Dunno how 'cycle training' will help motorists see cyclists better in bright sunlight or through myopic vision, perhaps the DoT believe in osmosis?
Nicholas Oddy
-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of Ian Perry
Sent: Sun 09/01/2011 14:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: White van driver - victim or villain in boxer Masons cycling death?[Scanned-Clean]
The following appeared in the Independent:
Cyclists 'left unprotected by police and courts'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclists-left-unprotected-by-police-and-courts-2179752.html
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclists-left-unprotected-by-police-and-courts-2179752.html>
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Richard Mann <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 9m(?) C-road, very limited on-road parking, reasonable surface
> condition: needs more calming than that.
>
> A point closure would undoubtedly be the cheapest option, but maybe
> not acceptable. If traffic volumes are low then the triple cushion
> approach should work well enough.
>
> But assuming the volume of traffic is more than about 5000mvpd then
> I'd go for narrow cycle lanes, a painted median and islands (with at
> least 3.8m gaps between kerbs). The cycle lanes serve to maintain
> calming and road-position between cushions, and substantially reduce
> the squeezing effect of the islands. I'm not sure we really know the
> best place for a cushion in those circumstances - I'd put it a bit
> further than the recommended 1.2m from the kerb, and be tempted to put
> it 1.6m from the kerb (which would centre it in the car lane), and
> hope the cycle lane would discourage people from trying to squeeze
> between the kerb and the cushion. I'm afraid we're still at the stage
> of trying things and seeing if they work (so no I wouldn't hold the
> designer liable).
>
> Richard
>
|