road development uk

I reckon for that to really work we'd also need Dutch style liability laws. Over there if there's a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist, the driver of the motor vehicle is assumed to be at fault unless it can be proved otherwise. Makes total sense in terms of the stats about who tends to be at fault and the vulnerability of cyclists. It also makes drivers extremely cautious around cyclists. can't see it happening in the UK this side of judgement day.

And the propsal is just that, a proposal. Most don't make it into practice.

I'd love to see it happen, but i wouldn't hold my breath. When i was studying urban planning in the 1980's this was 'the coming thing', everyone knew that it was the best option - the Dutch had all the statistics to prove it. They were doing trial schemes in several places in Britain (I remember being shown a few in Essex and Suffolk in 1989). And guess what? They are still doing 'trial' schemes. They work, but there are huge obstacles to overcome. I've a friend who manages traffic control schemes in Oxfordshire and she has terrible problems convincing engineers, bus companies, business interests, car user interests, etc., that they work. There seems to be an overwhelming psychological need among engineers to mark down lines, put up barriers, control everything, despite copious evidence that it doesn't make things any safer. Even bike lanes marked on roads are known to increase accident rates, but they still insist on putting them in, to be seen to be 'pro-cycling'. Worse of all are pedestrian control barriers on urban corners - these have claimed too many cyclists lives, but they are still everywhere, and all in the name of 'safety'.

But, by putting in designated cycle lanes, separated by lines, the engineers are forced to make the roads wide enough for cyclists. Here in North America, without the lines, new roads simply would not be wide enough.