N11 Foster Avenue Traffic Lights Questions

It's another case of ceding priority - I've been taking the road on that section unless the entire junction has a red. Also, the bit behind the bus stop can be dodgy with phone zombies.

Firstly you'd need 2 lanes then as some cyclists might be going left. Then you'd have an arrangement as seen on the N11 and elsewhere where the middle cycle lane is routinely referred to as a "murder strip" due to the conflict with cars moving into the filter lane:

the issue with cycle lanes is if they're built to safest best practice, you end up with more separate movements at each junction and even if the cycle lane is given a decent level of priority (which it won't) it's still going to be slower than cycling on the road. And then if you do cycle on the road you get drivers blasting their horns and waving their arms at you for not using the cycle lane.

Having said all that, I can't think why the cycle lane light would be red when cars can go straight, where's the conflict? Cycle lane should only have a red when the left filter is green or the pedestrian lights are green. Maybe the pedestrian lights are green across the top of Foster Ave and it's to stop cyclists turning left? In which case it's badly designed.

the 'no left turn' traffic light setting is beacuse the predestrain lights are green at the bottom of Foster Avenue

this only activates if a pedestrian request button is pressed

Having witnessed it this morning, my days of ever using it are done. Essentially, a green light for cyclists comes on at same time as straight-ahead traffic light. Then the cycling light turns red while the left turn vehicle light goes green(and the straight-ahead traffic light stays green). So back to ceding priority, only now its even more dangerous as you have cyclists on the bike lane (who are either used to the old sequence or just see the big green 'straight-ahead' arrow and miss the small bicycle traffic light) who continue straight through the junction while the left-turn vehicle light has turned green.

For me, not worth the risk or inconvenience of using it.

The design layout you are talking about is usually referred to as a 'murder strip'. As you can guess by the name, it's not considered very safe.

Yeah, you're probably as well off in the middle lane.

the other problem with the so-called murder strip design is that when traffic is heavy the left-turning queue just sits on top of the cycle lane and you can't get past.

Any cyclist who routinely cycles in heavy traffic isn't going to be phased by cycling between 2 lanes of traffic on that design, but one of the main points of building more cycle lanes is to get more people cycling, and they won't do it unless they feel safe. One of the problems with discussion on here is that it's 99% regular cyclists who are used to interacting with traffic, but there's a huge cohort of occasional or non-cyclists who would cycle more often but won't do it in traffic.

It looks to be working well here in fairness. There's even a sign up about the change in traffic signal sequence.

As the number of people using bikes to get around increases, well designed, segregated cycling infrastructure will make much more sense. Cyclists will have to cede priority in some instances and motorists will have to cede priority in other cases. In the case above motorists turning left have to cede priority initially. Then I presume bikes going straight in the bike lane will have to stop to allow cars turn left even though cars can probably continue straight. Net result is some minor delays but good segregation encouraging more people to use bikes to get around.

Thanks, I’ll keep an eye out