Paint is not protection

[mjr]

The impressive Dutch road safety record is despite - not because - of segregation.

Before the 1970s they were famous for having lots of segregation and this resulted in a very poor road safety record (about twice our collision rate at the time). So they decided to do something about it - and that something involved controlling motor vehicle speeds and volumes. Things such as traffic calming, low speed limits, blocking through traffic, low speed junction designs, home zones, shared space designs, replacing cycle lanes with bicycle boulevards and so on. And while they still employ segregation they take not of research try to avoid the most dangerous features. In particular cycle paths tend to be uni-directional on each side of the road, cycle paths yield priority at roundabouts (the preferred junction design).

My experiences of touring in Netherlands does not match well with your descriptions. Much was on segregated cycle paths alongside roads with no traffic calming and significant speeds. Quite a few paths seem to be b-directional on each side of the road. etc.

I think it's different in urban areas, which is what Pete Owens is probably referring to, given that he was discussing Manchester. That said, I disagree with his view of pre-1970s Netherlands and some of the things he considers good like shared space, home zones and traffic calming (in the UK sense) have fallen out of favour because they take note of the latest statistics and research, instead of clinging stubbornly to questionable stats from 1990.

Urban Dutch cycleways are more likely to be one-way each side (as they arguably are in England now) and blocking through motoring (aka circulation planning) is a key feature in towns - but bidirectional cycleways are still built where they make sense and Pete Ownes ignores some key features such as perpendicular crossings at roundabouts, clear priority markings and a level of consistency which, even though it's not total, we can only dream of in England, where each county highways department seems to reinvent the wheel, each making their own mistakes.

Out in the countryside, I agree that two-way cycleways still seem very common. Along some major roads, there's a two-way cycleway on each side of the road, to enable people to make left-turns on and off the road without crossing it twice.

[mjr]

Anyone who'd like to compare recent and historical photos of Amsterdam can look at http://sustainableamsterdam.com/2015/04 ... -friendly/ - cycle lanes, contraflows and no-motors roads are much more common now than in the 70s/80s pics.

[Cugel]

Myself, I favour roads being returned to cyclists with cars being confined to car-lanes. Let's call them "motorways" and insist that the drivers get to the start and stop of these dedicated carways via nice safe and slow public transport; or perhaps on their bicycle.

If it's also made clear that crashes and so forth on the motorways will not see some sort of automatic rescue by the rozzers and nurses - well, that can only induce the roaring hordes to roar a bit less. But leaving them to their motor-fate will winnow out the idiots, see?

Cugel, trying an alternative logic mode.

[mattheus]

Myself, I favour roads being returned to cyclists with cars being confined to car-lanes. Let's call them "motorways" and insist that the drivers get to the start and stop of these dedicated carways via nice safe and slow public transport; or perhaps on their bicycle.

If it's also made clear that crashes and so forth on the motorways will not see some sort of automatic rescue by the rozzers and nurses - well, that can only induce the roaring hordes to roar a bit less. But leaving them to their motor-fate will winnow out the idiots, see?

They should organize rescue-breakdown services for themselves - a subscription model would easily pay for it, they seem very fashionable these days.

It would be interesting when non-subscribers crash and block the M-ways. Some drivers might choose to drive trucks with hoists etc, or sloping front bumpers to slide immobile vehicles out of their way. It could be quite telegenic ...

[Pete Owens]

https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/89955/ is a motorist failing to give-way, which is a problem at almost every junction in this country,

Indeed - but one made very much more common by the fact that the cyclist is approaching from an unexpected direction.

Pardon? They're not riding contraflow. If a driver isn't expecting a cyclist to approach from the right at a regular T-junction then they should not be driving!

They are expecting and looking for traffic on the main carriageway rather than the cycleway approaching from the other side of the parked cars.
While this is broadly the same direction it is not where drivers are focusing their attention. Of course it is not as bad as for two-way cycle paths where cyclists are coming from the completely the opposite direction so not even in drivers peripheral field of view. This is why junctions on this sort of cycle track increase the risk of collision by a factor of 3 rather than a factor of 10. Though that will be exacerbated by the particularly poor design in this case.

The dodgy claimed factor of 3 applies to cycle lanes as well as sidepaths now, does it? These seem to be wonderful statistics like Pooh's words, meaning whatever you want them to mean.

That IS a side path {FFE - family-friendly edit }.
It is separated from the main carriageway not just by a verge but by planters, parked cars and such that reduce the mutual visibility of various road users approaching the junction - further reducing the chance that they will notice each other.

The car had to cover nearly the same distance (its own length + the width of the cycle lane) so a cyclist would only need to be travelling sightly faster than a turning car to need to take avoiding action - as in the first near miss. It was only because he was riding soooo slowly that he arrived at the junction after the car had cleared it.

We can disagree about speeds but it's not a near miss if the cyclist was riding "soooo slowly" that the car had time to clear the junction before he arrived.

In this case it is probably more accurately described as a conflict rather than a near-miss - but the frequency of these is still a sign that there is a serious design flaw in the road layout.

In terms of analysis of road safety there is a hierarchy of seriousness from
fatality
serious injury
minor injury
damage collision
near-miss
conflict
Each one is about an order of magnitude more frequent than the one above. If you want to study the safety of a particular highway design then you need a measure that occurs frequently enough to extract meaningful data. Collisions are very rare events so it is extremely unlikely that you would observe a single occurrence - even over a prolonged period of observation - and even if you did the significance of a single data point is effectively a random event. However, if you observe the much more frequent conflicts then this shows where junction designs are inherently dangerous.

You cannot simply dismiss the conflicts as irrelevant since the individual consequences of that particular incident are not severe. Whether an incident is a conflict - or a near-miss or a collision is simply a matter of chance. A high frequency of conflicts is an indicator of a fundamentally dangerous design. That the cyclist happened to be going very slowly at that point was just a matter of chance - this is happening over and over again at every junction along the route - most will be minor conflicts, near-misses will be frequent and eventually some poor cyclist is going to get squished - and I really don't want that cyclist to be my daughter.

It may be a good idea to at least try to conceal the vehicularist's hate those of us who don't use the fabled "sprint speed of 32 km/h (20mph)" laid down in the gospel as required for safe riding on cycling-hostile roads.

As usual, your resort to ad-hominim name calling and deliberate misrepresentation of safe cycling practice is a sure sign that you have lost the argument.

If the driver regularly uses this junction then sooner or later there will be a cyclist approaching at speed or from a little bit closer to the junction.

If the driver regularly uses this junction then they should learn quickly from the abuse they will almost certainly get, or they should get penalised before long.

The trouble is that that is the way most drivers are approaching the junctions; the consequences are actually going to be felt by a cyclist.

Do you find that throwing verbal abuse at drivers is an effective way of modifying behavior?

and the cyclist in https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/89953/ would have to move even faster because there's no cyclist in sight.

Again that is simply a matter of luck that a cyclist didn't happen to be approaching at the time.

It's definitely not a "near miss" if there's not even a cyclist near!

But there was one - the one behind the camera - and they had to stop. As I pointed out in the post you are replying to - I notice you have carefully snipped out the sentence where I wrote:
"As it happens the cyclist that was approaching had enough time to stop, get out the their camera and photograph the obstruction."

So you think the safey of cyclists is a laughing matter - you really are beneath contempt.

Had they been they would have needed to swerve like the cyclist in the first example.

Or more likely, either the driver would have given way, or if they were already there, the cyclist could have drawn up and possibly the driver would reverse back over their line.

Indeed, most confilcts can be resolved in this manner, However...
A minority that cannot will mostly be resolved by an emergency swerve or braking. However ...
A minority of those will fail and result in a minor collision - still no real harm done. However ...
A minority of those collisions will result in someone getting injured - and a minority of those will end up dead.

Sorry Pete Owens, those examples look laughable. Doubly so when you remember that the previous road layout there was 1.5m advisory lanes in the dooring zone past parking bays.

If the only excuse an apologist for segregation can offer is that it is less bad than an even stupider example of segregation then you are really scraping the barrel.

Not really: I'm just mystified why you appear to be so rabidly against an improvement on what went before that you make a laughing stock of yourself by calling things near misses when there's not even a cyclist.

Perhaps because it is my daughters life that is being endangered by the stupidity going on in Manchester that I think this is a serious matter wheras you apparently think it a joke.

What is more cyclists are still channelled into the dooring zone - just the passenger side rather than the drivers side:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/100845/

Do you not think it's better to ride on the side less likely to be opened and where anyone swerving - or even falling if the worst happens - is not going into the path of multi-ton fast vehicles?

I am reminded of the episode in The Tudors where the executioner offers his victim the choice of entering a vat of boiling water head-first or feet-first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS4pvT7ady8. Cycling in the door-zone is stupidly dangerous - whichever side you do it on.

Your usual retort is that modern facility design somehow overcomes the danger, with bending a cycleway away from the carriageway being a critical feature of this. However this excuse is not available to you on this occasion since the cycleway is bent towards the carriageway.

Modern design would have overcome this danger. While I think you only found one "near miss" not three, that's an imperfect layout and I believe we have London Mayor Boris to thank for it, because he invited policy-based evidence-makers TRL to assess that layout in PPR703, bizarrely excluding the better Dutch and Danish layouts from their options. It looks like someone in Manchester has used that in error, instead of using the layout shown in the London Cycle Design Standards, which explicitly says that the ~5m merge in your example "should be avoided, as this constrains cyclists but does not have a significant impact on the speed of turning motorised vehicles." The kerb island should either be extended to level with the start of the corner, or cut back to 20m away from the corner.

OK so you agree with me that this is a dangerous design that needs to be urgently removed in the interests of cyclist safety.

[mjr]

Pleas excuse the extreme cutting but the last post was a bit long and even then there was complaints about what I'd cut. I'm not quoting the whole essay so I may as well please myself and cut it really short. Please refer back if you want the full quotes.

They are expecting and looking for traffic on the main carriageway rather than the cycleway approaching from the other side of the parked cars.
While this is broadly the same direction it is not where drivers are focusing their attention. [...]

Thank you for the clarification: cyclists are indeed coming from the same direction.

The cyclists in the lane are going to cross the main focus of drivers, who will mainly be looking further up the carriageway for cars travelling at higher speeds. Drivers cause plenty of T-bone collisions/near-misses by failing to see carriageway cyclists who are closer to them but moving slower than the cars they were looking for and even this imperfect layout should reduce that.

The dodgy claimed factor of 3 applies to cycle lanes as well as sidepaths now, does it? These seem to be wonderful statistics like Pooh's words, meaning whatever you want them to mean.

That IS a side path {FFE - family-friendly edit }.

No, it became a painted cycle lane before the junction. I'm sure you don't need me to provide you with a copy of the old paper's diagram with the dodgy 3 clearly labelled on a path crossing half a lane width into the side road - a layout which I think we'd all agree is crap, even if we disagree on the best remedial work and the validity of that stat for other layouts.

[...] You cannot simply dismiss the conflicts as irrelevant since the individual consequences of that particular incident are not severe. Whether an incident is a conflict - or a near-miss or a collision is simply a matter of chance. A high frequency of conflicts is an indicator of a fundamentally dangerous design. That the cyclist happened to be going very slowly at that point was just a matter of chance - this is happening over and over again at every junction along the route - most will be minor conflicts, near-misses will be frequent and eventually some poor cyclist is going to get squished - and I really don't want that cyclist to be my daughter.

Equally, you cannot simply dismiss that these layouts greatly reduce the size of the conflict zone from the legacy layout which has a conflict zone of almost all of at least one lane each way to a few junction zones.

Also, I disagree that what is conflict, near-miss or collision is simply chance because that ignores other factors, but that may not be important right now.

I don't want your daughter - or you, for that matter - squished either. Or anyone else, even those who are physically unable to do what you call "safe cycling practice".

[...] Do you find that throwing verbal abuse at drivers is an effective way of modifying behavior?

Nope. Zen on a bike, me, these days - but I know that there's plenty of other cyclists who will sound off. I'm sure you've seen some.

So you think the safey of cyclists is a laughing matter - you really are beneath contempt.

No, I think your attempt to call things a "near miss" when there's no cyclist anywhere near (and I don't care whether you've stopped to take a pic or stopped for a coffee) are a laughing matter.

Indeed, most confilcts can be resolved in this manner, However...
A minority that cannot will mostly be resolved by an emergency swerve or braking. However ...
A minority of those will fail and result in a minor collision - still no real harm done. However ...
A minority of those collisions will result in someone getting injured - and a minority of those will end up dead.

I agree but there are very few completely conflict-free road layouts, they're fairly constraining and I don't think there's stomach for so many bridges on that sort of street. The question is what reasonable layout best minimises the conflicts and severities, isn't it?

Not really: I'm just mystified why you appear to be so rabidly against an improvement on what went before that you make a laughing stock of yourself by calling things near misses when there's not even a cyclist.

Perhaps because it is my daughters life that is being endangered by the stupidity going on in Manchester that I think this is a serious matter wheras you apparently think it a joke.

Your "near miss" argument is a joke, not the safety. I think the lives of cyclists in Manchester are probably being improved from what was there before, although some things still aren't optimal and I await the comparison data with interest.

[...] Cycling in the door-zone is stupidly dangerous - whichever side you do it on.

How dangerous do you think it is and do you think it's equally dangerous to ride on the side that almost always has a door opened and with live motor traffic alongside as to ride on the side used less where anyone struck would land among walkers?

Maybe we can agree that one lane of parking should be removed ASAP. If it was, how would you allocate the road width?

Modern design would have overcome this danger. [...] The kerb island should either be extended to level with the start of the corner, or cut back to 20m away from the corner.

OK so you agree with me that this is a dangerous design that needs to be urgently removed in the interests of cyclist safety.

I'd say corrected rather than removed, but I'd agree it is currently unnecessarily dangerous with the track-to-lane transition in the grey area.

[amaferanga]

Noticable how cycling numbers have increased significantly in Manchester , where proper kerbs have been installed to inhibit vehicle encroachment.
We need this generally.

Oh dear, someone else praising Boardman's stupidly dangerous farcilities, which seem to be personally targeted at killing my daughter; every time her commute changes it seems that the idiots get to implement their bright ideas on her chosen route - forcing her to find an alternative busier route.

So far there's very little Bee Network stuff being built so I think you're mistaken here. Can you be specific about these things that Boardman has done that have made your daughters commute more dangerous?

First on road bit under construction now is part of Chorlton cycleway, with wide kerb separated cycleway and full protection through junctions using Cycleops designs.

Unfortunately there's still low quality stuff being built outside of Bee Network schemes - maybe it's these that are your issue, in which case you'd be better to back the Bee Network which will only allow high quality stuff.

Do you also object to modal filters and active neighbourhoods? These are probably more important to safe streets than the protected cycleways on busy roads and are a big part of the Bee Network.

[Pete Owens]

Oh dear, someone else praising Boardman's stupidly dangerous farcilities
..

Used to know Manchester quite well, not been there for a while, care to explain a bit more?
Thanks

My daughter first moved to Manchester pre-Boardman and found the city is plagued by the sort of painted cycle lanes that are the original subject of this thread, You need to be careful to avoid doing stupid things like getting suckered into overtaking left turning trucks on the wrong side or riding in the dooring zone just because someone has painted a cycle lane in a daft place.

Then she started to train as a teacher at Manchester University a few years ago. She mentioned to me how she tried to avoid using Oxford Road (first of the flagship schemes - a bit difficult since the university straddles the road. While the main carriageway of Oxford Road is now vastly improved with a 20mph limit, most of the traffic removed and two wide traffic lanes rather than the previous 4 narrow ones https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/87799/, cyclists are directed along a narrow, glass strewn channel, which weaves through the very frequent and well used bus stops. This accompanied by numerous humps and rumble strips and warning signs - evidence that the designers were well aware of the dangerous nature of what they were implementing.

It gets progressively worse as you head south with dangerous conflicts built into every junction - such as this one where crossing traffic movements are simultaneously given a green light: https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/87807/ - or signalised pedestrian crossings that give a green man to the pedestrians without a red signal for the crossing cycle traffic https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/87797/ - or this little gem of a design https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/87796/.

Further south on Wilmslow Road it gets even worse. There are fewer bus stops but now the cycleway is sandwiched in the dooring zone between parked cars and a narrow busy footway. It is a busy shopping street so there is a lot of loading/unloading activity and getting in and out of the cars. And whenever a junction is reached, all the parked cars, planters and other obstructions make the priority junctions even more dangerous than you would normally expect for a cycleway crossing a priority junction (the subject of much of the debate above - but it applies pretty much to the entire length). As a final flourish you are flung out into the path of buses here: https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/89963/.

This continues onto the pre-Boadrman farcilities which are just as dire: https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/83628/.

Then her first teaching job involved an SW-NE commute across central Manchester from Stretford to New Moston. She settled on a route using Talbot Road only for this to become the next flagship scheme. This time she discovered that the cycle lane had bollards inserted at regular intervals - making it dangerous to negotiate into the next lane to avoid hazards such as parked vehicles, bus stops, puddles or the accumulation of leaves that fills it in the autumn/winter. At times it runs through through dooring zones - on different sides at different times. At some points it bumps up on the pavement to go round bus shelters and back onto the road again - and of course the recurrent risk at junctions. She now uses the much busier A56 to avoid it all. Out of curiosity I rode that way when I went to watch the finish of the Tour of Britain last year - and had to perform an emergency stop to avoid a left hook.

So you can see why it seems as if Boardman is out to get her personally!

She now works in Rusholme and her route is free of the nonsense for now - though ominously, some of the roads running west from Stretford do look to be lined up for treatment on the Beeways map.

[mjr]

https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/87799/, cyclists are directed along a narrow, glass strewn channel, which weaves through the very frequent and well used bus stops. This accompanied by numerous humps and rumble strips and warning signs - evidence that the designers were well aware of the dangerous nature of what they were implementing.

What are called "humps" and "speed bumps" in the captions seem like simple level crossing tables for walkers, not steep enough to merit marker triangles and not sufficient to slow a cyclist much. They look like less vertical deflection than you get across some crossroads, so please excuse me not being confident in the interpretation of painted lines as "rumble strips" (surely less rumble than many road surfaces and probably undetectable to any cyclist with wide plush tyres suitable for crossing cobbles and tram lines!) although I'm not sure what's the point of those lines. The pictures in that sequence don't seem to include the warning signs but I'll take Pete Owens's word for it that they've gone over-cautious on early redesigns and put some up.

Is there some reason Manchester is unable to send sweepers along the greenways often enough to clear the glass?

crossing traffic movements are simultaneously given a green light: https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/87807/ -

I realise they're a pet hate and Pete Ownes would like greenways to suffer more red lights but simultaneous greens are widely used, even for some conflicting flows of carriageways. Green does not mean go blindly.

or signalised pedestrian crossings that give a green man to the pedestrians without a red signal for the crossing cycle traffic https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/87797/

So what? Give way to walkers. It should be the same everywhere, even on carriageways. We should not encourage replication of the carriageway might-is-right mistake on greenways.

- or this little gem of a design https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/87796/.

Yes, that one and the abrupt termination in front of a bus look like goofs. Both should be merges over 20+m with marked priority, merge-in-turn at worst.

[Pete Owens]

Do you also object to modal filters and active neighbourhoods?

Not at all - that is what I have long been arguing for. Traffic reduction and speed reduction are the key to improving conditions for vulnerable road users which is why they are at the top of the hierarchy of measures. It is reversing the traditional philosophy that prioritises the needs of drivers when designing roads, so pedestrians and cyclists should be cleared out of the way.

Indeed, when Boardman first came on the scene it looked for a time as if that was the vision. The consultation rounds were focussing on exactly the right questions. NOT where do you want to create a segregated cycle route, but where are the barriers to movement for people on a fine grained local scale. I was optimistic that what would appear on the ground would be lots of low key measures to result in widespread improvements lower speed limits, blocks to through traffic, zebra crossings, continous footways, compact roundabouts, shared spaces, removal of parking and so on.

Instead the project seems to be increasingly shifting focus to the same-old-same-old segregated cycle routes complete with all the dangers that these cause.

And actually if you continue down the Wilmslow Road cycle route as far as Withington there is just the slightest hint of an enlightened approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4340905,-2.2282519,3a,75y,36.76h,86.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saKpLi40eSy0RZts-suDleg!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
20 mph limit, no centre line, no parking or loading at any time and the whole road width designated for cyclists.
OK it is all a bit half hearted (hardly a dutch style fietstraat or shared space) and I suspect the only reason for it is the lack of space for segregation. But, it is a baby step in the right direction - implementing measures to make the street safer for cyclists as opposed to making it more dangerous by segregation.

[Wanlock Dod]

The impressive Dutch road safety record is despite - not because - of segregation.

I’m not convinced by you arguments. Whilst I would agree that in built up areas there are generally more constraints on motorised traffic this seems to be mostly concentrated in the very centre of villages, towns, and cities. Outside of those areas there seem to be far fewer limits on motorised traffic. The fietsstraat is really quite uncommon in my experience, and often run parallel to a much busier road. The main thing that makes me question your assertions is that as far as I can tell fietsers generally seem to have a pretty strong preference for segregated routes where they are available. I have very rarely seen many fietsers on the paint only type of routes that are typical over here, to the extent that I believe they have a strong preference for alternative routes where they are available. I’m pretty sure that without the high levels of segregation they have there would be far fewer cyclists, and many of the motorists would not be cyclists themselves if that were the case.

[amaferanga]

Do you also object to modal filters and active neighbourhoods?

Not at all - that is what I have long been arguing for. Traffic reduction and speed reduction are the key to improving conditions for vulnerable road users which is why they are at the top of the hierarchy of measures. It is reversing the traditional philosophy that prioritises the needs of drivers when designing roads, so pedestrians and cyclists should be cleared out of the way.

Indeed, when Boardman first came on the scene it looked for a time as if that was the vision. The consultation rounds were focussing on exactly the right questions. NOT where do you want to create a segregated cycle route, but where are the barriers to movement for people on a fine grained local scale. I was optimistic that what would appear on the ground would be lots of low key measures to result in widespread improvements lower speed limits, blocks to through traffic, zebra crossings, continous footways, compact roundabouts, shared spaces, removal of parking and so on.

Instead the project seems to be increasingly shifting focus to the same-old-same-old segregated cycle routes complete with all the dangers that these cause.

And actually if you continue down the Wilmslow Road cycle route as far as Withington there is just the slightest hint of an enlightened approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4340905,-2.2282519,3a,75y,36.76h,86.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saKpLi40eSy0RZts-suDleg!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
20 mph limit, no centre line, no parking or loading at any time and the whole road width designated for cyclists.
OK it is all a bit half hearted (hardly a dutch style fietstraat or shared space) and I suspect the only reason for it is the lack of space for segregation. But, it is a baby step in the right direction - implementing measures to make the street safer for cyclists as opposed to making it more dangerous by segregation.

You clearly have no idea of what's its actually like on Withington High Street! It may look nice in Streetview, but in reality it's a horrible busy through route and a main bus route (it's just down the road from my work so I do know exactly what it's like in the real world). It's a miserable place to ride a bike with buses, bullying motorists, etc. It desperately needs to be filtered and through traffic diverted somewhere else. By contrast to Withington high street, the segregated cycle lane to the north is generally quite a relaxing place to ride a bike. It's not perfect, but not horrible like Withington high street. To the south is low quality, discontinuous segregation. This all came before the Bee Network and none of it meets the strict quality standard needed to get Mayor's Challenge Fund funding.

Your comments on the Bee Network suggest that you don't really understand the process or what's happening. Active neighbourhoods are being developed in all GM boroughs (3 on the cards for Bolton alone) so they are a central part to the Bee Network. But to get about in GM safely necessitates segregated routes on main roads that link active neighbourhoods as well. The big ticket routes on main roads are the ones that get the headlines so maybe that's why you're under the misapprehension that they're the most important part of the Bee Network and that modal filtering, streets for people instead it cars, etc. aren't central to it as well.

[Pete Owens]

Do you also object to modal filters and active neighbourhoods?

Not at all - that is what I have long been arguing for. Traffic reduction and speed reduction are the key to improving conditions for vulnerable road users which is why they are at the top of the hierarchy of measures. It is reversing the traditional philosophy that prioritises the needs of drivers when designing roads, so pedestrians and cyclists should be cleared out of the way.

Indeed, when Boardman first came on the scene it looked for a time as if that was the vision. The consultation rounds were focussing on exactly the right questions. NOT where do you want to create a segregated cycle route, but where are the barriers to movement for people on a fine grained local scale. I was optimistic that what would appear on the ground would be lots of low key measures to result in widespread improvements lower speed limits, blocks to through traffic, zebra crossings, continous footways, compact roundabouts, shared spaces, removal of parking and so on.

Instead the project seems to be increasingly shifting focus to the same-old-same-old segregated cycle routes complete with all the dangers that these cause.

And actually if you continue down the Wilmslow Road cycle route as far as Withington there is just the slightest hint of an enlightened approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4340905,-2.2282519,3a,75y,36.76h,86.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saKpLi40eSy0RZts-suDleg!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
20 mph limit, no centre line, no parking or loading at any time and the whole road width designated for cyclists.
OK it is all a bit half hearted (hardly a dutch style fietstraat or shared space) and I suspect the only reason for it is the lack of space for segregation. But, it is a baby step in the right direction - implementing measures to make the street safer for cyclists as opposed to making it more dangerous by segregation.

You clearly have no idea of what's its actually like on Withington High Street! It may look nice in Streetview, but in reality it's a horrible busy through route and a main bus route (it's just down the road from my work so I do know exactly what it's like in the real world).

Indeed, I'm not offering it as a model of perfection - that is what I meant when i said it was all a bit half hearted.
I only brought it up to counter your suggestion that I was opposed to


It's a miserable place to ride a bike with buses, bullying motorists, etc. It desperately needs to be filtered and through traffic diverted somewhere else. By contrast to Withington high street, the segregated cycle lane to the north is generally quite a relaxing place to ride a bike. It's not perfect, but not horrible like Withington high street.
[/quote]
I think

To the south is low quality, discontinuous segregation. This all came before the Bee Network and none of it meets the strict quality standard needed to get Mayor's Challenge Fund funding.

Your comments on the Bee Network suggest that you don't really understand the process or what's happening. Active neighbourhoods are being developed in all GM boroughs (3 on the cards for Bolton alone) so they are a central part to the Bee Network. But to get about in GM safely necessitates segregated routes on main roads that link active neighbourhoods as well. The big ticket routes on main roads are the ones that get the headlines so maybe that's why you're under the misapprehension that they're the most important part of the Bee Network and that modal filtering, streets for people instead it cars, etc. aren't central to it as well.[/quote]

[Pete Owens]

Do you also object to modal filters and active neighbourhoods?

Not at all - that is what I have long been arguing for. Traffic reduction and speed reduction are the key to improving conditions for vulnerable road users which is why they are at the top of the hierarchy of measures. It is reversing the traditional philosophy that prioritises the needs of drivers when designing roads, so pedestrians and cyclists should be cleared out of the way.

Indeed, when Boardman first came on the scene it looked for a time as if that was the vision. The consultation rounds were focussing on exactly the right questions. NOT where do you want to create a segregated cycle route, but where are the barriers to movement for people on a fine grained local scale. I was optimistic that what would appear on the ground would be lots of low key measures to result in widespread improvements lower speed limits, blocks to through traffic, zebra crossings, continous footways, compact roundabouts, shared spaces, removal of parking and so on.

Instead the project seems to be increasingly shifting focus to the same-old-same-old segregated cycle routes complete with all the dangers that these cause.

And actually if you continue down the Wilmslow Road cycle route as far as Withington there is just the slightest hint of an enlightened approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4340905,-2.2282519,3a,75y,36.76h,86.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saKpLi40eSy0RZts-suDleg!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
20 mph limit, no centre line, no parking or loading at any time and the whole road width designated for cyclists.
OK it is all a bit half hearted (hardly a dutch style fietstraat or shared space) and I suspect the only reason for it is the lack of space for segregation. But, it is a baby step in the right direction - implementing measures to make the street safer for cyclists as opposed to making it more dangerous by segregation.

You clearly have no idea of what's its actually like on Withington High Street! It may look nice in Streetview, but in reality it's a horrible busy through route and a main bus route (it's just down the road from my work so I do know exactly what it's like in the real world).

I most certainly have ridden that road. After my daughter told me she was avoiding the Oxford Road cycle route I visited myself to see if it really was as bad as she made out. Withighton High Street came as a welcome, if very brief, respite from the dangerous segregated stuff to the north and south. If you look at the links to cyclestreets upthread you will see that the photographs were taken by myself. That was back in 2017 - so before the the 20mph roundels and cycle symbols were painted ) I'm not sure about the parking/loading restrictions).

It's a miserable place to ride a bike with buses, bullying motorists, etc. It desperately needs to be filtered and through traffic diverted somewhere else.

I am most certainly not offering it as a model of perfection - that is what I meant when I said it was all a bit half hearted, falling far short of a dutch style fietstraat or shared space design. I only brought it up to counter your suggestion that I was opposed to all Boardman's works. However, the limited measures that have been introduced on that stretch of the route - 20mph speed limit, loading and parking ban, centre line removal and full with cycle markings are most certainly improvements (or are you going to claim you would prefer the speed limit to be raised and parking permitted?). While I have described in some detail the dangerous nature of the segregation along the rest of the route.

By contrast to Withington high street, the segregated cycle lane to the north is generally quite a relaxing place to ride a bike.

You cannot be serious - just north of Withington High Street the stupidity begins:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4353717,-2.2269116,3a,31.7y,40.42h,83.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSF9lg0MR-DZm2NpWUzaMXw!2e0!5s20170301T000000!7i13312!8i6656