More rubbish about cycleways as the Telegraph manufactures a story from a paramedic's evidence-free 'feeling'

Am sure no sensible cyclist would want to delay any ambulance and so would happily make way for one. Make the cycling highways wide enough for emergency services with siren activated bollards and everyone is a winner.

I think he's suggesting that after the ambulance has passed, that lane of traffic thinks it has free reign for 2 minutes, y'know coz they're inconvenienced. Some will tend to tail the ambulance and ignore lights.

I was on a cycle lane, the Cheshire paint of safety, a couple of weeks back and there was an ambulance coming. Nearly got taken out by 2 cars diving onto the pavement at speed!

My local 'newspaper' (the Bristol Post) has just picked up on this too.  Despite Bristol having barely a couple of hundred metres of segregated cycle path in the whole city.

I think the paramedic bloke and the commenters below the line on the news sites, are all missing the point that a segregated cycle lane is NOT causing any problems.  British segregated cycle paths have a kerb, not some sort of twenty foot metal barrier.  If motor vehicles are unable to mount a kerb to get out of the way of emergency vehicles then how come so many cars end up parked on footpaths?

Aside from that,  they shouldn't be mounting the kerb to get out of the way anyway.  The HC says "Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you."

This seems relevant

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/alnessreport/

And with the netherlands reporting a 60:1 benefit ratio with respect to cycling infra spend to health cost savings it's a no brainer, except for those idiots that can't/don't want to accept the truth!

The Daily mail also picked this up and apparently (would never visi that  site myself) the comments were full of the usual you know what.

The paramedic/his bosses need pulling up on this, anyone know where you would complain about this?

and well done john, this should be on the homepage of road.cc, not tucked away in the blogs

Really depressed to hear the paramedic spokesman given free reign on BBC Radio 5 live Sunday Morning following the telegraph article. They had no balancing view nor any questions about the 'data' used to infer cycling infrastructure just the idiot from the paramedic promulgating this fake news.

Thx BBC - lazy journalism getting everywhere

It seems that both single-minded views are the problem here - looking at both extremes blows things out of proportion.    I expect there are few cases where the design of a cycle lane could be improved in order to account for emergency vehicles.    It is sensible for the design to be reviewed in these cases to be reviewed.    What's the problem?

Racing Snake - very good point about how to correctly deal with the passage of emergency vehicles should be taught and tested. But then there are many omissions that need addressing in the driving test.

I am a paramedic and a cyclist and find this both embarrassing and annoying. The Tory Telegraph has managed to bash both cyclists and NHS workers. 

Providing cycling infrastructure saves and improves lives for everyone. 

In in my experience many car drivers are myopic, selfish and just plain stupid. 

Both cycle lanes and what to do when an ambulance approaches are areas which should be in the driving test.

From what I see on the roads drivers seem to be getting less and less respectful of emergency vehicles, and I don't think it has anything to do with cycling provision.

Is it just my twisted sense of humour that wants to suggest that this is the paramedics responding to a threat to their livelihood...?

Note: make sure you have your sense of humour switched on before responding...

'raised curbs (sic)' can obstruct drivers from allowing ambulances to pass.

Really? So are driver expected to drive onto the pavement on the overwhelming majority of normal width roads with adjacent pavements?

Perhaps if people stopped taking out cyclists they'd have less to respond to. 

Huge volumes of motor vehicles delay emergency services.

The protected pedestrian infrastructure have raised kerbs and also railings, does the Communications Director of the College of Paramedics believe these are detrimental to response times too?

It's good that you're calling out their data-less rubbish. Why can't the Telegraph just cut to the chase and put a big opinion piece about how they only want rich people on the roads and bikes are just too egalitarian for their taste? (Not wanting to Godwin this, but Hitler had a very similar hatred of the bicycle from his days of being a WW1 bike messenger).

By the way, "ambilances"? If you haven't got a proof reader, at least use a spell-checker.

It's good that the telegraph was able to back up its story with images of emergency vehicles struggling to pass cycling infrastructure, especially the picture at the top of the article!  I think they also knew they would be taken to task for this article so no comment section!

Nice bit of comment at the end, John.

Looking at his other articles, it seems Bodkin's job title should be 'purveyor of clickbait and study press releases'. Is this the new 'journalism'?

Disappointingly, I couldn't see comments on the *article* on my phone. If there are any, it probably gets a bit of a kicking. Like the Graun, there's more value below the line with the Torygraph than much of the lazy stereotypical shit that passes for content.