On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Simon P J Batterbury
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> -Personally I would prefer a 0.5m cycle lane on a narrow road, than wishing
> for a 1.5m lane that will never ever be built because the road is too
> narrow. 0.5 is something at least. Transort engineers worried about safety
> won't build narrow lanes anymore. Shame.
We've got some at 0.9m (next to a congested single 3m traffic lane)
which are fine:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.752368,-1.278489&spn=0,0.019205&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.752371,-1.278603&panoid=8iFMh2ynrRT4mEFtNBJ20g&cbp=12,117.34,,0,5
and some at 0.8m (sometimes a bit less, and next to a not-so-congested
2.8m traffic lane) which feel a bit hairy:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.749774,-1.311536&spn=0,0.019205&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.749774,-1.311536&panoid=tXL_gsVBrtDjMm4oGVkffA&cbp=12,117.68,,0,5
I wouldn't go quite as low as 0.5m (and it depends a lot on traffic
speed), but I agree entirely with your general point.
Richard
|