"Only in Florida...": Rider with "armed cyclist" jersey, close-passing flags and countless bike lights goes viral... again; Jeremy Vine responds to those "focusing rage" on cyclists; A PROPER turbo set-up + more on the live blog

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.

alexuk wrote:

stop at Red's

If Red's not in go and look for him at Andy Dufresne's place...

alexuk wrote:

It's not hard. Don't be a c**t.

Sage advice for one and all I think. I might prefer personally to use a non gendered term but I agree with the sentiment.

At first I thought your comment was clever sarcasm but then I realised, no, just another Guardian reading woke lefty..

grOg wrote:

At first I thought your comment was clever sarcasm but then I realised, no, just another Guardian reading woke lefty..

You say that like it's a bad thing...?

grOg wrote:

At first I thought your comment was clever sarcasm but then I realised, no, just another Guardian reading woke lefty..

I refer the honourable gentleman to the comment I made earlier.

HoarseMann wrote:

The second is actually quite easy to solve - just don't bother with zebra crossings over cycle lanes. The more I think about it, the more I just don't think they are required. I don't think I have ever struggled to cross a cycle lane. They're so narrow you're across in a couple of steps and it's not hard to find a gap in the flow of cyclists like it can be to cross a wide and busy road.

I would absolutely agree with that for the vast majority of pedestrians but it doesn't solve the problem for visually impaired people, does it? They can't look for the gap in the flow of cyclists and so they do need somewhere where at least theoretically cyclists are going to stop when they see them wanting to cross. I did think of a solution for the floating bus stop problem last night as I was riding through several in Battersea, the trouble is it would be a lot more expensive than having a few white lines on the road, but anyway: why not have a post by the side of the crossing with a large sign on it reading "Caution, vulnerable person crossing" which could be illuminated/flash and maybe have some kind of audible warning as well when a pelican-style button on the post was pushed. This could then be used by the elderly, disabled, parents with buggies etc to alert cyclists. As I say, it would be pricey but I think it could work; I'm convinced that the majority of cyclists who behave in an inconsiderate manner are just being thoughtless rather than deliberately aggressive and that given a suitable warning that a vulnerable person needed to cross the cycle lane they would respond positively.

Rendel Harris wrote:

This could then be used by the elderly, disabled, parents with buggies etc

The problem, of course, is that it could actually be used by anyone. Which means if you see the warning signs you have no idea whether there's a real vulnerable person there, an entitled dickhead, or just someone who thinks it's funny.

And when that happens, the signs don't get respected because they're mostly bollocks and you're back to square one.

The_Ewan wrote:

The problem, of course, is that it could actually be used by anyone. Which means if you see the warning signs you have no idea whether there's a real vulnerable person there, an entitled dickhead, or just someone who thinks it's funny.

And when that happens, the signs don't get respected because they're mostly bollocks and you're back to square one.

There is that potential for it to be a problem although if it was being used by genuine crossers it wouldn't matter if they were really vulnerable or "an entitled dickhead", given that cyclists should stop to let passengers across from a floating bus stop anyway, regardless of disability, the effect would be the same. Of course the occasional knobber might think it's funny to press it without having the intention to cross; this occasionally happens with pelican crossings but pretty rarely, I don't see why it would happen more often with my suggestion. I still think it has some merit (well I would say that, wouldn't I?), the cost would be the main stumbling block although it costs a fortune to build a floating bus stop so as a percentage of the overall outlay I don't think it would push the costs up enormously.

I guess the criteria would be solely its value or not in reassuring the worried crossers. Seems some have now just decided cyclists can't be trusted and can't be detected (unlike drivers or cyclists on the road apparently...) So not sure of the value.

For cyclists - at least from my observations in Edinburgh - the issue is less people stepping out than people standing around (where more than a couple are waiting they tend to occupy the cycle path). Or people walking several abreast (hello abreast- fanciers!) on footway and cycle path because of the natural human social tendency to travel like this.

I suspect that the solution is - like with cars - kind of "might is right". Once there are sufficiently greater numbers of cyclists it becomes less pleasant * - and socially less acceptable - for people to be in "someone else's space".

* because you're worried about drivers (roads) or cyclists (cycle path) running into you, and because you will get some comments from those "entitled" people using "their space" - eg. "Get out of the road / cycle path, you ..."

Rendel Harris wrote:

but it doesn't solve the problem for visually impaired people, does it? They can't look for the gap in the flow of cyclists 

Well, I think they probably can to some extent, with a guide dog or some technical radar/imaging device.

No doubt a crossing that is adhered to will make this easier, but there can't be crossings everywhere and I am sure there are instances where they need to use a shared path, cross a road or cycle lane, that is not near a bus stop. So what happens then?

My preference would be for greater protections for blind/partially sighted, so that other road users (including other pedestrians!) pay more attention to the fact they are there and accommodate their movements, irrespective of the presence of a crossing or not. Maybe with some legislation and an educational advertising campaign - posters on bus stops would seem appropriate!

HoarseMann wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

but it doesn't solve the problem for visually impaired people, does it? They can't look for the gap in the flow of cyclists 

Well, I think they probably can to some extent, with a guide dog or some technical radar/imaging device.

Different speeds / gap sizes - but how do those dogs manage to cope with cars - or even cyclists already riding on roads?  (And let's face it even on London's "world-beating" cycle infra it's not nose-to-tail everywhere all the time - though there are some impressive crowds in some videos...).

HoarseMann wrote:

there can't be crossings everywhere and I am sure there are instances where they need to use a shared path, cross a road or cycle lane, that is not near a bus stop. So what happens then?

I was going to say "don't mention side-roads!" - although I presume the response is  "but people can can hear the cars coming but not the cyclists".  Though listening for cars is imperfect and in busy city locations can be less helpful.

TBH it is hard to make this sound positive for partially sighted people in the short term - it's more asking for apparent sacrifices from those who have the fewest priveledges.  Even though in the longer term with things like "continuous footway at side roads", greater distance from motor traffic (you're behind the cyclepath) and reduced motor traffic volumes and speeds it really is an improvement.

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.