Care to explain your reason(s) for disappointment, and/or posit a sensible alternative for consideration?

Did you not read the article? There was no solution except to throw one’s hands in the air and proclaim human error.

Did you not read the parent's remark? My comment was directed towards discussion of article's proposed solution, not resolution.

That’s one way to interpret it, but given the disappointment that was expressed I’d assume it was a reference to “solution” of writing the problem off as human error for which nothing can be done. Until the op clarifies what they meant, both our comments are equally valid or invalid.

To be sure, there's a nice and bold sub-section of the article titled A Simple Solution which I (perhaps naively) presumed the parent was referring to--further reinforced (in my mind) by a username which subtly suggested specialization in traffic engineering.

It would seem odd to be disappointed with a solution that wasn’t actually implemented.

To the contrary, I often experience such disappoints during design reviews in my day job.

I think we both can agree that the discussion has clearly digressed into unconstructive pedantry territory.

> Forcing drivers to make left turns...

Would the remark still be equally valid given left-lane driving layout (as opposed to right-lane in the US)? Both left turn merging onto north/south road and right turn merging back onto east/west road strike me as lower risk given attention is focused on a single lane at any given time, as opposed to negotiating both north and south lanes simultaneously in existing intersection.

Also, the area appears to be in a rural location without nearby power distribution infrastructure to tap into; probably not as simple--or cost effective--at first glance.

Your assertion about what's a recipe for more collisions is not well supported. It doesn't even seem true to me.

Adding a dog leg into a rural road so that cars have to stop while waiting to turn (exposed to traffic flow) is a terrible solution. There is one like this that I pass through occasionally and it’s hair raising. If you end up being behind someone following the same route through the dog leg it’s even worse.

If the goal is to maintain speed through the intersection they could have built a bridge to overlap the other road.

This is in the New Forest National Park. You can’t just go constructing massive structures because drivers are too lazy to read signs.

As the body count begins to rise we’ll see how much that really matters.

In terms of targeting infrastructure to reduce cycle casualties in Britain, overbridges at rural crossroads are about no. 73689532686 in the list.

I get that the author wanted a cheap solution but this is really the correct approach. A gradual bridge/tunnel with two slip lanes would accommodate everyone, including the people that want to blow though the intersection.

All the solutions like, 'let's find a way to force cars to slow down' are just going to make auto drivers have even more resentment toward cyclists.

You make it sound like resentment is something to be avoided. Drivers don't own the road simply because they drive. They need to share it with the other tax payers. Frankly I'm tired of having to accommodate the apparently frail emotions of someone who has chosen to aim 2000 pounds of metal at my person.