Well-defined cycle lanes?

[XmisterIS]

this post has popped an idea into my head:

The reason why cars and pedestrians don't mix is because there is a well-defined boundary between the pavement and the road (the kerb!) - one of the functions it performs is to provide a psychological barrier.

One trouble with cycle lanes (apart from many being too narrow) is that there isn't a well-defined psychological barrier between them and the rest of the road.

So, my proposal for making cycling safer in towns and cities would be to set little brightly-colored plastic blocks (like cat's eyes, but without the reflective bit) into the tarmac at regular intervals along the boundary between the cycle lane and the road.

This would serve firstly to disuade BSO riders from wobbling in and out of the cycle lane while paying scant attention to traffic and secondly to remind car drivers that they were far to far over to the left when they hear the "thump thump thump" of their wheels passing over the plastic blocks - it seems to have the desired effect of reminding people about lane discipline on motorways!

So ... whaddayathink? Good idea or crack-pot hare-brained wacko thinking?

 

[TheDoctor]

I'd sooner not have cycle lanes on roads at all. Either have cycle lanes well-designed, separate, signed, maintained and useful, or don't bother. Just my 2p-worth...

 

[XmisterIS]

I do agree with you that they should be separate - but I was trying to come up with an idea that would be pragmatic and low-cost (i.e. starting from the infrastructure we actually have at the moment) while also being effective ... not an ideal solution, I agree, but perhaps a significant improvement?

 

[thomas]

I'd sooner not have cycle lanes on roads at all. Either have cycle lanes well-designed, separate, signed, maintained and useful, or don't bother. Just my 2p-worth...

+1. I know there has been research to prove it, but certainly on some roads with cycle lanes I can tell that I'm being passed closer than if there wasn't.

I don't mind the cycle symbols on the ground, but do not like being boxed into a cycle lane. I am also not against cycle lanes which actually make my ride safer and encourage more people to cycle. Though I am happy cycling without them, I do realise that to get a lot of people to cycle a good cycle infrastructure is needed.

I do agree with you that they should be separate - but I was trying to come up with an idea that would be pragmatic and low-cost (i.e. starting from the infrastructure we actually have at the moment) while also being effective ... not an ideal solution, I agree, but perhaps a significant improvement?

You mentioned not having the reflective cat eye bit...why not? At night it could be useful.

Overall, a good attempt at trying to improve them, but I think it's kind of a plaster for a bullet wound.

Having these rumble strips/cat eyes wouldn't make bad cycle lanes safer, it'd just box cyclists in more. Another potential problem...have you ever crossed over the white line of some cycle lanes in the wet? Some can be bloody lethal and have you off! I think these cat eyes could potentially cause a similar problem.

I'm not against the idea, but I think there are steps which need to be carried out before hand. There need to be minimum legal standards for cycle lanes, rather than just 'we have a target .... get out the paint!'

 

[XmisterIS]

thomas - good point about the legal requirements - the first place I would start would be with minimum cycle lane width. I think my idea would only be effective where the lane is at least 3ft wide ... luckily there are lots of lanes where I live which are that wide!

I don't think the reflective bits would be necessary unless the road was unlit - in which case they would be very useful! Many's the time I've slowed right down on country lanes at night because I'm damned if I can clearly see the difference between the road (black) and the muddy verge (also black!).

 

[thomas]

thomas - good point about the legal requirements - the first place I would start would be with minimum cycle lane width. I think my idea would only be effective where the lane is at least 3ft wide ... luckily there are lots of lanes where I live which are that wide!

Take a look at this:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx

From memory, the standards are actually pretty good but if anyones had a detailed read feel free to correct me.

Certainly, take a look at number 4. The first picture shows what looks to be a cycle lane that cards have to give way to (if you look at the markings that go slightly off shot). It seems to work with what we've got, so rather than changing laws completely, it just (I supposes) bodges existing ones to work.

edit: Take a look at page 82, it is. This is the type of thing I'd like to see with a lot of pedestrian crossings. Make cars to give way to pedestrians crossing. It would certainly work very well on a lot of the roads on my way to UNI.

It recommends 1.5meters in size for a cycle lane, which I would say is reasonable. Cycle lanes need to offer enough space for the cyclist to be able to ride in a secondary position, without feeling like they shouldn't, as well as being wide enough that drivers will give enough overtaking space with the cyclist in that position.

 

[XmisterIS]

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx

That's pretty good actually! I wish we had that level of comprehensive guidlines in Hampshire.

Driver ignorance is half the problem - we do have number 4.2 - in as much as cycle lanes continue across side roads - the trouble is that a significant minority of drivers then treat the offside edge of the cycle lane as a "give-way" line.

 

[thomas]

That's pretty good actually! I wish we had that level of comprehensive guidlines in Hampshire.

Driver ignorance is half the problem - we do have number 4.2 - in as much as cycle lanes continue across side roads - the trouble is that a significant minority of drivers then treat the offside edge of the cycle lane as a "give-way" line.

yep...but then if drivers were a little less ignorant would we need cycle lanes?

If we all lived in harmony with each other

Certainly, even if every cycle lane was fantastic, would I use them? I think I'd always be a bit worried that somewhere down the line the cycle lane may be badly designed and put me in a situation I don't like. If Norwich decided to install really good cycle infrastructure, they'd certainly need to prove to me that it was worthwhile, other wise I'd be tempted just to stick to the roads that I know and can ride confidently on.

 

[stowie]

Take a look at this:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx

.

Download Chapter 5, and look at the picture on the front cover.

The cycle lane crossing the junction is blocked by a 4x4 and moped waiting at the lights

 

[GrasB]

The problem is most cycle lanes have their boundary line where want my wheels to be! Also visual segregation of lanes mean that motorists expect cyclists to stick to those boundaries no mater what, this causes far more conflict when a cyclists needs to ride outside those lanes for various reasons, such as avoiding cars pulling out of side roads/drive ways, peds who just step into the road etc.

 

[Dan B]

The reason why cars and pedestrians don't mix is because there is a well-defined boundary between the pavement and the road (the kerb!) - one of the functions it performs is to provide a psychological barrier.

You say this like you think it's a good thing. In urban centres, at least, I would tend to disagree: if car drivers got more used to having pedestrians on "their" roads I think our streets would become a good deal more civilised

 

[Arch]

In central Copenhagen they have: pavement: proper kerb:cycle lane:tiny kerb (really only a cm or so, smoothed at the edge, more visual than physical):road. It works. But it works because of attitudes and sheer weight of cyclists. Peds keep to the pavement, cyclists keep to their lane, drivers keep to the road. At a right turn (our left turn), when a driver wants to turn across this lane, they must wait for any cyclists in the lane to come past. And they do. Imagine it! Sometimes 10 or 15 riders going by, while a car sits and waits...

I wouldn't be keen on any raised edging that kept me pinned in a bike lane, and I don't think drivers at urban speeds would take much notice of it TBH. Anyway, they only have to get the two nearside wheels into the lane, and then they can troll along astride the line as they wish (as they frequently do now).

 

[trsleigh]

Just get rid of cycle lanes. Make the kerb lane wider.

 

[summerdays]

I wouldn't be keen unless the lane was really wide - so for example being able to overtake another cyclist whilst remaining in the lane. I like the idea in principle but just think that the way that cycle lanes are often applied means that we would be boxed into a very narrow area.

To back my case I give you this cycle lane...

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&h...3693,-2.545692&spn=0.000326,0.000728&t=h&z=21 it starts off narrow and just gets narrower and narrower until at the end it must be no more than 6" to a foot from the kerb.

 

[marinyork]

this post has popped an idea into my head:

The reason why cars and pedestrians don't mix is because there is a well-defined boundary between the pavement and the road (the kerb!) - one of the functions it performs is to provide a psychological barrier.

There is a well-defined boundary between cycle lanes and the rest of the carriageway it is called a white line. It is just in this country that drivers don't play a blind bit of notice to white lines - bus lane white lines, don't overtake, stop, give way, you name it.

On the topic of brighter things weren't the cycling superhighways thinking of doing this with strips/cateyes whatever?