Disastrous new "cycle facility"

When work started on a new cycle path on the southbound side of The Causeway in Petersfield, I was hopeful that this would help to promote cycling in the area and maybe encourage a few new cyclists.  Personally I was not fussed.  I use this road very day, and have never felt the need for special treatment.  For a fairly busy road, it is quite safe: wide, nearly straight, with wide verges and good visibility:

In the mornings I cycle up this road and turn left off it in the distance, up a steep country lane.  In the evenings I come down the steep lane, have plenty of time to look around, and turn right into the road.  Nice and simple.

Now the cycle path shown on the left of the photo above has been built, it makes my journey MORE DANGEROUS, SLOWER and LESS PLEASANT, whether I use the path or not!

What happens when I use the path?  I leave the road where the cycle path starts by slowing down (first hazard) and bumping obliquely up a badly dropped kerb (second hazard) onto the path:

On the path I have about a quarter of a mile of traffic-free cycling.  This was quite pleasant for a couple of weeks, until rubbish started to appear on the path and the trees started to grow and hang down below face level (third hazard):

Not to mention the obligatory low-visibility "feature" to keep cyclists on their toes (fourth hazard):

Then a fifth hazard: crossing the entrance to a lay-by, where now I have to give way:

Finally, where before I simply turned left, I now have to slow right down, turn hard left, hard right into the lay-by (sixth hazard) and hard left into the lane:

In the evening it is far worse.  Instead of my right turn with plenty of space and time, I now have to slam the brakes on at the bottom of the hill (seventh hazard), turn hard right (eighth hazard), then hard left over a slippery bit of ridged concrete (ninth hazard), then hard right onto the cycle path for a few metres:

Then it's over the lay-by entrance, back down the path, sometimes facing cyclists who don't realise it's a two-way path (tenth hazard), stop and cross the road at the busy new pinch point: (eleventh hazard)



Because it is a pinch point, the traffic is all bunched up, so it is much harder to get across than the original right turn onto the open road.

OK, so suppose I eschew the cycle path and just use the road as I used to?  Well, the pinch point is a pinch point for me, too.  And it rightly annoys drivers who now often have to stop on an open road::

And they look at me as if I'm responsible for the whole shambles, and shouldn't be on the road anyway because of the cycle path (they're wrong about that, but I can hardly blame them)!

Several hundred thousand pounds will have been spent on this ridiculous, inconvenient, unpleasant and downright dangerous pile of poo.  Oh, and I wonder how many cyclists were consulted?

Equality and insurance

Re-posting as the original post seems to have been hacked.

Women young and old are being unfairly penalised in two recent examples of "gender equality". Apparently, European Union rules mean that insurance companies cannot discriminate by gender when setting premiums. This affects female drivers, especially young women, who have significantly lower risk than their male counterparts, and it affects life insurance premiums for women, who have longer life expectancy than men. In both cases, the insurance companies are no longer allowed to take these gender-based risk factors into account, which means that women effectively have to subsidise men. This is unfair, although it is being done in the name of gender equality.
I believe the EU are mistaken in this ruling because they misunderstand the raison d'être of insurance. Insurance spreads the cost of an event, be it a car accident or a premature death, so that the random few who suffer - accident victims or the families of people who die before their time - will be able to bear the cost. But it is reasonable that premiums should reflect the degree of risk and the expected payout, which is why we readily accept that we pay different car insurance premiums depending on our age, where we live and what type of car we drive. Why should gender not be on that list of factors, when there is a clearly demonstrable difference in risk between men and women? Because of a misguided notion of "equality" which simply does not apply to insurance. It does apply to other businesses, so hotels should not be allowed to discriminate against gay people, or pubs against soldiers, or shops against children (even if in some cases businesses can demonsrate increased risk of trouble, and therefore increased costs, from certain groups). The difference with insurance is that the calculation of risk is the basis of the whole business, and at the point of setting premiums, risk is risk regardless of its source.
In fact, I believe insurance companies should be allowed to go in the other direction and take into account anything which they consider to be a significant factor. Yes, anything, including race, religion, hair colour or shoe size. If governments wish to intervene, for example to subsidise a particular group which is more susceptible to certain diseases, then let them do so. That is the basis of the National Health Service, and it is a wonderful thing. And indeed, insurance companies too may wish to operate their own balancing mechanisms. But they should not be obliged to do so. They are making a business deal based on their best understanding of risk. Of course, it would be in everyone's interests for insurance companies and governments alike to do what they can to equalize risks downwards, for example by targeting safe driving and healthy living campaigns towards men. But they should not be forced to make women subsidise men!