|
|
Suggestion
|
Reason
for not adopting
|
|
|
Extend zig-zag
markings further round the bend to prevent parking from obstructing
visibility.
|
Parking on
the inside of the bend never happens and is not expected to in the
future.
|
|
|
Get cyclists
on the cycle track heading for point B back into the carriageway
within the zig-zag markings.
|
The overlapping
zig-zag and cycle markings would be unclear.
|
|
|
Extend anti-skid
surfacing further round the bend.
|
That could
encourage excessive speeds.
|
|
|
Extend cycle
track on north side beyond point B.
|
Can’t extend
cycle track onto bridge because parapet is too low. Drivers may
be more aware of cyclists about to join carriageway at point B than
beyond it and well-clear of the Toucan crossing.
|
|
|
Widen existing
footway running straight from the bridge to the Toucan crossing,
and convert it to shared use.
|
That would
cause excessive cycle speeds on approach to Toucan crossing.
|
|
|
Proposed 1-metre
cycle lane on carriageway reduces the width for vehicles; risk of
head-on collision.
|
Width is sufficient
for there to be no significant risk for most vehicles. The reduced
width will encourage speed reduction.
|
|
|
Advisory cycle
lane across link from A40 carriageway (about 100 metres NW of the
toucan crossing) may give cyclists a false sense of security.
|
But it will
make drivers more aware of the likelihood of cyclists being present.
|