That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[Richard Mann]

Where you have on-street parking, would it not make more sense to put a white line at the edge of the door-zone, making it clear to drivers/cyclists that you shouldn't be cycling there?

Ironically, that's what seems to have happened here, and a plausible explanation of why the safety record is OK. If it weren't for the little islands (which half the time get blocked), you'd probably treat that line as the edge of the carriageway.

I think it shows that it doesn't really matter what you do, as long as you make it consistently narrow so that vehicle speeds are reduced, and road users follow reasonably straight lines, thus making their behaviour predictable, and "negotiation" automatic.

 

[Red Light]

I agree, but is it not the case that some people (either new cyclists or ones that haven't done it for years) are simply not confident enough to cycle in traffic. What do we do about them? I don't know the answer.

Several answers to that. Its very difficult to have a cycle journey that is entirely within a cycle lane - usually because the lanes tend to end just at the point where you might think they are most needed. If they don't have the confidence to cycle without a cycle lane then they are not going to start without one all the way. Second is there is no evidence that cycle lanes attract new people to cycling in any significant numbers. Third "Because I can't think of anything else" isn't an adequate reason for building them.

I wouldn't claim an answer either but some of the things that interest me from a personal perspective are

• awareness campaigns for drivers and cyclists about vehicular riding. I think a lot of the problems out there are ignorance and misunderstandings on both sides.
• Adult Bikeability training and community rides especially built around training in the schools and getting parents involved with group cycling outings in the evenings or at weekends where kids and parents can ride together in a group practising Bikeability skills on the roads.
• A bikebuddy scheme to cycle with you when you are first getting started and building up the confidence. London ran several very successful Bike Trains into London during the tube strikes where they gathered at a meeting point and then cycled into the centre together.

 

[benb]

Critical Reaction Strip: comes from Dutch Guidance (CROW record 25, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, p159). Function: buffer space for the safety of cyclists near parked motor vehicles. Implementation: width of critical reaction strip 0.50 to 0.75m.

So are you saying a strip smaller than the width of a car door is adequate for protecting cyclists from a dooring?
Seems to me that it may reduce the risk a little, but you will still get situations where a car door is opened suddenly, with not enough time to avoid, giving the cyclist the option of riding into the door, or suddenly swerving into the main carriageway without being able to check it is safe.

Surely the only safe way, if you must have a cycle lane going alongside parked cars, is to have the left edge of the cycle lane further away than the width of a car door. Put yellow cross hatching in the space (with words "Door Zone" and a bicycle crossed out maybe?) to remove ambiguity. In fact, you could do that bit without the presence of a cycle lane.

 

[TheJollyJimLad]

Richard is giving a simplifed definition of a critical reaction strip. Earlier on in the CROW Design Manual, it states '...If parking is really necessary, a critical reaction strip is recommended (equal to or more than 0.5m). In that case however, designers should check whether a cycle track is a better solution, with or without a pavement or footpath at the same level'

In Dutch terms, the street should not have been designed in isolation but as part of a continuous network. If there is room for a Dutch cycle lane (1.5m lane, 0.10m markings + 0.50 Critical Reaction Strip), then there may be room for a cycle track (1.80m lane + 0.30m partition verge which would be at the same level of the cycle track so that no 'space' is lost by the critical reaction distance as the result of the kerb) A cycle track would mean moving the parking bays out to make the cycle route straighter and protected from moving traffic.

In both photos above (and this is pure speculation as I haven't seen either site) a cycle track could have been more benefical. In the top photo, the pavement has enough width to absorb a street realignment and bicycle riders in the bottom photo would be shop side of the parked cars giving it more benefit, particularly to short local trips.

Again, one has to bear in mind that the Dutch would have been thinking in terms of a municipality wide network as opposed to the ad hoc dangerous rubbish we see here in the UK fought street to street. Neither design solution in the UK photos would be used in the Netherlands as it just a weak attempt to shoehorn cyclists into a car-centric environment. Dutch motorists also would have been expecting cyclists more because more often than not they would also be cyclists themselves.

 

[Red Light]

Surely the only safe way, if you must have a cycle lane going alongside parked cars, is to have the left edge of the cycle lane further away than the width of a car door. Put yellow cross hatching in the space (with words "Door Zone" and a bicycle crossed out maybe?) to remove ambiguity. In fact, you could do that bit without the presence of a cycle lane.

Perversely that is more likely to encourage drivers to think its OK swing their doors open without looking. What you need to do is move the cyclists out of the dooring zone - a 0.5-0.75m buffer zone with, if there is to be a cycle lane, enough width in the cycle lane to swerve round the door without leaving the lane - but keep the thought with the driver that its unsafe to open the door without looking and doing it slowly. The Dutch cycle lanes do that. The British ones don't and then you get accidents like last weeks in London where the cyclist was doored under a following bus.

 

[benb]

Several answers to that. Its very difficult to have a cycle journey that is entirely within a cycle lane - usually because the lanes tend to end just at the point where you might think they are most needed. If they don't have the confidence to cycle without a cycle lane then they are not going to start without one all the way. Second is there is no evidence that cycle lanes attract new people to cycling in any significant numbers. Third "Because I can't think of anything else" isn't an adequate reason for building them.

I wouldn't claim an answer either but some of the things that interest me from a personal perspective are

• awareness campaigns for drivers and cyclists about vehicular riding. I think a lot of the problems out there are ignorance and misunderstandings on both sides.
• Adult Bikeability training and community rides especially built around training in the schools and getting parents involved with group cycling outings in the evenings or at weekends where kids and parents can ride together in a group practising Bikeability skills on the roads.
• A bikebuddy scheme to cycle with you when you are first getting started and building up the confidence. London ran several very successful Bike Trains into London during the tube strikes where they gathered at a meeting point and then cycled into the centre together.

I think also we need to get away from roads (and town generally) being primarily designed for motor vehicles, with other road users an afterthought. We have the priority entirely wrong. I do think people are beginning to realise that.

My wife has recently started to cycle to work with me a couple of days a week. Part of the route is a bridle path, then through a park. Not fast, but very pleasant. Then we have a fast (40mph limit) dual carriageway that even I don't like cycling on. So we use the shared use pavement. As they go, it's not the worst, but I hate having to give way at each side road. I have to face the fact though that she will probably never have the confidence to use the road there.

I like the Bikebuddy idea. A national website where people could register, like the car share website, would be good.

 

[benb]

Perversely that is more likely to encourage drivers to think its OK swing their doors open without looking. What you need to do is move the cyclists out of the dooring zone - a 0.5-0.75m buffer zone with, if there is to be a cycle lane, enough width in the cycle lane to swerve round the door without leaving the lane - but keep the thought with the driver that its unsafe to open the door without looking and doing it slowly. The Dutch cycle lanes do that. The British ones don't and then you get accidents like last weeks in London where the cyclist was doored under a following bus.

Blimey, this planning lark is all pretty complicated. Unintended consequences and all that.

 

[Mad at urage]

Well, it has been confirmed that Richard's "critical reaction strip" is there to give the cyclist enough time to swerve in front of the bus that was passing "very slowly" - that's all right then.

Richard, earlier you said

And finally, I'd recommend you pay attention at all times when using the highway, not just at side roads.

If that isn't clear somewhere, and you feel I'm recommending "cycle lanes, no matter how crap", please point it out and I'll correct it.

In the same post, you recommended using cyclists as mobile traffic calming ("cycle lanes (or preferably bus lanes if you have the space) on 30mph single-lane-each-way urban main (ie busy) roads, with the traffic space constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)"); disregarded the safety of cyclists by saying "I don't think the width of the cycle lane is crucial"which limits the cyclists' ability to manoevre around hazards; and recommended cycling in the 'door zone' ("I'd also recommend 0.5m clearance to parking bays, which is sufficient as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)""). This you attempt to justify by the following:

I'm sorry, the punters round here want cycle lanes and slower traffic, and your arguments against cycle lanes don't stack up to a hill of beans. So I guess we'll just carry on as we are. I wish you luck with alternative approaches.

As I said before, I'm sure "the punters" do support them if you tell them the lanes will make the roads safer. If of course if you were honest about your (lack of) interest in the safety of their children when riding to school, their opinion may well change.

For a second time I'm calling you on recommending "cycle lanes, no matter how crap". I've pointed out why they are crap, others have posted links to show these crap lanes. What are you going to do to "correct it"?

 

[Red Light]

I think also we need to get away from roads (and town generally) being primarily designed for motor vehicles, with other road users an afterthought. We have the priority entirely wrong. I do think people are beginning to realise that.

My wife has recently started to cycle to work with me a couple of days a week. Part of the route is a bridle path, then through a park. Not fast, but very pleasant. Then we have a fast (40mph limit) dual carriageway that even I don't like cycling on. So we use the shared use pavement. As they go, it's not the worst, but I hate having to give way at each side road. I have to face the fact though that she will probably never have the confidence to use the road there.

I like the Bikebuddy idea. A national website where people could register, like the car share website, would be good.

When I've been faced with similar I have stuck to the road but ridden behind and further out so as to control the traffic and prevent close passes which helps them build confidence. Particularly with a commute I found that many drivers are commuting the same route at the same time so get to see you reasonably often and expect and are prepared for you to be on the road.

 

[Red Light]

Blimey, this planning lark is all pretty complicated. Unintended consequences and all that.

Not really that complicated. Just think risk compensation (reduce the risk and people will change their behaviours to restore it to its original level) and think system wide (to many people focus on the local problem without thinking about the knock on effects e.g. pushing people off the trains onto the roads in the post Hatfield rail network shut down killed far more people on the roads than if they had stayed on the trains and risked a second Hatfield while they fixed the problem).

 

[Richard Mann]

...

I don't respond to long posts that have several straw men in them. It's a breach of netiquette.

To answer it more generally: you have to slow the traffic using a number of techniques, of which the presence of a cyclist (as "mobile traffic calming") is a relatively small one. Yes I expect drivers to be influenced by the presence of cyclists, but only after I've softened them up by restricting their width and forward visibility. That way the cyclist barely notices.

 

[Red Light]

Yes I expect drivers to be influenced by the presence of cyclists, but only after I've softened them up by restricting their width and forward visibility. That way the cyclist barely notices.

If that is the case why is the cycle lane in the Botley Rd photos ^ so narrow and the other lane so wide? Just looking at the red car and the one further down the road by the central island they have loads of width whereas bikes have a narrow lane squashed up into the door zone.

 

[Mad at urage]

I don't respond to long posts that have several straw men in them. It's a breach of netiquette.

To answer it more generally: you have to slow the traffic using a number of techniques, of which the presence of a cyclist (as "mobile traffic calming") is a relatively small one. Yes I expect drivers to be influenced by the presence of cyclists, but only after I've softened them up by restricting their width and forward visibility. That way the cyclist barely notices.

No straw men Richard, simply quotes from your own post. Your on-road lanes which restrict where the cars can drive are being justified by the expectation that they will be occupied by cyclists: That is not influencing drivers "by the presence of cyclists", it is herding the cyclists out of the way of the drivers. Then of course the (more sensible of the) cyclists don't use the cycle lanes provided (by your own admission), adding further fuel to resentment of cyclists, thus compromising our safety, both at the time we are riding outside the lanes and later at the driver's next encounter with cyclists.

It seems that in your view, this is OK because it is all part of some grander scheme to slow the traffic. You've been caught out: You do want "cycle lanes, no matter how crap", but they aren't for cyclists to use.

 

[Richard Mann]

Richard is giving a simplifed definition of a critical reaction strip. Earlier on in the CROW Design Manual, it states '...If parking is really necessary, a critical reaction strip is recommended (equal to or more than 0.5m). In that case however, designers should check whether a cycle track is a better solution, with or without a pavement or footpath at the same level'

In Dutch terms, the street should not have been designed in isolation but as part of a continuous network. If there is room for a Dutch cycle lane (1.5m lane, 0.10m markings + 0.50 Critical Reaction Strip), then there may be room for a cycle track (1.80m lane + 0.30m partition verge which would be at the same level of the cycle track so that no 'space' is lost by the critical reaction distance as the result of the kerb) A cycle track would mean moving the parking bays out to make the cycle route straighter and protected from moving traffic.

In both photos above (and this is pure speculation as I haven't seen either site) a cycle track could have been more benefical. In the top photo, the pavement has enough width to absorb a street realignment and bicycle riders in the bottom photo would be shop side of the parked cars giving it more benefit, particularly to short local trips.

Again, one has to bear in mind that the Dutch would have been thinking in terms of a municipality wide network as opposed to the ad hoc dangerous rubbish we see here in the UK fought street to street. Neither design solution in the UK photos would be used in the Netherlands as it just a weak attempt to shoehorn cyclists into a car-centric environment. Dutch motorists also would have been expecting cyclists more because more often than not they would also be cyclists themselves.

Most of these roads are 50ft between property lines (the Barns Road photo happens to be at a place where it's wider for a short way). If you have two 10ft pavements (typical for a main road), there's 30ft (just over 9m) left. In places it's less than that. If you can fit in two traffic lanes, good width cycle tracks and parking into that, then you're a miracle worker. What would the Dutch do - probably narrow the pavements. We have a higher ratio of pedestrians to cyclists, so that isn't politically practical here. It's also pretty expensive, if drainage has to be rebuilt.

Actually, it's more about urban form. UK cities expanded by building byelaw houses (terraces) and byelaw streets (40-50ft). They did so fairly early. They expanded again in the 20s/30s with semis. Most development after that was infill (away from the main roads). Most UK cities therefore have long stretches of district access roads that are too narrow for good quality cycle tracks. Urban form in the Netherlands is different.

 

[TheJollyJimLad]

Most of these roads are 50ft between property lines (the Barns Road photo happens to be at a place where it's wider for a short way). If you have two 10ft pavements (typical for a main road), there's 30ft (just over 9m) left. In places it's less than that. If you can fit in two traffic lanes, good width cycle tracks and parking into that, then you're a miracle worker. What would the Dutch do - probably narrow the pavements. We have a higher ratio of pedestrians to cyclists, so that isn't politically practical here. It's also pretty expensive, if drainage has to be rebuilt.

Actually, it's more about urban form. UK cities expanded by building byelaw houses (terraces) and byelaw streets (40-50ft). They did so fairly early. They expanded again in the 20s/30s with semis. Most development after that was infill (away from the main roads). Most UK cities therefore have long stretches of district access roads that are too narrow for good quality cycle tracks. Urban form in the Netherlands is different.

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html