Coronation Road in Bristol. I had to explain to my wife one day why cyclists used the road as opposed to the cycle path.
Haven't they fixed that one yet? It's been a laughing stock for as long as I can remember being aware of it.
Here it is in 2001.
I don't think it's that simple. Different cyclists will want different things, depending on their skill and experience level. The experienced roadie just wants to remain on the road normally, the parent with young children wants cycle paths everywhere.
I'm not sure that's true. The main reason experienced roadies want to remain on the road is that much of what's built off-road is substandard crap with lumpy surfaces that doesn't flow and loses priority at every farm field gate, isn't it? Over in the Netherlands, chaingangs seem quite happy blasting along cycle tracks. And as it's been put to me, why would anyone think that a parent with young children wants an obstacle course?
So do you think that local councils (I presume they have the responsibility for cycle lanes) have an anti-cycling agenda that is met by putting in rubbish infrastructure?
Occasionally there are individual cycle-haters who subvert schemes and get away with it because the process is weak. I strongly suspect cabinet member for transport at North Somerset Council, Elfan Ap Rees, is one - he's been proud to unveil lumpy cycle tracks only on the downhill sides of roads and once launched a cycle lane on the central reservation side of a dual carriageway - I guess it helped allow them to spend the cycling budget on the dual carriagway without getting in the way of motorists. Mostly though, it seems to be a consequence of a hazardous mix of weak and poor guidance, inexperience, incomprehension and underfunding.
Responsibility for cycling facilities is split: along motorways and major roads is Highways England or the devolved administrations (including TfL); along most other roads is the responsibility of highway authorities (mostly county councils, unitary councils or borough councils in London) and away from roads is anybody's guess but often the borough/district/city councils, but could be the Environment Agency, National Trust or private landowners. Of course, this means that any cycling design expertise is diluted even further. Some of the better borough/district/city council facilities happen because they are on friendly terms with the highway authority and use their designers.
It does feel like the design and sign off is done without any input from cyclists. I wonder if that's the case, and if so why?
It is the case. If we are very lucky, there is a consultation step before sign-off, but there is no requirement for it, no requirement to change anything (not even obvious dangers and practical problems like posts in a track surface), no scrutiny by councillors and design changes sometimes keep on happening right up until construction. Even where a cycle track or lane is included in a planning application (which does have more scrutiny than highway design on its own, and has certain legal process requirements), the cycling element is frequently different to the approved plan and departing from the plan is not regarded as sufficient to refuse permission, when farking the motoring accesses would be.
And I can safely guarantee that I'd gladly cycle over the rumble strips going against my line of travel rather than the ones going in my direction (and when I'm a pedestrian with a sleeping child in a pram / pushchair, I'd rather walk on the cycle side).
Does the guidance you have mention that the tactiles should not be installed within a certain distance of a corner or barrier? That often seems to be ignored, leading to predictable crashes.
But in general, I agree that tactile use appears to have been defined without any awareness of how cycles ride or any knowledge of how places like the Netherlands use them - I think the pedestrian side may have surfaces to indicate to walkers they are entering/leaving a footway, but the cycle side would be smooth.
