Some more quality infrastructure

Causing confusuion among drivers is a good thing. The more certainty you give them the faster they drive. Though motorists don't tend to be so stupid that they need signs to tell them that it is a good idea to try to avoid crashing in to each other.

This is rare case of a cycle lane that reallocates space from motorists to cyclists (rather than vice versa) - and being unusual it will tend to attract controversy. Indeed, one test of ANY infrastructure that actually benefits cyclists is that it will  attract a hostile press. The more common arrangement - where the centre line is retained and a narrow cycle lane is painted in the gutter to try to prevent us obstructing motorists for as much as a second will be seen a normal thus attract no controversy at all.

With this arrangement motorists have a lane that gives them sufficient space to overtake a cyclist without squeezing past - but they can only do this if there is no oncoming traffic. If there is oncoming traffic then they need to move into the cycle lane to get past which is fine during the 99% of time it is unoccupied (ie the cycle lanes ARE the passing places). This is a good thing as the passage of motor vehicles helps sweep the cycle lane of debris. The key to thescheme haowever, is the fact they have to move into the cycle lane to pass oncoming ttraffic gives them the clear message that they are in the cyclists space so cannot overtake untill the main lane is free.

The very fact that a driver is in a lane where he can expect oncoming traffic acts to reduce speed far more effectively than a posted speed limit.

Causing confusuion among drivers is a good thing. The more certainty you give them the faster they drive. Though motorists don't tend to be so stupid that they need signs to tell them that it is a good idea to try to avoid crashing in to each other.

This is rare case of a cycle lane that reallocates space from motorists to cyclists (rather than vice versa) - and being unusual it will tend to attract controversy. Indeed, one test of ANY infrastructure that actually benefits cyclists is that it will  attract a hostile press. The more common arrangement - where the centre line is retained and a narrow cycle lane is painted in the gutter to try to prevent us obstructing motorists for as much as a second will be seen a normal thus attract no controversy at all.

With this arrangement motorists have a lane that gives them sufficient space to overtake a cyclist without squeezing past - but they can only do this if there is no oncoming traffic. If there is oncoming traffic then they need to move into the cycle lane to get past which is fine during the 99% of time it is unoccupied (ie the cycle lanes ARE the passing places). This is a good thing as the passage of motor vehicles helps sweep the cycle lane of debris. The key to the scheme however, is the fact they have to move into the cycle lane to pass oncoming ttraffic gives them the clear message that they are in the cyclists space so cannot overtake untill the main lane is free.

The very fact that a driver is in a lane where he can expect oncoming traffic acts to reduce speed far more effectively than a posted speed limit.