 |
 |
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Ian Perry <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > There are some who would like to see a cycle lane painted in the gutter of > the A48 (and other main routes). However, I would not let my child (or want > to see any child) use them, with vehicles speeding past at 60, 70, 80 mph > just centimetres away! Cheap is not good, and often unusable. It is time > that in the UK we did things well - cheap is often a waste of time and > money! > What should happen is that the road is narrowed, and the saved space (on one > side) used to provide a segregated, two-way cycle path that everyone > considers safe and attractive to use. Painted hard-shoulders are not > acceptable or attractive to most, provide limited safety, and thus the most > expensive form of cycling infrastructure. Nobody is going to spend that money if only a handful will use it. You'd be exceedingly lucky to get a child that far out of Bridgend, regardless of facility (maybe if you installed a free sweet-dispenser every hundred yards, but otherwise forget it). It's not pleasant cycling alongside high-speed traffic, even if you've got a segregated route. It's time we did things well = it's time we did things exceedingly slowly, and probably not even start. Alternatively, you can copy places in the UK that have been successful (cue ad for my paper in Glasgow) Richard