"Misinformation" claiming "dangerous" new cycle lane would increase collisions proved wrong as council celebrates new layout reducing incidents and creating "safer environment" for all road users

Motorists are quite happy to ignore any painted lines where they feel they want to proceed.  Give way, no overtaking (especially in Lancs, eh wtjs?) etc.

OTOH we can simplify that: people are quite happy to ignore any painted lines ...

Motorists and the police are quite happy to ignore any painted lines where they feel they want to proceed

https://upride.cc/incident/cu14umk_fiesta_uwlcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/ds16wjx_peugeot_uwlcross/

Agree. Pretty much every junction I pass a drivist has their car nose sticking out into traffic and generally only looking in one direction

But but increase in cases of high blood pressure (possibly after going online)?

Now now - be fair!  I think it also means "...and I might get a nasty shock when I fling open my door and hop out onto the 'pavement' without looking only to find a cyclist pass me closely!  And give me an earful about 'dooring'!"

I lived in Swansea before and after the new tracks were installed, and cycled along the Mayals Rd a couple of times each week. I'm sorry to say that I never used the downhill cycle track because, erm, I thought it was dangerous, or more accurately, would be dangerous at the speeds easily and safely achieved on the road. Why? Because it is narrow, has a few kinks, and adds junctions. The uphill track is pretty useful.

Thank you for the local knowledge.  One out of two ain't bad?  And you get the best of both worlds currently...  Presumably there are people who wouldn't be happy sending their children down the road etc.?

Or is it through your forebearance in not using it that there has been a reduction in crashes? 

If incidents have decreased but people still don't feel it's safe is it not "improve the track" further (the alternative would be "further reduce the motor traffic volume / speeds - guessing that is not on the table?)

Looking at it (online, assuming it's not changed much since 2022) it's ... mixed.  Seems to have some shared space bits (bad), bit narrow, BUT it has half-competent bus stop bypasses (good).  The side roads are also mixed - far from Dutch (not proper "continuous cycle / foot path") but OTOH don't make cyclists divert.

It was the side roads that put me off even though they are marked to give the track priority. I was used to taking primary position for the best view along the side roads before the track was in. The illusion of control, maybe.

I agree that it is a perfectly decent facility for cycling at lower speeds, say <20 kmh, which is why the uphill side worked well for me. It is a fairly long and steep hill, freewheeling down will get you to 40-50 kmh.

I assume the speed limit for motors is now 20 mph, although I had moved away before that change and as a fairly 'main' road it might have remained 30 mph

Also worth noting that Swansea and the surrounding region has some pretty good cycle infrastructure. You can make it most of the way to the Bannau Brycheiniog on good (wide, well surfaced, direct, straight, not excessively busy, few intersections) shared use paths. It also has some bizarre stuff, not least signs asking you to cycle at max 5 mph in singleton park.

Thanks!  Haven't visited Swansea, another for the list...

Edinburgh has similar crossings "protected by colour!" at some juctions but still technically a cycle lane not cycle path / track.  Mostly they work OK since the examples have good sight lines - so I (as a cyclist looking out for myself) can pre-empt issues.

We do have a (mostly) better example of what the UK might usefully do next in urban areas (CCWEL between Murrayfield and Haymarket - streetview here.  Still LOTS of space for motor traffic though!).

In general "shared use paths" do not good cycling infra make.  Although I make good use of the ones in Edinburgh ("I'm 'umbly grateful...") they only "work" for a very low level of walking and cycling.  And it doesn't take many dog walkers to stuff them up for cyclists.  (Never mind they're not friendly to those with visual impairments either).

If they "succeed" - get more users - your speed is going to come right down - unless you care less about pedestrians.   However with sufficient space that could be rectified simply by clearly demarking cycling and pedestrian space.  Ideally with colour / markings and a level change.  Though it will still take a generation or so for people to learn.  I suspect this Dutch idea "works" mostly because there are sufficient cyclists to essentially force pedestrians to keep to "their" space.

Anyway I hope the UK doesn't have to "transition" through much more of this "shared use" kind of stuff (again caveat - except in naturally very low demand cycling and walking areas, like the Dutch do in the countryside).

chrisonabike wrote:

Thanks!  Haven't visited Swansea, another for the list...

"Edward!  There IS a Swansea!"

I think I've been up there on the Gower Getter audax. I vaguely recall being  very grateful for the cycle route so I could get off the road and drop my pace to a more manageable level up the hill!  

Spangly Shiny wrote:

Even when you are able to ram the real stats down their throats the NIMBY's will still whine.

They prefer their alternative facts to real ones.  They believe something, therefore it must be true.

Stupidity. https://bigthink.com/thinking/bonhoeffers-theory-stupidity-evil/#:~:text...'s%20%E2%80%9Ctheory%20of%20stupidity%E2%80%9D%3A,take%20steps%20to%20fight%20it.