Council paints over cycle lane after drivers keep clipping kerb at new pedestrian refuge

Ooh!  Bet a lot of councils would find that attractive; you could easily apply for cash * for implementing bi-direction / double-capacity cycle lanes on both sides of the road and motorists would barely notice!

* I hope the "expectation" that infra is of "sufficient quality" will continue to mean they'd get nothing for stuff like this.  However it may be in the near future that the active travel budget goes from "chicken feed" to to zero anyway.  Or is just diverted to buses or fixing the roads for cars.

As I said (on the Musselburgh post below) this might be sort of helpful for the experienced.  However this really is an example of "sign the hazard better" and likely an ineffective one.  We should be removing the hazard!

I first saw a similar system at a pinch point in Ambleside some years ago, in that case they painted the cycle lane green, and even the most inattentive motorist could not have missed it.

Painting lines where you expect traffic to run over them means that shortly the lines become indistinct and they rarely are properly maintained, so revert to being easily missable, little better than painting them out.

Some of the cycle lanes around Ambleside were terrible. I am glad they've got rid of this one now and just put bike symbols on the road instead...

https://goo.gl/maps/HL4m6cDKjUTeVS7D6

It is a good example where it is trying to get the point across, it fails on width, the one I was thinking of was wider, but as it was 10 years ago or more, it may be my memory, or the simple shock of seeing a bike lane wider than a gangplank then.

There is an odd sign there - do we think that the pavement is a bike lane based on the blue plaque on the left in the second picture?

Not really. If they put in a zebra crossing instead of a refuge, it gives pedestrians priority and removes the pinch point.

I know this place.  Well... yes, primary and all that.  However I don't think "this should be followed" if we want more people cycling.  It's not good enough and for those who are confident competent cyclists already it's superfluous.

Consider - this "infra" is suggesting that vulnerable road users should move out into conflict with more dangerous ones.  This is suggested at a point where they're less able to see (e.g. they'll need to look backwards).  I think at conflict points the ideal is to make it clear what priorities are assumed and always facilitate vulnerable road users to take responsibility for their safety - clear sight lines etc.

Less confident cyclists will likely stay to the left - which makes a "squeeze through" manouever possible.  (Aside - on several occasions motorists have passed me on the opposite side of a pedestrian refuge too, pretty sure we don't want that...)  If you want to help less confident cyclists, remove the danger e.g. don't send them through pinch points.

Again - it might be better for more general use in NL where drivers have been tamed somewhat and there are tons of cyclists.

In my opinion where you need central pedestrian refuges that's a sign you need *protected* cycle tracks / paths. (For mass cycling - if you're happy with the status quo no need for change.)  Or - in the UK where the road is wide enough that even the councils feel they've space to paint cycle lanes, the road is too wide.  Take some of that and make a proper cycle path / decent footways!

I have seen similar widened cycle lanes on the South Deeside Road in Aberdeen. They are also painted red and really encourage the riders out into primary while highlighting to drivers that their line requires temporary use of the cycle lane

... and 20m the other way!

Agreed, but I do find the narrow filter lanes on the approach to traffic lights useful.

Or drive properly, looking ahead, it's a feeble action to appease poor driving. Removing the white line is better than shrinking the cycle lane. I wouldn't worry about it, cycle lanes are optional and not mandatory, which is a good job as most are used for parking.

IanMSpencer wrote:

Added bonus, an inaccessible ASL, in this instance, full of car.

Professional Driver too!

The Dutch solution: make cycle lanes (where the cycle route is shared with cars on a minor road with lower speed limits) so wide that cars must drive in the cycle lane, and thus are prevented from attempting close passes with oncoming traffic.  It also has the added bonus of making the road appear narrower, discouraging high driving speeds.

Random bit of the Netherlands with wide cycle lanes and a good overtake by the red Mazda: https://goo.gl/maps/jz3gcjJKcoiFywzr7 

This works on lower speed limit roads, with 30km/h speed limits very well, although this is of course largely to do with the very different mindset and more mature attitude many (most?) people on the continent have towards cycling.

Good point but I think - like many things in NL (e.g. removing cycle paths!) - this works when you've already got a large number of cyclists.  Almost everyone cycles at some point and if not their family and friends will.  So people driving "get it" and that's reinforce by actual cyclists being there much of the time.

If we just stuck them in over here with our pitiful cycling modal share I don't think it would go so well.  At least for some things it may be we "can't get there from here" - we have to work through some intermediate stages.