“They would never leave a pole in the middle of the road, so why is it acceptable to do so on a cycleway?” Cyclists slam “poor planning” as new bike lane built right into path of zebra crossing pole

Seems crazy, but this is fairly common (certainly in the UK).  Might be:

a) I'm not a highways engineer but there are some very specific and somewhat fiddly legal regulations about permitted geometries of many road features.

b) "Scheduling" - when they could arrange to get certain things done, or the order etc.  Dates slip - of course sometimes due to cock-up.

Example of the 2nd is the Leith Walk tram changes - on at least 2 occasions for some time there were large poles actually erected right in the middle of the cycle path.  Once apparently because they needed to put poles to hold lights while waiting for the new tram power lines (also doubling as light supports), another time because they were waiting on contractors for some impenetrable reason.

Or more to the point - the cycling infra should be clearly marked as closed so long as issues like this exist...

Also councils should be restricted in how many open works they can have (I.E. they can't start road changes until stuff like this is finished to encourage it gets done promptly...)

I honestly can't tell if that is over-the-top satire or if you're just a tw@t... 

There's a tw@t jam here- at least 2 of them here, fighting for our attention

Must be a touch of the sun.
Vehicle that does not use fuel does not pay fuel tax. Should these telsas be paying some extra ad valorum tax ?
I pay for third party insurance but then again as the thread - driver crashes into building shows, I unable to achieve those heights of destruction and consequent £10000s of damage.

Clearly the poles should have priority in this situation so the cycle path is at fault. Although perhaps like redder lights maybe they have to be "established" first?

Here in Oz we drive on the left, and it is expected to walk and ride on the left. That is why a good proportion of our buttons for traffic lights are on the right.

right???

I can accept the argument that we need signage for zebras that isn't ground based as that can be hidden.

But if tourists in an Austrian ski resort can cope with a zebra whose only visible indicator is a retroreflective sign because everything else was buried under snow (including the second sign) then the british should be able to cope with reflective signs and we really shouldn't need belisha beacons (and therefore power for built in lighting)

(seriously, I spent 4 days thinking the drivers were really really polite in stopping to let me cross to hotel before snow melted enough to realise it was a zebra...)

Raised tables could be good.  I guess "since UK" it's "are they a nuisance for cycling" (since we've not yet got cycle paths)?

Wonder about the costs?  That's a lot of material and it needs to be well-enough made and substantial enough that it doesn't start collapsing under the traffic.  (IIRC there are a few ones about Edinburgh looking worse-for-wear).

In NL it would appear that poles are less of a feature except where it's full "traffic lights".  Even where there are more "formal" crossings of the carriageway for motor traffic:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/a-common-urban-intersectio...

However there are some more subtle differences which may make a bigger difference to the pedestrian experience?  The following (long-ish - but hopefully interesting) article sets out some.

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/blog/2013/07/03/how-does-a-dutch-envi...

I'm beginning to wonder if your wheelchair looks like a large car? We hear from court cases that cyclists are always riding into them. Or indeed under.

Because the pedestrian pavement alongside the road crosses it at right angles and one or the other will have to give way. Probably sensible for that to be the cyclists given that you have to stop 1m further on for the road unless you are simply going to blast through the crossing or you are lucky enough to hit it on green.

Your right, it's not finished, but if this was road works (for motorists) would this be acceptable? 

could you imagine closing a road for 2 months with no diversion then finally opening it but leaving a pole in the middle of it for 6 weeks?

Whilst a pole in the middle of a cycleway isn't ideal, it isn't going to cause a major safety problem temporarily that holds back the part opening of a usefull link.  I dont knows the ins and outs of what described by Dr Walker as “A fantastic route" but the alternative with it not in place may not be.   The route only opened this week give them time.  Rome wasn't built in a day.

Note: this is simply a short re-alignment of an existing route. It is useful, but I wouldn't describe it as 'fantastic', though standards vary.

Not now it isn't fantastic but give them time.

One woud think that a large company/plc would schedule the works so that the crossing was completed (inc moving the lighting poles etc) before re-opening the short length of cycle track?

Even then, the route is still blocked a few hundred meters closer to the city centre, so progress once again is hindered.

I love my bike wrote:

One woud think that a large company/plc would schedule the works so that the crossing was completed (inc moving the lighting poles etc) before re-opening the short length of cycle track?

I love my bike wrote:

One woud think that a large company/plc would schedule the works so that the crossing was completed (inc moving the lighting poles etc) before re-opening the short length of cycle track?

Exhibit a - the Edinburgh arms-length trams company, and eg. Leith Walk. (Coverage of "large pole in middle of cycle path" aplenty in old articles in road.cc)

Amen.

Meanwhile in The Netherlands...

Oh yes, the first time I encountered actual real diversions for 'people on a bicycle' because of road works in Netherlands, I realised just how much contempt we have to endure.