Here’s John Franklin on cycle paths:
"The fear that bikes and cars are incapable of mixing safely has led to the popular belief that for cycling to be a practical mode of transport, cyclists should keep – or be kept – out of the way of motor traffic as much as possible. This has led to a concentration on engineering measures to promote cycling, and in particular on measures that segregate cyclists, in varying degrees, from other traffic.
So strong is the perception that cycle paths and other facilities must be safer than riding in traffic that few people look further. But where this has been done – and in particular where account has been taken of unreported crashes, which are much more common off-road, although they are not necessarily less serious – the statistics are not comforting. From across Europe and America there is much evidence of cycle facilities being the least safe place to cycle.
People tend to fear most being hit from behind whilst cycling – the only type of crash best prevented by segregation – but this risk is very small, especially for someone who rides conscientiously. Most crashes are as a result of turning or crossing movements, and occur because the cyclist is not seen, or his actions not predicted. All drivers give most attention to those parts of the highway where there is risk to themselves, and see much less easily anything, or anyone, outside of a quite narrow field of vision. A cyclist is safest riding within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it.
Cycle paths alongside roads are often advocated as the 'ideal' way to improve cycling safety, but to the surprise of many people, their safety record in practice is poor. It is in fact easy to see why.
Consider a simple T-junction with a cycle path parallel to the through road. (See diagram) The first thing to notice, is that the addition of the cycle path changes a 3-way junction into a 5-way one, increasing its complexity for cyclists and motorists alike. Good road engineering strives to minimise confusion; making a junction more complicated invariably increases the likelihood of someone making a mistake.
Look at two cyclists approaching the junction, one on the cycle path and the other on the road. The path cyclist has to look for danger through an angle of up to 270°, for he is at risk not only from traffic entering or leaving the side road ahead, but also from vehicles following that might turn into the side road. Looking for traffic through such a large angle requires much movement of the head, which takes time, and the cyclist has no way to influence the actions of other drivers. Last-minute changes of circumstances are easily missed. At busy times, the only way to be really sure that there is no danger from any direction is to stop, and even then the cyclist may face increased risk re-starting.
The road cyclist, on the other hand, can use positioning and listening to reduce the angle over which concentration is necessary to less than 90° close to the junction, which is within the compass of eye movement alone and can therefore be carried out more easily and quickly. Through positioning, a cyclist can exert considerable influence on the movements of other vehicles, as well as ensuring that he is easily seen. He also enjoys the benefit of a speedier and less complicated passage.
This example illustrates, too, why collisions at cycle path crossings are often more serious than crashes elsewhere on roads. If a cyclist is hit by a car at a crossing, he will be hit side-on and will bear the full force attributable to the car's velocity. Most road collisions, on the other hand, involve only a glancing impact when the force felt by the cyclist is less.
Cycle lanes and other means by which cyclists are expected to ride separately from general traffic lead to similar problems and, again, the casualty record is not good. The actions of cyclists are best understood and respected by others when they are following the same rules of the road. If cyclists behave differently to other road users, they can expect to come into conflict with them more often, for the mutual understanding, so essential for road-sharing, will be less. Many facilities introduced to improve cycling safety address problems that seldom lead to crashes, whilst introducing new dangers that do. At the same time, they require cyclists to exercise greater, rather than less, skill in more demanding situations. Many people simply can't cope.
Good road positioning is not about keeping out of the path of other traffic as much as possible. Telling cyclists to keep to the road edge, and restricting their movements through cycle lanes, compromises their ability to react to changing circumstances and encourages bad riding practice generally."
Franklin again in Cyclecraft:
"If there is a cycle lane marked across the mouth of a side road always ignore it. Such lanes pass through the very place where risk of collision is greatest."
A major reason why cycle paths are so impractical is that they are constructed like footpaths, but pedestrians can turn on the spot and step sideways, wheeled vehicles can’t. Another example is having to wait for four changes of the traffic lights to make a right turn at a crossroads. Cyclists are also recommended not to use cycle paths when riding fast.
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
The DVSA is the branch of the Department of Transport that publishes the Highway Code, Cyclecraft for cyclists, and Roadcraft for advanced motorists. Here are the instructions published by the DVSA for cycle instructors who are being trained to teach the National Standard for Cycle Training:
"In the UK no cycle facilities are compulsory for cyclists to use. Therefore the choice over whether to use any facilities provided should be on the basis of whether or not they will give the cyclist any advantage in terms of safety and/or access. This will be for the individual cyclist to decide. Staying in the normal flow of traffic rather than using a cycle facility is therefore a valid choice……….The choice of whether to use facilities should always lie with the cyclist.
The trainee should decide whether or not to use cycle infrastructure and explain their decisions whether they are for reasons of safety or convenience.…..Reasoning: The quality of design of cycle lanes and facilities varies greatly……Where lanes are narrow, they will undoubtedly be safer riding in the primary position [centre of the traffic track] outside the cycle lane. Trainees should also avoid cycling in lanes where the surface is poor. Cycle lanes can often be blocked by parked vehicles and other obstructions or be so short and/ or narrow that their use would be unreasonable and getting in and out of them expose the cyclist to more risk."
So there you have it, straight from the horse’s DVSA’s mouth.
Here’s Duncan Pickering from the *Institute of Advanced Motoring*:
"A bicycle is a vehicle on the road and a person riding it has the right to act like any other person on the road….. Some motorists think it is a divine right to be moving at whatever speed they want…….. I'm afraid it is tough if a cyclist holds them up."
The other way in which cycle paths make cycling more dangerous is that they cultivate the arrogant “get outa my way” attitude amongst motorists, which then makes the roads that don’t have cycle tracks more dangerous. Traffic engineer Hans Monderman turned urban transportation planning upside down with the groundbreaking concept of “Shared Space.” His idea is disarmingly simple: remove traffic lights, signs, crosswalks, lane markers and even curbs so that pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists must negotiate their way through streets by interacting with, and reacting to, one another.
Monderman’s work demonstrated that city and village streets become safer when they are stripped of traffic controls so that drivers must take cues from observing people rather than signs. Though it sounds chaotic, the results of Shared Space have shown to be just the opposite: traffic moves slower and the rate of major accidents declines drastically.
“A wide road with a lot of signs is… saying, go ahead, don’t worry, go as fast as you want, there’s no need to pay attention to your surroundings. And that’s a very dangerous message.”
“All those signs are saying to cars, ‘this is your space, and we have organized your behaviour so that as long as you behave this way, nothing can happen to you’. That is the wrong story”.
“Who has the right of way? I don’t care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains.”
“Essentially, what it means is a transfer of power and responsibility from the state to the individual and the community.”
“When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots.”
Hans Monderman
"Doesn't the highway code say that slow moving vehicles should pull over so as not to hold up traffic flow?"
HC Rule 169: "Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."
So let’s look at what the DVSA say in more detail:
"Trainees must position themselves where they can be seen and should not cycle in the gutter. Where there is little other traffic and/or there is plenty of room to be overtaken they may ride in the secondary position. Where the road is narrow and two-way traffic would make it hazardous for the trainee to be overtaken by a following vehicle they must be observed to ride in the primary position.…… Trainees may be wary of cycling in the primary position as this will put them in the stream of traffic when their natural instinct might be to keep away from it. However, where appropriate, it will actually offer them more protection as they will be able to see more, be seen more easily by other road users and most importantly it will prevent drivers from attempting to overtake them where the road is too narrow."
I used to be both a cyclist & a bicker. I do give consideration to cyclists, but boy, are they a pain in the neck in London.
Most have lights, but not all.
Few stop at traffic lights, even pedestrian lights.
They overtake one another without even a glance behind to see if they are safe.
And getting injured or killed by HGVs. If they remained behind at lights instead of sneaking, I sue the word advisably, up the inside of the HGV, they would not be in a position to be crushed.
The cycle lobby is very vociferous. It's time motor vehicle drivers were given a fair shake.
Throwing your toys out of the pram vodka 
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »