Cycle lane protest in Clevedon.

[Fastpedaller]

They should keep the echelon parking - Ideal as a tourist attraction by way of a Le-mans style start to the race!
Oh..... maybe I've missed something

 

[Alex321]

If this was Denmark they would turn that huge footpath into a shared use cycle path/ footpath.

But maybe they do not have that concept in the UK.

There are quite large numbers of shared use cycle/footpaths in the UK.

Including quite a few seafront ones, such as this one https://www.google.com/maps/@51.678...-no-pi-0-ya220.34738-ro-0-fo100!7i6080!8i3040

Which I cycled along on Saturday, along with 4 others towards the end of our ride.

 

[steveindenmark]

There are quite large numbers of shared use cycle/footpaths in the UK.

Including quite a few seafront ones, such as this one https://www.google.com/maps/@51.678...-no-pi-0-ya220.34738-ro-0-fo100!7i6080!8i3040

Which I cycled along on Saturday, along with 4 others towards the end of our ride.

That would have been a better solution. But then the non existant pedestrians would complain.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I didn't say it mattered, zippy... But the local newspaper mentioned the costs without mentioning how it was funded which i thought was worth mentioning im sorry if this was offensive or completely irrelevant... The cost and the "it's a waste of money" argument is both not proven and is quite subjective as you say. I put forward on a later response the public consultation paper, in which the public's concerns were addressed by the council. It seemed they tried to address as many concerns as they could. Once again, it is a simple case of not being able to please all people, all of the time.

no offense, but it is often used used as a way to justify the cost, there is currently a big argument in Doncaster about cycleways, the council is spending millions on paths, some which appear to lead nowhere, some supporters are using the argument below that's it's not coming from Doncaster but Central Government.

Central Government have been giving local councils monies for pedestrian and cycling improvements. It cannot be spent for anything else but most objectors always miss that.

My point though is, if & emphasis on the if, it is a waste of money & it's being spent just for the sake of it being spent the source doesn't matter. We risk going into NCrAP territory but the way Council's who have been prudent & have an excess at the end of the year, then throw it at anything otherwise they don't get it next year is just daft.

 

[Fastpedaller]

A case in point of a 'waste of money' is related below. I wouldn't usually be so adamant that it is a waste of money, but there really can be no argument to support what was done. Anyway, here it is......
(for clarity this was done before the recent Highway Code 'reinforcement of priority')
In Cromer (North Norfolk) there is a T junction where pedestrians regularly cross. At the cost of £130k the council made a red coloured crossing area. This IS NOT A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING and has no legal basis. So we now have motorists (rightly or wrongly) turning into the road as pedestrians cross. It is not a surprise to learn that many of the pedestrians consider it is 'a pedestrian crossing'
It seems in hindsight (and surely also before the change), that it would have been better to leave as is (the peds knowing they had to be careful) or installing a zebra or pelican crossing, but "we'll waste £130K and put peds in more danger" was the chosen remedy.

 

[mjr]

A case in point of a 'waste of money' is related below. I wouldn't usually be so adamant that it is a waste of money, but there really can be no argument to support what was done. Anyway, here it is......
(for clarity this was done before the recent Highway Code 'reinforcement of priority')
In Cromer (North Norfolk) there is a T junction where pedestrians regularly cross. At the cost of £130k the council made a red coloured crossing area. This IS NOT A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING and has no legal basis. So we now have motorists (rightly or wrongly) turning into the road as pedestrians cross. It is not a surprise to learn that many of the pedestrians consider it is 'a pedestrian crossing'
It seems in hindsight (and surely also before the change), that it would have been better to leave as is (the peds knowing they had to be careful) or installing a zebra or pelican crossing, but "we'll waste £130K and put peds in more danger" was the chosen remedy.

Surely motorists turning into the road should give way to crossing pedestrians anyway? If a bit of red paint increases driver compliance, that seems good to me. I can name far bigger wastes of money in Norfolk, such as the NDR (A1270) budget overrun, the botched Tombland section of the pink Norwich pedalway (discussed in an old thread on here, average cost £15k/m in the end after three goes IIRC) or the councils all hiring lawyers to face off at the inquiry into the Willows incinerator plan (county for the operator, borough for the residents).

 

[Ming the Merciless]

the council is spending millions on paths, some which appear to lead nowhere

Best rip up all those cul-de-sacs built for much more, and going nowhere.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Best rip up all those cul-de-sacs built for much more, and going nowhere.

The point of your post is?

 

[Alex321]

Best rip up all those cul-de-sacs built for much more, and going nowhere.

They go to the houses built around them.

 

[MontyVeda]

If this was Denmark they would turn that huge footpath into a shared use cycle path/ footpath.

But maybe they do not have that concept in the UK.

plenty of shared use cycle/footpaths around my area. Only the main one between Lancaster and Morecambe has a segregating white line, the rest don't, including Morecambe's promenade. The entire UK has plenty of shared use paths too, being canal towpaths and bridleways.

In the case of Clevedon, it makes little sense to put the cyclists on the existing pavement when the even huger road has room for a cycle path, a wide yellow 'door' zone, loads of parking spaces, not to mention the actual road itself.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

They go to the houses built around them.

Wow, thanks for that insight, who’d have guessed they might build houses round these dead ends?

 

[Alex321]

Wow, thanks for that insight, who’d have guessed they might build houses round these dead ends?

Obviously not you, since you said they go nowhere.

The point is that they don't "go nowhere", they go to those houses.

 

[mjr]

Obviously not you, since you said they go nowhere.

The point is that they don't "go nowhere", they go to those houses.

This seems closely related to the argument that some cycleway shouldn't be built because it won't connect to other cycleways or go to all possible nearby destinations. You can tell this is a bogus argument because the same isn't applied to motorways and, if applied to carriageways, would have prevented the whole network ever starting.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Obviously not you, since you said they go nowhere.

The point is that they don't "go nowhere", they go to those houses.

Go back to the post I was replying to, and was quoted in context, and you “might” see the point I was trying to make. The cycleways don’t “go nowhere” either, but if you think they do, you’ll have the same view of cul de sacs. That’s the point, not the one you came up with. I really shouldn’t have had to explain that.

 

[Fastpedaller]

Surely motorists turning into the road should give way to crossing pedestrians anyway? If a bit of red paint increases driver compliance, that seems good to me. I can name far bigger wastes of money in Norfolk, such as the NDR (A1270) budget overrun, the botched Tombland section of the pink Norwich pedalway (discussed in an old thread on here, average cost £15k/m in the end after three goes IIRC) or the councils all hiring lawyers to face off at the inquiry into the Willows incinerator plan (county for the operator, borough for the residents).

Absolutely, but it seems to be a problem that pedestrians have 'increased confidence' and are prepared to leap out in front of vehicles when they really shouldn't. As you correctly state there are far bigger financial 'pits' - the Western link (or whatever they choose to call it) to join the NDR to the A47 may never happen, but even if it doesn't will cost tens of millions just for the investigations.