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.