
Cycling commissioners say painted bike lanes don’t make cyclists feel safer - nokicky
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/17/painted-bike-lanes-waste-money-cycling-commissioners
======
prennert
Painted bicycle lanes are actually dangerous in my opinion. I cycle almost
every day in London for now about 6 years. I avoid streets with painted cycle
paths if I can (and take parallel side roads instead).

The way I see it, painted cycle lanes makes cyclists feel secure, but does not
create much awareness by motorists. They are mainly used on roads with a lot
of traffic. Because they are painted they have sometimes hazardous layouts
crisscrossing mainlanes (to turn right). The blue ones can be very slippery
when wet. I really don't trust them when it is wet.

Having a curb between the road and the cycle lanes, or elevating the cycle
lanes on the level of the sidewalks is much saver for cyclists, because
motorists can literally not cross over them. It also forces the planners to do
a good job when designing junctions. For elevated cycle lanes though, paint
can help rasing the awareness of pedestrians who often got in the habit of
crossing anything without looking.

What TfL needs is having their planners cycle to work, and to generally
rethink their approach to pedestrians and cyclists. The fact that most
pedestrian traffic light are often showing red even if no traffic is routed
through them and the fact that many junctions with traffic lights for cars
(even big ones) do not have pedestrian traffic lights, reeducates everyone not
to care about the lights and just walk into the traffic. This is almost as
much a hazard to everyone as cars (on smaller roads.with speed bumps anyway),
as pedestrians can cross without warning. If this happens this obviously
creates the risk of a cyclist (cycling on the far outside of the road to avoid
cars) either swerving into traffic or taking a pedestrian out.

~~~
lucideer
> _painted cycle lanes makes cyclists feel secure, but does not create much
> awareness by motorists_

> _It also forces the planners to do a good job when designing junctions._

Living in Dublin, I have the opposite perspective on this.

I much prefer roads with painted lanes (or better, no cycle lanes), as having
cyclists on the road necessarily makes motorists more aware of their existence
(particularly when you have a lot of cyclists, so this effect increases with
usage). I agree that painted lanes give more of a false sense of security to
cyclists than anything (motorists will still ignore you if they can), but with
segregated lanes they always ignore you.

This seems fine until you realise that well-planned segregated lanes are much
more difficult to achieve (and where I live, an absolutel rarity—we have some
of the most dangerously haphazard segregated lanes), and even very well-
planned segregated lanes are still quite limiting in terms of cyclist
movement. They lead to cycle congestion, cyclists become more of a danger to
eachother, and you will _always_ have entry/exit points which are far far more
dangerous than if the cyclists had been on the road and visible all along.

On a more political level, they also reinforce the idea that roads belong to
cars, and that cyclists, by using them, are invading them and should not be
there.

~~~
prennert
On a political level, I think a lot is lost already - at least in London. I am
seeing daily both "fundamentalist" behavior from both cyclists and motorists
(rarely from pedestrians interestingly). I am catching myself sometimes not
paying attention at zebras and junctions to pedestrians who did behave
predictively. This usually happens because I am busy watching back and forth
watching out for a speeding car (or a driver who clearly saw me but decides to
pull out anyway), scooter, or cyclist.

My hope would be that segregating traffic would simplify what I need to pay
attention to and I can focus more on pedestrians and other cyclists. The road
sharing idea is a nice one. And TfL tried it in places, but realistically
speaking it does not work out in a busy place which does not have a culture of
watching out for each other.

I do agree though, that cycle lanes on street level separated by a curb from
the street can be a pain. I wonder sometimes of they are made intentionally
narrow and winding to slow down cyclists or if they are badly planned. Of
course there are places where there is not a lot of space to give to a cycling
lane. But often there is a lot of space, and it is not used.

In continental Europe cycle lanes are often on the same level as the
pedestrian side walk. But I have never cycled in a large city where this is
the case (except in Amsterdam for a few days). I wonder if that is a better
solution or if it endangers pedestrians more.

~~~
lucideer
Having cycled briefly in a few cities in the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Utrecht,
Hague), and also in Copenhagen, I found the former cities excellent and the
latter stressful.

Copenhagen tends strongly towards segregated lanes: you have to be extremely
familiar with the city layout to be able to pre-empt where to enter & exit,
and local cyclists come across quite aggressive if you're not constantly
perfectly aware of where you're supposed to be going (and going fast enough
for them). The lanes are claustrophic and hurried.

Turning at junctions works quite well (cyclists cross with traffic and loop
backwards to wait to turn, rather than crossing lanes), but only with very
large junctions; this doesn't scale downwards.

In the Netherlands on the other hand, road-sharing is very much the norm. The
sheer number of cyclists means bad behaviour just does't seem to be an option
for motorists: safety in numbers.

I think this is the real answer. I've seen "fundamentalist" behaviour from
fellow cyclists, and it bothers me, but I think it's reactionary when the
relationship with other road-users is strained. With growing numbers of
cyclists, and shared road-space, I think this wanes. This has been my
experience in Dublin anyway: nowhere near the numbers of Amsterdam, etc, but
still, the numbers have significantly increased in recent years and the
relationship has noticably improved (anecdotally).

~~~
robertony
If I compare cyclists in London (and, there are a lot) to pretty much anywhere
in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, the cyclists are far better behaved.

I don't have to worry for my life walking on a pavement that in the next
moment a cyclist may decide to go on the pavement because there is a red light
on the road at full speed, or almost knock me over, going across a zebra
crossing when the light is green for pedestrians. Cyclists in London seem to
think they can go regardless and no rule applies to them.

It wouldn't be too surprising in such a circumstance that they don't
particularly feel safer with bike lanes.

I don't think this is a numbers issue.

~~~
lucideer
To clarify: I don't think having as many cyclists in London as in a Dutch city
will bring about the kind of culture and benefits cyclists enjoy in
Netherlands; there are so many other factors there.

All I'm saying is that having _more_ cyclists brings about marked improvement
for cyclists.

For your particular example (cyclists jumping onto the pavement), this is
often down to bad planning. Signals and road layouts are designed exclusively
for motorists in most cities, with the question of whether it's _efficient_ to
use (not just safe) for cyclists very unlikely to even be mentioned during
planning. How fast you can get from A to B in a car is a question enormouse
resources are poured into, with complex models developed. The same process is
rarely applied to cyclists. If cyclists could get from A to B relatively
efficiently without meeting unnecessary barries along their journey, you'd
find a smaller minority would be feeling the need to hop on pavements and run
reds* through crowds of pedestrians.

* Though on the subject of running reds in general, there's quite a few studies advocating things like the Idaho Stop and the Parisien laws on red lights. In my experience, pedestrian outrage at this behaviour is usually exaggerated and comes down to nothing more than anger at rule-breaking for the sake of it. Accidents whereby pedestrians are injured due to cyclists running reds don't factor highly in statistics.

------
bryanlarsen
Are segregated lanes any better? It seems to me that the vast bulk of the
danger for cyclists is at intersections (the dreaded right hook, mostly). A
segregated lane can make it harder for a car to see you and prevents you from
taking the lane to make yourself obvious.

What we need are protected intersections; the rest of the road can be painted
or segregated, I don't really care.

[https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/four-u-s-cities-are-
racing-t...](https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/four-u-s-cities-are-racing-to-
open-the-countrys-first-protected-intersection/)

It really doesn't have to be much, just bollards in the middle of
intersections forcing cars to make a wide right turn would be enough.

~~~
protonimitate
Intersections are dangerous for sure, but I think it mostly depends on the
city and driving culture each has.

One thing that segregated lanes help immensely with is double-parking in
painted bike lanes, and bus routes that weave in and out of bike lanes to make
their stops.

Ideally we'd have both segregated lanes and protected intersections.

~~~
jessaustin
_bus routes that weave in and out of bike lanes_

Have you really found this to be a problem? Everywhere I've lived and cycled,
buses are the most predictable vehicles on the road. When they approach from
behind, they leave plenty of space. They rarely go very fast. They stop often
enough that you'd never get stuck behind them. Unlike a lot of other
"professionally driven" vehicles, they know where they're going and don't make
last-second turns. They _signal_ their turns. Any cyclist unaware enough to be
endangered by a city bus is also threatened by every other vehicle on the
street.

~~~
leetcrew
> Everywhere I've lived and cycled, buses are the most predictable vehicles on
> the road.

living in a midsize US east coast city, this does not match my experience at
all. city bus drivers have the same mentality as truck drivers on the
interstate: I'm bigger than you so you better get out of my way. it's a common
occurrence to see a city bus pull all the way over to the right for a stop,
then cut across four lanes of traffic to turn left at the next light.

~~~
jessaustin
That sounds like a complaint to address to whomever designed that bus route,
not to the drivers on the route? I'm sure the drivers don't enjoy that
maneuver. (and sure, sometimes that's going to be unavoidable for any
particular route...) Frankly, you sound a bit like an _automobile_ driver,
complaining about interstates and cutting across four lanes. On a bicycle it's
easy to observe, plan ahead, and avoid the maneuver you've mentioned. For one
thing, it always occurs in the same place! Also, it's great to be cycling
behind a big vehicle as it vacates a lane: you've got first dibs on the free
space.

------
_Codemonkeyism
If not about painted or not-painted. It's about is the bike lane 4m wide or
1m.

Painting 1m wide bike lanes is just because cities don't want to take away
from cars.

Painting 1m wide bike lanes is trying to eat the cake and have it. There is no
free lunch.

In Berlin most bike lanes are very narrow [1] while in Copenhagen most bike
lanes are wide enough to feel safe and have two bikes next to each other. No
one cares about paint.

[1] ... and winding, and blocked all the time by delivery trucks, parking cars
and construction sites, and taking 90 degree turns around obstacles, and full
of overgrown bushes ...

~~~
dsfyu404ed
I can think of several states in which bike lanes are basically nonexistent
that are better for cycling than my state which goes somewhat out of its way
to put in bike lanes simply because the former require an approximately lane-
wide shoulder on all but the smallest roads and it is the de-facto bike lane
when bikes are present.

------
markus92
The title of the article is a bit inaccurate, the main criticism is that badly
marked bike lanes are a waste of money that could better be spend on more
adequate infrastructure (so bike lanes that adhere to minimum safety standards
etc.)

------
mcv
Is any money getting spent on painted bicycle lanes in the UK? I'm surprised
to hear that, because the very few I've seen there were a joke. The similar
joke examples shown in this article don't seem far-fetched based on my
(limited) experience in the UK.

~~~
yrro
Oh yes.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2009/nov/05/...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2009/nov/05/readers-
worst-cycle-lanes)

------
einpoklum
This is BS title. Painted cycling lanes are an important part of the cycling
environment. No, in themselves, they don't make me - as a cyclist - feel safe.
But _without_ them, I will never feel safe. They need to be _added_ to by
education from a young age and during driver training, as well as through
cultural products such as TV programming, films, books, social media etc. And
by "education" I mean the education to never swerve into bike lanes, watching
out for bikers, never walking onto bike lanes as a pedestrian etc.

Of course, a hard separation of a bike lane from the other lanes increases
safety; but that cannot be expected to exist everywhere, or in most streets
even.

~~~
jimmux
I don't feel safe on some of the marked cycling lanes I use regularly, but
you're right that it's still a good step toward education and acceptance.

There's a marked lane on my commute that I now ride much more carefully than
the roads I use, because pedestrians are more likely to step out, and cars
open doors without looking, because the lane seems to give them a false sense
of safety. But with time they can learn that it should be the opposite.

I'm mostly grateful for clearly marked lanes when there's an incident and I
can simply point out that yes, I do actually have a right to be riding there
and they should have been looking where they're going.

------
byteofbits
As someone who has recently started to use cycle lanes to move around London I
disagree with the view expressed in the article. Many of the cycle lanes I use
everyday in West / Central London are only painted.

I personally feel much safer in a cycle lane, even if only a painted one,
simply because I don't have to worry as much about getting side-swiped by a
bus. Seeing the end of a painted cycle lane is a good indication that the road
ahead requires more complex navigation and will often cause me to slow down
and be more cautious.

~~~
C1sc0cat
As some one who used to cycle a lot in London - the problem is the use of the
reserved space at stop lines for cyclists as it teaches cyclist to
aggressively undertake cars to get to the front.

An before you down vote me - undertaking and getting hit causes 90% (aprox) of
the fatal casualties in London.

~~~
jessaustin
Could you define that term? All I'm getting are "a formal pledge or promise"
and "the occupation of an undertaker".

~~~
dmurray
Undertaking = passing on the left, in a system where traffic is meant to drive
on the left and pass on the right. By analogy with overtaking, for passing on
the right.

Cyclists (in a bike lane or not) undertaking heavier vehicles certainly are
involved in a lot of serious accidents. However it's a very twisted view of
reality to say that this causes accidents. The proximate cause is the heavy
vehicles turning left or pulling to the left without regard for the cyclist in
their blind spot.

~~~
jessaustin
Oh that's a nice word! Being alive is better than being right, so blind spots
are a bad place to be. Actually it's fine to be right behind a big vehicle,
but I never want to be _beside_ them for more than a couple of seconds...

------
otikik
When there's no dedicated line, just use the sidewalk.

I go really slow near pedestrians / densely populated areas, and I try to
minimize danger (think a child getting out of a building suddenly). Before it
gets inconvenient or dangerous, I dismount.

I know this can mean a fine, and I am aware that this can put some pedestrians
at risk of bruising (again, I am careful, respectful and slow when I go on the
sidewalk). But between that and risking death-by-car, well, the choice is
simple.

~~~
Angostura
No. Don't. You may "try to minimise danger", but one day you will hit someone
and injure them. You also make it difficult for nervous or timid pedestrians.
I absolutely _will_ walk in your way and give you a mouthful.

~~~
wayoutthere
Sorry, but no amount of verbal chewing out is going to change behavior on this
one. It’s far safer for me on the sidewalk — and it’s far more likely both
people walk away from an accident with a pedestrian than a vehicle.

Edit: also, where I live (northeastern US) the roads have craters like Beirut
in the 80s. Cars have problems on them, so cyclists ride on the sidewalk
rather than swerve all over the road to find a path that won’t shred your rims
/ tires.

~~~
mruts
In most places riding on sidewalks is illegal. I always get pissed when I see
bikes hogging my sidewalk and almost hitting me.

~~~
wayoutthere
Yup, it’s illegal. So is driving / parking in the bike lane, but the cops in
my city enforce neither. Doesn’t change a thing — I refuse not to be selfish
when it comes to protecting my life.

~~~
Angostura
> I refuse not to be selfish when it comes to...

... endangering pedestrians.

~~~
cr0sh
Something being assumed here is that in the US, we have pedestrians on
sidewalks.

In truth, you only see this in large urban core areas, but in most places,
even the suburbs, people don't walk anywhere - mainly because in many cases,
there's nothing nearby to walk to.

Everybody drives.

That isn't to say nobody walks, but such people are few and far between.
Usually, when you see someone on the sidewalk, it's either a skateboarder, a
bicyclist, or someone in a powered mobility chair.

This does, of course, vary based on the population and geographical makeup of
the area (and weather), but usually, again, the only time you see more than a
few people walking on the sidewalk, it's within an urban core area.

Also - speaking on the weather topic - here in Phoenix, Arizona, we don't
typically have many walkers on sidewalks in the downtown area, in the
summertime, because the heat is extremely brutal (even with shade). At one
time, it was also a year-round thing, because there wasn't much to do downtown
(and shops closed early), but things have changed in recent years (mainly due
to the install of light rail).

------
perfunctory
This waist could be "understandable" if UK was a pioneer in this field. There
are countries with excellent biking infrastructure already. Learn from them.

------
garethrees
Here's the letter from Chris Boardman and the other commissioners, which
doesn't seem to be linked from the Guardian story:
[https://www.greatermanchester-
ca.gov.uk/media/2145/19-1309-s...](https://www.greatermanchester-
ca.gov.uk/media/2145/19-1309-secretary-of-state-policy-ask-letter-for-cycling-
and-walking.pdf)

------
nickforall
As a dutchman i beg to differ.

~~~
perfunctory
The point of the article is not that the bike lanes are useless. Rather that
the way they are implemented is woefully inadequate.

------
superpermutat0r
Just like crosswalks. More accidents on crosswalks than somewhere else.

~~~
tokai
But what about accidents per crossing?

~~~
superpermutat0r
Hard to measure.

------
usrusr
Really depends on implementation. The best and the worst bike lanes are
painted on the road.

------
NotPaidToPost
The point of many of these cycle lanes is not to be useful to cyclists but to
be useful to the council's PR.

------
alrs
Bike lanes exist to get bicycles "out of the way," which is why we have a
decades-long alliance between the car-insurance lobby and the sell-bicycles
lobby to get bikes off the road and on to facilities.

This is a losing strategy for people who actually ride bikes, the correct one
is to lower speed limits.

~~~
choeger
> This is a losing strategy for people who actually ride bikes, the correct
> one is to lower speed limits.

I do not think that this is going to cut it. On a good day I easily do 30kph
on a good road (that's why I prefer the painted lanes, btw., they tend to give
you access to paved roads). With wind, or exhaustion, or any number of
reasons, that speed can drop downwards to 20kph. Now I am definitely not the
most well-trained person on the streets, but I am among the faster cyclists.
So there are many that can only go about 15kph or even slower.

So what speed limit would you actually pick? 20 would slow me down on my bike
(I presume you do not belong to that minority that believes traffic rules do
not apply to bikes), 30 would leave lots of slower cyclists behind.

In an ideal world, city roads with two lanes would be converted as follows:
Speed limit of 60 on the broader left lane, with a minimum speed of 40 or a
strict "no bikes" policy. A 2m cycle priority lane on the right, cars may use
it but at most 30kph and have to leave it when overtaking. Lanes separated by
engravings in the pavement that make noise. Maybe even by some kerbs. Parking
on that right lane, in particular deliveries, should be a _serious_ offence.

This way, in the case of serious congestion, cars can also take the right lane
(I do not see any reason to demand a free road for any party in traffic), but
will naturally use the left lane in better conditions.

This should be seconded by clear paths and traffic lights to turn left from
that right lane and to turn right from that left lane.

~~~
gnode
> I presume you do not belong to that minority that believes traffic rules do
> not apply to bikes

Personally, I don't see much reason for speed limits to apply to bikes, or at
least, for a speed limit intended for cars to apply to bikes. The two classes
of vehicles have different concerns.

~~~
reallydontask
doesn't look like they applies to cars either.

