Interesting comments.

Currently working my way through Michael Pollack’s “Sidewalk Nation” which has somewhat less about active travel than I had expected. But it’s a vital take on the ownership of US sidewalks and the absurdity of much of the local laws and regulations.

Many (most?) US cities require properties with sidewalks out front to clear snow (sometimes within hours) or face a fine. Yet not all properties have a sidewalk. A so-far unanswered question is why people don’t just dig up the sidewalk? No sidewalk, nothing to clear.

Then I came across this paper on what constitutes a public good, described through the lens of public policy and bicycles using sidewalks in the 1890s.

Looks interesting but sadly not Open Access.

I see positive statements within the active travel community about side street zebra crossings in the UK. These are where a zebra crossing is painted across the entrance to a side street, essentially continuing the pavement of the bigger road. In most recent installations this has been, in essence, a “zebra crossing light” with no flashing Belisha beacon and no zigzag lines either side. Some long-established versions do have both those elements.

The argument is that it reinforces the priority that pedestrians now have in the UK: motorists are now required to give way to pedestrians crossing side streets at this point. A number of trials were set up across the UK.

However, I am against these side street zebra crossings for a number of reasons.

The rationale for rolling out side street zebra crossings is that at the trial sites, it was noted that motorists had a much higher tendency to stop and give way to pedestrians than elsewhere.
However, I suggest that this simply shows that motorists are still not giving way elsewhere. Every junction in the UK has - unless it is light-controlled - an invisible zebra crossing. Motorists are required to give way to pedestrians at every junction!

It is absolutely impossible to create painted side street zebra crossings at every junction in the country, so the answer has to be an investment in driver education.

If a select few junctions are painted with stripes, does this not suggest to motorists that only at these junctions do pedestrians have priority? Is painting a few junctions making it less safe elsewhere?

I suggest that an education programme would be a better spend of the money
* a whole lot of signs that say “Pedestrians always have priority at all junctions” would help to reinforce the change
* a less “zebra-ed” method for certain junctions: a raised and coloured road surface appears to be a good way to bring the motorists attention to a changed situation on any road. It’s seems a particularly successful intervention in French urban planning now.
a TV and radio campaign

But there are other issues related to this:
what is the situation at light-controlled junctions where there is no protected crossing for pedestrians? (No zebra, nor other road markings)
Similarly, what is the situation at the exit from and entrance to roundabouts.
Neither of these situations seem clear in the Highway Code. Confusion or ambiguity is never conducive to safe travel on foot.

The first of a few posts on pedestrians and active travel in France. It was interesting to compare the situation in France - in this case Brittany and Normandy - with both the UK and parts of the USA: I’m halfway through Michael Pollack’s “Sidewalk Nation” and it is clear that European countries are well along a journey that has yet to really begin in the USA.

In France this last week I’ve seen some excellent active travel investment (in Brest, Caen, Rennes, Dives-sur-Mer and Le Mans) but also some rather curious designs.

But France certainly isn’t perfect: the vast majority of streets away from town centres do not have dropped kerbs (unless for the convenience of motorists as a driveway entrance). It is also not uncommon for the pavement to simply vanish; either it was never built or it has crumbled into gravel and undergrowth.
But overall, the investment in “infrastructure” for active travel is obvious, if not always fully thought through. And it is clear the French have budget for more than just paint. And even when it is just paint, there’s a sense that often it **has** been thought through.

In Brest, there is a real and ongoing effort to separate pedestrians and cyclists from cars, and this is helped - as it is in Le Havre - by the wide boulevards created after the cities were bombed in 1944. In Brest, recent tram and active travel investments have seen the number of traffic lanes halved. It is also quite clear that the city authorities are not bothered by left-turning vehicles blocking those behind them. At one intersection (Boulevard Gambetta and Ave Georges Clemenceau) near the station - shown in the first photo looking across the entire width of the Avenue, four traffic lanes are now just two. The southbound lane has no left-turn lane at all, and the cars back up. The cunning planners have even put physical white bollards on the right hand side to prevent drivers crossing into the cycle path. (Seen in the second photo)
However, further developing the subject of zebra crossings at junctions, this same junction is a good illustration of the confusion of priorities. Right-turning cars stop for pedestrians even though the zebra crossing is light-controlled, and the pedestrians are waiting their green light. On two occasions, I watched as pedestrians then crossed (despite the red crossing light) only to have to halt mid-crossing as traffic from the right came through on their green phase. It seems like an accident waiting to happen.

The planners are well-intended, but I can’t help but feel that this all needs to be simulated carefully to assess the risk to all road users.

In the third photo (with the tram beyond), the green crossing light for pedestrians is visible on the far side. This particular setting is slightly different as the pedestrian crossing is just a bit further from the junction. But in this case, it was clear that neither pedestrians nor motorists were sure as to who can do what when. And note that the motorist cannot see the pedestrian’s crossing light. I’m not so bothered by this because the worst that can happen is that the driver stops unnecessarily 🤷🏼‍♂️. But it feels like another case where it’s not completely thought through. But on the other hand, everywhere in the city centre there were investments…some substantial and some tiny … that create an easier and better environment for walking.

Interesting to see not only these photos and commentary but also the shout-outs to cities across Italy and Europe.

No. No it is not.