Do Not Overtake Cyclists

[biketrailerguy]

The bods that allowed it to be launched with a massive defect that rendered it unusable and necessitated a fortune be spent on a shuttle mission to modify it?

'My' bods were the ones that apparently missed the presence of a fleck / layer? of paint on a jig / fixture - where said presence compromised a critically important datum - leading to the error.
Since I've no idea whether 'your' bods and my 'bods' ever mingled during a coffee break or similar and chatted about the above, I can't really comment further - other than to say my understanding of the whole episode was that nobody knew about the problem until it was in space and tried.

 

[Slick]

This is why they tend to be painted red here, and drivers know if they hit a cyclist they will be considered at fault unless said cyclist say doing something really silly. It makes them much more cautious which in turn reduces accidents. This suggests that this isn't as much an infrastructure problem as a driver problem.

I must admit, I couldn't believe the difference that made when cycling abroad.

I wish it was a thing here as its clear to everyone it would save lives without spending a penny on additional infrastructure.

 

[mjr]

The problem with all cycle lanes is that a white line creates two territories defended by two tribes who each think they're entitled to go right up to their side of the line. That's why passing distances are closer with lanes than without:

View attachment 722241

The other problem with cycle lanes (and cycle paths as well) is that they increase the scope for collision by making different flows of traffic cross each others path at junctions.

Those diagrams make no sense. Not least because most close passer don't go that near the centre line.

 

[presta]

This suggests that this isn't as much an infrastructure problem as a driver problem.

Only if there's evidence that a red cycle lane has a lower accident rate than no cycle lane.

one of whom still thinks they have the right to use both for driving and parking

You can still lose your 1.5m passing clearance without any need for drivers to stray into the cycle lane in the first place. A 4" white line isn't much clearance at all.

And also that they tend to be a box ticking exercise whilst being cheap - hence they are often far too narrow to be useful or safe.

The price of painting a white line doesn't depend on its distance from the kerb, they're too narrow because the road's too narrow for a cycle lane. If the road's not wide enough, you can't make a motor lane narrower than the vehicles that use it, but they will erode the passing clearance from a cycle lane if people insist on having one.

Those diagrams make no sense. Not least because most close passer don't go that near the centre line.

The diagrams are irrelevant, as is whether you think they're sensible or not, the point is that the passing distances were measured, and they are about 16% lower when the road has a painted cycle lane than on roads with no lane.

"Relative to passing events that occurred on roads without a marked bicycle lane and without parked cars, passing events on roads with a bike lane with no parked cars had a reduced mean passing distance of 27 cm (Q1: 25 cm, Q3: 29 cm)"
"road infrastructure had a substantial influence on the distance that motor vehicles provide when passing cyclists. Specifically, we demonstrated that on-road bicycle lanes reduced passing distance"

 

[icowden]

The price of painting a white line doesn't depend on its distance from the kerb, they're too narrow because the road's too narrow for a cycle lane. If the road's not wide enough, you can't make a motor lane narrower than the vehicles that use it, but they will erode the passing clearance from a cycle lane if people insist on having one.

Of course not - but it ticks the "we installed a cycle lane box". The point is that painting a white line is a lot cheaper than redesigning and widening the road or footpath to do it properly.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Only if there's evidence that a red cycle lane has a lower accident rate than no cycle lane.

Unfortunately for comparison but fortunately for cyclists, there are so many other things that make the streets more cycle friendly here it's impossible to isolate one difference. I'd suggest that generous cycle lanes, plus assumed liability for people driving more dangerous vehicles, plus better driver training, plus lots of off road lanes, plus cut through routes for bikes only plus being able to carry bikes on trains all adds up to more people cycling, so in turn drivers are more aware of cyclists.

You can still lose your 1.5m passing clearance without any need for drivers to stray into the cycle lane in the first place. A 4" white line isn't much clearance at all.

Sure, I'd prefer a kerb or a barrier between me and cars. Cycling in the "Cycling city" of York with my daughter last year was terrifying. That said, a broad and coloured on road cycle lane is more obvious than the 40cm or so gap between dotted line and kerb in York, so it's probably also fair to say we aren't comparing like with like.

 

[presta]

Of course not - but it ticks the "we installed a cycle lane box". The point is that painting a white line is a lot cheaper than redesigning and widening the road or footpath to do it properly.

If you're putting cycle lane down a typical High Street, nobody's going to move all the shops back six feet to make room for it, better to close it to traffic and make it a pedestrianised area.

Before and after:

 

[icowden]

If you're putting cycle lane down a typical High Street, nobody's going to move all the shops back six feet to make room for it, better to close it to traffic and make it a pedestrianised area.

Well yes - but that's not usually where you find cycle lanes. it's usually on exciting roads like this
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.381...CurKB_u81XgkoGiA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

 

[presta]

I'd suggest that generous cycle lanes, plus assumed liability for people driving more dangerous vehicles, plus better driver training, plus lots of off road lanes, plus cut through routes for bikes only plus being able to carry bikes on trains all adds up to more people cycling

"Seven out of ten people never ride a bicycle, a new government survey on attitudes towards travel has found, which also revealed that safer roads – rather than the introduction of new cycling-specific infrastructure – would encourage more people to cycle on a regular basis."

I'd prefer a kerb or a barrier between me and cars.

I wouldn't. I want to be able to watch the traffic, and navigate, without worrying about getting tramlined by kerbs or breaking my shin on a bollard.

 

[presta]

Well yes - but that's not usually where you find cycle lanes. it's usually on exciting roads like this
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.381...CurKB_u81XgkoGiA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

It'd be an expensive and unpopular job pinching a few yards off everyone's front garden there, and probably fall foul of a few obstructions along the way that can't be moved too.

 

[Alex321]

Well yes - but that's not usually where you find cycle lanes. it's usually on exciting roads like this
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.381...CurKB_u81XgkoGiA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Or these, in Peebles near where my daughter lives

Just impossible for a car to drive between the centre line and the cycle lane line, never moind a bigger vehicle such as a bus or truck.

 

[Punkawallah]

There is, of course, the option for the cyclist to pull off the road and let the trailing vehicles pass.

 

[Andy in Germany]

There is, of course, the option for the cyclist to pull off the road and let the trailing vehicles pass.

Heresy. Take the lane..

et c...

 

[Andy in Germany]

revealed that safer roads – rather than the introduction of new cycling-specific infrastructure – would encourage more people to cycle on a regular basis."

A mighty convenient finding for a government reluctant to spend money on cycling infrastructure. Of course they could introduce any of the measures mentioned above if they wanted to make roads safer, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Also, if this is what people think of when they talk about infrastructure, in the "Cycling city" of York, I'm not surprised they don't want it.

I wouldn't. I want to be able to watch the traffic, and navigate, without worrying about getting tramlined by kerbs or breaking my shin on a bollard.

Again, this makes me more convinced we are talking about very different things here. I've never worried about these issues on local cycleways.

Freiburg, on the other hand, does things differently (I will dig up pictures when near my "old" computer) and is absolutely full of bikes, but not cyclists. This is an important distinction because cycle infrastructure probably isn't for you, or indeed for me; we can deal with traffic and navigate. Most people don't want to bother, they just want to get from one place to another quickly and easily without taking their lives in their hands every day. I frequently read the "Tales from today's commute" thread and remember my days of cycling in the UK with a shudder; and I thought Stuttgart was bad...

 

[presta]

There is, of course, the option for the cyclist to pull off the road and let the trailing vehicles pass.

This is the A120 just to the west of Marks Tey. It has room for cars to pass a cyclist, but not lorries, and it carries a lot of freight to the docks at Harwich. It's so busy that if you cycle along there you create a tailback so long that it takes several minutes to pass when you get off the road, and then when you put the bike back on the road, the traffic is already at a standstill again before you've even had time to get back on the bike.