Roads that give cyclists priority.

Cycle streets work on quiet roads. On main roads, they are just paint and a sign. Drivers ignore them.

The 2.4 million price tag is the real problem. That money should have gone into protected bike lanes, not a sign telling drivers to be nice.
 
Removing all road markings and delineation between pavement and road is what works, apparently.

It slows drivers down and makes them more cautious.
 
As you've brought up the topic of "what it was meant to be", much of our road network "was meant to be" for the use of pedestrians, horses and later, for bicycles.
No doubt, and without studying the history of it, I assume road tax for cars, HGVs etc has increased to reflect their road usage. Irrelevant anyway, as we've all agreed it goes into the general taxation pot.
I was just commenting on nosey's post about Amazon not paying enough (non-road) tax. That has nothing to do with the content of the thread.
 
Truly - best reason to avoid Norfolk and Suffolk: too flat for comfort.
Endless roads with unchanging landscape. The real challenge is to stay awake.
I've talked to Dutch cyclists who say although the country is nice and flat the wind is a problem. I doubt it's much windier in the Netherlands than UK, but here I have more trouble with hills than wind.
 
Removing all road markings and delineation between pavement and road is what works, apparently.

It slows drivers down and makes them more cautious.
Poynton is a famous example of this, although there was some controversy when a blind person was knocked down by a car in this area.

Here is the obituary of the designer:

"He said: “I have my severe doubts of the wisdom of giving drivers a green light in the city centre,” believing it gives an inappropriate sense of priority. To demonstrate his schemes were safe, he would often lie down in the middle of the road."
 
Back
Top