I'm not a fan. But, if you're going to use it................take care
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=5RH5HBq5hOg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=5RH5HBq5hOg
Except than stretch doesn't look wide enough for 3 cyclists. It looks to me like it should have a dotted white line down the middle and be done with it.You remember roads that were wide enough for three lanes, the middle one being where the more enthusiastic driver could meet another similarly minded person head on? The Superhighway is pretty much the right width to recreate those.
The roads now have a formal arrangement two lanes one way and one the other, or hatched areas to create no-man's-land.
That's a terrible state. As a cyclist I expect wobble room from cars and other cyclists. It should have dotted lines down the middle to demonstrate is one cyclist each way. Rule about overtaking should be the same as for cars. Do it if safe and clear. The clip shows a failure to do this.It is just about wide enough, provided they use the space and don't wobble. These are not realistic expectations though.
TFL took the white lines out of the scheme to create "greater capacity" .Except than stretch doesn't look wide enough for 3 cyclists. It looks to me like it should have a dotted white line down the middle and be done with it.
Depends whether you think hitting the kerb is worth sacrificing cars staying out of the lane.As someone who has no intention of riding in London, I'm still curious - there is a raised kerb - is the other side of that kerb the road with cars? i.e. the guy who was tipped over the kerb was lucky there wasn't a car coming?
I can see why the kerb is there, but on the other hand doesn't it make a simple wobble near the kerb more dangerous, as likely to result in a proper off instead of potentially just a wobble a bit too close to the line of the motor traffic?
Yes.As someone who has no intention of riding in London, I'm still curious - there is a raised kerb - is the other side of that kerb the road with cars?
Yes, although I think the phasing of the two sets of lights might have made it unlikely. I suspect he hadn't left a safe stopping distance between him and the cyclist in front (who crashed into the overtaker) and if there had been traffic that side, he might have chosen to crash more to the right.i.e. the guy who was tipped over the kerb was lucky there wasn't a car coming?
The kerbs are sloped so it should trading that fairly minimal risk for the near-certainty that motorists drive into the cycle lane if there's no obstacle to them doing so. Heck, a determined or hapless few keep trying despite the obstacles...I can see why the kerb is there, but on the other hand doesn't it make a simple wobble near the kerb more dangerous, as likely to result in a proper off instead of potentially just a wobble a bit too close to the line of the motor traffic?