Cyclist who broke six ribs on CS6 says it is not obvious white line is a raised kerb

henryb wrote:

A rumble strip next to this kerb would solve the problem

No it wouldn't. The solution is to remove the needless hazard.

seiklmeikl wrote:

Good feature badly implemented.

They use these in Copenhagen with great success.  They were already built like that, when I started cycling there for a while in the 90ties, well before the big hype of Copenhagenizing etc. Since they are so common, nobody really seems to have a problem with it - given that the bike paths are so wide, that you never need to come close to that line (which is not painted at all in Cph. The kerb to your left (the car lane) looks like the kerb to your right (pedestrian path). So you know what to expect on both sides.   

Problem seems to be, you have to know about this. 

exactly - a major problem with much cycling infrastructure is that its not obvious or consistent - infrastructure for motorised vehicles is generally uniform and as said above is readily changed when it doesn't work but cyclists are expected to just deal with it  

antigee wrote:

[exactly - a major problem with much cycling infrastructure is that its not obvious or consistent - infrastructure for motorised vehicles is generally uniform and as said above is readily changed when it doesn't work but cyclists are expected to just deal with it  

In programming this is known as the "Law of least surprise".

Quote:

A typical formulation of the principle, from 1984, is: "If a necessary feature has a high astonishment factor, it may be necessary to redesign the feature."

In general engineering design contexts, the principle means that a component of a system should behave in a way that users expect it to behave; that is, users should not be astonished by its behavior.

Road engineers are generally completely oblivious to this principle.

spen wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to how you could miss a standard height kerb let alone mistake it for a painted line

Perhaps it has something to do with a history of kerbs being on the left, and the expectation that that is where the hazard lies.

Grahamd wrote:

spen wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to how you could miss a standard height kerb let alone mistake it for a painted line

Perhaps it has something to do with a history of kerbs being on the left, and the expectation that that is where the hazard lies.

 

But shouldn't you be aware of the immediate environment and should you be looking for the unusual?

spen wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

spen wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to how you could miss a standard height kerb let alone mistake it for a painted line

Perhaps it has something to do with a history of kerbs being on the left, and the expectation that that is where the hazard lies.

 

 

But shouldn't you be aware of the immediate environment and should you be looking for the unusual?

Shouldn't dedicated cycle infrastructure be designed so as to reduce the level of stress involved in cylcing?  Instead of adding to the amount of mental work required?

I don't get why you are trying to defend this.  When roads have hazards for motorists, they usually get removed or ameliorated.  Why else do we have all those centre-line barriers and crash barriers on bends, etc?  Here they seem to have specifically put an extra one in, simply due to the usual local authority inability to listen to anyone or take advice.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

spen wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

spen wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to how you could miss a standard height kerb let alone mistake it for a painted line

Perhaps it has something to do with a history of kerbs being on the left, and the expectation that that is where the hazard lies.

 

 

But shouldn't you be aware of the immediate environment and should you be looking for the unusual?

 

Shouldn't dedicated cycle infrastructure be designed so as to reduce the level of stress involved in cylcing?  Instead of adding to the amount of mental work required?

 

I don't get why you are trying to defend this.  When roads have hazards for motorists, they usually get removed or ameliorated.  Why else do we have all those centre-line barriers and crash barriers on bends, etc?  Here they seem to have specifically put an extra one in, simply due to the usual local authority inability to listen to anyone or take advice.

So, put simply, you want everyone else to take responsibility for your safety while you ride along smelling the flowers. 

Just to be extra specially clear, I'm not defending this, just saying look where you're going, but btw it isn't dangerous

spen wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

spen wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

spen wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to how you could miss a standard height kerb let alone mistake it for a painted line

Perhaps it has something to do with a history of kerbs being on the left, and the expectation that that is where the hazard lies.

 

 

But shouldn't you be aware of the immediate environment and should you be looking for the unusual?

 

Shouldn't dedicated cycle infrastructure be designed so as to reduce the level of stress involved in cylcing?  Instead of adding to the amount of mental work required?

 

I don't get why you are trying to defend this.  When roads have hazards for motorists, they usually get removed or ameliorated.  Why else do we have all those centre-line barriers and crash barriers on bends, etc?  Here they seem to have specifically put an extra one in, simply due to the usual local authority inability to listen to anyone or take advice.

 

So, put simply, you want everyone else to take responsibility for your safety while you ride along smelling the flowers. 

 

Just to be extra specially clear, I'm not defending this, just saying look where you're going, but btw it isn't dangerous

a cyclist was killed on London Bridge about 4 years ago after coming to grief on the kerb-height central reservation. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-killed-in-london-bridge-c...

While it's true that people are responsible for their own safety, it's also true that civil engineers and the organisations that hire them have a professional responsibility and an ethical duty to design foreseeable and avoidable hazards out of their constructions. Part of being responsible for our own safety is acting to make them live up to their responsibilities. They are our servants.

spen wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

spen wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

spen wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to how you could miss a standard height kerb let alone mistake it for a painted line

Perhaps it has something to do with a history of kerbs being on the left, and the expectation that that is where the hazard lies.

 

 

But shouldn't you be aware of the immediate environment and should you be looking for the unusual?

 

Shouldn't dedicated cycle infrastructure be designed so as to reduce the level of stress involved in cylcing?  Instead of adding to the amount of mental work required?

 

I don't get why you are trying to defend this.  When roads have hazards for motorists, they usually get removed or ameliorated.  Why else do we have all those centre-line barriers and crash barriers on bends, etc?  Here they seem to have specifically put an extra one in, simply due to the usual local authority inability to listen to anyone or take advice.

 

So, put simply, you want everyone else to take responsibility for your safety while you ride along smelling the flowers. 

 

Just to be extra specially clear, I'm not defending this, just saying look where you're going, but btw it isn't dangerous

What a mad comment.   Not really thought-through, was it?

Let's dig a 10 foot hole directly outside your front door.  To do otherwise would mean everyone else taking repsonsibiltity for your safety., right?

spen wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

spen wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

spen wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to how you could miss a standard height kerb let alone mistake it for a painted line

Perhaps it has something to do with a history of kerbs being on the left, and the expectation that that is where the hazard lies.

 

 

But shouldn't you be aware of the immediate environment and should you be looking for the unusual?

 

Shouldn't dedicated cycle infrastructure be designed so as to reduce the level of stress involved in cylcing?  Instead of adding to the amount of mental work required?

 

I don't get why you are trying to defend this.  When roads have hazards for motorists, they usually get removed or ameliorated.  Why else do we have all those centre-line barriers and crash barriers on bends, etc?  Here they seem to have specifically put an extra one in, simply due to the usual local authority inability to listen to anyone or take advice.

 

So, put simply, you want everyone else to take responsibility for your safety while you ride along smelling the flowers. 

 

Just to be extra specially clear, I'm not defending this, just saying look where you're going, but btw it isn't dangerous

No we just want infrastructure not to be designed as an obstacle course when you are cycling in the lane it will be very hard to see the line has any height as you will be looking down onto it.

Let's compare with speed humps which are painted with arrows to make them as easy to see as possible despite the intention for drivers to drive slowly along the entire road and the fact they are less likely to cause a crash.

spen wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to how you could miss a standard height kerb let alone mistake it for a painted line

Busy with other cyclists, glare from the sun or from wet roads or car headlights, darkness/poorly lit, the angle you look at it (or don't look at it!), the expectation of what would be there (seeing as most "bike lanes" are just paint it's not unreasonable to assume that this would be as well).

If it wasn't for the political minefield, London wouldn't be difficult to convert to truly world class cycling infrastructure. Problem is it's being done piecemeal with weak-willed leaders who bow to the slightest bit of vocal nimbyism and backlash, water down the scheme until it's a fraction what it could or should have been and then build it to the lowest possible cost.

Square-edged kerbs are much cheaper than kerbs with a chamfered edge.

crazy-legs wrote:

spen wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to how you could miss a standard height kerb let alone mistake it for a painted line

Busy with other cyclists, glare from the sun or from wet roads or car headlights, darkness/poorly lit, the angle you look at it (or don't look at it!), the expectation of what would be there (seeing as most "bike lanes" are just paint it's not unreasonable to assume that this would be as well).

If it wasn't for the political minefield, London wouldn't be difficult to convert to truly world class cycling infrastructure. Problem is it's being done piecemeal with weak-willed leaders who bow to the slightest bit of vocal nimbyism and backlash, water down the scheme until it's a fraction what it could or should have been and then build it to the lowest possible cost.

Square-edged kerbs are much cheaper than kerbs with a chamfered edge.

"... the expectation of what would be there ..." Rather than actually looking and seeing what is there

ChrisB200SX wrote:

it's clearly there to keep the cyclists in rather than keep motor vehicles out.

^

And there you have it.