Cyclists at risk in cycle lanes
Motorists drive closer to cyclists on cycle lanes, says the CTC
New research claims that motorists give cyclists less room when they are riding in a cycle lane, a study due to be published in the scientific journal Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Ciaran Meyers from the University of Leeds Institute for Transport Studies undertook the research on roads with and without cycle lanes. Ciaran says: “The analysis shows that significantly wider passing distances are adopted by motorists on a 9.5 metre wide carriageway without a 1.45 metre cycle lane and with speed limits of 40mph and 50mph.” The same finding was not found on a carriageway with a 30mph speed limit, but that location had more side road junctions and there is likely to be a greater amount of variability in road positioning by motor vehicles.
John Parkin of the University of Bolton, who was also involved in the study, added: “In the presence of a cycle lane, a driver is likely to drive between the cycle lane line and the centre line in a position which is appropriate for the visible highway horizontal geometry ahead of the driver. A cyclist within a cycle lane does not seem to cause a driver to adopt a different position in his or her lane. This has important implications for the width of cycle lanes and implies that their width should never be compromised.”
CTC’s Policy Coordinator Chris Peck said: “Cycle lanes have a part to play in improving road conditions for cyclists, but this research has raised concerns that they are not always the best solution and may in fact make cycling more unpleasant. Where a cycle lane exists, drivers may overtake with the belief that they can use the entire road space outside the cycle lane, and consequently may be paying less attention to the cyclist’s need for space.”
Non-cyclists often say that more cycle lanes would encourage them to cycle more, says the CTC. A recent survey found 83% of non-cycling motorist men agreeing with this. However, the same survey found that only 2% of regular cyclists had a problem with a lack of cycle lanes – for them the most serious concerns were inconsiderate motorists (71%), busy roads (59%), lorries (60%) and poor road maintenance (58%).
Discuss this story
Bravo for getting the argument that more cycle lanes are necessarily the only way forward out in the open. Maybe we might put the Warrington Cycle Campaign's facility of the month feature out of business soon. Advanced stop lines and the occaisional big wide path are the only decent things local councils do for cyclists. Everything else is, at best, a waste of green paint.
Posted: 11/09/2009 08:37
I have long thought that painting a dotted line along the left hand side of the road and calling it a cycle route is worse than doing nothing. Most motorists will make an effort to pull out and overtake a cyclist, but will not do so if the cyclist is "safely" ensconced in their cycle lane. No need to perform an overtaking manoeuvre, just proceed in the correct lane. This often means squeezing past the cyclist at a distance which is less than safe. And cyclists do not need a dotted line painted for us to show us where to cycle. We already know that we are supposed to keep to the left. And finally, many of these on-road cycle lanes (in Birmingham at least) are less than a meter wide; the Highway Code tells me I should ride around 1 metre out from the kerb, to discourage irresponsible overtaking.
Posted: 11/09/2009 11:55
We already know that we are supposed to keep to the left. And finally, many of these on-road cycle lanes (in Birmingham at least) are less than a meter wide; the Highway Code tells me I should ride around 1 metre out from the kerb, to discourage irresponsible overtaking.
You're allowed to cycle anywhere you like in the lane. If I am cycling at road or traffic speed, you'll find me in the middle of the lane to avoid being squeezed out by a motorist; I've never had any problems doing this as long as I move back across when traffic speed increases and I can't keep up any more. If there was a cycle lane available at the same point I can guarantee someone will want to put me 'in my place'.
Cycle lanes and cycle paths (converted railway lines etc) do have a place as they encourage new cyclists by providing a safer environment in which to build up your confidence. Certainly that's how I used them when I started - now I am more confident with traffic and bike handling, I rarely, if ever use them. Maybe the specification of on road cycle lanes should be changed so that they are a little wider and possibly even have a rumble strip along the edge to separate traffic?
Posted: 11/09/2009 14:39
If there is a cycle path provided and you don't use it are you culpable? I think we all do it. A cycle path is provide but you ride on the road because the cyclepath is part of the pavement and therefore would mean you have to cross every road joining. Or you don't use them because, as mentioned they're too narrow so you ride on the crappiest part of the road over drains and all the other crap that gathers in the gutter. I'm asking as I have a friend who was recently knocked off his bike suffering head injuries. He was on a roundabout, on the road, and was taken out by a car joining. The Police have accused him of riding recklessly because he was on the road and not on the cycle path which is on the pavement. So driver is not at fault. Thoughts?
Posted: 15/09/2009 21:13
The police don't know the law or the highway code in this instance - now there's something new... present co excepted Vlad of course. I had to argue with a car driver a while ago that I was allowed to be riding in the correct lane on a roundabout. I was also keeping up with the flow though that is irrelevant. I think cycle lanes are an excuse to kick us off the roads, to pay lipservice to notions of encouraging cycling and to get funding for local government highways depts to say 'look we're doing something'. Although there are some in my city they are often way too narrow - if I ride right on the outside of them I am about as far away from the kerb as I would normally be without, and I can sense the reaction of drivers, 'he's not keeping far enough over in 'his' lane.' I haven't had an argument yet mind so I could be wrong in that , however the CTC research says otherwise.
Posted: 15/09/2009 22:27
cycle lanes are at odds with teh National cycling standards and what kids in school are being taught in Bikeability. Cycle lanes often take cyclists right into the path of danger, especially when passing junctions joining from the left. In my opinion thet are poorly designed (in the main) and appart from advanced stop lines (boxes) they should be abbandoned all together. Also every council should be made to adhopt the London design standard and then forced to implement it, not just give it lip service.
Posted: 17/09/2009 21:55
When I visited Belgium some years ago I saw that the traffic in cycle lanes travelled in the reverse direction to normal traffic. Does this still happen there? Maybe a re think is required on the use of pavements by cyclists. There are many areas where pedestrians are few and far between. Modern pavements do have a sloping access at road junctions to make life easier for those with pushchairs, prams or disability scooters and chairs. On steep hills in urban areas with narrow roads it would be useful if cyclists travelling uphill were allowed to use the pavement, where traffic calming measures are in place with chicanes to narrow the width of the road it would be useful if cyclists were allowed to pass on the pavement. There may be other instances too. Where cyclists are allowed to share the pavement with pedestrians conflicts could be avoided by giving the pedestrian absolute priority over the cyclist.
Posted: 17/09/2009 23:20
Michael Hughes 3 wrote (see)
Where cyclists are allowed to share the pavement with pedestrians conflicts could be avoided by giving the pedestrian absolute priority over the cyclist. They do already Michael. As for 1st point I saw some young kids doing this the other day over here - need more tuition in School. Not enough clearly in Wales. As for chicanes, many do have a 'pass through' though as with cycle lanes thes tend to be strewn with shards of glass - a major bugbear with anything cycle specific. Pavements also cross driveways, other roads and get extremely annoying on anything like a roadbike. I can't stand hopping on and off , maybe soem others don't mind, but I still feel like there is a whole car driving, petrol-headed agenda that wants to give us something so they can justify kicking us off the roads.
Posted: 18/09/2009 00:21
Thanks for all the info guys. Mate is recovering and in no way is he intending the rozzers to get away with their original statement. Statements from them regarding lack of reflectors on wheels and pedals and no bell - as well as the original reckless 'charge'. As an aside: do you not think even 18 mph is a little quick to be in close proximity to pedestrians ( likely to be on iPod with no idea you're approaching )?
Posted: 18/09/2009 01:09
I agree that bypass lanes are not much use - at least the ones I've come across seem badly thought out in the design stage. As said above, they do collect all the detritus from the road surface that you don't want to be riding over and then there's the problem of ROW coming out of them. One in particular that I see regularly on my commute bypasses a traffic calming chicane on the outskirts of a village. The bypass is on the left hand side and you do need to be quite accurate in machine placement to ride through at speed, but there's also signs stating that all traffic coming from that direction has priority over traffic coming the other way - so why is this bypass necessary? I'll try to get a photo next time I'm out that way.
Posted: 18/09/2009 12:26
If there is a cycle path provided and you don't use it are you culpable? I think we all do it. A cycle path is provide but you ride on the road because the cyclepath is part of the pavement and therefore would mean you have to cross every road joining. Or you don't use them because, as mentioned they're too narrow so you ride on the crappiest part of the road over drains and all the other crap that gathers in the gutter. I'm asking as I have a friend who was recently knocked off his bike suffering head injuries. He was on a roundabout, on the road, and was taken out by a car joining. The Police have accused him of riding recklessly because he was on the road and not on the cycle path which is on the pavement. So driver is not at fault. Thoughts?
I don't think anyone has quoted this yet - from the Highway Code (online) - my italics 63 Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
Posted: 18/09/2009 14:08
I personally sit firmly in the keep cycle paths off our roads and pavements camp. Paths have their place; namely as a solution for offering less confident cyclists a traffic/pedestrian free environement to commute to work/shops/sociliase etc. As soon as you start bringing lanes onto the road/pavement you create opportunities for resentment and blame. In the past, I have used an analogy that said, I bet you wouldn't use the B-road next to a motorway purely because boy racers wanted to race on the motorway, so why whould you expect me to use the inferior and frankly dangerous path, just so I don't potentially make your journey a few seconds longer/slightly more complicated! In relation to the original post, does anyone know the outcome, did the police get their pound of flesh? Personally that story disgusts me, and is another reason why as cyclists we should all look to have insurance, so that there is someone obliged to fight your legal corner for you.
Posted: 11/02/2010 15:58
Well I say cyclists should be "allowed" (like we need permission) whether or not there is a safe cycle path and noone should be able to say just being on that road is cause for any fault to be laid at the cyclists feet. Anyway there is a saying keep death of the roads... drive on the pavements! Substitute cycle and I'm sure you will have a serious accident on the shared use pavements eventually if not already. Can I just say near my town as I'm heading out to Lancaster there is a mini roundabout with a pavement/cyclepath combined to allow cyclists to go around it. Since the side road to the right (with priority over me entering the roundabout) is generally quiet I have never really needed to slow at all there however I do to a pace that I can stop if needed. Anyway I know there is a cyclepath around it but I have never noticed where you join it heading out of town or into town. From what I can see on the road and pavement there is only the exit in each direction that is clearly marked. Now the only problem is that the miniroundabout is about road width plus a little. The island in themiddle of the road just before the roundabout means it is tight for a bus to get through. The result is that a bus often tries to get through when I am already there. Since I mostly leave for work at the same time each day I can quite reasonably be expected to encounter this bus at the same point most days. IF (and it is a big IF because I am a big believer in "if in doubt slow or stop") the bus does knock me over is that a motoring offence even if the only damage is a few bruises? If I don't have insurance what should I do? What should a cyclist do if a driver knocks you over through their negligence such as described above? IMHO I would just get on with it but should, hypothetically so far, I report it to someone? The bus company, police or both? Or will I get blamed for not riding on the unclear cycle path. I really mus walk down there and see what it looks like properly. BTW at that point with a slight downhill I am probably at the 18mph mark or would be if I didn't slow. Anyway I'm fast enough to feel quite a breeze through my hair through the helmet vents so I must be at a good pace.
Posted: 01/07/2010 13:47
i just thought of something. In claim cases fault is generally proportioned so the claimant can have his/her award decreased if the defendant can prove some fault. If you get a head injury from a motorist's dangerous driving and you are not wering a helmet would that mean you are partly at fault and might not get all the compensation you would if you had the helmet on? I know the latest studies claim that there has been no recorded case of a helmet saving a life or preventing serious injury but there is still the perception that helmets WILL (not might) save you in the event of an accident so therefore not having one is negligence. I was just wondering (and being remarkably pessimistic) what would happen. Afterall if you sustain brain injuries or even injuries to the spine or limbs you are likely to be out of work or unable to go to work of any kind. That means you're in need of alternative means of living. If fault is laid at least partyl at your door you could be left with say 75% of what you really need coming form the motorist's insurers. How would you cope? Anyway in 30 years I have only ever had self inflicted grazes due to my own crazy stunts. Such as weaving as far over as I can to see just how far you can weave over. Must admit I would have been about 6-9 yrs old when last done. Apart from last night freewheeling down my culdesac road. Didn't fall this time though.
Posted: 01/07/2010 13:58
PLEASE REFER TO THE SMITH CONTRIBUTARY NEGLIGENCE CASE: http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5180 poor chap did not have head injurieds but the judge still reduced damages due to contributary negligence for not wearing a helmet dohhh
According to the CTC report:
"The good news, though, is that Mr Justice Griffith Williams did award cyclist Robert Smith full compensation, ruling that his particular injuries would not have been prevented by a helmet: the impact speed was above 12mph and the blow was to the back of Smith's head, an area not necessarily protected by a helmet." And in any case it is surely wrong to conclude that not wearing a helmet makes a cyclist liable to a reduction in damages for injury through contributory negligence in a case where the responsibility for collision lies entirely with the motorist. By the same token, we should wear all sorts of protective gear in order to minimise the consequences of a collision not our fault including, for example, elbow pads or expect to have damages reduced where a broken or grazed elbow was the result of the collision.
Posted: 08/07/2010 10:03
Helmet and gloves, fine, full body armour and riot shield, I think not baby puppy. Elbow pads? We ride bikes not bloody skateboards...
Posted: 08/07/2010 11:05
|
|
