedestrian crossings under the aegis (whatever an aegis is) of the TSRGD will streamline it all :lol:

Part of my reason for mentioning level crossings is that even when they have gates and all sorts of fancy warning devices, drivers are still prepared to try to avoid giving way to trains - and we've had at least one thread about a cyclist ditto.

In theory, at least, a driver who drives badly in these situations may be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving. eg although the regs only require a driver to let a pedestrian go first, passing closely behind a pedestrian so they jumped out of the way would be an offence. Current practice seems to differ.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by gaz »

thirdcrank wrote:This is again IIRC, because I've looked all this up and linked before.

Indeed you have and there was enough detail in your above post for me to find it, here, thank you.

Off topic but it leaves me wondering what to make of all those give way markings they festoon across cycletracks near bus stops, pedestrian crossings, etc if they only oblige cyclists to give way to other vehicles :?

I've got enough sense not to go ploughing into pedestrians without the need for markings that only indicate that I'm not obliged to give way :wink: .
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by Vorpal »

beardy wrote:
edited to add: I expect that exceptions would be taken for cyclists who use their pedal cycles as mobility aids, but that has never been tested.


How would a motorist know which cyclists they were allowed to mow down and which that they are not?
You can not have priority decided on factors that are not visible to everybody when the decisions have to be made.

Someone using a pedal cycle as a mobility aid may be considered a pedestrian, rather than a cyclist. As I said, this has never been tested. Priority shouldn't be decided on factors that are not visible, but the law, as they say is an ***.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by thirdcrank »

gaz wrote: ... Off topic but it leaves me wondering what to make of all those give way markings they festoon across cycletracks near bus stops, pedestrian crossings, etc if they only oblige cyclists to give way to other vehicles :? ... .


They have a nasty habit of changing the rules without telling me - I'm well past my sell-by date, but AFAIK, those GIVE way markings are a waste of paint (in legal terms, that is.) Apart from anything else, The painted inverted triangle is only used when there's a GIVE WAY sign. Otherwise, the double dotted line is enough.

This situation arises when some highwayman wants cyclists of the road, but there's not enough space on the pavement to accommodate both cyclists and the people highwaymen dismiss as "peds." They don't want to be the subject of ridicule for erecting endless CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs, so they improvise with the white paint.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Accident waiting to happen.

Post by mjr »

Pete Owens wrote:


And from those plans I would say the zebra crossing is probably one of the least objectionable features of an utterly miserable farcility.

To start with 2-way shared use facilities are the worst form of provision - even if some thought had gone into it.

Oh well, at least this one isn't shared use! ;-)
For a cyclist headng east:
First you have to make a right turn off Baldwin Street to reach the facility.

Yes, I don't understand why it's like that. The TV coverage and pictures gave me the impression it ran the full length of Baldwin Street. https://www.flickr.com/photos/samsaunde ... 276740493/ is titled "Baldwin Street Cycle Track Reaches Telephone Street". I think they mean Telephone Avenue (access at that end closed to motors for years), which isn't shown as connected to the cycleway on the plans, so there's clearly been some changes. Hopefully it runs the full length and connects to the bus/bike only Broad Quay.

If there's no connection to the quay, it would rather undermine it IMO. The intended access on the plans seems to be from across Baldwin Street (St Stephen's St?) but is that really a popular desire line? I guess riders from Broad Quay could cross Baldwin Street into the looks-pedestrianised-but-I'm-not-sure Clare Street and turn right at the travel bookshop, but it's extra distance and I bet it's not signposted.
Then after a few metres you need to stop at the zebra crossing at Queen Charlotte Street (A road you would not need to cross in the first place had you stayed on the carriageway)

And a surprisingly troublesome junction, with a stack of STATS19 collision reports in that area, most involving cycles . I hope there's some reason to think that moving cycles out of the main carriageway so they all cross QCS will be safer. It might, because some of the collisions are rather odd things, like cycles hitting parked cars (too busy looking out for moving ones perhaps?) or being rear-ended by a car waiting to turn (wonder if it misjudged where to stop).
A few metres on you have to give way to a toucan crossing re-aligned to a set of steps (why a toucan if there is no ridable route on the other side?)
Another few metres and you reach the floating bus stop (and have to give way twice)
Then another give way marking at the pedestrian crossing near the junction.

The pictures I've seen have psuedo-zebras rather than give-ways. For example https://www.flickr.com/photos/samsaunde ... 7276740493
Then finally you reach the end of the facility at High Street.

That gives you a total of 7 extra interruptions in along a total length of about 150m - including making a right turn across the flow of traffic that the facility is presumably intended to protect you from.

Why presume that? The above-linked consultation clearly says that "The purpose of this scheme is to address the large number of crashes involving cycles on Baldwin St, at the junction with Queen Charlotte Street". As mentioned above, I'm not sure how it protects from that either, though!

It does have the potential to ease the disaster of a junction at the east end of Baldwin Street where bikes can cross into Castle Park, but that would mean rephasing those traffic lights and I don't know if that's being done.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Post Reply