Jacob Rees-Mogg calls “optical illusion” cycle lane a “failed experiment” after 59 injuries in a year

Just out of curiosity, but are there any before and after stats available with regard to the installation of this particular cycle lane on Keynsham High?

a. Number of cycle journeys.

b. Number of cyclists injured in collisions with motor vehicles.

c. Number of pedestrian journeys.

d. Number of pedestrian injuries due to collision with motor vehicles.

e. Number of pedestrian v cyclist collisions.

Not saying it is acceptable to replace one danger with another, and there must be a reason for so many people tripping over the kerb, but some perspective on overall increase or reduction of hazard would be helpful.

There IS a failed experiment in this story - but it isn't the bike lane.

The Daily Hate (don't judge me, I have to skim through it for work purposes) has this as its lead story on the website this morning (the comments underneath are treat, nearly all about how dangerous cycling on pavements is even though the story has nothing to do with it), with an added piece underneath about the Cambridge cycle roundabout and its horrendous dangers. One can only conclude that the Hate editorial staff read road.cc to find their stories.

'Minister of State for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency'. ha, ha, ha  

That job didn't last long. Why ever not? There must have been, like, loads and loads of brexitty opportunities to exploit. 😂 

I would call this Tory government a failed experiment and the shower of shite we have had in all its guises over the last 13 years. Can we ditch that too? Along with JRM who is the biggest example of being totally out of touch with modern society 

Just found an article with a better photo of the problem area. Looks like just adding double yellow lines would do the job...

I'm not sure this does conform to LTN 1/20

I'm assuming the hazard is the very low inset kerb between the road and the outer part of the cycle lane where the bollards/planters are. This would cause a slip hazard for cyclists trying to join the cycle lane and a trip hazard for pedestrians crossing the road.

If it's 'low level segregation', then it shouldn't be used here. LTN 1/20 advises against it in areas where pedestrians will be crossing the road.

If it was supposed to be a 'stepped cycle track', then the kerbs don't look high enough - they should be a minimum of 50mm.

I'm not even sure why they went for a low kerb here, there's enough width to do a proper full height kerb separation with the road or just paint a white line.

This looks like a good design. A cycle friendly kerb on one side and a yellow no-parking line on the other which intuitively tells me there is a normal kerb there.

I'm not far from Keynsham (Bath) so haven't cycled down there for a while, so difficult to pass judgement.  What I do know is that the local Bath & NE Somerset conservatives hate the cycle infrastructure with a passion; they all tend to represent the wards outside the built up areas.  For the local elections next week, the conservative manifesto in our ward (it's currently Lib Dem) is to rip up the segregated bike lane (100m going one way on the London Rd (token bit) which is a pretty challenging road on a bike at commute-o-clock) and get rid of all the 20mph speed limits (Bath is a rat-run hell hole at times).  They also want to get rid of the security measures that have removed virtually all traffic from the city centre; that apparently discriminates against disabled people (or they just want to drive in there themselves).  They also toady up to the #together anti-LTN libertarian fruit cakes and regularly post pictures of themselves standing next to compo-faced locals protesting against bollards stopping rat-running.  A prospective candidate managed to screw up his election chances with homophobic comments.  They'll use any old information to make a scene and the local click-bait rag is more than happy to oblige.

So there is a pedestrian risk with a trip hazard on a kerb, due to colouring, profiling etc. This could be resolved easily enough with appropriate painting. But the solution is to scrap the cycling provision entirely, and increase vehicular traffic?

Am I understanding this correctly?

There have been worse experiments. Case in point: giving a sitting politician their own TV talk show.

But if we're talking about experiments in need of reversal, there's a certain one that was begun in 2016. One that he was, until recently, the minister in charge of finding any opportunities from, and the best he could come up with was supposedly happier fish.

sounds like inconsistent design details - one of the first lessons when dealing with public surfaces is to provide consistent realtionships - why steps should all be the same size/height and why boundaries likewise - sounds like the relationship in levels between the pavement, cycle path and road  keep changing. What you know from one section doesnt apply a few meters down the road. Small steps or level changes can often be more dangerous than larger ones due to being harder to spot. 
As usual JRM avoids analysis and twists a solution to fit a different problem.

I'm slightly intrigued by what the high street looks like in real life and whether the "optical illusion" claims are valid. Just from the photos I'm struggling to understand the problem, but how things come out on camera don't always match how people see things (and of course it might only be an issue from certain angles etc.) The rate of injury attributed to the design does seem unusually high.

That said, suggesting the solution is to get rid seems completely daft to me. It doesn't appear to be a deliberate optical illusion or other experimental design (unlike e.g. wobbly lines, wavy curbs, ghost roundabouts). It's a very normal road layout with a pavement separated by a kerb from the carriageway, and painted lines on the carriageway. If there is something particular about the combination of colours or heights or lighting that makes the transitions less obvious, then surely there are fixes that address the problem? A different colour paint? Or a taller kerb - is the problem the apparently very low kerb hindering depth perception from recognising the change in level?

This is all a result of the remainer institutional mind virus.

It would be useful to actually see this.  I think having the street one-way for motor traffic sounds very sensible - this is a "place" e.g. a high-street with lots of shopping etc.  The images don't look particularly bad but presumably there are some odd bits elsewhere?

Looks better than before anyway.  Streetview shows what appears to be some "entry level" interventions (at least they made the street one-way...)  What is going on with those planters? They should be outside of the cycle lane, not inside it.