"Optical illusion" cycle lane that caused 59 injuries in a year undergoes maintenance work

rjfrussell wrote:

I fear I am being very dim.  What is the "optical illusion"?  Is it simply that because there is a flat painted white line on the road side of the cycle lane, people think the kerb on the pavement kerbside is not a kerb?

Doesn't sound so much like an illusion as idiocy

Exactly that, according to the news coverage: the painted white line looks "just the same as" the kerb, and people claim it's an optical illusion causing them to stumble and fall.

Gets even sillier when you have people coming forward saying that they've tripped there multiple times on the same day (and especially when they also just happen to do so within camera-shot of a tabloid photographer...).

It's nothing like the orcas in Cardiff with a dark base that blended in with the road so those with poor vision didn't see them.

Keynsham appears to have a high proportion of elderly residents. Some of them will have vision issues, mobility issues, dementia, etc, etc.

Small drops can be difficult to see - easy to catch the side of your shoe against it and trip.

Small drops can be difficult to see - if the other light-coloured street lines look flat then it is easy to assume the footway kerb is flat too.

The best solution would be to make the footway and cycleway the same level with the kerb-drop next to the carriageway.

And - especially in this particular high street - the cycleway should be marked for mobility scooter users too.

(If only there were such a place) the thing to do would be to do it like in some country where they've a generation of data on making this work if you do this sort of thing everywhere, at a national level.  If only there were such a place, perhaps with a very similar climate, say just over 100 miles away.  If only we could figure out a way to make it easy for everyone to cross each other's paths, safely and conveniently..

And yes, there will be some casualties - probably for a generation - because *change*.  You have to look at the current situation (rates) and the overall cost and benefit numbers though if you're in a position of responsibility.

Agree that (the appropriate categories of) mobility scooters should count as "cycles" also - that's another thing that needs sorted.

Samtheeagle wrote:

Work started to build Stevenage in 1946 and has superb cycling infra.  We invented this stuff and have LTN 1/20 to guide its design now.  We just need to follow this and also, move people away from the addiction of car use.

The second part of your last sentence is unfortunately at least as important as the previous points.  The main reason why most people drive in Stevenage is that driving is very convenient.  It is already the default where people have access to a car.  That's many if not most people.

A network of convenient, safe, social cycle infra going to all destinations (with safe parking) is necessary but not sufficient if we want fewer people to drive.   For that we will also need to reduce the convenience of driving.  It's not quite zero sum but where cycling is less convenient than driving people will drive - even where costs of driving are high.

Guardian wrote:

The borough council’s cycle strategy [says]: “Stevenage has a fast, high-capacity road system, which makes it easy to make journeys by car. Residents have largely been insulated from the effects of traffic growth and congestion and generally there is little incentive for people to use modes other than the private car ...

(From this article - there is also a more in-depth one by the same author).

To quote the second: "Where driving is easy, Brits drive"

My understanding is there is also a big problem in stevenage that when the potteries went bust and new businesses built offices elsewhere nearby the new construction wasn't linked to the cycling infrastructure.

So if you are cycling around the town centre in parts that were originally built, there is a good separate network;

If you are on any newer construction at either end of a journey you can often only access it via the road network; A road network explicitly designed on the basis that there was a complete high quality segregated network of foot/cycle paths...

Add in poor maintenance and lack of signage so you need to know where you are going to navigate it...

On "has superb cycling infra" and "LTN 1/20".  I have not been on the Stevenage cycleways myself and I'm sure I'd find them useful.  It may be "great for the UK" or "appreciated by existing cyclists".  Is it "suitable for mass cycling" though - the mass of people who currently drive those short journeys?  The roads in Stevenage appear to be great for drivers.  There are roads everywhere - a true network, with higher-capacity "arteries" etc.  The cycle routes - not so much.  How does that infra compare with the convenience of the roads?

LTN 1/20 is good as far as it goes but sets the bar low in some places.  Particularly important - it only mentions social cycling (side-by-side) in passing.  It also has get-outs for inadequate infra.

Beyond that we need something on what "good" looks across a town, a city, a metro area.  (A "dense network" of direct routes - just like we have for driving on!)  And national standards, not guidelines.  (What colour should a cycle path be - so everyone knows where / what one is?)  And ideally "how to get there from here".

This all gets worse when you realise that other countries are currently at different levels of development in active travel. There are a series of "natural experiments" at different stages laid out on our doorstep. It's like a guide on how - and how not - to get from where we are to somewhere better.

There are conferences, there is publicity, there is research and even folks eager to act as tour guides for the skeptical.

Meanwhile UK: "this field is totally unknown. We'll have to start at the beginning". Followed by (checks history book) at least a quarter-century of repeatedly funding "experiments" or "demonstrations", apparently throwing the results away after each.

Of course this assumes that our leaders were being sincere about their objectives...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Of course this assumes that our leaders were being sincere about their objectives...

The constant announcement and then quiet withdrawal of funds for Active Travel suggests that not only are they not sincere, but actively dishonest whenever it suits them or their pals.

hawkinspeter wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Of course this assumes that our leaders were being sincere about their objectives...

The constant announcement and then quiet withdrawal of funds for Active Travel suggests that not only are they not sincere, but actively dishonest whenever it suits them or their pals.

Our Govt? Actively dishonest??  Say it ain't so!

(OT, but did anyone see that article about Sunak getting a helicopter from London to Dover, which is allegedly a 45 minute train journey...)

Compare and Contrast

"A quick game of Spot the Difference between our PM and the Dutch PM to while away the afternoon."

Hirsute wrote:

Compare and Contrast

"A quick game of Spot the Difference between our PM and the Dutch PM to while away the afternoon."

Is it that only one of them spent £850m of the Treasury's money to increase Covid-19 infections by between 8% and 17% with a ludicrous "Eat Out to Help Out" scheme?

Or is it that just one of them boasted about taking money out of deprived urban areas and funnelling it towards richer places such as Tunbridge Wells?

Hirsute wrote:

Compare and Contrast

"A quick game of Spot the Difference between our PM and the Dutch PM to while away the afternoon."

One is using a bike to get around and the other is using a trike?

the Dutch PM, despite not have access to billions in his domestic set-up, and being quite tall, has managed to shop for a pair of trousers that go all the way down, rather than stopping someway above the ankle?

rjfrussell wrote:

the Dutch PM, despite not have access to billions in his domestic set-up, and being quite tall, has managed to shop for a pair of trousers that go all the way down, rather than stopping someway above the ankle?

If the bottom of his trouser legs were just a little higher they would qualify as "pedal pushers".

I've just been in Copenhagen (used a bike a LOT) and they have plenty of these sort of bike lanes.  I did stumble on one of these curbs but then I wasn't looking where I was going; my fault.  Somewhat more elightened thinking in Copenhagen; also a vastly fitter and slimmer population than here (especially Keynsham!!).  It's also pretty cold and dark there for 6 months of the year so that doesn't have an impact.

Well - there's always a measure of "change!"  Anything new does take time for people to "learn" even if objectively it is safer.

Copenhagen - while still much better than the UK in this respect - is still "2nd class infra".  In a way that's a good thing: it gives the UK an example that we can believe we could achieve.  Where our planners and politicians will say "wow - so many people on bikes!  I can see that is actually a positive thing to have happen.  And I think I can see how we could actually manage to get that sort of infra built in the UK.  Within a few decades..."

There are some features of their current designs where we might be able to start with something better though.  In this context we should copy the Dutch standard where cycle paths are a different colour from the road and the footway (almost everywhere in NL).  That colour should be standardised nationally (not quite universal in NL).