Mind your Language - "Protected" not "Segregated" !

mattw wrote:

Thank-you for the interesting comments on this thread.

So  support for both "separated" and "protected" then, depending on context.

I'd agree with that and will not be using "segregated" to refer to cycle lanes in future. I hadn't considered it previously, so thanks for raising this thread.

Isn't the issue that these are, in principle, two distinct things?

One is a separated area for bikes to help their progress and give encouragement, but when it comes to conflict, they usually abandon separation so they are neither separated nor protected.

Protected bike lanes (as was demonstrated in the recent right turning HGV over a lane debate) are a different concept which is a bike lane specifically designed to protect the cyclist from traffic. So where there is a conflict, motorised traffic is supposed to be entirely subservient to the whims of the cyclist. So one does not claim protection, the other has passive features to assert the priority of the cyclist.

So a separated bike lane might arrive at a Toucan Crossing, a protected bike lane arrives at a protected bike lane crossing where legally the traffic is entirely obliged to concede to the cyclist if crossing it might cause the cyclist to slow or evade.

The problem is that the motoring community hasn't signed up to the concept, so the protection of a protected bike lane is legal and theoretical as opposed to a separated bike lane which may be inferior legally but in practice may be superior.

To achieve safe cycling you therefore need a combination of both physical separation and strong legal protection.

It would be interesting, for example, to see an implementation at the infamous HGV right turn, of bike sensors in the lane and a traffic light implementation that only gave a green light to traffic when the protected bike lane was entirely empty over a significant distance or a significant time had passed without a gap being sensed.

Of course, the cost of trying to force drivers to abide by their responsibilities is out of proportion. In reality it is likely that a significant proportion of drivers would object to this imposition and risk crossing such a red light in the hope it was not monitored. The reality is that the only way to protect a cycle lane in conflict with a road is by barriers, as we see at railway crossings, but even when faced with the superior momentum of an InterCity 125, some people are inclined to take a chance. That's the environment road designers are faced with. Remember, when it comes to speed, 80% compliance is (used to be???) considered a successful implementation.

IanMSpencer wrote:

Isn't the issue that these are, in principle, two distinct things?

They are indeed.

I think we agree e.g. the mention of "protected" actually backfires?  Because in the context of UK cycle infra it has a special meaning which has nothing to do with "protection" as we normally understand it?

I'm not sure "protected" is used much in the Dutch cycling infra terminology.  Separate areas - yes.  Lots of consideration given to safe interaction of modes where it is needed (another alien concept to the UK) - yes.  I think that's helpful as it's less about "how do we keep the demon driver (a necessary evil) from deading us" and more about safe and efficient interaction for both modes.

Also - the UK kind of "protective" object ("magic" or decorative wands, Orcas etc.) is - AFAIK - practically unheard of in the country where the highest proportion of journeys have been made by bike for the longest time - e.g. NL.

I have waved flags for "protected infra" UK-style - but actually more and more I consider this verging on a waste of effort and money.  This is why I specified "when stating what we want".

It's difficult because in the UK it's not just that we're finding suitable words for concepts the UK doesn't have.  We have cognitive interference from a different set of concepts (which derive from "maximum throughput / permeability of motor traffic").

People make "feeling" judgements - particularly of "safety".  So when the vast majority of people (who never or rarely use cycing as a transport mode) say "protected" I think they mean they want to feel safe.  Being right next to motor traffic in high volume or high speed is not perceived as safe (nor is being in it).  It seems clear that that adding decorative features to our painted cycle gutters (wands, blocks, armadillos, orcas) isn't tempting many more people either.  Sadly these may objectively reduce safety since people trip over them / ride into them - and of course they clearly don't dissuade some drivers.

IanMSpencer wrote:

One is a separated area for bikes to help their progress and give encouragement, but when it comes to conflict, they usually abandon separation so they are neither separated nor protected.

...

Protected bike lanes (as was demonstrated in the recent right turning HGV over a lane debate) are a different concept which is a bike lane specifically designed to protect the cyclist from traffic. So where there is a conflict, motorised traffic is supposed to be entirely subservient to the whims of the cyclist. So one does not claim protection, the other has passive features to assert the priority of the cyclist.

Of course - priority is not protection and it can even be the opposite.  (As an example - I tend to lean towards David Hembrow's view on what the safer arrangement is on for cyclists on roundabouts - which is a minority view even in NL although there is apparently disagreement over the crash data here).

https://www.cheshire.police.uk/police-forces/cheshire-constabulary/areas...

It's the duty of anyone on here who lives in the pilot area (Crewe) to send in those reports ASAP on the grounds that 'cycle track' is obviously a superset of 'cycle lane', so we can see what happens. My jaundiced view, based on the dodgy geezers at Lancashire police, is that this pilot will go the same way as OpSnap Lancs in which they don't do any of the things they claim they will do, and then excuse themselves on the grounds of 'we're busy'

The Roads and Crime Unit will triage the report and will deal with the person responsible. This may include issuing fines or educational courses depending on the severity of the offence committed

This uses the same mode of weaselling as Lancashire, using the word 'may', which obviously includes 'we may do nothing at all'. My guess is that there won't be any fines or educational courses (such penalties being perfectly acceptable for this offence) and there will be many claims of 'words of advice' being offered (=worthless as a deterrent)

#notypistinvolved

mattw wrote:

Indeedy-doody.

It's worse on the laptop, where the "e" key keeps breaking - which can restrict my vocabulary and make me very creative if I do not have the remote keyboard to hand.

Twould be terrible were I in Yorkshir.

Turn on num lock, hold ALT, then on number pad type 69 or 101 and release.

mattw wrote:

Indeedy-doody.

It's worse on the laptop, where the "e" key keeps breaking - which can restrict my vocabulary and make me very creative if I do not have the remote keyboard to hand.

Twould be terrible were I in Yorkshir.

Copy and paste from t'internet.

Here, I've got some spares

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee