"The more cycle, the fewer drive. The fewer drive, the fewer die...": Jeremy Vine responds to those "focusing rage" on cyclists, makes the case for floating bus stops "making roads safer for everyone" + more on the live blog

Have heard about the rumble strips.  Ultimately if they're not in NL (where there are thousands of these things in use every day all across the country) they're not needed.

Given where we are in the UK though it may be we can't get direct to the best design (when there is population-level "mass cycling" across the whole country at over a fifth of ALL trips!) but have to work our way there via some intermediate place?

I have zero evidence but I wonder if there may have been some motivated "selective concern" amplifying this...  (without dismissing the genuine concerns, as per my other posts).

Absolutely.  Unfortunately I think it will be just like how it was when cars appeared (only much, much less bloody) as it's partly "learn by experience" for the more vulnerable mode in some situations.  So while we should try to do as much education as possible (campaigns etc.) some of it is going to be people just stepping out without thinking or looking - and hopefully having a shouty "jeezus!  You nearly hit me!" moment rather than being run into.

Also agree on the "no to zebra crossing" - at least that is where we will find we end up (if we get there) because it simply isn't a problem for pedestrians to informally cross 99.9% of cycle paths, even where they're really busy:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/06/12/how-hard-is-it-to-cross-th...

Honestly. "Just don't bother with Zebra crossings over cycle lanes". Highway code is clear, peds are the most vulnerable and should have right of way. God forbid a cyclist is ever inconvienced and has to slow down and stop for another! I bet that same stupid argument has been used on the telegraph comments section "Its EASY to cross a road, you don't need zebra crossings!".

This is the poisoned attitude that so many young cyclists have. When in control of a vehicle, you have a responsibility to others. Don't asume that being on a bike or in a car, somehow makes you immune to the rules that others have to follow. Stop of Zeb's and stop at Red's. It's not hard. Don't be a c**t.

Partly.  I think the RNIB has been pretty good at working with others in the past. (It's even less the case that "the blind and visually impaired lobby is setting the tone" than "cyclists have taken over...)  However there does seem to have been an increase in concern recently: I'm not sure if this is just some work by a previously fringe group (NFBUK) in getting their "no to bus stop bypasses" message across.  I suspect it could have something to do with a sudden receptiveness of certain politicians and the era of "plan for drivers" (e.g. selective concern).

That aside - there are a couple of issues:

a) Right design.  Of the common designs one is definitely "inferior" for pedestrians (Copenhagen-style - although I'm not aware this is causing carnage over there...).  The design more commonly used in e.g. NL has some benefits, albeit it needs a bit more space.  (More on both here).

b) Designs should be "intuitive" as much as possible e.g. should be clear without needing tons of signs / markings.  They should also be standardised as much as possible.  This helps everyone learn them (including cyclists and those without visual impairments!) Exact designs certainly vary in NL but we have the luxury of not having so many "historic situations" in the UK.  (Although actually the idea is not new in the UK at all - but previously it was really "for cars"!).

c) Getting the right implementation is very important. So appropriate level changes / kerb heights and angles / direct crossing to the boarding area as appropriate.

It's also not simply a matter of "show us the KSI numbers then".  Just as with driving impacting active travel we have to be aware of the effect of "suppression of another group".

If those with visual impairments are simply afraid of going certain places / using certain facilities that is an issue, whatever the actual casualty numbers.

(Of course - we could ask for actual numbers on that but of course that could mean bringing about the situation that we're trying to avoid...)

I don't think that addressing those concerns should mean simply not going ahead with certain kinds of infra which appear (from long testing) to be very safe.  Or restricting cycling.  But this concern really does need to be addressed.

Consider the cycling analogy - it is statistically very safe to cycle.  Yet most people in the UK simply won't cycle on the roads in traffic, where motor traffic speeds are high or around larger vehicles (again - slight pinch of salt when people are reporting why they aren't doing something).

Saying "it's safe - very few die or are maimed!  Just get on your bike and do it!" does nothing to address this fear and change behaviour (even though the fear may exaggerate the danger).  Even saying "but these are all trained and tested drivers!  They're even driving vehicles with identifying number plates, and there are road police etc." likewise doesn't reassure anyone.

Finally there's also the fact that this is "change".  Until the UK has (fairly) standard infra and cyclists using it everywhere some people are still going to be "startled" to find cyclists "in their space".  (I've discovered this with pedestrians using infra that's been there for years, in Edinburgh...)

And some cyclists are going to make mistakes due to ignorance.  And there is concern about "bad cyclists" - however the latter isn't something we can entirely address with infra.  There will always be a few "yobs" - but that applies to people walking, driving and cycling and is a different set of issues).  We just need to ensure that new designs won't make things *worse* given the likely mistakes and perhaps some kinds of misbehaviour we will get.

Overall - unfortunately I think as with most changes it may be "it gets a bit worse before it gets much better" - and those with e.g. visual impairments as normal may be most impacted.