Please don't misquote and abuse colour. It's very difficult to follow and means some people have to quote your post and replace color tags with quote ones and hit Preview before it makes any sense, especially on monochrome e-readers like some Kindles.
SA_SA_SA wrote:NB I wasn't commenting on the OP farcilty just to your dismissal of anyone bemoaning their experience of the results of some separate farcilities in UK ( the example that appeared in my head was separate 2 way routes cut out of a wider road thus both narrow and no buffer space between either) .
OK, well I was commenting on how unhelpful it is to condemn even this reasonable-looking facility apparently just because something else somewhere else built by another council another time was crap. Surely we've experienced often enough that that doesn't work.
SA_SA_SA wrote:Why should I not object to such changes when they make life more difficult/less pleasant?
There's no reason not to object to specific changes that don't work for you, with reasons, but don't just be a wrecker that mindlessly objects to everything - that just gets your views dismissed as irrational and unreasoned.
SA_SA_SA wrote:If asking for something almost always makes things worse why would you keep asking for it rather than wait till the attitude of the implementing body improved so that things were not made worse or it became unnecessary anyway?
And how do you test that attitude improvement if you never ask for anything?
SA_SA_SA wrote:Such changes often make life more difficult for me by spoiling a road I was happy to cycle on. Every separate two way cycle route I have seen has always been too narrow,
thus leaves no buffer space between kerb to easily avoid errant pedestrians, thus are slower (cyclists end up closer to kerb, when there are oncoming cyclists),
in my experience they virtually always have too little separation from passing motor vehicles which won't move out like they might to pass cyclist in same lane,
they complicate crossing for pedestrians who now have to cross 2 or 3 'roads' in succession.
Oh well, that's the ones you've seen. As I've mentioned, even Norfolk, which has built a lot of crap in the past, has some 9m separated cycle routes and isn't currently building any new two-ways narrower than 3m as far as I know - it's even been controversial that they left one old city cycleway at 2.5m when resurfacing it, as I understand it. That's how far practice and expectations have moved on.
I agree with Chris Judens idea that the shared use sign should be replaced by a pedestrian sign with small discreet 'cycling permitted' text plate (a la(das?
The Netherlands has that too and the only objection I have is that the current shared use sign is already too small for many people to notice in good time (I've experienced it from people cycling, walking and driving).
SA_SA_SA wrote:As a painted white line is pointless to separate pedestrians most 'round blue sign of cycle with vertical white bar and pedestrian figure' signs should go: as a kerb is needed for separation, these would just become share used.
I'd also love to see that happen. Painted white lines are currently treated as centre lines or edge markers on most routes around here anyway.
SA_SA_SA wrote: mjr wrote:
We must not let cycling be limited to motorists beliefs: 81% of motorists believe cyclists are legally required to keep to the left edge of the lane
- should we let that stop us taking the lane when it's the safest thing to do? 53% believe we are banned from all dual carriageways, 73% believe two-abreast is illegal, 56% think e-bikes aren't allowed to overtake cars... Do you really want to ride a lonely (as you can't ride alongside someone chatting, as me and Mrs R do), risky (as you can't take the lane), circuitous (as you can't use any dual carriageway) route and have to wait in every flaming queue of cars?
Thats absurd: how did I say any of that ?
It's the logical conclusion of saying something shouldn't be done until motorists understand it, isn't it?
But it makes life less pleasant for me if the installation of a visible farcity results in hassle I did not get before. The problem was not there before it appeared.....
I have simply directly observed that avoiding farcilities for good reason (eg wet leaves never mind quality/narrowness etc) results in hassle I did not experience before they were there.
(and using the narrow separate facility is slower when I do).
This is a frequent claim by existing cyclists but I've long held that it's more connected with the increase in people cycling a route than the existence or an adjacent route, based on my experience cycling on routes where cycling has been increasing strongly. The increase in hassle doesn't leap up depending on whether that stretch has a cycleway alongside or not.
EDIT Perhaps in future separate routes could be requested built as B roads or not at all but then a no motor vehicles sign/TRO used to make them nice wide cycle routes.
EDIT perhaps in future non-shared-footway separate route should not be parallel to an all-purpose road thus cyclists continuing to use all-purpose road would not 'stick-out'.
I'd have only one problem with the B road idea, or even a C road - France builds some separate routes as D roads and they seem fine, better than most of what we get in the UK - crap councils would look at the classification and see little reason to amend the TRO and progressively allow more and more motor vehicles on more and more of it, even when the route is physically unsuitable for it. I've recently objected to a proposed amendment to the TRO for Norfolk U23679 Hardings Way (I think it's always been a U unlike most of the cycleways which are stuff like 2Y13 because it's vehicle access to a park) that would put HGVs driving along and turning across what was originally built by a "safe route to school" project for a housing estate that's still being built, potentially snuffing out active travel before it gets chance to become a habit.
The big problem with banning cycleways from existing highways would be that existing highways often go where they go because that's where people historically have wanted to travel, the best way to connect departure points and destinations for various reasons - often most direct, flattest and so on. That would at best be condemning cycleway users to long detours and it's difficult enough to encourage modal shift without extra self-inflicted difficulties like that. I'd be more in favour of closing selected existing highways except for cycles, buses and access, but that's politically difficult while there are still so many motorists who see nothing wrong with polluting streets where people live, work and shop.
So by all means, object to flaws, push for driver education or whatever you want to do that helps, but trying to be Cycling's King Canute is a waste of expertise.