Drawing the Cycle Design Vehicle

I like Skol

I don't think so, sonny!....
Location
Room 237
So ok granted, the cargo bikes that are being used by Ups dhl and the like might be to big, but where no longer living in Trump world we don't have to go from the one extreme to the other, let's say the cargo bike's there are popular for the schoolrun in the Netherlands by some wonder become popular here, away with the Tractors in with the children cargo cycle. These are not so gigantic as these purpose build ups and dhl bikes but still cargo bikes. (see here https://www.babboe.co.uk for some examples) So it still is my 1pound(i raised the stake) that in 2021 the government/council/angry grandma interrupting the live stream should be able to make a cycle bridge that can accomodate all. For the many not the few..
IMO here is a classic example of barking up the wrong tree.
To achieve the uptake of utility cycling in place of motorised vehicle journeys then stop trying to engineer huge environmentally unfriendly and unwelcome infrastructure when the far simpler solution is to keep the pathway traffic on the ground and instead convert the road layout so the pedestrian and cycle users have right of way and can cross without feeling intimidated or at risk. This also discourages vehicular traffic too so is a win-win situation.
 

classic33

Legendary Member
So ok granted, the cargo bikes that are being used by Ups dhl and the like might be to big, but where no longer living in Trump world we don't have to go from the one extreme to the other, let's say the cargo bike's there are popular for the schoolrun in the Netherlands by some wonder become popular here, away with the Tractors in with the children cargo cycle. These are not so gigantic as these purpose build ups and dhl bikes but still cargo bikes. (see here https://www.babboe.co.uk for some examples) So it still is my 1pound(i raised the stake) that in 2021 the government/council/angry grandma interrupting the live stream should be able to make a cycle bridge that can accomodate all. For the many not the few..
The DHL quads are made in Sweden, and in use in Germany and the Netherlands, by DHL. Trump doesn't get a look in on this side of the pond.

It took a fair bit of lobbying to be allowed to use e-assist on a quad, within the EU. Rules were changed in 2016 to include them. Since then DHL have trialled them in inner city use in the EU.

UPS use trikes because in certain States, anything with more than three wheels isn't classified as a pedal cycle, so the advantages are lost. Tax, insurance and license requirements. No bus lane or cycle lane use.
 
OP
mjr

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
To bring a bit of evidence to the thread- a housing estate road serving up to 60 houses is 4.8m wide, a local road serving up to 2050 houses is 5.5m wide, a major road is 6.7m wide and a trunk road is 7.3m wide. I have no difficulty dioing a U-turn on any of them so it's perhaps better to do physical test to check with it marked out on a road.
Let's trust Phil Jones and the other good authors of the 2020 Cycle Infrastructure Design to have actually figured out the geometric requirements for including all cycles and not fall into to the trap of "I'm alright Jack" and accepting substandard crap just because the cycles we have access to can make tighter turns than in the handbook.

If two cyclists meet at the loop however, it is entirely reasonable for one of them to give way for the 3 or 4 seconds should this happen. Of course it would be better if the return end could be extended in a wider semi-circle of 4m radius to permit 2 cyclists to pass on the loop but an elevated cyclepath 8m wide is a massive elevated structure.
:eek: Farking developing countries don't even build new gravel roads with give-and-take hairpins on them any more unless a seriously tough constraint forces them to. Are you seriously arguing that part of a primary urban commuter route should deliberately be built too narrow for two normal cycles to pass on a bend?

Some cyclists seem to be the worst enemy of mass cycling sometimes. :sad:
 
OP
mjr

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I'd say approximately 14' turning circle* and a little over 3'(European directive on the maximum width to be classified a pedal cycle. DHL quads are built to the same restriction.)
14' = 4.27m, so I think even that ain't making it round the hairpin without hitting the fences.

*Meaning that just like a HGV taking a tight left you move to the outside, and start your turn that bit earlier.
Not an option in the right hand hairpin and not enough to save the downhill.

The ramp itself is the bigger problem.
I think so far they have had to shallow it twice. I do not recall if that is still too steep.
 

classic33

Legendary Member
14' = 4.27m, so I think even that ain't making it round the hairpin without hitting the fences.


Not an option in the right hand hairpin and not enough to save the downhill.


I think so far they have had to shallow it twice. I do not recall if that is still too steep.
The ramp is 9'10" wide, on both sides of the landing and on the landing itself. You start the turn earlier and take the outside line as said. On the down ramp, you'd be on that line anyway.

Not my picture, but the slabs are 18" wide, I've taken a similar cycle to the one you pictured down it, no real problems, load aside.

575063
 
Last edited:

classic33

Legendary Member
Let's trust Phil Jones and the other good authors of the 2020 Cycle Infrastructure Design to have actually figured out the geometric requirements for including all cycles and not fall into to the trap of "I'm alright Jack" and accepting substandard crap just because the cycles we have access to can make tighter turns than in the handbook.


:eek: Farking developing countries don't even build new gravel roads with give-and-take hairpins on them any more unless a seriously tough constraint forces them to. Are you seriously arguing that part of a primary urban commuter route should deliberately be built too narrow for two normal cycles to pass on a bend?

Some cyclists seem to be the worst enemy of mass cycling sometimes. :sad:
I've a 9' foot trailer for the quad. Should I expect to be able to use that ramp as shown in the first post. The turning circle isn't great compared to the quad by itself, which is greater than that of any bike I've seen built for a single rider.
 
OP
mjr

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
The ramp is 9'10" wide, on both sides of the landing and on the landing itself. You start the turn earlier and take the outside line as said. On the down ramp, you'd be on that line anyway.
If you ride on the left, you would be on the inside downhill.

Anyway, 14' inside turning circle and a 3' wide cycle requires 20' total width, which seems more than 2x 9'10".
 

classic33

Legendary Member
If you ride on the left, you would be on the inside downhill.

Anyway, 14' inside turning circle and a 3' wide cycle requires 20' total width, which seems more than 2x 9'10".
The question posed was
The bridge ramp is proposed to be changed, as well as the northern access (which would be directly from a carriageway).

The tricycle is one of the smallest ones and just happened to be one I had a picture to hand. I am unsure it would make the hairpin. Do you have its turning circle and width handy?
Now it's the inner turning circle. I based my guess on what I've seen of those trikes(central steering point), and gave a maximum.

Who said anything about riding on the left coming down. I said turning left, giving the HGV taking the outside lane as an example.
 
OP
mjr

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Who said anything about riding on the left coming down. I said turning left, giving the HGV taking the outside lane as an example.
You wrote "You start the turn earlier and take the outside line as said. On the down ramp, you'd be on that line anyway." but heading down the proposed ramp would normally put you on the inside of the hairpin.

But never mind. Thanks anyway. I find it just too difficult to discuss anything with you without it descending to this level.
 

classic33

Legendary Member
You wrote "You start the turn earlier and take the outside line as said. On the down ramp, you'd be on that line anyway." but heading down the proposed ramp would normally put you on the inside of the hairpin.

But never mind. Thanks anyway. I find it just too difficult to discuss anything with you without it descending to this level.
Which places you on the outside line.

Have you actually ridden such a trike?
 

Archie_tect

De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
Location
Northumberland
Let's trust Phil Jones and the other good authors of the 2020 Cycle Infrastructure Design to have actually figured out the geometric requirements for including all cycles and not fall into to the trap of "I'm alright Jack" and accepting substandard crap just because the cycles we have access to can make tighter turns than in the handbook.


:eek: Farking developing countries don't even build new gravel roads with give-and-take hairpins on them any more unless a seriously tough constraint forces them to. Are you seriously arguing that part of a primary urban commuter route should deliberately be built too narrow for two normal cycles to pass on a bend?

Some cyclists seem to be the worst enemy of mass cycling sometimes. :sad:
3m wide cyclepath is perfectly adequate for 2 to pass, 6.15m is adequate to manoeuvre- the width at the hairpin = 20' 2"... granted the hairpin should be 6m long so that the 3m radius should start not from the 0m position where the ramp inclines meet but 3m clear of the central divide with a level platform as we do with pedestrian ramps these days- unless you build a balloon end on the ramp hairpin which is vastly more expensive and land hungry... out of interest what does Mr Innes recommend mjr? [and please remain civil?]
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom