Bicycle stopping distance and road design

[il padrone]

Yes , and I doubt you'd last too long doing that with the Dutch or German traffic police

Bunnyhopping gets a bit more difficult as well, when they build them like this:

[Strawburger]

That's the sort of stuff that is being designed to some degree. The difference in Australia is that the priority movement ends up being the motorists unfortunately for the peds and cyclists. Retrofitting would be difficult. Removing the "car is king" culture would change that but it comes at a cost. In Sydney, you would be looking at $4m in property acquisition per roundabout. Not something any council or state authority would be willing to spend. I have also noticed that most examples are in areas where there is not much buildup and flattish terrain, something a designer on the east coast can only dream about!

[il padrone]

Retrofitting would be difficult. Removing the "car is king" culture would change that but it comes at a cost. In Sydney, you would be looking at $4m in property acquisition per roundabout. Not something any council or state authority would be willing to spend.

Not always the case that large land acquisition is required. Here's what the Dutch do to redesign their normal intersections (no additional land required).

Of course it does involve removing the "car is king" mentality as you say. It actually doesn't reduce the driving lane space either, just defines things better at the junction.

[m@]

...and here's an Australian approach (from the Kingston bypass south of Hobart):


Image credit - Marc's Blog

Bikes are required to yield to all traffic, including from behind, at every exit, and are required to signal right unless turning left

[il padrone]

Bikes are required to yield to all traffic, including from behind, at every exit,

Not if you get out of that "bike lane"* and claim the traffic lane required (as is your legal option).

* Possibly not a legal bike lane as they need to have posted roadside signs - so the paint is just a guideline.

[Strawburger]

That is a nice design Il Padrone. The thing we are missing here is the ped crossings. Put these in and you may not need the island which takes up loads of space!

Matt, that's a cracker if only the bike lane had priority!

[Alien27]

The other thing to be aware of is when your going down a hill at any speed, it will take you longer to stop than the same speed on the flat not only because dropping in elevation (therefore there is a component of gravity pulling you down the hill) but also as your effective wheel span is shorter and centre of gravity higher. Do some test stops on a hill its bloody scary how long it takes to stop. I take that road on my commute to work, that roundabout is not as bad as the one at the bottom of ANZAC hill

people behind you shouldn't be a safety issue for you if you slow in a slow and predictable manor.

[sogood]

...and here's an Australian approach (from the Kingston bypass south of Hobart):

That's a lot of green space and a large roundabout, something we can only dream about in inner Sydney. And given that kind of space, OP wouldn't have had problems even with an existing inner Sydney roundabout design.

[wellington_street]

...and here's an Australian approach (from the Kingston bypass south of Hobart):


Image credit - Marc's Blog

Bikes are required to yield to all traffic, including from behind, at every exit, and are required to signal right unless turning left

That is horrifically dangerous for cyclists! DIRE (intentional misspelling) should be hung out to dry for that. The traditional shunt-cyclists-onto-the-path-and-cross-each-arm is far safer!

[Mulger bill]

...and here's an Australian approach (from the Kingston bypass south of Hobart):


Image credit - Marc's Blog

Look up the definition of "impracticable" in the dictionary and there's a pic of that monstrosity.
Take The Lane.

[il padrone]

That is horrifically dangerous for cyclists! DIRE (intentional misspelling) should be hung out to dry for that. The traditional shunt-cyclists-onto-the-path-and-cross-each-arm is far safer!

However it has no real legal power to force this on cyclists. Ultimately cyclists are road vehicles and the road authorities must accommodate them in road designs.

Just a huge shame that they do it so poorly !

[human909]

Not if you get out of that "bike lane"* and claim the traffic lane required (as is your legal option).

* Possibly not a legal bike lane as they need to have posted roadside signs - so the paint is just a guideline.

Whether it is legal or not legal I'd do that regardless. However as you probably agree that isn't the point. You and I are confident and assertive cyclists who know how be safe on the roads. Unfortunately so many cyclists don't and infrastructure that makes it more unsafe is unforgivable.

That is horrifically dangerous for cyclists! DIRE (intentional misspelling) should be hung out to dry for that. The traditional shunt-cyclists-onto-the-path-and-cross-each-arm is far safer!

Definitely. However that configuration of bike lanes is the "correct" configuration and in alignment with the actual road rules.


My recent favourite piece of appalling bike lane design is this sort of thing. Here the bike lane finishes before each side street with give way lines. This essentially makes it absolutely legal for a car to left hook you! A bicycle must give way to vehicles when leaving that section of the bike lane, so essentially if you get left hooked you may be held liable!

In fact the more I consider it the more appalling it becomes. This might be time for a complaint!

[wellington_street]

That is horrifically dangerous for cyclists! DIRE (intentional misspelling) should be hung out to dry for that. The traditional shunt-cyclists-onto-the-path-and-cross-each-arm is far safer!

However it has no real legal power to force this on cyclists. Ultimately cyclists are road vehicles and the road authorities must accommodate them in road designs.

Just a huge shame that they do it so poorly !

I don't see the traditional shunt-cyclists-onto-the-path-and-cross-each-arm arrangement as forcing cyclists to do anything - I see it as giving unconfident and slower cyclists to option to cross each arm safely and giving assertive, faster cyclists the prompt to take the lane and proceed through the roundabout as a vehicle.

[wellington_street]

My recent favourite piece of appalling bike lane design is this sort of thing. Here the bike lane finishes before each side street with give way lines. This essentially makes it absolutely legal for a car to left hook you! A bicycle must give way to vehicles when leaving that section of the bike lane, so essentially if you get left hooked you may be held liable!

In fact the more I consider it the more appalling it becomes. This might be time for a complaint!

The reason that one ends where it ends is the tram stop - looking down the rest of the street the lane seems to be continuous across the other side streets. Given the constraints of the location there's not a lot you can do?

[il padrone]

I don't see the traditional shunt-cyclists-onto-the-path-and-cross-each-arm arrangement as forcing cyclists to do anything - I see it as giving unconfident and slower cyclists to option to cross each arm safely and giving assertive, faster cyclists the prompt to take the lane and proceed through the roundabout as a vehicle.

As you used the word "shunt" I assumed you meant that all cyclists would be pushed/expected to ride this route.

Regardless, many cyclists will continue to ride on the road. As I said, it is a great shame that such roundabouts in Australia are not designed to better allow this to occur with greater safety. The European design I showed does expect cyclists to use the off-road path, but gives priority to the cyclists when crossing the road arms ie. makes it easier for cyclists to ride.