Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

StephenW
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 11:33am

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby StephenW » 19 Apr 2019, 10:15am

Vorpal wrote:I think it was clear from my comments that I had read more than the abstract,


That's good. Just wanted to check we were talking about the same paper.

I emailed Paul Schepers, and the reference to Schepers et al (2013) is indeed a typo, it should be Schepers et al (2011). This provides the reason for the 45% claim https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.005

brynpoeth
Posts: 10497
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby brynpoeth » 19 Apr 2019, 10:21am

Mike Sales wrote:
Lance Dopestrong wrote:Can we not have unnecessary use of bold type mid way through a paragraph please? I'm dyslexic and struggle to read it, ir before my eyes when folk do that. Apart from which, I'm sure everyone else can read.


Are italics a problem for you?

Selective quoting is the answer, remove but not change, leave a couple of does to indicate something was removed
Quoting whole posts and long replies gets a bit tedious, does anyone read every word? :?
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

StephenW
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 11:33am

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby StephenW » 19 Apr 2019, 10:28am

Pete Owens wrote:StephenW wrote:
there were too few intersections with no infrastructure to be valid.

So what they are actually comparing is a very specific arrangements of segregation (one-way track bent away from the road) to other segregated layouts then simply assuming unsegregated roads correspond to whichever performs worse.


Not exactly. Schepers et al (2011) were looking specifically at unsignalised junction design on distributor roads (as opposed to access roads or through roads). Distributor roads without any cycle infrastructure are relatively rare in NL. (Access roads generally don't have cycle infrastructure). There were 39 junctions with no infrastructure, 193 with cycle lanes and 258 with cycle paths in the study.

One thing which they were investigating was the effect of setting back the cycle track crossing from the main road by different distances. In this part of the study, they combined cycle lanes and no cycle facilities, since both of these are not set back at all, and the sample size for "no infrastructure" was small. In another part of the study they removed junctions without infrastructure because the sample size was too small.

PS
Welleman and Dijkstra (1988) found that there was no statistically significant difference in safety at unsignalised intersections between having cycle paths and no infrastructure, but cycle lanes were more dangerous. Welleman and Dijkstra (1988) and Schepers et al (2011) corrected for the number of cyclists, whereas other studies did not.
Last edited by StephenW on 19 Apr 2019, 10:41am, edited 1 time in total.

StephenW
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 11:33am

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby StephenW » 19 Apr 2019, 10:36am

Cugel wrote:As to London and it's superhighways .....
Perhaps they did make cycling marginally safer - although there are still regular deaths and maimings.


Their purpose is not only to make cycling safer, it is also to make it more pleasant. When I am cycling in London, when I get onto one of the newer "superhighways" I can breathe a sigh of relief and start to enjoy myself a lot more.

Cugel wrote:But surely the obvious answer is to ban private cars (perhaps much else) from London altogether?


Why do you think this is realistic, yet say that building decent cycle paths is unrealistic? Done well, cycle paths can benefit cyclists, motorists (by making driving less stressful) and pedestrians (by eliminating pavement cycling). Therefore, they have the potential to enjoy widespread support.

If we wanted to make cycling genuinely pleasant and appealing to a wide section of society in London, without using any segregated infrastructure, we would need to ban not only private cars, but also taxis I think. And even then, we would still have a lot of delivery vehicles and buses.

StephenW
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 11:33am

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby StephenW » 19 Apr 2019, 10:52am

Pete Owens wrote:
mjr wrote:infrastructure doesn't cause conflicts at junctions,

Of course it does (again assuming that you use "infrastructure" to mean "segregation" for the purpose of argument) by its very nature.


Conflicts between cycles going straight on and vehicles turning into side roads exist already, also without cycle infrastructure. Perhaps in some ideal world, every cyclist would ride in the "primary position" at every side road, but I think this is extremely unlikely, because it runs directly contrary to human nature. Most people have no intention of placing themselves directly and deliberately in the way of a large and heavy motor vehicle to prevent it from getting past. Perhaps a few analytical types such as ourselves see the value in doing this, but I think most people live their lives in a more intuitive way.

In any case, "Left-hook" type incidents are a very common cause of accidents in urban areas in the UK, "despite" the lack of cycling infrastructure. The conflict exists. The question is whether cycle infrastructure makes this conflict better or worse.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2702
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby Bmblbzzz » 19 Apr 2019, 7:51pm

brynpoeth wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
Lance Dopestrong wrote:Can we not have unnecessary use of bold type mid way through a paragraph please? I'm dyslexic and struggle to read it, ir before my eyes when folk do that. Apart from which, I'm sure everyone else can read.


Are italics a problem for you?

Selective quoting is the answer, remove but not change, leave a couple of does to indicate something was removed
Quoting whole posts and long replies gets a bit tedious, does anyone read every word? :?

LD was referring (I think) to a post made immediately above his in which the poster had bolded a sentence in the middle of a paragraph for emphasis.It wasn't a quote, it was bold for emphasis as might be used in (some) publications. Hence, I presume, Mike Sales' question about italics.

It's a point I'd never been aware of before and I'll add my own question: How about different colours for emphasis? Or underlining?

brynpoeth
Posts: 10497
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby brynpoeth » 19 Apr 2019, 8:02pm

Not so easy on a smart phone
Short posts and repostes are best
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life

User avatar
Lance Dopestrong
Posts: 1227
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby Lance Dopestrong » 19 Apr 2019, 9:09pm

Italics don't worry me used in moderation. I'm not as bad as many, but random bold type in the middle of normal text just melts my brain.
https://themediocrecyclist.home.blog
Self employed MIAS L5.B Instructor.
Warwickshire Lowland Rescue Bike lead.
IPMBA certified member.
Cyctech C2 hammer and crowbar bodger.
Lapsed CTC Ride Leader, amateur hour stuff from the fun old days.

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4431
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby RickH » 19 Apr 2019, 9:24pm

reohn2 wrote:
RickH wrote:
reohn2 wrote:the cycle lanes near me are great :? :- https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.45956 ... 312!8i6656

And they're nice & freshly repainted (even painted straight over the potholes)! Still no wider though. :? I don't know about you but i just ignore them & ride to the right of the line in the main lane.

I noticed they'd been painted since those in the link,and yes I too ride well to the right of the silliness :wink:

I noticed, when I rode that way today, that the bicycle symbols have been removed since I last rode that way at the beginning of last week (Monday 8th April).

As far as I remember there are no blue cycle lane signs (are the rectangular ones compulsory to indicate the presence of a cycle lane?). Does that mean they have officially been "regraded" to edge of carriageway lines?

reohn2
Posts: 35179
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby reohn2 » 19 Apr 2019, 11:09pm

RickH wrote:.......... Does that mean they have officially been "regraded" to edge of carriageway lines?

I ask myself if they were ever cycle lanes to begin with?
To which I answer a definite no. :wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 2192
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby Cugel » 20 Apr 2019, 8:02am

StephenW wrote:
Cugel wrote:As to London and it's superhighways .....
Perhaps they did make cycling marginally safer - although there are still regular deaths and maimings.


Their purpose is not only to make cycling safer, it is also to make it more pleasant. When I am cycling in London, when I get onto one of the newer "superhighways" I can breathe a sigh of relief and start to enjoy myself a lot more.

Cugel wrote:But surely the obvious answer is to ban private cars (perhaps much else) from London altogether?


Why do you think this is realistic, yet say that building decent cycle paths is unrealistic? Done well, cycle paths can benefit cyclists, motorists (by making driving less stressful) and pedestrians (by eliminating pavement cycling). Therefore, they have the potential to enjoy widespread support.

If we wanted to make cycling genuinely pleasant and appealing to a wide section of society in London, without using any segregated infrastructure, we would need to ban not only private cars, but also taxis I think. And even then, we would still have a lot of delivery vehicles and buses.


Cars in London (and other urban spots) cause high levels of pollution, as well as squashing and maiming many pedestrians, cylists and, of course, the car drivers themselves. A superhighway does very little if it just makes you feel a bit safer - especially if (like the pedestrians) you are still subject to car-bite when going off your not-so-protected space (or even when still in it). Do the fumes choke you less if you're a few feet away from the polluters?

Taxis could easily be replaced by rickshaw e-bikes. Well, they could if the black cab and uber creatures didn't do everything in their considerable power to remain the default hire-it solution.

Electric buses confined to 20mph would still get from A to B rapidly, especially if unimpeded by a zillion cars.

Deliveries can (and some now are) better made by cargo bike from depots at the periphery of the metropolis.

Why not have a holistic solution to London's transport ills rather than tinkering about ineffectively and expensively whilst solving practically nothing of the issue? I know, I know - because the status quo is, well, the status quo; and humans are self-centred, unimaginative little skinbags only interested in their own personal wants of the moment.

Cugel

StephenW
Posts: 125
Joined: 22 Sep 2010, 11:33am

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby StephenW » 22 Apr 2019, 12:45pm

Cugel wrote:Cars in London (and other urban spots) cause high levels of pollution, as well as squashing and maiming many pedestrians, cylists and, of course, the car drivers themselves. A superhighway does very little if it just makes you feel a bit safer - especially if (like the pedestrians) you are still subject to car-bite when going off your not-so-protected space (or even when still in it).

Well, it is true that cars cause pollution and danger! But I don't feel that this is a very fair comparison, for a couple of reasons.

What I am proposing, namely that we should build good quality cycle paths where roads have fast or busy motor traffic, is something which has already been started in London, and is progressing slowly. It has successfully been done in other cities, and in these cities a lot more people cycle and cycling is safer than in London. In public consultations on new "superhighways", the balance of feedback is usually positive, although there is of course some vociferous opposition.

What you are proposing is to ban private motor traffic from a vast area of land, in which many people live. As far as I am aware, this has never been done before. My assumption is that it would be immensely unpopular, although if you have evidence to the contrary then pray tell!

Do pavements (or footways as I believe they are correctly called) protect pedestrians against pollution and danger from motor cars? If not, should we get rid of them? They must surely be terribly expensive?

My point is that if we want walking to be remotely appealing, we need to provide pavements on roads that have significant amounts of motor traffic. We don't expect them to protect pedestrians against pollution, as that is not their purpose. Similarly, if we want cycling to be appealing, we need it to be possible to make direct journeys from A to B without having to deal with the stress of sharing space with fast and busy motor traffic. The same principle applies as for walking, although the specific situations where separate provision for cycling is desirable are different than for walking.

As experienced cyclists, it can be difficult to grasp just how much most non-cyclists dislike the idea of riding in dense motor traffic. This is why I think that even if private cars were banned from London, most people would still find cycling fairly unappealing.

Cugel wrote:Do the fumes choke you less if you're a few feet away from the polluters?

Yes, a bit.

Cugel wrote:Electric buses confined to 20mph would still get from A to B rapidly, especially if unimpeded by a zillion cars.

But not if they impeded by a zillion grandmas cycling very slowly :D

Cugel wrote:Why not have a holistic solution to London's transport ills rather than tinkering about ineffectively and expensively whilst solving practically nothing of the issue?

"Superhighways" cost peanuts compared to other transport projects such as Crossrail. Maybe that's not a fair comparison, but you get the point.

I don't think that cycle paths on their own are the whole solution. They are an important part though. I'd be happy to see measures to make driving in central London more expensive and difficult, in addition to a network of quality cycle paths. What you are proposing is entirely stick-based, whereas I propose a balanced diet of carrots and sticks.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1483
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby Pete Owens » 23 Apr 2019, 10:10am

StephenW wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:StephenW wrote:
there were too few intersections with no infrastructure to be valid.

So what they are actually comparing is a very specific arrangements of segregation (one-way track bent away from the road) to other segregated layouts then simply assuming unsegregated roads correspond to whichever performs worse.


Not exactly. Schepers et al (2011) were looking specifically at unsignalised junction design on distributor roads (as opposed to access roads or through roads). Distributor roads without any cycle infrastructure are relatively rare in NL.


Quite - so exactly what I said.

This is a study comparing different arrangements of segregated infrastructure - so can tell us nothing whatsoever about the relative safety of the road.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1483
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby Pete Owens » 23 Apr 2019, 10:21am

StephenW wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:
mjr wrote:infrastructure doesn't cause conflicts at junctions,

Of course it does (again assuming that you use "infrastructure" to mean "segregation" for the purpose of argument) by its very nature.


Conflicts between cycles going straight on and vehicles turning into side roads exist already, also without cycle infrastructure.

True, some cyclists will attempt to undertake left turning vehicles and some drivers attempt to overtake cyclists as they approach a junction. These people are idiots.

Cycle paths institutionalise this idiocy by channelling unsuspecting cyclists into harms way.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13251
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders

Postby mjr » 23 Apr 2019, 5:18pm

Pete Owens wrote:
StephenW wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:
Of course it does (again assuming that you use "infrastructure" to mean "segregation" for the purpose of argument) by its very nature.


Conflicts between cycles going straight on and vehicles turning into side roads exist already, also without cycle infrastructure.

True, some cyclists will attempt to undertake left turning vehicles and some drivers attempt to overtake cyclists as they approach a junction. These people are idiots.

Cycle paths institutionalise this idiocy by channelling unsuspecting cyclists into harms way.

Use of the loaded pre-emptively-victim-blaming term "undertake" to signify passing quite legally in another lane or way identifies idiots far more reliably.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.