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

[summerdays]

Two junctions on my route have been modified and one works better than the other. As you approach the junction which used to be a stop and look uncontrolled crossing of one lane. They installed lights on that section and put in the technology to detect the cyclist coming along the path. I frequently arrive at that crossing to find it has turned to green on the toucan crossing and red for the road traffic.

The following junction has also had the same technology applied but there is a much higher traffic flow and I'm not sure it's correctly adjusted, so I usually end up waiting (it is a motorway slip road).

Whilst it isn't perfect it is useful and I look forward to it appearing elsewhere on my commute.

 

[classic33]

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?
View attachment 110466

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?

So, in order to fit a cycle lane in, we close one road off(go down well with those who use it) or we lower the roads. Under those roads, like many, are the gas, electric, water & telephone mains, including sewers. Who pays to have all that reinforced or re-routed?
The "option" chosen round it was to install a cycle lane(brilliant parking bay) down a road to the right of the picture. On a 20 degree slope going down a 25 degree on the way out.

Two ways of getting to it, turn right at the junction in the picture or at the junction before it. Both of which will have you in the road centre.

I'd prefer the consultation money be spent on improving the actual road for all users.

 

[mjr]

So, in order to fit a cycle lane in, we close one road off(go down well with those who use it) or we lower the roads. Under those roads, like many, are the gas, electric, water & telephone mains, including sewers. Who pays to have all that reinforced or re-routed?

The same who would pay when any road is improved. Often it'll be the highway authority, but sometimes it'll be developers or others. Cycle tracks are highways and should come from the general transport budget. This question doesn't seem to come up when building new motorways and quasi-motorways - solutions are found. And closing roads never goes down well with the users, but highway management should balance all users and we've had plenty of small cycle-friendly roads cut off by new motorways over the years, so while it's not my preference but I don't think it should be ruled out.

Despite all that, based on what you've said, I'd agree it sounds like the best option wasn't chosen. However, "improving the actual road for all users" usually means improving the road for motorists more than anyone else and not encouraging the changes we need, which wouldn't be great either.

 

[Karlt]

Point of order - pedestrians crossing the entrance of a side road have priority over vehicles turning into the side road. Cyclists on a shared path should have the same priority. I know many motorists don't know this, and think pedestrians should give way to them when they're turning into a side road, but they are wrong.