'Cyclops' junction to be introduced in Manchester is 'genius' says Chris Boardman

Bmblbzzz wrote:

It does look like it will provide a means for the less confident cyclists (that's almost everyone in general population terms but almost no one on a cycling site) to not feel intimidated or overwhelmed. You'll be separated physically from menacing motors and although there are more "decision points" there is only one decision at a time, and it's a simple one (stop or go). No multi-directional traffic to assess. 

But for those already cycling, it's less direct, especially for right turns, and probably more time consuming. Which shows it is in some ways a bit of a cop out: it makes cycling safer/less scary, but not particularly easier. It also does nothing to address the continued dominance of our streets by the car. And what will the timing of those lights be? Who will wait longer – drivers or riders? At least they are proper traffic lights for the cycle tracks, not those crappy "push a button and wait for the green man with accompanying cycle symbol" lights which you can only see while squinting sideways. 

So wouldn't the best way to allow less confident AND children to use this on their own safely to remove the motors completely from this section of the network. There's then ZERO interaction with motors, this creates more conflict points and mire confusion. it's crap IMHO

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

It does look like it will provide a means for the less confident cyclists (that's almost everyone in general population terms but almost no one on a cycling site) to not feel intimidated or overwhelmed. You'll be separated physically from menacing motors and although there are more "decision points" there is only one decision at a time, and it's a simple one (stop or go). No multi-directional traffic to assess. 

But for those already cycling, it's less direct, especially for right turns, and probably more time consuming. Which shows it is in some ways a bit of a cop out: it makes cycling safer/less scary, but not particularly easier. It also does nothing to address the continued dominance of our streets by the car. And what will the timing of those lights be? Who will wait longer – drivers or riders? At least they are proper traffic lights for the cycle tracks, not those crappy "push a button and wait for the green man with accompanying cycle symbol" lights which you can only see while squinting sideways. 

So wouldn't the best way to allow less confident AND children to use this on their own safely to remove the motors completely from this section of the network. There's then ZERO interaction with motors, this creates more conflict points and mire confusion. it's crap IMHO

But why just this section? 

Bmblbzzz wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

It does look like it will provide a means for the less confident cyclists (that's almost everyone in general population terms but almost no one on a cycling site) to not feel intimidated or overwhelmed. You'll be separated physically from menacing motors and although there are more "decision points" there is only one decision at a time, and it's a simple one (stop or go). No multi-directional traffic to assess. 

But for those already cycling, it's less direct, especially for right turns, and probably more time consuming. Which shows it is in some ways a bit of a cop out: it makes cycling safer/less scary, but not particularly easier. It also does nothing to address the continued dominance of our streets by the car. And what will the timing of those lights be? Who will wait longer – drivers or riders? At least they are proper traffic lights for the cycle tracks, not those crappy "push a button and wait for the green man with accompanying cycle symbol" lights which you can only see while squinting sideways. 

So wouldn't the best way to allow less confident AND children to use this on their own safely to remove the motors completely from this section of the network. There's then ZERO interaction with motors, this creates more conflict points and mire confusion. it's crap IMHO

But why just this section? 

Personally I wouldn't just have it as one section, I continue to state that this is not the solution to mass cycling. I'd have cycle only lanes 'on road' throughout all towns and cities, take back roads fom motorists so that they are forced to rethink their mode of transport. it instantly reduces motor traffic, increases cycling for all and makes communities massively safer. We should be aiming for 35% modal share in built up areas, to achieve that we need to take back the roads not 'build' crap like this that still panders to motoring, makes it univiting to children and those who wish to go at a decnt speed.

With a wide cycle only lane that has priority and goes direct (unlike the monstrosity in the photo) all spees and abilities can get along just fine.

Here's France on their motor free days, THIS is what we want!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

It does look like it will provide a means for the less confident cyclists (that's almost everyone in general population terms but almost no one on a cycling site) to not feel intimidated or overwhelmed. You'll be separated physically from menacing motors and although there are more "decision points" there is only one decision at a time, and it's a simple one (stop or go). No multi-directional traffic to assess. 

But for those already cycling, it's less direct, especially for right turns, and probably more time consuming. Which shows it is in some ways a bit of a cop out: it makes cycling safer/less scary, but not particularly easier. It also does nothing to address the continued dominance of our streets by the car. And what will the timing of those lights be? Who will wait longer – drivers or riders? At least they are proper traffic lights for the cycle tracks, not those crappy "push a button and wait for the green man with accompanying cycle symbol" lights which you can only see while squinting sideways. 

So wouldn't the best way to allow less confident AND children to use this on their own safely to remove the motors completely from this section of the network. There's then ZERO interaction with motors, this creates more conflict points and mire confusion. it's crap IMHO

But why just this section? 

Personally I wouldn't just have it as one section, I continue to state that this is not the solution to mass cycling. I'd have cycle only lanes 'on road' throughout all towns and cities, take back roads fom motorists so that they are forced to rethink their mode of transport. it instantly reduces motor traffic, increases cycling for all and makes communities massively safer. We should be aiming for 35% modal share in built up areas, to achieve that we need to take back the roads not 'build' crap like this that still panders to motoring, makes it univiting to children and those who wish to go at a decnt speed.

With a wide cycle only lane that has priority and goes direct (unlike the monstrosity in the photo) all spees and abilities can get along just fine.

Here's France on their motor free days, THIS is what we want!

Well quite! If you're going to remove motor traffic, remove it from the street, not from one bit of the road. 

Great photo btw but what's he doing? I thought at first glance he was playing basketball, which would be a sensible use of the street, but he's not. 

matthewn5 wrote:

Why can't we as a country have a standard colour for cycle tracks?

We have red (Walthamstow), blue (CS2), green (older London facilities), asphalt grey (much of CS3), pale grey (parts of CS1)... and that's in one city! Are there no design standards at all?

Compare the Netherlands: grey is for cars, red is for bikes, job done.

because everything in this country is for sale, including the country itself now. The CSHes are blue because that is the colour of Barclays Bank, the first sponsor of the bike scheme.

burtthebike wrote:

At least someone is trying something innovative and actually considering cyclists and putting their money where their mouth is; unlike national government.

That’s a bit of a sweeping statement regarding government funding there Burt, which I find I disagree with. I would argue that the funding needs to increase significantly, but there is funding available and CB and Andy Burnham have been tapping into those funding streams. This is a quote from a 2018 MEN news article reporting about CB’s infrastructure plans;

”How will it be funded?

So far, Andy Burnham, Greater Manchester Mayor, has allocated £160m from a Government grant to the scheme, which is subject to approval by Greater Manchester Combined Authority this Friday. This could be boosted to £250m by cash contributions from the district councils.”

Here is the Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Once again, it needs to be increased but I feel it wrong to say that they aren’t putting their money where their mouth is. As more schemes are built and their success measured funding strategy will change for the better as the politicians see evidence of the “win, win” when it comes to congestion, pollution, public health and costs to the NHS amongst the many other benefits.

PP

Pilot Pete wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

At least someone is trying something innovative and actually considering cyclists and putting their money where their mouth is; unlike national government.

 

Here is the Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Once again, it needs to be increased but I feel it wrong to say that they aren’t putting their money where their mouth is. As more schemes are built and their success measured funding strategy will change for the better as the politicians see evidence of the “win, win” when it comes to congestion, pollution, public health and costs to the NHS amongst the many other benefits.

PP

The CWIS, ably summed up by CUK as very little strategy and even less investment.  Compared to what is being spent on road and rail, despite being at least twenty times better value for money, it barely reaches the level of insult.  Then you assume that politicians learn lessons!  If they did, the funding for CWIS would already be 100 times what it is now, but politicians really, really don't care and are too stupid to learn generally, even when presented with the facts a thousand times.  If they haven't learned yet, they are never going to.

burtthebike wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

At least someone is trying something innovative and actually considering cyclists and putting their money where their mouth is; unlike national government.

 

Here is the Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Once again, it needs to be increased but I feel it wrong to say that they aren’t putting their money where their mouth is. As more schemes are built and their success measured funding strategy will change for the better as the politicians see evidence of the “win, win” when it comes to congestion, pollution, public health and costs to the NHS amongst the many other benefits.

PP

The CWIS, ably summed up by CUK as very little strategy and even less investment.  Compared to what is being spent on road and rail, despite being at least twenty times better value for money, it barely reaches the level of insult.  Then you assume that politicians learn lessons!  If they did, the funding for CWIS would already be 100 times what it is now, but politicians really, really don't care and are too stupid to learn generally, even when presented with the facts a thousand times.  If they haven't learned yet, they are never going to.

Again, a bit sweeping in generalisation. Sure the budget is not enough, sure it’s a fraction of what is spent on vehicular transport, but it is changing and will continue to change. How much was spent 20 years ago? How much will be spent 20 years from now? It’s like turning an oil tanker, but the turn has started. Public opinion is slowly changing. Remember when the Green Party was seen as a bunch of loony Greenham Common CND supporters? Surely you have seen the difference amongst your neighbours and the people across your town regarding global warming and pollution and single use plastics and smoking and littering and their children’s future and so on and so forth?

Remember, politicians need to get voted back into power. Certainly at local level I have seen a change in recent years and our staunchly Conservative town council and never-been-anything-other-than-Conservative county council have just been thrown out and a coalition of independent candidates, Lib Dem’s and Labour candidates have taken control, my wife being one of them and she is now Cycling and Walking Champion for our county.

After 4 years on the town council banging her head against the wall trying to turn her oil tanker and losing the will to keep going she decided on a shit or bust tactic of getting a whole bunch of like minded individuals to stand against the incumbent Conservatives and it worked - they are now a small minority with no chance of getting any policies they want voted through. It has been a sea change at both Town and County level, with active transport now firmly top of the agenda. It will take some time to convert plans into policy and to fully funded projects but the ball is rolling and the political will is now there. Many funding streams are available and up to now it has been cities who have been tapping into these and building infrastructure. We will be one of very few towns that start to tap those funding streams. The tide IS turning and the people want it. The politicians WILL follow when they realise the votes up for grabs.

PP 

Pilot Pete wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

At least someone is trying something innovative and actually considering cyclists and putting their money where their mouth is; unlike national government.

 

Here is the Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Once again, it needs to be increased but I feel it wrong to say that they aren’t putting their money where their mouth is. As more schemes are built and their success measured funding strategy will change for the better as the politicians see evidence of the “win, win” when it comes to congestion, pollution, public health and costs to the NHS amongst the many other benefits.

PP

The CWIS, ably summed up by CUK as very little strategy and even less investment.  Compared to what is being spent on road and rail, despite being at least twenty times better value for money, it barely reaches the level of insult.  Then you assume that politicians learn lessons!  If they did, the funding for CWIS would already be 100 times what it is now, but politicians really, really don't care and are too stupid to learn generally, even when presented with the facts a thousand times.  If they haven't learned yet, they are never going to.

Again, a bit sweeping in generalisation. Sure the budget is not enough, sure it’s a fraction of what is spent on vehicular transport, but it is changing and will continue to change. How much was spent 20 years ago? How much will be spent 20 years from now? It’s like turning an oil tanker, but the turn has started. Public opinion is slowly changing. Remember when the Green Party was seen as a bunch of loony Greenham Common CND supporters? Surely you have seen the difference amongst your neighbours and the people across your town regarding global warming and pollution and single use plastics and smoking and littering and their children’s future and so on and so forth?

Remember, politicians need to get voted back into power. Certainly at local level I have seen a change in recent years and our staunchly Conservative town council and never-been-anything-other-than-Conservative county council have just been thrown out and a coalition of independent candidates, Lib Dem’s and Labour candidates have taken control, my wife being one of them and she is now Cycling and Walking Champion for our county.

After 4 years on the town council banging her head against the wall trying to turn her oil tanker and losing the will to keep going she decided on a shit or bust tactic of getting a whole bunch of like minded individuals to stand against the incumbent Conservatives and it worked - they are now a small minority with no chance of getting any policies they want voted through. It has been a sea change at both Town and County level, with active transport now firmly top of the agenda. It will take some time to convert plans into policy and to fully funded projects but the ball is rolling and the political will is now there. Many funding streams are available and up to now it has been cities who have been tapping into these and building infrastructure. We will be one of very few towns that start to tap those funding streams. The tide IS turning and the people want it. The politicians WILL follow when they realise the votes up for grabs.

PP 

That's great news, but it is only one place, like Manchester, not the national government.  My point still stands; that the national government, despite all their wonderfully optimistic supportive statements about cycling, are deliberately starving it of funds, and the facts bear me out, notwithstanding a few local examples.  HS2?  £56bn ++++: cycling? peanuts.

The facts have been known for at least thirty years; health, pollution, congestion, danger, climate change, but the politicians, and the media, have ignored the single biggest contributor to the solution to all these things, and now they are all a crisis, and the government still aren't pouring money into it.  Any rational government would be spending £56bn on cycling, not a rail project with no economic case.

BoJo may well confound me, but despite his appointment of Gilligan, I doubt it.  He has also appointed Patel, so disingenuous and devious that May was forced to sack her, and Cummings, who AFAIK, is still in contempt of parliament; doesn't bode well for anything, let alone something as hateful to his core voters as cycling.

burtthebike wrote:

Interesting, but I'm reminded of the Dutch CROW criteria for cycling infrastructure, which should be direct, convenient, safe and attractive; apologies if I've forgotten something.  Does this proposal meet those criteria?  It does look quite complicated and therefore likely to be confusing and possibly less safe as a result, but as others have said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

At least someone is trying something innovative and actually considering cyclists and putting their money where their mouth is; unlike national government.

Exactly: if someone approaches it, then stops and has to google it to work out how to use it properly (and not get themself killed!) then its not been designed very well, has it?

darrenleroy wrote:

This does look a dog's dinner. It would have cost the earth as well. Just introduce a law that forces vehicles to slow to 10mph when approaching junctions from 50 yards back (stick speed cameras up to catch those who don't and plough the fines back into better road infrastructure), get rid of traffic lights and command drivers to take turns to let each other out. Put some responsibility back into driver's hands. It's cheaper, it requires less ugly and expensive street furniture, and it's easier to implement.

Wonderful thinking - have drivers approach a high risk, hazard dense situation staring at their speedo in order to comply with an unrepresentative speed limit. 

On the other hand, I do agree - councils have become over reliant on traffic lights and at certain junctions the added “risk” means drivers slow down, focus on the situation and are more aware of other road users.

Organon wrote:

So many so called 'cyclists' are just 'people on bikes'

Yes, all of them in fact. What does this even mean?

srchar wrote:

Organon wrote:

So many so called 'cyclists' are just 'people on bikes'

Yes, all of them in fact. What does this even mean?

I think its

Cyclists = People riding a bike in a way I agree with / approve.

People on bikes = People riding a bike in way I disapprove of / disagree with.

Chris wrote:

@Xena Who are the Alphabet people?

THe alphabet people refers to the lunatics out there like the SJW’s  ( true example ) and so called progressive lunatics etc who  say they support woman’s rights ,yet support a man who wears a wig calls himself a woman and beats the shit out of his woman opposition. There the alphabet people .  Idiots . https://www.bjjee.com/articles/transgender-mma-fighter-who-broke-female-...

“ jesus wept “ I’m an atheist but it’s a bill hicks quote .

mpdouglas wrote:

Xena has a point! Just look at how you would go straight on in the second picture, if you were approaching from the same position as the silver car. I can't even see half of what is planned on the green cycle path because it's out of shot, but I can see 3 zebra crossings and one give way, and it would seem a set of traffic lights to cross the side road on the left. If these start getting introduced widely, there will be utter chaos, with cyclists that refuse to obey any signals whatsoever, pedestrians/dogs etc wandering all over the place. I'll stick to behaving like a car and ride straight through on the main traffic lights, thank you very much! And if you do get side swiped by an impatient car as you cross that sideroad, it will be vicious because it will be at 90 degrees and at speed!

The point is. if you want to go straight on and you're a confident cyclist you can - just stay in the main lane as you suggest.

Those who are currently too scared to cycle because of having to negotiate busy junctions can follow the yellow brick.. erm, sorry ... follow the green cyle lane instead.

CygnusX1 wrote:

mpdouglas wrote:

Xena has a point! Just look at how you would go straight on in the second picture, if you were approaching from the same position as the silver car. I can't even see half of what is planned on the green cycle path because it's out of shot, but I can see 3 zebra crossings and one give way, and it would seem a set of traffic lights to cross the side road on the left. If these start getting introduced widely, there will be utter chaos, with cyclists that refuse to obey any signals whatsoever, pedestrians/dogs etc wandering all over the place. I'll stick to behaving like a car and ride straight through on the main traffic lights, thank you very much! And if you do get side swiped by an impatient car as you cross that sideroad, it will be vicious because it will be at 90 degrees and at speed!

The point is. if you want to go straight on and you're a confident cyclist you can - just stay in the main lane as you suggest.

Those who are currently too scared to cycle because of having to negotiate busy junctions can follow the yellow brick.. erm, sorry ... follow the green cyle lane instead.

Until they make it compulsory for cyclists to use that coloured green track! On the face of it, okay for family type cycling but for road cyclists, it looks a mess.

CygnusX1 wrote:

The point is. if you want to go straight on and you're a confident cyclist you can - just stay in the main lane as you suggest.

...while being harrassed by the local mouth-breather leaning on his horn and yelling "gerrin the fackin bike lane I paid a million quid for" before he close-passes and brake tests you.