Preaching to the choir here, but I'll keep repeating: any journalist that gives the cost of a transit project but doesn't do the same for how much money is spent on roads is performing propaganda. Particularly in this case, when I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the project cost is actually rebuilding the roads for cars, not putting in the bike lanes.
post
Now i can't park right next to where i need to go and might have to... Walk.
"...where is everybody going to park?"
What if you had transport options that didn't require to you have to park?
-
No car payment.
-
No expensive insurance requirements.
-
No downtime due to inconvenient auto repairs.
Don’t worry everyone. I know the area and that bike lane is 100% happening. Maybe not precisely the proposed route but it’ll be going somewhere. The council has already closed an extremely busy road for six months so they could demolish and rebuild a bridge to get the bike lane in, there ain’t no way they’re letting a few whinging locals block it now.
that bike lane placement does look fucking stupid
Pretty sure that's by design, so they can point and say, "See? We told you, bike lanes don't work!"
Idk about that. I can only speak to my experience, but when you combine all modes of transportation it can be difficult to arrange the intersection. There are often trade offs to be made and safety is always a priority.
This is UK? So I’m not sure, but it looks like the side streets have a combination of one way and parking. TBH it looks similar to what we do, but they curved the bike channelization instead of making it straight and dashed like we’re starting to do in the US. Not wrong, just different I guess.
It's something that happens when cities insist on prioritising reducing how much it annoys car drivers over producing the best possible active transport infrastructure. They build these bidirectional bike paths down one side of the street instead of having a bike path on each side. And that inevitably means that sometimes you're going to get this.
that makes sense in a daft way but seem super dangerous
There are certain risks with it. In my advocacy I always try to push for uni-directional paths on each side of the road because of that. But honestly the safety concerns are minimal when compared to no bike path at all, or just an on-road bike lane.
The biggest danger is people coming out of driveways or side streets failing to look both ways. It's extra useful, therefore, to use wombat crossings across side streets, and to put small, sharp speed bumps beside the path on driveways. Here's an example near me:

(Just ignore the stencilled white pedestrian indicator on the bicycle-path green-painted path. That's a whole separate problem of poor inconsistent design...Especially since there's an unpainted concrete footpath right next to it.)

But even if you don't do that, it's pretty damn good. It takes away all fear for 90% of the length, and just requires attentiveness from the cyclist when they approach intersections. Less than perfect, but still quite good.
it is the intersections i’m specifically referring to, i feel like idiot drivers would be prone to plowing into that curved cross
it happens to cars now with uneven lanes accross intersections, we have two of them in my city
i do like the speedbumb idea
into that curved cross
Oh right, you mean the intersection shown in the article? Yeah nah, that's a complete non-issue. First, remember that the American "right on red" rule is widely regarded by the rest of the world, quite rightly, as utterly fucking insane. When there's a red light, you simply cannot go.
So that weird crossing shown, turning from the right-hand side of one road to the left-hand side of the other, is totally fine. You just design the light phasing so that there is no phase in which people can cross over each other.
Compared to what? That's the entire point, isn't it?
Why are there random words missing in the article?
Fears new cycle lane will cause huge disruption
Who fears that? Or is "fear" the subject of that sentence?
The proposed route will Sean Neely's front door, he added.
What?
Fears new cycle lane will cause huge disruption
This is headlinese, a remnant from when headlines took up physical space on a newspaper.
The other line is probably just an error tho
Guessing because it's the BBC and British people have a slightly different version of English.
If I buy a horse, I don’t get to go to the city and complain I don’t have anywhere to graze my horse. You’re not entitled to free government land to store your car
She said: "I really don't think it's been thought through enough with the size of the roads and the parking, where is everybody going to park?"
Further away.
And then walk. :)
I think that woman doesn't know who everybody is. It's awkward when people don't think about the words they're saying.
The words aren’t the issue. Not thinking further than their own small world is the issue. These people absoluty don’t comprehend that other people might live differently than they do or they might even think their way of living is the only one to strive for and the top of the ladder.
and we’re just not happy about it
Very nice attempt of manipulation public opinion, it sounds her statement represents a vast amount of people 🤦♂️
The cycle spine is a £48m project which will connect Bishops Cleeve in north Gloucestershire to Stroud in the south, also linking Gloucester and Cheltenham.
Gloucestershire County Council said the scheme was designed to "help reduce carbon emissions and encourage active travel" and has proposed extending the route into south Gloucester from St Ann Way to Cole Avenue, through Linden, Podsmead and Tuffley.
Those names are aggressively British.
where is everybody going to park?
No problem. They can put in a few bike racks so everyone can securely park their bikes.
I'm interpreting this as mildly inconvenienced by imaginary problems.
It's somehow even dumber than that: The reality is adding bike lanes reduces traffic, so when they are removed, things like parking space availability and traffic jams get measurably worse for everyone, drivers especially.
This is not a belief, it is a demonstrable fact. People who argue with it are objectively incorrect, full stop. Another word you might use for this is "ignorant" or maybe even "stupid", provided you wanted to be kind.
Yeah, it's a willfully ignorant position to take: if I can't/won't use a mode of transportation then no one should.
It's vexing.
"My entire life is going to be disrupted by this bike lane"
-Aggressively stupid people who steadfastly refuse to think or learn, lest it fuck with their shitty little world view
I once read an article about a new bike lane, they were interviewing randoms about their thoughts. One of them said something like "I'm normally against bike lanes, but I like this one as it keeps the cyclists out of the traffic"
And all I could think was what did you think bike lanes were for.
I thought they were for stopping motorists from killing and/or murdering cyclists? IDK...
complained that this extension will reduce on-street parking spaces
Tear off the bandage and get rid of all all street parking. It never should have existed.
From the bottom of my heart: I hope the disruption is both permanent and incredibly onerous for you, you carbrained fucks.
Dislike headlines that platform unfounded ideas
Fears new cycle lane will cause huge disruption
Could be like
Fears new cycle lane will anger the infernal gods
Just made up nonsense
"one resident". It's funny, but I've been a resident in places without bike lanes and I don't recall being asked by the BBC for my opinion.
all 39 comments