Author Topic: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...  (Read 627 times)

Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« on: November 03, 2020, 09:45:32 am »
Does anyone know which document/s specifies details required for road/path markings, specifically with regard to cycle 'infra'?  So types of line, minimum widths, symbols used etc.
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.


Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2020, 10:39:46 am »
Excellent - that's the one.   :)  Seems to be section 11.

Anyone care to suggest where these new local symbols fit within the guidance, and what the council might be thinking they represent?   Whole road designated a 'bike route'?

IMG_1na by a oxon, on Flickr

Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Eating all the pies and drinking all the tea.
Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2020, 01:38:06 pm »
That's quite common. It's just intended as a "here be cyclists" to drivers.
Let's go for a ride to the Old Sawmill, Valentina, Buzz and you.

Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2020, 01:53:18 pm »
So superfluous magic paint, with nothing to add to cyclist safety over what drivers should already know and act on, from the highway code?   ;) :-\
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

CrazyEnglishTriathlete

  • Miles eaten don't satisfy hunger
  • Chartered accountant in 5 different decades
    • CET Ride Reports and Blogs
Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2020, 02:11:11 pm »
The distinction between mandatory and advisory cycle lanes (solid and dashed lines) was new to me.   Though actually quite useful to read through the document.  Section 11.1.2 is why I tend to stay on the road rather than use segregated cycle paths.  Unless I am in NL.
Eddington Numbers 125 (imperial), 175 (metric) 529 (furlongs)  112 (nautical miles)

Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2020, 02:45:06 pm »
And that a "mandatory" cycle lane ISN'T mandatory for cyclists, it just excludes all other traffic (if I read correctly). Somewhat confusing terminology!

As to the minimum width of 1.5m - the "cycling town" of Aylesbury painted some so-called cycle lanes a few years ago (now mostly worn away by vehicular traffic, parked over / on etc. etc.) that were well under that, and probably under 1m wide over their whole length.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Cudzoziemiec

  • Eating all the pies and drinking all the tea.
Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2020, 03:03:37 pm »
the "cycling town" of Aylesbury
Rather than talk about "cycling towns" it would be far shorter to make a list of places which don't call themselves "cycling town". And the shortest list of all would be towns that actually provide decent roads to cycle on.
Let's go for a ride to the Old Sawmill, Valentina, Buzz and you.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2020, 08:36:51 pm »
That's quite common. It's just intended as a "here be cyclists" to drivers.

And/or a "you haven't got lost yet" to cyclists attempting to follow a 'quiet' rat run back roads route designed by someone with a (contourless) map and a highlighter pen.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2020, 08:39:47 pm »
Excellent - that's the one.   :)  Seems to be section 11.

Anyone care to suggest where these new local symbols fit within the guidance, and what the council might be thinking they represent?   Whole road designated a 'bike route'?

IMG_1na by a oxon, on Flickr

Chalk outlines from an accident investigation ?

Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2020, 09:17:16 pm »
As to the minimum width of 1.5m - the "cycling town" of Aylesbury painted some so-called cycle lanes a few years ago (now mostly worn away by vehicular traffic, parked over / on etc. etc.) that were well under that, and probably under 1m wide over their whole length.
Narrow cycle lanes are widely favoured by the kinds of councils and councillors that want to signal to drivers who would never consider cycling that they have done something for cyclists, but without limiting or otherwise affecting driving and without providing any benefit to people riding bikes. Current guidelines (LTN 1/20) use the term “absolute minimum” and note that narrow painted cycle lanes can encourage close passing, and Scottish guidance has stated this for over a decade now although neither that nor the term absolute minimum seems to have dampened the enthusiasm of Scottish councils for seriously substandard cycle lanes either so don’t get your hopes up.

Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2020, 12:01:31 pm »
So superfluous magic paint, with nothing to add to cyclist safety over what drivers should already know and act on, from the highway code?   ;) :-\
I take this to mean the road is too narrow for a cycle lane at the side,  therefore cyclists should be riding primary.  Quite distinct from the cycle with 1m of the kerb.

I would expect to see a cycle logo in this position at pinch points or if the road has narrowed

Eddington  96miles

Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2020, 12:08:45 pm »
The distinction between mandatory and advisory cycle lanes (solid and dashed lines) was new to me.   Though actually quite useful to read through the document.  Section 11.1.2 is why I tend to stay on the road rather than use segregated cycle paths.  Unless I am in NL.
I don't see why it is difficult,  paint the cycle track crossing,  and give way lines.  But as the highway code should make it clear that turning traffic gives way to everyone going straight on,  (including pedestrians) it shouldn't be necessary. But just yesterday I saw a car turn into a side road  forcing a gal between a group of pedestrians already crossing, rule 170 obviously not important.

Agree this is the number 1 reason not to use cycle paths,  followed by broken glass,  then not getting the same anti ice treatment as the road

Eddington  96miles

CrazyEnglishTriathlete

  • Miles eaten don't satisfy hunger
  • Chartered accountant in 5 different decades
    • CET Ride Reports and Blogs
Re: Road markings and cycle infra specifications...
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2020, 06:29:25 pm »
The distinction between mandatory and advisory cycle lanes (solid and dashed lines) was new to me.   Though actually quite useful to read through the document.  Section 11.1.2 is why I tend to stay on the road rather than use segregated cycle paths.  Unless I am in NL.
I don't see why it is difficult,  paint the cycle track crossing,  and give way lines.  But as the highway code should make it clear that turning traffic gives way to everyone going straight on,  (including pedestrians) it shouldn't be necessary. But just yesterday I saw a car turn into a side road  forcing a gal between a group of pedestrians already crossing, rule 170 obviously not important.

Agree this is the number 1 reason not to use cycle paths,  followed by broken glass,  then not getting the same anti ice treatment as the road

That feels like the three reasons to fear the Spanish Inquisition.....  you might add that they peter out into nothing with no civilised way of rejoining the road, have various unmarked metal posts and similar fixed obstacles, with random pedestrians and pets as mobile obstacles.....

though every now and again I discover a cycle path that is worth it - like the one parallel to the A40 west of Carmarthen that links up to the B-road to Meidrim and completes the Cambrian Series link between Fishguard and Carmarthen
Eddington Numbers 125 (imperial), 175 (metric) 529 (furlongs)  112 (nautical miles)