Do Not Overtake Cyclists

[presta]

Most people don't want to bother, they just want to get from one place to another quickly and easily without taking their lives in their hands every day.

But this is just question begging. The problem is people who choose to feel safe rather than be safe.

 

[classic33]

But this is just question begging. The problem is people who choose to feel safe rather than be safe.

Feeling safe and being safe are two very different things. I know folk who don't feel safe riding anywhere near a road. Yet they don't think twice about flying down a hillside, off-road, in a way I wouldn't feel safe doing.

A seperate cyclelane can lead to shouts that you(the cyclist) belong there. Well at over 18mph, it's recommended that you use the road. Especially if it's shared use.
Take a look at the segregated cycle lanes on The New York Road in Leeds. I feel safer on the dual carriageway than in them. And if you feel safe, that's half the battle won.

 

[Andy in Germany]

But this is just question begging. The problem is people who choose to feel safe rather than be safe.

Sorry, I'm not sure what "question begging" is, and I know I sound like a broken record but I think we may be talking about different things.

I was able to cycle to work for the last few years without really touching a main road apart from a couple of places in the towns where I could honestly have just crossed on the lights, but because I'm experienced as a cyclist, and if I'm honest impatient and stroppy and don't see why I should wait for a bunch of cars, I would often ride fifty or so metres along the road instead.

Much of the distance was on a wide cycle lane running parallel to the main road; without that I probably couldn't have taken the job because riding on that road would have been objectively dangerous. I'd be happy for my kids to take the same route, providing they didn't engage in the shenanigans I did of course.

York was a very different matter; getting to a cycleway with my daughter was very stressful for both of us; the "orbital route" was out of the question. Therein lies the problem: cycle infrastruccture has to safe for everyone, not just 'cyclists' like us.

Freiburg now has a fairly comprehensive cycle network, including an east-west and north-south cycle route which is traffic free (or on residential street for a few metres). Where it crosses roads the bike route has right of way, this is rienforced by signs but also by making cars go up a bump to the level of the bike lane rather than the other way around. We have a similar system in Emmendingen where I work which means I can cross the town easily. I barely touch a road for most of the route and never a busy road. It drops me off in the old city via a direct route. I'm not sure how cycling along the main road would be safer than this to be honest. Not being around cars and trucks is certainly safer than being "in traffic".

Come to think of it, most places I need to go I can get to on cycle lanes. Where there's "no space" for a cycleway, the roads are often converted to "cycle streets"; cars are permitted but bikes have right of way. I can understand these could be the "safer streets" you mean, and they do work fairly well.

 

[Drago]

But this is just question begging. The problem is people who choose to feel safe rather than be safe.

Got it in one.

Very few things done in the name of safety actually make one any safer, regardless of common sense, anecdote or perception. Indeed, many such tactics can make life more dangerous.

If its not been reasonably proven to make you safer on the road then it probably doesn't.

 

[DaveReading]

Or these, in Peebles near where my daughter lives
View attachment 722346

View attachment 722349

Just impossible for a car to drive between the centre line and the cycle lane line, never moind a bigger vehicle such as a bus or truck.

Those are depressingly common in Scotland.

 

[mjr]

, the point is that the passing distances were measured, and they are about 16% lower when the road has a painted cycle lane than on roads with no lane.

"Relative to passing events that occurred on roads without a marked bicycle lane and without parked cars, passing events on roads with a bike lane with no parked cars had a reduced mean passing distance of 27 cm (Q1: 25 cm, Q3: 29 cm)"
"road infrastructure had a substantial influence on the distance that motor vehicles provide when passing cyclists. Specifically, we demonstrated that on-road bicycle lanes reduced passing distance"

1. Measured by whom, where, when, how? What are you quoting there?

2. On road paint lanes are not infrastructure.

 

[presta]

Feeling safe and being safe are two very different things.

That's the point I'm getting at, people keep opting for what feels safer, regardless of whether it actually is or not.

I'm not sure what "question begging" is

If you presume the point at issue instead of demonstrating it, that's called begging the question.

In order to be rational, any argument/debate has to start from a set of axioms: propositions that are deemed self-evidently true by both/all parties to the debate, and it then proceeds by logical reasoning: if x and y, then z, etc. If you presume that a proposition is axiomatic when you know that it isn't, then that's called begging the question: the question being is the proposition true or isn't it.

In this case you're debating whether cycle paths are actually safer than cycling on the road with an opponent you know is taking the position that they aren't, but you then make statements like:

"Most people don't want to bother, they just want to get from one place to another quickly and easily without taking their lives in their hands every day."

This doesn't offer any reasoned argument or evidence attempting to demonstrate that cycle paths are safer, it simply presumes that they are, and in so doing it begs the question: are they safer or aren't they.

Got it in one.

Very few things done in the name of safety actually make one any safer, regardless of common sense, anecdote or perception. Indeed, many such tactics can make life more dangerous.

If its not been reasonably proven to make you safer on the road then it probably doesn't.

Recently I was arguing about risk compensation with someone in the car industry who was involved in designing side impact protection for cars. I asked him repeatedly if there was any evidence that it had reduced the number of deaths, but he just danced around the issue, evading it with manipulative question begging like "you should talk to the families of people who have died".

1. Measured by whom, where, when, how? What are you quoting there?

The quote is a link, if you click on it you'll see a peer-reviewed paper.

 

[classic33]

That's the point I'm getting at, people keep opting for what feels safer, regardless of whether it actually is or not.[/QOUTE]
And in the rest of the post you quoted, I pointed out they felt safer off-road than me. However, they didn't feel safe on any road.

Did you check the segregated cycle lanes on The New York Road in Leeds?
I don't feel safe using them, so stay on the dual carriageway, where I feel it's safer.

 

[mjr]

The quote is a link, if you click on it you'll see a peer-reviewed paper.

Wonderful. It's a study of 60 riders in Victoria, Australia, not blind (the riders knew they were being monitored), by researchers (including the controversial Jake Olivier) who seem to regard painted lanes as infrastructure. No results seem to be stated for actual infrastructure (but as it's famously cycling-hostile Australia, maybe none was ridden).

The full text is US$37.95 so I can't see the full conclusions and check whether your quotes are representative. Do you have the full text, to paste the full conclusions, please?

 

[Profpointy]

I'm conflicted by this one. Whilst it is nice to see at least some concession towards cyclists with road markings, at the point they start I would be considering a move towards the centre of the lane, to physically prevent anybody trying to get alongside or past at the traffic island (with an additional benefit of increasing my visibility to the car pulling out from the left). By painting the cycle lane they have implied that the cyclist should remain towards the left - if I were to cycle outwith this lane then drivers may take umbrage that I am ignoring the provided cycle infrastructure. If I stay within the lane there is enough space for an impatient, entitled or otherwise ignorant driver to squeeze past (or at least try). The red sign is information about a hazard, it is not instructional nor mandatory.

There was an utterly pointless, nay full has t out dangerous on-road cycle lane in cheltenam where the cycle lane narrowed to a foot where it met the pinch point, and the car lane narrowed to maybe 4 foot too. Bonkers !
And where there was actually room for the lane, you didn't actually need or gain from having it

 

[presta]

not blind (the riders knew they were being monitored)

They can't measure passing distance without fitting a monitor. Where's your evidence that the riders knew what they were measuring the distance in relation to? The cyclists in Ian Walker's study knew they were riding a bike with a monitor too, is that rubbish?

who seem to regard painted lanes as infrastructure. No results seem to be stated for actual infrastructure

Painted lanes are painted lanes, arguing over what name you call them is irrelevant to the passing distance, as is the passing distance for other 'actual infrastructure', whatever that's supposed to mean.

the controversial Jake Olivier

Ad Hominem.

 

[mjr]

They can't measure passing distance without fitting a monitor. Where's your evidence that the riders knew what they were measuring the distance in relation to?

Where's your evidence that they didn't? I've already said I don't have the full $37.95 paper. I already asked if you do?

Of course they could measure passing distance without fitting a monitor by using roadside cameras, as some other studies of close-passing did.

The cyclists in Ian Walker's study knew they were riding a bike with a monitor too, is that rubbish?

Not rubbish, but it's not as good.

Painted lanes are painted lanes, arguing over what name you call them is irrelevant to the passing distance, as is the passing distance for other 'actual infrastructure', whatever that's supposed to mean.

Actual infrastructure is stuff that actually meets current standards for a reasonably sane country. Even England's mediocre Cycle Infrastructure Design now says paint cycle lanes are only suitable for the quietest of slowest roads (20mph limit, 0-5000 cars/day).

Ad Hominem.

No, that would be attacking his character or some other irrelevant attribute but I criticise him for his past work. If anyone's not aware of his support for various anti-cycling measures, looking into his past work may be informative. He seems very old school Road Safety, not modern danger reduction, sustainable safety or vision zero. His work reminds me of the old joke that you could reduce cycling casualties by persuading more cyclists to drive instead.