CityConnect defends 75cm Leeds-Bradford Cycle Superhighway

Quote:

there is no protection from the law anyway.

Well if that's the case, then maybe that's the problem to be addressed, rather than admitting that the roads are for the Proper People in their cars, and cyclists should be on a narrow bit of pavement with the pedestrians and dogs.

According to Britsh Standards for anthrometrics doorways should be 800mm clear width. But a cyclist needs more room than a pedestrian walking though a doorway. My Licence The Driver's Manual suggests 1m clearance and 1.5m clearance over 60kph eg 37mph. 

I am inclinded to think that some drivers, the dimmest will think that they can ovetake a cyclist as close as the cycle lane marking on the road, rather than no less than the width of the cycle lane plus 1m or if faster 1.5m or more. Probably a lot of motorists will be breaking the 30mph limit, unless it's on a road where there are speed traps.

I think that due consideration has to be given that some motorists are too dim to realise they are driving too close to a cyclist.  Cycle lanes need to be wider than a few inches or so of the width of the average man, eg. I'm 55cm wide.  A cycle lane 75cm wide is only a few inches wider than me.  The bicycle is remarkably unstable compared to a motorcycle. If you have ridden a motorcycle you would have realised when you first rode it how rock steady it was on the road compared to your bicycle. 

Pavements are supposed to be no narrower than 1m (footpath width) so why should a cycle lane be any narrower. Cyclists vary in their ability as well.

The trouble is what they have basically done is built an extra bit of pavement for cyclists, with similar priorities to pedestrians, when what we wanted was the equivalent of a bus lane for cyclists, a 'bike priority lane' if you like.

i was anticipating the thirty million quid also included actually taking the route right into town, but they've bottled out of that bit (supposedly coming at a later stage) and the track finishes well short of the centre leaving the most dangerous parts of the journey unimproved. Meanwhile major development is taking place on or adjacent to these routes (particularly Wellington St and Whitehall Rd) that could have been forced under the planning system to cede a bit of space (and section 106 money) for cycling infrastructure, but that kind of strategic joined-up thinking is just not there in Leeds, and it's evident in just about everything the council does.

the police can't stop you from not using the cycle lane.

​I know. But there have been plenty of incidents where they have stopped and "advised" cyclists who have opted for the road. There was an example in London last week on this website.

There WILL come a time when cyclists who opt out of using dedicated infrastructure can no longer count on the protection of the law, in any practical sense.

Leeds CC have a cracking track record on transport infrastructure.  The guided bus lanes which we built..but only certain buses can use.  The supertram which cost £XXmillions over a decade..luckily never got round to building that.  There can be no surprise that the cycle lanes are in places so bad, they'd be amusing if some one was not going to be hurt.

It sounds as if this "cycle route" will keep the Warrington Cycle Campaign's Facility of the Month in material for years. Not that there is any shortage of crap facilities.

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/

If you commute between Leeds and Bradford by bike, you are now worse off than before. You must either use the inadequate cycle path and lose priority to motorised traffic at all of the side turnings, thus making their journeys longer, less convenient and more dangerous, or else mix it on the road with frustrated drivers who don't understand why you're not on the cycle path.

Expect to see "cyclist wasn't using the cycle lane provided" as a mitigating factor in court, along with "cyclist wasn't wearing hi viz" and all the rest of that shite.

Expect to be pulled by the police for not using the cycle lane.

Cyclists are being effectively forced off these roads. Mark my words.

You quote Ginny Leonard as saying

“We are committed to getting it right and we’ve involved local cyclists, cycling organisations (including Cycling UK) and cycling campaigns in the design from a very early stage in the development of the scheme."

This is deeply misleading - as WillC says, plans were presented as fait accompli, consultations ignored. As problems have emerged in the construction of it (there is a good catalogue of these on the https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/ blog) emails and phone calls have been ignored. The re-launched city connect website no longer has a blog function to allow comments, and the new set of "consultation" events are scheduled for wednesday afternoons when many people affected are at work, with no way of feeding into these events if you are unable to attend (e.g. there is no way of emailing comments to be discussed in the consultation).

In other words, there is a strong suspicion that the CityConnect people know they are building a gold-plated catastrophe, but their efforts are going into PR, suppressing criticism and managing their image, rather than actually building proper infrastructure.

Just for the record, Leeds Cycling Campaign *was* 'involved' in the design of this cycle route. We were presented with the route as a fait accompli, and pointed out it was a poor choice due to all the side roads and big junctions. Nevertheless, it was a case of getting involved and having *some* input, or walking away and having none. We saw draft plans and commented on them, all the obvious stuff - safe and direct side road crossings, tables, reduced radius corners, minimal number of toucans on the major junctions etc. The planners seemed to take this into consideration although a few junctions were very unsatisfactory. Once work started we asked for the final plans. These were not, and never been made available. This is disturbing, especially as some junctions have differed markedly from our understanding of what was agreed. 

This route is hugely ambitious, and ought to be better than anything we've ever had. The designers were hobbled in route choice by a majority of councillors simply not believing in cycling. Consequently it's a compromise, and arguably a disappointing one given the knowledge available of these sort of scheme both in the uk and abroad. 

I'm trying to keep an open mind. There are large numbers of people with bikes who never cycle. Maybe this scheme will get them out. Maybe the good bits will dwarf the rubbish bits. Maybe we can all push our elected reps to fix the rubbish bits. Maybe in 10 years we'll see the scheme and all its troubles as a turning point. We'll have to wait and see, when, as CityConnect keep telling us, 'it's open'.

So, about this new Leeds to Bradford motorway. We've had complaints it's only 1.9m wide and you can't get a lorry down it or even some SUVs, but we consulted with the Triumph Motorcycle Club and the Classic Mini Owners Association, so we know it's up to scratch. Now, we know some people are unhappy at having to give way to the B5413, the B5314, the B5134, the B5143 and Little Cowpatch Lane, but the only alternative was building bridges. I mean, that costs money! And lastly, the chicane in the fast lane. That's to slow you down. There would be complaints of speeding otherwise, we're sure of it. That's why the chicane is in the fast lane not the slow lane. We are confident our new motor facility will greater contribute to safer, more convenient driving. Thank you. 

There was a cracking example on Look North, the regioonal news programme, the other night.  They have introduced coloured tarmac and removed road markings (including pedestrian crossings) to confuse motorists and get them to slow down at a three way junction on the route where there wasn't enough space to split out the path.  Except they haven't told anyone what it represents, so the motorists were just ploughing straight through across the 'roundabout' in the centre and not stopping at all for the crossings.  Whilst the colours are different it is totally unclear what their purpose is, and good luck at night spotting the difference.

Cyclists who opt to stay on the road, rather than yield at every side turning and dodge earphone-wearing pedestrians, will now be subject to "gerronthefookin'cyclepath" type attitudes from drivers. Which is why bad infrastructure is worse than no infrastructure at all.

Anyone else a little confused? This was created to make cycling safer and easier. Yet pinch points and side streets have been built in to slow cyclist down.

So this piece of cycling infrastructure  was designed to make cycling worse, whilst increasing parking and improving roads. Leeds Council, leopard and spots.

Brian Deegan's response (of TfL).

I like it, it's like an assault course! 

Cyclepaths only exist so planners can overload roads with cars and trucks. They dont have to actually function. 

>Ginny Leonard, a spokesperson for CityConnect

>However, some bus stops (pictured, above) narrow to 75cm for a maximum of 8m where there is “insufficient space”. She added this creates “pinch points” to  slow cyclists down for pedestrians.

From the same people who put in speedbumps on the Leeds-Liverpool Canal.

>Roger Geffen, Policy Director of national cycling charity, Cycling UK, said he is not looking to blame the local authority

What a pussy, who else it to blame then?