9 ms·
Cycling commissioners say painted bike lanes don’t make cyclists feel safer
- NotPaidToPost 7y agoThe point of many of these cycle lanes is not to be useful to cyclists but to be useful to the council's PR.
- perfunctory 7y agoThis waist could be "understandable" if UK was a pioneer in this field. There are countries with excellent biking infrastructure already. Learn from them.
- nickforall 7y agoAs a dutchman i beg to differ.
- perfunctory 7y agoThe point of the article is not that the bike lanes are useless. Rather that the way they are implemented is woefully inadequate.
- nizmow 7y agoThere aren't many of these kinds of lanes here (NL), at least in the cities.
- mcv 7y agoIs any money getting spent on painted bicycle lanes in the UK? I'm surprised to hear that, because the very few I've seen there were a joke. The similar joke examples shown in this article don't seem far-fetched based on my (limited) experience in the UK.
- byteofbits 7y agoAs someone who has recently started to use cycle lanes to move around London I disagree with the view expressed in the article. Many of the cycle lanes I use everyday in West / Central London are only painted. I personally feel much safer in a cycle lane, even if only a painted one, simply because I don't have to worry as much about getting side-swiped by a bus. Seeing the end of a painted cycle lane is a good indication that the road ahead requires more complex navigation and will often cause me to slow down and be more cautious.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoAs some one who used to cycle a lot in London - the problem is the use of the reserved space at stop lines for cyclists as it teaches cyclist to aggressively undertake cars to get to the front. An before you down vote me - undertaking and getting hit causes 90% (aprox) of the fatal casualties in London.
- jessaustin 7y agoCould you define that term? All I'm getting are "a formal pledge or promise" and "the occupation of an undertaker".
- dmurray 7y agoUndertaking = passing on the left, in a system where traffic is meant to drive on the left and pass on the right. By analogy with overtaking, for passing on the right. Cyclists (in a bike lane or not) undertaking heavier vehicles certainly are involved in a lot of serious accidents. However it's a very twisted view of reality to say that this causes accidents. The proximate cause is the heavy vehicles turning left or pulling to the left without regard for the cyclist in their blind spot.
- jessaustin 7y agoOh that's a nice word! Being alive is better than being right, so blind spots are a bad place to be. Actually it's fine to be right behind a big vehicle, but I never want to be beside them for more than a couple of seconds...
- markus92 7y agoThe title of the article is a bit inaccurate, the main criticism is that badly marked bike lanes are a waste of money that could better be spend on more adequate infrastructure (so bike lanes that adhere to minimum safety standards etc.)
- alrs 7y agoBike lanes exist to get bicycles "out of the way," which is why we have a decades-long alliance between the car-insurance lobby and the sell-bicycles lobby to get bikes off the road and on to facilities. This is a losing strategy for people who actually ride bikes, the correct one is to lower speed limits.
- Al-Khwarizmi 7y agoI'm in favor of reducing speed lines, but I don't think that is enough. I haven't seen a city with more bikes (or where cycling works better) than Copenhagen, and it's full of bike lanes (the vast majority of them proper, segregated bike lanes, not painted, of course).
- frabbit 7y agoWhich cities have you cycle in to compare them with Copenhagen? (Assuming you did actually cycle in Copenhagen).
- Al-Khwarizmi 7y agoMadrid, Barcelona, London, Paris, Berlin, apart from other smaller cities in several countries. And yes, I also cycled in Copenhagen. Have to confess I haven't been to Amsterdam, which is also considered an extremely bike-friendly city, though.
- choeger 7y ago> This is a losing strategy for people who actually ride bikes, the correct one is to lower speed limits. I do not think that this is going to cut it. On a good day I easily do 30kph on a good road (that's why I prefer the painted lanes, btw., they tend to give you access to paved roads). With wind, or exhaustion, or any number of reasons, that speed can drop downwards to 20kph. Now I am definitely not the most well-trained person on the streets, but I am among the faster cyclists. So there are many that can only go about 15kph or even slower. So what speed limit would you actually pick? 20 would slow me down on my bike (I presume you do not belong to that minority that believes traffic rules do not apply to bikes), 30 would leave lots of slower cyclists behind. In an ideal world, city roads with two lanes would be converted as follows: Speed limit of 60 on the broader left lane, with a minimum speed of 40 or a strict "no bikes" policy. A 2m cycle priority lane on the right, cars may use it but at most 30kph and have to leave it when overtaking. Lanes separated by engravings in the pavement that make noise. Maybe even by some kerbs. Parking on that right lane, in particular deliveries, should be a serious offence. This way, in the case of serious congestion, cars can also take the right lane (I do not see any reason to demand a free road for any party in traffic), but will naturally use the left lane in better conditions. This should be seconded by clear paths and traffic lights to turn left from that right lane and to turn right from that left lane.
- prennert 7y agoPainted bicycle lanes are actually dangerous in my opinion. I cycle almost every day in London for now about 6 years. I avoid streets with painted cycle paths if I can (and take parallel side roads instead). The way I see it, painted cycle lanes makes cyclists feel secure, but does not create much awareness by motorists. They are mainly used on roads with a lot of traffic. Because they are painted they have sometimes hazardous layouts crisscrossing mainlanes (to turn right). The blue ones can be very slippery when wet. I really don't trust them when it is wet. Having a curb between the road and the cycle lanes, or elevating the cycle lanes on the level of the sidewalks is much saver for cyclists, because motorists can literally not cross over them. It also forces the planners to do a good job when designing junctions. For elevated cycle lanes though, paint can help rasing the awareness of pedestrians who often got in the habit of crossing anything without looking. What TfL needs is having their planners cycle to work, and to generally rethink their approach to pedestrians and cyclists. The fact that most pedestrian traffic light are often showing red even if no traffic is routed through them and the fact that many junctions with traffic lights for cars (even big ones) do not have pedestrian traffic lights, reeducates everyone not to care about the lights and just walk into the traffic. This is almost as much a hazard to everyone as cars (on smaller roads.with speed bumps anyway), as pedestrians can cross without warning. If this happens this obviously creates the risk of a cyclist (cycling on the far outside of the road to avoid cars) either swerving into traffic or taking a pedestrian out.
- lucideer 7y ago> painted cycle lanes makes cyclists feel secure, but does not create much awareness by motorists > It also forces the planners to do a good job when designing junctions. Living in Dublin, I have the opposite perspective on this. I much prefer roads with painted lanes (or better, no cycle lanes), as having cyclists on the road necessarily makes motorists more aware of their existence (particularly when you have a lot of cyclists, so this effect increases with usage). I agree that painted lanes give more of a false sense of security to cyclists than anything (motorists will still ignore you if they can), but with segregated lanes they always ignore you. This seems fine until you realise that well-planned segregated lanes are much more difficult to achieve (and where I live, an absolutel rarity—we have some of the most dangerously haphazard segregated lanes), and even very well-planned segregated lanes are still quite limiting in terms of cyclist movement. They lead to cycle congestion, cyclists become more of a danger to eachother, and you will always have entry/exit points which are far far more dangerous than if the cyclists had been on the road and visible all along. On a more political level, they also reinforce the idea that roads belong to cars, and that cyclists, by using them, are invading them and should not be there.
- superpermutat0r 7y agoJust like crosswalks. More accidents on crosswalks than somewhere else.
- tokai 7y agoBut what about accidents per crossing?
- superpermutat0r 7y agoHard to measure.
- otikik 7y agoWhen there's no dedicated line, just use the sidewalk. I go really slow near pedestrians / densely populated areas, and I try to minimize danger (think a child getting out of a building suddenly). Before it gets inconvenient or dangerous, I dismount. I know this can mean a fine, and I am aware that this can put some pedestrians at risk of bruising (again, I am careful, respectful and slow when I go on the sidewalk). But between that and risking death-by-car, well, the choice is simple.
- Angostura 7y agoNo. Don't. You may "try to minimise danger", but one day you will hit someone and injure them. You also make it difficult for nervous or timid pedestrians. I absolutely will walk in your way and give you a mouthful.
- python_gt_r3 7y agoAs he clearly explains, the choice is between bruising/injuring and being run over by a car. Blame it on the car drivers and urban planners.
- human20190310 7y agoMuch of the suburban US has busy roads with zero accommodation for bicycles and sidewalks with no people on them for half a mile (~1km) in each direction.
- jessaustin 7y agoIf that's the case, it will be easy to hop back on the road when you see a pedestrian. Only hillbillies bike on the sidewalk when pedestrians are present.
- wayoutthere 7y agoSorry, but no amount of verbal chewing out is going to change behavior on this one. It’s far safer for me on the sidewalk — and it’s far more likely both people walk away from an accident with a pedestrian than a vehicle. Edit: also, where I live (northeastern US) the roads have craters like Beirut in the 80s. Cars have problems on them, so cyclists ride on the sidewalk rather than swerve all over the road to find a path that won’t shred your rims / tires.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoAre segregated lanes any better? It seems to me that the vast bulk of the danger for cyclists is at intersections (the dreaded right hook, mostly). A segregated lane can make it harder for a car to see you and prevents you from taking the lane to make yourself obvious. What we need are protected intersections; the rest of the road can be painted or segregated, I don't really care. https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/four-u-s-cities-are-racing-to-open-the-countrys-first-protected-intersection/ https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/four-u-s-cities-are-racing-t... It really doesn't have to be much, just bollards in the middle of intersections forcing cars to make a wide right turn would be enough.
- protonimitate 7y agoIntersections are dangerous for sure, but I think it mostly depends on the city and driving culture each has. One thing that segregated lanes help immensely with is double-parking in painted bike lanes, and bus routes that weave in and out of bike lanes to make their stops. Ideally we'd have both segregated lanes and protected intersections.
- jessaustin 7y agobus routes that weave in and out of bike lanes Have you really found this to be a problem? Everywhere I've lived and cycled, buses are the most predictable vehicles on the road. When they approach from behind, they leave plenty of space. They rarely go very fast. They stop often enough that you'd never get stuck behind them. Unlike a lot of other "professionally driven" vehicles, they know where they're going and don't make last-second turns. They signal their turns. Any cyclist unaware enough to be endangered by a city bus is also threatened by every other vehicle on the street.
- leetcrew 7y ago> Everywhere I've lived and cycled, buses are the most predictable vehicles on the road. living in a midsize US east coast city, this does not match my experience at all. city bus drivers have the same mentality as truck drivers on the interstate: I'm bigger than you so you better get out of my way. it's a common occurrence to see a city bus pull all the way over to the right for a stop, then cut across four lanes of traffic to turn left at the next light.
- garethrees 7y agoHere's the letter from Chris Boardman and the other commissioners, which doesn't seem to be linked from the Guardian story: https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/media/2145/19-1309-secretary-of-state-policy-ask-letter-for-cycling-and-walking.pdf https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/media/2145/19-1309-s...
- python_gt_r3 7y agoPainted bike lanes correlate with bike lane interruptions. Often car drivers use those to park, to manoeuvre or even to speed up. It often coincides with bus lanes. A bus that stops forces the cyclist to change lane with a huge risk of cars coming from behind. Often you find bike lanes in the most harmless streets, while they disappear in dangerous junctions and roundabouts.
- usrusr 7y agoReally depends on implementation. The best and the worst bike lanes are painted on the road.
- _Codemonkeyism 7y agoIf not about painted or not-painted. It's about is the bike lane 4m wide or 1m. Painting 1m wide bike lanes is just because cities don't want to take away from cars. Painting 1m wide bike lanes is trying to eat the cake and have it. There is no free lunch. In Berlin most bike lanes are very narrow [1] while in Copenhagen most bike lanes are wide enough to feel safe and have two bikes next to each other. No one cares about paint. [1] ... and winding, and blocked all the time by delivery trucks, parking cars and construction sites, and taking 90 degree turns around obstacles, and full of overgrown bushes ...
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoI can think of several states in which bike lanes are basically nonexistent that are better for cycling than my state which goes somewhat out of its way to put in bike lanes simply because the former require an approximately lane-wide shoulder on all but the smallest roads and it is the de-facto bike lane when bikes are present.
- einpoklum 7y agoThis is BS title. Painted cycling lanes are an important part of the cycling environment. No, in themselves, they don't make me - as a cyclist - feel safe. But _without_ them, I will never feel safe. They need to be _added_ to by education from a young age and during driver training, as well as through cultural products such as TV programming, films, books, social media etc. And by "education" I mean the education to never swerve into bike lanes, watching out for bikers, never walking onto bike lanes as a pedestrian etc. Of course, a hard separation of a bike lane from the other lanes increases safety; but that cannot be expected to exist everywhere, or in most streets even.
- jimmux 7y agoI don't feel safe on some of the marked cycling lanes I use regularly, but you're right that it's still a good step toward education and acceptance. There's a marked lane on my commute that I now ride much more carefully than the roads I use, because pedestrians are more likely to step out, and cars open doors without looking, because the lane seems to give them a false sense of safety. But with time they can learn that it should be the opposite. I'm mostly grateful for clearly marked lanes when there's an incident and I can simply point out that yes, I do actually have a right to be riding there and they should have been looking where they're going.