Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[GrasB]

And that Cyclecraft itself can be seen to increase the number of potential points of conflict with advice on primary and so on.

The use of primary as documented in cyclecraft doesn't increase the points of conflict, it however increases the motorists awareness of the points of conflict.

 

[Norm]

The situation you describe also applies to pedestrian crossings, not just in Denmark but other parts of Europe as well.So drivers are used to having to give way when turning right at signals. Clearly this would be a big change in the UK. But irrespective of how priority is managed at junctions, there is no doubt that segregation increases the number of points of conflict that have to be managed.

The big change would be in enforcement, attitude and behaviour as this is already enshrined in law.

 

[Red Light]

Yes - everyone goes at once and amazingly it seems to work.

It works in Copenhagen because of the sheer volume of cyclists there - a bit like critical mass where motorists have little choice but to wait faced with the numbers of cyclists. But without volume what are known as "looked but failed to see" accidents where motorists have failed to give way to a cyclist on a cycle track are one of the biggest problems and one for which the Danish research has concluded there is no solution other than removing the segregated facility:

"These studies give no immediate solutions to the problems associated with “looked-but-failed-to-see-errors” in traffic. But some hypotheses have been suggested.It appears that experienced drivers may be more likely to make these errors than inexperienced drivers. If this is so, it is doubtful to what extent educational activities may help. Erroneous behaviour learned through experience may be very difficult to treat through educational efforts.

The only engineering suggestion is to mix different road users rather than separate them in order to make cyclists more “visible” in the relevant locations but not all possible effects are known."

 

[stowie]

The use of primary as documented in cyclecraft doesn't increase the points of conflict, it however increases the motorists awareness of the points of conflict.

Point taken.

 

[jonesy]

Norm, I know this is the case for side road crossings in general, but I was referring specifically to what happens at signalised pedestrian crossings in Denmark and elsewhere, where pedestrians have a green man to cross the road while vehicles have a green light permitting them to turn right across the ped crossing.Stowie was describing a similar situation for cycle crossings there, my point was that this is very different from uk practice where a green man means no vehicle movements.

 

[Red Light]

Some other stuff from the biggest Danish study into the safety of their cycle tracks and lanes in Copenhagen:

"From table 1, it can be deduced that the construction of cycle tracks has resulted in three important gains in road safety: fewer accidents in which cars hit or ran over cyclists from the rear, fewer accidents with cyclists turning left and fewer accidents in which cyclists rode into a parked car. These gains were more than outweighed by new safety problems: more accidents in which cyclists rode into other cyclists often when overtaking, more accidents with cars turning right, more accidents in which cars turning left drove into cyclists as well as more accidents between cyclists and pedestrians and exiting or entering bus passengers."

"There was a 13% decrease in accidents at sgnalised junctions where only one blue cycle crossing had been marked. At signalised junctions where two or four blue cycle crossings had been marked, however, increases of 23% and 61% respectively occurred. Corresponding changes in the number of injuries for one, two and four blue cycle crossings are a fall of 22%, and increases of 37% and 138% respectively."

So the anecdotal observation that they seem to work turns out to be wrong.

 

[Red Light]

I had a discussion with someone about this the other day. They felt that the volume of traffic through most London junctions meant that cars ceding priority would never work. I didn't have the heart to point out that if cars were de-prioritised then maybe more people would use other forms of transport and therefore the volumes would decrease...

Actually I think it is starting to work in Central London where cyclist numbers are really quite high supplemented by the Boris Bike riders. I have noticed a much greater caution developing in most drivers, particularly when setting off from traffic lights. They appear to be much more alert to the possible presence of cyclists and taking care to avoid them. Of course there are a number of the usual numpties as well but overall I sense it is improving fast.

Boris Bikes really seem to have taken off with the good weather. I have passed countless docking locations with no bikes over the last few weeks of good weather and cycling up the east side of Hyde Park last night a good two thirds of the bikes coming the other way were Boris Bikes. From the snatches of conversation heard as they passed, quite a few tourists are using them too. I'd be worried it may become a victim of its own success. If the probability of finding a bike at a location gets too low, people will start to drop them as a form of transport they can count on.

 

[jonesy]

Interesting.The comment about bus stops is worth noting, especially when considering how the Danish experience might work in the UK.Buses are the most important form of public transport by modal share in most cities, there are huge numbers carried by bus in London, far higher than in Copenhagen, so advocates of sgregated cycle routes have to explain where the bus stops go and how the passengers are going to be protected from cyclists.From my brief visits to Copenhagen I very much got the impression that this was one of the least satisfactory aspects of the system, and would struggle with a significant increase in bus use.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Some other stuff from the biggest Danish study into the safety of their cycle tracks and lanes in Copenhagen:

"From table 1, it can be deduced that the construction of cycle tracks has resulted in three important gains in road safety: fewer accidents in which cars hit or ran over cyclists from the rear, fewer accidents with cyclists turning left and fewer accidents in which cyclists rode into a parked car. These gains were more than outweighed by new safety problems: more accidents in which cyclists rode into other cyclists often when overtaking, more accidents with cars turning right, more accidents in which cars turning left drove into cyclists as well as more accidents between cyclists and pedestrians and exiting or entering bus passengers."

"There was a 13% decrease in accidents at sgnalised junctions where only one blue cycle crossing had been marked. At signalised junctions where two or four blue cycle crossings had been marked, however, increases of 23% and 61% respectively occurred. Corresponding changes in the number of injuries for one, two and four blue cycle crossings are a fall of 22%, and increases of 37% and 138% respectively."

So the anecdotal observation that they seem to work turns out to be wrong.

Hmm. According to that paper, a major reason given for the increase in accidents at turnings is that a greater number of vehicle turns into side roads are being executed. This is a consequence of parking being removed from the main thoroughfares, and hence motorists having to move into side streets to park -

Prohibited parking on a road with a cycle track results in cars being parked on side streets, with a consequent increase in turning traffic, especially at right of way regulated junctions and more accidents resulting from turning cars. The construction of cycle tracks and prohibition of parking resulted in an increase in accidents and injuries at junctions of 42% and 52% respectively.

A large part of the statistical rise in accidents at junctions, therefore, is simply due to a greater number of turns being executed, and not simply due to the change in road layout.



Perhaps it would have been more helpful if the study had considered the statistical risk per turning manoeuvre, rather than just counting the overall number of accidents? (I might additionally note that some of the increase in accidents could also be accounted for by an increase in the number of cyclists over the trial period).

 

[Red Light]

Perhaps it would have been more helpful if the study had considered the statistical risk per turning manoeuvre, rather than just counting the overall number of accidents? (I might additionally note that the increase in accidents could also be accounted for by an increase in the number of cyclists over the trial period).

Actually not. There is a minor problem with english by a non-native speaker. It looks like its just the number of accidents in the paper but I corresponded with the authors about it at the time it came out and it is actually accident rates they are talking about. Any increase in numbers of cyclists is therefore factored in already. From memory I think it was clarified when the papers were published in the academic press.

 

[stowie]

Actually I think it is starting to work in Central London where cyclist numbers are really quite high supplemented by the Boris Bike riders. I have noticed a much greater caution developing in most drivers, particularly when setting off from traffic lights. They appear to be much more alert to the possible presence of cyclists and taking care to avoid them. Of course there are a number of the usual numpties as well but overall I sense it is improving fast.

Boris Bikes really seem to have taken off with the good weather. I have passed countless docking locations with no bikes over the last few weeks of good weather and cycling up the east side of Hyde Park last night a good two thirds of the bikes coming the other way were Boris Bikes. From the snatches of conversation heard as they passed, quite a few tourists are using them too. I'd be worried it may become a victim of its own success. If the probability of finding a bike at a location gets too low, people will start to drop them as a form of transport they can count on.

I think you are right - the "critical mass" of cyclists sometimes in central London, and sometimes outside central London alters drivers' behavior significantly.

The problem I have with the "safety in numbers" argument is that - unless us cyclists all decide to go everywhere in groups - there will always be times when the roads are under this "critical mass" even in Central London. Then the drivers can revert to type and all the advantages of the "safety in numbers" argument goes out of the window. Clearly getting used to large numbers of cyclists doesn't impact behavior at all times - otherwise cabbies would be the most cycle friendly motorists on the road...

I understand what you say about the Copenhagen system or the Dutch system. I just think we are on a fools errand if we think that cycling or walking will be able to be made more pleasant and accessible to all without changes to the way we use our road-space. This may not be segregation, but cramming roads with as many traffic lanes as possible, corralling pedestrians using crossing cages and letting cyclists battle it with multi-lane traffic doesn't seem to me to be sensible.

Final question - why do you think cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam have such high modal share if it isn't to do with facilities? Surely it isn't all cultural?

 

[jonesy]

Furthermore, as parking restrictions on the main road are needed to create space for the cycle paths, then increased use of side roads for parking has to be taken into account as a consequence of segregated provision.

 

[stowie]

Furthermore, as parking restrictions on the main road are needed to create space for the cycle paths, then increased use of side roads for parking has to be taken into account as a consequence of segregated provision.

Parking in Copenhagen was along main roads in many places. Interestingly the passenger side was next to the cycle lane, so a passenger could door a cyclist. I guess this is less serious as a doored cyclist wouldn't fall into the path of traffic - the parked car is between the road and cyclist.

Nothing is ideal. Everything is a compromise. I wouldn't really want to see segregation put in as a de-facto standard since I believe most roads - if designed correctly, should be able to make cycling and walking less stressful and more pleasant and de-prioritise private transport. There are certain roads where I think segregation is an absolute must, these are very few in number (but cause massive disconnects in cycle and walking routes).

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Furthermore, as parking restrictions on the main road are needed to create space for the cycle paths, then increased use of side roads for parking has to be taken into account as a consequence of segregated provision.

Yes, but I think parking restrictions on main roads are also a large ingredient of making cycling more pleasant generally, whether the roads are 'segregated' or not. This is a problem that is not limited to the 'segregated' approach.

 

[jonesy]

I agree in principle- restricting parking is key to giving advantage to other modes, and in re-allocating space to them.Nonetheless, as segregated routes need more space than unsegregated ones then it is more dependent on removing parking spaces, so what happens to parking has to be taken into account, it can't be eliminated everywhere.Your earlier post implied that parking had moved somehwere else rather than removed completely, and that this had increased side road traffic.