The London Cycling Campaign had what I think could be a ground breaking AGM. If think Motion 3 (When do we need protected space for cycling?) and 5 (Uniformity of cycling provision and suitability for all-ability groups) are critical to future successful campaigning. They define numerically (not subjectively) when to mix and when to separate. They also end the failing dual network approach to cycling infrastructure.
Vienna to my dismay and disbelief appears to be going backwards.
Is this really Modern cycle planning and freedom of choice or is this total and utter crap?
In Vienna as in every city there is limited space so we have to be very efficient with it. A dual solution takes up a lot of space so it is the opposite of what we should define as a good space use strategy.
In Vienna we have very very poor junction design with very unclear rights of way. The junctions that have a dual solution will be much more complex, confusing, have longer waiting times and lead to much more conflict as cyclists use a combination of the 2 sets of infrastructure to find their path of least resistance.
There is not a city in the world that has made a dual network approach to cycling infrastructure work and there are many many examples of where this approach has failed and lead to compromise that is not good for any type of cyclist.
This might not be the worst bit of cycling infrastructure in Vienna but it is not a template for a modern pleasant cycling city. It is total and utter crap designed by selfish arrogant cyclists who think they belong on the road because they are advanced and beginners should train on the footpath until they are confident enough to graduate to the road like them. If you guys are reading this Fuck you.
More dual network utter Crap here:ReplyDelete
More Dual Network...ReplyDelete