Pub owner who blocked cycle lane says he’s “being punished” after council asks to remove all barriers

It's ok young kids being able to cycle safely on roads but it doesn't make other road users use the roads more safely.  I've just started taking my eldest on the road and found it shocking how so many  motorists don't defer from their default setting of just being on auto pilot, especially at pinch points in the road, both oncoming and overtaking motorists not giving nowhere near enough room or altering their speeds in anyway to make it safer for my child.

drsaxby wrote:

we should educate cyclists from a young age to cycle safely on the road

we should educate the ones who create the danger on the road - that's not the cyclists.

An updated driving test would go a long way to help.

drsaxby wrote:

perhaps we should educate cyclists from a young age to cycle safely on the road. 
An updated cycling proficiency course would go a long way to help. 
The councils won't help us

The Bike Ability courses over several levels are still available and my 10yo completed his a couple of months ago. Local cycle clubs welcome junior members and understand that they are the future.

drsaxby wrote:

I do agree he shouldn't block this shared pathway, but perhaps we should educate cyclists from a young age to cycle safely on the road. 
An updated cycling proficiency course would go a long way to help. 
The councils won't help us, the drivers won't help us, so we have to help ourselves.

Well... cycling proficiency stuff is good as far as it goes.  At least it gives more kids a chance to be on a bike.

You say this "would go a long way to help"?  Why do you think that?  Given most kids don't even cycle to school (2% apparently in 2021 - and I'm surprised it's that high)?  It's not just parents - understandably - not letting them.  Some schools strongly discourage this too (see previous road.cc stories).

Second - for the few kids who do actually cycle on the roads what's the evidence that cycling proficiency actually delivers fewer crashes and KSIs?  Learning the rules of the road / some cycling basics is a very good idea - I'm just questioning if anyone knows how much "safety" is within the power of children given ubiquitous human driving?

Question - as part of "cycling proficiency" are the kids taken out on the local roads for a "cycling test"?  If not, why not?

By the time they're of an age where people wouldn't sue the school for doing that the kids will have understood that cycling is not how to get around.  Adults drive, you see.  That makes sense because most people simply don't feel safe cycling with lots of cars and / or with much faster moving / larger vehicles.

It's about having the space where this feels like a safe activity.  Kids are more social than adults - and cycling conditions in the UK actively discourage social cycling (except some words in the Highway Code many don't ever read).  People won't cycle about if it doesn't seem convenient for getting about.  Finally - where are the role models - local ones, not just a couple of slebs?

As an aside - if we were serious about doing this something like traffic gardens for younger kids would be a start.  Also we probably need an app. Luckily we  can just translate this one.

My personal experience. 40 years as a motorcyclist and driver. I have several advanced driver courses and have in the past worked as a part time m'cycle instructor. I run dashcams on my cars and motorcycle. In the last 10 years I have nothing, no close calls, no life threatening, heart in the mouth moments. Some interesting driving from other road users but nothing I have felt compelled to report. On the bicycle, however, I sometimes feel like a coconut at the fair. I make on average 1 or 2 submissions a year to my local Road Traffic Unit on the most egregious bad driving. On the bicycle I am so much more vulnerable to poor and aggressive driving by others. I have neither the speed, acceleration or "road presence" to do much about creating and maintaining a safe space around me. Hi viz and a helmet are scant armour in those circumstances. I do agree with you about the validity of training for all road users but anything that detracts from the focus on placing responsibility firmly on the group of road users who actually cause the damage is plain wrong headed.

If you want to "help ourselves" then campaign for solving the root causes. Poor infrastructure and poor driving standards.

You can fuck off and stick your "educate cyclists" trolling bullshit up your ignorant arse.

[I'm running low on patience today, particularly with fuckwits and ignorant jerks]

Well that escalated quickly. 

We're getting to the point where it's going to be necessary to pass a cycling proficiency test before being allowed to post on road.cc

mark1a wrote:

Well that escalated quickly. 

I might have been a smidgin more circumspect if I had seen that post yesterday but I can't promise.

Calc wrote:

Reading this from Australia, it seems unbelievable that every day on Road.cc there's another article about some tin pot little council or shire in the UK putting in "infrastructure" without reference to any unified standard.   We have: Austroads AP-G88-17 (give it a google).  Considering we appropriated our entire system of government from you chaps, you may wish to borrow this from us in return.

The UK has national guidance, but it's not exactly legally binding (AFAIK) and many councils go off piste and do what causes the least inconvenience to motorists...

Also not 100% sure, I know that Active Travel England have written that bids for new active travel cash will be expected to implement relevant standards (e.g. LTN 1/20 etc.)

Does anyone know how "motivational" this is?  First - there isn't much of that cash now.

Second - what exactly is the feedback mechanism to stop money granted for this being "incidentally" used to fix the roads for cars - with maybe a painted cycle lane "built" too?  Does anyone go and check what's been done?  If they do how do they assess it?  What if any comeback if it's not up to snuff?  (I'm guessing "little to none" with the "big stick" being "we won't give you more to waste - for a bit anyway").

LTN1/20 is only guidance though, its not a binding set of design rules, plus its got plenty of wiggle room on its recommendations around shared paths and minimum widths, that its totally possible for a council to design some of the worst kind of cycle infra and still claim to be LTN1/20 compliant, because it never says dont do it this way.

as for Active travel England, well Im not sure their funding was the bit that was curtailed, but whats been the comeback on the tranche 1,2 or even 3 stuff that went before, who has accounted for all that money that presumably has now been spent and checked what got delivered ?

Awavey wrote:

LTN1/20 is only guidance though, its not a binding set of design rules, plus its got plenty of wiggle room on its recommendations around shared paths and minimum widths, that its totally possible for a council to design some of the worst kind of cycle infra and still claim to be LTN1/20 compliant, because it never says dont do it this way.

I think LTN 1/20 is a serious effort and there's much which *is* good there (Ranty Highwayman thinks so at least). It does bother me that there are "get outs" at every level though. The whole impression is that this isn't something we take seriously. Or it's "best practice - if you like". Not much differently from the usual "have a go if you want; it's only for cycling, not important safety-critical stuff like transport infra".

Not sure what part of Aus you're in, but here in Melbourne its quite common for local councils to build arbitrary and near-useless or dangerous bits of "infrastructure" where it suits them. I can find "bike paths" narrower than some handlebars, blind corners, unmarked grey power poles in the middle of paths, arbitrarily ending paths 2m from the road they supposedly join, numerous "cyclist dismount" signs on "cycling infrastructure", the list goes on.  The "shared footway" past the Notting hill hotel in NH has the same clearance as this pub & path, yet is near brand new "infrastructure". God help you when the local stride out the door after an afternoon session in the front bar

Car Delenda Est wrote:

It might be an unpopular opinion but I do think what the pub owner is doing is making the path safer; however it would be easier to make this case for them if they weren't being such a tit about it.

Possible incidental benefit.  I could be completely wrong - perhaps they've even originally gone into the licenced trade with the motivation of improving transport safety and public safety in general?  However I'm betting that like every other business that does this they put the signs there for advertising / to grab a bit of extra (free, public) space they can use for their patrons.

100%.

The reason is wasn't done is that North Yorkshire Council has neither the expertise nor the commitment needed to put in good quality cycle infrastructure.

Japan does not allow on street parking and you can't own a car if you've nowhere to put it.

Mind you, they also have an excellent public transport system. Try using Google Maps for a few journeys and compare travel times. For example, it's about 4 times as long to use a car to get to a point in Kyoto from a point in Tokyo, 12 hours for a 500km journey as opposed to 3 hours by public transport (choosing a point not next to a convenient mainline station just to be fair).

lesterama wrote:

That looks like an utterly useless cycle lane: shared use and frontages and doors literally adjoining.

It's not a cycle lane but a shared pavement, by no means ideal I agree but made even worse by the landlord funnelling pedestrians and cyclists into an even smaller shared space with his furniture.

On the section in the picture, the council should have removed the parking and provided a separate cycle track.