That worthless and dangerous cycling infrastructure

[MartinC]

Evidence?

User was asked why he disliked cycle lanes. Are you asking for evidence that this is indeed User's opinion?

 

[Mad at urage]

Only if you stay in primary position when you're slower than the traffic, and you're not obviously preparing for a turn. There's not much shouting at cyclists here.

Is that really your experience? It differs from mine then. I've been told to "Get on the cycle lane" when in secondary and even when I'm overtaking the cars!

Traffic is noticeably slower on Oxford's main roads (come and have a look if you don't believe me). It's been achieved by carving out cycle and bus lanes, and reducing space for motorists. The cycle lanes etc are "still needed" but mostly because they're what slows the traffic.

Provided they are of sufficient width to cycle in safely, have the same priority as the motor vehicle lane at junctions, go where I want to go, have nothing parked in them, are kept clear of obstructions/ snow / ice / the cr@p that accumulates around roads, then I have few objections enough. I rarely see such cycle facilities though (and the links posted of Oxford's provision don't inspire hope that these are achieved there).

 

[Mad at urage]

...
The roundabout design specifically? Sounds good to me. We are after more and safer cycling are we not? ...

At the price of giving way to motor vehicles at every junction? No we are not. Cycling is in any case a safe activity compared to other everyday activities such as walking, so why on earth should we be?
If you like that roundabout suggestion, you'll like the IAM (car) member who believes that cyclists should give way to motor vehicles approaching from behind before passing a nearside obstruction (such as a parked car). Perhaps we should doff our caps/helmets as they pass us too?

In urban areas with high cycling levels and low traffic speeds like Oxford, central London, Cambridge, it's reasonable to expect driver awareness to be great enough to avoid conflict and impact speeds modest enough to avoid serious injury.

Agreed, so cycle 'lanes' painted in urban areas are unnecessary. The ones that exist are usually more dangerous than cycling on the roads (door zones, lack of priority at junctions, swinging on and off pavements, establishing an expectation that cyclists should not be on the road).

Likewise country lanes, at least those that haven't become commuter rat runs, are generally safe because of low vehicle volumes and the opportunity to avoid/evade cars.

Fair enough, subject to certain definitions of what constitutes a "country lane". Generally, with low traffic volumes cars can be heard approaching and with high volumes their speed can be kept down.

The problem for cyclists is A roads and busier B roads where there is no likelihood of lowering speed limits due to the necessity to keep traffic moving. If we accept most riders avoid dual carriageway drag strips wherever possible (which has been my experience) that leaves the majority out of town roads as at least potentially dangerous.

These are of course usually the straightest available route between settlements and therefore the preferred route for anyone making a utility journey.

Some of that danger is ameliorated by good road craft but the onus is entirely on drivers to behave well and without a change in culpability laws and increased penalties for transgressors, there's no general impetus to do so. Basically, mixing it with cars travelling at impact speeds well above the 20 mph mortality line and few penalties for getting it wrong, will yield a regular supply of serious 'accidents' because driving standards, motor vehicle numbers and relatively low numbers of cyclists make it inevitable.
Even if one believes the absolute number of deaths and serious injuries are few enough statistically to make regular main road cycling viable, traffic volumes and driver behaviour still make such roads unpleasant enough to be a barrier to cycling take up.

So surely the conclusion is that the only place dedicated cycle lanes are needed and where they would provide added safety is on the "A roads and busier B roads where there is no likelihood of lowering speed limits due to the necessity to keep traffic moving". The justification is to allow motor vehicles to continue to move faster whilst maintaining the safety of those more vulnerable road users who simply want to get from A to B by the most direct route. This could be paid for with a specific motor vehicle tax to provide the safe separation of fast-moving motor vehicles from the rest of the legitimate traffic. Perhaps we could call the separation barriers "motorway edges" ?

 

[Red Light]

You might also have mentioned that Oxford is almost entirely 20mph, even shopping areas on main roads. You do still need facilities if traffic volumes are high.

In the London Cycling Design Standards, facilities are only call out for traffic speeds greater than 30mph and traffic volumes over 800 vehicles per hour. That one vehicle every 4.5s so pretty high volume.

Roads are designed though for 30mph use. Cycle track are designed for 10mph if shared with pedestrians, 15mph otherwise. Which means they are designed for speeds below and sometimes substantially below those at which I typically cycle.

 

[Red Light]

Thank you. That is all now clear enough for me.

Evidence?

 

[MartinC]

Evidence?

Thanks, I'm getting the hang of this now. But I'm not sure if I have any evidence.......................................

 

[dellzeqq]

here's the thing........................it's not going to happen.






And, yes, Reg iand Mad@Urage are right. The entire cycling facility thing is based on a failure to appreciate what public space is about.

 

[Richard Mann]

You misunderstand - those are exactly what Richard wants. Narrow cycle lanes on 30mph roads. He said it here and its on the Cyclox website. In cycle lane addicts any cycle lane, no matter how crap, is better than no cycle lane. Even if you do have to dodge round car doors and pay attention at side roads when using them.

1) I'd recommend cycle lanes (or preferably bus lanes if you have the space) on 30mph single-lane-each-way urban main (ie busy) roads, with the traffic space constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph).

2) I don't think the width of the cycle lane is crucial, as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)".

3) I'd also recommend 0.5m clearance to parking bays, which is sufficient as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)".

And finally, I'd recommend you pay attention at all times when using the highway, not just at side roads.

If that isn't clear somewhere, and you feel I'm recommending "cycle lanes, no matter how crap", please point it out and I'll correct it.


I'm sorry, the punters round here want cycle lanes and slower traffic, and your arguments against cycle lanes don't stack up to a hill of beans. So I guess we'll just carry on as we are. I wish you luck with alternative approaches.

 

[theclaud]

Is that a flounce?

I wouldn't like to say. Call in Smeggers- he is Arbiteur des Enfloncements...

 

[Red Light]

I'm sorry, the punters round here want cycle lanes and slower traffic, and your arguments against cycle lanes don't stack up to a hill of beans. So I guess we'll just carry on as we are. I wish you luck with alternative approaches.

Really?

"I rarely cycle inside marked cycle lanes because so many are downright dangerous."

A candid verdict on your work.

 

[Mad at urage]

Is that a flounce?

I think it is probably a characterisation of those who oppose his views as "only a handful of people making a noise and nobody much listening", which he has kindly "let that go on for a bit" because he is "generous" like that. Of course he will "take on board their concerns if" he finds that they don't oppose the "consensus" (i.e. his) view.

It appears to me that he has convinced those in charge of the purse-strings where he is consulted, that his views are the consensus (and they may well be, of people who have little or no experience of trying to ride in substandard cycle lanes) and he doesn't really care about those who find them appallingly dangerous.

 

[Richard Mann]

Really?

"I rarely cycle inside marked cycle lanes because so many are downright dangerous."

A candid verdict on your work.

He goes on to say:

"Although most experienced cyclists see them for what they are, I think it is important that we keep cycle lanes. Not only do they send an important signal to novices; they also remind drivers that cyclists are there and that they need to be given room."

James is a very experienced and assertive cyclist - he cycles along the centre line in heavy traffic (he lives off Cowley Road - which doesn't have cycle lanes and is often at a standstill), and is misrepresenting the overall situation, probably for rhetorical effect. About 90% stick to cycle lanes, where they exist, though some pop out of them at the drop of a hat. The racers, particularly in light traffic, tend to cycle just outside the cycle lane, but will use the cycle lane if they get to a traffic queue.

 

[Dan B]

2) I don't think the width of the cycle lane is crucial, as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)".

I do. Not all traffic will slow down when lanes narrow, especially on a road which doesn't provide the visual cues of being "hemmed in" (multilane roads or roads where the narrowing has been implemented by hatching the road surface), and all this is doing in that case is putting 30mph traffic even closer to novice cyclists at 10-12mph.

 

[Mad at urage]

1) I'd recommend cycle lanes (or preferably bus lanes if you have the space) on 30mph single-lane-each-way urban main (ie busy) roads, with the traffic space constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph).

Using cyclists as mobile traffic calming in other words. I don't mind being a traffic bollard (nor do all those who turn up to Critical Mass demos presumably) but I prefer to do so at times of my own choosing.

2) I don't think the width of the cycle lane is crucial, as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)".

This sounds distinctly like the utterance of someone who has no intention of using the cycle lane. Of course the width is crucial, it determines where most drivers think the cyclists should be and it limits the cyclists' ability to manoevre around hazards. Saying that it is "not crucial" shows an arrogant disregard for the safety of cyclists.

3) I'd also recommend 0.5m clearance to parking bays, which is sufficient as long as "traffic space is constrained so that speeds are less than 30mph (nearer 20mph)".

0.5m clearance is FA use when someone throws the 1.2m+ door open in front of a cyclist moving at 12+mph. Further disregard for safety here.

And finally, I'd recommend you pay attention at all times when using the highway, not just at side roads.

If that isn't clear somewhere, and you feel I'm recommending "cycle lanes, no matter how crap", please point it out and I'll correct it.

OK, I feel that you are recommending "cycle lanes, no matter how crap" in this very post: See above, a total disregard for the safety of cyclists, as long as you can use us as an excuse to restrict road widths.

I'm sorry, the punters round here want cycle lanes and slower traffic, and your arguments against cycle lanes don't stack up to a hill of beans. So I guess we'll just carry on as we are. I wish you luck with alternative approaches.

I'm sure they do if you tell them the lanes will make the roads safer. If of course you were honest about your (lack of) interest in the safety of their children when riding to school, their opinion may well change.

 

[Richard Mann]

It appears to me that he has convinced those in charge of the purse-strings where he is consulted, that his views are the consensus (and they may well be, of people who have little or no experience of trying to ride in substandard cycle lanes) and he doesn't really care about those who find them appallingly dangerous.

Nah - it's a posthoc rationalisation. They were putting in cycle lanes long before I got here.