Are cycle lanes any use?

In message
Simon Brooke wrote:

in message , Paul Luton
') wrote:

In a narrowish country A road further narrowing by a cycle lane might
reduce traffic speeds and couldn't lead to cyclists being given less
space. Paul

On a narrowish country A road you should be in primary position most of the
time - so a cycle lane would mean you had /lots/ less space. Very
dangerous - definitely don't go there.

I know that is the received opinion. Measurements last year (? Bath
University ?) showed that the further you are out the closer you are passed
( unless you have long hair !)

Paul



--
CTC Right to Ride Representative for Richmond upon Thames

Paul Luton wrote:
"David Lloyd" wrote in message
o.uk...

I'm wondering. Given the comments on urc about the farcilities that are
foisted on us, the jealousy directed at us by motorists because they
believe that they are paying for these farcilities, and the opinions often
voiced that cycle lanes are unmaintained with dangerous junctions, how do
we view cycle lanes as a group? Are we, as cyclists, in favour of or
against cycle lanes as they are today? How should they be?

David Lloyd
... In log-jammed road a fairly narrow cycle lane allows
cycles to progress at a reasonable speed. A wide kerb lane just gets filled
with MDGs in staggered formation.

Yes. My contention is that cycle lanes are useful to cyclists in the
same way and in the same traffic conditions as bus lanes are useful to
buses.

In other words, nothing to do with safety, but they facilitate
queue-jumping.

Cycle paths don't facilitate queue-jumping, unless you are prepared to
cross side roads so fast that your safety is severely reduced. They
can be useful on roads with few crossing places, high speeds, and
limited opportunities for drivers to overtake cyclists safely. But
such roads should be eliminated from all urban areas.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Colin McKenzie wrpte:
[...] My contention is that cycle lanes are useful to cyclists in the
same way and in the same traffic conditions as bus lanes are useful to
buses.

In other words, nothing to do with safety, but they facilitate
queue-jumping.

I'm not sure. There is a small safety case: I know at least one cyclist
who avoided being in an concertina car crash because they were in the
cycle lane at the lights, rather than waiting in line. However, this
is probably totally negated by HGV-squashes.

Cycle paths don't facilitate queue-jumping, unless you are prepared to
cross side roads so fast that your safety is severely reduced. They
can be useful on roads with few crossing places, high speeds, and
limited opportunities for drivers to overtake cyclists safely. But
such roads should be eliminated from all urban areas.

+1

--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

On 11 Jun, 19:01, Mike the unimaginative
wrote:
"David Lloyd" wrote o.uk:

I'm wondering. Given the comments on urc about the farcilities that
are foisted on us, the jealousy directed at us by motorists because
they believe that they are paying for these farcilities, and the
opinions often voiced that cycle lanes are unmaintained with dangerous
junctions, how do we view cycle lanes as a group? Are we, as cyclists,
in favour of or against cycle lanes as they are today? How should they
be?

David Lloyd

I can only add a few comments to the more wise members of the assembled
multitude -
Make sure that everyone is talking the same language! There are lanes
and lanes : There's shared use pavements - of no use to anyone, except
perhaps the archetypal little old lady going to the shops (and probably
dangerous fore her too); there's lanes painted on the road - as someone
else has said, if the road's wide enough to paint 'em, you probably
don't need 'em (and why do they vanish where you probably need them?);
there's alternative cycle routes (eg reclaimed disused railways) - these
are potentially the only useful example, as long as there's no dog
walkers with stealth leads, mini-motos, or trip wires. I regularly use
Sustrans Route 6 in Leicester, and between Market Harborough &
Northampton, and these are good examples of how these can work really
well.
No, you don't *need* to dress like a spaceman to ride a bike - do your
own risk assessment - what might happen, what is the likelihood of it
happening, what (if anything) can I do to minimise the risk of it
happening, or to redce to impact if it does happen. (from this
calculation I wear a flouro / reflective jacket when wearing a suit to
work, when on my 'weekend' bike I wear gloves and light / bright
coloured jerseys).

I was thinking of the painted strips at the sides of roads and the
bits of pavements robbed off pedestrians, as opposed to the paths that
formed entirely new routes away from the roads.

David Lloyd (at work)

in message , Tony Raven
') wrote:

I'm not sure what "Sustrans concept" is meant, but Sustrans build both
good and bad.

It the concept that cycles need an alternative network that is not the
roads. Â*For me however the roads form a perfectly adequate network that
is generally safer, easier to use and far more comprehensive than
anything Sustrans can ever hope to build.

And, significant;y, the more the roads are used by cyclists the safer the
roads become for cyclists - so (in my opinion) we should do everything
possible to prevent cyclists being shunted off the roads. An off-road path
is a bad thing, in general, precisely because it's off-road.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.

MJ Ray wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrpte:
[...] My contention is that cycle lanes are useful to cyclists in the
same way and in the same traffic conditions as bus lanes are useful to
buses.

In other words, nothing to do with safety, but they facilitate
queue-jumping.

I'm not sure. There is a small safety case: I know at least one cyclist
who avoided being in an concertina car crash because they were in the
cycle lane at the lights, rather than waiting in line. However, this
is probably totally negated by HGV-squashes.

and some such as the one over the kingston bridge, don't make it clear
to drivers that your back on the road, and put you right on the paint
which is slippery.

some do have benfits but quite a lot don't.

Cycle paths don't facilitate queue-jumping, unless you are prepared to
cross side roads so fast that your safety is severely reduced. They
can be useful on roads with few crossing places, high speeds, and
limited opportunities for drivers to overtake cyclists safely. But
such roads should be eliminated from all urban areas.

+1

roger