A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 4th 14, 01:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

Excerpt:

Josh Pettitt

Published: 03 April 2014

Updated: 09:12, 03 April 2014

Cycle campaigners today hailed a leap forward in road safety as plans were unveiled for the country's first "life-saving" segregated road junction.

The go-ahead for the £1.3million project to redesign Cobden Junction in Mornington Crescent, in Camden, will be the first of 33 cycle-friendly junctions in the capital when it opens next year.

Segregated cycle lanes - where cyclists are physically separated from other traffic by a raised kerb - have been introduced on several of London's cycle superhighways, but Transport for London's new Cobden Junction project is the first designed to combat so-called "left hook" collisions.

Bicycles and motor vehicles will follow signals from independent sets of traffic lights, giving cyclists a head start on other traffic turning left. Last year so-called "left hook" collisions were blamed for nine of London's 14 cycling deaths.

Jean Dollimore, of the Camden Cyclist Campaign, said: "It's potentially lifesaving. At the moment the designs of some junctions lead to deaths and serious injuries and it really puts people off cycling.

"I'm really pleased that this is going ahead. It's the first of its kind in the UK and it's a step forward in the right direction."

The scheme, set to be completed in March 2015, will see one lane of traffic removed, cycle priority traffic signals installed and segregated lanes built.

The rest of the article can be found he

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...n-9234680.html

Cheers


Ads
  #2  
Old April 11th 14, 02:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On 11/04/14 02:12, Phil W Lee wrote:
They seem to be copying a design which was abandoned in Cambridge not
that long ago, as it impeded cycle traffic that used it and meant that
the majority of cyclists used the general traffic lanes instead.

Epic fail.


It seems many designs we have built here would be rejected in places
where facilities have been developed and refined over decades.

Last night I rode along a street that has a bike lane wide enough for
two riders to comfortable ride abreast. It is a full car width lane.
The street is not very long, but half way along it there is a traffic
island that consumes half the width of the bike lane. I have no idea
why it is there. It is just there. Further along there is a chicane to
calm the motor traffic, and the bicycles are directed off road and along
a narrow path around the chicane.

******** to all that. I rode in the vehicle lane and had no
obstructions to deal with at all.

I wonder why our engineers can't learn from engineers who have been
making useful facilities for ages? Why do they have to make many of the
same mistakes again?

--
JS
  #3  
Old April 11th 14, 05:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Gordon[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

James wrote in :

I wonder why our engineers can't learn from engineers who have been
making useful facilities for ages? Why do they have to make many of the
same mistakes again?

If you had a variety of engineering projects ranging from billion dollar +
freeways down to ****y little bike lanes, where would you employ your
good engineers & those who have been promoted well above their ability?
  #4  
Old April 11th 14, 03:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 8:25:41 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
I wonder why our engineers can't learn from engineers who have been
making useful facilities for ages? Why do they have to make many of the
same mistakes again?


Because they desperately want separated facilities to work, so they just keep trying over and over and over.
  #5  
Old April 11th 14, 05:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On 4/10/2014 9:25 PM, James wrote:
On 11/04/14 02:12, Phil W Lee wrote:
They seem to be copying a design which was abandoned in Cambridge not
that long ago, as it impeded cycle traffic that used it and meant that
the majority of cyclists used the general traffic lanes instead.

Epic fail.


It seems many designs we have built here would be rejected in places
where facilities have been developed and refined over decades.

Last night I rode along a street that has a bike lane wide enough for
two riders to comfortable ride abreast. It is a full car width lane.
The street is not very long, but half way along it there is a traffic
island that consumes half the width of the bike lane. I have no idea
why it is there. It is just there. Further along there is a chicane to
calm the motor traffic, and the bicycles are directed off road and along
a narrow path around the chicane.

******** to all that. I rode in the vehicle lane and had no
obstructions to deal with at all.

I wonder why our engineers can't learn from engineers who have been
making useful facilities for ages? Why do they have to make many of the
same mistakes again?


I've heard that among designers and promoters of bike facilities,
there's an unwritten law saying "Thou shalt not criticize." IOW, the
first directive is to be in favor of _anything_ that is seen as "doing
something for bicyclists." I'm aware of two individuals who were
literally kicked out of an association of bikeway designers for
insistently stating objections to bad designs.

Here's my own personal experience with this: In a large local park, the
dictatorial superintendent (since fired) did the concept design for a
bike facility, then turned the details over to a landscape architect who
had zero traffic design training and almost zero bicycling experience.
Among the many hazards in the resulting facility were dozens of 8"
diameter bollards sprinkled in the middle of the facility, where two-way
bicyclists had to thread through them, with clearance of only about
three feet. Our club fought hard and unsuccessfully against that
feature (and other features) of the design.

A few years later, the landscape architect finally went to a seminar on
bikeway design, given by a fairly well-respected civil engineer in that
business. I later heard that the engineer had told the architect his
design was OK, and I was astonished; so I phoned the engineer about it.

Turned out the architect had portrayed the facility as all flat (which
it most certainly is not; there are at least two 20 mph downhills and
one 30 mph downhill). But even then, I had to press and press to get a
statement from the engineer, admitting "There is no justification for
any bollards at all in that facility." Despite the fact that the
bollards are clearly and directly condemned by AASHTO design standards,
he was unwilling to tell the landscape architect that he'd botched the
job. That was true regarding the bollards, and regarding other features
to which we'd objected.

I can't imagine such a "Thou Shalt Not Criticize" ethic being accepted
in any other field of engineering design.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #6  
Old April 11th 14, 05:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On Friday, April 11, 2014 11:14:31 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I can't imagine such a "Thou Shalt Not Criticize" ethic being accepted
in any other field of engineering design.


Heh. Where I work, we criticize each other all the time. Sometimes, it's even about work!
  #7  
Old April 11th 14, 05:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:25:41 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 11/04/14 02:12, Phil W Lee wrote:


They seem to be copying a design which was abandoned in Cambridge not
that long ago, as it impeded cycle traffic that used it and meant that
the majority of cyclists used the general traffic lanes instead.

Epic fail.

It seems many designs we have built here would be rejected in places
where facilities have been developed and refined over decades.


I see your point, but (see below re; what works elsewhere) I
*really* like your reference to "decades", and it's got to start
sometime, somewhere, somehow.

I suspect the epic fail in Cambridge was due to prioritization
of the dominant mode (cars) instead of prioritization of the
*preferred* mode (like in The Netherlands, for example).

The city where I grew up was very progressive WRT bike facilities
even back then (~40 years ago!)

At the last US Census, they were #1 in bike commuting mode sha

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/loc...cc4c03286.html

Last night I rode along a street that has a bike lane wide enough for
two riders to comfortable ride abreast. It is a full car width lane.


Important to note is that most roads in and around Corvallis are
Frank's "ordinary roads", but the facilities have encouraged
participation, and as we know once you're out there you discover
sharing the road with cars is not so infeasible as people who
*haven't* tried it think.

There are many places and situations where an available facility
is highly beneficial. Sure, sometimes the competent bicyclist
would be better off without it, but a competent bicyclist ought
to be able to handle less than optimum circumstances, right?
And *most* bicyclists in these places with lots of facilities
and lots of bicyclists would probably not be bicyclists if not
for the facilities.

The street is not very long, but half way along it there is a traffic
island that consumes half the width of the bike lane. I have no idea
why it is there. It is just there. Further along there is a chicane to
calm the motor traffic, and the bicycles are directed off road and along
a narrow path around the chicane.

******** to all that. I rode in the vehicle lane and had no
obstructions to deal with at all.


Exactly! That option is always there ("rules" notwithstanding).
If there is no facility, then *that* option is absent. People
like options. _I_ like options - even if I don't need all of
them. (Sometimes the obstacle course is kind of fun diversion,
though ;-)

I wonder why our engineers can't learn from engineers who have been
making useful facilities for ages? Why do they have to make many of the
same mistakes again?


I think it's a matter of shoehorning bits and pieces of what
works somewhere else, where (As Frank likes to point out) many
(countless) other factors contribute to make it work the way
it does there.

The main factor, if you ask me, is people's attitudes. ISTM
that facilities are concrete evidence that bicycles are endorsed
by the transportation authority, and they encourage much wider
participation, making it reality.
  #8  
Old April 11th 14, 05:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On 4/11/2014 12:34 PM, Dan O wrote:


The main factor, if you ask me, is people's attitudes.


I agree.

ISTM
that facilities are concrete evidence that bicycles are endorsed
by the transportation authority...


Well, the facilities are concrete evidence that bicycles are endorsed
_in_ the facility. Unfortunately, that often seems to bring along the
idea that bicycles are _not_ endorsed where there are no facilities.

"I can't ride in my own residential neighborhood, because there are no
bike lanes."

"GET IN THE BIKE LANE!"

"GET ON THE BIKE PATH!"

"Paint is not good enough. We need protected bike lanes everywhere!"

"The roads are for cars!"

Et cetera.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #9  
Old April 11th 14, 09:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On 4/11/2014 4:11 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Fri, 11 Apr 2014
12:14:31 -0400 the perfect time to write:

I've heard that among designers and promoters of bike facilities,
there's an unwritten law saying "Thou shalt not criticize." IOW, the
first directive is to be in favor of _anything_ that is seen as "doing
something for bicyclists." I'm aware of two individuals who were
literally kicked out of an association of bikeway designers for
insistently stating objections to bad designs.
...

I can't imagine such a "Thou Shalt Not Criticize" ethic being accepted
in any other field of engineering design.


Thankfully, our planning regulations are a bit more sane than that, so
if something fails to meet standards, it can be objected to, and if
approved despite the legitimate objections, forced to judicial review.
As judicial review costs millions, they really do try to avoid going
down that route.

The biggest problems are getting sensible standards adopted in the
first place, and watching out for non-compliant schemes so that
objections can be raised.


Here's how it worked in America: For decades, there was the pretty
sensible AASHTO Guide to the Design of Bicycle Facilities. (I own three
different editions.) It was revised, refined and expanded over the
years, in a very painstaking manner. Lots of analysis, discussion,
opportunities for comment by professional engineers, bicycle advocates,
etc.

Unfortunately, AASHTO recommended against some "Innovative!!!"
treatments dear to the heart of the "8 to 80" crew trying to save the
world by getting everyone out of their cars. And AASHTO recommended
against those "Innovative!!!" treatments for what many knowledgeable
cyclists and traffic engineers consider very good reasons.

The "Innovative!!!" crew - a great many of whom are landscape architects
by training - felt stymied that their watercolor sketches couldn't be
implemented. So they formed their own "standards" organization, NACTO.
Their "standards" consisted largely of cataloging anything that anyone
anywhere has done for bicyclists, which to me is pretty much opposite
the definition of a "standard." And they engaged in very enthusiastic
politics to promote their organization and their, um, "standards."

They succeeded pretty well. Recently, the federal government more or
less accepted the NACTO guide as another possible alternative. So now
we have one set of standards that says (for example) that you should not
have separate sidepaths immediately adjacent to roads, because of a
specific list of about a dozen problems that they cause. And we have
another set of standards that actively promotes separate sidepaths
immediately adjacent to roads, because, Hey! They're Innovative!!!!"

American politics. You gotta love it.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #10  
Old April 12th 14, 04:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:14:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2014 9:25 PM, James wrote:
On 11/04/14 02:12, Phil W Lee wrote:
They seem to be copying a design which was abandoned in Cambridge not
that long ago, as it impeded cycle traffic that used it and meant that
the majority of cyclists used the general traffic lanes instead.

Epic fail.


It seems many designs we have built here would be rejected in places
where facilities have been developed and refined over decades.

Last night I rode along a street that has a bike lane wide enough for
two riders to comfortable ride abreast. It is a full car width lane.
The street is not very long, but half way along it there is a traffic
island that consumes half the width of the bike lane. I have no idea
why it is there. It is just there. Further along there is a chicane to
calm the motor traffic, and the bicycles are directed off road and along
a narrow path around the chicane.

******** to all that. I rode in the vehicle lane and had no
obstructions to deal with at all.

I wonder why our engineers can't learn from engineers who have been
making useful facilities for ages? Why do they have to make many of the
same mistakes again?


I've heard that among designers and promoters of bike facilities,
there's an unwritten law saying "Thou shalt not criticize." IOW, the
first directive is to be in favor of _anything_ that is seen as "doing
something for bicyclists." I'm aware of two individuals who were
literally kicked out of an association of bikeway designers for
insistently stating objections to bad designs.

Here's my own personal experience with this: In a large local park, the
dictatorial superintendent (since fired) did the concept design for a
bike facility, then turned the details over to a landscape architect who
had zero traffic design training and almost zero bicycling experience.
Among the many hazards in the resulting facility were dozens of 8"
diameter bollards sprinkled in the middle of the facility, where two-way
bicyclists had to thread through them, with clearance of only about
three feet. Our club fought hard and unsuccessfully against that
feature (and other features) of the design.

A few years later, the landscape architect finally went to a seminar on
bikeway design, given by a fairly well-respected civil engineer in that
business. I later heard that the engineer had told the architect his
design was OK, and I was astonished; so I phoned the engineer about it.

Turned out the architect had portrayed the facility as all flat (which
it most certainly is not; there are at least two 20 mph downhills and
one 30 mph downhill). But even then, I had to press and press to get a
statement from the engineer, admitting "There is no justification for
any bollards at all in that facility." Despite the fact that the
bollards are clearly and directly condemned by AASHTO design standards,
he was unwilling to tell the landscape architect that he'd botched the
job. That was true regarding the bollards, and regarding other features
to which we'd objected.

I can't imagine such a "Thou Shalt Not Criticize" ethic being accepted
in any other field of engineering design.


..... well, you know a bike helmet will save your life in a crash :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Safer roads for Camden Bertie Wooster[_2_] UK 12 October 15th 12 08:40 PM
Budget 2012: £15 million for junction improvements in London, but Sustrans wants cash spent elsewhere too Simon Mason UK 4 April 20th 12 07:43 PM
Cycle for London. Doug[_3_] UK 0 September 18th 11 06:32 AM
Segregated paths Mike Causer UK 23 March 21st 05 10:15 PM
central london - to cycle or not to cycle? Clarrie UK 13 November 9th 03 09:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.