I did stat by posing the question about what was meant by conflict. I proposed that what to some my be mild annoyance may, to others, be a life-consuming anguish.
Also that these are by definition roads and that pedestrians, to an extent, are secondary users. Country lanes are 'dangerous' for pedestrians but we don't put TROs on them. And they have cars travelling at speed.
On a lane (what ever the designation) speeds rarely exceed much more than a mild jog. Are pedestrians really in fear of their lives when approached by a vehicle? Or it is their belligerent attitude that is the problem. I shall stand here until he hits me - Oh fook, he nearly hit me!
What some see as a huge issue, rarely is to others. 'In a survey 5 out of 5 people who expressed and opinion were furious one way or the other' - survey sample 133 people closely involved. the other 68 million people said WTF?
Pistol shooting got the chop simply because it was easy. Not because there was a real case. Both sides ranted. In all there must be been 30 000 people for or against. The Govt hardly had a majority view, but those involved who asked neutral people generally were met with indifference. As with fox hunting. Non one cares what anyone else does as long as it's nothing to do with them. it's the NIMBY principle I guess.
The key is rational well thought out responses to the right people and councils have a mandate to consider everyone as users. They HAVE to be fair. However, if you read that survey again as an anti, I think that you'll find that it doesn't lend itself quite so well to being answered rationally. Try it. Are you in favour of annual inspections of the roads - as a laner, yes I am - why would I say no?. As an anti - why would I put no? Actually I answered less than fully agree. Making the point that the inspections should fit the road characteristics and making them annual could prove financially burdensome.
Will it make any difference? Well I don't shoot pistols any more and I had to eat the horse.
Chris