Campaigners say trees planted in cycle lane will make Norwich “a national laughing stock”

The bit I struggle with is "will make Norwich a national laughing stock". Will?

Post Alan Partridge, Sale of the Century and a Norwich resident on Radio 4 who, when asked to say what was good about the city, came up with "It's compact and reasonably clean" - did Norwich actually need any more?

If anyone can do so very quickly and with little fuss, I suggest putting something similar into a "normal" road along with a picture of this to show equal treatment for all road users.

Presumably any large enough potholes should help with planting...

Where to start?!

Good Norwich new cycle infrastructure:

https://goo.gl/maps/yVjw6Wsw6S5qb8oPA

^ This raised the bar dramatically and our expectations but they have not done anything else this good).

https://goo.gl/maps/Ki2AuU9nhy3stTyh6

^ Good looking but never used and money could and should have been spent elsewhere. You also have to cross  oncoming single lane of traffic at the end which has cause one death and one injury.

https://goo.gl/maps/LvQmimWV5MwStAk78

^ Widened to 2 way but old one was fine and now there are people walking in it which when it was road level kerb protected both saides (one way) no-one did.

Bad infrastructure:

https://goo.gl/maps/1RRVo5P36S539W9a6

^ No-one expects cyclists coming other way on when turning from  right to left roads. It's not much quicker and full of trade vehicles during the day.

https://goo.gl/maps/hRp9qL1Kcj1Nigut7

^ Out of date Google streetview , they removed grass and widened but only for 2/3 of the road and it's one of the busiest cycle routes for the Uni. Good but ran out of money and council claimed most cyclists did not go to the University stright on but turned right. They also lied about adding removed grass somewhere else.

https://goo.gl/maps/nV68D7uFkcxLyDwP8

^ Botched upgrade to protected lanes, they forgot about tree roots  and had to make this death trap.

https://goo.gl/maps/fQgQLiMqqq2v4AV86 &

https://goo.gl/maps/gT1Ezsr5urAPwYqy9

^ ^ Infamous invisible bicyles paths which cost obscene amounts to pave with decor matching non slip bricks . Full of peds and tourists. If they had a different coloured zone  in blue there would be much less issues. They are not that bad but for the money they don't work well.

Unfortunately dobbo it looks like a very expensive bodge, and cyclists will be critisised for not wanting to use it if they otherwise wish to make progress at any real speed.  And cyclists had better like it because it cost a lot and it's all they are getting.  Who on earth did they consult on this rubbish?

I think we should all just leaf it and stick to our day jobs before anyone twigs on... this is a treemendous scheme and I get sycamore comments having a dig at this root 

Look how narrow the pavement is, so that 'cycle path' will be full of people walking, all shouting at people on bicycles - "gerrof the pavement you tosser!" 

I'm presuming that the tree pits are those bits at the right hand side of the photo (with the trees in)?  Were the trees there first or did they plant them instead of building speed bumps?  If they were there first, its laziness in not building the marked cycle lane two feet to the left; if they were actually planted there then its sheer incompetence (IMO).

Whilst it looks a bit of a design mistake can I ask..has anyone ever had the misfortune of cycling in/around Sheffield!!

We have cycle lanes that are like that song. "Road to Nowhere" everywhere..oh they paint them red so at least it's obvious when you are suddenly NOT in the cycle lane that ends for no apparent reason.

Shared footpath cycle lanes are not really cycle lanes when they are just standard footpaths with a bike painted on them are they...really....

I went to a small town called Jackson in Wyoming USA a couple of years ago, it was a lovely place, and what struck me most..nearly everyone cycled everywhere, because they had dedicated 2 lane mini freeways fenced off for cycling!!! 

I know you cant do that in an already crowded city environment, but surely you can do better than just painting what appear to be totally random red strips everywhere, and thinking you have created a superhighway! Mind you Sheffield City Council are nothistorically renowned for sensible decision making so why should cycle infrastructure be any better!!

Whilst it looks a bit of a design mistake can I ask..has anyone ever had the misfortune of cycling in/around Sheffield!!

We have cycle lanes that are like that song. "Road to Nowhere" everywhere..oh they paint them red so at least it's obvious when you are suddenly NOT in the cycle lane that ends for no apparent reason.

Shared footpath cycle lanes are not really cycle lanes when they are just standard footpaths with a bike painted on them are they...really....

I went to a small town called Jackson in Wyoming USA a couple of years ago, it was a lovely place, and what struck me most..nearly everyone cycled everywhere, because they had dedicated 2 lane mini freeways fenced off for cycling!!! 

I know you cant do that in an already crowded city environment, but surely you can do better than just painting what appear to be totally random red strips everywhere, and thinking you have created a superhighway! Mind you Sheffield City Council are nothistorically renowned for sensible decision making so why should cycle infrastructure be any better!!

Whilst it looks a bit of a design mistake can I ask..has anyone ever had the misfortune of cycling in/around Sheffield!!

We have cycle lanes that are like that song. "Road to Nowhere" everywhere..oh they paint them red so at least it's obvious when you are suddenly NOT in the cycle lane that ends for no apparent reason.

Shared footpath cycle lanes are not really cycle lanes when they are just standard footpaths with a bike painted on them are they...really....

I went to a small town called Jackson in Wyoming USA a couple of years ago, it was a lovely place, and what struck me most..nearly everyone cycled everywhere, because they had dedicated 2 lane mini freeways fenced off for cycling!!! 

I know you cant do that in an already crowded city environment, but surely you can do better than just painting what appear to be totally random red strips everywhere, and thinking you have created a superhighway! Mind you Sheffield City Council are nothistorically renowned for sensible decision making so why should cycle infrastructure be any better!!

Norwich Council Spokesperson

"The trees are at the edge of an extended pavement which will be levelled off providing a much wider area for cycling and the designs which were consulted on widely have passed all necessary safety checks."

So does that mean we are making an assumption the black bity is a cycle lane as that comment to me is that the whole pavement is for cycling on. 

Goodness me. I commute along this road. This is not the first completely hair-brained scheme that had made cycling worse. I’ve even changed the route I commute because the city council installed a designated cycle route in particular sections where none existed before.

I looked at these plans a while ago and I wasn’t (and still am not) sure exactly how a cyclist reaches this part of the route anyway. The road from the station splits in 2 and and is largely one way route into town, so a cyclist on the left has to cross the lane to get to the middle of the 2 way road to then go up this contraflow where the road splits  

On the other hand, some works in the city have been big improvements, and there are much more car-free spaces, so it’s not all bad.

Trees? In your cycle lane? You'd be lucky. Round 'ere we have bus stops, parked cars, loose dogs, wandering pedestrians, those annoying a-frames, speedbumps, broken glass, dog turds and landmines*. Makes every commute a cyclo-cross session.

Kids nowadays, don't know they are born

(only one of these is fictional from my Leeds-based commute). 

NFN

What a load of twat-woffle their response is.  "Consulted on widely" - meaning, we asked a few people, then ignored any comment from cyclists and did what we were going to do anyway?  "Passed all necessary safety checks" - who decided which were 'necessary'?

Why do they never plant trees in the middle of the road, if it's so safe?

Problem with standards is that they are not mandatory. When Norwich City Council states they are following London Cycle Design Standards, what they mean is they have read them, they acknowledge them, but they then do what they feel gets close enough given what they see as traffic priorities (i.e. motor traffic). In Glasgow I was similarly told that a horrible facility was "based upon" Scotland's guide. Cycling by Design. Did it conform, did it b*llocks.

Is there some local authority competition for the most utterly inept, incompetent and just plain bonkers highways department?  As Richard Bearman says, it doesn't match anything in London Cycling Design Standards, or any of the other cycle design guidelines, but perhaps they were using "Crap Cycle lanes" as guidance rather than a warning?

Presumably this followed the usual steps of applying for the grant, with the condition of consultation with local interest groups, then the consultation which had lots of pix of an idyllic cycling oasis and promises of the highest quality infrastructure which everyone agreed was wonderful, then the abysmal reality.   I'm sure Norwich CC will be robustly on the case, but I hope they'll be featuring a few things, like misleading consultation, and the possibility that the money was granted under false premises, if it was for high quality cycling infrastructure.  And of course, if any cyclist is injured as a result, they can expect to be sued.

Can I wish them the best of luck and please keep us updated.