Cycle lanes a "danger" to drivers.

Story about how new local cycle lanes are confusing drivers.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zlanes.jpg


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Simon Mason wrote:
Story about how new local cycle lanes are confusing drivers.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zlanes.jpg

Online at

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...=sidebarsearch

These just look like an accident waiting to happen, and increase the
dangers for cyclists.

Martin Dann wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
Story about how new local cycle lanes are confusing drivers.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zlanes.jpg

Online at

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...=sidebarsearch


These just look like an accident waiting to happen, and increase the
dangers for cyclists.

We have had a similar road marked out like this for a couple of years
near Ipswich in Suffolk. It is also signed as a cyclists priority route
and says that cars can use the lane if no cyclists.

After a few years, a lot of motorists still haven't got the hang of it,
though it has persuaded a lot to use the nearby dual carraigeway instead.

My only objection to such a scheme is that it creates the impression
that motorists can use cycle lanes dotted or otherwise, when not a
priority route - it gives mixed messages

On 10 Mar, 18:24, Pete Whelan wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
Story about how new local cycle lanes are confusing drivers.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zlanes.jpg

Online at

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...p?nodeId=13626....

These just look like an accident waiting to happen, and increase the
dangers for cyclists.

We have had a similar road marked out like this for a couple of years
near Ipswich in Suffolk. *It is also signed as a cyclists priority route
and says that cars can use the lane if no cyclists.

After a few years, a lot of motorists still haven't got the hang of it,
though it has persuaded a lot to use the nearby dual carraigeway instead.

My only objection to such a scheme is that it creates the impression
that motorists can use cycle lanes dotted or otherwise, when not a
priority route - it gives mixed messages

the old A40 raglan to abergavenny used to have those again problems
with cars being too far over.

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Story about how new local cycle lanes are confusing drivers.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zlanes.jpg

IMO the best layout for cycling is a reasonably wide road, with a hatched
centre area about 3 foot or so wide (or wider), where the white line
normally goes. A driver has the discretion to use that area to pass a
cyclist, whilst cyclists don't get abused for not riding in a 2 foot wide
lane covered in broken glass. Of course, you are again relying on people
knowing the highway code. I've occasionally had passengers question the
legality of driving in hatched areas when I've overtaken people. I don't
understand the confusion, as the major lines you shouldn't cross are solid
white lines...

Pete Whelan wrote:
Martin Dann wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
Story about how new local cycle lanes are confusing drivers.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zlanes.jpg

Online at

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...=sidebarsearch


These just look like an accident waiting to happen, and increase the
dangers for cyclists.

We have had a similar road marked out like this for a couple of years
near Ipswich in Suffolk. It is also signed as a cyclists priority route
and says that cars can use the lane if no cyclists.

After a few years, a lot of motorists still haven't got the hang of it,
though it has persuaded a lot to use the nearby dual carraigeway instead.

My only objection to such a scheme is that it creates the impression
that motorists can use cycle lanes dotted or otherwise, when not a
priority route - it gives mixed messages

For dotted "cycle lanes", that isn't an impression - it's a fact.

Doki wrote:
IMO the best layout for cycling is a reasonably wide road, with a
hatched centre area about 3 foot or so wide (or wider), where the white
line normally goes. A driver has the discretion to use that area to pass
a cyclist, whilst cyclists don't get abused for not riding in a 2 foot
wide lane covered in broken glass. Of course, you are again relying on
people knowing the highway code. I've occasionally had passengers
question the legality of driving in hatched areas when I've overtaken
people. I don't understand the confusion, as the major lines you
shouldn't cross are solid white lines...

I can't agree with you here. It encourages cyclists (not the feisty well
trained ones) to shrink in the kerb even more to let cars past who then try
it without going onto the hatches. In effect a very long chicane.
Furthermore when cars park (normal and technically nothing wrong) there is
quite a small space left on the outside where the _cyclist_ may have to go
into the hatched area to avoid the door opening zone. How many average
cyclists can you persuade to do that?






--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.eminent.demon.co.uk

Simon Mason wrote:

Story about how new local cycle lanes are confusing drivers.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zlanes.jpg


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

I've seen these used in Holland in towns with narrow streets; cars put
2 wheels in the cycle lane when there's oncoming traffic. When they
come up behind a bike, they have to follow the bike until the oncoming
traffic has cleared.

Personnaly I like the system; it slows down traffic to cycle-speed,
and emphasises to the motorist that they haev to give priority to the
cyclist in the lane.

Peter.

"Peter Fox" wrote in message
...
Doki wrote:
IMO the best layout for cycling is a reasonably wide road, with a hatched
centre area about 3 foot or so wide (or wider), where the white line
normally goes. A driver has the discretion to use that area to pass a
cyclist, whilst cyclists don't get abused for not riding in a 2 foot wide
lane covered in broken glass. Of course, you are again relying on people
knowing the highway code. I've occasionally had passengers question the
legality of driving in hatched areas when I've overtaken people. I don't
understand the confusion, as the major lines you shouldn't cross are
solid white lines...

I can't agree with you here. It encourages cyclists (not the feisty well
trained ones) to shrink in the kerb even more to let cars past who then
try it without going onto the hatches. In effect a very long chicane.
Furthermore when cars park (normal and technically nothing wrong) there is
quite a small space left on the outside where the _cyclist_ may have to go
into the hatched area to avoid the door opening zone. How many average
cyclists can you persuade to do that?

I don't know. Perhaps it would be better if everyone had some idea of what
the rules of the road are.

al Mossah wrote:

Simon Mason wrote:

Story about how new local cycle lanes are confusing drivers.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zlanes.jpg


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

I've seen these used in Holland in towns with narrow streets; cars put
2 wheels in the cycle lane when there's oncoming traffic. When they
come up behind a bike, they have to follow the bike until the oncoming
traffic has cleared.

Personnaly I like the system; it slows down traffic to cycle-speed,
and emphasises to the motorist that they haev to give priority to the
cyclist in the lane.

Peter.

Agreed . The more that motorists are uncertain the more carefully they
will drive. ( eg the funny roundabout designs). When they have been in
for a few years it will be interesting to look at accident statistics.

Paul

--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames