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.
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.
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).
The point of your post is?
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.
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.
