Engineer your ideal cycle lane

dnme

Cycling through Galway last night, the cycle lanes are part of the pavement, which means they're elevated off the road which makes you feel very safe. However they are full of broken glass.

What about a cycle lane that is elevated and slightly convex in shape, would this auto-clean itself? would it be safe? (I realise it would be lethal in frost, but so would a flat surface)

Off road cycle lanes might make you feel safer but in reality they are less safe. The vast majority of collisions occur at junctions. Off road cycle lanes place cyclists out of the line of sight of drivers at junctions. The following diagram shows how much more likely you are to have an accident at a T junction with an off road cycle lane than you are cycling through the same junction on the road, using data from various countries.

Supercell

I don't understand why wrongway cycling multipliers are so much higher, assuming the bike lane itself is safe and separate from the road . Surely at junctions wrongway cyclists have a better view of cars about to cut across them?

Blowfish

Deleted User wrote: »

Off road cycle lanes might make you feel safer but in reality they are less safe. The vast majority of collisions occur at junctions. Off road cycle lanes place cyclists out of the line of sight of drivers at junctions. The following diagram shows how much more likely you are to have an accident at a T junction with an off road cycle lane than you are cycling through the same junction on the road, using data from various countries.

Added to that, cars aren't all that manoeverable, hence when cycling on the road alongside them, it's relatively easy to expect where they are moving next. Pedestrians on the other hand don't tend to expect vehicles moving at 30kmh+ on the pavement and can suddenly step sideways etc. without warning.

I tend to feel less safe on pavement cycle lanes than on road ones.

Supercell wrote: »

I don't understand why wrongway cycling multipliers are so much higher, assuming the bike lane itself is safe and separate from the road . Surely at junctions wrongway cyclists have a better view of cars about to cut across them?

I'd presume the increase is down to what the car can see, rather than the cyclist. Motorists approaching a junction will naturally focus more to their right as that's where they are expecting traffic to be coming from, hence might miss the cyclist on their left.

dnme

I just find cycle lanes at road level scary. Motorists NEVER check the left mirror, they never ever check the left side, it was never part of any training and they never expect traffic on their lefthand side. Also motorists cut onto cycle lanes as do buses.
I love the idea of an elevated cycle lane, not necessarily part of the sidewalk but it could be, or it could be elevated above the pavement also, at the very least it would be clearly marked.

In Galway, the cycle lane / pavement combo works well. Pedestrians and cyclists are seperated by clear markings and different surfaces / different surface colours etc.

At junctions, it's true, the elevated cycle comes to an end, its then up to the cyclist to stop and cross only when safe to do so. This was not a problem for me last night. I stopped, waited for traffic and crossed very safely, the diagram above seems to assume the cyclist is a bit of a zombie.

Anyway, what about my other suggesion - convex surface shape as a way of self cleaning glass and debris ?

tomasrojo

But why should you stop and wait at a junction if you're following the main road? Why can't you just proceed, as you would if you were on the road? Since the vast majority of collisions happen at junctions, why bother making you safer on the bit between junctions, where you're already safe, and then make the bit that actually is dangerous more cumbersome and hazardous? There's no point.

I would be very happy with wide kerb lanes with no specific marking for cycle lanes. That way, cars can overtake bikes without changing lane, but the cyclist is implicitly allowed to use the rest of the lane if he needs it. Because the cycle lane isn't marked off you get fewer close passes because motorists are left to use their judgement when overtaking, which studies have shown means they give more room.

There are a few bus lanes around that would be quite easy to repaint slightly to allow this design. It was recommended in a survey of Dublin's cycle lanes for the quays too. Never been done yet, as far as I know.

tomasrojo

Since I use trailers quite a bit, I really would not like a convex surface.

I don't think it would stay free of debris either. Did you have in mind that debris would roll off?

On the subject of cyclists acting like zombies: many novice cyclists think cycle lanes are very safe. That's their whole raison d'etre, as far as novice cyclists are concerned, so less attention is required than when using the road. In fact, studies have shown, more attention is required.

This paradox is dealt with in Cyclecraft. The author of that book has a summary of studies of cycle facilities and their overall poor safety record here:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Alanstrainor

tomasrojo wrote: »

But why should you stop and wait at a junction if you're following the main road? Why can't you just proceed, as you would if you were on the road? Since the vast majority of collisions happen at junctions, why bother making you safer on the bit between junctions, where you're already safe, and then make the bit that actually is dangerous more cumbersome and hazardous? There's no point.

I would be very happy with wide kerb lanes with no specific marking for cycle lanes. That way, cars can overtake bikes without changing lane, but the cyclist is implicitly allowed to use the rest of the lane if he needs it. Because the cycle lane isn't marked off you get fewer close passes because motorists are left to use their judgement when overtaking, which studies have shown means they give more room.

There are a few bus lanes around that would be quite easy to repaint slightly to allow this design. It was recommended in a survey of Dublin's cycle lanes for the quays too. Never been done yet, as far as I know.

Yeah i would agree with this idea. Can't stand off-road cycle lanes, and i actively avoid them. Any of them that i have come across are poorly designed and just stop in the middle of no where, leaving any cyclists stranded and having to re-merge with traffic.

tomasrojo

Note also the way that the off-road facility in the picture above passes INSIDE the yield line, meaning that motorists will roll up to the yield line without looking for vehicles and then look when they reach the yield line. You can fill in the picture yourself what happens when a novice cyclist is unfortunate enough to bllithely roll into that space.

hynesie

dnme wrote: »

In Galway, the cycle lane / pavement combo works well. Pedestrians and cyclists are seperated by clear markings and different surfaces / different surface colours etc.

At junctions, it's true, the elevated cycle comes to an end, its then up to the cyclist to stop and cross only when safe to do so. This was not a problem for me last night. I stopped, waited for traffic and crossed very safely, the diagram above seems to assume the cyclist is a bit of a zombie.

The elevated cycling lane in Galway does not work well at all.
Trying to cycle all the way from Westside to the Omniplex cinema is impossible if using the cycle lane. The designers seem to assume that cyclists will walk around the roundabouts. If you attempt to merge back into the traffic it's very tricky as the curb is very high and there is a lot of traffic. As a result I just cycle on the road.

CramCycle

dnme wrote: »

I just find cycle lanes at road level scary. Motorists NEVER check the left mirror, they never ever check the left side, it was never part of any training and they never expect traffic on their lefthand side.

I remember doing my driving test and I am fairly sure you are made use your left rear view mirror , fairly sure my instructor told me to observe my left and I'm fairly sure the guy giving my test had the same opinion.

admittedly alot of drivers forget this but my point is that it is part of your "training"

km991148

not sure about not using left mirror, there will aways be a few; I find in cities with a good amount of cyclists that drivers do make much more use of left mirror (only really had 1 bad incident after 4yrs in dub), but as always everyone will have different experiences/opinioons on this...

as with cycle lane hopeless for all sorts of reasons:

1. debris, never enough traffic to keep tracks clear
2. raised ones - want to turn right? bounce of kerb/over grass etc, stop at every junction roundabout etc..
3. peds not respecting
4. pointless zigzagging of lanes/ abrupt ending
5. non smooth broken surfaces
et cetera..

if you are new to cycling (or even if u are not) then go ahead if you feel comfortable (but dont become complacent).. if you prefer the road.. go for it..

but really the road is where cyclists should be (other than out of town main trunk roads etc where a well maintained cycle track may be of use) and the sooner we try to move toward this, the sooner there will be more driver awareness, cyclist awarenes (and road confidence) and all round awarness and respect for road users..

(away now to dream..)

p

In Copenhagen they have 'semi off road' cycle lanes, which works very well. They're beside the road, and you have right of way at a junction, but there's a curb seperarting you from the road. I think this works very well. Also, on streets with parking, they put the parking outside the cycle lane, which offers extra partition.

In Malmo, where I am now, they have the completely off road cycle lanes, (kinda like this) like in the picture posted at the start of the thread. The key difference though, is that you still have right of way at most junctions, and there's road markings to indicate that.

tomasrojo

If you're on the left of a car between junctions, it scarcely matters unless the traffic lane is too narrow. If the lane is of adequate width the driver can pass you without incident, even if he or she is daydreaming. The real hazard is being to the left of the driver as you approach or are at a junction. Which is why they safest thing to do is to negotiate your way into an appropriate traffic stream so the driver can't fail to see you. A driver won't deliberately drive into you, unless they're a psychopath; the danger is not being seen, and that is why cycle lanes at junctions are more hazardous.

In stalled traffic you should also always moderate your speed if you're passing cars on the left.

tomasrojo

@p, as I'm sure you know, the reverse practice is the standard here: REMOVE right of way from cyclists on cycle lanes at all junctions, including sometimes private driveways!

I know of only one cycle lane in Dublin where it passes on the inside of parked cars. It's a dooring hazard here, but probably not in Copenhagen, where people are used to them, I'm sure.

Chips Lovell

My ideal cycle lane is no cycle lane.

ednwireland

problem with cycle lanes in ireland is they are an afterthought, they are not designed as part of the road, or traffic flow or any thought given to where the cyclist might want to go.
traffic designers think that cyclists move at walking pace not at nearly car speeds (esp in town)
the only place ive cycled was at college in notttingham where 2 way cycle lanes with bike activated traffic lights to get you round rounabouts and get you onto the next section of bike lane meant commuting was a breeze

i agree with el tonto they are worse done badly because inexperienced users tend to use them unaware of the dangers, you are better off without them

dnme

I gotta say folks, I am reading this with interest and taking on board all comments. Lots of stuff I never considered before.

p

ednwireland wrote: »

problem with cycle lanes in ireland is they are an afterthought, they are not designed as part of the road, or traffic flow or any thought given to where the cyclist might want to go.
traffic designers think that cyclists move at walking pace not at nearly car speeds (esp in town)

I think it will take awhile before cycling is seen as normal. The first step is having bad cycle lanes, the second step is improving them. It's unlikely to get it right first go sadly. Thankfully, the success of the bike sharing scheme, (problems asside) will help focus on he need to better infrastructure.

Little by little, bit by bit, year by year. Copenhagen has take 30 years to get where it's at, and the city councillors themselves acknowledge that if all the measures had been done over night, the people of the city would have revolted. The same is true here, they just has a head start.

Living abroad, and coming back to Dublin every few months, it's been really interesting for me. I hear less about planning improvements, and then just see them done, it's surprising all the little details. I think Dublin has turned a corner, it's going to get better, and I really believe our children are going to have a much better city than we have now.

tomasrojo

p wrote: »

IThe first step is having bad cycle lanes, the second step is improving them.

No, no, a thousand times no!

Bad cycle lane design can kill people.

It's one thing for Copenhagen to make mistakes in the 50s or 60s when it still had very high levels of cycling and therefore Safety in Numbers. We in Dublin don't need to make mistakes now and can't afford to. Bad cycle lanes put people off cycling. If you have a novice using a cycle lane suffering close passes or, worse, a collison, they will just stop cycling.

There is plenty of theory and practice now available to get this right. DCC talked to Dutch cycle lane designers back in the 80s and DCC threw out whatever didn't suit them. This isn't teething problems; it's DCC not giving a curse.

And we're not just setting out on building cycle lanes; we're two decades in and the same fundamental design errors persist in new cycle lanes.

And there are still the options of wider kerb lanes and wider bus lanes. There is no need to build rubbish and no advantage, long-term or short-term.

radia

p wrote: »

In Copenhagen they have 'semi off road' cycle lanes, which works very well. They're beside the road, and you have right of way at a junction, but there's a curb seperarting you from the road. I think this works very well. Also, on streets with parking, they put the parking outside the cycle lane, which offers extra partition.

In Malmo, where I am now, they have the completely off road cycle lanes, (kinda like this) like in the picture posted at the start of the thread. The key difference though, is that you still have right of way at most junctions, and there's road markings to indicate that.

The thing that strikes me most about all those cycle lanes is their width. Contrast the ones on Irish roads which are often < 1m.

tomasrojo

They have to be wide to compensate for the propensity of cycle lanes to encourage closer passing by motorists.

It's to the credit of Denmark, the Netherlands and others that they realised that this was necessary.

As you say, we get ones less than one metre wide. In fact, we have some that are narrower than the handlebars of a road bike.

Civilian_Target

Frankly, I would prefer to have spacious lanes so that there's room for cyclists as part of normal traffic.. and that way no cycle lane is required.

Failing that, the cycle lanes in Nice are generally quite good: there's some bi-directional lanes, about 3.5 metres wide, separated from the road and pedestrians by a kerb, with their own traffic lights on them. Otherwise, they're painted on-road cycle lanes, 1.5 metres wide, with signs and big green markings on the ground at each junction indicating to motorists that cyclists inside them will have priority.

radia

It seems to me that a key problem is that those designing cycle lanes (a) don't have expertise/experience in doing this, and (b) don't regularly cycle the routes for which they are designing themselves. The errors that they make result in cycle lanes that are either dangerous, or simply too much hassle (e.g. segregated lane with curb that's too narrow to pass slower cyclist, or off road lane that requires cyclist to yield at every junction) or both.
The collated photos of poor design are a good way of pointing out problems to avoid in future designs, but it would also help if designers engaged in consultation with cyclists before putting in new lanes, and had a design guide to assist them in their planning. The problem, of course, is the time and effort required to develop such a guide. It's often faster to build on something already in existence. Tomasrojo - did the Dutch consultation you mentioned result in concrete recommendations / a policy document, or was it just a case of the lads going over to Amsterdam, getting shown round and provided with loads of info, admiring what they saw, and then coming home and forgetting most of it because they just weren't interested enough?

I was googling for something else and came across Nottinghamshire County Council’s Cycling Design Guide. I haven't read it yet, but it seems comprehensive.

In another sector, I've always found people who have put in work developing guidance documents are very willing to share their work and permit use by others, as long as appropriate acknowledgement is made. Maybe with permission the above could be put up in a wiki for consultation/refinement, and adapted for use by Dublin City Council. I'm sure if Nottingham were asked, they'd be delighted their document was appreciated and used more widely.

ednwireland

radia wrote: »

It seems to me that a key problem is that those designing cycle lanes (a) don't have expertise/experience in doing this, and (b) don't regularly cycle the routes for which they are designing themselves. The errors that they make result in cycle lanes that are either dangerous, or simply too much hassle (e.g. segregated lane with curb that's too narrow to pass slower cyclist, or off road lane that requires cyclist to yield at every junction) or both.
The collated photos of poor design are a good way of pointing out problems to avoid in future designs, but it would also help if designers engaged in consultation with cyclists before putting in new lanes, and had a design guide to assist them in their planning. The problem, of course, is the time and effort required to develop such a guide. It's often faster to build on something already in existence. Tomasrojo - did the Dutch consultation you mentioned result in concrete recommendations / a policy document, or was it just a case of the lads going over to Amsterdam, getting shown round and provided with loads of info, admiring what they saw, and then coming home and forgetting most of it because they just weren't interested enough?

I was googling for something else and came across Nottinghamshire County Council’s Cycling Design Guide. I haven't read it yet, but it seems comprehensive.

In another sector, I've always found people who have put in work developing guidance documents are very willing to share their work and permit use by others, as long as appropriate acknowledgement is made. Maybe with permission the above could be put up in a wiki for consultation/refinement, and adapted for use by Dublin City Council. I'm sure if Nottingham were asked, they'd be delighted their document was appreciated and used more widely.

nottingham had good cycle lanes and bike activated traffic lights when i was at college (late 80's ) i cant see how dublin has managed to avoid best practice for so long, except that the lanes are an afterthought and they just couldnt be bothered (which is my own opinion)

tomasrojo

radia wrote: »

Tomasrojo - did the Dutch consultation you mentioned result in concrete recommendations / a policy document, or was it just a case of the lads going over to Amsterdam, getting shown round and provided with loads of info, admiring what they saw, and then coming home and forgetting most of it because they just weren't interested enough?

They were consulted when writing the original Irish National Cycle Facilitiies Manual.

The manual was based on previous Dutch practice and was drafted by a Dutch consultancy firm (Grontmij) on behalf of the Dublin Transportation Office.

Apparently the manual does not include either a references section or a bibliography. Nor is there any reference to any clearly named external research material. It's 170 pages of unsupported opinion. So either the Dutch company made a very poor effort, or the document was gutted.

I read about it in this publication by Shane Foran of the Galway Cycling Campaign, which I can't find online anymore, but I have a copy if you want one.

Irish National Cycle Facilities Manual.
(Provision of Cycle Facilities: National Manual for Urban Areas)

A Review, Comparison with International
Practice and Exploration of the Wider Issues
Facing Irish Local Authorities

Shane Foran M.Sc.

Produced for the information of Local Authorities and Planning Agencies.

radia

Thanks tomasrojo. Sounds like someone certainly undermined the potential value of having such a document.

tomasrojo

There was a public consultation recently about the follow-up to the original Irish cycling facilities manual. There was a great deal of concern that the authorities were tyring to justify and formalise post-hoc the rubbish they spent the last two decades building. Hopefully the cycling pressure groups have made significant modifications since the consultation period.

maggy_thatcher

el tonto wrote: »

My ideal cycle lane is no cycle lane.

What I find particularly irritating (when I'm a pedestrian) is that a surprisingly large number of cyclists when given the choice between the road and a cycle lane choose the footpath :mad:

This is particularly common on the Alfie Byrne Road, though I think they usually do it so that they can then cycle the wrong way down a one-way street as a short-cut through the DART station.

As such, my ideal cycle lane would be one that meant bicycles were willing to use it and stop approaching pedestrians from behind at speed.

Chips Lovell

Riding on the footpad is the safest place though if u r a cyclist.

maggy_thatcher

el tonto wrote: »

Riding on the footpad is the safest place though if u r a cyclist.

Not necessarily -- if you're cycling down the footpath at speed, and a pedestrian doesn't hear you and moves into your path - as a cyclist you have 4 options:

1. Hope they aren't deaf and shout at them to move out of the way
2. Slam on the brakes and hope to stop in time while not flipping
3. Swerve violently potentially off the footpath and onto oncoming traffic
4. Ram the poor innocent pedestrian.

None of those options sound particularly safe to me.