- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
flexkerbs_arup.jpgFlexible kerb space idea could result in pop-up cycle lanes
A flexible kerb space idea that would allow a road’s use to be altered over the course of a day has received £30,000 of funding and could receive a further £50,000 if it wins the National Infrastructure Commission's Roads for the Future competition.
BikeBiz reports that design firm Arup’s ‘FlexKerbs’ would adjust throughout the day and week to ensure that space meets local demand.
The firm says: “Over the course of a day, for instance, a single FlexKerb segment can function as an autonomous vehicle rank at rush hour, a cycle path at lunchtime, a pedestrian plaza in the evening and a loading zone overnight.”
Some will point out that cycle paths frequently double up as loading zones even during the daytime, but this is presumably not what they meant. Nevertheless, some will no doubt harbour concerns that such an innovation might provide a means of watering down planned cycle infrastructure.
The idea is after all one of five shortlisted for the Roads for the Future competition which has asked entrants how they would get the UK road network ready for connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs).
Arup now has three months to develop a feasibility study to demonstrate how FlexKerbs could benefit cities once CAVs have been introduced.
The firm plans to simulate the scheme on a typical London high street, designing a FlexKerb schedule for one weekday and one weekend day to show how flexible use of a busy street’s kerbside can enable safe and convenient CAV pick-up and drop-off whilst maintaining—or even enhancing—the urban environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and other transport users.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- fenix 44 min 33 sec ago
But it's got PNS on ? Honestly. You just don't get fashion.
- mdavidford 1 hour 36 min ago
Debatable. Rule H3 says you should not cut across cyclists, and that this applies whether they're on a cycle lane, cycle track, or on the road. It...
- LookAhead 1 hour 56 min ago
Spot on, Kask's chin strap is faux leather (contra the review's claim that it's real leather) and excellent, by far the best I've used. It's snug...
- David9694 3 hours 14 min ago
Live: Audi crashes on to its roof in Honiton town centre https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/live-audi-crashes-roof-honiton...
- wtjs 3 hours 29 min ago
There is now a development of uncertain veracity on this Nissan, with a photo somebody has sent me suggesting it's stolen....
- belugabob 4 hours 3 min ago
Yes, it does seem reasonable - but not in the motonormativity world, where people just don't want to admit where the problem lies.
- brooksby 6 hours 27 min ago
But at least they're halfway there...
- hawkinspeter 8 hours 9 min ago
I definitely agree that we could do with better crossings and junctions....
- check12 10 hours 17 min ago
click the unsubscribe link at the bottom of them all, then you won't get any more
- Hirsute 11 hours 36 min ago
A few problems here https://youtu.be/0P0a_n6XgrQ?t=125
Add new comment
54 comments
Got you, it's the size of the vehicle this time.
'Twas ever thus.
Except your contaminants rant.
Again, I trust that you live in a property of no more than 20m2, otherwise it's pure selfishness. It'd be a litlle hypocritical if you live somewhere larger, wouldn't it?
He probably doesn't spend much time driving his house on the public road, so your riposte doesn't really work. (Disclaimer - I don't think his "size of vehicle" argument has much merit either)
Particulates.
A larger car will produce more particulate pollution than an equivalent smaller car.
You can't offset particulates and they kill people.
If the automated car has the added journey over a driven car, of going 30 minutes after destination to park, then don't those extra particulates kill people too?
It would be a balance. Removing on street parking would improve traffic flow therefore reducing particulate pollution.
The additional space for walking/cycling would hopefully increase the modal share of active transport further decreasing particulate pollution.
Is the space saved by eliminating on street parking going to be used for improved traffic flow at peak times or additional space for walking/cycling? If it is going to be for walking cycling then the traffic flow would not be increased, in fact it would be worse because of the extra journeys to park. If it is going to be for traffic flow then the extra traffic on the road would probably put people off cycling/walking.
Does it have to be either/or?
Where a few parked cars cause pinch points then flow will be increased.
Where lots of cars are taking up an entire lanes worth of space the extra space could be given over to segregated infrastructure. This would help increase active travel and therefore reduce congestion/pollution.
Once private ownership reduces dramatically there will be no need for most cars to park for prolonged periods.
unless the new space is going to be used for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians then yes it does have to be either/or. You mention segregated infrastructure, does that not suggest either/or?
I did not make myself very clear, apologies.
You would decide how to use the additional space based on what would bring the greatest benefit.
If there is a suitably long stretch of road freed up you can go for active travel infrastructure, if it's just a few pinch points then leave the road as it is and get improved flow.
Have you told the ambulance service that they're watong their time? Or the fire service? Or those 4x4 driving mountain rescue twats? And as for those cunts and their air ambulances?!!!**!!@@????
The house is perfectly valid if he wants to judge people on the space they want/need.
You've misunderstood. Again.
If the car is larger than required it's selfish.
If it's necessary to have a larger car then it's not selfish.
Technically, it is selfish to have a vehicle larger than necessary.
However, that should apply to everyone who drives a multiple occupant vehicle when it is not at full capacity and that is not really feasible. Imagine a bus service that only starts the journey when it is full up? Or a commuter that has to buy a single-seat car just for commuting and drives their family around in a different car at the weekend?
If you extend the 'selfish' argument, then you could declare that everyone living in "Western" countries are incredibly selfish due to their general consumption habits. I don't necessarily think that it's wrong, but it's not a sensible yardstick to compare people's behaviours and requirements.
It depends how strict you want to be. If you have a need for a large car even if it's not needed everyday then I think it's fair enough to own one.
Once private car ownership ceases we'll be able to order a car specific to our exact needs for each individual journey.
I do think we have an obligation to reduce our consumption as much as possible but that does obviously require a fair bit of effort so not everyone is enthusiastic about doing so.
What have I missed in the offset argument? As pointed out most, if not all, vehicles are driven below full occupancy some of the time. Therefore, by your definition, selfishly. Some of these vehicles emit particulates, which contribute to illness and death, some vehicle owners can offset this negative aspect in a number of ways. Why is that so hard for you to get your head around?
I'll repeat, that unless your life and lifestyle is beyond scutiny, you're being hypocritical. Life isn't as black and white as you seem to see it.
You can't offset particulates.
If your car is larger than necessary then you're emitting more particulates than necessary and causing more harm than necessary.
Why is that so hard for you to get your head around?
I can't make it any clearer for you. If you can't see that you actually agree with me on this point, then there's no helping you.
You're back to that old trick again. You really are a joke.
Is that the one where I say something that is demonstated to be true?
So much unnecessary aggression ruining what could have been an interesting discussion for others.
We're doomed.
"The jury for the Roads for the Future competition are:
Bridget Rosewell, Commissioner (Jury Chair)
Sir John Armitt, Chairman, National Infrastructure Commission
Laura Shoaf, Managing Director, Transport for West Midlands
Julia King, Baroness Brown of Cambridge DBE, engineer and Deputy Chair, Committee on Climate Change
Professor Natasha Merat, Director, Transport System Hub, University of Leeds
Jim O’Sullivan, Chief Executive, Highways England
Chris Holmes, Senior Manager Research Team, Jaguar Land Rover"
"Chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission Sir John Armitt said he and the competition jury had found the quality of entries to the Roads for the Future competition “very impressive......"
I can't help feeling that Sir John and the jury don't ride bikes and travel exclusively by chauffer-driven cars as this idea is only impressive if you travel by car 100% of the time. I can't say I'm getting warm waves of confidence about the National Infrastructure Commission, just get on with it an create the best value for money of any infrastructure by a million miles; a comprehensive cycle network. After they've done that they can look at the lower value options.
If drivers routinely abuse clearly marked facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, any ambiguity at all will merely encourage them. Giving the creators £30k for this is merely encouraging stupidity. I mean, I'm all for thinking outside the box, but this idea is outside the planet.
It's not smart cars you need (well, OK, they might be part of the solution) but it needs to be done in conjunction with smarter roads, especially traffic light junctions. The number of times I'm driving along, traffic flowing nicely and then bang - on the brakes to a standstill at a junction where the lights are mindlessly cycling through in spite of there being nothing at all coming out of the other carriageway.
Driverless cars don't fix that but smart lights that don't change at set intervals regardless would do.
I'd be against the idea of "smart roadspace" based on the fact that the default setting will simply be "allow ALL the cars!"
That said, there's some instances where vaguely similar schemes do work well, using 3 lanes. In the morning, the flow is 2 lanes into town, 1 lane out; in the evening, overhead lights change the flow to make the middle lane "outgoing" - 2 lanes out, one lane in. Works well - I used to use one in Cardiff pretty regularly.
Three lanes doing the work of four.
As long as they are not the sort if smart lights that don't detect bicycles. I feel I am old enough now not to need accompanying across a junction, so I don't see why I should need to wait for a car to arrive to trigger the lights.
How? They still have to be somewhere. They're either driving around, or parked. And driving around takes up more road space than parking...
This is only true if driverless cars result in there being far fewer cars in use than now, and it's not obvious that that is the outcome. Car sharing schemes have failed to make any significant dent in car ownership, and assuming that autonomous vehicles will is not a "most basic level" step.
yes, there's some confusion here between driverless cars, and car-sharing. The ideal situation is to eliminate private car ownership and have a stock of shareable cars along the lines of Boris Bikes, Velib and so on - in fact Paris is introducing such a scheme at the moment I think.
When they are public transport they are essentially self-drive, or driverless, taxis and their use can be optimised so that the total number of cars is reduced. This will depend on having a staggered rush hour of course, as well as decentralised workplaces, as the people who want to drive in all at the same time means there would have to be enough cars to fill the demand. However, at the same time hopefully more people are using (driverless) mass transport such as buses.
It's the sort of thing that needs government to bootstrap it with appropriate incentives and disincentives into a virtuous circle, for example by removing private parking from city centres except for, for example, blue badge holders, increasing congestion charges, and making shared cars cheap or free. Car-sharing schemes such as Zipcar are still run on a commercial basis rather than as a public service.
On street parking won't be needed as cars can simply go and park themselves elsewhere.
A car driving for 10 minutes to an off road parking facility uses up a piece of road for 10 minutes. A car parked on the road uses up a piece of road for hours/days/weeks until the car is driven next. As most cars are parked for 95% of the time the amount of street space freed up by that one change will be huge.
Driverless taxis will also massively reduce second car ownership, freeing up more space, and eventually, imho, virtually eradicate private car ownership.
Where is all this extra off-road parking going to come from? Notwithstanding your figures have been plucked out of thin air.
What figures have been picked from thin air?
There is so much off road parking already available, driverless cars could also park more efficiently making better use of the existing space.
The growth of driverless taxis will also eliminate a lot of demand for parking at places of work etc freeing up more off road parking space.
Pages