Hackney Council adds dual zebra crossing intended for both pedestrians and cyclists

The _Kaner wrote:

The instagram photo shows 2 x pedestrians crossing without a care in the world, seemingly engrossed in their smart phones...totally unaware of any perceived danger that may be lurking on the nearby roads....
peds are cool and untouchable, cyclists are not...that's the message I get from this

Well let's give them some credit, at least they are actually using the pedestrian half.

This is the first zebra crossing of its type, but there are lots of light controlled crossings using the same pattern. Here's a well known example in Kingston upon Thames, with a well known problem for anyone that cycles through that town.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.41084,-0.300816,3a,75y,337.1h,66.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSrjTwzDr3cfzZpMU2PuE4g!2e0!6m1!1e1

brooksby wrote:

The powers-that-be forgot that motorists would want to come up to the junction line to get out of Queen Charlotte Street onto Baldwin Street, and that there's room for one car between the zebra crossing and that line. So cars just wait all up and over the crossing, blocking it.

They probably need reminding of rule 192 of the Highway Code. 'In queuing traffic, you should keep the crossing clear.'

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_192_keep_...

ibike wrote:

Looks great. I assume this is the first implementation of the DfT 's changes to allow dual-use zebra crossings:
https://t.co/1zcN9v3q8g

Motorists will obviously take time to adjust but is there really anything not to like?

Thanks for that link. That was interesting and not, I'm afraid, something I was aware of. They should really sort out their terminology, though, or involve someone mathematically literate in the drafting of such documents. I hope some council isn't going to read the marking size range (at the end of page 37, para 3) and paint some tiny 2cm x 2cm bicycles on the road. At least, that's how I would interpret "400mm square".

CapriciousZephyr wrote:

ibike wrote:

They should really sort out their terminology, though, or involve someone mathematically literate in the drafting of such documents. I hope some council isn't going to read the marking size range (at the end of page 37, para 3) and paint some tiny 2cm x 2cm bicycles on the road. At least, that's how I would interpret "400mm square".

An elephant footprint is a square marking to denote the path of cyclists through a junction, its not a logo.

400mm square is 400 x 400 mm, it's standard terminology.

I do hope they have DfT approval for it as TSRGD 2015 has not been made, so, according to current Regulations this isn't a prescribed use of the marking.

Notgettinganyfaster wrote:

CapriciousZephyr wrote:

ibike wrote:

They should really sort out their terminology, though, or involve someone mathematically literate in the drafting of such documents. I hope some council isn't going to read the marking size range (at the end of page 37, para 3) and paint some tiny 2cm x 2cm bicycles on the road. At least, that's how I would interpret "400mm square".

An elephant footprint is a square marking to denote the path of cyclists through a junction, its not a logo.

400mm square is 400 x 400 mm, it's standard terminology.

I do hope they have DfT approval for it as TSRGD 2015 has not been made, so, according to current Regulations this isn't a prescribed use of the marking.

Well, if it's standard terminology, fair enough, but it still seems pretty confusing to me. Does that mean the markings are supposed to be as tall as they are wide? Wouldn't seem appropriate for a cycle (unless it's vertically stretched as some road markings are to account for angle of view). And 40cm x 40cm is still pretty small, never mind 25cm x 25cm. It's difficult to be sure from that Instagram pic with the pedestrians, but I'd be surprised if those cycle markings were as little as 40cm across. I really did try to think what those regulations were supposed to mean, but no interpretation seemed very sensible to me.