"Moronic" much-ridiculed zig-zag cycle lane now blamed as cyclist injured by shallow kerb crash

No, I was referring to the good news that a whole host of scientific studies on the subject have been thoroughly debunked, and that actually a cyclist is better off without a helmet, even in the event of a head injury.

I'm only part way through the list of studies you linked HP, and I don't have access to all of them anyway, so I'm afraid that someone who is more informed than I will have to send Mr Kerr the proof. From the comments on the other threads, it seems that many people here are experts in the mitigation effectiveness of cycle helmets though, so I'm sure someone more learned than I will be both willing and able to oblige.

Has anyone actually said that or are you just humourously misrepresenting those pointing out that a bicycle helmet doesn't magically prevent every head injury, and that the only people who can determine the effectiveness of a specific helmet are the ones who actually test them?

It was approved by adult drivers who are very very keen to "finish what they started" with the tram.  Does that count?

Unfortunately it's because they come from a background of designing roads - and are still being given "maximise motor traffic throughput" as a goal - that we get these designs.  They've clearly now watched some videos of NL but you can't achieve two incompatible ends at once!

chrisonatrike wrote:

Unfortunately it's because they come from a background of designing roads - and are still being given "maximise motor traffic throughput" as a goal - that we get these designs.  They've clearly now watched some videos of NL but you can't achieve two incompatible ends at once!

As cycle lanes have the ability to transport greater numbers of people, wouldn't optimising for cycle traffic also benefit the motor traffic by reducing congestion?

What are you, some kind of Communist civil engineer?  You'll ruin the economy like that...

Clearly optimising for cycle traffic is a way to lose office.  It will reduce motor vehicle capacity.  You'll probably lose government funding for stuff because of some rules about traffic flow.  Some of these woke types will then take you to court because everyone went and sat in a traffic jam anyway so the pollution went up.  The media will be full of chat from people worried about being trapped in their homes because they're "afraid to walk out with cyclists running amok".  Especially the old, disabled and those with children.  Liberals will point out that the elite are now taking helicopters to work while the poor have to spend 4 hours a day on buses and that's all on you.

So everyone will be mad at you.  And nobody cycles right now anyway!

hawkinspeter wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Unfortunately it's because they come from a background of designing roads - and are still being given "maximise motor traffic throughput" as a goal - that we get these designs.  They've clearly now watched some videos of NL but you can't achieve two incompatible ends at once!

As cycle lanes have the ability to transport greater numbers of people, wouldn't optimising for cycle traffic also benefit the motor traffic by reducing congestion?

But cities are built for cars, not people, who cares how many people can pass through?

That was an incredible feat of foresight when the city fathers were designing and building the likes of York, Norwich, London, Cardiff, Edinburgh (old Town), Bristol and many others. At least the main boulevards were built to allow a farmer to turn his cart with a team of oxen in one movement. 

eburtthebike wrote:

The designers should be asked "Would you design a road like that?"  If the answer isn't "yes" they should resign.

EDIT:surely someone has asked why they designed it like that?  What was the answer?

I have it on good authority that the designer replied "cars go vroom, vroom" though apparently there were some crayons stuck in their mouth at the time.

It would take me a full day to put a proper response to this thread and I don't have time for that sadly.

But in summary, the designers get told what they are designing - it won't have been them who decided if cars or cycles were the scheme priority, there'll have been 2 or 3 years of business case with stakeholder & client requirements that determine that.  All tied to what the funding for the project is supposed to provide.   Because you;ve designed roads doesn't mean you can't design other things (in some cases it can though )

The designers may (usually) have been working with one hand tied behind their back as the scheme cannot afford what they may want to provide for a 'proper' finished product.  Back on the first thread on this i said I'm convinved half of the zig zag's are existing utility related - either the project budget couldn't afford all the diversions (the outline business case cost is never what the actual cost is) or the site team went freestyling with change requests when existing stats etc weren't exactly where they were suppsoed to be.

Don't get me wrong - thats a crap cycle lane.  But its not always actually down to what the designers did.  Anyhting that gets complained about in the finished product will have a whole host of discussion and reasoning on how or why its there.

Moist von Lipwig wrote:

Don't get me wrong - thats a crap cycle lane.  But its not always actually down to what the designers did.  Anyhting that gets complained about in the finished product will have a whole host of discussion and reasoning on how or why its there.

I appreciate that, but if a designer is prepared to work in such a dysfunctional job, then they should be prepared to be made fun of for being involved in such a mess. If anything it's far worse that so many people were involved and went along with the stupidity. I can understand cost cutting, but spending money on something that's barely any use at all is just wasting money, especially as they'll have to spend even more money to put it 'right'. Everyone involved is a crayon eating muppet

my point was, the designers are the only ones getting lumped on - they may be the ones totally culpable, they may not,  I don't know - but theres a whole host of people also involved who enabled this to happen who aren't getting a mention.

As Moist puts it.  Here's another engineer pointing out that sometimes politicians avoid what are properly political decisions by punting them off to the engineers (in the context of pedestrian crossings):

Ranty Highwayman wrote:

In the main [the PV2 assessment tool is] a system of triage designed to protect councillors who make resource decisions, rather than actually admitting that people need help to cross the road at a particular site.

eburtthebike wrote:

EDIT:surely someone has asked why they designed it like that?  What was the answer?

As far as I can tell, the short answer is that the cycle lane appears to have been right at the very bottom of the priority list, so every zig and every zag has a different explanation. Everything else was designed in first (or pre-existing infrastructure) and then the cycle lane just squeezed into whatever space happened to be left. Need to go around a drain cover, need to go around a loading bay, need to go around a wheelie bin. In some cases, it was as simple as "we could move this buried cable but that would cost more money and is outwith our contract scope. So we'll just go around it instead".

Exactly.  From a cyclist's perspective (or potential cyclist's, or pedestrian's, or tax-payer's or bus / tram user's or even driver's perspective) it's a misuse of (some of the) funds.  It's the wrong kind of "compromise" or "pragmatism".  The kind where you lose something on one side but don't get anything back on the other.

Not straight as an arrow?  That's OK as long as the diversions are not abrupt, turns are gently curved, the width is good enough for manoevering and you can keep momentum in general.  Oh - not so?  And the cycle path disappears at several points anyway?  And junctions / side road crossings are still a mess?