-
won't an advisory cycle lane encourage more high-speed passes from motorists "in their lane"?
They're removing the road centreline to try to avoid this. That makes some sense since close passes are often because motorists try to squeeze past cyclists while staying in their lane. With no centreline the hope is (I guess) that motorists will only pass when there's actually space.
A few things occurred to me:
Why is the bike lane being left on the pavement at the north end of Priory lane? How will that work for cyclists that want to turn left (West) onto Upper Richmond Road? Will they have to leave the cycle lane to join the flow of cars? Obviously that needs to be possible for cyclists who want to turn right, but I can't see any advantage vs. putting the bike lane on the carriageway.
Does a constant 2.0m pavement involve changing the pavement width? If so, is it getting narrower to allow room on the carriageway for the bike lane?
If it's worth having a bike lane northbound, why not southbound? If the aim is to provide a more usable bike route for people who are less comfortable/slower, why is that only important in one direction?
Will there be more signage or cameras to indicate/enforce the 20mph limit? The main aim has to be to stop this being a rat run, either from the park itself or between Upper Richmond Road and Roehampton lane. Speculatively, I think that people actually going to/from the park will generally be calmer and slower (than people just passing through) so making the road more residential and less convenient for rat-running might shift the balance in that direction.
You are reading a single comment by @ffm and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
ffm
The proposals sound interesting but won't an advisory cycle lane encourage more high-speed passes from motorists "in their lane"? Right now most drivers hang back politely behind cyclists in the carriageway.
Average speed cameras would be a better measure, along with banning motorised commuter traffic from the park.