Drivers give cyclists more space on roads without central markings, study finds

wyadvd wrote:

Out of interest: has any cyclist here actually witnessed a collision between a loony car overtaking them and an oncoming car? One came within cm on my commute . I arrived at work slightly hoarse from having shouted expletives at him at the top of my voice!

yes, one occasion loud bang and bits of wing mirror being sent off in all directions, and in another a skretch of brakes and a loud thud...

I didn't hang around, not interested in getting involved in some idiots accident and being on the receiving end of their abuse. You don't imagine for a moment that the driver was in the wrong do you?

bambergbike wrote:

And then there's reams and reams of research and discussion on the whole business of making roads appear narrower by taking out the centre line and putting in cycle lanes, Dutch style...The no-centre-line roads in the Netherlands have speed limits of max 60 km/h AFAIK, and the Netherlands have substantial speeding fines and an intelligent system for linking road markings (or the absence of markings) with speed limits so people can't plead ignorance. So if their markings help, the fines may come into it, too.

Correct. The goal in the Netherlands you can see the speed limit from just road markings.

No centre line + optical narrow by having cycle lanes (Dashed) = 60km/h (40mph)
Double dashed centre line = 80km/h (50mph)
Double dashed centre line filled with green line 'Autoweg' = 100km/h (60mph). These can be dual or triple carriage, but generally lack hard shoulder.
Only motorways proper are 130, or 120/100/80 if appropriate.

Narrow-ish Extra-urban used to be 80km/h speed limit, but these are being downgraded to 60, usually using the cycle lane narrowing trick.

IMHO all the narrow hedge-lined country roads in UK should mostly be downgraded to 40mph... 60mph is completely irresponsible, even before taking cycling into the equation.

(Source: I lived there for 30+ years)

dafyddp wrote:

getting cars to slow right down to a similar speed to bikes would be far more effective than any amount of segregation.

JOHN FORESTER / JOHN FRANKLIN VEHICULAR CYCLING GO PLAY IN TRAFFIC ITS FINE YOU'LL LOVEIT KLAXON

dafyddp wrote:

In my view, speed (especially in built up areas) is the same - too few drivers realise that a 30mph limit, doesn't make it a recommendation, and getting cars to slow right down to a similar speed to bikes would be far more effective than any amount of segregation.

How? So far we can't trust rives to slow down to the legal limit, let alone drive to the conditions. I've so far NEVER heard a way of achieving these lower speeds that goes much past 'ask nicely again and hope'.

Even if you can get absolutely everyone driving slowly absolutely all of the time it still doesn't FEEL as safe as traffic-free riding.

teaboy][quote=dafyddp wrote:

How? So far we can't trust rives to slow down to the legal limit, let alone drive to the conditions. I've so far NEVER heard a way of achieving these lower speeds that goes much past 'ask nicely again and hope'.

There are some fairly simple way of ensuring compliance, How often do you see lorries doing 80 on the motorway? and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that with todays GPS technology and that most? new cars rely on computers for many engine management functions, linking the two together. But as with road pricing and black boxes enforcing absolute limits on cars would be an "infringement of drivers human rights".

None of which deals with idiots not driving to the conditions etc.

STATO wrote:

How many miles of painted cycle lanes would we get for the price if 1mile of separate infrastructure? I guess it would equate to a lot of paint!?

Separate lanes have their place but if we painted a lane on every road then that would be a hell of a lot of new lanes. On a case basis (as this report shows) the safety might not improve but surely putting that much volume of space available to cyclists and making a clear statement to motorists that 'bikes are here' has to give benefit?

Does the paint increase safety? No - this report says that. Is subjective safety a huge barrier to cycling? Yes. How would all the paint in the world change that? Did painting large bits of road blue make things better in London? Were these areas respected by motorists? No.

Continuing to paint the roads will continue to give the same results - no improvement of safety to those on bikes, and no increase in the numbers who think riding is safe enough for them to start.

STATO wrote:

How many miles of painted cycle lanes would we get for the price if 1mile of separate infrastructure? I guess it would equate to a lot of paint!?

Separate lanes have their place but if we painted a lane on every road then that would be a hell of a lot of new lanes. On a case basis (as this report shows) the safety might not improve but surely putting that much volume of space available to cyclists and making a clear statement to motorists that 'bikes are here' has to give benefit?

I couldn't disagree more

Why fritter funds away on miles of moderately inexpensive but entirely ineffective paint, when it could be focused on small areas done properly?

Without doing things properly, no significant change will occur. Without significant change occurring, no local authority will look at any scheme and see evidence for doing anything other than frittering funds away on miles of moderately inexpensive but entirely ineffective paint. Paint doesn't bring much change. If it did, we'd have seen such change in towns across the country.

It's time to end what has proven to be a wasteful loop of doing things poorly, and start doing a few things properly to show that it works.

Which is precisely why so many people are so keen to get so firmly behind London's "crossrail for bikes" plans. This is the opportunity to find out what happens when things are done (near enough) properly.

Bez wrote:

Without doing things properly, no significant change will occur. Without significant change occurring, no local authority will look at any scheme and see evidence for doing anything other than frittering funds away on miles of moderately inexpensive but entirely ineffective paint. Paint doesn't bring much change. If it did, we'd have seen such change in towns across the country.

If it did, we'd have seen such change in towns across the country.... like a significant increase in cycling where painted lanes, ASL and other on road cycle features are present. Pretty sure thats where we are at now.

What im saying is this needs extended to more roads. Putting in a section of segregated path which dumps you on a road with no facilities is a waste of money and its what councils are doing now. There are already unused segregated facilities because the lead nowhere so no-one uses them - which leads to complaints by councils that no-one uses them so they wont build more. I think we need to start at the bottom and work up, not try and jump in at the top when we can only afford 1% of it, it just leaves it unfinished and unusable.

STATO wrote:

Bez wrote:

Without doing things properly, no significant change will occur. Without significant change occurring, no local authority will look at any scheme and see evidence for doing anything other than frittering funds away on miles of moderately inexpensive but entirely ineffective paint. Paint doesn't bring much change. If it did, we'd have seen such change in towns across the country.

If it did, we'd have seen such change in towns across the country.... like a significant increase in cycling where painted lanes, ASL and other on road cycle features are present. Pretty sure thats where we are at now.

Correlation is not causation. The additional cyclists are not because of the paint, and paint does not protect anyone. Where are the kids cycling to school? Certainly not on the road. Why? Because it doesn't feel safe.

STATO wrote:

What im saying is this needs extended to more roads. Putting in a section of segregated path which dumps you on a road with no facilities is a waste of money and its what councils are doing now. There are already unused segregated facilities because the lead nowhere so no-one uses them - which leads to complaints by councils that no-one uses them so they wont build more. I think we need to start at the bottom and work up, not try and jump in at the top when we can only afford 1% of it, it just leaves it unfinished and unusable.

If councils are building bad protected lanes it doesn't invalidate the concept. What's the point in starting at the bottom and working up when there's a better solution that will actually be cheaper in the long run? Would you also suggest African countries install landline phone networks despite there being a better, working solution?

Just design and build the protected lanes properly, acknowledging it's a long-term project that has to start somewhere.

STATO wrote:

Bez wrote:

Without doing things properly, no significant change will occur. Without significant change occurring, no local authority will look at any scheme and see evidence for doing anything other than frittering funds away on miles of moderately inexpensive but entirely ineffective paint. Paint doesn't bring much change. If it did, we'd have seen such change in towns across the country.

If it did, we'd have seen such change in towns across the country.... like a significant increase in cycling where painted lanes, ASL and other on road cycle features are present. Pretty sure thats where we are at now.

Correlation is not causation. The additional cyclists are not because of the paint, and paint does not protect anyone. Where are the kids cycling to school? Certainly not on the road. Why? Because it doesn't feel safe.

STATO wrote:

What im saying is this needs extended to more roads. Putting in a section of segregated path which dumps you on a road with no facilities is a waste of money and its what councils are doing now. There are already unused segregated facilities because the lead nowhere so no-one uses them - which leads to complaints by councils that no-one uses them so they wont build more. I think we need to start at the bottom and work up, not try and jump in at the top when we can only afford 1% of it, it just leaves it unfinished and unusable.

If councils are building bad protected lanes it doesn't invalidate the concept. What's the point in starting at the bottom and working up when there's a better solution that will actually be cheaper in the long run? Would you also suggest African countries install landline phone networks despite there being a better, working solution?

Just design and build the protected lanes properly, acknowledging it's a long-term project that has to start somewhere.

Bez wrote:

...insanely ill-judged games of chicken with oncoming traffic...

So true. I think some drivers have a hard-wired urge that they have to overtake cyclists (and learners) on principle, regardless of the circumstances. So often people force their way past me (even when I'm in primary) only to slam the anchors on for the red light 20 metres up the road (so I have to go around them again).

People need reminding of a simple rule. If you don't have room to overtake, then don't overtake. Leave it a minute and perhaps your paths will separate and so you won't have to overtake at all.

Bez wrote:

I'm not sure what light that casts on my "people obey lines" hypothesis. I guess they adopt an "in for a penny, in for a pound" approach.

The issue here is often the oncoming car not moving left at all, because the line shows what is his, right? Or more commonly the wrong time to overtake regardless of what lines are present.

I've had a few of these and it's pretty terrifying when the oncoming driver uses the horn at the moment when bike and two cars are all in line.

oozaveared wrote:

The number of motorists that pass me when it's clear on the otherside of the road and could easily give me a wide berth but won't actually cross a white line to give me more space is well .. a lot.

I find (scarily) that its the opposite, driver giving you plenty of space by nearly forcing oncoming into the gutter, god forbid they dont as i fear the overtaker would either plow head on or swerve back into their lane... whether i was still in it or not!

I still dont like the idea of a physically separated lane (for regular cycle paths). There has not been a design yet that integrates separate lanes back into the road without the cyclist having to stop. Separate lanes only work if you have a long run, try it on roads with junctions a cyclist might want to use and its easier to just stay on the road.

I understand it will be great for 'new cyclists' or 'mum and the kids' but what happens to these people when the segregated bit ends, they get dumped on a normal road with no provision and have no idea how to deal with it.

STATO wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

The number of motorists that pass me when it's clear on the otherside of the road and could easily give me a wide berth but won't actually cross a white line to give me more space is well .. a lot.

I find (scarily) that its the opposite, driver giving you plenty of space by nearly forcing oncoming into the gutter, god forbid they dont as i fear the overtaker would either plow head on or swerve back into their lane... whether i was still in it or not!

I still dont like the idea of a physically separated lane (for regular cycle paths). There has not been a design yet that integrates separate lanes back into the road without the cyclist having to stop. Separate lanes only work if you have a long run, try it on roads with junctions a cyclist might want to use and its easier to just stay on the road.

I understand it will be great for 'new cyclists' or 'mum and the kids' but what happens to these people when the segregated bit ends, they get dumped on a normal road with no provision and have no idea how to deal with it.

Stop looking at the UK for examples. Separate infrastructure works very well when it is well-designed and well-built. The segregated bit shouldn't 'just' end - it should end in residential streets with low volume, low speed access-only traffic. If it's easier to stay on the road then it isn't well-designed infrastructure.