please empty your brain below
dg writes: I agree, thanks.
They manage to do it in the historic towns and cities of the Netherlands.
I would doubt I would be saying the same thing if I had to instead rely on CS1. If councils don't want to build high quality bike infrastructure it would be better if they were to build nothing than to half-heart rubbish like this. Waste of taxpayers money for no real benefit. 8-80 cycling CS1 is not.
The northern bit gets confusing again soon after it leaves the main road.
CS1 is a total joke. It gets even worse just north of where DG stopped.
Is it strictly against your 'religion', or would you be a cyclist if only it were reasonably safe, e.g. as in Amsterdam? I wouldn't dream of cycling in London, but I did hire a Boris Bike during a Ride London Sunday wide-area road closure and thought it was fantastic. But with a cyclist killed every month in London alone, it's just far too dangerous.
Similarly, I tend to be a militant pedestrian when cyclists ride on the pavement, I deliberately don't get out of the way unless I feel imperilled. But I do now wonder whether cycling on the pavement should generally be allowed: my only other recent experience of cycling was in Japan where this is allowed (except in very congested areas such as outside stations). It seems to work very well, making cycling safe and pleasurable, and as a pedestrian you soon get used to looking out.
Japan tends to be a very polite society so I'm not sure that the experience could be transported successfully to this country, but it was interesting to see how something prohibited here can work so well elsewhere.
CS 3 is also close to you!
dg writes: Here's CS3, from 2010.
And what improvements for walkers would you recommend, Tones? Segregated pedestrian routes, or "footpaths" as we could call them? Removing barriers so motor vehicles are encouraged to move more slowly and walkers can cross the road more readily? Or installing more barriers to make walkers safer from road traffic?
Just an idea, but how about if each of us recognises that we have to share the space with everyone else: walkers, those in wheelchairs, those with pushchairs or dogs, those on mobility scooters, cyclists, cars, buses, lorries. And indeed that today's cyclist might be tomorrow's walker, and yesterday's car driver... Perhaps if everyone had a little more consideration for other people, rather than charging around as if everyone else must get out of their way, it would all be a little easier.
http://www.npr.org/2017/07/03/535325263/in-some-places-germanys-bike-autobahn-is-faster-than-the-car-version
Er... sorry, I can number quite a few roads where it has been.
@ Andrew. "Removing barriers so motor vehicles are encouraged to move more slowly and walkers can cross the road more readily? Or installing more barriers to make walkers safer from road traffic?"
To an extent, I've become sadly convinced that the planners aren't always troubled by whether their designs will actually work in a real environment or not. They've already been paid once and - if they don't get it right the first time (ie. if enough people complain) - it'll be them who get paid again for improving it... or making it less worse. I mean, sheesh, where's the incentive to get things right!!!???... it's not as if it's their own money they're spending!
[Historic example, illustrated by DG: the traffic light arrangements at Bow Road / Fairfield Road]
If you take the "road" in its legal meaning of the whole public highway, pavements, cycle tracks, grass verges etc all included, then it is not reduced by varying those things.
If you consider that the "road" is the bit of the public highway where cars are allowed, then of course adding cycle lanes (other than the weird "optional" ones), or traffic islands, or wider footways, or bus lanes, or parking spaces (etc etc) does reduce that bit.
And my point is? Not sure, actually.
Or any carriage unless propelled by a pedestrian - so pedalling a cycle is not allowed, but pushing it, scooting it (or an actual child's scooter), prams, handcarts, skateboards, are all allowed.
There is a legal distinction between a footway (alongside a carriageway) and a footpath (anywhere else).
Where pedestrians and cyclists are supposed to be allowed to mingle, this needs to be made absolutely clear - see Kingston Market Place for how NOT to do it.
TridentScan | Privacy Policy