Monday 20 July 2015

When Cycle Lanes Can Be Dangerous

Let's start with two pictures that I tweeted earlier.



Hmm.


Way back at the planning stage of this Bears Way cycle lane myself and others pointed out that having a two way lane on one side was a very big compromise. It would have been much, much better to have a single direction lane on both sides. Now I understand that there were issues with local acceptance of the scheme that would make that difficult. It wouldn't have been easy, but at the time I and others pointed out that it would be likely that cyclists coming in the 'wrong direction' would find the lane too difficult to use, unless, and this was a very big unless, the entry and exit points were very well designed.

My pictures above demonstrate that they are not. They are a disaster. In this one entrance/exit:

  1. Not only do you have to give way to pedestrians who are crossing the road (this is not necessarily a bad thing), but why a give way, and why do cyclists have to give way but drivers do not?
  2. How do you actually get into the lane coming the other way? The hatching suggests that you can't use the main entrance. Instead you need to come in via the pedestrian island. This means you need to stop at the pinch point, cycle/walk onto the island (which is not wide enough for a bike) and then across into the lane.
  3.  The blue paint. I have no idea what this blue paint means. It is dotted along various parts of the lane. It is slightly raised, rough, and very close to the colour of the road. It will certainly not be visible at night.
  4. This is the doozy. As you approach the exit, as a cyclist, you need to start looking behind you. If you see a car behind you, indicating or not, you have to assume that the car could be turning left. Until you know it is safe to continue, you should stop. That's how a give way works. So, this give way effectively removes the normal priority in this situation. Instead of the overtaking vehicle having to yeld to the cyclist, the cyclist mus yield to overtaking traffic. This is, quite simply, a serious accident waiting to happen.
  5. Rather than continue the curbing up until the turn itself, they have finished it early. That creates a lovely sweeping curve that will encourage the drivers to turn fast......into any damn cyclist who doesn't cede to the almighty motor vehicle, will be hit at speed. Nearly all the turns on this lane are sweeping like this. 
Once you are in this lane, it's actually not too bad. Yes there are issues that I've discussed elsewhere, but it does actually make you feel safer (except the weeping turns which I discuss below...). However, this one part of the lane is downright dangerous in one direction, and downright dangerous and awkward in the other.

The upshot of this is, that I and other cyclists are generally choosing not to use the lane. It's very awkward to get into and out of, and by the time I do that (heading north), I'd be half way along the road. I discussed this with the engineer (see my reply on this blog) I pointed out that designing a lane that most cyclists would not chose to use would lead to conflict. And so it was for me recently, just before I went on holiday two weeks ago....

It was pouring of rain, the roads were greasy, and I had two people driving cars who sat right on my backside, and who both shouted at me that I should be in the cycle lane. That is, they justified their driving so close due to me not using the cycle lane that they think I should be using.

Build bad, build conflict.

I can't show you the video yet as I've not had a chance to edit it, but I will do. I had actually thought about reporting one driver to the police it was that bad, but my holiday got in the way. I'll have it up in a day or so.

I did though do a quick calculation. I looked at the speed I average along the length of road next to the cycle lane. I average 20mph. The speed limit here is 30mph. The distance is 0.84 miles. It turned out that if a car is stuck behind me the whole way and sits at 20mph instead of 30mph (no-one would dream of speeding along here...oh no...), then I would hold them up for 46 seconds.

46 seconds.

Now neither of the people driving cars two weeks ago were behind me for the full length of the road. In fact they weren't even behind me for half of it. The reality is that they put my life in danger in poor conditions (sitting 0.3 seconds from my rear wheel) for the sake of 10 seconds..... at most.

Worse than that, when I get out of the way of the second car (I actually GOT out of the way and I pulled right over to the side), they stopped for about 15 seconds to tell me that I should be in the cycle lane, so their own prejudice held themselves up more than I did.

Let me though, be absolutely clear. East Dunbartonshire council took a leap of faith. They have reallocated space from motor vehicles to cyclists and they have done so, as far as I can tell, with minimal impact to pedestrians. Perhaps even with a slight improvement for pedestrians. I really, really, REALLY want to love this. Honestly I do. I'm desperate to be positive about this. I just can't be.

As it stands, it's not crap, it is dangerous.

Change this lane to south only, and take the leap of building a lane on the other side heading north, extend it and do away with the crazy exit give ways and then we would have something that East Dunbartonshire could be proud of. But....and this is an absolutely humungous but.....use designs standards like this, build it like this, make cyclists cede to motor vehicles like this......and I and many other cyclists won't use it. Sorry.

I'll say it again, as it's very, very important....

Build bad, build conflict.

This project has proven the point.





11 comments:

  1. weeping turns...so true!

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is some sweeping curve!! Should have made it a right angle to slow traffic turning left.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This junction is frustrating, but isn't it also a consequence of the inadequate legal situation? As far as I can see, the highwaycode doesn't have any rules about segregated cycle lanes, and even for on-road cycle lanes it doesn't specify priority in any clear way; priority is only indirect because drivers should not (not "must not"!) overtake before turning into a side road - as you say at the end of your point 4.

    A junction design like this in the UK is totally ambiguous. Cars should not overtake before turning, but is it technically "overtaking" when the bike is on a separate cycle path, not on the road? Does the cycle path count as part of the main road with same priority, or does it count as a separate, parallel "road"? Or is it more like the pavement, where pedestrians have to stop for cars (even though rule 170 suggests drivers should try not to drive over people once they are already on the road)?

    On the continent, this design is fairly standard but the laws are clear that the cycle lane counts as a lane of the main road and bicycles on it have by law priority over other vehicles turning into or leaving the side road. I'm not even sure if give way signs on the cycle path would be legal (although, as @bambergBike quite rightly pointed out to me on Twitter, rural cycle lanes often swerve away from the main road so that they form a new junction different priority where the path crosses the side road).

    In the UK, as the highwaycode is totally unclear what should happen at such a junction, I guess engineers feel the need to add explicit priority markings for every possible path, and then chose the less "risky" option of making cyclists stop.


    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's what you can do in the context of UK laws.
    http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/blog/2013/07/26/a-view-from-the-drawing-board-cycle-track-priority-across-side-roads

    Iain

    ReplyDelete
  5. The give-way line at the pedestrian crossing is a bit silly because that marking means "give way to crossing or oncoming vehicles". If cyclists are meant to give way to pedestrians there, there should be a zebra crossing.

    Also "LOOK BOTH WAYS"? That suggests that cyclists _are_ meant to join the path through the hatching.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Haven't cycled it but my first thought was to raise the path where it crosses the side street. The Cycling Embassy link, above, also says that (under 'Alternative suggestion'). It gives UK regulations that would allow this method (what the Dutch call 'uitritconstructie'). Raised lane has been done in Anderston-Kelvingrove, just not across side roads (where it would actually be useful!). It would slow cars turning in and give some protection to cyclists continuing to next section. Still not great for cyclists joining from other direction. However, it seems more likely than council putting in lane on other side of road. Maybe suggest the above to the engineer (if they're still speaking to you!)? -D

    ReplyDelete
  7. "4) Who has priority on junctions?
    a. Cyclists on a major road have priority at junctions with minor roads."

    from "A list of Frequently Asked Questions based on questions received through consultation."
    http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/PDF/DE%20Planning/DE-P%20Bears%20Way%20Cycle%20Corridor%20FAQs.pdf

    http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/council_and_government/consultations,_complaints_and/consultation_and_engagement/current_consultation_activity/bears_way.aspx

    Looking at the properties of the PDF, and googling the author's name shows he is actually into environmental and sustainable stuff, not actually a rabid speed-fiend petrol-head 'motorist'.

    What went wrong ?
    The whole situation is very similar to the dutch-ish roundabout in Cambridge.
    A well-intentioned design fails in practice.
    It's as if there's a system-level or institutional problem.
    - Design by committee ?
    - Trying to please everyone, rather than following a clear strategic priority.
    Why are we trying half-designs again, and again, and again, instead of just doing what is proven to work in NL ?
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/transport-institute/pdfs/alasdair_massie
    http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/111/article2.html
    https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/the-perne-road-roundabout-design/
    http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/09/connecting-roundabout-with-cycle-paths.html
    http://road.cc/content/news/133372-cyclist-aged-12-injured-cambridges-new-dutch-roundabout-gallery

    ReplyDelete
  8. "4) Who has priority on junctions?
    a. Cyclists on a major road have priority at junctions with minor roads."

    from "A list of Frequently Asked Questions based on questions received through consultation."
    http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/PDF/DE%20Planning/DE-P%20Bears%20Way%20Cycle%20Corridor%20FAQs.pdf

    http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/council_and_government/consultations,_complaints_and/consultation_and_engagement/current_consultation_activity/bears_way.aspx

    Looking at the properties of the PDF, and googling the author's name shows he is actually into environmental and sustainable stuff, not actually a rabid speed-fiend petrol-head 'motorist'.

    What went wrong ?
    The whole situation is very similar to the dutch-ish roundabout in Cambridge.
    A well-intentioned design fails in practice.
    It's as if there's a system-level or institutional problem.
    - Design by committee ?
    - Trying to please everyone, rather than following a clear strategic priority ?
    Why are we trying half-designs again, and again, and again, instead of just doing what is proven to work in NL ?
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/transport-institute/pdfs/alasdair_massie
    http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/111/article2.html
    https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/the-perne-road-roundabout-design/
    http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/09/connecting-roundabout-with-cycle-paths.html
    http://road.cc/content/news/133372-cyclist-aged-12-injured-cambridges-new-dutch-roundabout-gallery

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I had actually thought about reporting one driver to the police it was that bad, but my holiday got in the way."

    too late now, you have to report it to the Police very quickly after the incident.

    Anyroad...

    Here's how priority across a side street has been done on Princess Elizabeth Way in Cheltenham... sadly, the corners are designed for speed so motons do not slow down...

    https://goo.gl/maps/FLRh1

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi David.
    I’m a (very!) sometime cyclist, and I’ve recently been involved in the design of a segregated cycle track for a local authority (I’m not going to say which one!). I have some thoughts on this, and I hope you will take them in the balanced spirit in which they’re intended, and not as a “he hates cyclists” rant.
    To get the issue of the large sweeping turn out of the way. It has probably been designed that way to allow large vehicles to make the turn – it would be physically impossible for them to do so otherwise. This in turn (pun not intended) makes it easier for vehicles to make the turn at speed, so it was considered safer to place the Give Way on the cycle track.
    Yes, this is a slightly awkward manoeuvre, and it makes the journey marginally slower than staying on the road. However, I would like to point out that Give Ways on cycle tracks are not exclusive to the UK. Even in that bastion of excellent cycling facilities, the Netherlands, there are Give Ways to side roads (especially at roundabouts) in the more suburban and semi-rural areas. Cyclists there generally accept this because the cycle route is still more attractive than the road, and also – and this point is often missed by cycle campaigners in the UK – where a cycle track is provided in the Netherlands, it is mandatory to use it.
    Now, of course, the standards in the Netherlands vastly exceed “Cycling by Design”, and I wouldn’t dispute that before we go down the road of making cycle tracks mandatory, the legal minimum standards in Scotland / the UK are in need of a serious upgrade. However, that doesn’t nullify the idea that Dutch cyclists are willing to accept the occasional Give Way that doesn’t exist on the road if it means an overall more pleasant journey.
    Which brings me to my question: Even if a cycle track has an extra Give Way, or the points of entrance / exit are slightly awkward, or there’s a minor conflict with pedestrians… surely, overall, it still makes for a more pleasant journey than dealing with the motor traffic?
    Once again, I am not asking this with the air of an irate motorist gesticulating towards the cycle track: I am trying to find out how we could improve things for cyclists, but also trying to make you aware that we do have to strike a balance between all road user groups (for a variety of reasons).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Please delete my double-post above - sorry !

    Just wanted to point to another instance
    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/van-hits-cyclist-dashcam-video-10874508
    Green paint alone is not enough.
    Bears Way in your photos above is ambiguous - both bike and car cross lines that could mean give way.
    There are many 'left-hook' videos on YouTube - often a cyclist in a bus lane meets a car turning left from the second lane.
    Needs consistent design - paint, signs - and clarity in a Highway Code update.
    Maybe we need more Dutch 'elephants feet' in the UK : with appropriate training for all drivers !

    ReplyDelete