Cycle facility safety

[Lily]

Hi all, I have not posted here before, although I often read the interesting
and informed debates that take place! The reason for my maiden post is to
seek advice.

The local council of my parents has put some proposals for cycle routes in
our town up for consultation. The general idea is to convert the quite wide
footpath along one side of a couple of busy urban roads into "shared use",
with a line down the middle so pedestrians use one half and cyclists use the
other. The paths cross many small, and a few large side roads on "raised
tables". At traffic light junctions they plan toucan crossings.

I wondered if anybody here can recommend authoritative research references,
and maybe propose some well reasoned arguments, to justify (or oppose) such
schemes. We already have a few such paths, and I cringe when I see kids
whizzing across the side road junctions, unprotected from turning traffic.
I'm sure these must be more dangerous than using the actual road itself, but
the council seem quite committed to creating them. Is there some UK based
research that anyone is aware of showing them to be safer (or more
dangerous)? I wonder why the council propose such ideas, presumably tey
must have full faith in them.

Regards,
Lily.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Lily wrote:
>
> The local council of my parents has put some proposals for cycle routes in
> our town up for consultation. The general idea is to convert the quite wide
> footpath along one side of a couple of busy urban roads into "shared use",
> with a line down the middle so pedestrians use one half and cyclists use the
> other. The paths cross many small, and a few large side roads on "raised
> tables". At traffic light junctions they plan toucan crossings.
>
> I wondered if anybody here can recommend authoritative research references,
> and maybe propose some well reasoned arguments, to justify (or oppose) such
> schemes.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html is a good place to get
started. They should be opposed because, in short, they don't work, as
the work at the above URL will point out in detail.

>We already have a few such paths, and I cringe when I see kids
> whizzing across the side road junctions, unprotected from turning traffic.
> I'm sure these must be more dangerous than using the actual road itself, but
> the council seem quite committed to creating them. Is there some UK based
> research that anyone is aware of showing them to be safer (or more
> dangerous)? I wonder why the council propose such ideas, presumably tey
> must have full faith in them.

They have faith in them because people who have little practical cycling
experience generally do. It's "common sense" that they're better/safer,
and that "everyone knows" we need more cycle facilities.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Lily ('[email protected]')
wrote:

> Hi all, I have not posted here before, although I often read the
> interesting
> and informed debates that take place! The reason for my maiden post is
> to seek advice.
>
> The local council of my parents has put some proposals for cycle routes
> in
> our town up for consultation. The general idea is to convert the quite
> wide footpath along one side of a couple of busy urban roads into "shared
> use", with a line down the middle so pedestrians use one half and
> cyclists use the
> other. The paths cross many small, and a few large side roads on "raised
> tables". At traffic light junctions they plan toucan crossings.
>
> I wondered if anybody here can recommend authoritative research
> references, and maybe propose some well reasoned arguments, to justify
> (or oppose) such
> schemes.

A good place to start is John Franklin's pages, here:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html

John is the author of the Government's officially sponsored manual on
cycling safety, Cyclecraft, and has made a lifetime study of cycling
safety issues. On the whole he's 'anti' cycle facilities.

The Department for Transport has recently published a new official 'Manual
for Streets', here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/
This is a useful read because it's official and describes how things are
supposed to be done. It's mildly anti-facility, does point out many of the
problems and is worth reading, particularly Section 6.4.

The Scottish manual on design of cycle facilities is on line here:
http://www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-00.asp

It too is worth a read. There is a similar English document somewhere but I
don't personally have a link to it. Finally there is a specifically London
street design manual which is also available online and is useful - again,
I hope someone has a link for this.

> We already have a few such paths, and I cringe when I see kids
> whizzing across the side road junctions, unprotected from turning
> traffic. I'm sure these must be more dangerous than using the actual road
> itself,

It usually is - very much more dangerous. It may not be so bad if there is
clearly signed priority for cyclists on the main-road parallelling
cyclepath over vehicles on side-roads.

> but
> the council seem quite committed to creating them. Is there some UK
> based research that anyone is aware of showing them to be safer (or more
> dangerous)?

There is - John Franklin's research from Milton Keynes, among others.
Generally, more dangerous. In other countries, look at:

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm

Damn! The other ones I usually link to have vanished off the Web...
rummage, rummage...

http://web.archive.org/web/20060223094020/http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; better than your average performing pineapple

 

[Tony Raven]

Lily wrote on 31/05/2007 15:29 +0100:
> Hi all, I have not posted here before, although I often read the interesting
> and informed debates that take place! The reason for my maiden post is to
> seek advice.
>
> The local council of my parents has put some proposals for cycle routes in
> our town up for consultation. The general idea is to convert the quite wide
> footpath along one side of a couple of busy urban roads into "shared use",
> with a line down the middle so pedestrians use one half and cyclists use the
> other. The paths cross many small, and a few large side roads on "raised
> tables". At traffic light junctions they plan toucan crossings.
>
> I wondered if anybody here can recommend authoritative research references,
> and maybe propose some well reasoned arguments, to justify (or oppose) such
> schemes. We already have a few such paths, and I cringe when I see kids
> whizzing across the side road junctions, unprotected from turning traffic.
> I'm sure these must be more dangerous than using the actual road itself, but
> the council seem quite committed to creating them. Is there some UK based
> research that anyone is aware of showing them to be safer (or more
> dangerous)? I wonder why the council propose such ideas, presumably tey
> must have full faith in them.
>

Hmmm [email protected] seems familiar but anyhow here goes. First point
them to the DfT's Manual for Streets which was recently published. Note
the hierarchy of provision which places cycle facilities as the last,
not first resort. Para 4.2.9 on p42 and Table 4.1 on p43 of
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/pdfmanforstreets.pdf

Second look at the research bibliography compiled by John Franklin at
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html and
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Peter Fox]

Lily wrote:
> I wondered if anybody here can recommend authoritative research references,
> and maybe propose some well reasoned arguments, to justify (or oppose) such
> schemes. We already have a few such paths, and I cringe when I see kids
> whizzing across the side road junctions, unprotected from turning traffic.
> I'm sure these must be more dangerous than using the actual road itself, but
> the council seem quite committed to creating them. Is there some UK based
> research that anyone is aware of showing them to be safer (or more
> dangerous)? I wonder why the council propose such ideas, presumably tey
> must have full faith in them.
Turn it round on the council. Ask them (btw which one - many have
'form', and there may be local campaigners to join forces with ) for the
justification.

Dear... I am concerned at the safety problems with this sort of route
can you tell me what reference documents you have consulted which
specifically assess the risks associated with cycle paths crossing side
streets and entrances.

You will need to chase, chase and chase and escallate and use the press
"despite repeated requests they can't justify this scheme on safety
grounds ... so what is it for then? .. better ways to spend money says
mother of 4 etc etc.




--
Peter Fox

 

[Pyromancer]

On 31 May, 16:53, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Department for Transport has recently published a new official 'Manual
> for Streets', here:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/
> This is a useful read because it's official and describes how things are
> supposed to be done. It's mildly anti-facility, does point out many of the
> problems and is worth reading, particularly Section 6.4.

That is a truly fascinating (and AFAICS) very well written document.
Hopefully this is the beginning of a turn of the tide against
"farcilities" and towards proper design? I like the way the issue of
small radius vs large radius corners is addressed for both pedestrians
and cyclists. And the emphasis on slowing traffic down instead of
creating high speed rat runs.

Thanks for posting the link!

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
[email protected]lid says...

> Hmmm [email protected] seems familiar

It's a dummy address that anyone can use.

 

[Matt B]

Pyromancer wrote:
> On 31 May, 16:53, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The Department for Transport has recently published a new official 'Manual
>> for Streets', here:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/
>> This is a useful read because it's official and describes how things are
>> supposed to be done. It's mildly anti-facility, does point out many of the
>> problems and is worth reading, particularly Section 6.4.
>
> That is a truly fascinating (and AFAICS) very well written document.
> Hopefully this is the beginning of a turn of the tide against
> "farcilities" and towards proper design?

It is certainly a big step in the right direction. It echoes much of
what we have seen in the "Shared Space" stuff.

> I like the way the issue of
> small radius vs large radius corners is addressed for both pedestrians
> and cyclists.

And the emphasis on "desire lines".

> And the emphasis on slowing traffic down instead of
> creating high speed rat runs.

Beautiful. Let's hope the local authorities stick to the spirit of it,
rather than, as is often their way, to the letter.

--
Matt B

 

[Membrane]

Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Hmmm [email protected] seems familiar
>
>It's a dummy address that anyone can use.

The owner of the privacy.net domain used to allow its usage. Sending
mail to that address used to result in a bot reply for instances where
people tried to send legitimate mail, the bot reply stated that the user
did not wish to expose their email address. The permission to use
me AT privacy.net has been removed years ago, and so has the bot.

Those that do not want to expose their email address are advised to use
something ending in the ".invalid" TLD. Most mail clients and servers
are configured to silently drop any mails to such an address.

--
Membrane

 

[[email protected]]

Lily wrote:
> The local council of my parents has put some proposals for cycle routes in
> our town up for consultation. The general idea is to convert the quite wide
> footpath along one side of a couple of busy urban roads into "shared use",
> with a line down the middle so pedestrians use one half and cyclists use the
> other. The paths cross many small, and a few large side roads on "raised
> tables". At traffic light junctions they plan toucan crossings.
>
> I wondered if anybody here can recommend authoritative research references,
> and maybe propose some well reasoned arguments, to justify (or oppose) such
> schemes. We already have a few such paths, and I cringe when I see kids
> whizzing across the side road junctions, unprotected from turning traffic.
> I'm sure these must be more dangerous than using the actual road itself, but
> the council seem quite committed to creating them. Is there some UK based
> research that anyone is aware of showing them to be safer (or more
> dangerous)?

There is a path like this next to Princess Elizabeth Way in
Cheltenham. Pretty much as you describe - raised tables at the
junctions, and give way signs for crossing traffic (not sure if yours
gets that).

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v...=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=10748472&encType=1

Someone was killed at one of the junctions a few years ago. Only
online reference I can find is www.cyclecheltenham.org.uk/news/0102cc.pdf
the relevant bit of which says:

"Following Stuart Bell's death the Princess Elizabeth Way cycle track
could be in for some
criticism. Although the Cheltenham Cycle Campaign originally argued
for setting aside part
of the carriageway for cyclists, the Council did not agree. But at
least they designed the
track so that cyclists retain their right of way at junctions.
Cyclist have to remember to take
the junctions assertively but cautiously, but there can be no doubt
that this is the right design
for such tracks. Cyclists need to be ready to defend this."

I occasionally cycle on this road, but I've never been on the cycle
track. Can't imagine why anyone would. Good luck with stopping the
council wasting money on such a farcility.

Rob

 

[Lily]

Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to respond.

It seems that all we have to rely on, in the way of UK based research, is
the Milton Keynes data, and the work of John Franklin. I'm not sure if it's
worth pursuing the issue yet, but I'll have a good read, and a good think
about it.

Sorry I raised suspicions amongst at least one of you over my email address.
I chose it, based on the advice of a friend, to keep my system spam free.

Regards,
Lily.

 

[Tony Raven]

Lily wrote on 01/06/2007 16:40 +0100:
> Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to respond.
>
> It seems that all we have to rely on, in the way of UK based research, is
> the Milton Keynes data, and the work of John Franklin. I'm not sure if it's
> worth pursuing the issue yet, but I'll have a good read, and a good think
> about it.

Your best resource is the Manual for Streets hierarchy because that is
clear Government guidance whereas if you use John's stuff you are making
a more complex argument that they have to think about.
>
> Sorry I raised suspicions amongst at least one of you over my email address.
> I chose it, based on the advice of a friend, to keep my system spam free.
>

Better as someone said to use the .invalid domain as that is set up
specifically to drop mail sent to it. Otherwise there is a danger you
will have chosen someone's real email address and transferred your spam
problem to them.


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Tony Raven:
> > Sorry I raised suspicions amongst at least one of you over my email address.
> > I chose it, based on the advice of a friend, to keep my system spam free.
> >
>
> Better as someone said to use the .invalid domain as that is set up
> specifically to drop mail sent to it. Otherwise there is a danger you
> will have chosen someone's real email address and transferred your spam
> problem to them.

Or do what I did, which is use a free mail address and let Yahoo bin the
spam for me; which [AFAICT, when I check it] they do extremely well.


--
Mark, UK
"Where it is a duty to worship the sun, it is pretty sure to be a crime
to examine the laws of heat."