[...] had a largely negative reaction from pretty much everyone on the local FB group, with comments such as: it leaves nowhere for drivers to go when an ambulance is flashing its way through the traffic (this is the final stretch to A&E).
They could do what they do on every other narrow road: keep going until they reach a gap in the oncoming traffic, thereby enabling the ambulance to weave between them.
Actually, I have some sympathy for this and say that cycle lanes should be wide enough and sturdy enough for emergency vehicles to use them to bypass motorist jams, like on Blackfriars Road in London - but the drawback there is it would mean a lot more two-way cycle lanes/tracks and the ends would have to have cycle-zebras or equivalent for cyclists in one direction to cross to it and back and British councils/government don't have the guts to install them and enforce them sternly.
The lane isn't wide enough to allow one cyclist to overtake another.
So? Use the next lane to overtake when it's clear, like everyone else has to on multilane roads.
Again, I've a bit of sympathy with a similar point: that cycle lanes should be wide enough to allow side-by-side riding so we can talk easily and it at least makes more sense than all those drivers driving around side by side with an empty seat.
The cones are too close together, making it tricky to get out of the lane.
Would you rather they were too far apart, allowing drivers to park in the lane? It's a balancing act. I'm pretty sure I could ride a slalom through those posts. I've seen far worse.
The cones are designed to pop out when struck, which seems to happen a lot... there's always one laid somewhere in the lane.
Would you rather motorists struck the cyclists first instead? Or that the lane is blocked by cars that have crashed into more solid posts?
At least it looks like those posts haven't got kerb-like mounting blocks under them as used in Norwich (Green Pedalway on Earlham Road IIRC), a lot of which are black and basically become a hazardous stealth speed bump if the post gets knocked off.
Last week, the lanes were extended further, much to the bemusement of the local FB group. I reckon it's just another case of the non-cycling planners deciding what is best for cyclists without actually consulting them.
The Dept for Transport didn't give local governments enough time to consult cyclists before bidding. It was about 5 weeks from announcement to allocation I think, so maybe 3 weeks for them to submit a bid comprising several projects, so it was whatever the supplied tools spat out combined with anything they may have had on the shelf ready to go (but the shelves were bare at many councils). Doing things quickly is not great but there was a feeling of "strike while the iron is hot" or more "build while the car engines are cold" - although I feel it still wasn't fast enough.
I suspect that the pictured measure is what something like the Rapid Cycling Prioritisation Tool spat out, which seems to favour highly visible interventions on busy arterial routes with nothing much for cycling. The result is often not top of cyclist wishlists but is at least arguable that it makes some sense.
The process for some of these covid travel measures is to install and demonstrate the changes and then consult on what's actually been built to decide whether it is kept. Chris Boardman has spoken out in favour of that process because it allows councils like Manchester to avoid consultations full of NIMBY we-hate-change motorist replies which predict bogeymen that never materialise if the planners and designers are worth their salt.
Also, there are consultations going on now in many places for what to include in the next round of covid travel projects, the Town Fund projects and any Local Cycling and Walking Implementation Plans. Look for them and tell them what's needed - please coordinate with your local CycleNation, Cycling UK and Sustrans Ranger groups if you have any.
They are sort of labelled COVID-19 ahead
