SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

tombrumfitt
Posts: 1
Joined: 13 May 2020, 5:01pm

SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby tombrumfitt » 13 May 2020, 5:29pm

New to these forums,as a relatively new cyclist can u explain why cycling lanes are on both sdes of a road.Most cycle lanes are under used because of the dangers to cyclists.why not build a single,wider lane to one side of the road,dual direction incorparating a concrete curb for added safety and allowing parking only on the opposite side of the road.I personally know lots of people who would love to cycle on a regular basis if all cycle lanes were protected by concrete curbing.Just asking????.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13995
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: SINGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby gaz » 13 May 2020, 10:21pm

Welcome to the forum.


Lack of political will and painted lanes are significantly cheaper than kerbs.

Painted line, about £2 per metre. Requires political will to deliver even though it doesn't prevent anybody from parking in it when they want to.

Protected cycle lanes, about £500 per metre (IIRC) because they require significant changes to junctions to make them safe. Requires a lot of political will to deliver, which is almost always lacking because it will reduce the number of potential parking spaces.

Painted lines with some light segregation such as wands (mini flexible bollards), about £20 per metre. Same issue with political will as it will take away parking.
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

chris_suffolk
Posts: 466
Joined: 18 Oct 2012, 10:01pm

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby chris_suffolk » 13 May 2020, 10:27pm

Just my personal opinion, but...

Many lanes are provided by councils to tick a box on cycle provision, and not actually designed to be fit for purpose - e.g. the number that disappear as soon as there's a traffic island because there's not enough width for bikes and cars. Also the large number that are (legally) used for car parking, thus rendering them useless, yet many drivers still get annoyed when you stray from them.

Doing the job properly, giving bikes proper protection and rights of way over drives and side turnings (where the main road does, but often cycle lanes have to give way) costs a LOT of money, and councils (and Govt) just don't want to spend the sums involved. Maybe the new Govt announcements will change that, will have to wait and see.

drossall
Posts: 4868
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby drossall » 13 May 2020, 10:34pm

There is an issue with lanes on one side of the road that, ultimately, cyclists end up crossing the road, potentially at both ends of the lane, to get back into a normal road position. Since junctions and crossing points with traffic are where accidents typically happen, and it's not very convenient, it's not always a win.

User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 2059
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby Tigerbiten » 14 May 2020, 3:28am

A lot of two way off road cycle lanes are built to the minimum spec possible to keep the cost down.
This means that they are not really wide enough for safe two way traffic.
I know because my recumbent trike can be almost the same width as some paths.

Luck ........... :D

atlas_shrugged
Posts: 391
Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby atlas_shrugged » 14 May 2020, 7:54am

Definitely agree that the cycle tracks should be spec'd to allow for multi-track cycles.

Cranebridge has a DNA path that was funded by the Sanger Institute I believe. It runs beside the railway and in its day was a quantum leap in cycle provision for the city. The path is not that wide and to demarcate the track coloured strip was placed down the centre which followed the sequencing of human genomes (or something). This is fine if you are on a conventional single track (two wheel) cycle.

If you ride this path on a multitrack then one wheel is on the tarmac and the other wheel goes bump bump bump as it travels over the coloured strips. Even more difficult are grounding issues where the track suddenly has a step change in gradient and then low cycles e.g. hand-cycles can ground.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1811
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby Pete Owens » 14 May 2020, 10:07am

tombrumfitt wrote:New to these forums,as a relatively new cyclist can u explain why cycling lanes are on both sides of a road.


To understand this, you have to remember that the purpose of cycle lanes is not to help us in any way, but to prevent us causing any delay whatsoever to motor vehicles. So it is basically a matter of painting cycle symbols on parts of the road surface that are surplus to drivers requirements. Ask yourself the question "Where would an anti-cyclist fanatic petrol-head want a cyclists to ride?" and that is where you will see cycle symbols painted. Most commonly this involves pushing cyclists off the road altogether by converting the pavement to shared use. It is only where a road is wider than needed for motors that cycle lanes are painted in the gutter to push us to the margins. You will notice that at any place where motorists may want to use the space (say at a pinch point, or to have more lanes approaching a junction or to install parking spaces) the cycle lane will simply vanish or become absurdly narrow (not that they are ever wide enough in the first place).

hemo
Posts: 784
Joined: 16 Nov 2017, 5:40pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby hemo » 14 May 2020, 6:41pm

I simply don't understand painted lines and a painted squashed bike on the roads as they do nothing what so ever to ensure the safety of a rider.

User avatar
TrevA
Posts: 2454
Joined: 1 Jun 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby TrevA » 9 Jun 2020, 9:02pm

We have one in Nottingham

It cost quite a lot of money to install - around a million pounds for about 5 miles of route, and the complaint of motorists is that it is underused.
0DCEDA1B-0313-4C3E-B0F9-0799D2C7107C.jpeg
it fills up with leaves in autumn and parts of it also flood. There’s also a problem with cars pulling across it to enter premises adjacent to it.

I’ve never used it, but I have used the similar one on the eastern side of the city. I think it does encourage more cyclists - the old route along the same road was just a painted line on the road.

I’ve seen crashes on similar bike lanes in London, where you get fast road bike commuters overtaking slow Boris Bikers, in the face of riders coming the other way.
A cart horse trapped in the body of a man.
http://www.jogler2009.blogspot.com

Pete Owens
Posts: 1811
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby Pete Owens » 10 Jun 2020, 12:30am

TrevA wrote:There’s also a problem with cars pulling across it to enter premises adjacent to it.

That is a particularly severe problem with bi-directional cycle lanes where cyclists are approaching from an unexpected direction.

However, at the moment there is an even more serious problem in that even the most spacious cycle lanes are not wide enough for cyclists to pass each other while keeping 2m apart.

mattsccm
Posts: 3302
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby mattsccm » 10 Jun 2020, 10:02am

A lane like that pictured would probably make me ride on the road unless it was really awful. The lanes are not wide enough and I would argue that anywhere busy enough to warrant such a thing would not be a suitable place for it. They are bad enough running through a park or somewhere without roads.
Maybe better than nothing I guess and different cyclists want different things.
I would think that a contra flow type lanes as above would be awful when it stopped, passed a junction etc. Also they have to have the left hand lane closest to the oncoming traffic which unpleasant as its where it wouldn't normally be.

wjhall
Posts: 114
Joined: 1 Sep 2014, 8:46am

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby wjhall » 11 Jun 2020, 6:34pm

mattsccm wrote:A lane like that pictured would probably make me ride on the road unless it was really awful. The lanes are not wide enough a... ....
...
I would think that a contra flow type lanes as above would be awful when it stopped, passed a junction etc. Also they have to have the left hand lane closest to the oncoming traffic which unpleasant as its where it wouldn't normally be.


Contraflow definitely becomes a problem when you want to get back on the correct side, and is a particular problem for two way lanes, because the rider nearest the motor traffic relies upon the care of the oncoming cyclist to avoid wobbling off the lane into the cars. At least that photo seems to be flush, apart from a raised kerb in parts, which must be better than the risk of dropping off an ordinary kerb on the usual shared pavement. On the Portway in Bristol I often pull over the right in good time and hide behind a lampost when I see oncoming cyclists, but no lamposts in the photo.

Like the fancy Baldwin Street showpiece in Bristol the photo given suggests that a cyclist on the lane will have to give way to traffic and pedestrians in more places than riding on the road.

Away from the ends contraflow may feel good when you have it to yourself because you can see conflicting turning traffic, although I suspect this may be more because it allows you to take avoiding action rather than because driver behaviour improves.

The only real place for cycle lanes carrying any real traffic is both sides, with the traffic, in the space often set out for bus lanes or parking. Whether this worsens the problem of turning traffic coming from behind or not is difficult to judge.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15815
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby mjr » 11 Jun 2020, 11:36pm

wjhall wrote:Contraflow definitely becomes a problem when you want to get back on the correct side,

That depends if you ever actually want to get to the left side. For example, Bristol Baldwin Street in the contraflow direction, there's a fair chance that you're going from Harbourside at one end and Castle Park at the other, so having to cross the motorist flows/jams twice would be rather needless and slow you down.

and is a particular problem for two way lanes, because the rider nearest the motor traffic relies upon the care of the oncoming cyclist to avoid wobbling off the lane into the cars.

How often do oncoming cyclists wobble across 4m?!?

Like the fancy Baldwin Street showpiece in Bristol the photo given suggests that a cyclist on the lane will have to give way to traffic and pedestrians in more places than riding on the road.

Neither the photographed section nor Baldwin Street require cyclists to give way to anything. If there's rampant reckless driving through it, the police should step in, and reckless driving can screw up anything, including road riding!

Away from the ends contraflow may feel good when you have it to yourself because you can see conflicting turning traffic, although I suspect this may be more because it allows you to take avoiding action rather than because driver behaviour improves.

Sometimes, but often drivers do behave better when they have to look you in the eye and try to harm you!

The only real place for cycle lanes carrying any real traffic is both sides, with the traffic, in the space often set out for bus lanes or parking. Whether this worsens the problem of turning traffic coming from behind or not is difficult to judge.

Yes, that probably should be the norm, but it's not always going to be optimal. Contraflows have their place.

It shouldn't worsen the problem of turning traffic because the cycleway should have priority, that should be encouraged through good design and ultimately enforced by law - but we're not there yet.
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.

wjhall
Posts: 114
Joined: 1 Sep 2014, 8:46am

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby wjhall » 24 Jul 2020, 9:38am

mjr wrote:

.... ....
I[/quote]

Find me a 4 m contraflow cycle lane and that might be true, but you still need kerb separation. It is not just wobbling but people taking a nonchalant attitude to overtaking, and other people's safety, and there are far too many cyclists like that. With someone intruding into your 2 m half you are at best in the 1 m nearest the traffic. Try the very sub-4 m sections of the Portway cycle track and the situation is dire. Marseilles are said to be constructing a nice corniche cycle track with a wall separating it from the road which would be much better for the Portway. However the Conservative mayor LR has just lost to a coalition including Greens so I suppose her pet project could be cancelled.

Baldwin Street has 5 places where you may be required to stop on the cycleway as against 3 if you use the road, the latter all light controlled and common to all tyraffic, the cycle track having two of the new pedestrian zebras to access floating bus stops, and an incorrectly marked parallel zebra across a side road, at which priority goes to the first to get on it, and the incorrect markings actually require you to dismount, whereas a cyclist going down Baldwin Street has unquestioned priority over the side road. A scored version is included in the pdf attachment, with dismounting weighted as 2. The Baldwin Street Lane also consumes road width that could have been used for cycling.
Image Attachments
Baldwin Street Give Way count - a.jpg
Last edited by wjhall on 24 Jul 2020, 1:25pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15815
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: SIGLE<DUAL FLOW CYCLE LANES

Postby mjr » 24 Jul 2020, 10:57am

wjhall wrote:Baldwin Street has 5 places where you may be required to stop on the cycleway as against 3 if you use the road, the latter all light controlled and common to all tyraffic, the cycle track having two of the new pedestrian zebras to access floating bus stops, and an incorrectly marked parallel zebra across a side road, at which priority goes to the first to get on it, and the incorrect markings actually require you to dismount, whereas a cyclist going down Baldwin Street has unquestioned priority over the side road. A scored version is included in the pdf attachment, with dismounting weighted as 2. The Baldwin Street Lane also consumes road width that could have been used for cycling.

All of that's in theory. The cycleway "may be required to stop" but rarely is, whereas you must stop at light controls even if the walkers have long gone - both those and the bus stop zebras are relatively rarely used to the point of requiring more than slight variation of approach speed. The incorrectly-marked parallel zebra is annoying but no-one dismounts in practice, nor are they required to do so (the incorrect markings just fail to give some legal protection); and a cyclist on the street does not have "unquestioned priority over the side road" in the mind of enough drivers so each one is effectively a "give way or be T-boned".

And we all know that the road width would not be used for cycling if given to the carriageway: motorists would take it for queuing or more parking, like usual. In theory, Victoria Street (the most direct route between Baldwin Street and the main station) is plenty wide enough for cycling in both directions, but in practice (at least when I last tried it) motorists park all over the northbound, sticking far outside the marked bays, and the council would rather use the width for (paid) parking, traffic islands and hatch markings than active travel, sending cyclists the long way round through Castle Park.

PS - would you mind fixing your misquote of me, please?
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.