tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post6059621281497248047..comments2024-03-17T09:15:16.095+00:00Comments on The Ranty Highwayman: We can rethink the little things to improve walking and cyclingThe Ranty Highwaymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17361350433158148025noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-3409089374368831062021-02-27T10:19:21.995+00:002021-02-27T10:19:21.995+00:00Well, they are being built everywhere (and there a...Well, they are being built everywhere (and there are loads of historic examples) and the approach is in official government guidance (Local Transport Note 1/20)The Ranty Highwaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17361350433158148025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-54405279171966664362021-02-26T18:04:50.968+00:002021-02-26T18:04:50.968+00:00But Section 34(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 per...But Section 34(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 permits driving on a footway for the purposes of parking provided the distance is less than 15 yards. Equally Highway Act 1835 s.72 permits driving on the footway in situations of necessity (Curtis v Geeves (1930) 94 J.P. 71), but this does not seem to be a case of necessity (presumably there is always a longer way round). So how is it legal?thisisjustatesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15477259745112826131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-32498819602797771832021-02-26T18:02:17.185+00:002021-02-26T18:02:17.185+00:00But Section 34(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 per...But Section 34(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 permits driving on a footway for the purposes of parking provided the distance is less than 15 yards. Equally Highway Act 1835 s.72 permits driving on the footway in situations of necessity (Curtis v Geeves (1930) 94 J.P. 71), but this does not seem to be a case of necessity (presumably there is always a longer way round). So how is it legal?thisisjustatesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15477259745112826131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-44886641127214967272021-02-19T18:06:02.630+00:002021-02-19T18:06:02.630+00:00It's no different to people driving over the f...It's no different to people driving over the footway from, say, a car park - i.e. if there is a lawful reason to cross then it's fine. Different to someone driving along the footway (which is endemic with footway parking for example)The Ranty Highwaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17361350433158148025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-17867944313966700442021-02-19T15:08:33.204+00:002021-02-19T15:08:33.204+00:00The designs where cars have to drive over the foot...The designs where cars have to drive over the footway are very interesting, but isn't it illegal for a car to drive on the footway? How is this obstacle overcome?thisisjustatesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15477259745112826131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-41939239752386968972017-06-08T19:27:59.795+01:002017-06-08T19:27:59.795+01:00Yes, I must get back there for a proper look - saw...Yes, I must get back there for a proper look - saw it when it was being built.The Ranty Highwaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17361350433158148025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-3517427470953233632017-06-08T11:09:16.684+01:002017-06-08T11:09:16.684+01:00Here's one from Clapham
https://goo.gl/maps/Gg...Here's one from Clapham<br />https://goo.gl/maps/Ggt6N1LHNnvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-19883494141711723412013-08-01T13:33:08.838+01:002013-08-01T13:33:08.838+01:00Here is an example of a continuous pavement in She...Here is an example of a continuous pavement in Sheffield<br /><br />https://www.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.380065,-1.480858&spn=0.008333,0.022724&sll=53.380809,-1.476394&sspn=0.008384,0.022724&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.380071,-1.480728&panoid=xYST4K_F37W3EjjuZdFgSA&cbp=12,202.78,,0,1.44Matt Turnerhttp://greatgasbeetle.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-88253367967445586322013-02-18T06:48:13.553+00:002013-02-18T06:48:13.553+00:00bz2 - The layout in my first image is not prescrib...bz2 - The layout in my first image is not prescribed in law and so it has just evolved. My guess is that roads were dirt tracks covered in horse poo and worse; and over the years became horrible for gentlemen to walk in so we got raised platforms on the side to keep shoes clean. The arrangement stuck. My view is that the Highways Act appears to allow total flexibility, after all, why isn't Exhibition Road in court now over it being footway or carriageway? (This scheme is a debate in itself).<br /><br />Richard - Imprinted asphalt is seen as a cheap version of block paving as block paving used in a carriageway must be structurally designed literally from the ground up, whereas imprint can be stuck on the stop. Personally, I am not a fan as it can be uneven for pedestrians and slippery for cycle users/ motorcyclists. If it is not to look like an entry treatment, it would need to be extended a distance wither side.<br /><br />SC - yes, that's the photo - thanks! Your drawings are much better than mine. I pedestrian zone would need signs which makes it look like a road - I think my idea is legal, but that is for the courts - the DfT are not enforcers. I guess if your design is so bad and someone is hurt, then the HSE might prosecute under health and safety law.<br /><br />The Brixton example is getting close. It does look like a driveway, but this will be the paving flags either side not being able to take traffic loads - block paving on both sides without kerbs in the side street would be better. The red lines carrying on on the main road is the correct way to do it as they apply to the rear of the footway anyway.<br /><br />The only problem with the Brixton and Oxford examples is having very steep ramps. If the ground is clay, then anyone driving into them a bit quick will cause vibration which upsets building owners - of course people turning in should be going slow. Also, steep ramps and not great for cycle users and motorcyclists in terms of helping them lose control - care is needed in the design.The Ranty Highwaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17361350433158148025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-14304447995049508482013-02-18T03:41:02.581+00:002013-02-18T03:41:02.581+00:00Hi RH,
The article you were thinking of might ha...Hi RH, <br /><br />The article you were thinking of might have been this one – <a href="http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/continuous-paths-across-minor-junctions/" rel="nofollow">http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/continuous-paths-across-minor-junctions/</a>. <br /><br />I'm a big fan of continuing the pavement across a minor junction! I wonder, if it turned out that your fourth image isn't legal for some reason, could it be done by turning it into a small "pedestrian zone (except for access)"?<br /><br />I think Richard's example of Oxfordshire's simpler/cheaper version looks, well, too simple and too cheap. Unfortunately it just doesn't look to me like the footpath continues across the junction there, the road clearly continues around the corner and disrupts the footpath. What are we to make of those red bricks? What do they even mean? A pedestrian is still "crossing the road" rather than a motor vehicle "crossing the footpath". It looks to me like the usual UK cheap, half-arsed kludge. <br /><br />This example in Brixton almost has it right, I feel: <a href="http://goo.gl/maps/pWu4E" rel="nofollow">http://goo.gl/maps/pWu4E</a> – the footpath remains level, the double-red lines on the main road continue past the junction, but unfortunately the pavement material changes giving a 'driveway' effect.<br /><br />Also, should you wish to see it, there's a photo of a red-light-cycle-bypass here: <a href="http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/47670/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/47670/</a>.<br /><br />I really enjoy your blog, by the way! <br /><br />S.C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-59234840725221885062013-02-17T23:09:05.880+00:002013-02-17T23:09:05.880+00:00Most examples I've seen of raised crossings ha...Most examples I've seen of raised crossings have too shallow a hump, and deviate behind the desire line. Oxfordshire has developed a simpler/cheaper version: http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/2012/02/crossing-side-roads/ which uses the tactile and imprinted blockwork to give a sense of continuity to the pedestrian, which works brilliantly.<br /><br />The steepness of the hump means you don't generally need to tighten up the radius (or at least, not so much that people start worrying about over-running).<br /><br />There are one or two examples of footways built across side roads - eg http://goo.gl/maps/LfL4e but not on a main road. We discussed doing this on a main road, but opted for the raised crossing / imprinted blockwork instead, on maintenance grounds.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15511237689209611170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-19483262245301115522013-02-17T22:27:22.101+00:002013-02-17T22:27:22.101+00:00In a fit of boredom I decided to look up what the ...In a fit of boredom I decided to look up what the legal basis is for having traffic that comes out of such an arrangement (Dutch: "uitritconstructie") yield to all other traffic. The IANAL conclusion: the side road is considered an actual driveway. This puts traffic joining the main road at such a junction in the same category as vehicles performing other "extraordinary maneuvers" such as reversing, hitching up a trailer, parking etc. In other words, Dutch law didn't have to be amended for this arrangement to work.<br /><br />The offending article can be found <a href="http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0004825/HoofdstukII/24/Artikel54/geldigheidsdatum_17-02-2013" rel="nofollow">here</a> (in Dutch, of course).bz2https://www.blogger.com/profile/12501944795613124511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-50527751974452762102013-02-17T20:51:49.244+00:002013-02-17T20:51:49.244+00:00I have used the stuntman at work sign for a street...I have used the stuntman at work sign for a street which had to allow access to a loading bay in a town centre as the shops had no other loading. Aside fro that, the no entry except cycles is newly allowed - in fact, you could just have a "normal" junction with a pair of these and that is enough (no island needed). The trouble is people taking a chance and driving through, hence my island example.The Ranty Highwaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17361350433158148025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-35586429657583180182013-02-17T19:16:00.238+00:002013-02-17T19:16:00.238+00:00On regulation changes- here in Cambridge we had a ...On regulation changes- here in Cambridge we had a few previously entirely one-way streets (that had a high level of illegal contraflow cycling) changed to two-way- <a href="http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/27883/" rel="nofollow">this shows one location</a>.<br /><br />Of course, those signs are terrible. Whoever invented the "flying motorcycle" was clearly tripping if they thought they'd come up with an unambiguous sign, made worse by it being frequently paired with the even woolier "Except for Access".<br />They've now been replaced with far clearer, previously illegal signs- simply a "No Entry" with an "Except Cycles" below it- can't find a photo, if you want I'll snap one. Gives a bit more flexibility, as otherwise I believe you need an island, mainly for an additional sign post.Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06817806128052425511noreply@blogger.com