https://uk.news.yahoo.com/is-this-the-si...66.html#L3imJRP

Very silly indeed.

RedToo.

It looks like a small section of a much longer lane that cuts over a raised median. Part of a sidewalk that is used as a bikelane. Probably not very silly when seen in context. Satellite view?

EDIT:
Here ya go.


Makes sense to me. Just a tabloid trying to stir the pot.

A cycle lane like that makes no sense for anyone other than grannies and children. To expect any other cyclist to give way to turning traffic at every junction is ridiculous, even if they're not spaced as closely as this.

My own favourite is this one.

The triangle means stop? Then yes, I'ld be riding in the road. That would be legal over here, whether you had a bikelane or not.


Oww, my brain!

Of course it is silly.

Converting a safe ride on a route with priority, into a dice with death at each intersection where the onus is on the cyclist to stop at each give way line, in order to deconflict, with pedestrians, doorzone, and traffic potentially 'all round'.

In the road you take the primary position keeping you away from the debris in the gutter, the danger zone at each side road's give way lines, minimising the negotiation needed to pass parked vehicles, keeping away from pedestrians who step out without looking (as they can't hear the approach of a bike, and misjudge speed as often as vehicle drivers do when they do look).

I'd strongly recommend anyone who contemplates utility cycling to be very wary of cycle lanes and other provision. I've yet to see any which significantly improve safety (and many which are lethal). I do concede that a few are convenient and don't increase risk, but many are worthless or downright dangerous, and almost all are designed for "too slow" progression, with inadequate separation, width, sightlines and corner radii, and a terrible attitude to obstacles provided by unlit street furniture within the path width.