Local cyclists and activists hit out at design of new junction after Southampton hit-and-run

if anyone would like to mention something about this to one of the colleagues designer who has contacted myeself about this.

Wilson.Massie [at] bblivingplaces.com here you go

You know how you're not allowed to make champagne or feta unless you're actually in the places in France and Greece? Road designs should be protected in the same way - nobody can call a junction "Dutch" unless an actual engineer from the Netherlands has signed off on it.

Oh, I get it now. Yeah, with UK driving habits, that's really bad.

In Sweden, you're actually taught something similar to turn left off a busy A-road (right-hand traffic):

If the traffic is busy and you don't have a clear left-turn, then pull into the right-hand side off-lane area to allow cars behind you to pass. When both the traffic going in your direction, and the other land are both free, make the turn.

Works really well, if *everyone* knows about the technique.

If not... well, it's ugly.

Junction design like this only encourages RLJing as it's probably a lot safer than watching the instructional video on your phone in the middle of the road because it's so damn counter Roadcraft, Bikeability and common sense.

Paul_C wrote:

This is what happens when idiot planners get some weird idea in their heads, but can't do it right because of ONE simple fact, currently cyclists crossing a side street or arm of a junction do not have priority and are expected to give way to motorised vehicles...

Our law needs to change

Do you have a reference to back this up?

On the road, cyclists have equal priority, do you mean where a cycleway (not a cycle lane on the main carriageway) crosses or joins a road/junction?

The Highway Code wrote:

180 When turning

keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.

Where the Cycleway is a shared pavement rule 170 would apply, treating the cyclist as a pedestrian. The cyclist has priority if they have begun to cross unless there are give way lines on the cycleway.

Is not the law that needs to change, it's lack of enforcement and the old and uninformed attitude that cyclists belong in the gutter that need to change.

Hit and run? well of course - the junction is designed to maintain (motorised) traffic flow. (that was a full stop)
Yes other countries use similar designs but not as ideal solutions rather as a cheap fix.
Live in Melbourne and cyclists use "hook turns" not just at junctions where they are compulsory but also at other junctions were vehicle speed and volume is such that moving to the right lane to turn right is near impossible - drivers here are familiar with the move and it is safe for cyclists to do but it is not cyclist friendly and shouldn't be dressed up as such

Okay, duff junction.

The interesting question is how this design came to be built, who drempt it up, using which guidelines.

Maybe there is some progress to be made here.

Poking at councillors one at a time, people who will never get it, is futile.

This guy seems to have the right idea (although there are pitfalls in every solution).

http://www.protectedintersection.com/

The BBC Inside Out documentary series for Yorks and Lincs did a feature comparing an example of Yorkshire's cycling infrastructure (between Harrogate and Leeds) with one in the Netherlands. A Dutch intersection not dissimilar to the one in the video caught my eye. Niiice...

I think the creators of this junction have been on a trip to Denmark. This is how bicycles turn against the flow of traffic at most junctions in Copenhagen (where I lived for 4 years). I believe it is anecdotally referred to as a "Copenhagen Left".

It does seem to work okay there, but is not necessarily considered best practice anymore: (http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/07/not-really-so-great-cycle-p...).

I feel that a large part of the reason this type of road design works, is due to the high level of consideration that car drivers give to people on bikes in cycling-popular countries.
It makes sense to me that improving driver awareness/attitude towards cyclists needs to be a major part of any future move towards safer roads for everyone*

(*Quite how this is achieved is not an easy answer I give you!)

Its quite simple:

To turn RIGHT, you simply approach the junction and position yourself on the LEFT of cars going straight on, but to the RIGHT of cars turing left so you don't get left hooked, whilst simultaneously clearly indicating your intention to "turn *sort of* of left, but not really a proper left, since you're only going to turn right after turning left", then turn left, then turn through 180 degrees to face right from your original direction, then go straight over at the NEXT light change (being careful not to get left hooked again!) .

If it costs millions to alter each junction, and it really is impossible for UK planners to design a scheme that's safe for cyclists, then I'd rather see that money spent on concepts that are more easily grasped and implemented, such as permeable barriers, quiet ways, and signs that say 20 instead of 30, rather than waste it on crazy junctions that put cyclists lives at risk.

In the mean time, what I tend to do is get off my bike, walk across the junction and start cycling again, a process often much faster than waiting for one change of lights, let alone two (if you're trying to turn right). I just don't feel safe at this sort of junction. I never jump red lights, but I don't see a problem with becoming a pedestrian now and again, especially when it makes my journey quicker.

Wow. That is just mad. How many nervous cyclists, for whom this arrangement has apparently been created, are going to have the nerve to cycle on the wrong side of the road towards a revving car whose driver is poised to speed forward at the first hint of amber. And how many mad revving drivers are going to realise that the cyclist ahead of them is behaving as the planners expected.

Mad.

And in the video the car following bike 1 goes over the pedestrian refuge to get past bike 1 . How very informative.

Looks suspiciously like a German junction to me, although a German junction would often have shared cyclist/pedestrian traffic signals with timings that are often fairly rubbish for the cyclists, who can clear junctions much faster than pedestrians but often find themselves stuck at red when the car that gets to the junction after them (coming from the same direction) goes through on green. This is supposed to be changing, but local authorities have been lumping cyclists together with pedestrians for so many decades now that it will take a while for the new rules and guidance to penetrate down to local level.

In theory German cyclists can choose freely between one-stage and two-stage left turns depending on their abilities and personal preferences. Wanting to make a one-stage left turn is seen as a legitimate reason for leaving a mandatory-use cycle lane and getting oneself into the right lane for the turn with the cars. I usually make one-stage turns, but I sometimes find them too difficult when my left turn is a turn that only cyclists are permitted to make. An example would be turning left into a street which is two-way for cyclists but one-way for motorists. Because the turn is banned for motorists, usually no lane, turn arrow or designated waiting space is provided, and a busy straight-ahead lane is not a great place to wait for an opportunity to turn left.

That. Is. Astonishing.
The right-turning rider is just being set up to be taken out by cars turning left across him, and then- just to make sure- he's sent into what would basically oncoming traffic if people are too eager to get away from the lights. Which is hardly unusual.
Really hard to imagine how this ever got off the drawing board.

The right turn manoeuvre is reminiscent of the Melbourne right turn when crossing the city's tram tracks. You pull over to the lift while indicating right and waiting for the tracks and traffic to clear before making your move. Strange though it is, this works in Melbourne. But then people are used to the manoeuvre there and know what's going to happen when you do it. For Southampton this is an unfamiliar manoeuvre. Note that a cyclist turning right will have to wait for two cycles of the lights instead of just one to make a right turn, slowing commute times. There must be a better solution than this.

I wouldn't trust a local authority to enforce this. My local authority sent a young graduate numpty they employ to take an electronic box round all the boroughs ASL's checking the magnetic loops - well he went round and switched them all off all over the city. The council claimed it was an accident that half a dozen ASL magnetic loops had been switched off over night. That's the attitude we are dealing with nation wide - deliberate neglect by LA's if it's not something they understand or like.

Quote:

The design of this junction [...] passed several safety audits

My experience of local-authority safety audits is they aren't worth the paper they're written on, particularly when it comes to cyclist safety.

Either they're done by staff who are motorists and haven't been in a bike since they were 10, or the checklist they're working to is fundamentally flawed. Or both.

In Holland, there would be separate "Simultaneous Green" phases for cyclists and pedestrians to negotiate that junction... none of those stupid two-stage turns...

Sorry, but that junction is totally f*cked up. I just watched the video and yelled at chicken 1 to stop as he turned to cycle the wrong way into oncoming traffic. A couple of seconds later I realised that this was the behavior intended by the junction designers.

It really beggars belief. How can anyone be so stupid as to think this is a good design?

Alternate simple proposal that would save millions and improve traffic flow:

Cars are supposed to slow to circa 15mph at junctions, cyclists follow exactly the same patterns as cars, all vehicles to leave the recommended stopping distance or greater between each other. Signalling mandatory. Failure to observe any of the above whatever vehicle you're on results in an on the spot fine or confiscation of vehicle.

Yeah right... instead we're going to get experimental "dutch" interweaving of two separate traffic systems resulting in either of two outcomes: 1) slower bicycle commute times; 2) death and confusion.

All the dutch segregationist lobbyists are stampeding cycling into what will be a very unpleasant place.

Suggest local campaigners mount boxes at the junction filled with leaflets marked with the following "tickbox" statement:

[_] I have watched and understood the instructional video regarding this junction and agree to absolve Southampton City Council, Sustrans and the Highways Agency of all blame should I be injured or killed whilst using it.
Signed __________
Print name __________

But this is cycle proof. There won't be nearly any cycles using it - therefore it is cycle proof...or do i (and Southampton council) have the wrong end of the stick here?

Endorse Bez comment and same applies to Bow Roundabout, any road layout that requires any road user to view an instructional video prior to encountering it has failed the basic premise on which TSRGD specifies road signage, if it is to work effectively.