please empty your brain below
But anyway, sadly I think the only thing that's going to get the message across to TfL is if someone else dies or is seriously injured. As long as that doesn't happen this stupid solution will be seen as a success.
I'm sure you're all with me on hoping that this solution is seen as a success.
The problem here is the sheer number of traffic lights, some of which are on green while others are at red, so that law-abiding cyclists fail to realise which red is meant for them.
Because the repeater can only see seen by the lead driver (and sometimes the car behind) it means the lead driver always knows what applies to them.
Sometimes I wonder why most countries don't have this very simple solution. Perhaps it's because everyone else thinks they have better designed traffic light setups. But in a situation like this, it would probably be ideal.
One small point DG is about the "expensive" full redesign. I don't think it would have been any more expensive to put in the crossing solution via the central island that you proposed before, which would also have given pedestrians a safe crossing point. Just because it's a much better solution doesn't mean it would cost a lot more!
Certainly all the cycle-only lights I've ever seen have a solid red light but generally it is easy to tell they are for cyclists only as they are at the end of cycle tracks etc. I can see where the confusion comes from.
You are so correct to highlight the insanity of what tfl have done here.
One of the odd things here to me about this is about having a full-sized 'traffic' sized traffic light that applies to cyclists only - odd. If you had smaller sized lights with purely bike symbols, it would be much more obvious which lights applied to cyclists only, and which to traffic only. And then they could be rolled out to other junctions across London, and indeed the whole country.
Look at them: it's no wonder that no-one can tell them apart!
My next thought was about it being more logical to put lights for cyclists at actual eye-level for them, and therefore I'm actually pleased to see I'm not the only one thinking along the lines of the system of fitting their traffic light posts with small eye-level repeater lights.
I agree the yellow signs are a 'sticking plaster' attempt at a solution. They're like those signs you see saying 'Mud on Road.' I mean, hey, never mind putting up bloody signs... what you should really be doing is sorting out the problem.
Seems DfT don't offer the flexibility needed for cycling specific lights that are materially different to regular ones - as they have in Copenhagen, Paris, Berlin and everywhere else that common sense prevails.
Here's a danish example.
yes, it's odd that cycle junctions often require you to stop several times at separate lights to negoitiate a junction - and many cyclists get confused by this abnd assume that, as with a car, once you get a green light you are clear across the junction. There is an example in Kingston which is in three sections - the first two are obviously separate as they are staggered, but the third catches many out as it is straight ahead from the second - and made more dangerous because the conflicting flow gets the green at the same instant that the second cycle section gets green, so at the moment the lights clear, the way across looks empty.
If a cyclist were clued up on his/her highway code they would probably understand this.
But since there is no legal requirement for cyclists to even take a cursory glance at said document, I can see why they would be confused.
The problem is, if you start putting in special measures at this junction that don't apply anywhere else, then you start descending down a slippery pole and making thing more confusing and potentially dangerous.
I suppose the only real answer is to try to find a way of allowing cyclists / pedestrians to bypass this junction altogether.
Yes, the consequences to the cyclist is much more severe than the motorist, but that the city spends millions of pounds to design and create safety improvements, only to be ignored by the very people they made the effort to protect, is very telling. And it's a sure way to simply get ALL cyclists banned from this area.
Presumably being unable to redesign the entire roundabout and/or change priorities to favour cyclists over vehicles, TfL have attempted to do something to make the situation better which might turn out to be unhelpful. Though frankly, it appears they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/bow-roundabout/
The other day. In the pictures from the cycle lane, you can see the red light, and the 'straight on' light intended for the traffic to the right. I would find that quite confusing, and perhaps think that the red light was broken (especially since the cars to the right appear to be going through the same red light). Or I might think that one was allowed to go straight ahead, but not take the first exit to the roundabout.
Indeed, not knowing the nature of the setup, a good cyclist would naturally be worried about the potential left-hook risks ahead, so be more focused on the traffic in the lanes to the right, and only notice the green lights.
Also shown in the link above is the fact that some drivers are also failing to understand the system, proceeding past the first line when the lights are red (although ASLs have the same problem, so nothing new).
The problem is that the design is bad. Even if everyone behaved as intended, it doesn't work well - it doesn't give enough of a headstart, creating conflicts, delays cyclists, and is still pedestrian-unfriendly. Once you take into account the fact that cyclists and drivers aren't perfect, things are even worse. Junctions should be designed so that rule-breaking is disincentivised as much as possible.
It's worth remembering that if drivers were perfect, there would be no need for this design anyway, since cyclists would be able to safely travel with the main flow.
This is called the "primary" position and enables the cyclist to control the traffic behind by not allowing it pass them in the same lane. This vastly reduces the risk of left turn side swiping.
Safe cyclists use the primary position to control traffic behind them when it is not safe for traffic behind them to overtake, such as blind bends, narrow lanes etc. See http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/technique-road-positioning-197/ for details
Now I see "Safe cyclists use the primary position..."
Hmmm. OK, so I see 'safe' cyclists, but I also see plenty of smug and smirking cyclists, which can sometimes give an insight into the cyclist psyche. In terms of ASLs in general, it's a lesson in human behaviour to see how some cyclists get to the front and take seemingly take a mischievous delight in planting themselves bang in front of the rest of the traffic and in particular - get this - motorbikes. What's that about? - it's like crows trying to mob an eagle.
I actually ride both, so I try to look at the picture from all sides, but there are definitely times when I look at other cyclists and it seems obvious they're simply using "safe" as a licence for being obstructive and confrontational.
I am, however, very aware that cyclists aren't always playing the victim, and sometimes they genuinely are; sometimes with very tragic consequences.
For those reasons, I think it's probably a very good thing that the ASL at Bow really does create a proper gap (time *and* distance) to give the cyclists what should be a decent headstart, to hopefully keep cyclists and 'everyone else' safely separated, and reduce conflicts to a minimum.
"Cyclists? It's probably their own fault!"
comment, watch out, you'll likely end up here: http://www.aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/the-highway-code/
They look a bit out of place on the edge of the cycle lane.
TridentScan | Privacy Policy