You are reading a single comment by @Backstop and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I think mainly the point is that they're a bloody stupid bit of design.
I think they're excellent with a proven safety record. The basic concept should be obvious to anyone who has had to play leapfrog with a bus.
Backstop-
So, we swap cyclists playing leapfrog with the busses with pedestrians playing frogger across the cycle lane?
i'm curious to see how this Whitechapel one works out, but I think that leaving the pedestrian/cyclist conflict unresolved does seem bloody stupid.
Edit - just seen @charlie_lcc posting above re the 77pc slowing to give way rather than stopping. That puts a different complexion on things, if the cycle/pedestrian conflict does actually resolve itself.
h2o
I don't think it's a strange thing to include. Yes, there is no requirement to stop, and the floating bus stop basically assumes that pedestrians will be able to wait for a suitable gap in the flow of cyclist traffic, because not many cyclists will stop without being directed to. For the partially sighted or blind, this might be rather difficult.
And no, not many car drivers stop for pedestrians, but that's why we put zebras and Pelicans and stop lights up. The floating bus stops seem to assume we'll all just muddle through fine.
I think mainly the point is that they're a bloody stupid bit of design.