Cars parking in the cycle lane on a busy Road.

aleph_0

!!!!!! wrote: »

What can and does happen in Holland, considering their different geographical structure, doesn't translate to what is feasible or possible, both physically and financially, in the UK.

Holland is reasonably similar in terms of physical space in town/cities/country, and in terms of wealth. The difference is the different decisions made in terms of how the road space is allocated, and how new roads are built.

I think this obsession with trying to find counter-examples to the 1.5m is a bit silly. Part of the reason of this is for a good allowance is variations in the line the cyclist and driver take, and allowance for judgement mistakes. Clearly, oncoming traffic separated by a white line is a different issue because they're *separated by a line*, so the risk of deviation is far lower.

The idea is we start with the concept that 1.5m is really the minimum sensible overtaking margin allowing for all these risks. If you want to argue for a lower margin, it should *really* be on the basis of safety, not your convenience.

As to law, the highway code says "at least as much room as when overtaking a car". Which doesn't quite match 1.5m, but roughly does - their example shows a cyclist in the secondary position

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169

I'm going to deviate a bit from Marco, and acknowledge that <1.5m overtakes do work. But, I think it's because you're thinking about things different way. 1.5m should cover all the risks reasonably, and is the minimum I'd recommend for a 'normal' overtake.

If the overtake is tighter, I would really hope it was cyclist-initiated, or there was a low speed differential, or somesuch.

aleph_0

antrobus wrote: »

The cyclist isn't supposed to be on the blOOdy pavement in the first place, now are they? What is about the bit in the Highway Code that says "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement" that people don't understand?:).

Or, you could, y'know be generous and assume by pavement Marco meant shared-use pavement cycle path. Most people still lazily refer to them as pavements, rather than technical terms. It's nice to try and assume the best of people you disagree with, y'know.

dacouch wrote: »

It would have amused me if they had crashed into each other

Why? Do you really take pleasure in watching others injure themselves, because it's their fault?

I saw a near miss between two cars when driving the other day, because of the drivers stupidity. But, if the had an accident and were injured, or damaged their cars, I would mainly feel sympathy and concern, rather than amusement.

Marco_Panettone

antrobus wrote: »

The cyclist isn't supposed to be on the blOOdy pavement in the first place, now are they?

Quite. I'm well aware of the rules. I haven't argued otherwise.


Why is it that cycles are not allowed on the pavement though? Is it because the close proximity of fast-moving vehicles is frightening and dangerous to more vulnerable road users?


So where should cyclists go - on the road where the close proximity of fast-moving vehicles is frightening and dangerous to more vulnerable road users....

antrobus

aleph_0 wrote: »

....As to law, the highway code says "at least as much room as when overtaking a car". Which doesn't quite match 1.5m, but roughly does - their example shows a cyclist in the secondary position....

The interesting thing is that in the Highway Code, the Rules for Cyclists includes rule 67 which states "take care when overtaking (see Rules 162 to 169)", clearly indicating that all those rules regarding overtaking apply equally well to cyclists as they do to everyone else. Ergo a cyclist, overtaking another cyclist, must also leave "at least as much room as when overtaking a car".

Not sure what it's got to with parking in a cycle lane, mind you. Apart from the fact, that no matter what rules you set down, there will always be people who think it doesn't apply to them in their particular circumstances.

System

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

If you cannot overtake safely, don't try to overtake. It's that simple. If you're walking on the pavement, how close to you would you like a cyclist to ride? I'd suggest any less than arm's length away would feel too close.

So according to you a metre or slightly less is fine.

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Now, apply that to a motor vehicle - how close would you like me to drive to you if you're on the pavement? How close 'feels' safe to the more vulnerable road user?

Most vehicles drive within a metre of the pavement anyway.

If you think less than 1.5m is ok you're more than welcome to stand in the road while I drive past you at speed close enough that you could touch the car...

Try living and working around country roads/lanes and you will find that is pretty standard

Alpeh_0 As you say Holland applies it to the design and construction of new roads. You can not reverse engineer an existing road successfully if there is no space to expand the width or make other changes

As to law, the highway code says "at least as much room as when overtaking a car". Which doesn't quite match 1.5m, but roughly does - their example shows a cyclist in the secondary position

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-15...ing-162-to-169

The highway code is NOT law, it is guidance and where the guidance DOES reference law then the imperative is used I.E. MUST, MUST NOT.

Show me a normal road where you can get a clearance of 1.5m between overtaking vehicles. The normal separation is a metre or less even on a motorway. The lane design does not allow any more than that.

antrobus

antrobus wrote: »

.....Apart from the fact, that no matter what rules you set down, there will always be people who think it doesn't apply to them in their particular circumstances.

And a case in point;

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

....So where should cyclists go - on the road where the close proximity of fast-moving vehicles is frightening and dangerous to more vulnerable road users....

I have no doubt that the offending car drivers referred to in the OP would, if challenged, have come up with a similar explanation 'So where should I park? I'm visiting my sick aunt ......' etc, and so forth.:)

Marco_Panettone

Which is why I'm arguing for protected lanes, not paint! And crushing offending vehicles with a tank...

dacouch

aleph_0 wrote: »

Or, you could, y'know be generous and assume by pavement Marco meant shared-use pavement cycle path. Most people still lazily refer to them as pavements, rather than technical terms. It's nice to try and assume the best of people you disagree with, y'know.



Why? Do you really take pleasure in watching others injure themselves, because it's their fault?

I saw a near miss between two cars when driving the other day, because of the drivers stupidity. But, if the had an accident and were injured, or damaged their cars, I would mainly feel sympathy and concern, rather than amusement.

I cycle as well as drive and observe the law.

The difference between your example of a near miss and my example is that both of them were breaking the law and karma nearly came into play.

It's a Red Light for a reason and it means stop, if you chose to jump the light well after it's changed then you take your own chances.

I get fed up with the amount of cyclists I see who nearly hit pedestrians when jumping red lights, ignoring zebra crossings etc.

aleph_0

dacouch wrote: »

I cycle as well as drive and observe the law.

The difference between your example of a near miss and my example is that both of them were breaking the law and karma nearly came into play.

It's a Red Light for a reason and it means stop, if you chose to jump the light well after it's changed then you take your own chances.

I get fed up with the amount of cyclists I see who nearly hit pedestrians when jumping red lights, ignoring zebra crossings etc.

Well, I wouldn't jump lights either. But there's karma, and there's empathy. I still don't understand how you can see a situation where there is potential for someone to be injured, and be *amused*. My first thought would be concern. Each to their own, I guess.

!!!!!! wrote: »

Alpeh_0 As you say Holland applies it to the design and construction of new roads. You can not reverse engineer an existing road successfully if there is no space to expand the width or make other changes

I was pointing out that we still fail when building new roads and housing, when there certainly isn't an issue of lack of space, so clearly there's more to it than the "we have no space" argument. We often fail pedestrians in this respect, too.

You can reverse engineer a road. It requires serious decisions to be made in terms of allocation of road space, and the purpose of a road.

For example, when looking at a residential road, one can make decisions about whether the road acts as a through road for all vehicles. One can decide how much parking is allowed on a road. One can make decisions about which road has priority at junctions. One might decide on a one-way system to maximise capacity, for example.

I'm not saying you're wrong if you want to believe motor-vehicle thoroughput is a high priority for road space, that's fine, that's your opinion. The point is, that's a deliberate decision we have a nation have made. But it's because such constraints are seen as essential that you think we have no roadspace for other things.

Marco_Panettone

aleph_0 wrote: »

You can reverse engineer a road. It requires serious decisions to be made in terms of allocation of road space, and the purpose of a road.

This gets done all the time. Bus lanes, one-way systems, gyratories, no-through roads, contraflows, pedestrianisation - all of them are examples of reverse-engineering. There's always space to make other changes too if road width is restricted - filtered permeability is one way, making the road a no-through road for motor vehicles but allowing pedestrians and cycles through, providing more direct routes for them. This is especially important in residential areas as it closes off rat-runs.


The argument that the Dutch did it from scratch is incorrect anyway. The Dutch road system was fundamentally changed from motor-centric to people-centric in the 70's. From then on cycling was prioritised and driving was made difficult. The infrastructure they have in the Netherlands now is not the same as it was at the start of their transport revolution - things get updated and improved as time goes on. New roads and areas have high quality cycle infrastructure build from the start, but it isn't then just forgotten about - it's never 'finished'.