Cycle lanes - not used

JP1978

Why, when local councils have spent millions of pounds installing either dedicated cycle lanes near to a road or have signposted existing footpaths as shared cycle lanes / footpaths do many cyclists insist on still using the road?

Many of the dedicated lanes are adjacent to busy, fast moving roads so are clearly there to help the safety of cyclists and help that road to stay free flowing.

Is it like an attitude thing that cycle lanes are for !!!!!'s and your not a true cyclist if you use a lane?

I am all for cycling, the safer it is, the more people will use it as a means of transport and will free up the limited road space for those people and vehicles that really don't have any choice but to use a motor vehicle.

However, when been stuck in a queue behind a 5mph bike waiting for it to be safe to overtake it does get rather irksome to then see a cycle lane no more than 3 meters away they they could be using.

As an example, although not shown on streetview yet, the A70 at Hyndford Bridge, https://goo.gl/maps/P8jWhCAULbD2 & https://www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/tags/hyndford/ there is now a cycle lane 2m meters from the road and runs a substantial way along that road and I assume is primarily there for the uphill section from the bridge west bound. The road is used heavily by lorries from coal, quarry and logging operations. On several occasions I have seen cyclists struggling up the hill and the HGV's, been in a low gear due to the traffic lights and been uphill, struggling to pass. In fact on one occasion, a line of about 20 vehicles had to go the full distance up that hill at the same speed as the cyclist.

Just dont see the reasoning for ignoring the cycle lanes - maybe cycling isn't that dangerous after all and the government could save millions of ££......

hugheskevi

This has been endlessly discussed in many threads.

This thread from a few months ago is as good as any - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5504769

[Deleted User]

Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User
Kaplan. Federal Highway Administration, US, 1975.
Cycle paths 292 accidents per million cycle miles, against 104 for minor roads and 111 for major roads.

The Risks of Cycling
Pasenen, Helsinki City Planning Department 2001
In Helsinki, using a road-side cycle path is nearly 2.5 times more likely to result in injury than cycling on the carriageway with traffic.

Signalised Intersections Function and Accident Risk for Unprotected Road Users
Linderholm. University of Lund, Sweden, 1984
Cycle tracks are 3.4 times more dangerous than using the road at junctions, rising to 11.9 times when riding against the traffic flow.

Traffic Accidents Involving Cyclists
Berlin Police, Germany, 1987.
Cyclists four times more likely to have accident on roads with cycle paths. Likelihood of serious or fatal injury similarly increased.

Safety of Cycling Children – Effect of the Street Environment
Leden. Technical Research Centre of Finland 1989.
Overall risk of collision is 1.3 crashes/100,000km on a cycle track, but 0.5 crashes/100,000km on the carriageway

Cycle Routes
Harland, Gercans. Transport Research Laboratory, UK, 1993.
No evidence that cycle routes lead to more cycling or improved safety.

Two Decades of the Redway Cycle Paths of Milton Keynes
Franklin. Traffic Engineering & Control, 1999.
Injury accidents on UK's largest purpose-built cycle path network per million km cycled:
Cycle paths 166, local roads 149, main roads 31.

Junctions and Cyclists
Jensen, Andersen, Nielsen. Velo City, Barcelona, 1997.
Cyclists particularly vulnerable at non-signalised junctions where study indicates a nearly fourfold increase in risk. Cycle lanes in Denmark realise accident savings between junctions, but this is more than outweighed by additional accidents at junctions.

Measuring the Safety Effect of Raised Bicycle Crossings
Leden, Gårdner, Pulkkinen. Swedish Transportation Research Board, 1998.
Conventional cycle tracks increase cyclists' risk at junctions.

Toronto Bicycle Commuter Safety Rates
Aultman-Hall, Kaltenecker. Transportation Research Board, 1998.
Injuries 1.8 times more likely on cycle paths than roads and 6 times on footways.

Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections
Wachtel, Lewiston. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, USA. September 1994
“Sidewalks or paths adjacent to a roadway are usually not, as non-cyclists expect, safer than the road but much less safe. This conclusion is already well established in existing standards for bikeway design, although in our experience it is not widely known or observed.”
Risk on average 1.8 times greater.

How to Decrease the Number of Bicycle Accidents?
Räsänen, Traffic Safety Committee of Insurance Companies, Finland, 1995.
Study of 234 bicycle crashes in four Finnish cities. 63% of collisions between a cyclist and a motor vehicle took place at cycle track crossings.

Safety Effects of Bicycle Facilities
Wegman, Dijkstra. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands, 1992.
In built-up areas cycle tracks 25% safer than unsegregated road between junctions, but 32% more dangerous at junctions. Cycle lanes 36% more dangerous between junctions, 19% safer at junctions. Seriousness of accidents greater if tracks or lanes present compared with no facilities.

Safety for Cyclists at Urban Road Junctions
Schnull, Alrutz et al. German Federal Highways Institute Report 262, 1993.
Proportion of junction accidents significantly higher with cycle tracks. HGV conflicts more common with segregation. Without signals, cyclists nearly 5 times more at risk on a cycle track; contrasting surfaces only reduces this to 1.5. With signals, cyclists are 1.7 to 2.7 times more at risk on cycle track, 1.3 times on a cycle lane. At roundabouts cycle tracks increase risk by 30%, cycle lanes by 25%.

Bicycle Paths in Cities - The Safety Effect
Bach, Rosbach, Joergensen. Danish Road Directorate, Denmark, 1988
Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of paths. Bicycle traffic volume did not increase during the study period.

Typical Patterns of Accidents Involving Bicycles and Recommendations for the Safe Design of Bicycle Traffic Facilities
Alrutz, HUK-Verband, Köln, Germany, 1980.
A study of 4,000 accidents in Köln 1976 - 1978. Cycle paths as traditionally built do not guarantee a reduction in casualties. The risk cyclists face depends on how often their unimpeded ride is interrupted.

Report on accidents to cyclists
Transport Advisory Council, Ministry of Transport, UK, 1938.
Cycle tracks increase danger at every road junction. Considers cycle tracks provide safety benefit between junctions but provides no evidence.

Cycle safety
Hass-Klau et al. Environmental & Transport Planning, UK/Germany 1991.
Number of motor vehicles and in particular number of cyclists has much stronger influence on safety than cycle facilities. Some main roads with cycle facilities have higher cycle accident rate than without. Visibility and care crucial; cycle facility may contribute to accidents by making cyclist over-confident. Facilities cause many problems; bad cycle facilities are worse than none.
Peterborough: high accident rate in residential areas casts doubt on independent cycle facilities. York and Oxford: high serious accident rates.

Study of Milton Keynes Cycle Accidents, 1980 - 1990
Ketteridge. Milton Keynes Development Corporation, UK, 1991.
Includes one-month hospital survey which showed 14 cycle path accidents against 1 minor road accident and no major road accidents in equivalent area. All 3 serious accidents were cycle path.

Cycle routes
Harland, Gercans. TRL, UK, 1993.
No evidence that cycle routes lead to more cycling or improved safety.

National trends in cycling and cycle accidents
Morgan. TRL/Institute of Civil Engineers, UK, 1995.
Only 3% of injury accidents on cycle tracks and off-road are recorded.
Cycle facilities not improving use or safety. What we are doing now is either insufficient or just plainly wrong.

Redways and Leisure Routes
Franklin. Milton Keynes Cycle Users Group, UK, 1998.
Redways nearly 7 times more dangerous per mile cycled. 6 deaths to cyclists off-road in 10 years against just one in comparable area on roads.

Two Decades of the Redway Cycle Paths of Milton Keynes
Franklin. Traffic Engineering & Control, 1999.
Injury accidents on UK's largest purpose-built cycle path network per million km cycled:
Cycle paths 166, local roads 149, main roads 31.

martindow

Time to put on a tin hat!

Sadly compared with countries like Holland, Germany or Denmark there has been little investment in segregated cycle lanes and where there is provision it can be ill thought out and not very safe.

Sometimes cycle lanes are poorly designed or not maintained well. They often involve giving way at every entrance or driveway which makes the main road more attractive having priority over joining traffic.

RichardD1970

martindow wrote: »

Time to put on a tin hat!

Sadly compared with countries like Holland, Germany or Denmark there has been little investment in segregated cycle lanes and where there is provision it can be ill thought out and not very safe.

Sometimes cycle lanes are poorly designed or not maintained well. They often involve giving way at every entrance or driveway which makes the main road more attractive having priority over joining traffic.

No need for a tin hat.

Your points are all perfectly valid and have been covered in great length (as well as many others) in many previous threads.

Unfortunately there will always be a small minority of motorists who object to cyclist using THEIR roads, which they pay loads of tax to use and maintain. :whistle:

Norman_Castle

JP1978 wrote: »

Just dont see the reasoning for ignoring the cycle lanes - maybe cycling isn't that dangerous after all and the government could save millions of ££......

Cycle lanes might look good when peered at through a windscreen but in use many make the roads a better option.

Norman_Castle

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Unfortunately there will always be a small minority of motorists who object to cyclist using THEIR roads, which they pay loads of tax to use and maintain. :whistle:

O no they don't

"Where's the irate motorist?"

"He's behind you"

Nasqueron

Cycle lane on the road = full of dirt and debris which is swept in there after all these cars keep piling into each other; inevitably short and rarely goes where you need it

Cycle lane with segregation = rare outside London

Cycle lane / shared footpath = pedestrians walk in the cycle bit; pedestrians have annoying stuff in tow e.g. kids, prams, dogs on lead all of which can cause accident and means cycling very slowly; your cycle is constantly interrupted by side roads which you have to stop for for safety purposes; often little more than a line painted on the pavement so surface is uneven and harsh to ride on; not gritted in winter

As I pay VED for my car and council tax for road repairs and income tax for road building I'll use the road for cycling thanks as I can make proper progress on a better surface

thescouselander

I usually use cycle lanes where possible but theres three factors that force me back onto the road:

1) Having to give way all the time as the cycle path crosses side roads. When there's a path like this it's faster and safer to just use the road.

2) Poor surface or debris on the path

3) Pedestrians on the path - these often move unpredictably and don't stick to the pedestrian side.

RichardD1970

Norman_Castle wrote: »

O no they don't

"Where's the irate motorist?"

"He's behind you"

And that is where he will stay, until I deem it safe to relinquish the primary position and allow him to pass.

esuhl

Official government advice is not to use cycle paths at normal cycling speeds (12mph up).

Cycle paths aren't designed for normal cyclists. They're intended for kids and grannies.