Liam Duffy @liamduffy.dev · Nov 11 They did just about the minimum they could to be able to say they considered protected cycling. They got their consultants to draft some designs (in appendix D) with protected cycle lanes (using a CYCLOPS approach), then said it failed the modelling, and as far as they're concerned that was that.
0 likes 1 replies
?
Replies
Designing protected tracks, but then keeping in now-pointless ASLs (which led to modelling failure) shows they never really seriously tried to make it work. Didn't try to engage with consultants that specialise in this work, and completely ignored evidence of these designs working well elsewhere.