It doesn't improve anything you apologistSorry to read that @subaqua but you really need to attack TfL for not doing what LCC wanted. Most junctions on CS2 don't have tight corners for motorists because the splitter kerb stops too far back, making them effectively the first example in my article.CS2 is basically a very expensive way to improve things slightly between junctions while making junctions worse.
That claim's flawed and unless you've got new evidence since the last time I debunked it, let's not debate it again now.
...and then you cite something else which isn't in my article. Again, please discuss that somewhere else.
Missing verb?
Bizarrely, most traffic modelling considers uncontrolled crossings like these not to affect flow at all, which is why we get them even in places where traffic signals would be far better.
Because it only worked for the fit and the brave - those stubborn enough to tootle along a bus lane with taxis and buses by your back wheel or fast enough it wasn't much of an issue.
No segregationists here. :P I'd be quite happy if we took any or all of the other measures to support cycling and so cycle tracks weren't needed.
They're public roads and I'll ride on them if I want to. :P
Again, not in the article, but rest assured, we get abused to use cycle tracks even on roads where they do not exist. They've been around over 80 years, so most motorists know about them and we can't put that particular genie back in the bottle easily.
Except pretty much the only time I am put in danger by close passes is when there's a cycle lane I'm not in along side me and I am punished for not using it.
Not too rude I hope.
No. Yes. I don't know, agree with what?
A perfect amount of rude.
No apology required - that all seemed like fair comment. It's a thousand words so I don't think it's too long (have you seen how wordy planning guidance is?) but writing a shorter summary to go alongside it may be a good idea. The word-play is a bit love-or-hate - I think I'll drop it from the headline but keep it later on. I'll look for a better photograph (suggestions welcome). I don't want to use engineering drawings because some non-specialists don't seem able to relate them to real situations easily (to put it politely).
It doesn't look like there's space unless one of the side junctions is closed, or the side road on the right-hand side is lowered a bit further and the cycle track put on a bridge over it. Where is it? Can one of the other infrastructure tactics be used instead?
Prosecutions are a bit of a joke lately but I don't think they'd be sufficient on their own; infrastructure as a priority, not the priority; and we haven't got what we're asking for yet, so we'll be going for another little lie-down outside TfL at 5pm on the 27th and you're all very welcome to join us. Where were you hooked and was it reported to police?
Yes, thankful for that, but it would be useful to report it so that there's a more accurate picture of collisions on these routes, regardless of one's views on them. It looks like the Met doesn't allow this to be done online 
and a form has to be printed off of http://content.met.police.uk/cs/Sat...goBlobs&blobwhere=1283543215337&ssbinary=trueYes, returning the lane to carriageway early enough to allow cyclists to take primary was one option and the other was to continue the kerbs right up to square with the junction and make cars cross a cycle track which continued at the raised level, so motorists would have had to slow down... but at some junctions I've seen, TfL did neither and allow motorists to make a lovely wide fast sweep across cycle lane and collect any passing cyclists, who have no way to get out of the way without bumping down a high kerb.
Sometimes they seem to get it right, but we must keep dragging the daffodils back until they build the rest properly.
Cycling is not walking with wheels underneath. A bicycle is a vehicle, which is why planning cycling must be made with the planning principles of vehicle traffic. Simply stopping at the bad crossing design is not enough, as crossing is constrained to where the carriageway and cycle track meet, which usually means you have to wait until you can see it's simultaneously clear from all directions. Even if you don't have to wait, each stop is like another hundred metres on the journey and when you don't move fast, that's even more precious time lost. More cycling is wanted so that we can keep pollution and congestion down and keep our towns and cities moving.
No, its users have chosen what should be a more fun/less stress option of a cycle track (which is the proper name). It's difficult to make a general safety case for cycle track or carriageway, but I'd like both to be built without unnecessary dangers. I feel carriageway designs are better at the moment, but I do seek improvements where needed, such as removing those nasty guardrails which cyclists can get crushed into.
