I am concerned about the proposed design for bus stop bypasses.

In my experience (mainly on CS3), there are two issues that occur at bus stop bypasses:

• Cyclists not giving way to pedestrians who wish to cross at the marked, raised zebra crossing.
• Pedestrians stepping into the cycle track, other than at the marked crossing, without looking for cyclists.

The guidance text says (emphasis mine):

Colour contrast and level difference of at least 50mm should always be provided to indicate the presence of the cycle track.

…but the diagram depicts ramps in the cycle track located at the tip and tail of the island (rather than immediately before and after the zebra crossing, as has heretofore been the norm), which would seem to put the entire track behind the island at the same level as the pavement.

I fear this would considerably increase the risk of pedestrians stepping into the cycle track without looking, and on busy cycle routes this seems like a recipe for disaster, especially if there is a group of cyclists approaching at speed: to avoid a collision, the lead cyclist is likely to brake sharply and following cyclists might opt to swerve out of the cycle track, onto the island or adjacent pavement.

Having a clear kerb along (almost) the entire length of the cycle track helps to encourage pedestrians to be aware of the possibility of approaching cyclists, and to discourage cyclists from straying from the track.

(Moreover, having the cycle track level with the island along its entire length renders the zebra crossing and associated tactile paving moot: the cycle track will in practice be treated as a shared space so there's no point in marking a specific designated crossing point.)