“More needs to be done”: Sadiq Khan to “raise awareness” among London cyclists for improving safety of floating bus stops

No worries.

In NFBUK world shared paths will be banned, so that goes away and you are back in the road .

They've already removed the shared use path - the dropped kerb and markings were removed after about 6 months on non-use.

It is fascinating that no cycling infrastructure is likely to be as dangerous to pedestrians as any road yet "but cyclists..."

Raised crossings have been in standards for many years, and are extensively covered in LTN 1/20.

One issue - similarly with crossing road humps on road carriageways - is that these features seem to typically be used immediately before a crossing, which to my mind is too late to make a difference to speed before the crossing is reached. The one in the piccie at the top looks unusually good to me in this respect, with the downside that pedestrians may be more likely to cross not-on-the-zebra and Guide Dogs / cane users may be mis-guided.

"Not enough warning" seems to be a constant problem. One of the ones I have noticed is (according to my calcs) the slow-them-down "20mph" signs on the new Fendon Road roundabout in Cambridge are so close to the Zebra crossing that an emergency stop from 20mph starting at the sign leaves the car sitting in the middle of the zebra. God knows what happens in the rain.

I think you are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that these particular alleged representatives of the 'visually impaired community' are rational or good-faith actors; they are not. Useful rational suggestions make no difference.

The demand is that everybody else's considerations (including other disabled groups) be subservient to all their demands - and in the world view there can be no compromise. If an extra 100 disabled people using cycles as a mobility aid get killed in traffic as a result of banning bus stop bypasses, that's just an acceptable price to pay.

Spurious campaigns, and unjustified claims, are a normal part of the shtick.

mattw wrote:

I think you are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that these particular alleged representatives of the 'visually impaired community' are rational or good-faith actors; they are not. Useful rational suggestions make no difference.

100% this. As I've noted elsewhere, NFBUK claim to be the "Voice of Blind People" when they have fewer than 3000 Twitter followers (there are 340,000+ registered blind/PS people in the UK). They seem to have a monomaniacal obsession with cycle lanes and LTNs, frequently sharing anti-cyclist/active travel material that has no relevance to blind people. 

See comments by e.g. mattw on the other thread about this.

I think the theory is that no cyclist has ever stopped for a red light or a pedestrian so it is impossible to get to the bus stop without being mown into a lifeless heap.

Interactions around busy bus stops are often fraught, queues don't perceive cycle lanes as out of bounds, rather just useful waiting space. But the reality is that many bus stops rarely have more than a handful of people alighting or boarding so the actual cyclist/passenger interactions are extremely small.

It is interesting how hard the anti-cycling lobbies work to highlight the pedestrian-cyclist relationship in the HWC and at the same time minimise the cyclist-car relationship - cyclists should bend over backwards for pedestrians who should not be obliged to consider cyclists at all, but if cyclists get mixed up with car shenanigans then that's down to the cyclist not taking enough care.

Most of these crossings are NOT Zebra crossings, zebra crossings have yellow beacons on stripey poles.

Someone posted the legislation on another thread.

The beacons etc are not required on cycle paths.

EDIT - apologies rich_cb, posting at same time...
See the rules / law discussion on the other thread about this!

https://road.cc/content/news/sunday-telegraph-slammed-over-death-trap-ar...

Or go direct to the rules:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made

Apologies; missed the bit about 'cycleways excluded', in the regulations.

I saw similar on Twitter, a large number of people think these are advisory. If a generally well-read group of people on the Internet (most of road.cc contributors give a good account off themselves) get confused, then there ain't a lot of hope that boy-racer cyclists* are going to be bothered by such things.

*I think we need a name for the 25-35 year old cyclists who think that road rules are for wimps.

Elsewhere, Manchester iirc, they are putting in paint only crossings at junctions to emphasise the priority in the 'new' HWC.

Firstly, designing safety systems that depend on people knowing the rules is problematic. Secondly, introducing non-standard, not complainant so not enforceable crossings creates the danger of suggesting where they don't exist there is no priority elsewhere - especially if they are widespread.

Interesting that where lots of people cycle it seems they try to limit having the kind of crossing which requires everyone to stop.  I suspect it "just works" for most crossings to be informal there.  For lots of reasons e.g. less far to cross, lower relative speeds, cycles are more manoeuverable, better mutual visibility and people often being familiar with using both modes.  However I don't have stats so - just like with motor vehicles - it may be a "tyranny of the majority".  Albeit it should be "harm minimization" compared to the motor vehicle case.

Perhaps you haven't (tried to) engage with NFBUK. I have.

They take an extreme position - "Ban all Bus Stop Bypasses, and Rip Out the Ones that are in", and are unable to supply any evidence in support of it, nor come up with any proposals.

Nor are they able to explain why the hundreds of road traffic bypasses behind floating bus stops are not a problem, nor why they do not mention them in their rhetoric.

If you ask awkward questions mentioning this, first they will abuse you, then they will call you "ableist", then they will block you.

A group consisting of about 500 members, a part time admin officer, and a monomaniacal campaign team of about half-a-dozen, who are generally out of line with much larger groups representing visually impaired.

They need to be marginalised, then discounted.

Really such arguments are a backwater, and must not distract from keeping active travel moving forward. There is an argument around eg the need for LTN1/20 to be mandatory, and a similar doc for pedestrian and especially disabled access; but all campaign groups basically agree on those.

Are they a sub-brach of the ABD?

No idea . It's possible.

Association of Blind Drivers?

I concur.

Rendel Harris wrote:

How about a button on the bus stop or signpost that could be pressed to illuminate a large sign "Warning, visually impaired/disabled pedestrians crossing"? In my experience most people, while they can be thoughtless, only require a little nudge/reminder to behave decently, worth a try at least?

I think one issue there will be cost.

We have already had Boroughs (especially Outer London Boroughs) installing Bus Boarders where they should be using bus stops with Bypasses, to save cash when it is outside of TFL control. Usual cheap Council problem. That one requires LTN 1/20 to be mandatory with the tiniest exceptions.

I've heard arguments for mini-security barriers to come down when the bus arrives. Problem there is that the idea of a bus stop bypass is that people can cross it at their leisure, rather than rush across in a pack when the bus arrives.

Yes - although of course "blind people can't hear cyclists".  That is valid although those who bring this up don't offer anything constructive or explain why / how it works in other places.  Or how they're supposed to cope with much quieter electric vehicles...

I'm with Robert Wheetman on this - we should definitely look into the concerns of those most vulnerable about cycling infra or having more people cycling.  So working with the RNIB.  However we should be aware of the much larger group of those who just want to preserve the status quo making use of those with disabilities as one of their arguments - in bad faith.  AKA "selective concern".

Also worth noting that we've had these for years in various forms.  The Dutch and the Danish have had lots of them for decades.  (The Danish tend to have a version which isn't quite as good on the face of it - but seems to "work").  Once people have got beyond "new! change!" they appear to work for all.