Envelope-to: Piete.Brooks@cl.cam.ac.uk
Delivery-date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:01:27 +0000
To: "Katherine Ross" <khr22@cam.ac.uk>, ag285@admin.cam.ac.uk,
    mpv23@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk, "Anton D King" <adk1001@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
cc: fjb27@phy.cam.ac.uk, "Piete Brooks" <Piete.Brooks@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: West Cambridge/Children 
In-Reply-To: Message from "Katherine Ross" <khr22@cam.ac.uk> 
   of "Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:41:09 GMT." <002701c4cc89$915c07d0$435d3cc1@katherine> 
References: <002701c4cc89$915c07d0$435d3cc1@katherine> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:01:27 +0000
From: Piete Brooks <Piete.Brooks@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <E1D27l9-0004Zt-00@mta2.cl.cam.ac.uk>

fjb27 and I had a walkabout to start considering road markings.

We felt we shouldn't have to be drawing up this policy -- someone in the
Univ should be able to give us information about Current Best Practice, etc.

However, here are some jottings -- what do people feel?

0) the objective to to make things safer, not to reduce the chance of
   litigation
1) although the length of this may suggest to the contrary, the overall
   scheme should be "natural", "obvious" or "understandable".  As such,
   Council schemes might be useful as precedents as it's what people expect.
2) At all junctions, right of way should be clear. This may be implicit,
   such as a dropped kerb, or implicit, e.g. with white lines.
   In the case of parking areas with single width access to the road,
   white lines should not normally be needed.
3) The right of way should normally be for the major traffic flow.
4) In areas where inappropriate parking is or is expected to be a problem
   yellow lines should be used
5) warning signs should be used where children might run into the road in
   cases of poor visibility
6) Laybys and the like not intended for parking should be marked as such
7) there should be sign posts for all ramps, and the road should be marked
8) cycle paths should be terracotta where they may not be obvious
9) obstacles which restrict visibility should be avoided, particularly where
   children may dash out, and at junctions.
10) the whole site is covered by the Safety at Work regulations.

Particular points
A) a site plan should be available in the layby opposite West's, visible to
   both car drivers (on one side) and cyclists and pedestrians (on the
   other)
B) we need clarification as to the long term plans for access to physics and
   the new cycle route to CMR

As a result, the proposal is

a) the layby on JJTA by the Whittle should have a Site Information Board,
   for car drivers on one side, and cyclists and pedestrians on the other.
   It should be marked as "no parking", with the E end assigned for
   inspecting the info board and drop off, and the W end for the bus stop
b) put STOP markings on the JJTA / Whittle/CL/MS/CAPE/nano junction
c) where the JJT cycle/pedestrian path crosses side roads and car park
   entrances right of way should be to cyclists and pedestrians, and the
   path should be terracotta, with Give Way markings for cars
d) the solid block signage to the E of the JJTA / Whittle/CL/MS/CAPE/nano
   junction should be move or replaced to avoid obstruction visibility
e) the current chicane at the JJT / Phyics Emergency Road junction should be
   removed as it serves no purpose, is a problem for wheelchair users,
   causes danger by restricting the traffic flow, and causes people to use
   more dangerous routes across the grass, onto the wrong side of the road,
   just by the card park entrance
f) the JJTA / CBR junction should have STOP signage on the S road to Physics
g) there should be a warning about children at either end of the nursery
    block
h) the CBR ramps should have signposts and road markings
i) the ??/vet junction should have Give Way markings on the E road to the
   vet school