Lethal Ŧ Junk-tions: Developers’ Most Common Cycling Junction Mistake?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

subaqua

What’s the point
Location
Leytonstone
Sorry to read that @subaqua but you really need to attack TfL for not doing what LCC wanted. Most junctions on CS2 don't have tight corners for motorists because the splitter kerb stops too far back, making them effectively the first example in my article. :sad: CS2 is basically a very expensive way to improve things slightly between junctions while making junctions worse. :sad:
It doesn't improve anything you apologist
 
OP
OP
mjr

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
increasing the risk of crashing by a factor of 3-10
That claim's flawed and unless you've got new evidence since the last time I debunked it, let's not debate it again now.

The supposed "solution" of
...and then you cite something else which isn't in my article. Again, please discuss that somewhere else.

if anything gives drivers that cyclists are turning
Missing verb?

The only reason the highway engineers promote that arrangement is so that turning vehicles that stop to give way at the cycle track do not impede the al-important flow of motor traffic on the main road.
Bizarrely, most traffic modelling considers uncontrolled crossings like these not to affect flow at all, which is why we get them even in places where traffic signals would be far better.

How about leaving it as it was as it worked
Because it only worked for the fit and the brave - those stubborn enough to tootle along a bus lane with taxis and buses by your back wheel or fast enough it wasn't much of an issue.

How proud will you all be as segregationists
No segregationists here. :P I'd be quite happy if we took any or all of the other measures to support cycling and so cycle tracks weren't needed.

stay the feck out of London you daffodil
They're public roads and I'll ride on them if I want to. :P

The very worst aspect is because they exist it therefore means I should be on it.
Again, not in the article, but rest assured, we get abused to use cycle tracks even on roads where they do not exist. They've been around over 80 years, so most motorists know about them and we can't put that particular genie back in the bottle easily.
 

subaqua

What’s the point
Location
Leytonstone
Smug count.

The fit and brave wouldn't be the only ones if prosecutions were robust enough. But no you wanted separate infrastructure as a priority.

We got it . Well done. It's crap. Hope you proud and your chains rust and your wheels buckle and the punctures happen every ride twice.

Hope the Newham and Waltham Forest and tower hamlets branches are happy with the fact that nothing has improved despite spunking millions of quid on crap infra.
 
Again, not in the article, but rest assured, we get abused to use cycle tracks even on roads where they do not exist. They've been around over 80 years, so most motorists know about them and we can't put that particular genie back in the bottle easily.
Except pretty much the only time I am put in danger by close passes is when there's a cycle lane I'm not in along side me and I am punished for not using it.

I often get asked to stop by those dudes with clip boards in central london. I did once. When I suggested cyvle lanes do more harm thsn good I was toldc that it's fine if I didn't care about others safety. I was then very rude back to him.
 

classic33

Leg End Member
Except pretty much the only time I am put in danger by close passes is when there's a cycle lane I'm not in along side me and I am punished for not using it.

I often get asked to stop by those dudes with clip boards in central london. I did once. When I suggested cyvle lanes do more harm thsn good I was toldc that it's fine if I didn't care about others safety. I was then very rude back to him.
Not too rude I hope.
 

snorri

Legendary Member
Is it clear enough? Could it be better? And do you agree with it?
No. Yes. I don't know, agree with what?
Sorry if this comes over as being harsh, but I have kept it as constructive as possible.
I doubt any politician or planner would be able to stay the course, it's just too long, too many words. I'm perhaps not the only one who finds the deliberate mis-spelling of a word (junk-tion) to be irritating and I don't think it is helpful in achieving the goal you seek.
The first photograph is hopeless, it is of poor quality and the tree shadow confuses the reader. An engineering drawing of the location would be more helpful. Leave in the photo to provide a local touch, but not as the sole means of informing the reader of the junction layout.
You mention 'UK regulations', I doubt here are any UK wide regulations for cycle paths at road junctions, Roads engineers refer to Guidelines which they adhere to, modify or skip depending on circumstances.
You make no mention of reducing motor vehicle speed limits, motor traffic volumes or presumed liability. Redesigning the layout is only one aspect, I believe a more holistic approach is required to achieve safety improvements at junctions.
 

classic33

Leg End Member
How about a staggered junction? Approach in the direction in the picture is on a bend. Both roads joining the main road are at angles( in more ways than one), and just after the junction on the left there's an unsighted bus stop. Where'd you fit a cycle lane?
Junction.JPG
 
Not too rude I hope.
A perfect amount of rude.
 
OP
OP
mjr

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Sorry if this comes over as being harsh, but I have kept it as constructive as possible.
No apology required - that all seemed like fair comment. It's a thousand words so I don't think it's too long (have you seen how wordy planning guidance is?) but writing a shorter summary to go alongside it may be a good idea. The word-play is a bit love-or-hate - I think I'll drop it from the headline but keep it later on. I'll look for a better photograph (suggestions welcome). I don't want to use engineering drawings because some non-specialists don't seem able to relate them to real situations easily (to put it politely).

There aren't regulations for cycle tracks in one neat bundle, but there are various regulations like TSRGD which apply and which the various guidance is based upon... but that guidance isn't compulsary as you note. I'm comfortable waving my hand at the regulations.

You're quite right that it makes no mention of the other space4cycling tactics like reducing motor vehicle speeds and volumes, or other campaigns like presumed liability and Road Justice. I'll add a bit to try to make it clearer at the end that this is about a far-too-common problem with one very narrow aspect, not the whole story.
Where'd you fit a cycle lane?
It doesn't look like there's space unless one of the side junctions is closed, or the side road on the right-hand side is lowered a bit further and the cycle track put on a bridge over it. Where is it? Can one of the other infrastructure tactics be used instead?

The fit and brave wouldn't be the only ones if prosecutions were robust enough. But no you wanted separate infrastructure as a priority. We got it
Prosecutions are a bit of a joke lately but I don't think they'd be sufficient on their own; infrastructure as a priority, not the priority; and we haven't got what we're asking for yet, so we'll be going for another little lie-down outside TfL at 5pm on the 27th and you're all very welcome to join us. Where were you hooked and was it reported to police?
 

subaqua

What’s the point
Location
Leytonstone
CS2 - mile end road , just up from Mile end station. could give you the road name if I googled for it.

Not reported as no person hurt and no property damaged. thankfully. despite the best efforts of LCC to pressure TfL into building something useless.
driver was very apologetic and luckily no damage to bike at all - Btwins built well . and I seem to have cat like reflexes which ain't bad for a fat boy. TBF it might have even sorted the wobble on the wheel that was starting.

is that wrong. maybe . will the driver do it again. Unlikely .

however had I been riding in a primary position at that point the whole thing would never have happened.
 
OP
OP
mjr

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Not reported as no person hurt and no property damaged. thankfully.
:thumbsup: Yes, thankful for that, but it would be useful to report it so that there's a more accurate picture of collisions on these routes, regardless of one's views on them. It looks like the Met doesn't allow this to be done online :rolleyes: and a form has to be printed off of http://content.met.police.uk/cs/Sat...goBlobs&blobwhere=1283543215337&ssbinary=true

however had I been riding in a primary position at that point the whole thing would never have happened.
Yes, returning the lane to carriageway early enough to allow cyclists to take primary was one option and the other was to continue the kerbs right up to square with the junction and make cars cross a cycle track which continued at the raised level, so motorists would have had to slow down... but at some junctions I've seen, TfL did neither and allow motorists to make a lovely wide fast sweep across cycle lane and collect any passing cyclists, who have no way to get out of the way without bumping down a high kerb. :sad: Sometimes they seem to get it right, but we must keep dragging the daffodils back until they build the rest properly.
 

sidevalve

Über Member
Don't really get all this
1 - these are it seems on shared pedestrian / cycle paths. The main idea is to give both cyclists AND pedestrians a path to use that is not the carriageway.
2 - we don't seem to have a vast army of pedestrians demanding that all T junctions be banned.
3 - nowhere on these cycle paths does it say "you have right of way"
4 - pedestrians seem to manage quite well by stopping and looking around - what is wrong with cyclists doing the same ? Is it SO difficult to stop and [heaven forbid] put a foot to the ground ? You are, in effect a pedestrian on wheels.
5 - You are NOT repeat that - NOT on the carriageway - YOU have chosen this, you could have ridden on the road if you so wished and not had to stop. You have chosen the extra safety [real or imagined] of the shared pedestrian path , the penalty is you must behave more like a pedestrian than a vehicle. Pedestrians don't just run out into the road [ok some loonys do but we are dealing with normals here] so why is it considered to be essential that cyclists using the same path by their own choice be allowed to do so ?
6 - stop expecting the world to bend to suit you - it won't. If you want to ride far and fast use the road - that's fine, if you want to toddle along away from the traffic - that's fine too but the price is you have to take a little more time.
 
OP
OP
mjr

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I'm not going to reply to most of that same old be-fast-or-be-punished shoot, but:
4 - pedestrians seem to manage quite well by stopping and looking around - what is wrong with cyclists doing the same ? Is it SO difficult to stop and [heaven forbid] put a foot to the ground ? You are, in effect a pedestrian on wheels.
Cycling is not walking with wheels underneath. A bicycle is a vehicle, which is why planning cycling must be made with the planning principles of vehicle traffic. Simply stopping at the bad crossing design is not enough, as crossing is constrained to where the carriageway and cycle track meet, which usually means you have to wait until you can see it's simultaneously clear from all directions. Even if you don't have to wait, each stop is like another hundred metres on the journey and when you don't move fast, that's even more precious time lost. More cycling is wanted so that we can keep pollution and congestion down and keep our towns and cities moving.

Pedestrians have a slight advantage of priority when crossing side roads (not that some motorists respect it) which cycling doesn't yet. This is sometimes known as the "STraight Ahead as Right" (STAR) rule and is another thing which could be fixed by legislation, like presumed liability.

Nevertheless, pedestrians are also knocked down by cars sweeping around badly-designed T junctions too quickly and failing to give way. The changes that would ease cycling may well benefit pedestrians too.
You have chosen the extra safety [real or imagined] of the shared pedestrian path
No, its users have chosen what should be a more fun/less stress option of a cycle track (which is the proper name). It's difficult to make a general safety case for cycle track or carriageway, but I'd like both to be built without unnecessary dangers. I feel carriageway designs are better at the moment, but I do seek improvements where needed, such as removing those nasty guardrails which cyclists can get crushed into.

There should be footways as well as cycle tracks, but that rarely happens yet.

Cycling is being encouraged by policy (slowly!), so the world is bending to suit (slowly!), happily. It's high time to avoid new mistakes being built and fixing past mistakes. Explanations of why lethal designs are broken and pointers to the better designs can help with this.
 

subaqua

What’s the point
Location
Leytonstone
Don't really get all this
1 - these are it seems on shared pedestrian / cycle paths. The main idea is to give both cyclists AND pedestrians a path to use that is not the carriageway.
2 - we don't seem to have a vast army of pedestrians demanding that all T junctions be banned.
3 - nowhere on these cycle paths does it say "you have right of way"
4 - pedestrians seem to manage quite well by stopping and looking around - what is wrong with cyclists doing the same ? Is it SO difficult to stop and [heaven forbid] put a foot to the ground ? You are, in effect a pedestrian on wheels.
5 - You are NOT repeat that - NOT on the carriageway - YOU have chosen this, you could have ridden on the road if you so wished and not had to stop. You have chosen the extra safety [real or imagined] of the shared pedestrian path , the penalty is you must behave more like a pedestrian than a vehicle. Pedestrians don't just run out into the road [ok some loonys do but we are dealing with normals here] so why is it considered to be essential that cyclists using the same path by their own choice be allowed to do so ?
6 - stop expecting the world to bend to suit you - it won't. If you want to ride far and fast use the road - that's fine, if you want to toddle along away from the traffic - that's fine too but the price is you have to take a little more time.


Was that a reply to me?

I don't really have a choice along mile end road now . Well not if I don't want abuse about use the fcuvking cycle lane built for you. Before the sh1t segregation I had that choice as I didn't get the abuse as lane was the bus lane.

Still if you like cyclists having CHOICE removed .

I was taught the person behind should take extra care and look what's ahead of them . To avoid any incidents. Short of me teleporting into the path of the driver there isn't anything I was doing wrong

You do seem to be victim blaming again.
 
Top Bottom