Just. Get. It. Right. #2

@kingleo but according to some posters here aren't those terrible places marred by very high cyclist fatality numbers, dreadful driving conditions, rampant drug use and (inevitably) "communism"? ("non-countries" eh Nige?) One major difference, which perhaps doesn't get enough attention, is that in NL they went through a process of deciding what all streets and roads were primarily "for". Then re-designating and indeed redesigning them and re-engineering the network to "make it so". "Monofunctional roads/streets". That means that it's much clearer where cycle infra is *required*, and where less obvious measures will do. That *would* be a major change for the UK. Our process has been that motor traffic appeared on streets which used to be foot / horse / carriage / cycle. We then had to add footways as it became clear the motor traffic was a danger (also as drivers demanded "their" streets). Then as the traffic got bigger / faster / volumes increased those non-vehicle spaces shrank... So now we commonly have a "high street" which is 1) a "place" or destination (so people want to drive and park there, but then will walk about) 2) maybe also a residential location 3) a major through route. And everyone complaining "our streets are too narrow to accommodate cycling".

@Rendel Harris Hold out for a Halfords Apollo* at least. * I did once own one. I bought it in skinter days to replace a Rudge 3-speed that I found in a scrapyard. Guess which one lasted me 4 years and which one lasted me 4 months.

@Mr Blackbird isn't it "this pub survived two World Wars, but will be destroyed by this ludicrous, dangerous cycle lane, which nobody wants and which will only be used by illegal immigrants riding unlicensed electric motorbikes..." ?

@Mr Blackbird The report on this case is on page 19 of today's Times. Maybe the more right wing rags didn't bother at all? It was on the BBC News website yesterday, but was not featured on this morning's Breakfast News.

@Rendel Harris no no NO! Won't you think of blind pedestrians, who will be in danger of falling in, then being run over by the peloton, then drowning?! Not to mention people with limited mobility who might stumble in and then not be able to get out? Or just those walking around in a relaxed manner, not paying too much attention? No, what is needed is a dedicated area to support accessibility for all. We could call it a ... road! Those with sight impairment would doubtless be ok with that as they would be able to hear the motor vehicles (unlike those deadly silent cyclists). And they could get taxis also. In fact all those who *have to drive* could use it! Cyclists would have nothing to complain about, they could ride there if they don't get in the way of motor vehicles and come to a compete stop whenever they see a pedestrian looking like they might cross...

@HoarseMann I've probably given this too much thought, but alongside each of the bridges I was going to have little in and out ramps to allow cyclists to exit for the shops rather than be confined to a straight-through run.

@kingleo Just picture a lovely character pub with all the original internal features. Baskets of flowers hanging outside. It serves an excellent selection of real ales, craft ales, quality lagers and quality ciders. Todays menu includes a ploughman's lunch, seafood platter and a vast range of sandwich fillings ; all made using locally sourced foods. But wait! A new cycle lane has just been constructed in front of the pub. It is far too dangerous to cross and enter the pub. You turn around and trudge home. Stopping at Tesco to buy a 4 pack of Carling.

@Hollis Jones as Rendel said, the key difference here is there were two strong pieces of evidence distinguishing this from "we all *know* they were aware of the cyclist", one of them a human witness. Outside that it's simply "but the prosecution cannot prove they didn't notice..." and legally that must fail. Like a "he said, she said" but where one of the sides is absent, because they're dead.

Having experienced this in Anglesey and most of it is unnecessary, it does give the driver a big lesson in 'looking extra', as travelling slower does that !

It's true, you aren't feeling yourself any favours wearing black/dark colours, BUT you've got to look, soo many dont and the campaign should be for motorist - look, simple as, it's not hard and drop the speed to, maybe if the police where actually outside rather than on Facebook looking for the naughty words/viewpoints, drivers would be caught speeding, not looking, pulling out, not braking in time, going through red lights, overtaking at a bad time, cutting up cyclists and a lot more..