“A good initiative badly implemented won’t work”: Resident slams new cycle lane as “bumpy” and “dangerous”

As luck would have it ...

https://twitter.com/BillyM2k/status/1645772036550328322

Well theres always an attitude in council depts that they know best, but I suspect most of it is just they arent designed by people who would ever use them regularly, so they dont understand the problems they create, and they're loathe to reduce space for cars and that's something they do use alot.

Awavey wrote:

they're loathe to reduce space for cars

I would say even that they're petrified of doing that. I have a bit of sympathy, when or if any local authority does anything remotely radical they routinely get crucified on social media and the websites of what passes for local 'news' these days.

eburtthebike wrote:

Why is it that so much of cycle provision in this country is so bad?  We've had lots of advice about it for many years, but we still get unacceptable rubbish.  Is it just that councils won't ask cyclists or they can't be bothered to read the advice?

It's because the main political parties don't take active transport seriously and would rather go to expensive dinners with oil/motor company execs instead.

I'd like to cycle this lane myself and report back.  If you look at the comments there is another person saying its fine.  So 50-50 IMO whether this is newsworthy or not.

Agreed. The lack of provision at junctions sounds like more of a problem than the bumpy surface.

First - it's nowhere a priority - not seen as vital for transport, big government don't care, no-one's coming from Gazelle or even Spa Cycles with the billions (and nice "fact-finding trips"...) So "get a grant for a few million and have a bash" seems a sensible level of effort.

Councils can be fractious internally - getting anything done can be hard.  New stuff - harder.  So even given a good design "competing interests" may convince folks changes are needed.  Money talks!

Third - not invented here I'd warrant.  There's a mismatch between organisations, leading to lack of understanding and trust.  I suspect they're far more likely to trust their own staff, then professional consultants / companies (even very dubious ones) than cycling groups - who might be seen as querulous zealots / opinionated amateurs.  If they call in consultants / their own roads departments it's professionals who have been doing it the motoring-first way all their lives - as they've been paid to do.

Councillors / council officers - like most people in UK - generally have zero experience of good cycling infra (and certainly not the why and how of it).  There are few UK examples of this.  However there's quite a body of the rubbish kind.  Lots of folk-wisdom and misunderstandings about driving and cycling mean people can be very confidently wrong.

Finally - our "standards" are still "guidelines"...

Do it properly and you'll have no end of consultations, impact assessments and concerned citizens claiming it will be the end of all civilization.

Build something crappy, tick your "active transport solved" goal and only a few ungrateful cyclists will complain on some backwater cycling website.

Here is my local favourite. 45cm wide cycle lane, diverting off the road and onto pavement at the pedestrian crossing, directed back onto the road and then disappears at the next roundabout where some actual protection might be useful.

Thats not correct.  It exists because one day it will form part of a strategic North-South cycle corridor in Reading - which is clear on the Reading Cycling vision documents.  However its a tactical own goal as it effectively ends at a 4 lane road unless you cross over to a poorly marked shared path.  The Northern end is no better - it should link directly to the cycle path on the canal.   Taken on it own it makes no sense, taken as part of a longer term vision its pretty essential.   But built out of order if that makes sense.

Its an easy win for moaners as that road is one of the first opportunities you have to loop back onto the IDR after passing the hospital on London Road.  Hence every morning and evenining its log jammed.

The moaners will tell you that no cyclists ever use it (only partially true see above) BUT those same moaners will ignore the fact that there is 3/4 of a lane given over to metered car parking that is little used and with a bit of a rejig could form another lane leaving everyone happy.  (Except the Grammar School next to the parking but they should be supporting active travel so they can do one).

A vision is a great thing to have but what we have now is a useless stepping-stone towards that vision that is being used as an argument against any other cycling projects. I know Reading well but I have no idea how I would get on or off that cycle lane.