Priorities of road users to be changed to place responsibility on those that pose the greatest danger to others.

[Peter Sarf]

See video below showing a Tesco driver hitting a bicycle. Indicator goes on maybe one second before the van starts to turn. If someone did this to a cyclist in the Netherlands they'd be in big trouble. One wonders what would have happened if the cyclist was replaced by a bus in a bus lane. In Cardiff I think the result would have been a very bent van!

Shocking moment Tesco delivery van slams into a cyclist when the driver turns left - YouTube

Well. Its not totally clear but it does appear that the van has just overtaken the cyclist so the driver should assume the cyclist is there. Indicating left so late is hopeless, the cyclist is unlikely to notice the indicator at that position anyway. The van driver is making a sudden change of direction.

But this highlights a problem I have with bus and cycle lanes. In the past it was always a bad thing to turn left from a position where you are not in the left most lane. The reason was that you could easily end up colliding with something going straight on. Near me there is a bus lane and several entrances to shops to cut across. I indicate as early as I can but then I am familiar with the route. The traffic there is usually queuing so I have to hope any cycle can see me as THEY approach. I cannot drift over to the left to make it obvious or to get a better view in my mirror as I would then get fined for entering the bus lane. I also have to hope I have remembered any cyclist etc that I have just overtaken in the case where my lane is flowing freely. I expect the van driver was obeying his sat-nav and forgetting about avoiding erratic moves. But for me it is all getting too complicated and too risky. Having a lane of traffic to your left that is freely moving is a recipe for disaster.

There is also the result of tests conducted by Dr Ian Walker, a psychologist at the University of Bath. Walker is a man who has researched attitudes and reactions to cyclists with more thoroughness than most. In 2006 he attached a computer and an electronic distance gauge to his bike and recorded data from 2,500 drivers who overtook him on the roads. Half the time he wore a bike helmet and half the time he was bare-headed. The results showed motorists tended to pass him more closely when he had the helmet on, coming an average of 8.5 cm nearer. Walker said he believed this was likely to be connected to cycling being relatively rare in the UK, and drivers thus forming preconceived ideas about cyclists based on what they wore. “This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without,” he wrote.

In effect, if the observations are representative of drivers' reasons for their behviour, then they may also be why so many drivers would feel comfortable with cyclists being forced to wear helmets as it may reduce their assessment of the risks that they present to cyclists. Maybe that is subconciously in some posters here. Another more cynical view is that it might just put additional responsibilities on cyclists as they get off so lightly (e.g. don't pay road tax, they don't have to pass a test, they don't have speed limits and so on), and it might put them off using roads really provided just for motor vehicles.

I really do think cyclists should have a course and pass a test. I did the cycling proficiency test as a child and it taught me a lot about road sense. It even helped when I learnt to drive. I think the risks some cyclists take are due to ignorance that a course would help teach them the dangers of.

I do not believe roads are provided just for motor vehicles but they are paid for by the users of motor vehicles. If we all go to public transport and cycles who will pay for the roads then !. For me I choose to use buses or walk where I can but I do not get a discount on my road tax or on my residents parking (which has risen 6 fold over the last 3 years).

 

[Bikeman78]

Well. Its not totally clear but it does appear that the van has just overtaken the cyclist so the driver should assume the cyclist is there. Indicating left so late is hopeless, the cyclist is unlikely to notice the indicator at that position anyway. The van driver is making a sudden change of direction.

There is a longer video somewhere which shows the previous 60 seconds or so going back to the previous set of lights but I couldn't find it. The cyclist was extremely unlucky, the side road is a very short dead end street so hardly anyone would turn in there.

Funnily enough I nearly collided with a lorry that made a late left turn in front of me recently. In 10 years of riding the same route I had never seen a lorry go into that particular road. The left signal went on very late and I thought he was signalling to turn left at the next junction where lorries frequently do turn left.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Funnily enough I nearly collided with a lorry that made a late left turn in front of me recently. In 10 years of riding the same route I had never seen a lorry go into that particular road. The left signal went on very late and I though he was signalling to turn left at the next junction where lorries frequently do turn left.

There is certainly a culture in lorry drivers of "signal, manoeuvre", i.e. omitting the "mirror"* part. I'm not sure how, but it does need addressing. It is particularly bad on motorways.

* I'm well aware of the large blind spots down the side of a lorry. This needs solving through technology, i.e. cameras, but absent that if you don't know that where you intend to turn into is clear, then you don't turn. Thus, if there is a cycle lane, you assume there is a cyclist in it unless you have seen for certain that there definitely is not.

 

[Meerkat]

Exactly, anyone who implies a helmet doesn't protect someone is clearly an idiot.

It’s overstated IMO. A helmet is bigger than your head so more likely to hit something (I don’t remember hitting my head all the times I fell off as a kid, even when I went flying over a bonnet and slid ten yards down a side road) and they won’t save you from hitting a kerb hard or a decent whack by a car.
In the Aussie states with compulsory helmets cycling plummeted, which kills people through less exercise, and makes the roads less safe - the best thing is for lots of cyclists leading to driver familiarity.
And they reckon it makes riders take more risks, particularly the young.
Drivers wearing full harnesses and helmets would probably save more lives, and be equally ludicrously disproportionate. Or maybe full body armour for pedestrians.

 

[Peter Sarf]

There is a longer video somewhere which shows the previous 60 seconds or so going back to the previous set of lights but I couldn't find it. The cyclist was extremely unlucky, the side road is a very short dead end street so hardly anyone would turn in there.

Funnily enough I nearly collided with a lorry that made a late left turn in front of me recently. In 10 years of riding the same route I had never seen a lorry go into that particular road. The left signal went on very late and I though he was signalling to turn left at the next junction where lorries frequently do turn left.

If I have a sudden desire to turn I don't bother and then do a U turn or let the Sat-Nav work it out. On roundabouts I will go round again rather than suddenly hang a left. Causes consternation to my passengers but I won't be forced into sudden changes of direction. But if I am about to go into a restricted road or congestion charge etc then I will put the anchors on and then have a good look. I do wonder if your case was a late reaction to a Sat-Nav. I have seen someone swerve left off a roundabout almost too late to clear the island/curb of the exit. They did not make it as they bounced of a car to their left !. But a cyclist is less likely to be noticed and will get hurt.

 

[Bikeman78]

A helmet is bigger than your head so more likely to hit something (I don’t remember hitting my head all the times I fell off as a kid, even when I went flying over a bonnet and slid ten yards down a side road) and they won’t save you from hitting a kerb hard or a decent whack by a car.

I've fallen off a few times, usually on ice or snow but, like you, I've never hit my head.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I've fallen off a few times, usually on ice or snow but, like you, I've never hit my head.

I once came off at a pothole. All I remember is seeing the concrete road and curb coming towards my eyes...... I can still see it now over forty years later all in detail but nothing more !.

 

[ashkeba]

That helps, but they cycle on the roads without helmets too (and the towns are pretty chaotic with bikes flying everywhere!)

I have lived in Holland but I never saw flying bicycles! Are they the next innovation after electric ones?

 

[yorkie]

Most cycle helmets can fit in a decent-sized rucksack and they weigh literally nothing, so cumbersome they are not.

You wear a rucksack everywhere you go?

Cars aren't dangerous, the people who drive them are. The same goes for cyclists, I've lost count of the number of near misses I've had with cyclists on the road who ride about like it's their own personal highway.

I've lost count of the number of near misses I've had with car drivers on the road who ride about like it's their own personal highway.

Exactly, anyone who implies a helmet doesn't protect someone is clearly an idiot.

You wear a helmet while walking as a pedestrian, is that right?

If not, why not, given they would protect you (see post #90 by @bikeman above)

 

[edwin_m]

Then as I said, if there were gaps in the traffic large enough for pedestrians to cross before the green man shows without affecting the traffic, they would have zero net effect on the overall traffic flow (and possibly a slight benefit) even if the traffic has to watch an unused pedestrian crossing phase.

I try to walk as much as I can. But of course most car drivers do some walking.

The point I am making is that I see pedestrians walk up to a pelican crossing press the button BEFORE looking for a gap, they immediately see there is already a gap and use it. If only they could look first before pressing the button, it might arguably save them a second or two. I must admit I prefer to avoid touching something that others have already touched !. For myself I am patient enough to wait a little while before pressing the button as at the 40mph crossing near my house there is quite often a gap quite soon. I might add that if there are children there then I make a good example by pressing the button and waiting.

The problem here is that a pedestrian arrives, sees there is no gap in the traffic and pushes the button. But there is often a delay before the lights change, due to the crossing being designed not to change too frequently. So on many occasions there will be a gap during this delay and the pedestrian will have got across, but the lights will still change sometime afterwards. The solution is probably to make the crossing detect approaching traffic and change to a pedestrian phase if there is none and the button has been pressed, even if it's only a short time since the previous pedestrian phase. I'm not sure if any of them do this - my own observations suggest many don't.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

@yorkie, @Bletchleyite
Perhaps your observations and mine are both correct.

Maybe drivers do pause at zebras and let people over. But do they really stop and apply the handbrake? Do they move off again before the crossing is clear? (I must read the small print in the HC about that). I should not trust a driver to stop if they were apparently slowing, I should wait until the vehicle has stopped.

I have not been to London for many years, but I seem to recall traffic in queues frequently blocking zebras and light-controlled crossings there.

 

[AM9]

The problem here is that a pedestrian arrives, sees there is no gap in the traffic and pushes the button. But there is often a delay before the lights change, due to the crossing being designed not to change too frequently. So on many occasions there will be a gap during this delay and the pedestrian will have got across, but the lights will still change sometime afterwards. The solution is probably to make the crossing detect approaching traffic and change to a pedestrian phase if there is none and the button has been pressed, even if it's only a short time since the previous pedestrian phase. I'm not sure if any of them do this - my own observations suggest many don't.

The nearest crossing to my home does detect approaching traffic but it makes decisions on detections from either direction, i.e a single slow vehicle at the extreme point of detection will prevent a crossing phase from starting even if the opposite direction hasn't had a single vehicle pass since the last crossing. The maximum time from requesting to cross to the start of a crossing phase is set to two minutes. Now that is a long time to be delayed in a 20 minute walk, (typical of users of that crossing as it is on a very well used route between a residential area and through a park to the centre of the city). Drivers are delayed a maximum of 30 seconds if they are stopped.

 

[Bletchleyite]

@yorkie, @Bletchleyite
Perhaps your observations and mine are both correct.

Maybe drivers do pause at zebras and let people over. But do they really stop and apply the handbrake? Do they move off again before the crossing is clear? (I must read the small print in the HC about that). I should not trust a driver to stop if they were apparently slowing, I should wait until the vehicle has stopped.

I have not been to London for many years, but I seem to recall traffic in queues frequently blocking zebras and light-controlled crossings there.

Most drivers don't apply the handbrake unless parking, so I doubt that, but it is again no different from traffic lights.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

No sure what the law says, but I always apply the handbrake and engage neutral when stopped in a queue or at a zebra. Got a feeling that was taught in driving school.

 

[Factotum]

Cyclists, braver ones than I, often ride two abreast with good reason.

If the road is narrow, winding, unsuitable for overtaking, they thus prevent drivers trying to squeeze by leaving less clearance than the 2m minimum required by law, which they might try if the cyclists were in single file.

I find arguments against cyclists riding two abreast and thus occupying about half the road width as a car rather ludicrous when they come from a single occupant driver.

Some of the "compliant" lights aren't up to scratch though, they'd be aswell using a candle. Bike lights should be clearly visible from a distance. They also shouldn't flash as the flashing lights are quite distracting.

Some bicycle lights appear brighter than a cars dipped headlamps. Because cyclist never dip their lights.

I do not believe roads are provided just for motor vehicles but they are paid for by the users of motor vehicles. If we all go to public transport and cycles who will pay for the roads then !. For me I choose to use buses or walk where I can but I do not get a discount on my road tax or on my residents parking (which has risen 6 fold over the last 3 years).

Roads are paid for out of general taxation, including council tax, so non drivers as well as drivers pay for the roads. Indeed a rich non driver makes a bigger contribution towards the cost of road building than a less well off driver. And everyone benefits from the road network

 

[Peter Sarf]

The problem here is that a pedestrian arrives, sees there is no gap in the traffic and pushes the button. But there is often a delay before the lights change, due to the crossing being designed not to change too frequently. So on many occasions there will be a gap during this delay and the pedestrian will have got across, but the lights will still change sometime afterwards. The solution is probably to make the crossing detect approaching traffic and change to a pedestrian phase if there is none and the button has been pressed, even if it's only a short time since the previous pedestrian phase. I'm not sure if any of them do this - my own observations suggest many don't.

I know what you mean. There s a junction near my house that detects cars. Many times I have seen the light I am approaching turn to red so I am slowing down and stopping. Only to realise the light is green. First few times I thought I was going barmy. The next time I was walking I took a detour to watch it and saw the trick !.

I cannot complain about pedestrians that see no gap and push the button only for a gap to appear. But it is the ones that push the button without first checking for a gap. Then march straight across. A bit of forethought leaves the crossing available for me and other pedestrians walking some distance behind. Otherwise I usually lose the gap as cars are bunched up and the lights will go through the 2(ish) minute cycle. Furthermore the road vehicles have used a bit more fuel and produced a bit more pollution for me to breathe in while I am standing there waiting.

@yorkie, @Bletchleyite
Perhaps your observations and mine are both correct.

Maybe drivers do pause at zebras and let people over. But do they really stop and apply the handbrake? Do they move off again before the crossing is clear? (I must read the small print in the HC about that). I should not trust a driver to stop if they were apparently slowing, I should wait until the vehicle has stopped.

I have not been to London for many years, but I seem to recall traffic in queues frequently blocking zebras and light-controlled crossings there.

From what I recall a vehicle must not use the crossing while a pedestrian is on it even if the pedestrian is on the other half of the road. But if the crossing is split up by an island in the road (usually dividing the two directions of travel) then the vehicles on the unoccupied half can set off. And remember if one vehicle stops then vehicles travelling in the same direction in an adjacent lane cannot overtake - in the length of road that the zig-zag lines denote. Furthermore no overtaking on the other side of the road (assuming empty opposite direction).

 

[Kez]

On my journeys to/from work, car drivers can reach speeds of several mph above the speed limit. The priority of car drivers is often to maintain their speed at all costs no matter what other road users may get in their way.


Another gripe I have is the extremely frequent overtaking of car drivers with no thought to traffic flow, such just before some obstruction that applies to them, such as parked cars.


And I often cringe at the sense of entitlement car drivers exhibit and their complete disregard for other road users.


Do you have any rationale for this bizarre claim?


Where is this? This is not my observation. Car drivers can be bad in many aspects, but zebra crossings is an area where I find they are actually generally very good.

Nor is it mine.

If you are arguing for equivalence between the behaviour of motorists and cyclists then presumably you are also arguing for equivalence in responsibility and so you disagree with the changes that are being made. Equally, I assume that you believe that cyclists should have things like compulsory third party insurance and a bike test for roadworthiness similar to the MOT ... even a bicycle tax.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No sure what the law says, but I always apply the handbrake and engage neutral when stopped in a queue or at a zebra. Got a feeling that was taught in driving school.

I suspect you are one in maybe 100 drivers who bother doing that. I certainly don't. I put the handbrake on if I will be stationary for a considerable period of time, e.g. at a red "regular" traffic light, or if I'll want to use it to assist pulling off without rolling back. I suspect I am in the relative minority of using it that often - most people, from observing brake lights, only use it to park.

If you are arguing for equivalence between the behaviour of motorists and cyclists then presumably you are also arguing for equivalence in responsibility and so you disagree with the changes that are being made. Equally, I assume that you believe that cyclists should have things like compulsory third party insurance and a bike test for roadworthiness similar to the MOT ... even a bicycle tax.

No, because the need for those things is not based on behaviour but on risk. And that risk is because of the relative size and speed of the vehicle. A bicycle weighs about 20kg at most and is capable of about 25mph at an absolute push by most riders on the flat, most far below that - in London, say, most cyclists will be doing somewhere between 10 and 20mph most of the time. A car weighs about 1500-2000kg and is capable of 100+mph. The latter therefore poses many, many times more risk to anything it hits.

 

[Failed Unit]

If you are arguing for equivalence between the behaviour of motorists and cyclists then presumably you are also arguing for equivalence in responsibility and so you disagree with the changes that are being made. Equally, I assume that you believe that cyclists should have things like compulsory third party insurance and a bike test for roadworthiness similar to the MOT ... even a bicycle tax.

What would the bike tax achieve? Some cars pay £0 VED. It seems to be something often given by anti-cyclist groups but they forget that less polluting cards pay nothing. Do bikes damage the road surface? Do bikes create potholes? Do bikes cause congestion in cities? I tend to find parked cars the biggest issue for city traffic flow.

I have 3rd Party insurance, just in case a pedestrian walks out in front of me.

Sensible cyclist service their bike, just like sensible car users. I see many cars that would fail the MOT if it was taken at the point I saw them (Belching out black smoke under load).
Remember if I don’t service my bike and can’t stop. It hurts me a lot more then what I hit. A big incentive to make sure the bike works well.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

What would the bike tax achieve? Some cars pay £0 VED. It seems to be something often given by anti-cyclist groups but they forget that less polluting cards pay nothing. Do bikes damage the road surface? Do bikes create potholes? Do bikes cause congestion in cities? I tend to find parked cars the biggest issue for city traffic flow.

I have 3rd Party insurance, just in case a pedestrian walks out in front of me.

Sensible cyclist service their bike, just like sensible car users. I see many cars that would fail the MOT if it was take at the point I say them (Belching out black smoke under load)

Simple: some cars pay nothing, so cycles get a VED credit. I have two cycles so I shall claim two credits.

 

[yorkie]

If you are arguing for equivalence between the behaviour of motorists and cyclists then presumably you are also arguing for equivalence in responsibility and so you disagree with the changes that are being made. Equally, I assume that you believe that cyclists should have things like compulsory third party insurance and a bike test for roadworthiness similar to the MOT ... even a bicycle tax.

I've no idea what your rationale for any of this is, but I see others have done a good job of demolishing your suggestions.

 

[AlterEgo]

@yorkie, @Bletchleyite
Perhaps your observations and mine are both correct.

Maybe drivers do pause at zebras and let people over. But do they really stop and apply the handbrake? Do they move off again before the crossing is clear? (I must read the small print in the HC about that). I should not trust a driver to stop if they were apparently slowing, I should wait until the vehicle has stopped.

I have not been to London for many years, but I seem to recall traffic in queues frequently blocking zebras and light-controlled crossings there.

There is no requirement to use the handbrake when stopping for a few seconds at a zebra crossing to allow a pedestrian across.

I use zebra crossings daily in London and misuse is rarer than you'd expect. Most misuse is by cyclists who are incentivised to conserve momentum.

You should not wait for the vehicle to stop before moving onto the crossing because you have no priority until you are on it under the current rules (which I agree need amending!!). Currently, zebra crossings operate on consensus. Look positively both ways, make clear from your body language that you are about to cross, make eye contact with the driver approaching from your right, watch them slow, move across, look left, make eye contact, keep moving.

I suspect you are one in maybe 100 drivers who bother doing that. I certainly don't. I put the handbrake on if I will be stationary for a considerable period of time, e.g. at a red "regular" traffic light, or if I'll want to use it to assist pulling off without rolling back. I suspect I am in the relative minority of using it that often - most people, from observing brake lights, only use it to park.

Some cars have a hill start assist that only kicks in when using the handbrake - it applies the foot brake for two seconds after releasing the handbrake. This has made me use the handbrake much more often, but still only in queueing traffic, or when travelling uphill, or when held at a long phase red light.

 

[Failed Unit]

I did see a nasty accident on New Bridge Street, near Blackfriars station in London.

A cyclist was going down the hill towards the bridge fairly quickly when a pedestrian stepped right out in front of them at a pedestrian crossing. I was at the crossing myself and the cyclist did have the green light (we were on red). I suspect in this case as we had just crossed the road, the person didn't realize that green light didn't apply to crossing the cycleway. Others did try to stop the pedestrian by shouting watch out, but it was a hard enough impact to bend the front wheel of the bike.

I guess this law would be interesting here, the pedestrian was 100% at fault and admitted it themselves (guess the should be insured to compensate the cyclist ) - But also you could argue that the cyclist was going to fast (but not above the speed limit) as pedestrians not respecting crossing in front of stations is not unusual. People that know the area can probably picture exactly what happened.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess this law would be interesting here, the pedestrian was 100% at fault and admitted it themselves (guess the should be insured to compensate the cyclist ) - But also you could argue that the cyclist was going to fast (but not above the speed limit) as pedestrians not respecting crossing in front of stations is not unusual. People that know the area can probably picture exactly what happened.

You jest, but in some countries, Germany being one, it is the norm (though not mandatory) to carry a separate personal liability insurance policy, known in that case as a Haftpflichtversicherung, which would cover exactly this sort of case (and stuff like your kid kicking a football through someone's window etc). I recall being advised to take one when I was a student over there, but I don't think I bothered, largely because before companies being online was a thing it was a bit hard to find out what it was and how to get one!

Some UK home insurance policies also provide this sort of cover, though unlike Road Traffic Act policies there isn't a way to claim directly, you'd have to sue them and the policy would indemnify if you won. There is almost always some sort of liability clause on contents policies, but some provide general liability cover just excluding things like motor vehicles, while others provide cover only for liability resulting from your ownership of the property, e.g. if a tile fell off your roof through someone's car windscreen. A long time ago I got it in writing from Direct Line that one of their policies did cover liability arising from cycling, though I wouldn't take that as read now because the underwriting may have changed since.

 

[Meerkat]

I’m a member of Cycling UK/CTC - which has third party cycling insurance and legal cover included.
The legal cover is handy and low stress as the case goes straight to lawyers the insurance companies respect - I got a everything fixed plus a couple of grand when I went over some old chaps bonnet twenty odd years ago.

 

[AM9]

... You should not wait for the vehicle to stop before moving onto the crossing because you have no priority until you are on it under the current rules (which I agree need amending!!). Currently, zebra crossings operate on consensus. Look positively both ways, make clear from your body language that you are about to cross, make eye contact with the driver approaching from your right, watch them slow, move across, look left, make eye contact, keep moving. ...

Ah, somebody that seems to agree with my approach to crossing use. It's easy enough to look like you are committed to crossing without putting yourself at a high risk. Sometimes it's easy to spot a non-stopper coming and often I will take a step away from the kerb and then move fairly purposefully towards it. No driver (apart from a mobile sociopath) would even consider the option of deliberately hitting somebody on a Zebra or a controlled crossing, so it is just the self-entitled and the impatient drivers that need to be dealt with.

 

[Meerkat]

Ah, somebody that seems to agree with my approach to crossing use. It's easy enough to look like you are committed to crossing without putting yourself at a high risk. Sometimes it's easy to spot a non-stopper coming and often I will take a step away from the kerb and then move fairly purposefully towards it. No driver (apart from a mobile sociopath) would even consider the option of deliberately hitting somebody on a Zebra or a controlled crossing, so it is just the self-entitled and the impatient drivers that need to be dealt with.

If you want to play chicken you have to pretend you aren’t looking at the traffic!
As a cyclist I always try to get eye contact with drivers in side roads etc - they seem much less likely to cut you up once you have that.

 

[AM9]

If you want to play chicken you have to pretend you aren’t looking at the traffic!
As a cyclist I always try to get eye contact with drivers in side roads etc - they seem much less likely to cut you up once you have that.

Sometimes I do, it depends on whether they are actually making any attempt to stop or not. With dashcams and helmet cams, a 'lapel cam' would seem a worthwhile accessory for pedestrians in some places.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sometimes I do, it depends on whether they are actually making any attempt to stop or not. With dashcams and helmet cams, a 'lapel cam' would seem a worthwhile accessory for pedestrians in some places.

Otherwise known as "gross overkill", I suspect, just like people with dashcams and helmet cams who invariably seem to be out to pick a fight by driving or riding aggressively or asserting a right of way in a manner that puts them at risk.

Drive, ride and walk defensively, give people room to be stupid and humour them, and your chance of coming to harm is very small and your stress levels will be well down. "Here lies AM9, he had the right of way" is not what you want on your gravestone. "Aren't we all just trying to get somewhere?" (Ref: that excellent Honda ad from the early 2000s)

 

[miami]

I realise the land cost of that in the UK would be prohibitive.

Land cost is tiny in the grand scheme of things, at least outside of cities. A 5 mile 3 metre wide cycle path across open country would be about 5.5 acres / 23,000 sqm, of land, or under £50k based on field costs near to me. The cost to pave and maintain that would be far higher - https://www.pathsforall.org.uk/medi.../estimating-price-guide-for-path-projects.pdf puts cost at £45/sqm, so £1m. The land cost would be a rounding error.

With the rise of e-scooters/bikes making 5 and even 10 mile trips a doddle I'd love to see a proper off-road cycle network connecting villages being built.

The legal cover is handy and low stress as the case goes straight to lawyers the insurance companies respect - I got a everything fixed plus a couple of grand when I went over some old chaps bonnet twenty odd years ago.

Someone pulled out of a side road on me 15 years ago and went over the bonnet. House (just contents - it was a rental) insurance sorted it all out for me.