Off Topic Hull City Centre Public Realm Strategy

As one of those slow moving cyclists, I can answer that. They whizz past 1 mm from your handlebar with no warning leaving you wobbling in their wake. If there’s no room to overtake they shout at you until you move over, in a faux polite way that really means **** off out of the way there a real cyclist coming through.

Electric scooters they’re a great idea but no one in authority knows what to do with them because they’re too dangerous to be on either pavement or road. I think they’d be ok on dedicated cycle paths (not the ones shared with pedestrians) but there’s not enough of those to be practical. I doubt the scooters are going away so ideas needed fast.

 

Suspicion that the latest cycle lane in Hull is actually a ruse by a 'wiley' anti-cycling group...

 

I don't have an issue with electric scooters, mamils, electric bikes, whatever but I think the problem is that there are just more of them about than ever envisaged, especially with the number of delivery bikers around these days, and the roads and cycle lanes just can't cope.

Where I live there have always been lots of cyclists so they have become part of the traffic scene and it largely works well. Places where cycling has been more marginal might well struggle to integrate increasing numbers.

 

I think the 'how' things are done is often more important than the measure itself. The cycle schemes were rushed, with little engagement with the public,which has lead to a lot of ill-feeling.

Education of all sides on shared road use is liable to be more cost effective and sustainable than hurling tarmac and paint around.

 

The funding for cycling schemes spent in summer 2020 came from Government with the express requirement that it had to be spent on schemes hitting the ground and completed within 8 weeks. So while I agree that proper consideration and consultation is always preferable, in that particular case the local authorities’ hands were forced by a higher power.

 

Completely agree. The very busy area round the railway station where I live has been re-designed, at huge cost, 3 or 4 times in recent memory. The current design seems to be working brilliantly. There are no lights, no road markings, few raised kerbs and no raised roundabouts, just different coloured road surface material indicating where roundabouts might have been, or where pavements might have been. The whole area is just shared between cars, buses, bikes and pedestrians. There were fears that blind folk would be at risk because there are no light-controlled crossing points but in 5 years since completion I don't think there has been a single incident.

 

That's only partially correct. Some (but not all) of the funding did come from Central Government, but most of the schemes implemented where already in the local plans to progress anyway, they were just brought forward as a consequence of the funding requirements.

There was still time to engage with the public as the schemes progressed and the 8 weeks is only really valid for the first of the schemes, there was longer with the ones after that, and many other areas of the Country managed to do it, and public engagement is a requirement of the funding if you look at the detail.

Even for those bits where the Government provided the funding, and set some of the requirements that needed to be met, how that was done was very much down to the Council.

 

No, that’s just wrong. You are talking about different phases of the funding for works that were completed after the summer, that were delivered to different requirements from Government.

Local authorities did try to engage with the public as best they could, and I’m sure Hull were no different. But they had barely any time (a rushed consultation does as much, if not more, damage than no consultation) and the country was locked down, so it was hardly surprising if the engagement was limited.

 

If that's what you want to believe I'll leave you to it, but what I posted is correct.

 

Your second para was referring to subsequent funding when full consultation was required. If you are saying the Hull City Council didn’t do that consultation then I apologise - but I’d be amazed if that were true as that could well have led to the Government withdrawing funding.

 

You seem to be describing it in ways I never posted.

As I put, the funding from the Government requires public engagement. I'm not saying the Council did not engage in some way.

Top and bottom though is that not all of the funding came from that Government Fund, and the schemes were part of the longer term plans, and the way that the schemes were implemented was largely left to the Council, within certain design parameters.

 

Which may be because you replied to my post about schemes funded in one particular way, by describing some other schemes funded differently. I mean, I should know better by now shouldn’t I.

 

I responded to your claim that the cycle schemes in 2020 were funded by the Government, by explaining that not all of them were, and adding a bit more detail. I'm not sure why that additional information is a problem for you, but there it is.

 

I didn’t say 2020, I said the summer of 2020. You got confused - problem solved.

 

If you did, it makes your claim even less accurate, or valid. I looked in to it as I was curious, so the information is out there, but it is fragmented.

As it's clear my responses are upsetting you for some strange reason of your own, I'll leave you to it.

 

They should build raised scooter paths above normal paths, with a slope up and a helter skelter down, and they should all be painted and furnished to look like Scalextrix tracks, including life sized plastic figures holding chequered flags

Sorted

 

It looks like they're already trying that on Anlaby Rd.

 

They had to claim the cash for the bike lanes and get on with it like you said it then made it possible to claim extra funding to spend on road repairs

 

Can't we just leave this kind of **** to Peter Levy?