"Like playing Russian roulette": Blind people raise concerns about 'floating' cycle lane bus stops

.

Adam, Adam - be careful. Be VERY careful.

.

On this site, cyclists are NEVER in the wrong.

.

And on those few occasions when they are, in fact, in the wrong - well, see Rule 1. above.

.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

 

But I suspect (totally unfairly) that the petition raiser isnt looking for solutions - just crusading.

I'm all for blind people crusading for consistent road designs - too often blind and/or disabled people are just forgotten about when councils try to "fix" roads and junctions.

In Bristol, we have a "Shared Space" behind Temple Meads Station that allows a free mix of cars, cyclists and pedestrians, but that was deemed as being very scary for blind users as they had no idea where they were supposed to walk as there's no kerbs.

Word!

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/12/the-devastating-effect-of-s...

In general - you say "shared space!" I say "No!"

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/04/shared-space-revisited-hype...

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/document/interactions-and-conflict-be...

It's the fear of injury that's the issue, rather than the actual rate of injury.

So you can quote the stats all day long but unless those registered blind people, and I'd add the elderly or people with physical impairment into the same group, feel comfortable it's really not an issue for them, they wont be happy and will continue to object to these schemes.

Problem is there is no way to have both "no cyclists going past - to make pedestrians feel safe" AND "cyclists not interacting with buses at every stop - to make them feel safe".  (Now waiting for pictures of buses equipped with ramps at either end so cyclists can cycle right over them, or traffic-light-controlled switch-points where cyclists cross to the outside of unloading buses and then back again...)

The UK has experimented with putting cycle provision on the inside of pedestrians.  I think in general this causes more problems than "cycle provision between pedestrians and motor vehicles".  However this is done (e.g. the very new "cyclops junctions") there is no getting around pedestrians needing to cross a cycle path at some point.

Visually impaired people have already got used to the apparently much more objectively dangerous streetscapes designed for or appropriated by motor vehicles.  Not to mention dealing with those vehicles - moving or parked - themselves.  The UK government is apparently regularising electric scooters so there are more things that disabled people will have to learn to deal with, likely without much further official consideration.  I suspect that they'll simply have to get used to dealing with these bus stop designs like they do in e.g. NL (but likely with more fussy layouts because UK).  Whether we get many more or whether - like so many initiatives to enable active travel in the UK - this stalls is an open question.

Unusual to use an email address for a public facing username. Was that a deliberate choice?

If we get to where we might want to with cycling (mass cycling) this really isn't needed.  Cyclist - pedestrian interactions are self-regulating, insofar as that ever happens in human affairs.  See BicycleDutch's article and video here, featuring a brief clip of someone with a visual imparement crossing roads and cycleways.  It looks chaotic but - as I've experienced - after a short time in that environment you learn how to navigate it and it doesn't seem any inconvenience to you.

EDIT: if we allow some kind of "speed pedelec" or achieve the rare feat of establishing genuine cycle highways (never mind "superhighways") it might be sensible to consider this.  Currently I'm only aware of the Netherlands starting to get to this point - we're likely many decades away.

However in the UK this is all new.  It's rare to encounter cyclists and cycling is a (tiny) minority activity.  I guess it might make sense to implement some of these reassurances for pedestrians.  However it's important that this doesn't make cycling more inconvenient (cf. "cyclists dismount!") or further the impression that people need protection from "dangerous cyclists".  Otherwise we'll soon not need these "pedestrian assistance" measures again!

In the case of the complainant in the article what we're dealing with is someone who's got used to the current situation.  They've learned to accept and work within a really dangerous and inconvenient environment with cars (and their infrastructure - kerbs, road signage poles ...) everywhere.  So - even though it may improve things long-term - any change from now is frightening (since it's already bad) and seems an inconvenience.

You have to find them first. I think the wider issue is undifferentiated cycle and pavement. A white line on the pavement doesn't mean anything to a dog and may not be visible to a blind person who is able to get around to some extent. Not all partially sighted people use guide dogs, some can manage with a stick (quite a lot of blind people have some vision which may allow them to cope while needing to manage obstacles that they can't distinguish well). A pavement with an edge is easier to manage because it can be felt. Remember also that a lot of these people will learn their regular routes.

The other problem is that while there is a tactile area, understanding the hazard it is guiding you to and what is at the end of the area isn't explained simply by the presence of dimples. In part this goes back to learning routes, but a tactile area only leads you to the hazard, not through it.

Always a good idea to offer assistance at any crossing - "Would you like help crossing the road?" - they'll soon let you know if they would like it or not.

You mean that paint offers no protection...

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I don't get it.

Why aren't the tactile guides sufficient?  Genuine question.

Maybe there aren't any or not enough of them. The problem is also with the guide dogs not knowing about cycle lanes.

.

Surely motor vehicles cant present a danger can they??? *sarcastic face*

I have seen several examples of people trying to argue a charity for disabled group objects to infra completely, on basis that they campaign that it needs mitigation X.

As the easy example given, blind user complaining that they can't identify cycle lanes. It doesn't show grade separation or separated lanes is wrong, it shows grade separation needs a minimum height differential (or some other measure) to allow for identification.

Of course this also leads to awful arguments where campaigners on both sides end up arguing about an issue that they could probably agree on (the infra needs slight changes) because third parties are trying to use it to prevent any infra changes...

Also picking up on the article, a 60mm kerb could be installed near floating bus stops to give guid dogs a visual clue.

There are other issues, like the guide dog never starts a movement, it has to be commanded, it will stop if it detects a threat, so blind people, paradoxically, might be less confident around cyclists than cars and lorries. However, although a cyclist may not be heard in the same way, but obviously there is opportunity for communication - a cyclist should recognise the situation ane be able to talk to the visually impaired person.

I would like to think it shouldn't be a problem but I suspect cyclists have a similar percentage of idiots as the general population, perhaps with a slightly lower percentage of mentally unstable people who turn into homicidal maniacs if their journey appears to be under threat of temporary delay by the wrong sort of road user.