Cycle lane branded a "s*** show" by local politician furious at reduced width of road

The "addiction" metaphor is actually quite accurate, if not pushed too far.  Even the "how this all began" - everyone else was doing cars so I did too.  My parents got me my first car.  Cars seemed so intoxicating when I started, but now they're just really expensive and I don't even enjoy driving.

Shades wrote:

The days of asking people politely to seek alternatives to the car, just some of the time, are long gone.

They ought to be.  Unfortunately they are very much still here.  (As I discovered when browsing the outraged responses to the Covid-era smattering of additional footway area / wands and armadillos in Edinburgh).  It's not even the end of the beginning I think, never mind the beginning of the end.  So it'll be a fight every time.  With people who're horrified that "you're taking something away from me / getting in my way / stopping me living my life".  With those desperate for their next hit of automobility or in hard withdrawal from mass motoring.

Plus "cycling" is competing with other, often more profitable (for a few) alternatives e.g. e-cars, e-scooters, whatever e-lonmusk or his ilk cooks up next...

Like many of these arguments the "broken down car" / "emergency vehicle" argument isn't a complete straw man, I'd say.  Simply because it's a reality that even if some government enacted "make it the same as they do it in NL right now" legislation with funding to boot it would still be many years of changing everything.  Which includes "lots of traffic" in the mean time.  There are some other ways of addressing that of course but those also require "change".

I've just browsed some random Dutch roads which appear to be a similar class.  What's immediately apparent is a) lanes are narrower b) there is no "just pull off onto the footway / cycleway".  If roads need that treatment then there is (by law I think) some distance between carriageway and cycleway.  So here's our Irish example - it looks like a sort of "inner ring road" where development has grown out beyond it?

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.6494322,-8.6134031,3a,75y,240.35h,82.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTH2Ly3qh2sFPI9-TowYqoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Dutch examples where lots of vehicles are expected all appear to be dualled with a median e.g. here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0813014,5.0903694,3a,75y,147.95h,79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCmypfidmB9IqlqQhpUgaAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

So in the Dutch case if the road had this much traffic on it I imagine they either to dual it (with fully separated directions) or address "why is there so much traffic here in an urban location"?  And they certainly wouldn't just tack a 2 way cycle path on with minimum separation. 

Maybe another way of looking at our road would be a rural distributor?  I think the Irish example has too much traffic for that but let's see.  In NL these are very often single fairly narrow lane in both directions.  Note: there is no "overtaking"!  That's normally marked either by a "no go zone" in paint or some actual kerb / other divider.  Also note - no "hard shoulder" / "passing place" and no immediately adjacent footway. Again I suspect traffic is not meant to be as heavy on these - so you would presumably slow right down and then - very carefully - drive round a stopped vehicle.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2205208,4.9658244,3a,75y,292.22h,76.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA5QhLlCteSU1rEQPvXRd-Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This one - there are barriers physically stopping you e.g. pulling off the road!

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6016564,5.3719289,3a,75y,247.05h,81.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skDIjVYYPOWu5WCEG1bhE6w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

levestane wrote:

Maybe Cllr Slattery could cycle?

Maybe not.

eburtthebike wrote:

levestane wrote:

Maybe Cllr Slattery could cycle?

Maybe not.

We definitely want as many assholes to get out from behind a windscreen and get onto a bike. There's so much less damage they can do and maybe the exercise and blood flow to the brain will help them with their lack of thinking.

Won't you think of the pedestrians!  Not this particular individual but in general if people are prepared to be so entitled / RLJ / close pass people in a car imagine the horrors they'd cause on a bike!

Also instead of becoming another statistic in the War on the Motorist by Other Motorists, Houses and Other Static Objects they might live longer.

I have no knowledge of the area but it looks from Streetview that this section of road is a fairly typical UK urban-mini-motorway-by-fiat.  The sensible ways to address that would be either: a) an area-wide complete traffic re-plan e.g. send most traffic out to the real ring road and traffic wanting access further along would then come back in again on the next major radial road. OR b) accept there is a "need" here and rebuild this appropriately.  So that would mean "dual lanes each direction, with median divider.  Plus suitable provision for vulnerable road users which isn't right next to a such a busy road.  Also adequate provision for people crossing to avoid this being a barrier - either via subways or bridges".

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

levestane wrote:

Maybe Cllr Slattery could cycle?

Maybe not.

We definitely want as many assholes to get out from behind a windscreen and get onto a bike. There's so much less damage they can do and maybe the exercise and blood flow to the brain will help them with their lack of thinking.

Good luck trying to convince her!

A little more on "what happens when a car breaks down?" issue.  First - welcome to the bike lane, only instead of "breaking down" it's "I had to stop to take a call" or "just delivering, mate" or "we're doing maintenance".  And actually "I've broke down and had to get off the road" too - if you believe.  And it's not just a "regular", it's an "every other section of cycle lane / path" occurrence.

Now I don't want to die on this hill for me personally - Bike Snob NYC's article about "keep calm and carry on" is pertinent.  However normally the reason given for building infra is that most people otherwise won't cycle there.  They thus can't complete many journeys by bike.  So will be blocked from even trying.  I think that's fair.  In which case blocking the bike lane is equivalent to sticking cones and signs across a road, or closing a gate across the carriageway.  But drivers can just get out and open the gate, or move the obstructions to one side, so what's the problem?

Second - this illustrates the unstated "extra capacity" or "overspill" space requirement for vehicles.  Very many of the roads in the UK are actually wide enough that you can fit 3 (modern!) cars - or more - across two lanes.  Where there is a footway or cycle lane to the left, that is also treated as "occasional overspill".  Never mind bus and lorry companies lobbying for a certain minimum width.  And what happened in the road in the article before the change when a lorry broke down?  That wide lane's still pretty much filled...

chrisonatrike wrote:

normally the reason given for building infra is that most people otherwise won't cycle there.  They thus can't complete many journeys by bike.  So will be blocked from even trying.

As previously quoted, you can't justify a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river. [@fietsprofessor]

The councillor should have made their objection before the money was spent, not afterwards.

That Limerick cycle lane looks good. I'd use that. My wife would use that. I went for a short ride with her yesterday. She is not a confident cyclist, doesn't like riding on roads above 30mph* and will not attempt things like riding in primary before turning right, regardless of how few vehicles there are. She is like many people who would cycle more often if it felt safer i.e. if separate infrastructure was available. As it is, she has to avoid busier streets, even though this makes her journey longer and she may have to get off her bike and walk. Why should she not have a safe route to work, shops or the park?

* unfortunately the way many people drive puts her off the 30mph roads that surround our estate too.

Simon E wrote:

As previously quoted, you can't justify a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river. [@fietsprofessor]

Quite.  And yet this argument comes up every time - "nobody's cycling there though"!

Simon E wrote:

The councillor should have made their objection before the money was spent, not afterwards.

That Limerick cycle lane looks good. I'd use that. My wife would use that. [...]

Agree with all of that.  Plus the cycle lane is adequate indeed "good for the UK".  Just a bit close to the main road.  "Best in class" in the picture below - first option (in Groningen) for a busy location (but note low 30kmh speed!), single direction cycling but wide separation from vehicles, 2nd example looks a bit more like the Irish example but likely a much less busy road - note narrow lanes for vehicles and no "overspill" onto e.g. footway / cycle path.

Simon E wrote:

Why should [my wife] not have a safe route to work, shops or the park?

Here's the nub - over the last 100 or so years we repeatedly chose a path which was inherently biased and unfair.  Initially cars were not for the common man - and they mostly weren't for the woman either.  Now we're in a position where this is baked in to the system* only we've corrected things somewhat with mass automobility.

I'd say cycling and walking are inherently "more democratic".  Minimal or low costs, no licences or registration needed, no age restrictions, no having to regularly go get your fuel from the man (well, maybe electricity) etc.

However changes to facilitate this are framed as exactly the opposite - "anti-democratic", "nanny state", "surveillance culture" ... If I was more suspicious I'd be following the money and having a look at where these narratives are coming from and who's promoting them.  (Same as what happened with the invention of "jaywalking" I suspect.)

* independent mobility for children is history, it costs you a chunk of cash if you want to "participate in society" and that's not just a one-off, if you add in disability good luck getting about...