New mayor defends “necessary” decision to scrap controversial cycle lane – just eight months after it was installed

Yes - in some ways I think these low-height "light-segregation" things are the worst of all worlds. Orcas, armadillos, whatever you call Edinburgh's Covid-era blocks - which did at least have wands, for a bit.

Of course the actual solution is to have proper separated cycle paths where needed. As part of a network-level city / regional transport plan with cycling as a first-class part of it.

Given the state of the UK and our apparent inability to find more than "developing world" amounts of money for active travel* I think concrete blocks (Jersey barriers) may be the best of this bunch for now.

Pros: actually keep motor vehicles out - few other things do. We already have them and understand them. Relatively cheap - ongoing cost of replacing as motor vehicles run into them of course! More visible and less likely to cause a trip / pedal grind because higher.

Con - We'll need standards. Pedestrians need to cross and I'm sure there will be accessibility concerns. So regular gaps wide enough for accessible use (double-buggy, adapted cycle etc) - but not much more! Maybe tactile paving is needed to guide people to gaps ("I got trapped in the road...")? They don't fix bus stops or junctions of course. Motorist drive into them and damage their cars, and apparently even manage to drive *onto* them and flip over. Finally they're not attractive - can't see the "historic town" / "must be in keeping with the locality" places accepting them without wailing and gnashing of teeth.

For many of those negative I just think "well if you're worried about that you shouldn't be so cheap and you should make a proper separate cycle path instead - that will fix all those concerns".

* Scotland possibly excepted - if we can get this spent where it should be.

There's an overview here from some civil engineering firm with links to views from various organisations (end of article) including a test trial from Glasgow - interesting?

https://mayerbrown.co.uk/keep-up-to-date/blog/posts/orcas-and-armadillos...

IanMSpencer wrote:

Having bitterly complained about orcas myself, tonight, some 18 months after the local bike lane had them installed, most of the orcas in one section have been destroyed by motorists and motorists ignore them when they want to stop in the cycle lane.

There's a bit of a 'broken windows' effect too - as soon as a couple of wands or orcas or whatever have been broken (vandalised?) by one motorist, other motorists then seem to think it's acceptable and break or vandalise others, and so on and so on.

I've never worked out whether councils only repair when someone complains or whether they send someone out to do a drive-around / ride-around to check.  It's not like most councils have a lot of cycling infrastructure, so it wouldn't be that big a job...

Exactly.  It says in the article

Quote:

However, despite the new scheme increasing the number of cyclists using the road by 70 percent, the low Orca dividers initially used to separate the bike lane from traffic through ‘light’ segregation were condemned for both creating a safety hazard for cyclists and pedestrians while also failing to deter motorists from driving or parking in the cycle lane.

therefore the real problem here is the "motorists ... driving or parking in the cycle lane", surely?

Yup.  To add in pesky complications / details - it will be much more painful for people in the UK.   That's because a) cycling as mainstream "transport" effectively went extinct here while it still existed in NL / some parts of Scandinavia
b) ... as did "cycle paths / tracks".  The UK has had outbursts of building these (1930s, 1960s, ...) but this always seems to be quickly forgotten.
c) ...and we also made a political choice to focus on road freight and transport over e.g. rail.
d) ... and our public transport is very spotty.

We've centralised and essentially built ourselves into motor dependency to a greater degree than other places now trying to "tame the car".

It's also the case that we refuse to set binding standards for cycle infra provision, design etc.  Or indeed serious, actionable nationwide policy - as opposed to "sorry... we're a bit tight for cash because important things".

In a number of places there are now some pro-active-travel things starting to happen. It's just very slow and small.

On the other hand, we're not tackling the problem side.  We're still continuing the driveogenic policies which have got us where we are.

Is it that politicians feel that managing driving and increasing active travel isn't really important?  It's definitely the case that some see it as a "political suicide" issue, a way to damage their career for potentially little benefit.  An example is Boris Johnson who claimed (apparently sincerely...) that as Mayor of London  he was in favour of doing more but if he had he'd have been out at the next election.

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

It's taken the Danish and Netherlands almost 50 years to build their current network, it's not something that can be achieved quickly, or by believing white paint is the answer.

We'll continue to be n+ however many years behind until we start.  That means doing this in an organised way and at a national level.

Yes. I scoffed when I read the words "strategic plan" in relation to this.