Any advice for this junction

[united4ever]

so i often cycle straight on at this junction and enter the cycle lane which has a contraflow on the one way street.

https://goo.gl/maps/EuoTnNZSDcu

Trouble is, a lot of the traffic coming towards me does a right turn and don't seem to realise that there is even potential for cyclists to be going straight on into the cycle lane. Part of me things you need to be confident and big and get into the middle of that junction and they will stop but many times they have to hit their brakes very late and look bemused. Maybe I should dismount or avoid the junction. any tips to make it safer?

 

[Siclo]

Ah, Cross Street, it's a disaster, GMCC are pushing for a re-design, or light phase change.

My advice would be to avoid it, sorry.

 

[ADarkDraconis]

So are you cycling against the direction of traffic? I wouldn't personally, even if it is allowed. There are a few streets here in town that are one-way but let you cycle down both directions with bike lanes and I don't use them even in the car because as a driver it is unexpected. Bikes and cars have the same rules and should go the same direction, a bike is considered a vehicle and should follow vehicle traffic in my mind (and I assume the mind of Donny Daily Driver.) I don't expect to see someone coming the wrong way down a one-way street and most people feel the same, so surprises like that can cause accidents.

Also this may sound silly but I'm not sure who has the right-of-way, the person going straight but the wrong way or the person going the correct direction but making a turn? I don't want to assume and have that assumption get someone hurt.

 

[Siclo]

Bikes and cars have the same rules

No they don't, well not over here anyway, speed limits, signalling, insurance etc.

Contra-flow cycling works perfectly well in a lot of countries, mostly countries with presumed liability and the fact it's normal means motorists expect it, but Cross Street is a perfect example of how not to engineer a junction.

Edit: what's really frustrating is the planners were told this was carp but not only did it anyway but have copied it elsewhere in the city

 

[ADarkDraconis]

No they don't, well not over here anyway, speed limits, signalling, insurance etc.

Contra-flow cycling works perfectly well in a lot of countries, mostly countries with presumed liability and the fact it's normal means motorists expect it, but Cross Street is a perfect example of how not to engineer a junction.

Is it normal to have them in this area? Because I feel that if it were there wouldn't be a problem with people not expecting cyclists going against traffic like in this instance. Countries that have it in place for a long time will have drivers that are used to it, just like how here we can turn right on a red light if the way is clear but other countries would be confused with a newly-implemented rule like that.

Do you not have to signal before turning or stay within speed limits? Just curious as I didn't know that. It seems dangerous to me. Just my tuppence.

 

[Siclo]

I agree it's dangerous in this instance, contra-flow cycling is becoming popular with planners in the area but there's no publicity around it, so no awareness.

Your example of right turn on red is good. Engineering could solve the problem, make the turn off camber with a build out, use grading and the never ending supply of magic paint to highlight priority, use wands to segregate the contra-flow, put posters up etc. Awareness would develop quickly, but all that costs and cyclist's lives are cheap.

 

[Roadhump]

As it is, it looks a very dangerously designed set up. If you move the little yellow man to the other side of the junction, in Moss Lane, there is little to warn motorists of the likelihood of oncoming cyclists approaching from the opposite side of the junction; even if they notice the cycle lane and make the connection, it appears to come from round the corner to the right. Most drivers will be focused on what's ahead, not the cycle lane to the side, and would not expect a cyclist to come across in their direction.

Perhaps the situation could be improved by an advanced stop line for cyclists and a staggered traffic light sequence, with a 5 second extra start for cyclists, indicated by a green bike beneath the normal round green light, so that cyclists exiting Cross Street would do so a few seconds ahead of motor vehicles while the lights for traffic exiting Moss Lane would remain on red, then traffic exits Cross Street while the lights in Moss Lane still remain on red for a few seconds more. I have seen similar elsewhere, but there doesn't seem to be any consistent good practice standard.

 

[Siclo]

Perhaps the situation could be improved by an advanced stop line for cyclists and a staggered traffic light sequence, with a 5 second extra start for cyclists, indicated by a green bike beneath the normal round green light, so that cyclists exiting Cross Street would do so a few seconds ahead of motor vehicles while the lights for traffic exiting Moss Lane would remain on red, then traffic exits Cross Street while the lights in Moss Lane still remain on red for a few seconds more. I have seen similar elsewhere, but there doesn't seem to be any consistent good practice standard

Spot on, but my understanding is that cycle specific lights require full segregation of lanes, I think @mjr is perhaps more clued up on the regs than me

 

[Siclo]

Do you not have to signal before turning or stay within speed limits?

Sorry, missed this, speed limits only apply to motor vehicles over here, I stand to be corrected but signalling is a requirement of motor vehicles, bikes are exempt since retaining control is judged to more important than signalling, ICBW here though.

 

[ADarkDraconis]

Sorry, missed this, speed limits only apply to motor vehicles over here, I stand to be corrected but signalling is a requirement of motor vehicles, bikes are exempt since retaining control is judged to more important than signalling, ICBW here though.

How strange. In my state any vehicle travelling on a road is required to keep within the speed limits (bikes, mopeds, scooters, etc. not requiring licenses all are included); and while cars must have a continuous turn signal that is activated at least 50ft from the intended turn, cyclists are required to signal with the proper hand signals any intent to turn but it only has to be once before the movement, not continuous. I think they feel that if you are competent enough to ride on the road you can signal a turn and maintain control. Also that way other road users know where you are going and you don't unexpectedly cut them off unannounced.

You must also act as a vehicle of the road and adhere to any signs, lights, detours, etc. and whatever vehicle has the right of way in a situation, car or bike or what have you, is to be treated as such. Cyclists may use pedestrian crosses only if you are off and walking the bike.

Maybe that is why drivers aren't usually as grumpy or hostile to us here? They just see us like small vehicles, like a slower motorcycle or vespa. We do get people who don't realize you have to leave 3ft of clearance when passing or a bit irritated if you've held them up at a crossing, but don't generally have the 'bl00dy cyclist' attitudes from drivers that I read about a lot here- I think because we (most of us) are predictable and don't get 'special treatment'. I think predictability in road use can make us safer as far as drivers are concerned.

 

[flake99please]

If the oncoming vehicles are unaware of the potential of a cyclist going straight ahead at this junction (having passed approx 50 metres of 'cycle only' lane on their right prior to the junction), they shouldnt be on the road. We have a similar (daft) contraflow arrangement here which isnt helped by the number of parked vehicles on the cyclists area. I personally would have no hesitation using the junction you have highlighted.

 

[Tenacious Sloth]

[QUOTE 5177802, member: 45"]Carry on doing what you're entitled to. Take the most controlling position and be obvious. It will educate the drivers.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. And while you’re lying there in hospital, you can be cheered by the knowledge that another driver has been ‘educated’.

OP. I can’t really see any way of improving your chances on this junction, so would probably try and avoid it, if possible.

It’s a shame there isn’t a hand signal that is commonly used to indicate that you’re going straight on, such as a straight arm extended in front of you. Maybe there already is. But I’ve never heard of it.

I’d also be tempted to write to whoever is responsible for that junction and ask them for tips on how they would approach it on a bicycle.

Graham

 

[Siclo]

[QUOTE 5177816, member: 45"]How many cyclists have been hit on that junction?[/QUOTE]

I don't think the official stats have been published yet, it was only installed in 2016. I know of two personally, my guesstimate would be in double figures, this is supposed to be the main cross city cycling route. It is only a matter of time before someone is killed here.

 

[Tenacious Sloth]

[QUOTE 5177816, member: 45"]How many cyclists have been hit on that junction?

We should stop being bullied off the road by the "risk" from motorists.[/QUOTE]

That’s an interesting viewpoint, but we’ll just have to agree to differ on this.

Unfortunately, there is a percentage of motorists in this country who seem to be incapable of exercising any degree of concentration or logical thought process while behind the wheel of a car. You only have to look in your car rear view mirror, particularly during a morning commute, to see the glazed eyes of a moron who is following 20 feet behind you at 60mph to realise this.

While I agree that by cycling cleverly, and anticipating bad driving from motorists, can reduce the risk of an accident; when that accident does eventually occur, it is always the cyclist that comes off worse.

Graham

 

[humboldt]

I feel like that possibly needs additional road markings that protrude into the junction and mark the path of the contraflow so if you're following it the drivers have an idea of what you're up to? Bike specific traffic lights would clean things up too. Definitely has potential to be dangerous as it is now.
I actually think contraflow cycle lanes for one way streets are often a nice option because it can increase your feeling of freedom in a city and potentially makes cycling a more attractive option for local journeys rather than lazily getting in a car and having to circle the block. In my neighbourhood of London there are a couple of residential one way streets that would allow bikes to avoid a big-ish junction which would be unpleasant for new cyclists, but locals will not be happy if you try to cut down them; my wife got boxed in and trapped by an old woman in a car the other day who wanted to moan at her for doing that and eventually had to get up on the pavement and walk around her. Right now my wife is 'in the wrong' but it would just take a couple of signs at either end and a bit of road paint and she would be able to use that route and feel safer on her commute.