Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Eric D
Eric's posts

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Eric D commented on a post on Blogger.
Great set of photos - you had a lovely day for it !

It's very clearly a first attempt - it looks totally like an experiment, rather than an actual life-or-death implementation : like the 'dutch roundabout at TRL's test track - every junction or bus-stop is given a different treatment.
This is fine if you just want to see which is least dangerous,
with well-briefed, role-playing, indemnity-signed guinea-pigs but not good on a 'Quality Cycle Corridor' with real people !

I'm sure David Hembrow will say they haven't understood the Dutch approach which is very straightforward and just works !
It shouldn't need a FAQ (in Comic Sans) !

This is so inconsistent - each junction resolves the conflict in one of a dozen completely different ways.

In Pic.16, cyclists must (should?) give way to pedestrians, who have to give way to cars !
In Pic.18, cars must give way to cyclists (and pedestrians? unclear ! Could use some pedestrians painted on the road beside the bikes ?Is there a pedestrian paint marking like the bike Diagram 1057 ?). Do the drivers know ? Do the drivers give way?
It's a bit like a game of chance : scissors-stone-paper. No one can tell in advance who will win. Chances are the cyclist will lose, badly.

In Pic 16, cyclists in one direction have a stop-line at the lights; in the other direction there is none !

The devil is in the detail:
Two-way cycle-track with solid/broken/no central line - any significance ? Unfinished ?

No tactile 'corduroy/ladder/tramline' paving to differentiate pedestrian/cycle segregation. Just blisters.

Where 'chicanes' or 'narrowings' are used, they should be made as visible as possible - kerbs painted white (especially vertical kerbs), not the break in a broken line (Pic. 23) Try it at night !

Why do lanes narrow ? It's the worst way to influence speed.
Maybe a 'painted narrowing' would be safer than encroaching kerbs ?

Islands in the middle of a cycle-lane  with vertical kerbs and 'Keep Left' bollards are a bad idea - painted arrows and/or 1057 bikes are dangerous enough.

The wee signs on bollards - Pic.33
they use TSRGD 544.1 'Pedestrians on road'
not TSRGD 544 'Pedestrian Crossing'
Maybe 544 is really specific to Zebras, not Pedestrians ?

For a 'Cyclist Crossing', the central refuge is not wide enough to be tandem/trailer/cargobike friendly - are there standards ?
Double-yellow line interrupted by the crossing - OK to park there ?

TSRGD 522  /<=>\ is usuallly 'Two-way traffic on crossing ahead',
to mark the end or interruption of a one-way carriageway.
Here we go from a two-way cycle-track to a two-way road.
Using it to mean 'Look both ways', I suppose - ingenious !
Magnatom originally interpreted it as 'Cyclists give way' !
(Your second link goes to 'http://and%20the%20switching%20sides/', BTW)
quotes EDC : "It is a warning sign to cyclists that there is two-way vehicle movement ahead and they should proceed with caution. The road lining will show that it is for vehicles to give way."
What road lining ? Is there more to come ?

In Pic.33 cyclists have right of way ! TSRGD 522  /<=>\ is wrong ?
Wait while more posts are being loaded