My local authority are proposing to site a zebra crossing at an already tricky junction. The crossing is to be paid for by Cycle England, which is a bit of a puzzle as the Highway Code states, in Rule 79, that cyclists must not ride across a zebra crossing.
Anyway, the crossing is proposed to be sited right at a junction (see tinyurl.com/4uloezh ) and, as far as I can see, will only make negotiating that junction even more tricky especially at peak times. It will also make it more difficult for coaches (lorries over 7.5 tonne are prohibited from using Wennington Road) to turn right onto Roe Lane, due to the central refuge.
What do you folks think?
|
The streetview shows a very straight wide road so visibility is not an issue, I reckon that speed may be an issue there though so this additional roadside furniture/paintwork may be viewed as a traffic calming measure. However I think it will become a complex junction with information overload for drivers emerging into it from the junctions - motor-cycles will disappear into the clutter as will some other low profile road users.
I know from experiences that Local Authorities are loath to look gift horses in the mouth and when the external funding carrot is dangled. Plenty of "developments" up and down the country are sad testimony to that. It will be an urban planners wet-dream that - imagine all the signs they'll have to come up with.
Cyclists are asked by the Highway Code to dismount before crossing on a Zebra - Interesting to see how many will in practice - I assume there's a cycle path somewhere.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Thu 13 Jan 11 at 10:51
|
From a cyclist's perspective that arrangement is utter pants. Not clear what direction the cyclists are menat to be moving in but I'd rather manage the right turn into Roe Lane instead of that marked accross the head of the junction.
No wonder cycling England's days are numbered.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 13 Jan 11 at 11:01
|
|
Agreed about the issue being for the junction users. Anyone leaving Hesketh Lane or Wennington Road to turn right into Roe lane will hardly have time to straighten up before reaching the crossing... so giving a double decision within a second or so.
|
>> The streetview shows a very straight wide road so visibility is not an issue
Near perfect visibility for +/- half a mile in either direction.
>> I reckon that speed may be an issue there though
Hell, yeah! It's virtually impossible to do 30mph down Roe Lane without some twonk tailgating.
>> However I think it will become a complex junction with information overload for drivers emerging into it from the junctions - motor-cycles will disappear into the clutter as will some other low profile road users.
That's my worry too. The junction is also a nightmare as you don't know whether cars at the road obliquely opposite (if you're trying to cross Roe Lane) are wanting to turn right or go 'straight on', if you see what I mean.
>> I assume there's a cycle path somewhere.
No, there isn't. Sefton Council seem intent on making Southport a 'Cycling Town', whatever the heck that means. Their latest wheeze was to effectively close one of Southport's main west to east roads to motor traffic and turn it into a massive cycle path, despite their being little evidence that it would be used.
On a related note, has anybody ever seen those annoying red rectangles of tarmac at traffic lights used as it is intended? IE as a 'refuge' for cyclists? Southport has countless of these things and I have never seen one of them used by a cyclist.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Thu 13 Jan 11 at 11:20
|
"will only make negotiating that junction even more tricky especially at peak times."
For whom? - presume you mean vehicles. What's it like trying to cross the road as a pedestrian? Go and try when its busy and see what it's like. If it really is difficult and dangerous then you probably have to accept a little more inconvenience as a driver.
|
|
CG - it's a real suburban street, wonder how busy it is in reality ?
|
To be fair to CG, Roe Lane can get very busy at peak times - it's one of Southport's main roads.
I don't have an issue with the need for some sort of pedestrian crossing at that location, but I do have an issue with the proposed site. It is far too close to the junction, in my opinion.
Here's the link to a Streetview, erm, view - roughly the same view as on the plan:
tinyurl.com/2eoou7
|
>> tinyurl.com/2eoou7
Just get view of whole UK?
Last edited by: Focus on Thu 13 Jan 11 at 11:15
|
Oh. Drat. Try this:
tinyurl.com/4a68xy3
Sorry about that...
|
|
Why on earth is Southport in Seftonshire ? I thought Sefton was part of Liverpool !
|
|
Google is rather random sometimes. Sefton is the name of the local authority created in 1974. There is actually a village called Sefton (where you can find the splendid Punchbowl Inn) near Maghull. The borough of Sefton has never been part of Liverpool though. Liverpool was part of Lancashire once, though...
|
|
Gracie Fields would turn in her grave !
|
Badwolf,
Is there a report with the council's plan linked in your first post?
It may be this proposal will have to go before the planning committee, particularly if there are objections.
The agenda for the committee will contain a report by the planning officers which will at least tell you why they think the crossing is a good idea.
|
I like the 'cyclist dismount signs to be displayed at the zebra crossing'. What chance?
It seems a complicated arrangement for cyclists approaching from either Hesketh drive, or Wennington road. Cars turning the corners will be immediately confronted with cyclists crossing.
|
>> Badwolf,
>>
>> Is there a report with the council's plan linked in your first post?
Aye, there is - tinyurl.com/63shkwm
|
....aye, there is....
Quoting: "We feel that these proposals will improve the conditions for pedestrians and cyclists across the area and improve the general environment through the reduction of vehicle speeds and improve the crossing facilities on Roe Lane."
It's not clear if a 20mph limit proposal has been dropped, but a junction closure has.
The report also speaks of a 'desire line' - so the crossing is where it is because the planners know that is where pedestrians will tend to want to cross in that area.
The objections deadline is a week tomorrow.
|
|
So it looks like some sort of crossing is necessary, ideally further away from the junction. Presumably the belief of the planners is that pedestrians will continue to cross at the junction even if a crossing is created further down the road . Difficult decision to make.
|
|
CG - in Southport, it matter not one jot where a crossing in sited. People will *always* attempt to cross ten yards from it rather than actually use it!
|
>> The crossing is to be paid for by Cycle England, which is a bit of
>> a puzzle as the Highway Code states, in Rule 79, that cyclists must not ride
>> across a zebra crossing.
There are lots of things which cyclists do but shouldn't.
|
|
and drivers as well, don't forget...
|
|
Indeed so. But I cant imagine that a body representing motorists would pay for a measure to be provided that would encourage those motorists to break a rule in the Highway Code.
|
Badwolf,
Will you be joining the democratic process by firing off a letter of objection?
|
|
Already filled in the on-line form, Iffy :-)
|
Some years ago it was decided to put a light controlled ped crossing across a main road
near here. They took out a ped refuge which was preventing heavy vehicles turning left out of a side road and put the crossing in the same place. It's about 10 ft from the junction.
The result is that drivers wanting to turn left from the minor road look to the right, where there's about a halfmile of clear vision, and whip out if it's clear. Several times recently mowing down someone crossing because the driver hasn't needed to look left !
Two of these were fatal, I think ! The crossing is, of course, still there .
Te
|
...Several times recently mowing down someone crossing because the driver hasn't needed to look left !...
A driver carrying out that manoeuvre at the junction proposed here would have to drive across the crossing zig-zags.
That's unusual and one might hope sufficient to alert the driver of the presence of the crossing.
It would be too much to ask the pedestrian to exercise extra caution - don't step out when a vehicle is turning even if the lights say you can.
|
Presumably the driver is not required to take note of the lights against his progress?
This is also relevant: HC 206
Drive carefully and slowly when
* turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning
Drivers are not always aware that they do not own the road:)
|
Daft place to put a zebra crossing? - R.P.
