Cycle lane priority over side roads

[swansonj]

First, apologies, I suspect that the information I need will be in this forum somewhere already, but I don't frequent this area so much so am not familiar with it.

Surrey County Council are consulting about cycle provision on my local A road, the A24 from Leatherhead to Ashtead. Their proposal, predictably, is just to redesignate the pavement as a shared use cycle path (to be scrupulously fair to them, they are proposing to reduce the carriageway width in places to get enough width for a 3 m path). Equally predictably, their proposed cycle path would give way to every single side road.

I will put the arguments for on-road provision, but I know local feeling well enough to think that's a lost cause, most parents round here would love their children to have an off-road cycle path however poor. So I also want to argue that if there is to be an off-carriageway provision, it shouldn't give way to side roads. I know it's almost universal that cycle paths do this in the UK, but my specific question is, is there anything in any of the various design guides or rules that require this, and are there any precedents for cycle paths that follow the priority of the main road through junctions, with the side road give way line moved back accordingly?

Thanks for any pointers.

 

[jonesy]

DfT's current guidance is LTN2/08:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3808/ltn-2-08.pdf

See section 10.4 on side road crossings:

As a result of concerns over the safety of parallel cycle tracks crossing side roads, it is becoming common European practice to reintroduce cyclists to the main road in advance of a junction. Cyclists pass the junction on the carriageway and then rejoin the cycle track.

Cyclists join the road in line with the main flow on buildouts ramped to carriageway level (see Figure 10.6) and use an advisory cycle lane that continues past the junction until it rejoins the cycle track. If a buildout is not possible, the cycle track may need to give way where it joins the carriageway
10.4.3 The advantage of this arrangement is that it gives the cyclist unambiguous priority at the junction. The solution precludes two way use of the cycle track. The merge onto the carriageway should be at least 30 metres from the junction to reduce the risk of conflict with left turning traffic.

Some other sources:

The Irish cycle manual is an excellent online guidance manual, drawing on a lot of the European guidance:
www.cyclemanual.ie/

it provides lots of different examples of how to manage side road crossings.

There are a lot of references to sources of design guidance on the CILT website, which hosts most of the former Cycling England material:
http://www.ciltuk.org.uk/ExploreCIL...elPlanning/Cycling/TheHub/Infrastructure.aspx


see also TfL's London Cycling Design Standards:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx

 

[GrasB]

...and are there any precedents for cycle paths that follow the priority of the main road through junctions, with the side road give way line moved back accordingly?

2 examples in Cambridge that I can think of both are completely ignored by motorists. Often the positioning of vehicles at these junctions leads to cyclists having to enter the road space to pass stationary vehicles which are 'trapped' by traffic on the major road. Of course due to the nature of how cyclists enter the road space (& in one of the two examples the junction is semi-hidden by parked vehicles) they are often put in a much more risky situation than they would have been otherwise.

 

[snorri]

Cycling by Design has some drawings which may help.
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...lications-and-consultations/cycling-by-design
Section 7
Para 7.2.2.2
Fig 7.7 & 7.8

 

[GrasB]

The give-way markings shows in Fig 7.8 are completely ignored by motorists in Cambridge.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Tell them to go to Oxford and take a look at the Woodstock Road amongst other places. It works there.

 

[siadwell]

I thought there might be an example on your own doorstep where the road to Westhumble joins the A24 (https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=we...humble,+Surrey,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&t=h&z=20).
How wrong I was. This is a classic example of how NOT to cross a side road with a cycle path. Although there are heavy dotted lines across the side road the denote where the path crosses, the give way triangles are painted across the "path", encouraging drivers to block it as they give way to the main road.
Good luck with the council!

 

[StuartG]

My (pootling) club cycles down that road occasionally. Usually 8/12 cyclists. Using such a path/crossing is impractical and we will continue to use the road to everyone's annoyance. We are not dogmatic about cycle paths - we use the ones either side of the Dorking bound dual carriageway where the benefits outweigh the disbenefits.

But here the council is proposing to spend money to provide something that will not be used by many (most?) cyclists for their own safety. Not good value. Is that a line to take?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Surrey will just want to paint lines to meet some sustainable transport infrastructure target somewhere. They, like West Sussex, don't give a fig if actual cyclists actually use said facilities.

 

[snailracer]

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/s...and/2011/01/b02_road_crossings_side_roads.pdf

 

[Richard Mann]

The "best" approach is to set the crossing back by 5m from the main road (then it can happily be given priority, if it's on a hump, and turning speeds are kept down).

If there's not enough room to bend the cycle track away from the main road, you can just have it close to the road, but motorists won't wait behind the crossing if they can't see along the main road, or if the main road is so busy/fast that they feel they have to be ready to go at the drop of a hat (and obviously, they'll then drive into any bike trying to squeeze in front of them).

So unless the side road is pretty quiet, in poor-visibility situations it's better to have the second give-way on the side road about 8m back from the main road, and an 8m speed table, so that cars can pull forward to the junction, and bikes can divert round the back of a car when there's one in the way.

(In my opinion)

 

[benb]

I agree with Richard above. You want to have space for one car to wait at the side road ready to join the carriageway, and the cycle path would lead behind that car, with priority over the road it is crossing.

 

[benb]

Which is what diagram 7.8 in the Cyling by Design describes. As far as I am aware, nowhere in the UK has put in place the design in diagram 7.8 - they've put in place b******ised poor relation versions...

I don't think I've ever seen an example of a cycle lane in the UK that I would actually want to cycle on.

 

[StuartG]

I don't think I've ever seen an example of a cycle lane in the UK that I would actually want to cycle on.

Do you avoid cycle lanes that double up as bus lanes?
In London that would make you part of a very small minority.

 

[benb]

Do you avoid cycle lanes that double up as bus lanes?
In London that would make you part of a very small minority.

Oh yeah, those are OK, I'd forgotten about them. There aren't any bus lanes on my commute.