Cycle lanes - not used

JP1978

Ha, quite a few interesting posts here.

OK, so there are some bad examples of cycle lanes out there, designed by idiots who clearly dont cycle themselves and dont understand the issues.

Is there no cycle lobby group that attempt to hold councils accountable for their stupidity? Its clearly pointless having a 'safe' lane when it means risking life and limb actually getting on or off it.

The example I gave in my opening post though, you can see that its a dedicated lane (not just a white line) that means that cyclists dont need to go onto the A70 - a trunk road used by 100's of tipper waggons every day. It does appear to have a safe means of access onto it and as well as keeping cyclists safe, means that the vehicles using that road dont have to follow behind at 5mph in 1st gear. The road has never had a footpath on, so doubt that any huge number of pedestrians would use it.

I do understand the comments re shared cycle/pedestrian use lanes - just as likely to come a cropper, especially in busier areas.

[Deleted User]

JP1978 wrote: »

Is there no cycle lobby group that attempt to hold councils accountable for their stupidity?

Yes, Cycling UK (formerly the CTC). The reason that cycle paths aren't compulsory by now is that the CTC sit on the committee that draft the Highway Code, and fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

The example I gave in my opening post though, you can see that its a dedicated lane (not just a white line) that means that cyclists dont need to go onto the A70 - a trunk road used by 100's of tipper waggons every day. It does appear to have a safe means of access onto it and as well as keeping cyclists safe, means that the vehicles using that road dont have to follow behind at 5mph in 1st gear.

It's a common misconception that the main risk to cyclists is being hit from behind, but most accidents occur at junctions. The reason that segregated cycle paths increase the accident rate is because they complicate the junctions both for cyclists and for motorists:



Riding on the cycle path increases the angle that a cyclist has to check for safety each time he passes a side road, and also removes the cyclists from the zone which motorist are surveying for hazards.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vc99.html

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%.

fred246

I really only started cycling after a visit to Holland with the family and our bicycles. I just loved it so much and it just seems to make so much sense. We have so many cars driving around with a driver, no passengers and no luggage. Most of these people could be on bicycles which then frees up road space for the traffic to flow better. I just love the Dutch road layouts and they've obviously put loads of time and effort into designing them. Urban spaces without cars are quiet, pollution free, safe.
So I cycle on a hybrid bicycle with luggage carrying facilities wearing normal clothing. Keep away from vehicles as much as possible. Go to work, shops, gym etc all on a bicycle.
I have a work colleague who also cycles - but we have nothing in common whatsoever. He won't commute on a bicycle. He has to go cycling in circles on a Sunday morning in full lycra doing 50 miles as fast as he can on a lightweight bike. He looks so bored when I tell him of the latest off road route I have discovered.
The thing is the Dutch system gets EVERYBODY cycling. If you don't build cycle lanes then the number of cyclists will remain very low. There are loads of people who tell me they would cycle if it was safe. Maybe cycle lanes aren't safe but cycling on a Dutch cycle path certainly FEELS safer than cycling down the middle of the road in London with a line of HGVs buses and fed up car drivers behind you.

andrewf75

What the Dutch have done does make perfect sense, but our government simply won't make that kind of infrastructure investment on something which the benefits will only be seen longer term. Especially in the age of populism that we are now in, any government that made sensible investment in cycle infrastructure would be destroyed by the media and in the polls by the masses who mostly don't give a damn about long term improvements to society and just want to get in their car and drive everywhere.
Its issues like this that need some kind of cross-party co-operation.

fred246

I remember being quite disgusted reading about John Franklin and cyclecraft. He represents the lycra racing community and campaigns for less cycle paths. The MPs must love him as it means they can say - no paths needed - cyclists don't want them. It's just very sad for the country and the planet.

[Deleted User]

fred246 wrote: »

He represents the lycra racing community

Franklin is an accredited cycle instructor and a registered Expert Witness, not a racing cyclist.

Cycle paths are rapidly turning into another issue like helmets and seatbelts, people get the idea into their heads that they are safer "because it's obvious", and then nothing will change their minds. What's needed is policy based on evidence and reason, and not prejudice, but unfortunately any prospect of that is getting further away than ever with the rise and rise of anti-science, anti-expert populism.

fred246

So if we don't need cycle paths we already have our perfect cycling network. So why do few people cycle on our perfect network?

[Deleted User]

fred246 wrote: »

Maybe cycle lanes aren't safe but cycling on a Dutch cycle path certainly FEELS safer

The Hatfield train crash killed four people on 17.10.00, but the total death toll was much greater than that because of all the additional deaths on the roads as passengers deserted the railways in order to "feel safer" in their cars.

People make irrational decisions for all sorts of reasons, the last thing we need is people encouraging them to do it rather than educating them.

[Deleted User]

fred246 wrote: »

So if we don't need cycle paths we already have our perfect cycling network.

I didn't say anything about having a perfect network, I said that cycle paths are less safe.

So why do few people cycle on our perfect network?

Because people make irrational decisions partly out of ignorance and partly because of the brain is designed to make the majority of decisions using mechanisms called heuristics. These are designed to make fast efficient decisions based on certain information, and the majority of the time they work very efficiently. There are however a multitude of scenarios in which they jump to the wrong conclusions, and in those cases what is needed is slow, deliberate thinking in order to find the right answer. (See Kahneman)

One such example is the Availability Heuristic, in which people perceive probability according to how easily something springs to mind, and not according to the true probability. This is how the aftermath of the Hatfield crash occurred: a well publicised train crash springs to mind very easily, so people's idea of the crash risk is grossly exaggerated.

Similarly, if there are lorries thundering past you on a bike, the idea of being run over springs to mind easily, and so the risk of that becomes greatly exaggerated.

fred246

What we need to do then is to remove all pavements. Tell pedestrians they are dangerous. Well actually it's not the pavement it's crossing between pavements that is dangerous. So they can walk on the road and mingle with the vehicles. Tell them that although vehicles will be passing them at speed that they are actually quite safe. Thinking that's it's not safe is just wrong. So what will the effect of that be:
Some brave people will wear a high viz jacket and a helmet and walk down the middle of the road but most people will decide not to walk but to use their car instead.