Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[gaz]

Richard - While I can see the benefit on Magdalen Bridge I'm not a fan of this kind of lane in a general way. If the road is nine or ten metres wide it does fall between two stools, but I'd far prefer to see the traffic (including bikes) slowed to 20 mph. We've got a few of these lanes out in Sutton and Mitcham and they're really an excuse for cars to fly along at high speed just to the right of the dashed line (apologies for the naff screengrab)

But Magdalen Bridge is, if memory serves (*) in the unfortunate position of being the main 'entrance' to the city from the east and southeast. It both suffers and profits from being heavily trafficed, and it's not wide enough to bear a bus lane (or, perhaps, the weight of a full sized bus).

Another thing to add to Croydon Road / Mitchem road is the poor poor quailty of it.
It's rather rough for cyclists, lots of debris and overgrowing trees. And lets not even get started on the door zone that is further up.

 

[jonesy]

I can believe that, but effectively you're saying that the speed reduction is not created by road engineering but by relying on the presence of (vulnerable) road users, and if the bike lane does not have a continual flow of cyclists then it will simply be perceived as part of the carriageway. I'd rather have a bus lane: when a driver is deciding whether to pull left and go around another car waiting to turn right, the prospect of being rear-ended by a bus - or a speeding motorbike - is far more likely to concentrate his mind than the thought of making a cyclist have to emergency stop.

You should bear in mind that lane narrowing to reduce speed isn't just (or even usually) done with cycle lanes: hatched markings, rumble strips, median strips, moved edge markings etc are also used, and these clearly don't rely on their being a VRU for the driver to avoid. Not surprisingly, the factors that affect speed choice are complex, but the role of lane width is generally accepted. I'll try to get some references when I've finished what I really should be doing instead of posting here...

On the second point, as before, clearly the option of a bus lane doesn't exist where there is only one vehicle lane available.

 

[dellzeqq]

Another thing to add to Croydon Road / Mitchem road is the poor poor quailty of it.
It's rather rough for cyclists, lots of debris and overgrowing trees. And lets not even get started on the door zone that is further up.

I think, to be fair, neither Richard nor Jonesy would give the door zone lanes the time of day. Those are complete bastards.

I make you right on the surface though. Adrian says that it's puncture central. I suggested running the FNRttC down there this month and he wasn't impressed. I suppose, whether we like it or not, vehicle tyres scrub the road a bit.

 

[jonesy]

Indeed, as is so often the case with cycling infrastructure, if it can't be done properly, it shouldn't be done at all.

 

[benborp]

I'd argue that the changes to Croydon Road were extremely effective and have probably achieved the desired results in addressing the perceived problem.
The solution though has been to use cycle lanes and a median strip in much the same way as the bus lane was used on the M4 - traffic management sleight of hand. Prior to these changes the road was used by many as if it were 4 lanes wide, this allowed higher speeds (this is Mitcham where on a normal road 200% of the limit is nothing unusual), facilitated reckless behaviour and encouraged greater conflict at the bottle necks at either end. There were regular motor vehicle occupant deaths and frequent accidents. I used to find it more of an unpleasant road in a car, panel van or luton than on a push bike.
The provision of facilities for vulnerable road users was actually done to make motorized users less vulnerable to the actions of their fellow drivers without having to use the politically uncomfortable justification of 'it's being done for your own good'. There shouldn't be any surprise that cycle lanes that exist for the benefit of motorists aren't maintained or swept * or make the regular day to day journeys of cyclists any better - not that many cyclists are, or that it in fact may have made the cyclists' situation worse.

* Or even cleared when people still manage to wreck their cars on a straight, junction free stretch of 'calmed' 40mph single carriageway road. Mind you it is Mitcham

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Indeed, as is so often the case with cycling infrastructure, if it can't be done properly, it shouldn't be done at all.

and I've found a new signature line... thank you jonesy

 

[Richard Mann]

Cycle lanes are unnecessary. If the road is wide enough to fit a proper cycle lane it's wide enough to not need one and if it's narrow enough to need one there isn't room to fit a proper one. The main effect of cycle lanes, as demonstrated anecdotally by the Warrington Cycling Campaign, is to allow drivers to pass faster and closer than they otherwise would.

The Warrington report into the effect of cycle lanes compares a 30mph site with a 40mph site: it does not demonstrate what it claims.

At the moment, we have some evidence that drivers give cyclists a wider berth when there's no cycle lane on high-speed roads (50-60mph), but the effect is lost amidst other influences on position on 30mph roads. CTC have commissioned some more research.

Our experience in Oxford is that lane-narrowing slows cars, is politically acceptable, it makes for nice continuous cycle lanes that a lot of cyclists like (racers being the exception), and it doesn't cause much by way of safety issues.

 

[Mad at urage]

The Warrington report into the effect of cycle lanes compares a 30mph site with a 40mph site: it does not demonstrate what it claims.

At the moment, we have some evidence that drivers give cyclists a wider berth when there's no cycle lane on high-speed roads (50-60mph), but the effect is lost amidst other influences on position on 30mph roads. CTC have commissioned some more research.

Our experience in Oxford is that lane-narrowing slows cars, is politically acceptable, it makes for nice continuous cycle lanes that a lot of cyclists like (racers being the exception), and it doesn't cause much by way of safety issues.

Apart from left-hooks from motor vehicles who don't see the cycle lane as part of the road or anything in it as having right of way?

 

[suecsi]

Apart from left-hooks from motor vehicles who don't see the cycle lane as part of the road or anything in it as having right of way?

+1

 

[jonesy]

...

I'm not aware of any substantive evidence that road narrowing reduces motorists' speeds. Nor am I aware that there is any substantive evidence that increasing the size of cycle lanes and making a single lane for motor vehicles either reduces speeds or increases safety. Certainly the experiences of many places where this has been tries, such as salisbury, seems to point to an increase in risk for vulnerable road users.

There is, however, substantive evidence that removing all road markings and signs ('naked roads') does slow motorists and increase road safety, as does allowing contraflow cycling on one way roads.

See this for example, from Interaction between speed choice and road environment (Road safety research
report No. 100) :
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme4/interaction/chapter1.pdf

"1.2.4 Mechanisms of speed reductions

The literature suggests that, for example, narrower roads and narrower lanes on roads lead to slower travel speeds...​

​

​

​

"

The report also discusses measures like centre-line removal and other aspects of psychological traffic calming.​

There isn't a contradiction between the idea that speed can be reduced both by narrowing lanes and by taking lane markings out altogether, both involve changing the driver's perception of what is a comfortable speed for them to drive at. Which is the most appropriate measure at a particlar location will depend upon local circumstances.
​

 

[jonesy]

Well, what it says is:

Lane width reductions have been found to be generally effective in reducing vehicle speeds (e.g. Oppenlander, 1966; Leong, 1966; Armour and McLean, 1983; Pau and Angius, 2001). Von Morner (1984, cited in Bowers, 1986) demonstrated that in the relationship between carriageway width and speed it is the​

​

​

​

perceived width that is important. This is an important point to note, as reducing the actual lane width reduces the amount of space between opposing traffic (e.g. single-carriageways) or adjacent traffic (e.g. dual-carriageways). Inevitably, there will be a trade-off between lower speeds and the possibility of an increased number of conflicts."​

So the potential for increased conflicts and accidents does not contradict the effect on speed. There are many situations in transport planning where a safety measure introduces compromises, such as between conflicts and speed. This is certainly true of shared space- you'll get more lower level conflicts, but fewer of the most serious accidents, because no-one expects to have priority and everyone takes more care. Any road safety intervention has to be considered on the basis of individual circumstances. But people really do drive more slowly on narrower roads, that isn't controversial, even if the effectiveness of particular meaures for achieving this might be.​

​

​

 

[Red Light]

See this for example, from Interaction between speed choice and road environment (Road safety research report No. 100)

1.2.4 Mechanisms of speed reductions

The literature suggests that, for example, narrower roads and narrower lanes on roads lead to slower travel speeds...

I wouldn't put too much weight on anything coming out of DfT who have a track record of policy based evidence making.

 

[jonesy]

Apart from the fact that that that is a rather dubious accusation against the authors, who aren't from DfT (in any case they cite external references to support this), the claim that people drive more slowly on narrower roads really isn't controversial in the transport world! I know it doesn't always look like it, but people do adapt their driving in response to the road environment. That was the whole point of Manual for Streets, which also discusses the link between width and speed, as well as other factors like sightlines, and indeed the basis for 'naked streets', shared space etc. The underlying principles are the same. Basically we are using risk compensation in reverse, increasing the appearance of risk so as to reduce speed and actual risk.

 

[dellzeqq]

My problem with that, Jonesy, is that you're abstracting a theory from data that is shorn of its cultural relevance, and extrapolating outward. To pick up on something that Greg Collins said, behaviour is cultural, and we're in a country that has a vast variety of driving cultures. To me the difference between behaviour in southeast London and soutwest London is evident, and, if I care to ponder it, I can, perhaps, work out why that might be. What happens in Oxford may not hold good in Merton.

I think that the DfT is at a loss in two respects - it has absolutely no understanding of public space (and I'd include the bods in the TPN in that) and no interest in culture. It goes without saying that the CEGB mirrors that blindness (and other blindnesses besides) and that when the CTC decided to go national with campaigning it lost sight of the obvious - that the instincts and values of local activists might offer more of an insight than aggregated data and the 'guidance' that results.

To me it seems obvious. The Romford Road is a different animal from the Clapham Road. As Greg said, the Isle of Wight is on a different planet than Berkshire. For that matter Berkshire is on a different planet to almost anywhere else, and it's not a nice planet. Folk in Lambeth don't do racism and don't do homophobia - why are they going to drive the same way as the folk in (say) Winchester?

I take your point about risk compensation in reverse, and I accept entirely that if you insert mini-roundabouts it might have a broadly similar effect in Derby and Dumfries. I believe that the kind of huge roundabout that we see in places like Basildon is an anathema and has contributed to a culture of irresponsibility, not to say imbecility amongst the driving population of Basildon. That said, it's a two way thing. In Oxford you have a measure of culture (I've got friends on Blackbird Leys, so I know this is a bit of a generalisation), but in Mitcham there is only anomie. That doesn't make it a hopeless case, but any political effort in Mitcham has to recognise that the culture, or lack of it, is particular....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Apart from the fact that that that is a rather dubious accusation against the authors, who aren't from DfT (in any case they cite external references to support this), the claim that people drive more slowly on narrower roads really isn't controversial in the transport world! I know it doesn't always look like it, but people do adapt their driving in response to the road environment. That was the whole point of Manual for Streets, which also discusses the link between width and speed, as well as other factors like sightlines, and indeed the basis for 'naked streets', shared space etc. The underlying principles are the same. Basically we are using risk compensation in reverse, increasing the appearance of risk so as to reduce speed and actual risk.

we in the sham are the proud owners of a deliberately narrowed road, white lines set 1m from the kerb on both sides of the road and some award winning naked road space. Both have a half life of about two years before the novelty wears of and driver behaviour reverts to type.

The former also confuses drivers, and the county cycling officer, into thinking they are cycle lanes.

The latter just scares the wotsit out of visitors whilst the locals drive through at 30 + mph scattering pedestrians before them.

Want cars to go slower? Implement lower speed limits and enforce them. with extreme prejudice.