Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[Red Light]

The road I was going to suggest counting is a trunk route into town that has seen a big increase in cyclists since a cycletrack was put in

So were they new cyclists or just existing cyclists diverting onto the new route?

 

[blockend]

Implying that you're a cycle campaigner, that you've successfully got your HA to install bike lanes, and those bike lanes have successfully got people on bikes.

Sounds like at least one cycle campaigner is making a difference.

If you could identify what exactly you mean by "crap", that'd be helpful. And whether some/all/none of the people concerned are "utility" cyclists.

You'll have to read back a few pages for the full picture. The lane is narrow and broken and when I pointed out that it ended at the very point it was most needed was told 'anything is better than nothing' by the council lackey. The road is 40mph, 50 being typical driver speed and I've seen much faster.

Now I've always believed cycle lanes and tracks have a role to play in getting people onto bikes but meant intelligently designed ones with some effort expended in making them but this one seems to be attracting more cyclists because someone has laid a little paint. If my observations are correct - and the sniping about my intentions are becoming as tedious as intended - there's something for cycle campaigners to think about. Hopefully, something more than people are stupid.


As for being a cycle campaigner myself, it depends what you mean. I lead rides for years but neither know nor care about the politics of cycling. I was in the CTC for 30 years but never felt 'represented' in any meaningful way. Car drivers behaved as they ever did, initiatives were announced with bells and whistles only to be forgotten a year later, compelling ideas on road access became dogmatic and evangelistic with no account for the numbers cycling or the design of the road in question. This thread has turned out like countless others, the debate has already been had, nothing to see here, insults and knee jerks about people's motives, the usual brittle egos.

Frankly, I don't think I want to be represented any more if I ever was and the link which prompted this thread was one of the more intelligent observations on cycling, if the title was too provocative for my taste.

 

[subaqua]

I lean on my garden wall and photograph them and send the pictures to inspector knacker. inspector knacker sends a minion around to my house to tell me a) I cannot take photographs like this b) my doing so could cause an accident, and when I've comprehensively demolished a) & b) comes up with c) don't I have anything better to do with my time?

and, you could not make this up, whilst they were returning to their illegally parked patrol car, someone ran the red light on the pedestrian crossing 20m from my front door!

I watched one struggling to park whilst engaged in a animated conversation MPU not rep from Knacker. I asked thenm after 15 minutes of struggling if they thought stopping talking on the phone might help them park a bit better. I never knew Asian ladies knew those sorts of words. and apparently telling her it was illegal to use a mobile while driving made me racist as it was a very important call !!

 

[Richard Mann]

You'll have to read back a few pages for the full picture. The lane is narrow and broken and when I pointed out that it ended at the very point it was most needed was told 'anything is better than nothing' by the council lackey. The road is 40mph, 50 being typical driver speed and I've seen much faster.

Now I've always believed cycle lanes and tracks have a role to play in getting people onto bikes but meant intelligently designed ones with some effort expended in making them but this one seems to be attracting more cyclists because someone has laid a little paint. If my observations are correct - and the sniping about my intentions are becoming as tedious as intended - there's something for cycle campaigners to think about. Hopefully, something more than people are stupid.

My observation (of what people do and what they say) is that what they most want is continuity, and localised narrowness of facility (or speed/proximity of passing traffic, when everything's going straight, or slowly) is a fairly low-order concern. "Something" really is a lot better than "nothing". If the total level of stress is too much then they won't bother, but the odd bit of "this is a bit narrow" is ok. So my reaction to the council lackey would be that if anything is better than nothing, then they should also install some "anything" in the gaps. And if that means ignoring the letter of the guidance, then try to abide by the spirit, but do it anyway.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

My observation (of what people do and what they say) is that what they most want is continuity, and localised narrowness of facility (or speed/proximity of passing traffic, when everything's going straight, or slowly) is a fairly low-order concern. "Something" really is a lot better than "nothing". If the total level of stress is too much then they won't bother, but the odd bit of "this is a bit narrow" is ok. So my reaction to the council lackey would be that if anything is better than nothing, then they should also install some "anything" in the gaps. And if that means ignoring the letter of the guidance, then try to abide by the spirit, but do it anyway.

I disagree with the last bit. If the width available is only 2.5 metres, for example, then the advisory cycle lane, if any, should continue through it at 2m wide (or 1.5m if a 30mph road), to show motorists that they should not try to overtake there, but should wait until the cycle lane is unoccupied and then, correctly, drive in the cycle lane. A 0.5m cycle lane just invites them to squeeze through.

 

[Richard Mann]

I disagree with the last bit. If the width available is only 2.5 metres, for example, then the advisory cycle lane, if any, should continue through it at 2m wide (or 1.5m if a 30mph road), to show motorists that they should not try to overtake there, but should wait until the cycle lane is unoccupied and then, correctly, drive in the cycle lane. A 0.5m cycle lane just invites them to squeeze through.

Cycle lanes shouldn't go below 1m. If it's a main road (10,000mvpd+), you can probably go down to about 5.2m for the traffic (no centre line), without explicitly requiring intrusion into the cycle lane. If you do require intrusion into the cycle lane on a main road, I think there should probably be an explicit merge point with general traffic giving way, the cycle lane widening to a full traffic lane, and an overtaking ban (and maybe a 10mph speed limit). Such situations are quite rare on main roads.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

something is better than nothing gets you on road cycle lanes narrower than my mtb's bars.

 

[jonesy]

I think the point here is that we shouldn't let strict interpretation of guidance prevent us from doing something useful, not least because there is a certain amount of margin for error in most of the parameters used and room for judgement to be applied, taking account of local circumstances, traffic flows and speeds etc. Highway engineering is not an exact science. To my mind, the most important thing is to make sure that if anything is done, that it is done with a full understanding of what it is intended to achieve for cyclists, and that it confers an advantage over not having it. So while I'd accept narrower cycle lanes as Richard describes to improve continuity, I don't like to see the "anything is better than nothing" approach when it is used to justify things like putting cycle path signs on the pavement, with all the loss of continuity and disadvantage that entails.

Edit- part of the philosphy of Manual for Streets is to move away from strict design standards to "asking practitioners to plan street design intelligently and proactively".

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Cycle lanes shouldn't go below 1m. If it's a main road (10,000mvpd+), you can probably go down to about 5.2m for the traffic (no centre line), without explicitly requiring intrusion into the cycle lane. If you do require intrusion into the cycle lane on a main road, I think there should probably be an explicit merge point with general traffic giving way, the cycle lane widening to a full traffic lane, and an overtaking ban (and maybe a 10mph speed limit). Such situations are quite rare on main roads.

I think there is a common misconception about the purpose of advisory cycle lanes, which I shared until fairly recently. Unlike mandatory cycle lanes, advisory ones are absolutely not a mechanism for segregation. It is perfectly legal to drive in an advisory cycle lane, but you are supposed to give cyclists priority, so their only purposes are to remind motorists that cycles exist and, if they are of the correct width (which virtually none are), to remind motorists of how much space they should leave when overtaking.

(Of course, the cynic would say that their purpose is to tell everyone that cyclists should be riding in the gutter, but I didn't say that. )

The DfT guidelines on Cycle Infrastructure Design state:

At localised carriageway width restrictions, designers can continue a full­-width advisory cycle lane alongside a sub­-standard all­-purpose lane, or the cycle lane can simply be discontinued. A narrow cycle lane should not be used here.

Full-width is defined thus:

Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy roads, or where traffic is travelling in excess of 40 mph. A minimum width of 1.5 metres may be generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit.

(There is some stuff about ASL feeder lanes being narrower.)

I see lots of places where the cycle lane narrows because it is going through a pinch point (e.g. at a pedestrian refuge) or where there is a side road (usually to accommodate a right turn lane for oncoming vehicles). For instance, see this video which shows both, one after the other. This is just plain wrong, and results from the designer's failure to understand the purpose of advisory cycle lanes.

Oh, I agree with Jonesy that these should be considered guidelines, not rules, but the designer needs to be able to justify explicitly any departure from the guidelines.

 

[jonesy]

Just noting the comment you quote from the DfT guidance: " minimum width of 1.5 metres may be generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit".

Clearly the speed limit isn't by itself a good indicator of what might be appropriate, as roads with 30 mph limits can encompass a very wide range of type of roads and actual traffic speeds. For the types of roads Richard is referring to, e.g in Oxford, congested traffic will very often be going below 20 mph and a narrower lane, e.g. 1 metre, will be fine, but this may not be the case at all on other roads that nominally have the same limit.

Nonetheless, there does have to be a mimimum width, whatever the conditions: where the NCN comes into Wallingford cycle lanes were put in that were so narrow the cycle symbol didn't fit within them! The lanes actually provide a very good guide to the minimum gap you should leave to avoid drain covers, adverse camber etc, though I don't think that was the designer's intention! I haven't been that way for several years, so hopefully it has been improved since.

 

[Dan B]

The lanes actually provide a very good guide to the minimum gap you should leave to avoid drain covers, adverse camber etc, though I don't think that was the designer's intention!

Yes, the thought occurred to me this morning that one could create a Warrington-style web site of "green warning paint" sites, to encompass all places where the highway authorities have helpfully marked out parts of the road to avoid because you are in the hgv blind spot, or the door zone, or the drain covers and raised metalworks ...

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

For the types of roads Richard is referring to, e.g in Oxford, congested traffic will very often be going below 20 mph and a narrower lane, e.g. 1 metre, will be fine, but this may not be the case at all on other roads that nominally have the same limit.

You are right that there may be different conditions on different roads even with the same speed limit. However, I disagree with your 1m argument. On such a road, I should ride with my wheels no closer than 0.5m to the kerb. The distance from the centre of my handlebars to the bar-ends is 0.3m, so my off-side bar-end is 0.8m from the kerb even if I am riding in a straight line. My elbow may well be further out than this, say 0.2m. You are suggesting, then, that it is OK for motor vehicles to pass me grazing my elbow, which is ridiculous. They should be giving me at least 0.5m (and even that is too close really), which makes 1.5m the absolute minimum that should be applied in practice.

If there is no bicycle, then vehicles are fine to drive in the cycle lane. If the traffic is moving faster than the bicycle, drivers should wait until they can pass by outside of the 1.5m cycle lane. If a bicycle is able to move faster than the traffic, then in most circumstances it should either be in the centre of the traffic flow and keeping up, or overtaking on the outside.

 

[Richard Mann]

You are right that there may be different conditions on different roads even with the same speed limit ... They should be giving me at least 0.5m (and even that is too close really), which makes 1.5m the absolute minimum that should be applied in practice.

If there is no bicycle, then vehicles are fine to drive in the cycle lane. If the traffic is moving faster than the bicycle, drivers should wait until they can pass by outside of the 1.5m cycle lane. If a bicycle is able to move faster than the traffic, then in most circumstances it should either be in the centre of the traffic flow and keeping up, or overtaking on the outside.

1m cycle lane + 3m traffic lane: what happens in practice is that cars drive to the right of their lane, giving you the desired space. According to the Dutch, they only need about 1m (ie 0.5m of their lane) as clearance for oncoming traffic (at 30-50kph), so they've got scope to keep away from the cyclist, and generally do so. Buses and lorries slow down until there's room in the opposite lane to go round - but this is the important bit - when they cut in they keep out of the cycle lane. I don't agree with "vehicles are fine to drive in the cycle lane" - that's OK on a country road (where the Dutch might have two 1.5m cycle lanes on a 6m road), but not OK on an urban main road.

 

[blockend]

so their only purposes are to remind motorists that cycles exist and, if they are of the correct width (which virtually none are), to remind motorists of how much space they should leave when overtaking.

(Of course, the cynic would say that their purpose is to tell everyone that cyclists should be riding in the gutter, but I didn't say that. )

Reminding motorists cycles exist may be an important factor in the mind of the driver and the potential cyclist. If we stop pursuing the idea of the perfect cycle lane and a preference for nothing over anything less, there's the possibility that a cycle presence can be maintained on every road. The idea that a lane is a facility, with implications of targeted utility, may be misplaced when its role is actually that of reminder of dual road use - bikes and cars. Less your space and my space than our space.

Cynicism, or its more popular but equally corrosive mindset scepticism, will insist that their role is to remind everyone bikes should be in the gutter, the question is should campaigners indulge in the luxury of such intellectual imperiousness in places where cycle use is negligible. It's clear cyclists who ride at 20mph will not require such 'facilities' to the same extent as slower coaches but like designated crawler lanes on hilly motorways, they serve to remind faster road users than slower vehicles exist.

I'd like to see coloured road space and bicycle signs on all urban and suburban roads, possibly with a faded or staggered edge to suggest a permeable shoulder. It would act as a psychological pinch point and slowing mechanism for cars, especially in 20 and 30mph zones and illustrate cyclists are a real presence. Even ones moving slowly.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

1m cycle lane + 3m traffic lane: what happens in practice is that cars drive to the right of their lane, giving you the desired space.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFoXCjK9C-8


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI875Q0tfhY


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGMdWMIO6lc


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuYqQNLlDY


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3N6mJsLUDE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oKC9PBjnuM

Really?

According to the Dutch, they only need about 1m (ie 0.5m of their lane) as clearance for oncoming traffic (at 30-50kph), so they've got scope to keep away from the cyclist, and generally do so. Buses and lorries slow down until there's room in the opposite lane to go round - but this is the important bit - when they cut in they keep out of the cycle lane.

Evidence? References?

I don't agree with "vehicles are fine to drive in the cycle lane" - that's OK on a country road (where the Dutch might have two 1.5m cycle lanes on a 6m road), but not OK on an urban main road.

So what is the difference between a mandatory cycle lane and an advisory one?

The problem here is that a huge misconception has been allowed to grow regarding what advisory cycle lanes are about, which is even shared by designers and planners; I have already exlained this above, so I will not do so again. It has even resulted in stupid reactions from the press when a council actually decides to do it properly. (There was an even worse article in the Daily Wail, but I refuse to link to that.) The problem is that huge numbers of people don't understand the difference between a dashed white line and a solid white line. That misconception can only be corrected by sorting out the thousands of miles of crap cycles lanes that reinforce it.

I get more close passes when I am in narrow cycle lanes than when there are no cycle lanes. If I go out of the cycle lane to prevent this, I get prats sounding their horns and even threatening me - far more often than if I take primary position where there is no cycle lane. Every cycle lane that is less that 1.5m should either be widened to the correct width, or erased altogether. (I have already provided the evidence and references to back all this up.)