Bow roundabout gets new cycle priority lights

[AndyK]

It will be interesting to see if these make a marked improvement:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3433561.ece

[orienteer]

So "solved" the cyclists' problem - at the expense of pedestrians. There are no pedestrian crossing facilities because they would cause mile long traffic jams. 

[Biggsy]

That's dangerous for cyclists.  The kerb stops you getting into the primary position to help prevent getting cut up.  The kerb won't stop a lorry trailer running over it.  I like priority traffic lights for cyclists, but that's not enough.  Cyclists should be encouraged to use the roads boldly and assertively.  Kerbed lanes do the opposite.

Let's ban drivers from overtaking cyclists altogether within certain zones.  They can trundle along behind until passed the danger zone.

[clarion]

That was what I thought, but I might have to go have a look at it.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I was wondering why the dividing kerb just out so far beyond the cycle and motor vehicle stop lines. The article says it will be shortened "imminently" because large vehicles have clipped it - which doesn't sound the best of reasons for shortening it and doesn't at all explain why it's so long in the first place.

Still, on the grounds that what starts in TTl often spreads to the rest of the country, I'd be interested to hear Londonites' experiences of it.

[matthew]

I think it will work, until the volume of cyclists is sufficient that they don't all get clear in the allotted head start when the lane and kerb will funnel them even more forcefully into the worst place to be just as the old lane did.   

And the article mentioned that as the kerb was being struck by vehicles the highways engineers are already looking to shorten it.

[Biggsy]

The (possible) plan to shorten the kerb is an admission that the kerb is a bad idea altogether.  There's little need for segregation on the straight bits of road between junctions.  There is need to help cyclists at the junction - right at the junction itself, not just just before it.

The answer is better integration where there is not the room for high quality full segregation (ie most of London).  Cyclists can be safely integrated into the existing road layouts by encouraging them to use the Primary Position at danger spots and making motorists give more respect to cyclists.  As well as new legislation for specific speed limits and behaviour at junctions, I'd like to see a set of Nazi officers at every junction.  Of course there's not enough money for that, so let's have machines instead.

Extreme?  Well, so are kerbed lanes.  Extremely bad.  It's extremely bad that the roads proper aren't universally regarded as places for cycles.  And if there's too many motors and too many motors going too fast for cyclists to feel comfortable with that, then work on the motors rather than getting cycles off the road.  Sadly it's not just abusive drivers that shout "get off the road" to cyclists.  It's the LCC as well. 

[hubner]

Yeah too many cyclists have the "must get out of the way of motor vehicles" mentality and think cyclists belong in the gutter.

I think it will work, until the volume of cyclists is sufficient that they don't all get clear in the allotted head start when the lane and kerb will funnel them even more forcefully into the worst place to be just as the old lane did.

At that junction, if there are loads of cycles stopped at a red light, they should be waiting in front of motor vehicles and when the light goes green, move off normally using the whole lane.

[sas]

There's what we'd ideally like to do (ensure all cyclists and drivers are educated and capable of using the road responsibly), and what's most practical given the current situation (limited education campaigns, and infrastructure changes to mitigate risk). I'm happy to give it a chance to see how it works out.

[TimO]

I'm not sure about this, but I've never used that particular junction, and there does seem to be a limit to what can be done.  I do tend to agree that with larger numbers of cyclists, that four seconds will likely not be long enough, especially if you have someone fumbling for gears or pedals at the front, and those behind are forced to wait.  Then, because you're not in primary, the car drivers are just going to blast off, and expect the cyclists to be at the side of the road, and not in their way.  This could make left hooks even worse, but I guess we will have to wait and see.

...  because introducing a green-man phase for pedestrians on each branch of the Bow Roundabout was shown to create “mile-long tailbacks” reaching back westwards towards Mile End.

Which isn't really a reasonable justification.  So, what exactly are pedestrians supposed to do?  Just sprint across whilst praying?  If introducing a pedestrian phase makes that sudden a change, it does tend to suggest that the roadways have reached near their capacity, and that something ought to be done about that.  Of course, the normal approach it to just build bigger roads, but we know that doesn't work, and isn't likely to be funded anyway.  I guess the ideal solution is having enough well thought out public transport, that you don't get these levels of traffic on certain roads, but that's going to take a lot more than the deaths of a couple of cyclists on a roundabout before anyone decides to deal with it.

[hubner]

I do tend to agree that with larger numbers of cyclists, that four seconds will likely not be long enough, especially if you have someone fumbling for gears or pedals at the front, and those behind are forced to wait.  Then, because you're not in primary, the car drivers are just going to blast off, and expect the cyclists to be at the side of the road, and not in their way.  This could make left hooks even worse, but I guess we will have to wait and see.

The assumption that cyclist have 4 seconds to "get out of the way" is the wrong way to look at it. If there are that many cyclists then they should move off in a group taking the lane. If after 4 seconds there are still cyclists moving off, then motor vehicles should wait their turn, after all they are behind the cyclists!

[style over speed]

main problem still is that this junction was built as a high speed roundabout interchange for two dual carriageways ie safe for motor vehicles travelling at motorway speeds… adding traffic lights just turns this into a cross roads junction on top of the old high speed slip roads…

until the first design is addressed it will always fail as a junction for cyclists pedestrians AND car drivers… adding traffic lights to roundabouts and not changing the road layout will always be lethal for cyclist and pedestrians… at bow there is heaps of wasted space and wasted time for everyone using the junction, TFL are completely useless handing the job on the lazy and expensive consultants and the DFT guidelines equally lacking in imagination or quality to improve things.

[spindrift]

Cyclist project halted at London death junction after admission it is 'beset by problems.

A new scheme to protect cyclists at a notorious junction where two have died has been suspended by transport bosses after being beset by problems.

Traffic lights were installed at Bow roundabout to let cyclists out a few seconds before vehicles and cut the risk of serious accidents.

The move followed an outcry after cyclists Brian Dorling, 58, and Svitlana Tereschenko, 34, were both killed by left-turning lorries there last year. But the lights were covered up hours after going live on Friday and remained out of use in this morning’s rush hour.

Transport for London says changes were needed after vehicles were seen clipping a new kerb separating cyclists from other traffic and some bike-users were stopping in the wrong place. It meant cyclists negotiating the new system, thought to be Britain’s first, were forced to travel through heavy rush-hour traffic as normal.



 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-project-halted-at-london-death-junction-after-admission-it-is-beset-by-problems-7820540.html

[spindrift]

Little brother just emailed me this:

With the old kerb in place, I can’t see how it would have been possible for a large vehicle to pass safely through the junction with a vehicle alongside it. The positioning of the kerb was a cock-up; it was just too tight for drivers of large vehicles to get around, going straight on while the two lane junction flows left onto the roundabout.

Amazingly, the real issue is that space at the mouth of this junction is constrained because of a drive-through entrance to a McDonalds on the left hand side.

http://aseasyasridingabike.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/dscn0335.jpg?w=1024&h=768

The pavement can’t move left because of the drive-through, so the cycle lane can’t move left, and so the kerb separator can’t move left. That’s why it’s had to be removed – McDonalds has made the junction too tight.

As I say, the removal of the kerb is not an issue in and of itself; the stop line for bicycles still lies behind the end of the kerb, as does that for motorists. These two lines should not, theoretically, be crossed simultaneously.

The real problems – the manifold problems – with this design have nothing to do with the kerb. They all stem from the fact that there are four virtually identical traffic lights in a row, with different meanings.

What we currently have at Bow is a sorry compromise that isn’t really going to work safely, a compromise that has been wedged in because junction capacity for motor vehicles seemingly cannot be reduced, even marginally. Until that changes, pedestrians and cyclists will continue to be treated shabbily.

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/bow-roundabout/

What a mess, nobody knows what's best.

[Biggsy]

The kerb prevents cyclists from getting into the Primary Position early, and it (and the blue lane beyond) encourages the idea that cyclists should always keep left.

The whole kerb and the whole cycle lane should be removed.  Cyclists should be encouraged to ride in the middle of the lane near and through the junction, and at the junction motorist should be limited to 10mph and be banned from overtaking cycles.

[spindrift]

The segregated lane sort of spits you out straight into the path of salad dodgers fixated on their burger.

[Pickled Onion]

These two lines should not, theoretically, be crossed simultaneously.

Is this right? Cyclists have a red light while the other traffic to the right of the kerb has a green?

[spindrift]

These two lines should not, theoretically, be crossed simultaneously.

Is this right? Cyclists have a red light while the other traffic to the right of the kerb has a green?

Standard today:

Bow roundabout is better, but not by much, say cyclists.

New traffic lights at killer roundabout are confusing.

Two “bike only” lights have been  installed at Bow roundabout to allow cyclists to move forward a few seconds before vehicles, cutting the risk of accidents.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/bow-roundabout-is-better-but-not-by-much-say-cyclists-7831091.html

[Pickled Onion]

yes I get that - the cycle lights go green a little bit before the other lights go green. But do the cycle lights go red again first - ie before the other lights go green?

[spindrift]

Sorry, don't know. A mate who uses the junction says lots of vehicles rlj there to avoid A12 snarl-ups.

[TimO]

That writeup is not promising reading, and tends to suggest that a panicy attempt to sort out the problems isn't exactly the best approach to dealing with it.  Then again, spending several years of planning, research, public enquiries etc (... without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters) also probably wouldn't be the right way to go about it.

I suspect the problem here, is that the road and junction is already beyond it's capacity, and there's little chance that any solution would be allowed if it significantly slowed down, and reduced the throughput of motor vehicles, which is likely what is necessary to make a really usable and safe junction for non-motorised road users.

I wonder what will happen next?  Will it be left like this, until something nasty happens again, or will it be removed and/or re-engineered again (predictably with a similarly sub-suitable "solution") ?

[Cudzoziemiec]

The kerb prevents cyclists from getting into the Primary Position early, and it (and the blue lane beyond) encourages the idea that cyclists should always keep left.

The whole kerb and the whole cycle lane should be removed.  Cyclists should be encouraged to ride in the middle of the lane near and through the junction, and at the junction motorist should be limited to 10mph and be banned from overtaking cycles.

You're an unrealistic, irresponsible idealist, Biggsy. Which is a long way of saying you're right.

[Pete Owens]

These two lines should not, theoretically, be crossed simultaneously.

Is this right? Cyclists have a red light while the other traffic to the right of the kerb has a green?

Yes.

What it means that whenever a cyclist approaches the junction they will be faced with a red light - either at the approach to the ASL when other traffic next to them is moving - or at the junction itself when crossing traffic is moving.

To describe this situation in glowing terms as "Cycle Priority" as the Times does is absurd.

[Pete Owens]

main problem still is that this junction was built as a high speed roundabout interchange for two dual carriageways ie safe for motor vehicles travelling at motorway speeds… adding traffic lights just turns this into a cross roads junction on top of the old high speed slip roads…

until the first design is addressed it will always fail as a junction for cyclists pedestrians AND car drivers… adding traffic lights to roundabouts and not changing the road layout will always be lethal for cyclist and pedestrians… at bow there is heaps of wasted space and wasted time for everyone using the junction, TFL are completely useless handing the job on the lazy and expensive consultants and the DFT guidelines equally lacking in imagination or quality to improve things.

I would agree that the best option would be to completely redesign the junction to a low speed low capacity affair appropriate for people to use rather than just motor vehicles. After all, the bulk of the through traffic uses the underpass. This would be both very expensive and hugely controversial and require a political will to constrain the volume of motor traffic.

However, I do take issue with your comments on traffic lights. While, the only motivation for their installation will have been to make the junction work for the volume of motor traffic, traffic lights do improve conditions for cyclists enormously. They solve the two biggest problems cyclists suffer at large roundabouts:-
1: Drivers failing to give way to cyclists on the roundabout.
2: Having to filter into a gap in a high speed traffic flow.
They also reduce the speed of traffic.

Yes, a large busy roundabout will always be unattractive for vulnerable road users, but I would prefer to tackle a large busy roundabout interrupted by traffic lights (and preferably spiral lane markings) than a large busy high-speed free-flowing roundabout any day.

[spindrift]

Someone on an architecture forum took some snaps:



Laser death stare from the dog there.