Benefits of painted cycle lanes?

[mikeymo]

And of course it becomes positively dangerous rather than simply uncomfortably narrow if you use it to channel cyclists into the dooring zone of a parking bay - Maudlin Street Bristol:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4581131,-2.5964467,3a,75y,21.58h,84.68t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVqj4_jNLtKdVlOm_NQ8nUQ!2e0!5s20200901T000000!7i16384!8i8192
While the cycle lane does look to be 2m wide at that point, I can't see any excuse for not using the entire width of the former traffic lane and painting a hatched buffer strip in the dooring zone.

Good old Google. Using the earlier street view images it looks to me like they made it worse, for cyclists and motorists.

[Bmblbzzz]

The July 2019 photo shows an exceptionally empty scene. Perhaps it was early on a Sunday morning. Having one lane clear to cycle in is a vast improvement on squeezing by two solid lanes of jam, which is (was until Covid) the situation at rush hour. Plus, the reduction in car capacity has led to some traffic avoiding the street. It actually makes more difference in the other direction, which is uphill. Here: https://goo.gl/maps/yhrrr1cLfqBKm21W6
you can see the difference in width between the old cycle lane (red) with two motor lanes, and the new cycle lane (second white line from the kerb, with cycle symbol - plus the old red lane still available as well, of course) plus one motor lane.

Yes, it could be improved. For instance, by protection with wands. The parking was there already and you're further from the door zone now. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen because, amongst other things, our mayor is very timid and is in thrall to the idea of not disadvantaging low income drivers. I believe his transport man, Kyle Dudd, has bigger ideas but don't know how much freedom he has to implement them. But it is better than it was, for cyclists, pedestrians and hospital patients, staff and visitors.

[mikeymo]

The July 2019 photo shows an exceptionally empty scene. Perhaps it was early on a Sunday morning. Having one lane clear to cycle in is a vast improvement on squeezing by two solid lanes of jam, which is (was until Covid) the situation at rush hour. Plus, the reduction in car capacity has led to some traffic avoiding the street. It actually makes more difference in the other direction, which is uphill. Here: https://goo.gl/maps/yhrrr1cLfqBKm21W6
you can see the difference in width between the old cycle lane (red) with two motor lanes, and the new cycle lane (second white line from the kerb, with cycle symbol - plus the old red lane still available as well, of course) plus one motor lane.

Yes, it could be improved. For instance, by protection with wands. The parking was there already and you're further from the door zone now. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen because, amongst other things, our mayor is very timid and is in thrall to the idea of not disadvantaging low income drivers. I believe his transport man, Kyle Dudd, has bigger ideas but don't know how much freedom he has to implement them. But it is better than it was, for cyclists, pedestrians and hospital patients, staff and visitors.

Thanks, it's a bit difficult to tell, what with the distorting effect of Google car wide angle lenses and such like. I'm sure I've not cycled that road, though I may have driven it (would I go that way to get to the back door of the Hippodrome?). With the new "wide" cycle lane, is it possible to still be in the lane, but out of "dooring" danger?

[Bmblbzzz]

That is pretty near the Hippodrome (was there in February, when will I go there again?).

I don't know that it's possible to ride in the lane and totally out of dooring danger, at least not without being uncomfortably close to the cars in the next lane, but certainly further away than you would have been previously.

[Stevek76]

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen because, amongst other things, our mayor is very timid and is in thrall to the idea of not disadvantaging low income drivers. I believe his transport man, Kyle Dudd, has bigger ideas but don't know how much freedom he has to implement them.

Not much unfortunately, dudd is his third transport person and both the previous ones left, at least partly from being too 'radical'. I don't think Marvin is particularly interested in transport, the block seems to come from his office and particularly his head of comms kevin slocombe. I think Marvin's apparent rather petty dislike of his predecessor means he tends to be easily open to being convinced not to do such things even with the mountain of evidence he gets shown on the inequality problems of car dependency and air pollution.

Can't help but think much of the recent progress is more a result of the possibility of avoiding having to charge cars in a clean air zone than anything else.

[Bmblbzzz]

Can't help but think much of the recent progress is more a result of the possibility of avoiding having to charge cars in a clean air zone than anything else.

Marvin has explicitly stated this.

[Wanlock Dod]

I’m a bit surprised that so far nobody has suggested that the opportunity for councils to claim that they have done something for cyclists without inconveniencing drivers in any way might be viewed as a benefit, although it is admittedly one that is only available to councillors and council staff. Perhaps that could be best summarised as virtue signalling.

It’s quite telling that the most positive study I am aware of on painted cycle lanes is this one, and all it says is that other factors (drivers, road width, parking, oncoming traffic) may be more important than the painted cycle lanes. Perhaps the lead author wanted to justify painting some useless infrastructure.

So, given that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of painted cycle lanes providing any discernible benefit (for cyclists at least), despite a couple of decades of implementation, and more recently evidence that they probably make road conditions worse for cyclists, should councils continue to maintain them? Perhaps a better option would actually be to remove them, or at least not repaint them once worn away by drivers using them.

[roberts8]

I think k most painted bike lanes are useless and having been doored a few times i cycle far enough out to avoid a door then get moaned at for not being in the cycle lane. Just let them fade away but push for the same legal protection for cycling as in EU. Sorry we can't do that but should use it as a benchmark of good practice and just share the road as even dedicated cycle tracks always re enter smack on a roundabout or road junction which is not much help.

[colin54]

There's one of those 'door zone' lanes in Spencer Road, Wigan, they should have saved the paint, you have to be on the extreme right of the lane to avoid being doored, plus car driver's vision and cyclist's vice-versa is obscured coming out of drives.

Here and back up the road on Google Maps.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.56070 ... 6656?hl=en

[Psamathe]

There's one of those 'door zone' lanes in Spencer Road, Wigan, they should have saved the paint, you have to be on the extreme right of the lane to avoid being doored, plus car driver's vision and cyclist's vice-versa is obscured coming out of drives.
P1140346.JPG
Here and back up the road on Google Maps.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.56070 ... 6656?hl=en

Cycling in NL I've come across a few such lanes and (because the roads were deserted) cycled well out. Might there be a "copy NL" aspect in their design whilst not appreciating that Dutch drivers think about cyclists a lot more so "car dooring" is not the issue there as it is in the UK. I've no facts not data on this, just I've noticed a few such lanes then it's my supposition.

Ian

[mjr]

I don't think door zone lanes are allowed any more in NL. The ones remaining are probably old and will be fixed when resources permit.

should councils continue to maintain them? Perhaps a better option would actually be to remove them, or at least not repaint them once worn away by drivers using them.

An even better option would be to convert useless paint lanes into proper cycleways by widening, installing protective measures, rearranging the road and so on.

[Pete Owens]

There's one of those 'door zone' lanes in Spencer Road, Wigan, they should have saved the paint, you have to be on the extreme right of the lane to avoid being doored, plus car driver's vision and cyclist's vice-versa is obscured coming out of drives.
P1140346.JPG
Here and back up the road on Google Maps.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.56070 ... 6656?hl=en

You need to ride completely outside that cycle lane to avoid the door zone. If the designers had any concern whatsoever for cyclists then the area would be hatched to signal to cyclists to avoid riding on that part of the road.

It is a mistake to think of this as poor design. The entire purpose of segregation is to direct us out of the way of motors in order to keep the important traffic moving irrespective to the consequences to us - and from that perspective a dooring-zone cycle lane fulfils its intended purpose.

[mjr]

It is a mistake to think of this as poor design. The entire purpose of segregation is to direct us out of the way of motors in order to keep the important traffic moving irrespective to the consequences to us - and from that perspective a dooring-zone cycle lane fulfils its intended purpose.

It is more of a mistake to keep pretending that door zone cycle lanes are in any current design standards or guidance. They are poor design, not part of some conspiracy to steal the roads.

Vehicularism has failed. Trying to force people to ride stop-start among heavy motor vehicles reduces cycling, and a low cycling and high motoring culture is the biggest enabler of banning cyclists from some roads or at least signposting them onto less direct routes, not whether some bike symbols are painted in a lane.

Crap cycle lanes are still crap and should be fixed or removed (ideally with other measures to rehumanise the road and reduce motor traffic speeds and volumes), but vehicularists never want to leave it at that and work on what we agree on. They never seem able to resist suggesting that crap cycle lanes work as intended as part of some conspiracy.

[Wanlock Dod]

..., but vehicularists never want to leave it at that and work on what we agree on. They never seem able to resist suggesting that crap cycle lanes work as intended as part of some conspiracy.

Given that there has been a couple of decades of implementation of painted cycle lanes in some areas it seems to be reasonable to expect that if there were any evidence of benefits from them that it would be apparent, either in terms of direct evidence of large increases in levels of cycling on those routes, or appreciably reduced risks to cyclists, rather than a weight of evidence suggesting closer passing by drivers and evidence of increased risk of injuries.

[mjr]

..., but vehicularists never want to leave it at that and work on what we agree on. They never seem able to resist suggesting that crap cycle lanes work as intended as part of some conspiracy.

Given that there has been a couple of decades of implementation of painted cycle lanes in some areas it seems to be reasonable to expect that if there were any evidence of benefits from them that it would be apparent, either in terms of direct evidence of large increases in levels of cycling on those routes, or appreciably reduced risks to cyclists, rather than a weight of evidence suggesting closer passing by drivers and evidence of increased risk of injuries.

Firstly, they were almost never implemented fully for at least the last 12 years and I suspect not before that, so all the evidence can say is that crap cycle lanes don't work and I think that could have been predicted.

Secondly, I won't defend painted lanes. They should be fixed and replaced by more encouraging cycling infrastructure.