Leaked documents suggest "low risk" of cyclist collisions at "floating bus stops", as blindness campaigners urge safety action on design

Think the "dreadful example" has featured on road.cc before.

That's a poor design there*.  We should definitely aim high.  However  - again apparently - uncontroversial designs in e.g. Copenhagen are the same or worse e.g. have people boarding directly from the cycle path - not from a 75cm buffer, but the cycle path itself.  (I don't think that is acceptable for anyone though).

Perhaps for some the issue is better stated as "I've learned to just about navigate the situation as is (dangerous and very poor provision for me).  The last thing I need is another type of vehicle with different characteristics (much quieter) in 'my space'."

That's not "bus stop bypasses" - that's "bloody cyclists".

* But watching it I couldn't help thinking "and nobody died" - or even "just wait until they hear about cars!" 

The "dreadful example":  the biggest thing lacking is a clear indication of the existence of a cycle path and where it is - something the UK is very poor at.  So different colour, texture and - most important for those with sight impairment - a suitable height difference from it.  (Doing that may also nudge cyclists to stay within this space).

The "better" designs seem to have the shelter and sizeable waiting space at roadside.  However in NL not all have though (as you can see in this collection).  Some have a similar arrangement - perhaps with a small amount more space for boarding and a level change from the cycle path.

If suitable provision for mass cycling occurs it will be "change!" for everyone - driving, walking or cycling.  It would be interesting to have some experience reports from NL here.

I think when "everyone cycles" the situation stabilises to being - for better or worse - a bit like here when many people drive.  So in busier areas cyclists essentially displace pedestrians from the cycle path.  That will be fine because Dutch standards always provide separate footway*.  So - unlike the UK now - people won't be standing in a group on the cycle path.  That is because it is "understood" you don't block these, it's socially unacceptable AND it doesn't feel pleasant to wait or walk there.

In quieter places (* where the Dutch often ONLY build cycle paths as these are always legal for pedestrian use) everyone discovers it's not an issue and people on bikes moderate their behaviour slightly.  I don't expect people en-mass to be much more "sympathetic" or "well behaved" when on cycles than when in cars.  But walking and cycling are more similar modes and cyclists behaviour should be moderated since they feel more vulnerable than when in cars.

qwerty360 wrote:

Note that NFBUK's total budget is less than the nearest blind support group to me I can find on the charities commission (Kingston) - By a factor of ~10...So why are they treated specially rather than using Guide Dogs (£140m) or RNIB (£70m) (both of whom campaign on transport infra)

They are a very niche organisation that almost exclusively obsesses over floating bus stops and hire bikes/scooters. Or at least they were last year, I can no longer follow their activities because they blocked me on Twitter for politely asking why if they are "The Voice of Blind People" in a country with 340,000 registered blind and partially sighted people they had fewer than 3000 followers.

FionaJJ wrote:

I understand there is concern, especially when whipped up by the anti-cycling lobby,  but once again entirely different expectations of safety and priority from those cycling compared with driving. 

Education on who has priority and some standardisation of design and signage is necessary. That will require some investment and a communications campaign, but it is in no way insurmountable.

I agree with those frustrated by selective, convenient claims of concern for those with disabilities. Often just as sincere as the feminism that suddenly manifests itself in racists to give them cover for hating on people from certain religions. HOWEVER, disability rights groups are reasonably concerned their needs are routinely overlooked. There's so much more that could be done to improve accessibility and mobility of people with disabilities that can be implemented alongside active travel arrangements that benefit cyclists. If cycle lobby groups show support for those measures, as well as engaging in education of cyclists, condemning reckless behaviour where appropriate, disability groups will be more willing to trust that this sort of infrastructure can work.

Good post.

FionaJJ wrote:

... HOWEVER, disability rights groups are reasonably concerned their needs are routinely overlooked. There's so much more that could be done to improve accessibility and mobility of people with disabilities that can be implemented alongside active travel arrangements that benefit cyclists.  ...

Indeed.  Once more for a classic: "who else benefits from (proper quality) cycling infra?"

Some good points.

A further big issue around disability rights groups is that they can get hijacked by one particular view, then pretend that that is "THE DISABLED VIEW", when there is actually a huge diversity within the constituency - and balances need to be struck.

This is evident around bus stop bypasses, and many other issues. Currently being worked out in the York consultation about YCC's Local Transport Strategy, for example.

Local Councils and similar then take that as the disabled view, and implement the demands of a tiny minority to the detriment of most of the rest of disabled people.

Around cycling this is typically around "benefits for disabled people of banning cycling".

This sounds good, but I could see this leading to an increase in crashes in cases where people - naturally perhaps in a hurry - cross in a position where they're concealed from approaching traffic by a bus waiting at the stop.

chrisonabike wrote:

This sounds good, but I could see this leading to an increase in crashes in cases where people - naturally perhaps in a hurry - cross in a position where they're concealed from approaching traffic by a bus waiting at the stop.

Well, it wouldn't have to be precisely at the bus stop.  Bus stops on either side of the road aren't generally directly opposite each other, so the crossing would be half way between them.

It probably should be at the bus stop, because if it isn't they will all have to cross the mobility lane twice in addition to crossing the road.

If it was far enough from both bus stops, sure.  However I'm not seeing what a level crossing say 40 metres+ away from a bus stop has to do with bus stop bypasses for cyclists though?  Do you mean effectively extending the bus stop so it's - say - several times the length of the bus, then having a crossing at the end of that?

My issue is I can't see why people would feel they were "compensated" in any way by anything if they honestly feel simply crossing a cycle track means "It is a matter of time until someone is killed" or it is  "much more difficult and dangerous" or "It's like playing Russian roulette". A UK bare-minimum width even by our "standards" one to boot as they are!

OTOH given what occurs in reality* with these I suspect this concern would evaporate on repeated exposure.  However - I don't have any disabilities or issues seeing (yet...).  And we should always check we're not achieving "safety" like we have done with vehicles on the roads e.g. by driving everyone else out of those spaces.

And it's always within the abilities of our systems in the UK to deliver truly terrible implementations of these designs.  (Which will be - of course - nothing to do with cyclists, bus passengers, or those with disabilities, but because we can't inconvenience the motorists...)

* Checked both by video studies, and by the fact of these things existing for decades all over several other countries.  And indeed as the Ranty Highwayman's article showed - they've existed for time in this country, just not with a special "name".

This is why I like the Ranty Highwayman article - he's specific on this (and includes a UK study so "even here" they are actually fine) but highlights the objections from people are to do with "feeling".  That is indeed something to address (like one of the reasons why - despite it being objectively safe - the vast majority of people just don't like cycling in traffic and won't).

Unfortunately negative feelings are hard to counter with words e.g. evidence, argument.  People usually have to confirm via experience - which they're unlikely to do given the rarity of these in the UK.

There are a few points of cognitive dissonance which IMHO maybe come along with the feeling of "cycling danger" (this is broader than just bus stop bypasses of course).  (My own anecdata / introspection - I think someone actually *has* done some studies here but can't recall).

1) Expectations of "normal".  Crossing roads (even at signalised crossings) is dangerous - because cars are more dangerous than bikes as well as there being a lot more of them.  But the presence of cyclists is "terrifying".  Motor traffic is normal though.  This is sometimes explained as "but you can't hear cyclists" - well, in many street environments you'll struggle to hear the car that will hit you - for the other cars.  Of course, we don't notice the noise, because it's normal.

2) As pedestrians we're worried by having cyclists "in our space" (even when there's a cycle path, distinct from footway...).  Cognitive dissonance because people a) think they're safe from motorists on footways and b) don't expect them driving there.  Despite tens of people dying a year dying on the footway from motor traffic crashes and almost every street/road giving ample evidence that driving on the footway is normal.

3) Because motor vehicles are so space-inefficient I think people are imagining these cycle paths being as full of cyclists as the roads next to them or more.  This won't be the case and indeed even in some of the busiest cycle lanes people manage to cross "informally".

4) The cyclist as "other".  I think people genuinely see people on bikes as less trustworthy than some imagined driver.  When I've probed this I've heard things like "they're not licenced / tested / don't have number plates".   Or just given examples of seeing "wrong'uns" on bikes - presumably easier to assess someone's character than when they're inside a car...

There are some reasonable concerns / truths behind this also of course.  Cyclists may currently not be seen until "they were right on me" because people are not expecting or looking for them (same applies to people when they're driving).  And yes, there are bad cyclists, careless riders, people on illegal electric motorbikes, people who don't bother with lights or indeed effective brakes because "it's only cycling" etc.  I'm pretty sure most of the population have very rarely* had any close encounter with these though (because small percentage of an already niche group).

* I'm not as sure as I might have been because of the very salient growth of the bike food delivery business, but that's not *everywhere*.  There's also possibly the "almost every one jumps the red light" in certain London locations.

Note that I have seen RNIB (and guide dogs) file consultation responses objecting to bus stop bypasses.

The difference is they point out that the plans in question were using an old design that other countries have tried and all but scrapped because it didn't work, recommending instead rough alternative designs that need slightly more space or cost more but (done properly) drastically reduce negative interactions. (see having the bus immediately empty onto a zebra crossing or similar on a cycle track rather than an island of sufficient width WITH appropriate grade changes, crossings and tactile markings between it and the cycle lane).

Or the submission they did re changes to bank junction (amongst other things to get traffic lights rather than Zebras on certain crossings due to where their HQ's are located as these are preferable for blind users even when crossing cycle lanes and discussions about where disabled parking bays were located as the new spots were less convenient for them)