Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[MrHappyCyclist]

mandatory cycle lanes ?? do they exist?

Yes, but it doesn't mean that they are mandatory for cyclists; it means that motorists must not enter them even when there is no cyclist present. They are delineated by a solid white line rather than a dashed one.

Here is an example:

Effective, isn't it?

 

[Richard Mann]

It is quite likely that the presence of the cycle lane, which is too narrow, encouraged the truck driver to overtake where it wasn't safe. The presence of that cycle lane also makes me far more nervous about taking a stronger position, which I would otherwise have do.

In every one of those video clips, the drivers take the presence of the narrow cycle lane as carte blanche to ignore what it says in rule 163 of the highway code. (That's assuming they've even read the HC.)

Oh, and if you want more scientific, peer-reviewed evidence, then try this one.

The effect of cycle lanes on the proximity between motor traffic and cycle traffic John Parkin and Ciaran Meyers. Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 42, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 159-165.

It's a bit hard to tell from the video, but the first one certainly seemed to have a traffic lane width greater than 3m (about 3.5m when you first get to see the back of the lorry). So that doesn't really contradict what I said about what happens when you've got a 3m traffic lane, does it? (Edit - and the rest seem to be a multi-lane road...)

Parkin Meyers is a good careful study, which says that cycle lanes lead to closer passes on 50/60mph roads, and that the evidence is inconclusive on 30mph roads (too many other things going on).

As to whether there's any safety impact, the largest study was by the Danes (scan available at http://www.cyclox.or...VD_Report10.pdf ). Small benefit for cycle lanes between junctions; disbenefit at side junctions (because the cycle lanes were discontinued) - which is why cycle lanes are now painted across junctions. There's no discernible impact of cycle lane width (ie other factors were more important), unless you're on a moped. SWOV and CROW disingenuously cite this result - for mopeds - as applying to bikes, and Cycling England cite CROW.

 

[Origamist]

It's a bit hard to tell from the video, but the first one certainly seemed to have a traffic lane width greater than 3m (about 3.5m when you first get to see the back of the lorry). So that doesn't really contradict what I said about what happens when you've got a 3m traffic lane, does it? (Edit - and the rest seem to be a multi-lane road...)

Parkin Meyers is a good careful study, which says that cycle lanes lead to closer passes on 50/60mph roads, and that the evidence is inconclusive on 30mph roads (too many other things going on).

As to whether there's any safety impact, the largest study was by the Danes (scan available at http://www.cyclox.or...VD_Report10.pdf ). Small benefit for cycle lanes between junctions; disbenefit at side junctions (because the cycle lanes were discontinued) - which is why cycle lanes are now painted across junctions. There's no discernible impact of cycle lane width (ie other factors were more important), unless you're on a moped. SWOV and CROW disingenuously cite this result - for mopeds - as applying to bikes, and Cycling England cite CROW.

I do not believe there has been a robust study looking at the safety impact of cycle-lane width, Richard. Do you know any others? The Danish study alluded to above (which I have come across) qualifiies its own findings on cycle lane width and safety with the following large caveat: "the results were based on very weak data".

One of the issues with narrow cycle lanes (i.e 1m) is the amount of useable cycle lane is often only half of that...

Oh and it's good to see Glueman reincarnated on this thread as Blockend.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

It's a bit hard to tell from the video, but the first one certainly seemed to have a traffic lane width greater than 3m (about 3.5m when you first get to see the back of the lorry). So that doesn't really contradict what I said about what happens when you've got a 3m traffic lane, does it? (Edit - and the rest seem to be a multi-lane road...)

Well, I'm not sure the distinction between 3.0m and 3.5m is really significant, but if a motorist leaves too little clearance in a 3.5m lane, then they are likely to do so in a 3.0m lane.

Parkin Meyers is a good careful study, which says that cycle lanes lead to closer passes on 50/60mph roads, and that the evidence is inconclusive on 30mph roads (too many other things going on).

Yes, I agree; more research is needed. One thing that I think is a problem with many studies is the tendency to focus on average passing distances, when it is actually closest passing distances that matter. The helmet study did try to do some analysis to address this weakness, but others seem not to.

As to whether there's any safety impact, the largest study was by the Danes (scan available at http://www.cyclox.or...VD_Report10.pdf ). Small benefit for cycle lanes between junctions; disbenefit at side junctions (because the cycle lanes were discontinued) - which is why cycle lanes are now painted across junctions. There's no discernible impact of cycle lane width (ie other factors were more important), unless you're on a moped. SWOV and CROW disingenuously cite this result - for mopeds - as applying to bikes, and Cycling England cite CROW.

Thanks, that's an interesting document. We do have to bear in mind, though, that Denmark is generally believed to be a more cycle-conscious culture. I believe they also have presumed liability on the motorist there, which I think could make a big difference. Also, the studies reported seem to be concentrating on mandatory cycle lanes, of which there seem to be very few here, at least in my part of the country. Advisory cycle lanes are a whole different issue.

Nothing so far has convinced me that it is acceptable, under any circumstances, to paint advisory cycle lanes on the road of less than 1.5m minimum and 2.0m on busier roads.

 

[Richard Mann]

I do not believe there has been a robust study looking at the safety impact of cycle-lane width, Richard. Do you know any others? The Danish study alluded to above (which I have come across) qualifiies its own findings on cycle lane width and safety with the following large caveat: "the results were based on very weak data".

One of the issues with narrow cycle lanes (i.e 1m) is the amount of useable cycle lane is often only half of that...

That's the only study that I've come across (and I have looked quite hard). I tracked it down because CROW/SWOV cited it, and was gobsmacked that it clearly doesn't say what CROW/SWOV cite it for. The Danish Road Directorate didn't even know they had a copy in English, until they went to the shelf and found one.

I think that it would be hard to get a noticeable effect, however large a study you did, because going-ahead accidents are rare (and rarer still when there isn't parking). The Danes don't actually quote a value for an increase in cycle casualties on narrow cycle lanes, which they generally do in that report, even if the result isn't significant. That's usually an indicator that the result was counter-intuitive, and not deemed worthy of further investigation (or they ran out of time/money).

UK cycle lanes tend to be kerb-side, rather than alongside parking, so the issues are probably small. I think a quite-unwarranted fuss has been made about cycle lane width (on urban roads), when what really matters is traffic speed (which is a function of road/lane width and forward visibility).

Of course, a nice wide cycle lane is definitely a nice-to-have, once you've dealt with all the other issues. But it's not essential. Moving kerb lines, drainage, and protecting services is jolly expensive, so no-one ought to do it just because of a dodgy citation.

 

[subaqua]

Yes, but it doesn't mean that they are mandatory for cyclists; it means that motorists must not enter them even when there is no cyclist present. They are delineated by a solid white line rather than a dashed one.

Here is an example:
[attachment=3685:MCL.jpg]
Effective, isn't it?

mandatory means cyclists MUST use them.

 

[Dan B]

I think the fuss about cycle lane width is maybe partly symbolic: if cyclists are allotted only a foot and a half of road space that other vehicles are by and large not using anyway, that speaks volumes as to the priorities of the people putting them in - we get the leavings, as long as it doesn't disadvantage "real" road users.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

mandatory means cyclists MUST use them.

www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/docs/a11_cycle_lanes.pdf:

Mandatory cycle lanes benefit cyclists because other traffic is excluded from themby traffic regulation orders (TROs)

http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/transport/cyclelanes.shtml:

Mandatory Cycle Lane – This is marked by a continuous line, cycle symbols on the road and a blue and white sign plate. Motorists must not enter or park in the lane at anytime.

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/40/article15.html:

So what's a mandatory cycle lane, then? Now the first thing to stress is that the term 'mandatory' refers to motorists, not to cyclists. It means that it is mandatory that motorists keep out of a mandatory cycle lane. It does not mean that it is mandatory that cyclists keep in the lane.

Highway Code:

63 Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

Etc.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

However, I think that's a long way from concluding that Cyclecraft is to blame.

iirc Cyclecraft was first published in the late 80's. iirc the golden age of men, and it nearly always was men, cycling to work in factories came to an end in the 60's if my personal experience is broadly representative of elsewhere in the UK.

So how in the heck can Cyclecraft be to blame for anything related to the destruction of UK cycling. Utility cycling had been in freefall from the moment HP and cheap cars allowed working people to dump their bikes in favour of tin boxes. Which they did, with alacrity and great enthuiasm. Apart from the Aged P who blagged lifts from his mates as, having learned to drive during WWII, he decided it wasn't natural and refused to have anything to do with owning a motor vehicle or 'money pit' as he called them.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think the fuss about cycle lane width is maybe partly symbolic: if cyclists are allotted only a foot and a half of road space that other vehicles are by and large not using anyway, that speaks volumes as to the priorities of the people putting them in - we get the leavings, as long as it doesn't disadvantage "real" road users.

partly symbolic, but not entirely. Here I'm going to do the 'bad thing' and rely on personal experience, which tells me that the blue paint on CS7 is something of a deterrent to cars emerging from side streets,

I'm not saying the difference is vast, or that there are not other things one can do besides, and I appreciate that ASLs have vehicles on them a fair proportion of the time, but there is some effect.

 

[Origamist]

That's the only study that I've come across (and I have looked quite hard). I tracked it down because CROW/SWOV cited it, and was gobsmacked that it clearly doesn't say what CROW/SWOV cite it for. The Danish Road Directorate didn't even know they had a copy in English, until they went to the shelf and found one.

I should have thanked you for making it widely available. I have seen the study relating to "The Effect of Coloured Surfacing on Drivers' Compliance with Cycle and Bus Lanes", but that's of tangential interest.

I think that it would be hard to get a noticeable effect, however large a study you did, because going-ahead accidents are rare (and rarer still when there isn't parking). The Danes don't actually quote a value for an increase in cycle casualties on narrow cycle lanes, which they generally do in that report, even if the result isn't significant. That's usually an indicator that the result was counter-intuitive, and not deemed worthy of further investigation (or they ran out of time/money).

I'm not so sure that "going ahead" collisions are that rare as a causal factor . TFL's cyclist collision data always seems to find that one of the most common other vehicle contributory factors is, the ominously ambiguous: "going ahead normally". That said, I doubt the width of a narrow cycle lane has a particualrly deleterious effect, so long as traffic speeds are calmed.

UK cycle lanes tend to be kerb-side, rather than alongside parking, so the issues are probably small. I think a quite-unwarranted fuss has been made about cycle lane width (on urban roads), when what really matters is traffic speed (which is a function of road/lane width and forward visibility).

There's still quite a few cycle lanes *smack*, * bang* in the middle of door zones here in London, but most do run kerb-side. I'd agree that traffic speed is important factor on urban roads, as 3 feet of passing distance feels very different if you're being overtaken at 50mph, as opposed to 25mph. However, as cycle flows increase, particularly on roads with med-high volumes of heavy goods vehicles or buses, narrow cycle lanes become more uncomfortable for those that use them.

Of course, a nice wide cycle lane is definitely a nice-to-have, once you've dealt with all the other issues. But it's not essential. Moving kerb lines, drainage, and protecting services is jolly expensive, so no-one ought to do it just because of a dodgy citation.

Agreed, but some more research on the subject would be helpful.

 

[Wobblers]

Have you any figures on utility cycling in Birmingham? I'm told by Brummie cyclists that it's almost non-existent compared to car use.

And this is relevant to your assertion that road cycling is the province of the uber-fit Darwinian warrior exactly how?

Yesterday, I saw four other cyclists on the way home. One would fit your definition - a lycra clad roadie on carbon bling. The others were simply pootling along slowly. If you were right, the few Birmingham cyclists would all be in the first category. They are not. The evidence contradicts your hypothesis.

 

[Wobblers]

I believe much of the country had cycling designed out of the highway in the 60s and 70s. This was by way of inner and outer ring roads, the very places a ride to work cyclist has to negotiate, along with a multi-laning, underpasses, larger roundabouts and a host of hazardous road developments. Unconditional legal access to such places is no access at all for most of the population, they were built with the express (sic) desire of speeding traffic from place to place. The cycle haven of the inner city with its congenial utopia, is guarded by some seriously uncompromising highway dystopia.
To realistically encourage utility cycling in such places you're going to have to design back in that which was taken out 40 years ago, or find alternatives.

And this is indeed this is a problem. Aided and abetted by the Highways Agency, who have been likened (by Byegad, I think) as the "paramilitary wing of the Department of Transport". Their brief was simply to increase flow, and damn everything else. Vulnerable road users were - and still are - merely an inconvenience in the way of "proper traffic".

The end result is a seriously unpleasant environment in many (most?) of our towns and cities with diesel fumes, deafening traffic noise, pedestrians corraled behind unsightly "safety barriers", expected to cross only where the traffic planners deign, naturally after a lengthy wait, so that they are left in no doubt as to their place in the order of things (firmly at the bottom).

And if people are too scared or inconvenienced to get out their cars and walk, exactly how the hell do we expect them to get on a bike??? I put it to you that making the environment more congenial for pedestrians will result in greater uptake of cycling.

 

[Red Light]

Vulnerable road users were - and still are - merely an inconvenience in the way of "proper traffic".

That's not quite fair. They are sometimes used by traffic planners as traffic calming measures.

Tony

 

[blockend]

The campaigning debate centres around a dichotomy, at least as I perceive it. Cycling as an activity: simple once you've learnt to balance, pleasurable so long as your bike fits, congenial - and cycling as transport: demanding of concentration, physically demanding if the Franklin model is followed, providing actual or perceived vulnerability.

The role of campaigning is to bring together those two strands as far as possible, i.e. to make the simple pleasures and practical advantages of the bicycle not be subsumed in conditions where it is disadvantaged. Anyone who has ever made a right turn on a multi-lane roundabout with a kiddie trailer (for example) will understand the reality of the phrase 'the quick and the dead'. I don't believe the Franklin model works for a cyclist travelling at say, 7 mph, a speed we might expect a large number to be travelling at if we ever achieved a critical mass (inside the sweat line) without inciting a grievous responses in current conditions.

If that observation is true cycle activists need to be honest about what they are actually trying to achieve and for whom.