Benefits of painted cycle lanes?

[Wanlock Dod]

Is anybody aware of any published studies demonstrating the benefits of cycle lanes that are marked by paint only?

I’m aware that there are several studies of passing distances left by overtaking vehicles and that some of them suggest closer passing where painted lanes exist, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a consensus one way or another overall. There are plenty of advisory cycle lanes around the country, some of which have been in place for quite a while, so there has been plenty of opportunities for their benefits to be demonstrated and documented but I seem to be really struggling to find the relevant studies.

[mjr]

Can you think of a single advisory cycle lane which fully complies with the current (LTN 1/20) or immediately previous (LTN 2/08) guidance? I can't. So it would be rather difficult to study them in any useful way.

I suspect studies might exist for NL ones but then we would hear protests that UK motorists are worse than NL ones, or that the different liability laws have an effect.

[rareposter]

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... nds-422068

From my own personal experience, there are no benefits to such lanes. Full of debris, potholes and parked cars, far too narrow to be useful, they're generally put there as a tickbox exercise for councils to say they've allocated all their active travel funding and they result in close passes ("oh, the cyclist is an inch to the left of the line, my wheels can therefore be an inch to the right and it's fine") or abuse for not using it ("use the fahkin cycle lane!!!").

Hateful things.

[Pete Owens]

Is anybody aware of any published studies demonstrating the benefits of cycle lanes that are marked by paint only?

I’m aware that there are several studies of passing distances left by overtaking vehicles and that some of them suggest closer passing where painted lanes exist, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a consensus one way or another overall. There are plenty of advisory cycle lanes around the country, some of which have been in place for quite a while, so there has been plenty of opportunities for their benefits to be demonstrated and documented but I seem to be really struggling to find the relevant studies.

All the studies point to the same conclusion - that cycle lanes result in closer passing (that is the definition of consensus). Hardly surprising, since the very purpose of segregation of whatever type is, and always has been, to clear cyclists out of the way of the all important motor traffic. Once you paint a line then overtaking motorists assume that last mm to the right of it is theirs - no need to judge a safe passing clearance - the traffic engineers have done that for them.

Of course as far as the traffic engineers are concerned that closer passing IS the very benefit they are aiming for. ie. a benefit for motors at the expense of cyclists.

[mikeymo]

All the studies point to the same conclusion - that cycle lanes result in closer passing (that is the definition of consensus).

Yes, you are completely correct. I've read those studies too.

[Stevek76]

This recent research from TfL found advisory paint to be more dangerous than no paint and mandatory paint to be of no benefit

https://findingspress.org/article/18226 ... astructure

It focused on commutes only and the cycling routes were derived from TfL's cycling transport model (since obviously stats19 doesn't cover that) so

Can you think of a single advisory cycle lane which fully complies with the current (LTN 1/20) or immediately previous (LTN 2/08) guidance? I can't.

A key factor. Although at the same time the window of traffic volumes & speeds where lanes are considered appropriate and mixed traffic isn't in ltn1/20 is so small as to make them effectively redundant anyway. Thing is, if the relevant authority of a road is willing to set aside 1.5-2m for a cycle lane, they're probably willing to put some light segregation down or make it a stepped track.

[Bowedw]

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/painted-cycle-lanes-result-close-passes-drivers-study-finds-422068

From my own personal experience, there are no benefits to such lanes. Full of debris, potholes and parked cars, far too narrow to be useful, they're generally put there as a tickbox exercise for councils to say they've allocated all their active travel funding and they result in close passes ("oh, the cyclist is an inch to the left of the line, my wheels can therefore be an inch to the right and it's fine") or abuse for not using it ("use the fahkin cycle lane!!!").

Hateful things.

Fully agree and would go further and say that they are downright dangerous.
The current trend to pedestrian/cycle paths and shared pavements, painted lanes in most areas are just another nail in coffin for cyclists freedom to use the roads. Better measures to safeguard cyclists on the road would be far better in my opinion. Better training for drivers and proper sentences for breaching the law. Unfortunatelly under the present biased system it's a licence to even get away with murder.

[mjr]

.
The current trend to pedestrian/cycle paths and shared pavements, painted lanes in most areas are just another nail in coffin for cyclists freedom to use the roads. Better measures to safeguard cyclists on the road would be far better in my opinion.

The current trend is to dedicated cycleways, whether kerb or post protected, now with specific prohibitions on using gov.uk money on shared pavements. Maybe your local council has not yet caught up and is still micturating its own money up the wall, but this will catch up with it once the new inspectorate is up and running and building crap for cyclists and walkers will mean a cut in funding for motorists.

And the freedom to cycle on roads has nothing to do with provision of cycleways, with most roads that cyclists are banned from having no adjacent cycle route. In some examples (including the recent A14 Huntingdon bypass bypass), the absurd justification was that no-one currently cycled the route (then across open fields) so they did not need to provide any cycleway - despite the same reasoning applying to motorists!

Better training for drivers and proper sentences for breaching the law. Unfortunatelly under the present biased system it's a licence to even get away with murder.

In practice, you cannot get anything like this through without getting more people cycling, so we need to do something else first - but that isn't only cheap and ineffective paint and signs, whether on road or path.

[pjclinch]

.
The current trend to pedestrian/cycle paths and shared pavements, painted lanes in most areas are just another nail in coffin for cyclists freedom to use the roads. Better measures to safeguard cyclists on the road would be far better in my opinion.

The current trend is to dedicated cycleways, whether kerb or post protected, now with specific prohibitions on using gov.uk money on shared pavements. Maybe your local council has not yet caught up and is still micturating its own money up the wall, but this will catch up with it once the new inspectorate is up and running and building crap for cyclists and walkers will mean a cut in funding for motorists.

mjr is quite right here, have a look through LTN 1/20 (download at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906344/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf) and particularly section 1.61 2) which states:

Cycles must be treated as vehicles and not as pedestrians. On urban streets, cyclists must be physically separated from pedestrians and should not share space with pedestrians. Where cycle routes cross pavements, a physically segregated track should always be provided. At crossings and junctions, cyclists should not share the space used by pedestrians but should be provided with a separate parallel route.

Shared use routes in streets with high pedestrian or cyclist flows should not be used. Instead, in these sorts of spaces distinct tracks for cyclists should be made, using sloping, pedestrian-friendly kerbs and/or different surfacing. Shared use routes away from streets may be appropriate in locations such as canal towpaths, paths through housing estates, parks and other green spaces, including in cities. Where cycle routes use such paths in built-up areas, you should try to separate them from pedestrians, perhaps with levels or a kerb.

LTN 1/20 is one of those documents which is difficult to square with coming out of the current government because it's clearly the work of folk that know what they're on about and have thought long and hard about the detail. However, it's fair to say that Local government, who are actually responsible for doing the work on the ground, have highly variable amounts of Applied Clue in this field and it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few transport departments up and down the country have turned a blind eye to it.

Pete.

[John Holiday]

Unfortunately, painted lines never saved anyone, & are only applied by Highways Authorities personnel who don’t ride& only think of motor vehicles.
The best idea is the “armadillos” spaced at about five metre intervals. Give drivers a nasty jolt if they encroach!

[Bmblbzzz]

I think it depends on the width of the painted lane. There's a busy road in central Bristol (Maudlin St) which used to be two mv-lanes with a narrow painted cycle lane. This didn't really create any room for cycling though might have encouraged some more cautious cyclists to pass the stationary queues. This year, it became one motor lane with a wide - estimate at least 1.5m, possibly more - cycle lane, and this does result in a feeling of space. There are also wand-protected sections, which seem to work okay now the drivers have stopped driving into them, but aren't quite so wide.

[Pete Owens]

And to see how much less space cyclists get when subjected to those 1.5m cycle lanes take a look at:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf
Or indeed any of the other more quantitative studies.

The issue is not whether cyclists can physically fit within the confines of a cycle lane, but how this facilitates higher speeds and closer passing by motorists. Which is of course is the entire purpose of them from the point of view of the traffic engineers who design them. To encompass the amount of space cyclists need on a low speed road you need 2.25m:


Once we understand cycle lanes as an inherently cycle hostile concept (effectively reallocating road space from cyclists to motor traffic), we need to unite in opposition to them and call for their wholescale removal of all cycle lanes thinner than that.

[Pete Owens]

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.

[mjr]

And to see how much less space cyclists get when subjected to those 1.5m cycle lanes

which are now clearly substandard and explicitly discouraged by the DfT, which says at least 2.0m is needed.

And instructs a 0.5m buffer zone next to parked cars.

I don't see the point of analysing substandard crap. Everyone know it shouldn't be built. It's only used by a few 70s throwback councils who don't care and they clearly aren't reading and acting on anything published this century!

[Bmblbzzz]

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.

Do you know our mayor? It sounds as if mjr does!

That bit actually works better IMO than this bit: https://goo.gl/maps/5pBbpXkcXzqq1DMv5 Nevertheless it's all an improvement on what used to be there, and not just (or even mainly) for cycling. At least for the time being it is -- the mayor and his team are hoping it gets them out of finally implementing a clean air plan, which is already three years past its official due-by date.