Viral video déjà vu as taxi driver doesn't wait for child cycling near school; Your N+1 tales — is there one bike to do it all?; Tadej Pogačar — the off-season rapper; How to carry pizza by bike + more on the live blog

Major distributor road?  Should have separate cycle track anyway!  No problems at all here!  (see also the original example - suburban, on the edge of Gouda).

In terms of traffic volume this one is maybe most like the UK case - which probably reflects the UK confusion of "types of road" which try to do too many things (it's a place / destination, it's a major through road, people live on it, it connects other major roads...) as opposed to the Dutch principle of monofunctional roads.  In the Dutch example (Gouda still) if it's a really busy road it might not even have cycling infra - cycling access is catered for elsewhere (and is more direct - like shown here) so we don't even need to worry!

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.022736,4.683775,3a,75y,355.41h,86.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNaZvoQL6XFy3B-RB4xxQQA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Why do petrol stations need to be on the other side of the cycle path and pavement anyway? They're car infrastructure. Just put occasional petrol pumps on small islands, and drivers can stop in the travel lane to refuel. Other motorists will wait patiently behind them for the few minutes this takes, and nobody else will be endangered.

Like a marathon or a cycle race - you could call them... fuel stations?  We could create extra employment and speed the process by having people just handing over a bag with a fuel can in it.  That and contactless payment and the motorists would only need to slow down, not stop!

In a few years time it will be "50KWh bag of electrons please" or stopping in the travel lane for 90 minutes for a recharge. 

In the previous fuel crisis before the last one, some pedestrians raised about drivers blocking footpaths and being bumper to bumper (I imagine to stop a really really small car from getting in the foot or so of space that might be there). 

Some MP tried to put them right by stating the drop kerb is for pedestrians so the entrance is actually priority to cars. I suppose technically he was correct, however the fact that they couldn't move forward until other cars had gone, so could leave 3foot of space for the footpath seemed to be as lost on him as it was the drivers. 

But but pedestrians can move out of the way round the car but you can't block the road *!  That's why drivers have to pull in over the pavement out of the way of other drivers.  Also presumably follow each other closely through amber / red lights at junctions - they're just trying to help everyone get on.

* Snark aside I believe this is still codified as the primary goal for e.g. designers, local authorities etc.  Cf. other countries where the safe movement of people is the primary aim.

That traffic flow thing reminded me of an Ashley Neal comment, (give me a virtual minute, I can't quite think of the context) where he was suggesting doing something to aid traffic flow, where I thought there was a conflict with flow and safety.

I'm not sure this was it, but shows the problem of "being nice". How often have you driven down the motorway, "making progress" at a legal speed when the car you are passing suddenly signals and pops out into the lane in front of you? You actually had a good idea it was going to happen because there was a vehicle on the slip road you are approaching and the driver has moved over for them. But the reality is that:

a) they've slowed you down;

b) they created risk by an ill-considered move.

c) The joining car was not hindered, it may have needed to adjust speed, but that is a normal part of joining. The "cost" of joining has now been transferred to you on the main carriageway, and probably following cars, rather than the joining car.

d) You had already assessed the slip road and recognised there was no obvious conflict that needed cooperation from drivers on the motorway.

e) you may then see extra conflict as the joining car is then able to join a clear lane at higher speeds and gets into conflict with the "polite" driver who is not making progress, leading to undertaking or delays as the driver has to slow and either exchange places or move out two lanes to get around the "polite" driver. At worst, and I've had it happen to me, having completed the overtake, you move back across to the left to find that newbie has got bored and accelerated and is pulling out infront of the middle lane driver, leading to conflict where the accelerating car is in a blind spot.

Add in a bit of being hassled by a driver trying to bully past, and all of a sudden politeness has become confusion and conflict.

My point is that driving for flow may cause bad habits which potentially reduce flow. Rarely appropriate to effectively change priorities.

As you suggest highways engineers are all part of the same team where the target is to move cars as efficiently as possible and cyclists and pedestrians are part of the enemy. Some of the worst problems in Solihull are major road schemes where there have been junction improvements, e.g. J4 of the M42, which historically had a footpath leading to the A34, the original builders of the junction put a footpath around the junction, which was originally 2 lane, but the pedestrian is supposed to traverse 5 lanes width without even a beg button - put they still do get tactile marked dropped kerb to do it in the face of four lanes of motorway traffic straining at the leash! The provided cycle route to avoid the junction adds 500 metres onto a 400 metre crossing, which would also require several beg buttons and dismounts to go through gates.

https://goo.gl/maps/BJRHnq7ekND6XyQg8

Slightly better the the ped/shared paths on the island next to the Airport. When I was attending there for the CWG, I left twice on this route. You have to cross roads with no beg buttons or any light controls with "fast" routes for certain traffic so they don't even need to slow down. Of course that is even if you can get to the path with the bushes in the way in certain parts.

And if you do want to get over to the new exit and shared paths to go into Birmingham, you have to cross several other lanes including travelling 100metres down against the flow of traffic and then crossing and negotiating past a crash barrier. As shown along this path, it seems the council don't have the resources to clean it. You then have to go down this ramp off the bridge before you get to anything reasonably maintained. 

The interesting thing is that Solihull invested in cycle routes from Chelmsley Wood to Solihull TC as part of there regeneration attempts.

For those who are not aware, Chelmsley Wood is poor inner city Birmingham but lumped in with wealthy Solihull for whatever reason back in the day. To give the council their credit, they try and take their responsibility to the area seriously. The obvious desire line from CW to town centre goes straight through the airport, so you are describing the issues where users may actually be cycling due to financial necessity as well as personal preference.

Fortunately, Solihull seem to be resolving the issue by encouraging the major retailers to move out of the TC to Shirley, much further away necessitating an extra bus journey, or a longer cycle, so that would seem to have solved the desire line problem!