Cutting vehicle speeds, particularly at junctions, and improved road surfaces would be the single most effective measures to increase the safety of cyclists on Britain's roads concludes a new report, Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety, commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT).
The report which brings together all the existing data on cycliing infrastructure in the UK also says that it will take decades of sustained investment to achieve a functional urban cycle network across the country and a willingness to prioritise cycle traffic – the report also warns that piecemeal implementation of cycling infrastructure "is unlikely to be satisfactory".
Slowing down traffic, particularly at junctions, is identified as having the biggest likely impact on reducing cycling casualties in multi vehicle collisions says the report which also points out that this would also reduce casualties for all road users. Suggested methods of achieving this include physical traffic calming, redesigning urban streets in both their appearance and the way they are designed to be used by pedestrians and the wider use of 20mph speed limits.
When it comes to reducing single vehicle collisions involving cyclists the report highlights improvements to road surfaces as being the best way to lower the rate of cycle casualties although interestingly it is slippery road surfaces rather than potholes which it identifies as the biggest hazard.
However it is what the report has to say about other aspects of Britain's cycling infrastructure that will give food for thought to all sides in the debate on how best to provide the right environment for cycling in Britain.
According to the report's authors there is little evidence for the safety benefits of cycle lanes, or advanced stop lines; and while segregated cycle lanes can offer greater safety to cyclists the points at which they connect with the road network can be so dangerous that they negate the safety benefit of segregation, these are just some of the conclusions of a report in to infrastructure and cycle safety commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT).
-
ASL - limited data, but limited evidence of benefit particularly associated with junctions. Notwithstanding this lack of evidence, ASLs may provide a priority for cyclists and might be applicable where there are heavy flows of right-turning cyclists.
-
Cycle lanes - There is little evidence in the UK that marked cycle lanes provide a safety benefit, although they may achieve other objectives. This lack of evident benefit may, however, represent a lack of quality and continuity in implementation. There is also extremely limited experimentation with, and no reported studies of, kerbed cycle lanes in the UK.
-
Segregated Cycle lanes – Providing segregated networks may reduce risk to cyclists in general, although evidence suggests that the points at which segregated networks intersect with highways can be relatively high-risk, sometimes of sufficient magnitude to offset any safety benefits of removing cyclists from the carriageway. However may be applicable particularly in rural settings.
Measures suggested as effective for improving safety at junctions include cycle pre-signals, continuing cycling lanes across junctions, raised cycle lanes at junctions, installing traffic signals at major roundabouts, and changing the design of roundabouts to slow traffic and to change the turning geometry to a sharper angle as on European roundabouts (thus eliminating the driver's blindspot). All of these measures have says the report had a measureable effect on improving safety for cyclists in other European countries most notably the Netherlands.
Interestingly while the report can seemingly find evidence for the safety benefits fo cycle lanes in other European countries it can find little evidence for their effectiveness in Britain - as the report notes "a lack of quality" may be a factor in that. Perhaps tellingly Britain's best know network of urban cycle lanes London's Barclays Cycle Superhighways is currently the focus of much criticism with poor implementation and the failure to heed safety advice - including many of the measures this report highlighs as being particularly effective - being blamed by many for the recent deaths of two cyclists at Bow roundabout.
The report also has interesting things to say about the design and implementation of both traffic calming measures and cycling infrastructure. While the authors say that traffic calming in general is beneficial to cyclists, they also advise road designers to be aware that features such as road narrowing and speed cushions have the potential for creating additional conflict between cyclists and other road users. Those designing infrastructure for cyclists also need to ensure that it meets cyclists needs otherwise warns the report it risks making a problem worse not better
Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety is part of a wider research project, Road User Safety and Cycling being carried out by the DfT and involved researchers from the Transport Research Laboratory reviewing all the existing literature on cycling infrastructure in the UK. The report can be downloaded from here on the Department for Transport website.
Add new comment
40 comments
20 mph limits are a good idea I feel. If for no other reason, as someone else has already said, it might make the default speed 30 mph instead of 40...
Education is a great thing, but not wholly effective. Anti-speeding campaigns have been running for years, ditto anti-mobile phone use whilst driving, but we still see idiots by the thousand using them.
Average speed cameras for enforcement would get my vote. No physical obstructions to create conflict, and substantial fines on transgressors to pay for it.
cultural change can be effected through relevant legislation, targeted publicity explaining the risks/benefits and, perhaps most importantly, obvious enforcement. i would cite drink driving as an example. there's a definite cultural shift there over the last two decades. but it started with communication and proper enforcement.
i'm in favour of 20mph limits for residential roads. not 'traffic calming', but real limits, properly and publicly enforced, with proper communication about the reasons behind it. like drink driving, it would probably take at least a decade for the message to get across. but that's the only way i can envisage any kind of cultural change that isn't a change towards more selfish road behaviour.
The solution that works well for me is cultural change, not force.
Impossible to argue with that really - or think of a way to bring it about either for that matter
Reply to mad_scot_rider (is the reply function working?):
Simply enforcing the current rules properly would be a good start.
5 year DfT report costing X millions works out that get this - driving more slowly can save lives. Since I'm on a one man mission to introduce 20 mph to my school run (which will mean for drivers the inconvenience of dropping from 40mph to 30mph in real terms..) this revelatory piece of research will boost my cause no end. MBO's (Master of the Bleeding Obvious) all round at the DfT!
So what *is* the solution then? or are you saying there's no solution?
I for one DO NOT want to see the widespread introduction of 20mph speed limits. I particularly do not like the traffic calming solutions often implemented in 20mph zones where the road is narrowed and a speed hump put in to make one lane of traffic give way to the other. It simply makes people even more irate and increases wear and tear on vehicles.
I don't believe that 20mph speed limits are the answer to reducing the speed at which motorists approach junctions. The reason people are coming up to junctions fast is because the brakes on cars are just amazing these days so there is little need to slow down early. The fact that the car is doing 20mph just means the driver can leave braking even later. I also think that motorists will leave braking even later as a way to keep momentum as they're now being forced to drive more slowly.
I tend to feel that ASL's encourage cyclists to squeeze through tiny gaps which if you arrive mid way through the red means that you massively increase the likelihood of getting pinned by an idiot driver who hasn't looked around him.
If ASLs were used properly they might be of use but when they are not occupied by cars with motorbikes in front or solely motorcycles the majority of cyclist's stop in front of them anyway. To make matters worse it always seems to be the slower cyclists who cycle by me to occupy pole position two yards in front of the line. By the time I have caught the slow ones I can't pass because the motorbikes are roaring through then the cars are squeezing by.
Pages