A new approach to junction design that will become a key feature of Greater Manchester’s Bee Network has been described as ‘genius’ by the region’s Cycling and Walking Commissioner, Chris Boardman. The Cycle Optimised Protected Signals design (Cyclops) is said to be safer for cyclists and pedestrians while being optimised all modes of transport.
The principle feature of a Cyclops junction is an orbital cycle route that separates cyclists from motor traffic. This reduces the possibility of collisions and conflicts – ‘left hooks’ in particular.
It basically amounts to a roundabout-style cycle track that encircles the junction with traffic signals controlling the movement of pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.
Cyclists can make fully protected two-phase right turns and filter left onto and off the orbital route without signal control.
People on foot are said to be able to get where they want to be in fewer stages and with more space to wait than in other junction designs. There’s also potential for diagonal pedestrian crossings.
The designers say the concept allows all types of junction arrangements to be incorporated within the external orbital cycle system.
Transport for Greater Manchester said that the first locations where a Cyclops junction will be installed would likely be Bolton and Hulme.
Several other UK cities, including Cambridge and Aberdeen, are also working on plans based on the Cyclops design template.
“Junctions are where most collisions occur and can be a scary experience for people travelling without cars,” said Boardman. “If people are faced with one or more of these stressful experiences on a journey, in many cases they simply opt to jump in the car, so tackling this is a top priority.
“Our traffic engineers have come up with a world-leading junction design that will be introduced in towns and cities not only across the UK but abroad too.
“The Cyclops approach makes foot and bike travel far safer and more direct without disrupting other modes. It is frankly genius and we’ll soon be wondering why we ever did anything else. I can’t wait to see the first one installed in Greater Manchester.”
74 thoughts on “‘Cyclops’ junction to be introduced in Manchester is ‘genius’ says Chris Boardman”
Interesting.
Interesting.
Has it been tried anywhere yet?
Is there already evidence that it works?
It looks good, but you know, motorists…
It looks a fucking mess .
It looks a fucking mess . Learn how to negotiate roads and this shit fest of streets and roads would not be needed. If you can’t negotiate roads then keep your bike off the roads and walk or take a bus , always pandering to incapable people. What next a lane for the alphabet people they have a crossing in Dallas already . ,,,,fuck me . I could ride my bike safely on the roads when I was 10 years old . It just causes more chaos .Some drivers will be totally confused.. a fucking mess.
Xena wrote:
You do know we’re trying to get *more* people cycling yeah?
It looks a fucking mess .
[quote=Xena]
It looks a fucking mess . Learn how to negotiate roads and this shit fest of streets and roads would not be needed. If you can’t negotiate roads then keep your bike off the roads and walk or take a bus , always pandering to incapable people. What next a lane for the alphabet people they have a crossing in Dallas already . ,,,,fuck me . I could ride my bike safely on the roads when I was 10 years old . It just causes more chaos .Some drivers will be totally confused.. a fucking mess.
[/quote
A Leave voter?
Plasterer’s Radio]
I’m a leave voter, there’s simply no need to introduce that shit into this conversation!
I think it looks an absolute mess, it’s overly complex, you’re asking people on bikes to have to make maassively more decisions than normal, including children, the not so young and sometimes people maybe with not 100% decision making faculties. It’s often tough enough even for the experienced, alert and fit rider so for me it’s rubbish, still panders to the motorist and should be a simple solution. Move the motors completely off the network except for public transport, priority crossing everywhere.
That makes it easy, safe and wide – this isn’t designed for mass cycling, it’s not safe IMHO and it’s simply over complex and more time consuming for people on bikes.
Narrow minded/limited thinking, if we want 26% modal share as per the Dutch/Danes then this is a lillion miles away from achieving that!
Measure twice cut once!
Well, the thing is Xenas
Well, the thing is Xenas comment is just the kind of ill informed, reactionary and extreme comment we’ve become used to in the Brexit debate so it’s not a million miles off the mark. This type of junction isn’t dissimilar to those I’ve seen in Seville, Bilbao, Antwerp and various Dutch towns, where they have had them for years and years. They are used by ALL cyclists for their proposed purpose – that is helping people move around safely and reasonably quickly. The UKs problem is attitudes – until the us and them conundrum is resolved, there will be cyclists v motorists and Remainers v Leavers. The two things have the same core causes at heart – seeing the differences in people, separatism and antagonism – and they both provide ample demonstration of how f@@ked up UK society is.
Well, the thing is Xenas
Well, the thing is Xenas comment is just the kind of ill informed, reactionary and extreme comment we’ve become used to in the Brexit debate so it’s not a million miles off the mark. This type of junction isn’t dissimilar to those I’ve seen in Seville, Bilbao, Antwerp and various Dutch towns, where they have had them for years and years. They are used by ALL cyclists for their proposed purpose – that is helping people move around safely and reasonably quickly. The UKs problem is attitudes – until the us and them conundrum is resolved, there will be cyclists v motorists and Remainers v Leavers. The two things have the same core causes at heart – seeing the differences in people, separatism and antagonism – and they both provide ample demonstration of how f@@ked up UK society is.
Plasterer’s Radio]
i don’t give fuck , politics is BS. Government has done nothing for no one except take away your rights and find more ways to tax you and get your money unlike the rich who don’t even pay any fucking tax “ assets “ go check something called the Panama papers. Then you will see why Cameron called a referendum. To save his and his mates trillions of pounds of wealth and over seas assets after the EU were threatening to look into , timing was perfect .
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-panama-papers-six-key-takeaways/
your a MSM bitch who does not think for himself.
. The world is for everyone. The main reason we get mass immigration is when the US and allies “ cunts I call them “ go round bombing the shit out of country’s or doing political or economic coups like what’s happening in Venezuela right now and cause all these fucking issues .
if instead of bombing the shit out of country’s like Syria we acted like human beings who care then the world would be a better place and people would not want to move all over the place because they have a nice life with good health care and housing . But these warmongering lunatics think they can steel the resources of these county’s like it’s a given right and fuck the thousands of mums ,dads, and children who get killed because “ they want “. So don’t talk to me about leaving Europe etc it means fuck all , and won’t make a blind bit of difference to your fucking life . The fucking MP’s don’t even know what they are doing . In the last 2 years I’ve been to Lucca Italy , Nice ,france. Barcelona, spain. I’d like to think I can live anywhere I’d want to and that should be the same for everyone.
so go fuck your bullshit fake politics…and be sure you know what your talking about next time you open your mouth . Moron .
Xena]
Thanks for proving my point so well. #keyboardninja
Plasterer’s Radio]
.
Clarify “ EVERY human being in my opinion should have the right to live wherever they want ,anywhere no boarders no facial recognition cameras at airports . None of this over the top bullshit …….any fucking where . Understand .
Here is a lesson in real life for you . Did you vote to bomb Syria? did you vote to invade Iraq? Did you vote to bomb Afghanistan? Did you vote for sanctions against country’s of the world ?
no you fucking did not. Because the government do what they want anyway . Did you vote for the cuts to the health service?. Did you vote to give the MP’s a raise ? Did you vote to let the richest companies not pay tax and give those companies all the help they need so they can carry on making huge profits for their shareholders.? are you a shareholder? Did you vote to give one of the richest families in the world with billions of pounds of assets your tax money ?
The government do what the fuck they want,,, if you want to play their games and think what you’re doing is important then you Can be their bitch . Enjoy your BBC and question time because in reality it’s all just a lot of self important people who think they know better doing nothing in reality to make a our world better. These mathura fuckers create the problems ,these mathura fuckers then come up with a solution that’s just keeps lining their pockets and gives them more power …wake the fuck up stop watching the MSM news and twitter and understand what’s really going on “ Panama papers for instance is just one of many things that gets tucked away .
Xena wrote:
This doesnt appear to translate well from Russia, or you sir are an idiot!!!!
Are you for real?
Are you for real?
Xena has a point! Just look
Xena has a point! Just look at how you would go straight on in the second picture, if you were approaching from the same position as the silver car. I can’t even see half of what is planned on the green cycle path because it’s out of shot, but I can see 3 zebra crossings and one give way, and it would seem a set of traffic lights to cross the side road on the left. If these start getting introduced widely, there will be utter chaos, with cyclists that refuse to obey any signals whatsoever, pedestrians/dogs etc wandering all over the place. I’ll stick to behaving like a car and ride straight through on the main traffic lights, thank you very much! And if you do get side swiped by an impatient car as you cross that sideroad, it will be vicious because it will be at 90 degrees and at speed!
mpdouglas wrote:
The point is. if you want to go straight on and you’re a confident cyclist you can – just stay in the main lane as you suggest.
Those who are currently too scared to cycle because of having to negotiate busy junctions can follow the yellow brick.. erm, sorry … follow the green cyle lane instead.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Until they make it compulsory for cyclists to use that coloured green track! On the face of it, okay for family type cycling but for road cyclists, it looks a mess.
CygnusX1 wrote:
…while being harrassed by the local mouth-breather leaning on his horn and yelling “gerrin the fackin bike lane I paid a million quid for” before he close-passes and brake tests you.
CygnusX1 wrote:
The recently revamped Highbury Corner in London has a similar arrangement, though it’s not directly comparable because they have converted what was previously a roundabout / gyratory into two-way traffic. They closed one ‘side’ of the old gyratory and installed new segregated cycle track around the inner and outer edges. The new track is great (I imagine) for inexperienced riders, and I’ve taken to using it because it’s a bit more pleasant being separated from cars (even though I never found the old roundabout dangerous). The downside is that going what would have been all the way round the old roundabout (something which was one phase manouvre when it was a rounabout, and still is for cars) is two or three phases on the bike track (depending on light timings, which I think are dynamic according to demand). Cyclists can now sit at one of the sets of lights for up to 2 mins, and many get fed up and cross regardless. So good for less experienced / confident cyclist; less convenient for seasoned roadies (who can stay with the cars, but probably get abused for not using the expensive infra).
quiff wrote:
…is an example of a place where I routinely avoid the bike path and am regularly berated by angry drivers who want me to gerrinthefackinbikelane.
And hey, there could be a
And hey, there could be a time advantage by using the facilities, or not, to be found out I suppose.
For me the choice to use a certain route means that is has to offer some advantage.
@Xena Who are the Alphabet
@Xena Who are the Alphabet people?
Chris wrote:
THe alphabet people refers to the lunatics out there like the SJW’s ( true example ) and so called progressive lunatics etc who say they support woman’s rights ,yet support a man who wears a wig calls himself a woman and beats the shit out of his woman opposition. There the alphabet people . Idiots . https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-who-broke-female-opponents-skull-are-we-getting-too-politically-correct-with-reality/
“ jesus wept “ I’m an atheist but it’s a bill hicks quote .
Complex problems require
Complex problems require complex solutions. We complain of a lack of consideration and innovation in infrastructure, and the tired repetition of “solutions” that have proven to be failures elsewhere in the world. Something new? Sign me up, I’ll try it.
Warrior Princess by name…..
Warrior Princess by name…..
Warrior Princess by name…..
Warrior Princess by nature…..
Having seen first hand the
Having seen first hand the complete lack of respect for red lights of most cyclist down Oxford Rd, I doubt this will improve our standing in the public eye. So many so called ‘cyclists’ are just ‘people on bikes’ who blithely ignore the rules of the road. I often find I stop at a light to have someone cruise straight through especially on the bleeps. I then catch and overtake them and have the same cycle repeat; and if you call them out on their behaviour they become somewhat defensive and shouty. It’s like they think, ‘I am so slow I shouldn’t have to waste more time at the lights/everyone can see me so I am safe.’
They constantly corrode the respect for cyclists and the expectations of motorists. I have approached a driver slowing and signalling to turn left with plenty of room, but they slow and I slow and then they stop and I stop. Seemingly conditioned to expect me to shoot up their inside. I have been shouted out for not undertaking a motorist signalling left. You might not be responsible for the actions of these people, but they surely effect your safety on the roads.
These designs look they will be abused by cyclist cutting up pedestrians, and although that is a lesser risk than drivers hitting cyclists if we don’t encourage riders to respect the road this war on the roads culture is just going to get worse. I hope I am wrong.
Organon wrote:
Yes, all of them in fact. What does this even mean?
srchar wrote:
I think its
Cyclists = People riding a bike in a way I agree with / approve.
People on bikes = People riding a bike in way I disapprove of / disagree with.
In the study paper linked
In the study paper linked from the article, there is a proposed scheme for outside Bolton railway station. I’ve tried turning right there and it’s pretty hairy on a bike. If the lights go green before you get to the front it is deadly.
I hope this is the junction CB is referring to for a pilot. The flow for a user would be much more obvious from ground level, with straightforward decisions. You don’t have to analyse everything from the drone view.
Anyway, enough of discussing nuanced details presented by experts, let’s get back to the spittle-flecked 4-chan rage.
This does look a dog’s dinner
This does look a dog’s dinner. It would have cost the earth as well. Just introduce a law that forces vehicles to slow to 10mph when approaching junctions from 50 yards back (stick speed cameras up to catch those who don’t and plough the fines back into better road infrastructure), get rid of traffic lights and command drivers to take turns to let each other out. Put some responsibility back into driver’s hands. It’s cheaper, it requires less ugly and expensive street furniture, and it’s easier to implement.
darrenleroy wrote:
Wonderful thinking – have drivers approach a high risk, hazard dense situation staring at their speedo in order to comply with an unrepresentative speed limit.
On the other hand, I do agree – councils have become over reliant on traffic lights and at certain junctions the added “risk” means drivers slow down, focus on the situation and are more aware of other road users.
Looks confusing / different
Looks confusing / different to what we are used to when presented as an overall picture. Might be far simpler in practice at ground level. I would agree that rights to road space should be balanced more in favour of pedestrians and cyclists but as others have mentioned, traffic lights in particular are an opportunity for twats to be twats. By all means build one and see what happens when regular people use it, but don’t expect basic stupidity to evaporate in the face of a new type of junction.
Interesting, but I’m reminded
Interesting, but I’m reminded of the Dutch CROW criteria for cycling infrastructure, which should be direct, convenient, safe and attractive; apologies if I’ve forgotten something. Does this proposal meet those criteria? It does look quite complicated and therefore likely to be confusing and possibly less safe as a result, but as others have said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
At least someone is trying something innovative and actually considering cyclists and putting their money where their mouth is; unlike national government.
burtthebike wrote:
That’s a bit of a sweeping statement regarding government funding there Burt, which I find I disagree with. I would argue that the funding needs to increase significantly, but there is funding available and CB and Andy Burnham have been tapping into those funding streams. This is a quote from a 2018 MEN news article reporting about CB’s infrastructure plans;
”How will it be funded?
So far, Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester Mayor, has allocated £160m from a Government grant to the scheme, which is subject to approval by Greater Manchester Combined Authority this Friday. This could be boosted to £250m by cash contributions from the district councils.”
Here is the Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/603527/cycling-walking-investment-strategy.pdf
Once again, it needs to be increased but I feel it wrong to say that they aren’t putting their money where their mouth is. As more schemes are built and their success measured funding strategy will change for the better as the politicians see evidence of the “win, win” when it comes to congestion, pollution, public health and costs to the NHS amongst the many other benefits.
PP
Pilot Pete wrote:
The CWIS, ably summed up by CUK as very little strategy and even less investment. Compared to what is being spent on road and rail, despite being at least twenty times better value for money, it barely reaches the level of insult. Then you assume that politicians learn lessons! If they did, the funding for CWIS would already be 100 times what it is now, but politicians really, really don’t care and are too stupid to learn generally, even when presented with the facts a thousand times. If they haven’t learned yet, they are never going to.
burtthebike wrote:
Again, a bit sweeping in generalisation. Sure the budget is not enough, sure it’s a fraction of what is spent on vehicular transport, but it is changing and will continue to change. How much was spent 20 years ago? How much will be spent 20 years from now? It’s like turning an oil tanker, but the turn has started. Public opinion is slowly changing. Remember when the Green Party was seen as a bunch of loony Greenham Common CND supporters? Surely you have seen the difference amongst your neighbours and the people across your town regarding global warming and pollution and single use plastics and smoking and littering and their children’s future and so on and so forth?
Remember, politicians need to get voted back into power. Certainly at local level I have seen a change in recent years and our staunchly Conservative town council and never-been-anything-other-than-Conservative county council have just been thrown out and a coalition of independent candidates, Lib Dem’s and Labour candidates have taken control, my wife being one of them and she is now Cycling and Walking Champion for our county.
After 4 years on the town council banging her head against the wall trying to turn her oil tanker and losing the will to keep going she decided on a shit or bust tactic of getting a whole bunch of like minded individuals to stand against the incumbent Conservatives and it worked – they are now a small minority with no chance of getting any policies they want voted through. It has been a sea change at both Town and County level, with active transport now firmly top of the agenda. It will take some time to convert plans into policy and to fully funded projects but the ball is rolling and the political will is now there. Many funding streams are available and up to now it has been cities who have been tapping into these and building infrastructure. We will be one of very few towns that start to tap those funding streams. The tide IS turning and the people want it. The politicians WILL follow when they realise the votes up for grabs.
PP
Pilot Pete wrote:
That’s great news, but it is only one place, like Manchester, not the national government. My point still stands; that the national government, despite all their wonderfully optimistic supportive statements about cycling, are deliberately starving it of funds, and the facts bear me out, notwithstanding a few local examples. HS2? £56bn ++++: cycling? peanuts.
The facts have been known for at least thirty years; health, pollution, congestion, danger, climate change, but the politicians, and the media, have ignored the single biggest contributor to the solution to all these things, and now they are all a crisis, and the government still aren’t pouring money into it. Any rational government would be spending £56bn on cycling, not a rail project with no economic case.
BoJo may well confound me, but despite his appointment of Gilligan, I doubt it. He has also appointed Patel, so disingenuous and devious that May was forced to sack her, and Cummings, who AFAIK, is still in contempt of parliament; doesn’t bode well for anything, let alone something as hateful to his core voters as cycling.
burtthebike wrote:
Exactly: if someone approaches it, then stops and has to google it to work out how to use it properly (and not get themself killed!) then its not been designed very well, has it?
Why can’t we as a country
Why can’t we as a country have a standard colour for cycle tracks?
We have red (Walthamstow), blue (CS2), green (older London facilities), asphalt grey (much of CS3), pale grey (parts of CS1)… and that’s in one city! Are there no design standards at all?
Compare the Netherlands: grey is for cars, red is for bikes, job done.
matthewn5 wrote:
because everything in this country is for sale, including the country itself now. The CSHes are blue because that is the colour of Barclays Bank, the first sponsor of the bike scheme.
It does look like it will
It does look like it will provide a means for the less confident cyclists (that’s almost everyone in general population terms but almost no one on a cycling site) to not feel intimidated or overwhelmed. You’ll be separated physically from menacing motors and although there are more “decision points” there is only one decision at a time, and it’s a simple one (stop or go). No multi-directional traffic to assess.
But for those already cycling, it’s less direct, especially for right turns, and probably more time consuming. Which shows it is in some ways a bit of a cop out: it makes cycling safer/less scary, but not particularly easier. It also does nothing to address the continued dominance of our streets by the car. And what will the timing of those lights be? Who will wait longer – drivers or riders? At least they are proper traffic lights for the cycle tracks, not those crappy “push a button and wait for the green man with accompanying cycle symbol” lights which you can only see while squinting sideways.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
So wouldn’t the best way to allow less confident AND children to use this on their own safely to remove the motors completely from this section of the network. There’s then ZERO interaction with motors, this creates more conflict points and mire confusion. it’s crap IMHO
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
But why just this section?
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Personally I wouldn’t just have it as one section, I continue to state that this is not the solution to mass cycling. I’d have cycle only lanes ‘on road’ throughout all towns and cities, take back roads fom motorists so that they are forced to rethink their mode of transport. it instantly reduces motor traffic, increases cycling for all and makes communities massively safer. We should be aiming for 35% modal share in built up areas, to achieve that we need to take back the roads not ‘build’ crap like this that still panders to motoring, makes it univiting to children and those who wish to go at a decnt speed.
With a wide cycle only lane that has priority and goes direct (unlike the monstrosity in the photo) all spees and abilities can get along just fine.
Here’s France on their motor free days, THIS is what we want!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Well quite! If you’re going to remove motor traffic, remove it from the street, not from one bit of the road.
Great photo btw but what’s he doing? I thought at first glance he was playing basketball, which would be a sensible use of the street, but he’s not.
I’m just not sure I want to
I’m just not sure I want to be made to cycle that close to the front of the Royal Oak.
MonkeyPuzzle wrote:
Hush now sweetie, the karaoke and clientele is legendary.
I live about 5 minutes from the 4 banks junction (2nd photo) in Chorlton, and it does look like a bit of a mess. There’s no left hook problem at that junction in my experience, and it seems to promote the possibilties of pedestrian / cyclist collision (a la the Oxford / Wilmslow Road ballsup) and shouty beepy people from Gorton telling me to stay in the cycle lane if I’m going straight on or turning right.
Only benefit I can see is making it easier for right turns for newer riders, and that depends a lot of the traffic light timings. Better to spend the money on improving the roads and bike training for inexperienced riders imo.
but it doesnt feel right to
but it doesnt feel right to claim something is a genius idea, if it doesnt seem that easy to understand how it works on paper, let alone trying to navigate it on the move at 10-12mph in all weathers/times of day and trying to maintain an idea of all the hazards like where the cars/trucks/buses are going to fit in, where other riders are and then sprinkling a bunch of pedestrians into the mix. the case study even shows a junction where cyclists will be riding both ways only avoiding each other by obeying various give way lines.
it feels alot like the current approach many councils take to treating cyclists as just pedestrians with wheels, except with a bit more green paint chucked in.
I dont understand really why if the Dutch have surely solved this kind of problem with their infra, we arent just copying them,why try to invent something new?
Awavey wrote:
This does look remarkably like what the Dutch do with their roundabouts.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
this isnt a roundabout though…
Awavey wrote:
It is on the outside! Or will be when (if) this is built. I guess that once you have introduced fully separated carriageways for cycles and motors, they don’t really have to follow the same type of junction.
Awavey wrote:
Look at just the cycle lane.
It’s a traffic light controlled roundabout.
Anyone who has cycled or driven on UK roads will be completely familiar with the layout and the rules concerning its use.
Rich_cb wrote:
this isnt a roundabout though…
— Rich_cb Look at just the cycle lane. It’s a traffic light controlled roundabout. Anyone who has cycled or driven on UK roads will be completely familiar with the layout and the rules concerning its use.— Awavey
It isn’t a roundabout. It isn’t round. It’s a wibbleabout.
I’m not sure why there’s so
I’m not sure why there’s so much confusion.
It is just a separate traffic light controlled roundabout for cyclists.
That’s it.
Seems like a really good idea for cyclists who aren’t confident at junctions.
I notice a lot of people
I notice a lot of people talking about the apparent complexity of the layout as if that by itself proves that it cannot be good design. From a software engineering perspective, I’d say that doesn’t matter. Computer software is complex, but the end user doesn’t have to know or care about that; all that matters is that the designer provides a protocol by which the software can be used, and that said protocol is comprehensible and functional. Unless I have misunderstood the article, the protocol here is to follow your marked route while obeying signals and giving way at any pedestrian crossings. If that is the case, then I see no issue there.
If I were to state a concern, it would be timing of the lights. Some crossings respond within 1-5 seconds of being pressed. Others have you wait for a natural light change, prioritizing the convenience of cars and making it faster to use the road (for which you’ll be abused.) That’s probably why Dutch infrastructure isn’t being used here.
Luca Patrono wrote:
People aren’t computers or software, and it is a maxim of road design that complexity increases risk. In this case, the user experiences that complexity and has to make complicated judgements in a short time. A software user doesn’t see any of the complexity behind their computer use and doesn’t have to make complex decisions in limited time. Your analogy is false.
My biggest issue with these
My biggest issue with these well meaning schemes is that they actually reinforce the beliefs of many motorists that bicycles don’t belong on the same infrastructure as cars and that roads are not meant for us. The biggest challenge for British cyclists is the attitude of car drivers. I’m not at all convinced that infrastructure can change those attitudes – they actually reinforce them. If motorists continue to run red lights, like I see them do every day, at every junction in central London, then there will be carnage at these “cyclops” junctions as they actually place the cyclist in a more dangerous position relative to the car where they will be hit square on, at speed. I much prefer solutions like the one suggested above with speed limits through junctions, with camera enforcement, as that actually starts to educate and change behaviour. It’s not clear to me why every single traffic light isn’t equipped with a camera.
It would be better spending
It would be better spending the money on policing the motorists and cyclists who fail to use the roads correctly.
3 Points.
3 Points.
a) No need to swear.
b)No need for politics.
If they are important please use them in the proper place, not somewhere where children may be present. Or adults for that matter.
c) Looks like a whopping roundabout. Is it really thought that the irresponsible element of cyclists are going to go all the way round? Somewhat hopeful that.
mattsccm wrote:
In order:
a) Sometimes swearing is the only rational response to the crass incompetence and idiocy inflicted on us
b) Politics influences everything about cycling, from the law and its application, the guidance issued to the funding it is denied
c) Yes.
mattsccm wrote:
(a) it’s up to the website owners if they tolerate swearing or not, and ‘need’ has nothing to do with it – there’s no ‘need’ to post anything here at all. I take it you are one of those ‘snowflakes’ they have nowadays?
(b) There’s always need for politics. The topic is intrinsically political. Your post here is itelf political, which makes you a hypocrite.
(c) What are you on about? “irresponsible element of cyclists”? I’m far more concerned about the irresponsible element of motorists, those are the ones who kill people. I reserve judgement on the roundabout.
the complexity and the
the complexity and the confusion of this kind of setup is that you will have to anticipate and predict the movement of multiple moving objects across multiple conflict points in front of you,beside you and even behind you,it effectively becomes a grid that square roots in the number of things your brain has to consider.
and whilst software like in the Apollo missions Lunar Lander can raise a 1202 alarm that its processing too much data and is prioritising only the most important data, your brain will go generally go ugh when its overloaded…followed by an urgent request to process the intense pain of the collision that you failed to account for.
Awavey wrote:
You don’t have to process lots of information.
It’s a roundabout.
You give way to your right when you enter the roundabout, you obey any traffic lights on the roundabout and you exit the roundabout by turning left.
Just like every other roundabout.
Rich_cb wrote:
the only roundabout this looks like to me, is one of those magic roundabouts, that generally have a poor accident record because people just get confused using them, and on those they only have to just give way to the right to make it round safely, here youve got to give way to the right & left potentially for pedestrians, look both left and right crossing roads and be aware of what the other cyclists around you might be doing.
Awavey wrote:
You really don’t.
It’s a normal roundabout with traffic lights. So when your light is green you check it’s clear and go.
That should be absolutely second nature to anybody that’s spent any time driving or cycling.
The cycle path is entirely segregated from motor traffic so you’ve only got to deal with other cyclists and pedestrians which, again, should be second nature for anyone that’s spent any time cycling in cities.
Is he skateboading?
Is he skateboading?
Though does it really matter, he’s using a street in the way he wants without the danger of being hit by a massive, polluting motor vehicle.
ktache wrote:
To me the guy in the picture looks like someone who’s about to be run over by a bunch of cyclists (but could also be a trick of optics if the pic was taken with a large telephoto lens). From the air the crossroads concept looks complicated, I think it would be simpler on the ground, just like a roundabout.
The Dutch have solved their problem by providing for largely separate cycling infrastructure wherever possible AND (and this is the part most people miss) by enforcing strict fines on persons who don’t follow the rules, be they cyclists or car drivers. Try riding on the road in the Netherlands if there’s a separate cycle path (the use of which can be made mandatory over there, just like in Belgium). If a cop sees you that’ll be 100 Euro, please. Wonder if that aspect of the superior Dutch system will find many fans here. Hate to be cursing in church but the problem are not only the car drivers, I see just as much dangerous behaviour from cyclists.
Xenophon2 wrote:
If you are going to lie at least try to make them vaguely plausible.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Not lying, get your libellous arse and a bike over here and I’ll show you. Of course, we have actual rules and codified laws here, I get the impression that in the UK it’s the far west.
Will fellow roadcc forum
Will fellow roadcc forum members make sure xena never gets a gun licence. I want to be able to sleep at night.
Unfortunately it wouldn’t
Unfortunately it wouldn’t work around here as a number of drivers simply ignore red lights at junctions and crossings.
This is not heresay, but something I see on a regular basis, on foot and on my bike. There are just no Police around here and no Police station in the town where I live at all.
The nearest Police station is a few miles away, in the library.
It is slowly descending into anarchy on the roads because drivers know there is very little chance of being caught.
I don’t know where all of the new Boris Bobby’s will go, maybe they can sit in the bus shelter?
The thing about this junction
The thing about this junction looking “complicated” is that it has several separate decision points, some of them give way lines and some of them signals (lights). But at each point you only have to make one decision, because the traffic you are joining is only coming from one direction. Compare this to a crossroads or T-junction, where you have to check traffic from several directions simultaneously. And even that is not a problem for most people at cycle-speed (though might be for children) but when things speed up, it all gets more difficult.
If if works like the Dutch
If if works like the Dutch example in this vid, then it will be brilliant, but I think it is going to take some serious police presence for the first few weeks to get the drivers to behave.
https://www.facebook.com/dutchcyclingembassy/videos/1030074563829579/?t=47
Burt, a few “camera enforced
Burt, a few “camera enforced signals” and a couple of boxes that could resemble cameras and compliance rises massively.
And a little bit of fresh complexity may make some drivers pay a little more attention, or at least look up from their “distractions” for a few more seconds.
Cornford, are you saying that
Cornford, are you saying that the only way that you can drive below the legal speed limit is by fixing your gaze on your speedometer?
Really?
How do you manage to see the posted limit without being able to see the signs that tell you what it possibly could be?