cycle madness

[B9127]

This on our Council Facebook page - I commented on the note re a consultant costing £50 K - I wondered what we paid the councils own infrastructure staff were paid for.


Spaces for People - funding success for 20mph
Angus Council has made ambitious bids totalling £789,000 from the Scottish Government’s Spaces for People fund aimed at supporting public health, active travel and road safety.
Managed and administered by Sustrans, the fund is designed to address public health issues by allowing people to move around their local area safely while keeping to physical distancing requirements during the transition through and out of the COVID-19 crisis.
A sum of £50,000 has already been secured for a consultant to carry out necessary feasibility studies and options appraisals for the “lives-changing” project and is another boost in the promotion of active travel and road safety in Angus.
A further bid for £110,000 has also been successful to install temporary 20mph speed restrictions at all seven Burgh towns in Angus and in the villages of Edzell, Friockheim and Liff as efforts to make our Spaces for People are ramped up
A follow-up bid of £629,000 was submitted last week for further temporary 20mph speed restrictions in six villages and for physical intervention measures in all Burgh towns, which will include barriers and signage to promote physical distancing within the new areas where temporary 20mph speed restrictions are operating and in each school cluster across Angus.
The additional six villages are Glamis, Hillside, Kingsmuir, Letham, Newbigging and Newtyle.
Communities Convener Mark Salmond said: “These bids represent Angus Council’s determination to deliver measures that address the current and ongoing public health need to maintain safer social distances in our towns and villages. They are also designed to increase the already growing numbers of people who are walking and cycling during the coronavirus pandemic.
“We want to support safer, healthier lifestyles through and beyond this public health crisis, by promoting active travel for day-to-day journeys, whether for leisure or work purposes, in a safe and healthy environment through the route out of the lockdown and beyond. This has undoubtedly got to be a silver lining to the COVID-19 cloud.
“The Spaces for People is 100% grant funded and we are delighted to have already received news of our successful bids of £160,000. These are being progressed for delivery in July. We are also eagerly awaiting confirmation from Sustrans that we can progress with the detailing and delivery of £629,000 for further active travel and road safety interventions during this summer.”

[Stevie D]

One logistical query regarding possibly why cyclists are virtually never given priority over sideroads, could it be to do with the fact that if the give-way line for vehicles trying to emerge were far enough back to allow an unbroken cycle route, then there would often not be safe visibility to emerge? Maybe in some places, where there is a wide pavement and a nearside bus lane, there could be, but in so many cases due to kerbside obstructions and parking, the only way to see enough to safely emerge is to actually be as far forward as possible, which also results in a lot of motorists protruding into the road (I know this is illegal but does not stop it happening).

If the pavement is wide enough for a 1.5m cycle lane and a pedestrian path then drivers on the side road should have good enough visibility of approaching traffic if they wait behind the cycle lane crossing. Just imagine that that cycle lane is part of the main carriageway and not on the pavement, and it's exactly the same geometry.

An alternative, particularly if you don't want traffic turning off the main road to have to stop on the main carriageway itself, is to slew the cycle path so that it crosses the side road 6m or so back from the junction, leaving space for a car or medium-sized van to wait between the cycle lane and the main carriageway – if the road is used heavily by buses or lorries then you may want to slew it further to enlarge the waiting space, but to do that without giving cyclists too tight a turn is starting to take up a lot of space and may be difficult to incorporate in an urban context.

[C83]

I think most of my pet hates have already been covered, but key attributes of a cycle lane.

1: Continuous, don't disappear when the road gets a bit narrower, at junctions or where it's generally a bit difficult to fit it in. There are many sections of quite good cycle lane from nowhere to nowhere. They clearly weren't cheap, but benefit no-one.
2: Good surface, most leisure and commuter cyclists are not riding full suspension mountain bikes, potholes etc are a problem.
3: Regularly swept, bicycle tyres are more susceptible to punctures than car tyres, and often the lanes are ignored and full of debris.
4: No give way at side roads, unless the main carriageway also has a give way, e.g. traffic lights
5: Decent width, minimum 1.5m.
6: No parked cars, actually this annoys me when driving as well, cars shouldn't be parked on a bike lane, pavement or general traffic lane where they obstruct the flow of traffic. Either park your car, lock your bike or tie up your horse on your own property, in a designated parking area or if you do leave it on the carriageway, don't obstruct the flow of traffic.

[skiddaw05]

I present as Exhibit A an example of a cycle path which you really wouldn’t want to use. To put it into context the dual carriageway leads to a roundabout where a left turn takes you onto the main route to the A140 and A1067. At peak times queues can extend back towards the location shown and the road immediately to the left (Oak Street) is a useful cut through to avoid the queues.

In the GSV shot the van driver is doing the decent thing by indicting left, but I’ve seen many times drivers making a last minute decision to turn left and neglecting to indicate, which is a serious hazard for any cyclist attempting to cross Oak Street. I can’t imagine that this situation is unique.

[mwacuk]

In my opinion, based on Hull it would make more sense to simply reverse the law on pavement cycling so that it is allowed except where it is signposed as prohibited. That way pavement cycling could be banned and enforced where it is dangerous and encouraged elsewhere. Hull in very flat, has a reletively dry climate and nearly all suburban roads have a huge pavement that is perfectly safe for cycling on. Because cycling is generally a local thing, it would make sense to trial something like that in Hull to see how it goes.

[KeithW]

In my opinion, based on Hull it would make more sense to simply reverse the law on pavement cycling so that it is allowed except where it is signposed as prohibited. That way pavement cycling could be banned and enforced where it is dangerous and encouraged elsewhere. Hull in very flat, has a reletively dry climate and nearly all suburban roads have a huge pavement that is perfectly safe for cycling on. Because cycling is generally a local thing, it would make sense to trial something like that in Hull to see how it goes.

Being safe for cyclists is not the same as being safe for all other users of the pavement and I don't think its likely that the laws across the country will be changed because it seems alright in Hull.

[GeekyJames]

we've got the same madness in Southampton with the council installing cycle lanes along major routes into the city with no consultation leading to increased congestion and pollution - and in this case delaying public transport!

https://www.instagram.com/p/CCRkBsXpvfo ... 8kkhkm9cjl

[Hdeng16]

In my opinion, based on Hull it would make more sense to simply reverse the law on pavement cycling so that it is allowed except where it is signposed as prohibited. That way pavement cycling could be banned and enforced where it is dangerous and encouraged elsewhere. Hull in very flat, has a reletively dry climate and nearly all suburban roads have a huge pavement that is perfectly safe for cycling on. Because cycling is generally a local thing, it would make sense to trial something like that in Hull to see how it goes.

Being safe for cyclists is not the same as being safe for all other users of the pavement and I don't think its likely that the laws across the country will be changed because it seems alright in Hull.

He never said that. You do like looking for an argument.

[FosseWay]

Why do cyclists insist on using the main carriageway when an expensive separate cycle lane is provided ? The law in Germany is the cycle lane must be used if it is there.
We'll get nowhere in this country on better cycle facilities if councils spend a load of money providing them only for them to be totally ignored.

We've done this many times before. Inevitably it's because the cycle lane is unsuitable in one way or several eg. in the wrong place such as on the other side of the road, poorly surfaced or potholed or not kept clear of debris, too narrow, many interruptions such as giving way frequently to side turns when the main carriageway doesn't, shared with other folks who don't mix well with cyclists, takes a circuitous route etc. etc.

... or is simply just not obvious. Road engineering for motor vehicles tends to make a point of funnelling drivers to the "right" bit of road space, and reinforces this with signage and paint where necessary. It may not be "right" from the POV of the driver's intended destination, but it will be "right" in terms of being on the correct side of the road and not in a lane that is prohibited to you. It's actually quite hard to go the wrong way round a roundabout by mistake, for this reason.

This isn't the case for many cycle paths. You can approach a Give Way at a T-junction and not know whether you are expected to join the main carriageway as you would in a car, which is what the geometry of the approach road is likely telling you, whether you should turn onto a cycle path on your side of the main road, or cross it and do likewise on the other side. What the answer is determines your road positioning; sure you can slow down or stop to try to figure it out, but you may be in the middle of the road at that point and it may not be obvious to the driver behind what you're doing.

I've been in the situation several times where I've missed the start of a good-quality cycle path and have continued along the road, and then not found a way onto the cycle path for some time.

[KeithW]

In my opinion, based on Hull it would make more sense to simply reverse the law on pavement cycling so that it is allowed except where it is signposed as prohibited. That way pavement cycling could be banned and enforced where it is dangerous and encouraged elsewhere. Hull in very flat, has a reletively dry climate and nearly all suburban roads have a huge pavement that is perfectly safe for cycling on. Because cycling is generally a local thing, it would make sense to trial something like that in Hull to see how it goes.

Being safe for cyclists is not the same as being safe for all other users of the pavement and I don't think its likely that the laws across the country will be changed because it seems alright in Hull.

He never said that. You do like looking for an argument.

No I am making a valid point based on my experience of being clipped by a cyclist while walking down a pedestrian only street in Cambridge - let me remind you what he said.

In my opinion, based on Hull it would make more sense to simply reverse the law on pavement cycling so that it is allowed except where it is signposed as prohibited

I am respectfully disagreeing with that opinion.

[FosseWay]

IMO, cycling on normal urban pavements should not be allowed. I think this prohibition has in practice been eroded (by which I mean fewer people regard it as unacceptable, rather than that there has been any change in legislation) by the existence of shared-use facilities that do not differ in any way from a normal pavement except in the presence of signs that say that cyclists may use them. This isn't a specifically British problem; the same prohibition against pavement cycling exists in principle in Sweden, and the same shared-use sign is used without any other modifications to the roadway to denote exceptions, and the same watering-down of the practical rules has occurred.

That is not to say that shared-use paths are per se unacceptable. I'm sure most cyclists and most pedestrians would in an ideal world prefer to have a marked area for their use, free from the other mode getting in the way or making them feel vulnerable. But in real life these things cost money, and shared-use facilities are a reasonable compromise where conditions permit. The problem is that they have been used as something-must-be-done-ism in places where conditions don't permit. IMO, a stretch of pavement needs to have the following characteristics in order to be suitable for use by cyclists:

- It must be wide enough for two cyclists to pass, even if it is one-way.
- It must be reliably wide enough along its length, without random narrowings caused by poles or other obstructions.
- Pedestrian traffic must be reliably low enough for it to be realistic for cyclists to be able to pass pedestrians.
- There needs to be some reason for cyclists to need to use it. A notable number of unimproved, "signage-only" shared-use pavements in Sweden are in 40 or even 30 km/h limits, and you have to wonder why cyclists can't just use the road in these circumstances.
- It must have characteristics that mark it out as being different from a normal pavement, such as being surfaced in tarmac rather than flags, being at road level with kerbs rather than at pavement level, having a kerb-free interface with the roadway etc.

The latter point is important, because it is necessary to give users visual cues as to what is permitted for cyclists and what isn't. Signage is a start, but it's not always visible from the individual's line of attack and in the case of pedestrians there is no legal requirement for people to know what the signage means. It needs to be intuitive, just as we intuitively know which bit of a roadway is intended for pedestrians and which for motor vehicles even when neither is visible at a given point.

Disused railways often match these requirements, are often officially shared-use, and are generally usable by both modes so long as everyone behaves in a cooperative way. Conflict on such paths does of course arise from time to time, but it's generally as a result of individual users being antisocial rather than a logical consequence of the path itself - i.e. much the same as your bog-standard motor road. But basically, if you've got a pavement that is not wide enough, free enough from obstacles or free-flow enough with motor roads where it crosses them, then it probably isn't a reasonable candidate for a shared-use path.

[KeithW]

IMO, cycling on normal urban pavements should not be allowed. I think this prohibition has in practice been eroded (by which I mean fewer people regard it as unacceptable, rather than that there has been any change in legislation) by the existence of shared-use facilities that do not differ in any way from a normal pavement except in the presence of signs that say that cyclists may use them. This isn't a specifically British problem; the same prohibition against pavement cycling exists in principle in Sweden, and the same shared-use sign is used without any other modifications to the roadway to denote exceptions, and the same watering-down of the practical rules has occurred.

That is not to say that shared-use paths are per se unacceptable. I'm sure most cyclists and most pedestrians would in an ideal world prefer to have a marked area for their use, free from the other mode getting in the way or making them feel vulnerable. But in real life these things cost money, and shared-use facilities are a reasonable compromise where conditions permit. The problem is that they have been used as something-must-be-done-ism in places where conditions don't permit. IMO, a stretch of pavement needs to have the following characteristics in order to be suitable for use by cyclists:

- It must be wide enough for two cyclists to pass, even if it is one-way.
- It must be reliably wide enough along its length, without random narrowings caused by poles or other obstructions.
- Pedestrian traffic must be reliably low enough for it to be realistic for cyclists to be able to pass pedestrians.
- There needs to be some reason for cyclists to need to use it. A notable number of unimproved, "signage-only" shared-use pavements in Sweden are in 40 or even 30 km/h limits, and you have to wonder why cyclists can't just use the road in these circumstances.
- It must have characteristics that mark it out as being different from a normal pavement, such as being surfaced in tarmac rather than flags, being at road level with kerbs rather than at pavement level, having a kerb-free interface with the roadway etc.

The latter point is important, because it is necessary to give users visual cues as to what is permitted for cyclists and what isn't. Signage is a start, but it's not always visible from the individual's line of attack and in the case of pedestrians there is no legal requirement for people to know what the signage means. It needs to be intuitive, just as we intuitively know which bit of a roadway is intended for pedestrians and which for motor vehicles even when neither is visible at a given point.

I agree entirely and in fact this has been done in my area at Coulby Newham and very successfully too. It has effectively grade separated pedestrians and cyclists from traffic without seriously impacting either.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.52279 ... 384!8i8192

The shared used paths carry traffic over the roads and are well used.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.52195 ... 312!8i6656

[FosseWay]

I agree entirely and in fact this has been done in my area at Coulby Newham and very successfully too. It has effectively grade separated pedestrians and cyclists from traffic without seriously impacting either.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.52279 ... 384!8i8192

That link shows both the good and the bad. The cycle/pedestrian path at right angles to the motor road (the direction Keith's link is pointing in) looks reasonable, apart from the IMV entirely unnecessary blockage to the cycle path at the near end. (An aside on that: Either cyclists have right of way at a junction or they don't. If they don't, erect a Give Way or Stop sign as appropriate. Erecting walls, fences and such helps no-one, and we seem generally to survive without erecting them where normal roads give way to other normal roads.)

But if you turn 180 degrees, unfortunately the good intentions and good results of the off-road section degenerate into the usual substandard stuff. Turning to the right having crossed the zebra, you are faced with a small access road having priority over the cycle path. At no point that I can see is the division of the pavement by a line of kerbstones actually explained - there is nothing telling me I can cycle there at all, in fact, and nothing telling pedestrians which side they should use.

Turning left after crossing the road, you're faced with an acute-angled bend where the width of the cycle path and lack of visibility mean that you risk having to slow to below stall speed to negotiate it safely on your side of the road (bearing in mind that you not only have to look out for and respect pedestrians but also potential oncoming cycle traffic). There seems to be a random island of vegetation between the cycle/pedestrian path and what I presume is a ped-only corner-cut where the woman is walking. Why couldn't a bend with greater radius and better visibility have been installed there?

Thereafter, from what I can see from GSV, the usability improves again from the cyclist's POV. This embodies the fundamental problem with many cycle paths: they're often OK for periods where it's relatively easy to build them wide and straight enough, but as soon as something gets in the way - even just a fairly small tree as mentioned above, all thoughts of providing a usable cycle route go out the window.

[A303Chris]

We've done this many times before. Inevitably it's because the cycle lane is unsuitable in one way or several eg. in the wrong place such as on the other side of the road, poorly surfaced or potholed or not kept clear of debris, too narrow, many interruptions such as giving way frequently to side turns when the main carriageway doesn't, shared with other folks who don't mix well with cyclists, takes a circuitous route etc. etc.

So if I don't like the route the road takes, I should be allowed to drive over the verge/chicane etc? I have to share the road with HGVs and cyclists... does that give me the right to drive along the footpath? No, of course not!

It really does grind my gears that councils spend £lots narrowing roads to install cycle-ways, which are then ignored by their intended users, who block the remaining carriageway with their dawdling!

But I do agree that we should have minimum standards for cycle-ways... minimum width, physical (kerbed - not white line) segregation and priority over side roads (as with Germany) being three non-negotiable requirements. And then mandatory use by cyclists.

I don't think you get the point, the Sustrans national cycleway network is not any us for serious road cyclists. Yesterday I cycled 110 miles from my home near Reading to Hayling Island at back, using a mixture of country lanes, A roads and B roads, but as a serious cyclist who averages 18 miles an hour on the flat, the national cycle way network is a waste of space.

Within towns, cycleways are basically for non confident cyclists, while confident cyclists use the carriageway as it is safer and quicker.

So yesterday, I went via Basingstoke , Alton, Selbourne, Petersfield, Havant, came back Petersfield, Bordon, Crondell, Fleet. I could have used sustrans route 23 between Reading and Basingstoke, but that is 25 miles, compared to 14 miles using roads. In fact between Stratfield Saye and Bramley, the distance is 2 miles, but route 23 takes 6 miles, instead of going directly south west, it takes you miles west, before going south and coming back east. Then when it reaches Chineham on edge of Basingstoke the signed cycleway route, on shared paths through housing estates, numerous side roads says town centre 5 miles, when its only two miles on the direct line.

But the real problem is as I encountered in Petersfield. After going through Liss, on the old A325, there is a 1.5 mile section where the the A3 Petersfield bypass follows the line of the old road, here a very good two way cycle way has been built adjacent to the southbound carriageway, which leaves just before the A272 turning and joins the route of the old A325 through Sheet. However the signed route says turn right and go back under the A3. I ignored it followed the road through Petersfield, before joining another excellent cycleway passed Queen Elizabeth Country park, which is formed from the old A3 southbound carriageway (I never realised that when the Petersfield bypass was constructed they lowered the A3 on a new line through the hill , with the new route at least 100 foot lower than the old) and once past the park follows the old northbound A3 or original A3 down to A3(M).

On the way back however I followed the cycleway through Petersfield, what a disaster, not on a desire line, going through, parks, cul-de-sacs and the best when leaving and crossing the A3, there was half a mile, which was a muddy bridleway, not even gravel. On a road bike i had to push it. It took 3 times as long then staying on the road!

Then in Borden, I could have followed the cyclepath, but again too many interruptions, to make it worth while.

The best cycleways are those painted on the carriageway or shared with taxis and buses. The shared off carraigaeway ones which councils promote for a keen cyclist like me are pointless and in fact dangerous. The ICE even stated last year that shared cycleways are dangerous and in fact hinder cycling not promote it. Near me, the local council spent £500,000 on a new cycleway, which is unlit and goes across the flood plain. It is the signed route to a business park, but it is twice the length of going along the lit road, its hardley used.

Don't blame the cyclists, who have a legal right to be on the road, blame the useless Highway Authorites for putting in infrastructure which is pointless.

[A303Chris]

I encountered a militant cyclist one evening asserting his right to use the underpass here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.8988137 ... 312!8i6656

It was just completely unnecessary, and you can see then why councillors might think twice about spending budgets on improved cycle provision.

That's an interesting example of the sort of route choice a cyclist faces. I'm a leisure road cyclist. In other words I have a reasonably decent bike and I clip my shoes into the pedals, I cycle off peak in half reasonable weather. At that location I've got three choices :
i) the cycle path on the left. Unattractive : poorly surfaced, rather circuitous, gives way to a side road (and actually another one immediately behind the camera if you pan round) where I'd have to slow down to a crawl thus losing my momentum and maybe have to stop in which case I'd have to unclip.
ii) lane one and the roundabout. Two points of possible conflict : entering and exiting the roundabout. Almost certainly would have to slow down and lose momentum.
iii) lane two and the underpass. Two points of possible conflict : moving over to lane two to use the underpass, moving back to lane one afterwards. Probably wouldn't lose much momentum except possibly cycling up the slope after the underpass.

Depending on traffic conditions I'd take either ii) or iii).

Owen was going to say the same, it would be ii) or iii) for me as well. If your clipped in the last thing you want to do is stop of slow down every 50 yards

[Fenlander]

I encountered a militant cyclist one evening asserting his right to use the underpass here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.8988137 ... 312!8i6656

It was just completely unnecessary, and you can see then why councillors might think twice about spending budgets on improved cycle provision.

That's an interesting example of the sort of route choice a cyclist faces. I'm a leisure road cyclist. In other words I have a reasonably decent bike and I clip my shoes into the pedals, I cycle off peak in half reasonable weather. At that location I've got three choices :
i) the cycle path on the left. Unattractive : poorly surfaced, rather circuitous, gives way to a side road (and actually another one immediately behind the camera if you pan round) where I'd have to slow down to a crawl thus losing my momentum and maybe have to stop in which case I'd have to unclip.
ii) lane one and the roundabout. Two points of possible conflict : entering and exiting the roundabout. Almost certainly would have to slow down and lose momentum.
iii) lane two and the underpass. Two points of possible conflict : moving over to lane two to use the underpass, moving back to lane one afterwards. Probably wouldn't lose much momentum except possibly cycling up the slope after the underpass.

Depending on traffic conditions I'd take either ii) or iii).

Owen was going to say the same, it would be ii) or iii) for me as well. If your clipped in the last thing you want to do is stop of slow down every 50 yards

If you've made the decision to go clip-in, would you route plan based on avoiding junctions like this, would you route plan and just deal with it on the day, or do you not route plan and find yourself in tricky situations sometimes?

I'd say I'm a leisure cyclist too, almost always with my wife & children so I'm used to frequent stops and having to pick routes that minimise use of busier roads. No clip-ins for us as we're just not fast/serious enough about it (and can at least still outrun the children).

[A303Chris]

If you've made the decision to go clip-in, would you route plan based on avoiding junctions like this, would you route plan and just deal with it on the day, or do you not route plan and find yourself in tricky situations sometimes?

I'd say I'm a leisure cyclist too, almost always with my wife & children so I'm used to frequent stops and having to pick routes that minimise use of busier roads. No clip-ins for us as we're just not fast/serious enough about it (and can at least still outrun the children).

I do route plan, but as per my earlier post as with the A3, I knew that the decent cycleway was adjacent to the carriageway, but on the way back decided given the cycleway I used was good, I would follow it all the way back to avoid the one way system in Petersfield and a busy roundabout. I have the OS maps app, but as I found out the off road cycleway symbol represents perfectly good and fast surfaced tracks to totally unusable mud tracks. It's only once you've done it once that you really know what is good or bad

[KeithW]

That link shows both the good and the bad. The cycle/pedestrian path at right angles to the motor road (the direction Keith's link is pointing in) looks reasonable, apart from the IMV entirely unnecessary blockage to the cycle path at the near end. (An aside on that: Either cyclists have right of way at a junction or they don't. If they don't, erect a Give Way or Stop sign as appropriate. Erecting walls, fences and such helps no-one, and we seem generally to survive without erecting them where normal roads give way to other normal roads.)

These were added to the crossings at most cycle paths as there were a number of high profile accidents where cyclists went straight across the road regardless of signage. It doesnt really work here as many cyclists just go around them across the grass.

Here are two other examples
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.52387 ... 312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.52241 ... 312!8i6656

I believe the driving force was a the local rag running the sort of campaign that goes 'skin flint councillors refuse to protect our children'

[WHBM]

Spaces for People - funding success for 20mph
Angus Council has made ambitious bids totalling £789,000 from the Scottish Government’s Spaces for People fund aimed at supporting public health, active travel and road safety.
Managed and administered by Sustrans

This is just a means to divert local taxpayers' money to their mates at Sustrans, who very often are people they have worked with in the office in the past, and fellow political travellers.

All this hokum about public health and safety just covers up it's just huge Virtue Signalling.

[owen b]

That's an interesting example of the sort of route choice a cyclist faces. I'm a leisure road cyclist. In other words I have a reasonably decent bike and I clip my shoes into the pedals, I cycle off peak in half reasonable weather. At that location I've got three choices :
i) the cycle path on the left. Unattractive : poorly surfaced, rather circuitous, gives way to a side road (and actually another one immediately behind the camera if you pan round) where I'd have to slow down to a crawl thus losing my momentum and maybe have to stop in which case I'd have to unclip.
ii) lane one and the roundabout. Two points of possible conflict : entering and exiting the roundabout. Almost certainly would have to slow down and lose momentum.
iii) lane two and the underpass. Two points of possible conflict : moving over to lane two to use the underpass, moving back to lane one afterwards. Probably wouldn't lose much momentum except possibly cycling up the slope after the underpass.

Depending on traffic conditions I'd take either ii) or iii).

Owen was going to say the same, it would be ii) or iii) for me as well. If your clipped in the last thing you want to do is stop of slow down every 50 yards

If you've made the decision to go clip-in, would you route plan based on avoiding junctions like this, would you route plan and just deal with it on the day, or do you not route plan and find yourself in tricky situations sometimes?

I'm not in A303Chris' league. I've done 100+ mile days but only once or twice and that was a few years ago, and I'm more in the 16-17mph on the flat league than 18mph. In my case a typical ride will be 20-70 miles depending on fitness, time available, weather and light with brief stops generally every 10-15 miles. My cycling partner loves the mechanical side whereas even a puncture or adjusting the gears annoys the heck out of me. This year I've done very little cycling as until recently the social distancing guidance meant we couldn't meet up conveniently. I always use my clip in cycle shoes.

I plan all the routes and even on short local routes I like to do some road or other we haven't previously cycled so we rarely do exactly the same route twice. As a general rule I avoid towns and A roads and busy, awkward junctions but sometimes it's very difficult to plan an interesting route without short sections on busier roads. The worst junction in Luton for cyclists used to be M1 J10A, but now they've put the flyover the problem is solved. It's very rare that a situation will really unnerve me (I've cycled and survived London to Paris including Place de l'Etoile) but if the worst comes to the worst there's always the option of dismounting and using a junction as a pedestrian would.

Around these parts there are very few meaningful lengths of cycle path which are practicable for road bikes. For example I once tried the cycle path between Bedford and the A1 at Sandy on the old railway line, but it wasn't really suitable for a road bike. I have avoided cycling in Stevenage and Milton Keynes which are both very accessible from Luton and which both have cycle path networks. My cycling partner has tried cycling in MK but again doesn't recommend it for road bikes. I prefer to be out in the country lanes as a general rule.