What's the purpose of advisory cycle lanes?

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

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

Post by Richard Mann »

cjchambers wrote:...but I'm frankly horrified that a cycle campaigning group is campaigning in favour of narrow door-zone cycle lanes.


We're not. Mostly we'd prefer there to be no parking, and parking has generally been removed in favour of bus lanes (if you look elsewhere on the Cyclox website, you'll see we're fairly keen on buses, because they reduce traffic).

But in our experience, so far, on slowish main roads (not much above 25mph), you can get away with 1m cycle lanes and 0.5m buffer zones. If you read the Coates study, you'll find we actually got a substantial drop in car-door incidents when cycle lanes were painted alongside parking bays (this was in Headington in the 80s). And they didn't have any buffer zone.

Having read that incident in Cambridge, MA, I think the parking lane was at the absolute minimum. I'd be aiming for 3.0m (including the buffer) for short stay with SUVs and vans. And I expect the bus was doing at least 30mph given the lane widths (about 4m from the look of it in Google Streetview).

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

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

Post by EdinburghFixed »

I haven't quite managed to digest it, but I'd like to post my thanks for the Cyclox link. It has two unusual features - it's written in what seems to be a well thought out, considered manner, yet it totally disagrees with everything I observe as a utility bike rider.

One of the things that has frustrated me recently in Edinburgh has been the propensity of the council to paint red cycle lanes across the mouth of T-junctions as if to encourage cyclists out of drivers' sight line and into the gutter, right when they need to be most visible. As this directly contravenes the advice of both the government's Bikeability programme and the IAM's advanced cycing manual, I couldn't work out why they would think this to be a good idea.

Some reading material for later, methinks.
irc
Posts: 5192
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

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

Post by irc »

Richard Mann wrote:Get the council to do a speed survey on the road. They shouldn't be tolerating regular speeding over a 30mph limit.
Richard


I don't know what it is like in your area Richard but around Glasgow speeding in 30mph limits is the norm everwhere except when prevented by either speed cameras or volume of traffic. As far as the cycle lane in question is concerned I gave up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get the council to even do a site survey or admit there was a problem. My e-mails have been saved in case any cyuclist does get doored.
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 »

irc wrote:I don't know what it is like in your area Richard but around Glasgow speeding in 30mph limits is the norm everwhere except when prevented by either speed cameras or volume of traffic.


Now we're getting to the nub of it. You need more space because traffic is going faster, but the standard demands excessive lane-width at all speeds, so everyone is so busy aiming off the standard, that they don't know when it really is required. The standard needs to be more realistic (and more evidence-based), and much more focused on providing a buffer zone around parking, especially when pulling out into the traffic is impractical.

I'd say that CTC's advocacy of 2m cycle lanes actually causes far more problems than it solves.

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:But in our experience, so far, on slowish main roads (not much above 25mph), you can get away with 1m cycle lanes and 0.5m buffer zones. If you read the Coates study, you'll find we actually got a substantial drop in car-door incidents when cycle lanes were painted alongside parking bays (this was in Headington in the 80s). And they didn't have any buffer zone.


Do you have a link to this? I had a quick squint on the Cyclox site but couldn't find it.

On the face of it it's hard to see by what mechanism a lane could reduce dooring, because the only two variables are either that it makes cyclists ride further out (more time to react) or it causes motorists to take more care opening the door (fewer absolute incidents). I have to admit I find it hard to believe the latter, and the former is obviously not it (because the only effect on distance should be to cause cyclists who used to ride wide to feel they ought to be in the lane).

cheers.

PS. I suppose the argument about wide lanes is that we'd rather not have a lane at all if the standard isn't met, not that we want to encourage sub-standard lanes. But obviously this doesn't seem to be as broadly consensus based as I imagined!
Richard Mann
Posts: 427
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 12:46am

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

Post by Richard Mann »

Coates study: http://www.cyclox.org/wp-content/upload ... Coates.pdf

A lot depends on cyclist speed at the location; the ones in Headington weren't that fast. Cycle lane probably didn't change the position of the cyclists (too much traffic to be riding much further out), but it probably did give motorists a bit of a clue that they should be careful.

We've had more problem on Cowley Road (serious injury): http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie= ... 63,,0,24.8
This used to be 30mph, have a centre line, and the cycle lane was narrower (and the bays marked at minimum). It's now 20mph, no centre line, slightly wider cycle lane and slightly deeper bay. It's not changed that much, but it now seems to be OK. I'd prefer the buffer zone to be more explicit, but there's a limit what you can do with the allowed markings. But it wouldn't be safe if the traffic were doing 30mph or more.

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

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

Post by irc »

I think we will just have to disagree on cycle lanes. That Cowley Rd layout is dreadful. On one side of the road cyclists are encouraged to ride in the gutter in a lane that looks narrower than a bike. On the other side they are encouraged to ride immediately beside parked cars.

On that road I wouldn't use either lane. All those "farcilities" are going to do is make some drivers hassle me for not using them. I would far prefer nothing at all.
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 »

irc wrote:I think we will just have to disagree on cycle lanes. That Cowley Rd layout is dreadful. On one side of the road cyclists are encouraged to ride in the gutter in a lane that looks narrower than a bike. On the other side they are encouraged to ride immediately beside parked cars.

On that road I wouldn't use either lane. All those "farcilities" are going to do is make some drivers hassle me for not using them. I would far prefer nothing at all.


If you do 15mph outside that lane, no-one will be hassling you. Took us more than 30 years to get to that point, though.

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

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

Post by irc »

Richard Mann wrote:
irc wrote:I think we will just have to disagree on cycle lanes. That Cowley Rd layout is dreadful. On one side of the road cyclists are encouraged to ride in the gutter in a lane that looks narrower than a bike. On the other side they are encouraged to ride immediately beside parked cars.

On that road I wouldn't use either lane. All those "farcilities" are going to do is make some drivers hassle me for not using them. I would far prefer nothing at all.


If you do 15mph outside that lane, no-one will be hassling you. Took us more than 30 years to get to that point, though.

Richard


So it takes 30 years for motorist to stop hassling cyclists avoiding inadequate cycle lanes? I may not have 30 years left. I'd rather the lanes were not installed at all. Other ideas like the one below from Warrington Cycle Campaign's website are better.

birchwood-way.jpg
birchwood-way.jpg (5.71 KiB) Viewed 738 times



"Wide hatched centre lines can be used to achieve a moderate reduction in traffic speed by reducing the apparent lane width. Drivers can use the hatched area to give cyclists extra clearance when overtaking. The greater separation from oncoming vehicles also helps cyclists pass parked cars"

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... actice.htm

The hatched marking make cars run closer to the kerb meaning when a car needs to overtake a cyclist it can by using the hatch marks. Kiddy on 1m cycle lanes have the exact opposite effect. Making cars travel closer to the center line of the road and reducing the space an oncoming vehicle has to overtake.

IMO if their isn't space for 2m lanes this is a better approach.
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 »

irc wrote:
i think I'd prefer the recommended (for busy roads) 2m wide lane with 0.5m - 1m buffer zone. As per paragraphes 7.4.2 and 7.5.2 of the link below.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf

Anything less and I'd prefer the lane not to be there at all. I agree there are other options but the council don't see there is any problem.


Agree to a point 2m is the absolute minimum you need for a cycle lane - any less is reallocating road space from cyclists to motorists.
However, 0.5m is nowhere near enough for a buffer zone (and even 1m isn't quite sufficient) - car doors open by more than 1m so the buffer zone needs to be wider than that.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

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

Post by Pete Owens »

irc wrote:I think we will just have to disagree on cycle lanes. That Cowley Rd layout is dreadful. On one side of the road cyclists are encouraged to ride in the gutter in a lane that looks narrower than a bike. On the other side they are encouraged to ride immediately beside parked cars.


I would say that is worse than dreadful - those cycle lanes are criminally negligent.
They actually show the parts of the road which cyclists should avoid at all costs. It is almost as if the designers were actively attempting to kill cyclists.

While most cycle lanes make conditions less comfortable and a bit less safe for cyclists they are usually painted on the part of the road that you would normally ride on.

On that road I wouldn't use either lane. All those "farcilities" are going to do is make some drivers hassle me for not using them. I would far prefer nothing at all.


But it is worse than that.
At least those of us that understand the risks and are sufficiently confident can maintain our safety by ignoring the facilities - even if that is at the expense of some aggression from drivers (though even the stupidest of drivers probably understand why a cyclist is not using a lane thinner than a bicycle).
Novice cyclists may believe that the cycle lanes are intended for their safety and be tempted to use them out of ignorance of the risks.
Less confident cyclists may believe that they are legally obliged to ride within the lane - and drivers will certainly encourage them in that belief.
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:Now we're getting to the nub of it. You need more space because traffic is going faster, but the standard demands excessive lane-width at all speeds, so everyone is so busy aiming off the standard,

you cannot be serious.
Agreed most places do not treat the standards with quite the same degree of contempt as Oxford - but cases of standard cycle lanes are so rare that they tend to make the national news.
that they don't know when it really is required.

The minimum 2m standard has nothing to do with speed but the basic dimensions of the design vehicle and the need to allow a minimum amount of clearance.
The standard needs to be more realistic

The standard traffic engineer speak meaning we should know our place.
They understand that the one and only purpose of cycle lanes (and other facilities) is to keep us out of the way of important vehicles with motors.
This is why the only place that you will ever see cycle lanes (with very rare exceptions) are on bits of tarmac not used by the main traffic flow - the width is not determined by how much space we need, but by how much spare space they have surplus to requirement.
(and more evidence-based),

OK lets do a bit of evidence basing:
Minimum clearance a cyclist should keep between themselves and a kerb - 0.5m
Dynamic envolope (ie width of a moving cyclist) - 1m (you need to allow more on hills or bennds)
Minimum width needed between a cyclist and another vehicle - 0.5m (This is only rally adequate for cyclist- cyclist clearance on cycle paths - you need to increase this at greater speed)

Add them together and you get a minimum space requirement of 2m.

Even if you think you are prepared to scrape a bit off the margins, and riding a trike so you can keep a dead straight path, presumably you think it is a good idea for cyclists to perform hand signals without slapping pedestrians or cars.
and much more focused on providing a buffer zone around parking, especially when pulling out into the traffic is impractical.

OK lets to a bit of evidence basing on width needed for a buffer zone.
Car doors swing open by about 1.2m - so the evidence based minimum width required for buffer zone is 1.2m
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:I think you'll find the hierarchy of solutions says you should do traffic or speed reduction before you put in cycle lanes.


Now we are getting somewhere.
See CTC web site for the hierarchy of provision:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/Default.aspx?TabID=4923
The idea is indeed to concentrate on making the roads safe and convenient to share before going down the route to segregation.
So 1 Traffic reduction
2 Speed Reduction
3 Junction Treatment
These are the things that really do help cyclists (and indeed pedestrians).
And this is actually where Oxford DOES have a very good record - the most Significant para in the coats report is 4.1.
While other towns set about building inner ring roads, giratories and the like in order to maximise the flow of motor vehicles Oxford set on the opposite path to deliberately discourage and slow down through traffic. This is why is has the reputation of one of the most anti-car cities in the country. It is also one of the first places to have introduced a city wide 20mph limit.

It is following the hierarchy of provision that sets Oxford apart from other places NOT the introduction of cycle lanes which are common throughout the country.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

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

Post by thirdcrank »

Pete Owens wrote:... The standard traffic engineer speak meaning we should know our place.
They understand that the one and only purpose of cycle lanes (and other facilities) is to keep us out of the way of important vehicles with motors....


And nowhere (to my knowledge) is this better illustrated than in the supposedly cycle-friendly City of York. Cycling is popular in York in spite of the cycle facilties, rather than because of them. IMO. Anybody who has ridden from the Knavesmire (York Rally site) into York on the A 1036 will have seen this first hand. Thanks to the wonders of streetview, you can do the same without the effort by panning up and down The Mount, York. To make it even easier, here are a couple of links I prepared earlier. Some lengths are exceptionally narrow, just to keep pesky cyclists in the gutter, and where it's too narrow for even that, others form a sort of cyclo-cross course along the footway and through verges. :(

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 98.58,,0,5

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 84.18,,0,5
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

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

Post by EdinburghFixed »

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!
Post Reply