What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by irc »

EdinburghFixed wrote:However, to encourage us to get out of the way, a sliver of a lane has been put in - between the edge of carriageway line and the border of the cycle lane there's not even enough room for a bike stencil!


Or enough room for a bike. A case for primary if ever there was one.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
Richard Mann
Posts: 427
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 12:46am

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by Richard Mann »

EdinburghFixed wrote:I can do better than that - see this exemplary cycle lane going northbound on the A7 into Edinburgh. As you can see, the road is basically too narrow for larger vehicles to pass cyclists safely. However, to encourage us to get out of the way, a sliver of a lane has been put in - between the edge of carriageway line and the border of the cycle lane there's not even enough room for a bike stencil!


It's a 50mph road. Of course it's going to be unpleasant to cycle on.

The hierarchy of solutions has much to be said for it, but you need to follow through the logic: once you've slowed the traffic down, cycle lanes don't need to be anything more than 1m. You only need wide cycle lanes if you've failed to slow the traffic down.

But this is a bit chicken-and-egg, because putting in cycle lanes reduces lane-width, which slows traffic down.

Perhaps it would be easier if we expressed it a different way: traffic lanes alongside cycle lanes should be a maximum of 3m.
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by Flinders »

I'm happy to share a road with 50mph traffic so long as they give me a safe amount of room when they overtake- which isn't all that difficult. It isn't the speed, it's the driving that's the issue.

When I first thought of bike lanes I thought they were a good idea, now I've used some, I don't.
Nutsey
Posts: 1270
Joined: 19 Apr 2010, 3:31pm

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by Nutsey »

Out of interest how does one go about joining whatever cycling group it is that gets 'consulted' by council road planners?
User avatar
anothereye
Posts: 750
Joined: 8 Mar 2009, 4:56pm
Location: Haringey, North London

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by anothereye »

Just to plug a new facebook group:
Ignore the Cycle Lanes (UK), put safety first.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=110063435707957&v=wall
If you're not a facebook member you can view it but not contribute. If you're on Facebook please contribute.

To discourage cyclists from riding too close to the curb.
To encourage best practice for all road users.
For motorists to understand why confident cyclists prefer a more prominent position on the road.
_______________________________________________________________
http://www.roadusers.net/
reducing danger for all road users
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by EdinburghFixed »

Richard Mann wrote:
EdinburghFixed wrote:I can do better than that - see this exemplary cycle lane going northbound on the A7 into Edinburgh. As you can see, the road is basically too narrow for larger vehicles to pass cyclists safely. However, to encourage us to get out of the way, a sliver of a lane has been put in - between the edge of carriageway line and the border of the cycle lane there's not even enough room for a bike stencil!


It's a 50mph road. Of course it's going to be unpleasant to cycle on.


I see what speed has to do with it (will you be less dead if you go under an HGV's wheels at 20 or 30mph instead of 50mph?) - while I agree it's nicer to have slow traffic all other things being equal, the enablement of quality interactions between road users should be the primary goal of infrastructure, not reducing speed. I'd rather have people overtake me sensibly at 50mph than scraping my bar ends at any speed!

What's unpleasant about this stretch of road is that either you take a position which prevents people from squeezing past, which results in frothing mania because there's a cycle lane beside you and you're not in it, or you sit in the cycle lane and duck every time a wing mirror wafts through your hair (and concentrate very, very hard on not wobbling). Without a lane you can adopt a more sensible position and get along much better.

That isn't just conjecture, because a little further along you get this and indeed, everything is great again. (Although in truth, I actually take a detour of a couple of miles coming into Edinburgh specifically because of the narrow lanes on this stretch of road).

Perhaps we should get cameras and do a survey of passing distances on these two sections, with the cyclist in the lane for the facilitated bit, and riding "natually" on the plain bit?
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by EdinburghFixed »

anothereye wrote:To discourage cyclists from riding too close to the curb.
To encourage best practice for all road users.
For motorists to understand why safe cyclists prefer a more prominent position on the road.


I think that is more appropriate. 'Confident' drivers often like to go at 50mph past primary schools, it's not a value-free term.
Richard Mann
Posts: 427
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 12:46am

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by Richard Mann »

I've been reading TRL549 (Drivers Perceptions of Cyclists, 2002, free to download from http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... clists.htm).

This is the document from which Pete quotes: “Arguably the effect of providing facilities that increase drivers’ confidence but are unsuitable for cyclists to actually use may increase cyclists’ exposure to risk. This implies that those responsible for the provision of cycle infrastructure should ensure that the recommended standards” [set out in manuals such as the Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure Guidelines (IHT, CTC, DoT, The Bicycle Association, 1996) are adhered to as closely as possible.] (page 31)

Digging in the report reveals that this conclusion is based on two tiny observations in their data when cycle lanes are added to a "normal" road: an increase in the driver's self-assessment of how considerate they are being from approx 7.2 to 7.4, and an increase in their speed (in a simulator) from approx 14.5 to 14.8 (presumably metres/second). These are tiny changes in relation to other observed changes, and not really an adequate basis for the conclusion.

What I found more interesting was the observation that drivers rated cyclists cycling in the middle of the traffic lane to be inconsiderate regardless of the presence or absence of a cycle lane: "it seems that drivers’ disapproval of cycling in the middle of the roads holds whether or not there was a cycle lane that the cyclist could have moved into. Their disapproval was not reserved for those cases where the cyclist could have cycled in a cycle lane but chose not to do so. Even where this option was not available, drivers continued to rate the cyclist low on consideration compared to the cyclist who chose to ride on the left close to the kerb." (page 22)

Several times on this forum, people have made the argument that providing a narrow cycle lane means that they get abuse for not using it. There appears to be some evidence that this is not true. What bothers drivers is the fact that you're getting in their way, not whether you are using a particular facility or not.

Richard
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by EdinburghFixed »

Richard Mann wrote:Several times on this forum, people have made the argument that providing a narrow cycle lane means that they get abuse for not using it. There appears to be some evidence that this is not true. What bothers drivers is the fact that you're getting in their way, not whether you are using a particular facility or not.


No, the report finds that when cyclists get in the way of drivers, they think it inconsiderate whether there is a cycle lane or not. The report did not address (and to be honest, I'm not sure how you would get an honest answer to) the question of what drivers do to an inconsiderate cyclist based on the presence or absence of a cycle lane.

It's something that could be investigated with a camera but I'm not sure what an appropriate metric would be. You can't just measure passing distance because, in fact, riding in an assertive position generally means you get less space from passing vehicles (but it's a great swap because they're only overtaking when safe to do so, and after giving it some thought). Perhaps you could measure the average forward speed of overtaking vehicles (but then you still might miss the fact that the overtake is better, because it could be fast but well-considered, instead of slow and inattentive).

Any suggestions?
Richard Mann
Posts: 427
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 12:46am

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by Richard Mann »

EdinburghFixed wrote:No, the report finds that when cyclists get in the way of drivers, they think it inconsiderate whether there is a cycle lane or not. The report did not address (and to be honest, I'm not sure how you would get an honest answer to) the question of what drivers do to an inconsiderate cyclist based on the presence or absence of a cycle lane.


Ah, so the argument is that they give vent to their feelings more if there's a cycle lane. Could be true, I suppose. It might also be true that there are more effective ways of dealing with this problem than removing the cycle lane. Like reducing the prevailing speed so that the motorist is put under less pressure between the competing claims of the cyclist (not to be cut up) and the following motorist (not to be held up by the car in front).

Richard
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by irc »

[quote="Richard Mann"[list]
Several times on this forum, people have made the argument that providing a narrow cycle lane means that they get abuse for not using it. There appears to be some evidence that this is not true. What bothers drivers is the fact that you're getting in their way, not whether you are using a particular facility or not.

Richard[/quote]

I agree that some drivers cut up cyclists whether there is a lane or not. One example was when I was cycling on the 8 foot wide shoulder of a road in the USA. A group of motorbikers overtook me. One actually left the main lane and drove on to the shoulder to buzz me. I had seen him in my mirror and dodged to the edge just before he passed me.

But IMO many drivers get irrited by anything slowing them down. Tractor, HGV, caravan, bike. It doesn't matter. When it is a bike though and the cyclist is choosing not to use a lane this gets them even more angry. On one occassion I caught up with a driver who had buzzed me as I rode outside a lane. The first thing he said was "but you should have been in ther cycle lane".

So yes, it is the fact bikes are there at all but when bikes are not using a "facility" it makes things worse.

The other advantage of not using crap cycle lanes is of course that if I am 1.5 - 2M fout rom the kerb and see in my mirror a close overtake coming up I have an escape route. Riding in a 1m lane there is nowhere for a cyclist to go.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by Pete Owens »

EdinburghFixed wrote:Perhaps we should get cameras and do a survey of passing distances on these two sections, with the cyclist in the lane for the facilitated bit, and riding "natually" on the plain bit?


That is what I did at my local neighbourhood cycle lane.
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... -lanes.pdf

If you do, it would be worth showing the results to Edinburgh Spokes - who seem nearly as keen on cycle lanes as Cyclox.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by Pete Owens »

EdinburghFixed wrote:
Richard Mann wrote:Several times on this forum, people have made the argument that providing a narrow cycle lane means that they get abuse for not using it. There appears to be some evidence that this is not true. What bothers drivers is the fact that you're getting in their way, not whether you are using a particular facility or not.


No, the report finds that when cyclists get in the way of drivers, they think it inconsiderate whether there is a cycle lane or not. The report did not address (and to be honest, I'm not sure how you would get an honest answer to) the question of what drivers do to an inconsiderate cyclist based on the presence or absence of a cycle lane.

Actually, the methodology in the report does address this by placing drivers in a simulator, and observing how they behave when approaching a cyclist at a road narrowing (with or without a cycle lane passing through it). It is the behaviour that matters rather more than what drivers claim their attitude to be (universally considerate as it turns out). The presence of a cycle lane made it less likely that they would slow down to follow the cyclist through the gap and wait for a safe opportunity to overtake, rather than squeeze past.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by Pete Owens »

Richard Mann wrote:when cycle lanes are added to a "normal" road: an increase in the driver's self-assessment of how considerate they are being from approx 7.2 to 7.4, and an increase in their speed (in a simulator) from approx 14.5 to 14.8 (presumably metres/second). These are tiny changes in relation to other observed changes, and not really an adequate basis for the conclusion.

An increase never the less - when you have on a number of occasions claimed the opposite.
It is generally the case that lane markings along the direction of travel result in an increase in speed, whether this is centre lines, edge of carriageway markings or cycle lanes - due to the extra confidence that the tramline effect introduces.

Also, you failed to point out the much more dramatic effect the cycle lane has when it passes through a road narrowing.
What I found more interesting was the observation that drivers rated cyclists cycling in the middle of the traffic lane to be inconsiderate regardless of the presence or absence of a cycle lane: "it seems that drivers’ disapproval of cycling in the middle of the roads holds whether or not there was a cycle lane that the cyclist could have moved into. Their disapproval was not reserved for those cases where the cyclist could have cycled in a cycle lane but chose not to do so. Even where this option was not available, drivers continued to rate the cyclist low on consideration compared to the cyclist who chose to ride on the left close to the kerb." (page 22)

But, that "disaproval" was basically a measure of whether they realised the need to adjust their speed and position to get past a slow moving road user that was part of an "out group". The behaviour it resulted in was more careful overtaking and lower speeds and is to be welcomed.
Several times on this forum, people have made the argument that providing a narrow cycle lane means that they get abuse for not using it. There appears to be some evidence that this is not true.

True - in the sample of drivers they did not actually observe a case of abuse. Even if the sample had been large enough to include the sort of aggressive driver who shouts at cyclists, that driver would probably have restrained themselves from winding down their window to shout at the simulated cyclist (assuming that they were provided with a lever to wind down the simulated side window to shout the abuse through.

However, anyone who cycles regularly on roads next to parallel facilities will have experienced such abuse so to suggest that the fact that none actually occurred during the simulation is somehow evidence of its none existence is absurd.
What bothers drivers is the fact that you're getting in their way, not whether you are using a particular facility or not.

Indeed, but if I am sharing the road with drivers I want them to be concerned about my presence. We know that drivers would be happier if we stuck to the gutter (or better still the pavement) so that they whosh past without adjusting their speed or direction. This is why cycle lanes are so popular with traffic engineers - their entire purpose is to keep motorists happy at the expense of our safety and comfort.
TheJollyJimLad
Posts: 186
Joined: 8 Jul 2008, 1:02pm

Re: What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

Post by TheJollyJimLad »

Nutsey wrote:Out of interest how does one go about joining whatever cycling group it is that gets 'consulted' by council road planners?


[From bitter experience] by the time a cycle campaign group gets a whiff of 'consultation', the plans they are looking at would already have been signed off and the work programmed in by Council Highways. But at least the council can now say they have 'consulted' cyclists.
Post Reply