“No wonder cyclists use roads instead”: Locals slam “higgledy-piggledy” cycle lane with barriers and misaligned separators

Thanks for the local knowledge!

Looks a bit of a mixed bag, to say the least.  Good that it's continous across side streets (are they going to do the footway also?)  Drivers here - that's an issue, it is on the Edinburgh CCWEL here (parts of which look neater).  Will take a generation for drivers to work them out.  (Spoiler - too many trips being driven).

UK standard, e.g. narrow cycle track ("but our roads are too narrow...")  Appears to have a bit of the "down a bit, then back up over a kerb, then back down" cross-section which apparently was part of the reason for issues on the "deadly" Keynsham cycle track.

Bus stop not the worst I've seen but as you say looks a mess compared to the (quite varied) ones that the Dutch somehow manage to survive.

As for users - it's difficult again because we existing cyclists have adapted (riding despite the conditions).  For current non-cyclists (potential cyclists) it's a hard sell - comparing anything less than "full Dutch" to the safety and convenience of their current trips (mostly driven).

OTOH there is evidence that if you make a network of sufficient quality they *will* come.

I'm still not convinced why we needed Cyclops junctions* but am yet to try.

I've read the info, watched Ranty Highwayman on them etc.  It's not that they look bad in principle - I just don't think they're convincingly better than e.g. a design that's been in active use for decades across at least one country.

Why do we need to literally road test a novelty?

Is it not just "not invented here"?  Or at least "the optics" of "but this is a UK design, for UK conditions" to try to get round skeptical politicos and planners, or to avoid getting blocked on UK rules?  If the Dutch one just didn't work for some legal reason(s) then I suspect the UK one will be fudged somewhere!  Because our current rules definitely don't help us with safety AND convenience when it comes to active travel (by philosophy - they're about motor traffic capacity in safety).

The difference is in that other country they have presumed liability (or even strict) and drivers know how to drive so simple design works

Perhaps - although lots of people seem to think the former does things it doesn't [1] [2] [3].  And the "but they are better at x!" is often a sign to take second thought too - or at least may hide a more complex reality.  I suspect - don't know - that having more awareness (regularly cycling yourself) and "skin in the game" (your friends are relatives are cycling out there) may have some effect.  In concert with all the other things that make the roadscape in that place different.

Forgot to ask (but suspect I know the answer) - single or bi-directional?

Also at the side streets obviously cars should have to go up to the footway / cycle way level (which should remain the same) - is that happening?

Again "We didn't need this" - well, in theory (and hopefully in practice) initially it's not for you (or me), but for those not cycling.  Hopefully eventually leading us to a virtuous circle where fewer people drive, more people complain the cycling isn't up to scratch, more space is taken from motor traffic etc.

Of course I don't know the scheme so it may be the usual UK "not enough, and meanwhile it's still too easy to drive, park..."

Yep - we're (all) paying for shoddy work.
Probably over the odds because cycle infra is still "custom work", I bet.

What's more there's an extra dimension of "complaints? Ungrateful b*******". And the locals* may think "they built it and we didn't see it overflowing with cyclists within a week. Proved this was a waste of cash and pointless inconvenience to everyone else! We'll definitely start hassling the council / MP / whoever will listen".

Of course variable results or even substandard work is nothing new for UK public infra **. However that has more effect on cycling infra I'd suggest. Compared to driving cyclists don't have the shock absorbing systems of cars at their disposal. Compared to pedestrians they're less manoeuvrable / may have less time to react. Plus you can't "step over" things (yes - "but just get off and walk" is exactly what we say to drivers, isn't it?). Here I'm thinking about "cycling and wheeling" use of these cycle tracks - plus the dinky wheels of escooters. I'm hoping we can move towards a Netherlands-style situation where we realise that "cycle infra" also means "also great for those with disabilities" rather than the current UK "let those not in cars fight each other over scraps".

* "Local" often is "I drive past there sometimes" of course...

** In Edinburgh this has of course happened on roads e.g. duff resurfacing work - but pretty sure they've been back and fixed defects in reasonable time.

Not the worst I've seen by a long way. However I've no issue with this complaint in general. Bikes aren't cars (heavy suspension). Nor are most mountain bikes.

There's a continuum between "just make it flat and level" via "UK road" * to "UK cycle facility" (footways should be better also but tend to the lower end because cars).

* Actually mostly smooth apart from road damage and "features" like drains, metal covers and cats eyes.

Point is - these are for the *cyclists we don't have* in the UK ( including those with disabilities), pedestrians will need to negotiate them etc. So not just for us existing hardy / from my cold dead hands / this is all training for MTB types.

Sometimes this is deliberate (as opposed to "that'll do, cost enough as it is") and "for reason" but actually seems petty? As if giving cyclists their own space is actually sending the wrong signals so they have to do something to put people in their place.

Case in point N. St. Davids Street in Edinburgh - fairly new bit of infra, only about 50 metres, just crossing a single one-way side street. The good - continuous cyclepath. However this pic doesn't show it well but they've managed to design in several humps along the way in this short space. Apparently level access for pedestrians to bus stops, crossing the street etc. All for making it better for those on foot but this doesn't seem to have bothered the council before, eg. when it comes to roads... Selective concern?

Those "not cyclists" waiting for some perfectly built infra, are in for a long wait.

Do these people also refuse to walk on pavements because some of the slabs aren't always perfectly aligned, or the tarmac has a slight dip in it ?

Is it unrideable, is it unsafe ? If the answer to both is no,then really what's the issue ?

6 months from now some utilities company will have dug a trench through it anyway.

stonojnr wrote:

Those "not cyclists" waiting for some perfectly built infra, are in for a long wait. Do these people also refuse to walk on pavements because some of the slabs aren't always perfectly aligned, or the tarmac has a slight dip in it ? Is it unrideable, is it unsafe ? If the answer to both is no,then really what's the issue ? 6 months from now some utilities company will have dug a trench through it anyway.

Well... to mangle poetry: they're not waiting, but driving.

It's not about perfect - it's about the balance point.  Crudely "cycling must be at least as convenient / attractive as the current competitors for a journey e.g. mostly  driving".  Logical really - why would most people choose something less convenient?  Since driving is so normal in the UK most people don't even think of alternatives.  So even with parity of "ease" this is a tough ask.  One factor that is a constant is "but nobody else cycles".  So it has to be good enough to get a trickle of "normal" people cycling so that everyone else will eventually follow...

The conundrum is this:

Some people (to be found on this forum) really like cycling.

A few people like cycling so much they'll regularly cycle in bad weather, deliberately cycle up hills or for long distances or at over 20mph.  Or will share the roads with large, fast, loud, dangerous vehicles occasionally driven by those who are sometimes grumpy and occasionally angry and/or keen to inflict fear or harm.

Many people actually enjoy the activity of cycling*.  But just not as keenly as the previous groups.  And what humans mostly want to do is to get about efficiently and reasonably quickly to achieve the tasks / things we really care about in life (shopping, work, education, looking after people, socialising) with as little additional stress as possible.  The mode of transport is chosen just to facilitate that. **

In some places / countries that last group - always the majority - sometimes choose cycling as the most convenient way of achieving some of those journeys.  We know this varies by country (e.g. barely any do so in most of the UK, the US etc.).  That alone doesn't do much to "explain" this - there are lots of differences between most countries (and within them).  What points the way is that there are examples of place where this has changed - e.g. where effectively no-one used to cycle and now a substantial minority do.

* Yes!  However - that's conditional on lots of other things not blocking their enjoyment eg. weather is reasonable, they're doing it socially, people aren't pointing at them and laughing at their clothes / saying "bloody cyclist", there are no stressors like motor vehicles or pedestrians to dodge, they don't keep having to stop / dismount, it's not competitive / all about the suffering.

** Occasionally there's a more "recreational" aspect (a perhaps surprising proportion of car journeys are effectively "for leisure" e.g. see overall purposes here).  So we might go for a stroll with people.  Perhaps tellingly that is the one thing that UK cycling infrastructure effectively (sometimes deliberately) blocks - while acknowledging this desire for other modes.

stonojnr wrote:

Not sure what the problem is,people realise roads aren't perfectly square and have undulations right ? But there you go, must be nice to have some dedicated infra to moan about.

Would have to ride it to be sure but it's a fairly safe assumption that if the contractors can't even get the dividers straight they'll get other things wrong: even from that photograph I can see variable camber and rippled tarmac. Are we supposed to so grateful when we're allowed 15% of the road width that we shouldn't complain when it's done ridiculously badly?

Rendel Harris wrote:

if the contractors can't even get the dividers straight they'll get other things wrong

If they're so careless with work people can see, what half-assery is hidden in the lower sections of the construction work? I bet with ground settling and subsequent water ingress and damage, despite avoiding the action of lorries, vans and heavy cars, it'll be potholed to crap within 12 months.

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

if the contractors can't even get the dividers straight they'll get other things wrong

If they're so careless with work people can see, what half-assery is hidden in the lower sections of the construction work? I bet with ground settling and subsequent water ingress and damage, despite avoiding the action of lorries, vans and heavy cars, it'll be potholed to crap within 12 months.

No, the surface will endure for many years, so all those imperfectinos will so no attention as the road cycle path has not deteriorated.