Poor driving from someone who should have known better.

[mjr]

For what it's worth, and I'll probably get flamed for suggesting this, in order to cross that road (I:e in front of the van) I think it would be safer if it was traffic light controlled, as you press the button, light goes red for traffic on the road, [...]

Nope, you lost me there! If that's a main cycle route crossing a minor carriageway, obviously the light should stay red for traffic on the carriageway, with a change only triggered when a vehicle crosses its approach sensor and the cycleway IR sensors don't detect any cyclists approaching.

But we really shouldn't need lights at every minor carriageway crossing. The penalties for motorists failing to yield should be severe enough to encourage compliance. I'm not sure whether they are or not.

 

[classic33]

Cyclist wasn't using the seperate, shared footway, facility it was placed there for. He was travelling in a seperate, clearly marked contraflow lane, with it's own markings.

 

[DRM]

Nope, you lost me there! If that's a main cycle route crossing a minor carriageway, obviously the light should stay red for traffic on the carriageway, with a change only triggered when a vehicle crosses its approach sensor and the cycleway IR sensors don't detect any cyclists approaching.

But we really shouldn't need lights at every minor carriageway crossing. The penalties for motorists failing to yield should be severe enough to encourage compliance. I'm not sure whether they are or not.

I would say that 99.99% of motorists do comply with give way signs, the rest make an honest mistake, it would make it safer to have a crossing there, what if your suggested automatic i.r sensors fail, and believe me they do, I've seen HGV's go straight through barriers, fork trucks hit roller shutter doors, all because the sensor that detects an approaching vehicle fails, and the driver carries on thinking the barrier/door will open, as it always has done, except this time it doesn't, except in the case of that crossing you will be dealing with a corpse, not paying for a new barrier or door.

 

[mjr]

I would say that 99.99% of motorists do comply with give way signs, the rest make an honest mistake, it would make it safer to have a crossing there, what if your suggested automatic i.r sensors fail, [...]

Then the cyclists would still have at least the time between cycleway signals turning red and carriageway lights turning green (typically 7-11 seconds, if I've remembered correctly) to stop - or the signals could behave like others do and if the sensor fails, it assumes there's traffic coming and makes the non-priority route wait for the maximum, but this time it will be the carriageway waiting 30+ extra seconds, for a change!

[...] except in the case of that crossing you will be dealing with a corpse, not paying for a new barrier or door.

One can take things too far. I mean, maybe the whole cycleway should have anti-tank barriers protecting both sides because if a driver sneezes, mounts the kerb and goes onto the cycleway, you will be dealing with a corpse, not paying for a scuffed kerbstone.

In practice, we don't put crossings everywhere because it would cost lots and reduce peak capacity of both routes.

 

[DRM]

Then the cyclists would still have at least the time between cycleway signals turning red and carriageway lights turning green (typically 7-11 seconds, if I've remembered correctly) to stop - or the signals could behave like others do and if the sensor fails, it assumes there's traffic coming and makes the non-priority route wait for the maximum, but this time it will be the carriageway waiting 30+ extra seconds, for a change!


One can take things too far. I mean, maybe the whole cycleway should have anti-tank barriers protecting both sides because if a driver sneezes, mounts the kerb and goes onto the cycleway, you will be dealing with a corpse, not paying for a scuffed kerbstone.

Your deliberately taking it out of context, cyclist on the lane EXPECTS the lights to change automatically and goes across the road when the lights haven't changed because their presence hasn't been detected, equals disaster, it's not difficult to see why it's better for the cyclist to press a button, stop the traffic and carry on safely in the knowledge that the traffic has stopped for them.

 

[classic33]

Then the cyclists would still have at least the time between cycleway signals turning red and carriageway lights turning green (typically 7-11 seconds, if I've remembered correctly) to stop - or the signals could behave like others do and if the sensor fails, it assumes there's traffic coming and makes the non-priority route wait for the maximum, but this time it will be the carriageway waiting 30+ extra seconds, for a change!


One can take things too far. I mean, maybe the whole cycleway should have anti-tank barriers protecting both sides because if a driver sneezes, mounts the kerb and goes onto the cycleway, you will be dealing with a corpse, not paying for a scuffed kerbstone.

In practice, we don't put crossings everywhere because it would cost lots and reduce peak capacity of both routes.

It's a shared footway, not cycleway. The original cycling facility is what was being used. With the expectation of getting the benefits of the shared footway.

 

[classic33]

Reverse the situation.

The van has crossed into the cyclists lane, making an unsignalled turn, to go where the driver wants to go.

Who'd be willing to say the driver of the van was in the right?

 

[winjim]

Reverse the situation.

The van has crossed into the cyclists lane, making an unsignalled turn, to go where the driver wants to go.

Who'd be willing to say the driver of the van was in the right?

OP has claimed exactly that, apart from the signalling.

 

[classic33]

OP has claimed exactly that, apart from the signalling.

Van has stayed in its lane, travelling in the opposite direction, going straight on. The OP(cyclist) crossed into the opposing lane.

 

[PaulSB]

16 pages of debate on a subject with a clear and simple answer. A cyclist wants to cross a road used by drivers. Any sensible cyclist stops and waits until the way is clear and it is safe to do so. The design, construction, layout of the local piece of infrastructure is irrelevant. Stop. Stay safe. Only an obstinate fool would insist on trying to enforce a perceived right of way.

 

[winjim]

Van has stayed in its lane, travelling in the opposite direction, going straight on. The OP(cyclist) crossed into the opposing lane.

They've made that claim about your hypothetical. That the cyclist should give way to a right-turning van going into that side road.

 

[mjr]

Your deliberately taking it out of context, cyclist on the lane EXPECTS the lights to change automatically and goes across the road when the lights haven't changed because their presence hasn't been detected, equals disaster,

You're ignoring the context: in normal operation that I suggested, the lights would be green for the cyclist and would not need to change.

it's not difficult to see why it's better for the cyclist to press a button, stop the traffic and carry on safely in the knowledge that the traffic has stopped for them.

Is "why" because might makes right?

If we're serious about encouraging cycling, we must stop making cyclists stop, press beg buttons and wait tugging their forelocks at junctions.

 

[mjr]

It's a shared footway, not cycleway.

No such thing in law. It's cycleway with right of way on foot, or a highway with right of way on cycle or foot. "Shared footway" is a bulldog phrase used by politicians unwilling to stand up properly for cycling or walking.

The original cycling facility is what was being used. With the expectation of getting the benefits of the shared footway.

Indeed and I don't disagree about that, so why keep banging on about it?

 

[DRM]

You're ignoring the context: in normal operation that I suggested, the lights would be green for the cyclist and would not need to change.


Is "why" because might makes right?

If we're serious about encouraging cycling, we must stop making cyclists stop, press beg buttons and wait tugging their forelocks at junctions.

No might is not right, but as people have testified on various threads, if you get hit by a moving vehicle it hurts, breaks bones and sometimes kills, and in your scenario the wire in the road that detects the presence of a vehicle fails, cycle lane on green, bike lane on green is not going to end well.

 

[mjr]

No might is not right, but as people have testified on various threads, if you get hit by a moving vehicle it hurts, breaks bones and sometimes kills, and in your scenario the wire in the road that detects the presence of a vehicle fails, cycle lane on green, bike lane on green is not going to end well.

No, in my scenario, if any detector fails, the cyclists get more green and the carriageway more red.

Getting hit always hurts, yes, but lights aren't going to prevent that, no matter what configuration. If there's a camera, it might provide easier restitution, but it won't prevent. Unless you're proposing rising bollards or barriers linked to the lights, like on a bridleway near me.