Ambulance

[gambatte]

1 is irrelevant as you still only have a single lane of traffic to cross.
2 isn't a consequence of increasing the lane width.
.

1 - not irrelevant, it's a wider lane. Lane width counts. Especially if you've young kids, prams etc.
2 - on a existing road, if you increase the lane width, the island would have to get narrower, the roads a fixed width - it's not like they're going to reduce the width of the pavement?.
There's probably a guideline minimum width, but as I was told when I complained they were marking cycle lanes well below minimum width recomendations "they're only guidelines"...

 

[GrasB]

1 - not irrelevant, it's a wider lane. Lane width counts. Especially if you've young kids, prams etc.

If we accommodate large vehicles, then the minimum lane width is 2.6m (2.6m being the maximum allowable width of a vehicle excluding mirrors). Assuming a 2m train (parent + buggy) that'll take about 7s to cross at 1.5mph (I walk at 4-4.5mph on the flat). If we increase the road width to 4.5m (3.65m is the width of a standard motorway lane) then the time taken to cross increases to 9.5s. In the grand scheme of things it's a negligible difference for crossing time.

However we look at this from a cyclist being squeezed point of view there's a huge difference. My big car is wide in the grand scheme of things, total wing to wing width being 2.03m wide (2.146m mirror to mirror), at 2.6m lane width as a cyclist I have a maximum of 0.5m to survive in if someone try to push through regardless. But the reality is the driver will be about 20-30cm from the kerb naturally so it's a real survival space problem. Now go to a 3.5m lane. With a 0.25m kerb clearance for the car & cyclist you've got about 0.7m space for the car to pass, that's not going to be safe in the slightest considering any slight wobble from either will likely result in a collision. At 4.5m I've got 0.6m to the kerb, the driver has the same & there's still 1.1m of survival space for me. Comfortable, no, but reasonably safe.

2 - on a existing road, if you increase the lane width, the island would have to get narrower, the roads a fixed width - it's not like they're going to reduce the width of the pavement?.

Depending on the situation why not? If the road won't support narrowing of a pavement or allow for a decent lane width a central refuge is probably the wrong answer anyway.

 

[400bhp]

If we accommodate large vehicles, then the minimum lane width is 2.6m (2.6m being the maximum allowable width of a vehicle excluding mirrors). Assuming a 2m train (parent + buggy) that'll take about 7s to cross at 1.5mph (I walk at 4-4.5mph on the flat). If we increase the road width to 4.5m (3.65m is the width of a standard motorway lane) then the time taken to cross increases to 9.5s. In the grand scheme of things it's a negligible difference for crossing time.
.

In that time (2.5s) a car travelling at 30mph would have covered 100ft. That makes a massive difference when trying to cross the road.

 

[GrasB]

In that time (2.5s) a car travelling at 30mph would have covered 100ft. That makes a massive difference when trying to cross the road.

If you need a pedestrian refuge then the road is busy enough that you're going to require a car to slow down to avoid you. So the actual distance away the car is to make a safe crossing is exactly the same. This is what happens here, here & here

 

[400bhp]

WTF are you on about.

 

[Turbo Rider]

Depending on the situation why not? If the road won't support narrowing of a pavement or allow for a decent lane width a central refuge is probably the wrong answer anyway.

Because if you do narrow the pavement, it then becomes unsafe to walk on without falling into the road and, sometimes, these central refuges are put in places where it's common practice for people to get run over, so as well as it might be the wrong answer, it might also be the only answer.

 

[GrasB]

Because if you do narrow the pavement it then becomes unsafe to walk on without falling into the road and, sometimes

So we make it dangerous for road users instead? Great idea!

these central refuges are put in places where it's common practice for people to get run over, so as well as it might be the wrong answer, it might also be the only answer.

So the only thing in the road designer has when it comes to protecting pedestrians is a central refuge?

 

[GrasB]

WTF are you on about.

Explaining why your 100ft at 30mph is irreverent.

 

[Turbo Rider]

So we make it dangerous for road users instead? Great idea!

So the only thing in the road designer has when it comes to protecting pedestrians is a central refuge?

Pedestrian deaths have no doubt reduced as an outcome, so yes, it probably is a great idea. Road users are supposed to be aware of what's in front of them and if making a little island for someone to walk onto while there's only traffic coming from one direction (not the band...that would be horrible) helps the pedestrian to cross the road without inconveniencing the oncoming traffic, thus reducing the chance of the oncoming traffic plowing into them, then it's a marvelous idea. There's also the question of what you replace these islands with if you take them away...because the reality is either more zebra crossings / light crossings, which would then slow / halt traffic, or take them away completely and incurr more pedestrian deaths...because as nice as it is to imagine that people should and will only use a zebra / light crossing, people can be completely f*cking stupid at times.

 

[hoski]

...because as nice as it is to imagine that people should and will only use a zebra / light crossing, people can be completely f*cking stupid at times.

It's stupid to not use crossings?

 

[Turbo Rider]

It's stupid to not use crossings?

Depends on the situation really, but no. What I mean is that sometimes, people have been known to cross at dangerous places in the road, like blind bends, where they can't see any oncoming traffic. IMO this is slightly silly. Because of this, they sometimes get squashed. Because of this, little islands AKA pinch points have been built and these help save lives of people who might cross there anyway.