log in
register

An idea to reduce cyclist deaths at junctions.

  • Creator
    Topic
  • November 14, 2013 at 11:47 am #20208
    Neil753

    Just wondering what people think of this idea.

    Firstly, on the approaches to any dangerous junction, erect a road sign that says, “no overtaking of cyclists for next 200 yards and, obviously, place it 200 yards from the junction.

    Secondly, remove the ASL that inevitably encourages cyclists to squeeze up the inside of trucks, puts drivers’ backs up, and places cyclists directly in the path of drivers when moving off.

    The idea would be to create a calming effect that starts well before the junction, rather than the existing jockying for position by both cyclists and motorists.

    It’s cheap, can be implimented as required, and might have an impact on driver awareness and cyclist sensibilities. Opinions welcome.

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 5 replies - 16 through 20 (of 20 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Replies
  • November 14, 2013 at 1:17 pm #762915
    0
    shay cycles

    Having thought long and hard
    Having thought long and hard about this I cannot see any justification for allowing any vehicle to overtake any other vehilce in the 50 metres preceding and the 50 metres after any controlled road junction, or traffic control feature. By any vehicle I include motor vehicles and pedal cycles.

    “No overtaking” ought to always mean any vehicle (that is not the same as a continuous centre line).

    A global rule banning such manouvres might be a good start. We already theoretically have no overtaking in the zig-zag areas at certain types of pedestrian crossings.

    I also can’t see any justification for allowing motor vehicles to travel faster than 20mph in built up areas.

    Think about it; I mean real justification. That doesn’t include making slightly quicker journey times, increasing flow rates across a city or passing something in those 50 metres because it is going really slowly.

    If there is no justification for allowing it then why is it allowed?

    November 14, 2013 at 12:22 pm #762913
    0
    Neil753

    Colin Peyresourde wrote:I

    Colin Peyresourde wrote:
    I agree with r48. Not really practical. Hard to enforce and you would otherwise cause a rush to get passed cyclists before the 200 yard point. You are just starting a problem at another point on the road.

    I think common sense on it should be that cyclists don’t undertake HGVs, and feel happy to sit in the lane. Education on when to use the ASL and when not to. Perhaps creating a HGV line (further back) on the ASL to give them more vision of cyclists – perhaps a ASL line further back at all junctions for HGVs.

    Also the thing about sitting behind a bus or HGV is that they don’t move too fast. Cars are much happier to let you take the lane if they know that they are being blocked by the bus and not you (because if you are over to the left there is plenty of room for them to move beyond you).

    In London I think the average journey speed is 12.5mph, which is easily matched on a bike – so in the main I don’t think drivers are actually too bothered about immediately passing cyclists. It actually seems that cyclists are more bothered about overtaking/undertaking motorists.

    The issue to me is as much about cyclists understanding HGVs as vice versa (and actually cyclists and any other vehicle in traffic).

    Interesting points, Colin. What about positioning a speed camera at the 200 yard point, as well as the sign?

    I’m just searching for ways to reduce the carnage, that would be easy to understand, even to foreign drivers, and cheap to impliment.

    November 14, 2013 at 12:13 pm #762911
    0
    Neil753

    r48 wrote:thing is, they

    r48 wrote:
    thing is, they would not obey it. Well maybe 70% of them might. Only real solution is segregated bike lanes with physical barriers so cars and lorries cannot either park or drive on cycle lanes.
    I lived in Sweden for about 4 years and te cycle lanes were a joy.
    Or actually, rather from an Englishmans perspective they were safe.
    Ah, if only we had the political will to make widespread cycle friendly infrastructure available in the UK.

    I agree, not every driver would obey the sign, and we all know that drivers often don’t obey signs, there would be a reduction in conflict the instant the workmen install the sign and, as you suggest, the compliance percentage might be quite high.

    I’m hoping that someone with a bit of clout, with Boris and his mates, reads this. I’m sure a trial, even at just one dangerous junction, might be useful.

    November 14, 2013 at 12:06 pm #762909
    0
    Colin Peyresourde

    I agree with r48. Not really
    I agree with r48. Not really practical. Hard to enforce and you would otherwise cause a rush to get passed cyclists before the 200 yard point. You are just starting a problem at another point on the road.

    I think common sense on it should be that cyclists don’t undertake HGVs, and feel happy to sit in the lane. Education on when to use the ASL and when not to. Perhaps creating a HGV line (further back) on the ASL to give them more vision of cyclists – perhaps a ASL line further back at all junctions for HGVs.

    Also the thing about sitting behind a bus or HGV is that they don’t move too fast. Cars are much happier to let you take the lane if they know that they are being blocked by the bus and not you (because if you are over to the left there is plenty of room for them to move beyond you).

    In London I think the average journey speed is 12.5mph, which is easily matched on a bike – so in the main I don’t think drivers are actually too bothered about immediately passing cyclists. It actually seems that cyclists are more bothered about overtaking/undertaking motorists.

    The issue to me is as much about cyclists understanding HGVs as vice versa (and actually cyclists and any other vehicle in traffic).

    November 14, 2013 at 11:53 am #762907
    0
    r48

    thing is, they would not obey
    thing is, they would not obey it. Well maybe 70% of them might. Only real solution is segregated bike lanes with physical barriers so cars and lorries cannot either park or drive on cycle lanes.
    I lived in Sweden for about 4 years and te cycle lanes were a joy.
    Or actually, rather from an Englishmans perspective they were safe.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 5 replies - 16 through 20 (of 20 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.