1m cycle lanes?

[TonyR]

A suggestion by one of the big transport infrastructure consultancies that 1m is perfectly adequate for a cycle lane so you can have more trees.

[youtube]dcOTzh3ZHis[/youtube]


The full presentation here:

[youtube]xreo6JGvmRM[/youtube]

[Vantage]

I wonder if he'd support reducing all streets to 1 1/2 lanes since that's what he's suggesting for bike lanes?
I can see what he's getting at but it's clear this guy is a driver and not a cyclist.
I got my tape measure out having seen this and sure enough my vantage is just under half a metre wide at the bars. Am I expected to scrape knuckles with the next drop bar biker that comes along and what do I do when encountering a mountain or hybrid bike? Do we completely ban recumbent trikes seeing as those are absolute monsters taking up the whole lane??? And god help anyone dragging a two seater child trailer!

[Steady rider]

Quite a poor approach to cycling issues.

[PRL]

A few good cycle rides would help his viewpoint as well as his physical health.
The problem is that overtaking cars see the cycle lane as all the space that they need to give a cyclist. The Highway Code recommends as much space as overtaking a car which implies 2.5m ( 2m of car and 0.5m clearance ). To put it another way the dynamic envelope of a cyclist is at least 1m so allowing for clearance both sides requires 2m.
The minimum recommended general width of a cycle lane is 2m for a very good reason.

[hubgearfreak]

haha, i thought maybe you meant length. as we all know, 1m wide is just a waste of paint attempting to keep motors going fast

[Pete Owens]

A few good cycle rides would help his viewpoint as well as his physical health.
The problem is that overtaking cars see the cycle lane as all the space that they need to give a cyclist. The Highway Code recommends as much space as overtaking a car which implies 2.5m ( 2m of car and 0.5m clearance ). To put it another way the dynamic envelope of a cyclist is at least 1m so allowing for clearance both sides requires 2m.
The minimum recommended general width of a cycle lane is 2m for a very good reason.

Indeed so - but the standards go on to recommend an absolute minimum of 1.5m - which most designers seem to treat as a maximum. This is why cycle lanes make conditions so much worse for cyclists:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf

Ironically a 1m cycle lane is probably less of a problem than one meeting the standard as it is obvious even to the dimmest driver (though perhaps not Oxford cycle campaigners) that there simply isn't room for a cyclist to fit in it - while they will treat every mm of space to the right of a 1.5m lane as theirs.

[CJ]

Given that the cycle lanes shown are merely advisory, the dashed lines may be crossed as necessary (with due care and consideration for other vehicles using the lane crossed into), there is no harm and a lot of good in making them wide enough for cyclists to feel comfortable using them.

If the remaining carriageway is too narrow for two cars to pass, does that matter? In an earlier part of this presentation, the man with Parsimonious-Blinkers-on is quite delighted by the natural traffic-calming when drivers have to slow down and even stop for one another in order to negotiate a High Street narrowed by parked cars. Why is narrowing by provision of decent cycle lanes (as well as trees) not also a good thing? A cycle lane is far less of an obstacle after all, than a parked car. The driver only has to check his nearside mirror and then likely as not can simply pull over a bit to let an opposing vehicle pass.

I have learned by long experience that it is safest to ride with my wheels about 1m from the nearside kerb, so as to avoid hazardous gutter features or litter, and still have a bit of wobble room in the event of being passed alarmingly close, or caught by a gust of wind. This means anyone driving to the edge of a 1m cycle lane is going to hit me - unless I ride closer to the kerb than I usually deem to be safe. So on a road with such narrow lanes I do nevertheless ride that close, trading the danger of the gutter with the danger of those who drive to the edge of 'my' lane. So if our Blinkered observer sets up his camera there, he'll film me proceeding thus, likewise apparently happy with his narrow lane. But I'm not. I know it's making my cycling more hazardous one way or another and where possible I'll avoid that road!

But the Parsimonious one does not have a problem with creating streets on which cyclists feel unwelcome. About the lack of cycling facilities in his pictures of of pedestrian-friendly Kensington High Street and the Strand, he blandly asserts that cyclists can use other routes!

This is just more of the same old 1970s driver and pedestrian centred planning, with the slightest of nods to the notion that some strange people might still want to get about by bike, instead of the normal pattern of driving, parking, then walking.
EDIT: Given a nasty twist by portraying cyclists as the enemies of trees!

[beardy]

EDIT: Given a nasty twist by portraying cyclists as the enemies of trees!

He could have assumed that we like trees so much that he should grow them on our cycle lanes, he wouldnt be the first to do that.

[PRL]

A few good cycle rides would help his viewpoint as well as his physical health.
The problem is that overtaking cars see the cycle lane as all the space that they need to give a cyclist. The Highway Code recommends as much space as overtaking a car which implies 2.5m ( 2m of car and 0.5m clearance ). To put it another way the dynamic envelope of a cyclist is at least 1m so allowing for clearance both sides requires 2m.
The minimum recommended general width of a cycle lane is 2m for a very good reason.

Indeed so - but the standards go on to recommend an absolute minimum of 1.5m - which most designers seem to treat as a maximum. This is why cycle lanes make conditions so much worse for cyclists:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/report/cycle-lanes.pdf

Ironically a 1m cycle lane is probably less of a problem than one meeting the standard as it is obvious even to the dimmest driver (though perhaps not Oxford cycle campaigners) that there simply isn't room for a cyclist to fit in it - while they will treat every mm of space to the right of a 1.5m lane as theirs.

In London the Guidance is pretty clear (p54) of http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lcds-chapter4 ... tracks.pdf
Not that Borough Engineers don't try to get away with less but TfL funding is conditional on Level of Service.
I doubt if your dimmest of drivers will notice the width of the cycle lane.

[TonyR]

His contact details are on the public record as it turns out: http://www.wspgroup.com/en/WSP-UK/What- ... -support-/

[drossall]

I looked at plans for the recent M1 junction 10 (Luton Airport) improvement scheme, a bit back. They included the stunning statement that, at Kidney Wood, the width of cycle lanes would be reduced to limit environmental impact (on the wood). Whilst most here would want to protect the environment, I'm struggling to see this as a reasonable approach to achieving it. I don't actually know whether this extraordinary plan was implemented. Or maybe it was different from what the short sentence I saw implies?

[MikeF]

I watched the complete video to understand the context.
There seemed to be some conflicts in what he was saying. For example he seemed to find it quite OK for a street to to be reduced to one lane because it had parked cars either side and therefore traffic was slow, and for a bus lane to be reduced to 2metres, but then threw in the question of whether bicycle lanes need to be as wide as they are because 1 metre ones seem to be quite OK in Oxford after saying "there's plenty of room to have adequate cycle lanes" there .

He did say he cycled down the Strand the other day and the website states "Often the ‘highways design’ of places is separated out from the overall design development. This can lead to places where roads dominate and pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users are downgraded in terms of the environments that they have to use."

Really it was difficult to understand what message he was trying to convey except perhaps streets should have more trees.

[Mick F]

.........a bus lane to be reduced to 2metres ..........

The bus I drive regularly is 2.5m wide.

[MikeF]

.........a bus lane to be reduced to 2metres ..........

The bus I drive regularly is 2.5m wide.

"2 metres wide" is what he said (about 11min 20sec). It's in Copenhagen though, not for those wide Cornish roads. Don't drive your bus in Copenhagen - it won't fit.

[Pete Owens]

Doesn't he realise that the correct place to plant trees is in the middle of the 1m cycle lane?
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/January2016.htm