Cycle lanes can reduce space for cyclists

[watervole]

This site shows that most cycle lanes are less than the recommended width (there often isn't the space for a full width lane), and that narrow cycle lanes actually result in cars passing closer to cyclists than if there was no lane at all.

I think I've just become an opponent of cycle lanes... (and I'm a regular cyclist)

Planners take note.

Comments

[asphodeline.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad someone has noticed at last!!

I'm very against cycle lanes in the way I've seen them flourish at home. They are not nearly wide enough and there is no extra space made by widen the roads in most cases which not only brings the cars closer together - and sometimes dangerously so - but means that cars are scraping past cyclists.

[kevinrtaylor.livejournal.com]

Here's the direct link:

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Thanks - for some reason, I couldn't get it to copy the first time.

[kevinrtaylor.livejournal.com]

The reason you couldn't copy the address properly was because it wasn't there to copy, and a little detective work is required.
That's because it's a redirected domain, and the redirection info for all links within the domain are posted to the browser as the root of the domain. This is usually the cheapest option.

In these cases I right-click the link and select "Copy Shortcut".
This gets you the actual page address, which in this case is http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf
I then substituted the domain root, "www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk" for "homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc" to get the invariant domain-based address of the document.

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

I assume you've seen the Facility of the Month pictures on the same site? Brilliant examples of terrible cycle planning.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

I was just considering another post to link to those. They're scary!

[darth-tigger.livejournal.com]

I always pull out to pass cyclists even when they're in one of the rubbish painted-by-the-side-of-the-road cycle anes. I don't see why I should give them any less space just because their tarmac's painted red.

I generally feel a driver should give a cyclist at least as much clearance as they would a car, plus if possible a bit more to take account of wobble, and a bit more to take into account fragility, and a bit more because you can. The other day I drove at 5 miles an hour for about a hundred metres because I didn't feel there was enough room to pull out to pass three cyclists without them getting unnerved. This was partly because two of the cyclists were under ten years old, and I wanted them to feel cycling wasn't too scary. Passing them with a foot clearance (why do drivers do that? If nothing else, do they not care about their paintwork?) might have put them off for life.

I do try to be a doasyouwouldbedoneby driver (I'm not perfect, but I try), and when I'm a cyclist I prefer to be given lots of space and not forced into the gutter or frightened to death, so that's what I try to do when I'm in a car. On the whole Nottingham's pretty good with cycle lanes (including a gratifying number of ones that are separated from the road) and not bad with driver etiquette, but there's always a few dickheads.

[johnrw.livejournal.com]

I tend to be ambivalent about cycle lanes, though I haven't cycled regularly for several years now. I used to be a regular cyclist in Liverpool - place where buses used to get cleaned by wiping cyclists down their sides - and I doubt they've got more courteous over the years. In that situation I would have loved a dedicated 3 foot strip, though six feet ~(enough room to fall off in) would be an optimum. Unfortunately the majority of 'cycle lanes' are of the 'See, we do know that there are other things on the road' variety - How else can you explain a cycle lane less than six feet long?

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

This is a subject which frustrates me; in Cambridge, we had separate cycle paths, which some cyclists just would not use. I got into a discussion with one on LJ about this, and her view was 'screw the cycle path, why shouldn't I use the road'?

I've been in Edinburgh three weeks now. If anything, it is even better provided with dedicated cycle routes than Cambridge. Despite this, on the part of my walk into college that is a footpath clearly marked NO CYCLING (because there is a parallel cycle path a hundred metres away) I still have to regularly dodge cyclists.

I am increasingly coming to the view, even though I've long been pro-cycling, that a large fraction of cyclists have convinced themselves that other road users - including pedestrians - are a nuisance to be disregarded. This is a crying shame, as it does nothing to advance the cause of cycling in a car-overcrowded world.

[spacefall.livejournal.com]

Hello! (I hope you'll excuse my discussing things in your comments, watervole)

To be fair, most 'cycle paths' aren't designed for commuting speeds, and are less safe than the road (see comment below.) I think it's reasonable for people to choose the safest, quickest or most convenient route for them, provided they remain within the law and respect other road users. Certainly I travel largely on the road, since I have rarely encountered a cycle path that compares in terms of surface, lighting, visibility to other traffic, and lack of debris.

As regards pavement cyclists, etc, they are as annoying to me as they are to most non-cyclists -- probably a little more. Still, I can't help feeling that many cycle 'facilities' encourage bad habits (undertaking, riding on pavements, bad lane discipline, etc.)

[watervole.livejournal.com]

I see no harm in a cyclist choosing to use the road (after all, cycles are perfectly legal on the road), but cycling on pavements is a bad idea at any time (I have a slight sympathy with children, but none with adults) and when there is a cycle lane nearby it is a very stupid and dangerous idea.

[spacefall.livejournal.com]

I commute by bicycle, and hate cycle lanes. They encourage drivers to pass too closely, and send a message that cyclists should stay left at all times, as opposed to riding appropriately for road conditions and their destination. Unfortunately, while you can choose to cycle in a sensible position regardless of the lane, you can't control the lane's effect on other road-users. :(

John Franklin's research survey (http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html) suggests that even in more 'cycle-friendly' countries, cycle lanes and paths are less safe than the rest of the carriageway. OK, cycling is a pretty safe activity -- more so than walking the equivalent distance -- but it's stupid that our journeys should be made less safe and less comfortable by 'facilities' supposedly designed for our benefit.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Ouch! More things I didn't know. The danger appears to be greatest at junctions when cycleways meet normal roads again.

People are safer on the roads at junctions rather than on the cycleways...

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

This is all about substandard cycling lanes. Here in Canberra we have long had a network of 240 km of cycle paths segregated from road. Where they cross roads, they normally have lights and speed humps.

We do now have some on-road cycling lanes which are painted emerald green with a skid-resistant surface. None is less than 2.0 m wide; most are over 2.5 m wide. I rarely use on-road lanes, preferring to commute to work over the network of cycle paths. If you ever come here, you should go for a ride on the paths, which are very scenic.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Sounds massively better than what we have. It's the legacy of old roads in crowded towns. I don't think I've ever seen a cycle lane more than a metre wide.