UK Street design and street furniture, do you like how it’s changed over the years? Why? Why not?

[Silent]

Sometimes I like going on Google maps and looking at how streets have changed over the years. One thing I notice about roads is that in the last 20 years they seem less colourful. As in red isn’t used for the bus lane, the traffic crossing and bike box isn’t colour coded again. I think less colourful roads look cleaner or neater. But then I’m wondering if it’s less accessible to those with vision disabilities.

I also noticed the yellow plastic box with an arrow in a blue circle by traffic lights and pedestrian crossings seems to have changed to a flatter yellow panel with the blue circle arrow signage. I wonder why. I’m thinking the modern version doesn’t require lighting.

I also know there is less street barriers, at least in London, I read it was because street barriers encouraged drivers to speed more and that made them less safe as people might climb over the barriers as well.

I notice a lot of central London has adopted the modern pedestrian traffic crossings whilst a lot of Greater London still uses pelican crossings (I think) or uses something similar to pedex, but without the timer. Though they are being replaced. I wonder why central London uses pedex more, is it a safety thing or are central London traffic lights replaced more often. There are a few puffin crossings though they aren’t that common in London. Are puffin crossings more common outside London, or are pelicans still common and are pedex crossings that common outside London?

 

[gravitystorm]

I also know there is less street barriers, at least in London, I read it was because street barriers encouraged drivers to speed more and that made them less safe as people might climb over the barriers as well.

In many cases these were removed because they are extremely dangerous for people on bikes, if they get caught between the barrier and a vehicle during a collision. For example, getting clipped by an HGV while cycling, the victim would often either be crushed between the vehicle and the barrier, impact into the barrier, or bounce off the barrier and back under the wheels. It's much safer to be thrown onto a clear pavement.

 

[Silent]

I notice with Google maps that these bollards replaced the lighted ones

https://startsafety.uk/cdn/shop/files/start-traffic-duraflex-traffic-keep-left-bollard-main.jpg?v=1722384237&width=1024

https://www.mallatite.co.uk/images/product/842/2/Central_trafficbollard02.jpg

Watching an old video from the late 90’s I notice that there are much more traffic lights now.

 

[swt_passenger]

Watching an old video from the late 90’s I notice that there are much more traffic lights now.

When I learned to drive in the north east of the 70s, my dad initially took me to practice in Alnwick, where there were no traffic lights, and no roundabouts...

 

[Silent]

I'm noticing a lot of the close overtakes are at wide junctions in this video. Maybe the tightened corners on newer road designs are more cyclist friendly?

 

[styles]

I'm noticing a lot of the close overtakes are at wide junctions in this video. Maybe the tightened corners on newer road designs are more cyclist friendly?

To me, this video shows why "cycle lanes" which are just strips of paint on the nearside of the road are bad design, as LTN 1/20 also describes.

They don't offer any actual protection.

If you cycle in them, people outside of them are encouraged to close-pass you because you're in a different 'lane'.

If you cycle in them you are also often in the door opening zone for parked cars.

If you don't cycle in them, you get impatient road users shouting, "Use the cycle lane!", or whatever.

I believe they actually create danger in most cases.

I know someone, early 20s, who cycled in one of these with parked cars on the nearside. The driver of one such vehicle opened his car door and she was hospitalised from the injury. Thankfully she was a few hundred metres from a hospital. Driver didn't offer any assistance and instead got back into his car, and drove off. Now, really, there wasn't 1.5m clearance for any other road users to pass, and she was approaching an island for pedestrian crossings, so the safest place for her would've actually been the middle of the lane; but the cycle lane encouraged her to cycle in a door opening zone and in a way which almost encouraged close passes. That cycle line should be removed.

It's funny that things like pedestrian barriers and cycle lanes are mentioned because these are really put in place because there's so many lethal drivers around.

 

[Silent]

To me, this video shows why "cycle lanes" which are just strips of paint on the nearside of the road are bad design, as LTN 1/20 also describes.

They don't offer any actual protection.

If you cycle in them, people outside of them are encouraged to close-pass you because you're in a different 'lane'.

If you cycle in them you are also often in the door opening zone for parked cars.

If you don't cycle in them, you get impatient road users shouting, "Use the cycle lane!", or whatever.

I believe they actually create danger in most cases.

I know someone, early 20s, who cycled in one of these with parked cars on the nearside. The driver of one such vehicle opened his car door and she was hospitalised from the injury. Thankfully she was a few hundred metres from a hospital. Driver didn't offer any assistance and instead got back into his car, and drove off. Now, really, there wasn't 1.5m clearance for any other road users to pass, and she was approaching an island for pedestrian crossings, so the safest place for her would've actually been the middle of the lane; but the cycle lane encouraged her to cycle in a door opening zone and in a way which almost encouraged close passes. That cycle line should be removed.

It's funny that things like pedestrian barriers and cycle lanes are mentioned because these are really put in place because there's so many lethal drivers around.

Yeah I use the cycle lane on Harrow Road between Kensal Rise and Westbourne Park.

I usually have to get out of the cycle lane at the parts where the cars are parked at the side and the cycle lane is in between the parked cars and main road as usually there is a car that wants to leave and some bigger trucks go into the cycle lane. Sometimes a primary position in the middle of the road is safer even if drivers are irritated. I do this when I’m able to keep up with the traffic.

However in the video I thought the cars over took because the wider curve meant the road was a bit wider for everyone so they took the opportunity as I’m not usually overtaken on junctions but most of the non traffic signals I pass are usually tighter turns.

 

[gravitystorm]

There's some particular issues with one of the junctions shown in the video (I've ridden it myself before, several times) See the streetview at https://maps.app.goo.gl/WDxVJsRL9KcbM2Hp8. There is a dangerous build-out just beyond the incredibly wide junction mouth. It's really not obvious to drivers that the kerb line, and therefore lane width, changes beyond the junction - so suddenly a reasonably wide pass of a cyclist turns into a dangerous squeeze.

I can't believe that any safety audit of the build-out (presumably put in for the pedestrian crossing, to improve that) managed to overlook the fact that the kerbs before and after the junction are no longer aligned, and what a risk it is to cyclists. But in my experience these highway redesigns are often half-hearted, to be polite.

 

[fandroid]

I dont know the names of the pedestrian crossing types, but those without visible pedestrian signals on the far side of the road are the most common outside London. I really cannot understand why they are felt to be an improvement on the older (pelican?) crossings as they offer zero reassurance to anyone actually already crossing the road. They must deter the frailer members of the public from ever crossing a road. In travels elsewhere in Europe I have never seen them.

Fortunately, London has only installed them in isolated places, and many London ones are the really pedestrian-friendly ones with a countdown added.

As a general comment I think that there is far too much traffic-related furniture in our streets and the streets themselves are much too dominated by engineering for vehicle movement and parking.

 

[Silent]

I dont know the names of the pedestrian crossing types, but those without visible pedestrian signals on the far side of the road are the most common outside London. I really cannot understand why they are felt to be an improvement on the older (pelican?) crossings as they offer zero reassurance to anyone actually already crossing the road. They must deter the frailer members of the public from ever crossing a road. In travels elsewhere in Europe I have never seen them.

Fortunately, London has only installed them in isolated places, and many London ones are the really pedestrian-friendly ones with a countdown added.

As a general comment I think that there is far too much traffic-related furniture in our streets and the streets themselves are much too dominated by engineering for vehicle movement and parking.

The puffin crossings have sensors so know when someone is crossing.

Why do you think there is too much signage?

 

[Mr. SW]

I've just seen the video. I know the area well.

I gave up cycling.

 

[izvor]

I dont know the names of the pedestrian crossing types, but those without visible pedestrian signals on the far side of the road are the most common outside London. I really cannot understand why they are felt to be an improvement on the older (pelican?) crossings as they offer zero reassurance to anyone actually already crossing the road. They must deter the frailer members of the public from ever crossing a road. In travels elsewhere in Europe I have never seen them.

Totally agree.

The puffin crossings have sensors so know when someone is crossing.

They are not effective. They either have a too narrow area of view, or do not allow pedestrians to cross fully before the lights change. Or both. Zero reassurance indeed, and I think they are actually dangerous.

 

[Silent]

Totally agree.


They are not effective. They either have a too narrow area of view, or do not allow pedestrians to cross fully before the lights change. Or both. Zero reassurance indeed, and I think they are actually dangerous.

I don’t use them too much since I live in London.

 

[Jim the Jim]

I dont know the names of the pedestrian crossing types, but those without visible pedestrian signals on the far side of the road are the most common outside London. I really cannot understand why they are felt to be an improvement on the older (pelican?) crossings as they offer zero reassurance to anyone actually already crossing the road. They must deter the frailer members of the public from ever crossing a road. In travels elsewhere in Europe I have never seen them.

Fortunately, London has only installed them in isolated places, and many London ones are the really pedestrian-friendly ones with a countdown added.

As a general comment I think that there is far too much traffic-related furniture in our streets and the streets themselves are much too dominated by engineering for vehicle movement and parking.

There was a research study which suggested (very weakly) that nearside pedestrian signals might be marginally safer, so councils everywhere have adopted them as standard for new installations. Except not in London for some reason.

The logic is that the nearside signals force you to look into the approaching traffic so you're less likely to step in front of a moving vehicle. But in practice plenty of the time the signals are terribly placed - I often don't look at them at all, and rely on those on the other side of the road, or the lights for the cars. Which surely defeats the point!

I doubt anyone would ever imagine forcing drivers to look sideways to see a traffic light; it's only pedestrians who have to suffer the extra effort as usual.

 

[Silent]

Maybe the next evolution of street design is making traffic lights more cyclist friendly. Apparently its a reason lots of cyclist, including me, skips them. But it's hard to know the solution it might be road design. I am thinking it's also about the cyclist/pedestrian interaction and some ride fixed gear and don't like using brakes so usually will skip reds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe the next evolution of street design is making traffic lights more cyclist friendly. Apparently its a reason lots of cyclist, including me, skips them.

As a cyclist I have never found it difficult to see the big lit up red thing in front of me and to use my brakes to ensure I stop before getting to it. I find it quite annoying when others damage my reputation as a cyclist by failing to do so, to be honest.

As for "fixies" that's no excuse. If your cycle is not suitable for compliance with road traffic law, change it and leave the fixies to track days. A front brake is mandatory on a fixie anyway, under UK law for a cycle to be road legal it has to have independent braking systems on each wheel, the pedals and fixed gear only provide for the rear wheel. But it needs to be possible to stop a cycle quickly in case e.g. a child runs out.

I do think the advance starts for cyclists London often offers are a good thing for safety, though.

 

[Silent]

As a cyclist I have never found it difficult to see the big lit up red thing in front of me and to use my brakes to ensure I stop before getting to it. I find it quite annoying when others damage my reputation as a cyclist by failing to do so, to be honest.

As for "fixies" that's no excuse. If your cycle is not suitable for compliance with road traffic law, change it and leave the fixies to track days. A front brake is mandatory on a fixie anyway, under UK law for a cycle to be road legal it has to have independent braking systems on each wheel, the pedals and fixed gear only provide for the rear wheel. But it needs to be possible to stop a cycle quickly in case e.g. a child runs out.

I do think the advance starts for cyclists London often offers are a good thing for safety, though.

It’s not an excuse but passing a red light is sometimes as safe as moving on a green light and crossing pedestrians are easy to avoid if timed well. No accidents caused, awareness of the light sequencing, it isn’t a big deal, especially if done slowly.

The modern pedex crossings are an improvement on the pelicans as apparently the flashing man and amber light can be unclear as to its meaning compared to a plain amber light and a timer for example. I think traffic lights can further be improved, and road structure, to accommodate cyclists. I know the junction/ traffic light system for cyclists is different in the Netherlands.

I don’t do this much, but find cyclists sometimes stop at the mid bay section instead of the crossing. Probably a section of crossing that can be redesigned?

 

[GusB]

It’s not an excuse but passing a red light is sometimes as safe as moving on a green light and crossing pedestrians are easy to avoid if timed well. No accidents caused, awareness of the light sequencing, it isn’t a big deal, especially if done slowly.

Are you really suggesting that passing a red light is safe?

In a built-up area you have absolutely no idea what's coming from other directions, whether you're at a light-controlled junction or a pedestrian crossing. It also doesn't matter how slowly you are going, you cannot guarantee that other road users won't be so cautious.

As a cyclist you should be obeying the same rules as everyone else and, quite frankly, if you're jumping red lights then you're playing right into the hands of the anti-cycling brigade.

 

[Silent]

Are you really suggesting that passing a red light is safe?

In a built-up area you have absolutely no idea what's coming from other directions, whether you're at a light-controlled junction or a pedestrian crossing. It also doesn't matter how slowly you are going, you cannot guarantee that other road users won't be so cautious.

As a cyclist you should be obeying the same rules as everyone else and, quite frankly, if you're jumping red lights then you're playing right into the hands of the anti-cycling brigade.

Depends on the traffic light. It’s safe for some, at some times, and not others. Some it’s safe to stop in front of the first set of lights. And some, as I mentioned, has cyclists stop in the middle of the road, on the mid bay section. I think it’s best discussed with cyclists if traffic lights, road infrastructure was improved for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it’s best discussed with cyclists if traffic lights, road infrastructure was improved for them.

It's best discussed with ALL road users, particularly pedestrians, as the space is shared. As the latter are the top of the vulnerability hierarchy, cyclists need to remember that. This is why running red lights onto a pedestrian crossing is NEVER acceptable, and I'd really like to see some pretty hefty enforcement against that. Pedestrians have the right to move unpredictably when they have a green to cross - in that case they have the absolute right of way to the exclusion of all else bar emergency vehicles on blues - but not cycles.

 

[Silent]

It's best discussed with ALL road users, particularly pedestrians, as the space is shared. As the latter are the top of the vulnerability hierarchy, cyclists need to remember that. This is why running red lights onto a pedestrian crossing is NEVER acceptable, and I'd really like to see some pretty hefty enforcement against that. Pedestrians have the right to move unpredictably when they have a green to cross - in that case they have the absolute right of way to the exclusion of all else bar emergency vehicles on blues - but not cycles.

I agree pedestrians should be in the conversation