Dedicated cycling lanes can halve injuries

Qualitymark

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/dedicated-bike-lanes-can-cut-cycling-injuries-half/3654/

A major city street with parked cars and no bike lanes is just about the most dangerous place you could ride a bike. All the big threats are there: open car doors, bad parallel parkers, passing cabs and public transit. This is not a particularly novel scientific revelation, although research has found it to be true. Things get more interesting when we compare this bad-biking baseline to infrastructure actually intended to accommodate cyclists.

New research out of Canada has methodically done just this, parsing 14 route types – from that bike-ambivalent major street to sidewalks, local roads with designated bike lanes, paved multi-use paths and protected "cycle tracks" – for their likelihood of yielding serious bike injuries. As it turns out, infrastructure really matters. Your chance of injury drops by about 50 percent, relative to that major city street, when riding on a similar road with a bike lane and no parked cars. The same improvement occurs on bike paths and local streets with designated bike routes. And protected bike lanes – with actual barriers separating cyclists from traffic – really make a difference. The risk of injury drops for riders there by 90 percent.

<snip>

rp

Qualitymark wrote: »

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/dedicated-bike-lanes-can-cut-cycling-injuries-half/3654/

Interesting study but not really news: it was from a similar study in the 1970s that the Dutch redesigned their bike lanes. Not gonna happen here any time soon, I'd guess, as Dutch style infrastructure doesn't come cheap - even without the under-path heating.

doozerie

I often wonder what people picture in their minds when asked if they'd prefer dedicated cycling infrastructure to shared roads. Based on some of the responses I've heard and seen written about, I suspect that quite a few people imagine the kind of nirvana that car manufacturers like to falsely portray in their ads - a very appealing route, a smooth and clear surface, probably scenic and certainly in good weather, but most importantly entirely devoid of anyone else and supposedly stretching as far as you wish to travel. If car ads were to show the reality of noisy, smelly, congested roads, with people actively vying for space, then I imagine much of the appeal would be lost.

Similarly, I wonder if "dedicated" cycling infrastructure was to be presented in its more realistic form of intersecting frequently with congested roads, would it lose some of its appeal too. For me it certainly would. Personally, given the choice between sharing the road with motorists all along the way versus having to contend for space with motorists at every intersection of cycling infrastructure and road, I'll take the former. Admittedly, Irish cycle tracks seem like extreme examples of exactly how *not* to blend cycling infrastructure and roads, which does little to promote the idea that it can be done well, but try as I might I can't see it being feasible to do it well on the commute routes that I'm familiar with so I remain in favour of shared roads.

HivemindXX

article wrote:

"That in my view is one of the most wonderful outcomes of this research," Teschke says. "People have good gut feelings."

The interpretation doesn't really match the data as shown on the chart though. For example a multi-use path (MUP) is the second most preferred route but also the second most risky. Since the majority of our off road cycle infrastructure are MUPs this is worrying. The study shows that on road shared cycle lanes are safer than MUPs but we have seen people posting here that state they cycle on the footpath 'for safety reasons'.

article wrote:

Your chance of injury drops by about 50 percent, relative to that major city street, when riding on a similar road with a bike lane and no parked cars.

The data does back this up but for some reason it's not the thrust of the article. The data indicates that removing on street parking has a bigger effect on cyclist safety than provision of MUPs. In fact an on street cycle path with no parked cars is safer than any other form of cycle facility bar the cycle track.

bambergbike

HivemindXX wrote: »

a multi-use path (MUP) is the second most preferred route but also the second most risky.

Thad caught my eye, too - the research doesn't prove that people's gut feelings are good, far from it. The fact that the study of preferences was based on the opinions of cyclists and potential cyclists also means that the opinions of non-cyclists as to where cyclists are safest were included.

The other issue I have with the study (or at least the article) is that it tells us where cyclists are safer from injury, but not what actually caused the accidents that led to cyclists being injured or what types of accidents were considered. It's difficult for me as an individual cyclist to assess how exposed I am to risks associated with particular forms of infrastructure if we are not told what those risks are. How many of the cyclists in the study were doored, for example?

Qualitymark

bambergbike wrote: »

The other issue I have with the study (or at least the article) is that it tells us where cyclists are safer from injury, but not what actually caused the accidents that the cyclists in the study were involved in, or who was judged to be at fault in the majority of cases, or even a representative sample.

Surely most of us know what causes most accidents: cars turning across you, people opening car doors suddenly in front of you, potholed roads, slithery manhole covers, swerving to avoid pedestrians who have wandered lonely as a cloud into your path, drivers who "just didn't see you", cars pulling out of parking spaces - and of course idiotic cyclists who whizz through red lights and get creamed by vehicles coming the other way.

Dermot Illogical

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surely most of us know what causes most accidents: cars turning across you, people opening car doors suddenly in front of you, potholed roads, slithery manhole covers, swerving to avoid pedestrians who have wandered lonely as a cloud into your path, drivers who "just didn't see you", cars pulling out of parking spaces - and of course idiotic cyclists who whizz through red lights and get creamed by vehicles coming the other way.

Most of those can be avoided with the application of common sense, so it would be useful to see a breakdown. No point in looking for infrastructure if idiocy is the problem.

Qualitymark

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Most of those can be avoided with the application of common sense, so it would be useful to see a breakdown. No point in looking for infrastructure if idiocy is the problem.

Not always, Mr Illogical. A rainy day, an inattentive driver, a slippery manhole cover, someone driving through the lights because he's thinking about his mortgage, and you can be hurt.

smacl

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surely most of us know what causes most accidents: cars turning across you, people opening car doors suddenly in front of you, potholed roads, slithery manhole covers, swerving to avoid pedestrians who have wandered lonely as a cloud into your path, drivers who "just didn't see you", cars pulling out of parking spaces - and of course idiotic cyclists who whizz through red lights and get creamed by vehicles coming the other way.

I'm not sure we know the breakdown to a large enough extent that we act on it. For example, if the larger percentage of accidents were caused by motorists or cyclists doing something they shouldn't, would we be better more tightly enforcing our existing traffic legislation than building additional infrastructure that is by many accounts not fit for purpose? If potholes were the issue, spending money on maintaining existing infrastructure would seem to provide better value than building new infrastructure.

My gut feeling, seeing as we're all about gut feelings today, is that the simple on-road marked cycling lanes, when implemented sensibly, provide the best return on investment with minimum change to the existing status quo. Where extra money is available, it should be spent on law enforcement where people get points for parking in a cycle lane, and maintenance of existing cycle lanes. My personal experience is that bad cycle infrastructure is more dangerous than none at all, e.g. dead end tracks that force you to stop and re-join traffic, lack of provision for turning right, etc... Obstructed cycle lanes are similarly dangerous, as are poorly maintained, glass strewn ones. Shared lanes on paths add as many dangers as they remove, e.g. people leaving their drives by car, pet walkers, joggers, buggy pushers and the rest, not to mention road users who are of the opinion that given the tacky cycle path, you no longer have any right to use the road.

Qualitymark

What we do know is that when Copenhagen and Amsterdam separated cyclists from drivers, the number of accidents to cyclists plunged.

doozerie

Qualitymark wrote: »

A rainy day, an inattentive driver, a slippery manhole cover, someone driving through the lights because he's thinking about his mortgage, and you can be hurt.

You are still talking about behavioural issues there (even the slippery manhole cover issue can be dealt with safely by cyclists being more attentive and drivers leaving more space for them). And none of those dangers are entirely eliminated by segregated cycling infrastructure unless cycle lanes can be provided which *never* intersect with existing roads - and even then, I've seen at least one car driving in a physically segregated cycle lane so some levels of idiocy are unphased by such hurdles.

buffalo

doozerie wrote: »

You are still talking about behavioural issues there (even the slippery manhole cover issue can be dealt with safely by cyclists being more attentive and drivers leaving more space for them). And none of those dangers are entirely eliminated by segregated cycling infrastructure unless cycle lanes can be provided which *never* intersect with existing roads - and even then, I've seen at least one car driving in a physically segregated cycle lane so some levels of idiocy are unphased by such hurdles.

I'll add another car on the St Stephen's Green west cycle lane, *and* he was salmoning.

doozerie

Qualitymark wrote: »

What we do know is that when Copenhagen and Amsterdam separated cyclists from drivers, the number of accidents to cyclists plunged.

My first question would be whether we really do "know" that. Were the studies of numbers of accidents before and after the separation comparable, for example? As with many areas of research, this area seems littered with biased and rubbish studies, so I'd start form a position of scepticism.

And even if we accept that the number of accidents involving cyclists did plunge, can we actually say that it was the segregated infrastructure that was at the root of it? Perhaps the benefit was that more people flocked to bicycles, making everyone more aware of cyclists and therefore more considerate towards them - if so, then segregation should take second place to promoting the benefits of cycling to encourage more people to cycle.

And even if we accept that segregation is the solution to the cycling world ills, can we even come close to approximating the same kind of infrastructure in this country given our existing city and road designs.

I don't believe there are easy answers to any of those questions. And those are just the simplistic questions.

Qualitymark

Not going to look up the figures again, but I think the Dutch figures before and after the dedicated lanes may be in the film here:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/10/how-dutch-got-their-cycling.html

doozerie

Qualitymark wrote: »

Not going to look up the figures again, but I think the Dutch figures before and after the dedicated lanes may be in the film here:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/10/how-dutch-got-their-cycling.html

Despite that video claiming to be about cycle paths in the Netherlands it appears to make no attempt to analyse the stats that it presents in that same context. In the case of casualty figures it says that in 1971 there were 400+ deaths of children, compared with 14 deaths in 2010. How did the children die? Were they in cars, on foot, on bicycles,...? Did the deaths occur in city centres, rural roads, or equivalent of national roads or motorways? What were the figures for 1970? Etc., etc. That video provides no reliable evidence that segregated cycling facilities were the magic wand that reduced those figures, it simply contains a lot of speculation and generalisations.

Even the opening sentence of the video raises a question that is not dealt with: "The Netherlands has the world's largest number of cyclists but it is also the safest place in the world to cycle" - what about asking whether that claimed safety is a direct result of there being so many people on bikes rather than being in spite of it? It is a biased piece, which seems keen to support the views of the person(s) who made it without addressing any of the questions it itself raises.

galwaycyclist

Qualitymark wrote: »

What we do know is that when Copenhagen and Amsterdam separated cyclists from drivers, the number of accidents to cyclists plunged.

Source please?

I recall reading a paper that said that when Copenhagen started routing cyclists through bus stops there was 17-fold increase in collisions with bus passengers.

In terms of overall car-cycle collisions I recall Copenhagen finding an increase in overall risk of collision with some forms of segregation.

Qualitymark

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Source please?

I'm not in a fit state to hunt it out right now, but if you look for the history of Dutch cycling you'll find statistics on the number of children killed before the separate lanes and afterwards. Sorry, I'm not being mean - just can't do it right now.

galwaycyclist

Qualitymark wrote: »

I'm not in a fit state to hunt it out right now, but if you look for the history of Dutch cycling you'll find statistics on the number of children killed before the separate lanes and afterwards. Sorry, I'm not being mean - just can't do it right now.

Nobody is questioning the reduction in deaths. What is open to dispute is the idea that you can build any kind of roads infrastructure you want and then "fix it" by adding in some roadside cycle facilities afterwards.

Telling people that the Danes fixed the problem by adding cycle facilities misses a plethora of other factors that mean we can't draw direct comparisons with our situation.

To give just one example: According to the Danish Roads Directorate, none of their cities have multi-lane one-way systems designed to keep cars moving.

Dermot Illogical

Qualitymark wrote: »

Not always, Mr Illogical. A rainy day, an inattentive driver, a slippery manhole cover, someone driving through the lights because he's thinking about his mortgage, and you can be hurt.

You've mentioned manhole covers a couple of times now. While they aren't an ideal surface, they can be avoided. As can potholes. With manhole covers you just need to not try to brake or change direction while going over them. Upright is king.
You've also mentioned car doors. They can be easily avoided. Just don't cycle within range of them. In fact, don't slavishly keep in as far left as possible. It's not a safe thing to do, and will get you hurt.
This advice is free, and requires no capital investment.

galwaycyclist

I just had a quick scan and the very first question that arises is

1. "Why was this paper submitted to a public health journal rather than a traffic engineering journal or accident analysis journal?"

This then provokes question No. 2

2. "Is a typical peer review panel for a public health journal likely to include experts on the effect of road geometry and design on the distribution of crashes involving cyclists?"

These are not meant to imply criticism of the methodology they are just examples of the kind of questions that spring immediately to mind.

MrScootch

I've seen manhole covers with most of the surface painted over with a layer of grippy stuff.
Can't remember where...

coolbeans

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surely most of us know what causes most accidents: cars turning across you, people opening car doors suddenly in front of you, potholed roads, slithery manhole covers, swerving to avoid pedestrians who have wandered lonely as a cloud into your path, drivers who "just didn't see you", cars pulling out of parking spaces - and of course idiotic cyclists who whizz through red lights and get creamed by vehicles coming the other way.

An awful lot of whatwhat you've described could be alleviated by proper road positioning. A lot cheaper than segregation too.

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

And even if we accept that the number of accidents involving cyclists did plunge, can we actually say that it was the segregated infrastructure that was at the root of it? Perhaps the benefit was that more people flocked to bicycles, making everyone more aware of cyclists and therefore more considerate towards them - if so, then segregation should take second place to promoting the benefits of cycling to encourage more people to cycle.

As far as I can make out, the immediate effect of policy changes in the 60s and 70s (including but by no means limited to building of cycle-specific infrastructure) was to stabilise the numbers cycling, halting a decades-long decline that continued in most other countries. Thereafter the proportion of journeys made by bike in the Netherlands rose modestly but steadily. They proportion never dropped below 20%, unlike here.



http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf

Augmerson

Qualitymark wrote: »

What we do know is that when Copenhagen and Amsterdam separated cyclists from drivers, the number of accidents to cyclists plunged.

Maybe because in Amsterdam and Copenhagen they didn't have cyclists running red lights, going opposite direction down one way streets, not wearing any safety gear, not paying any heed to the rules of the road?

tomasrojo

No, you'll find cyclists doing all of the above in the Netherlands, every day, in great numbers.

Also, you forgot "road tax".

BostonB

Augmerson wrote: »

Maybe because in Amsterdam and Copenhagen they didn't have cyclists running red lights, going opposite direction down one way streets, not wearing any safety gear, not paying any heed to the rules of the road?

Wearing safety gear? Have you ever seen people cycling in these places?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXw_t172BKY&feature=related

...or it could be that motorists are automatically considered liable in law for any injuries that occur if they collide with a cyclist.

tomasrojo

BostonB wrote: »

...or it could be that motorists are automatically considered liable in law for any injuries that occur if they collide with a cyclist.

I think it's more that the presumption of liability lies with the motorist. He or she can still demonstrate that he or she wasn't in the wrong.
http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/strict-liability-and-legal-protection-for-cyclists/

reallyunique

I like the 'painted lines' solution to the problem of cycling accidents but my kids hate it. For no reason at all they find being squeezed by coaches, busses, taxis, cars vans and trucks frightening. They stubbornly refuse to battle through Donnybrook as if asserting their rights wasn't their duty as cyclists. In fact, they act as if they were just people, not cyclists at all. It has gotten to the point where they push their bikes on the pavement rather than "risk death", their words not mine, by taking the lane. Telling them about accident statistics is pointless, they don't understand the maths and seem to feel afraid despite being told that although drivers will shout, blow their horns and, occasionally, hit them, it's really quite safe. If I can't bully my kids into using the roads what chance do other parents have.

Now of course, they like the segregated cycle facilities well enough. They stop at the lights and feel safe, away from the traffic. Even the presence of Dublin Bikes doesn't seem to scare them. They insist that if these "cycle paths", as they call them, went to their school they would cycle there on their own yet they don't show any interest in racing or even joining a club! Commuting like that is just wasted miles.

If this attitude starts to spread amongst the general child population there is little hope that 20% of journeys will be made by bike in their lifetime. Getting performance and luxury car drivers to switch to bikes is one thing but parents with kids will be a tough sell if the little-ones can't be made to HTFU.
I guess we'll have to be happy with the 2% who feel the current "infrastructure" is sufficient. Bloody kids!

Augmerson

BostonB wrote: »

Wearing safety gear? Have you ever seen people cycling in these places?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXw_t172BKY&feature=related

...or it could be that motorists are automatically considered liable in law for any injuries that occur if they collide with a cyclist.

I've seen cycling at night, dressed in black to dark clothing, with no reflectors or hi-vis over here. Who is liable if the motorist hits the cyclists then?

Qualitymark

Augmerson wrote: »

Maybe because in Amsterdam and Copenhagen they didn't have cyclists running red lights, going opposite direction down one way streets, not wearing any safety gear, not paying any heed to the rules of the road?

You haven't travelled, I take it?

In the Netherlands (don't know about Denmark), cyclists automatically have priority - everything on the road gives way to them: cars, motorbikes, buses, pedestrians, even (to the best of their power) trams.

BostonB

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think it's more that the presumption of liability lies with the motorist. He or she can still demonstrate that he or she wasn't in the wrong.
http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/strict-liability-and-legal-protection-for-cyclists/

Thats UK law. I was talking about these European places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Road_traffic_legislation_and_its_implications

UK and Ireland don't have the same liability which is one possible reason why they give cyclists more consideration. Its not lights and Hi Viz jackets as Augmerson suggested as they don't have/need them.

Dermot Illogical

Augmerson wrote: »

I've seen cycling at night, dressed in black to dark clothing, with no reflectors or hi-vis over here. Who is liable if the motorist hits the cyclists then?

That'll be whoever the judge decides is liable. It doesn't get decided on boards.

BostonB

reallyunique wrote: »

I like the 'painted lines' solution to the problem of cycling accidents but my kids hate it. ....If this attitude starts to spread amongst the general child population there is little hope that 20% of journeys will be made by bike in their lifetime. Getting performance and luxury car drivers to switch to bikes is one thing but parents with kids will be a tough sell if the little-ones can't be made to HTFU.
I guess we'll have to be happy with the 2% who feel the current "infrastructure" is sufficient. Bloody kids!

I think that indicated thats its a problem of perception rather than experience.

BostonB

Augmerson wrote: »

I've seen cycling at night, dressed in black to dark clothing, with no reflectors or hi-vis over here. Who is liable if the motorist hits the cyclists then?

Depends who is at fault. In the city the place is well lit up, and of course cars have very powerful lights on them. So unless you can prove ninja cycling is a bigger cause of accidents than driver error, I'm thinking its the latter which needs more attention.

Besides Lights and reflectors are law after dark already. What are you going to do . Make more laws that do the same thing? If the Guards don't enforce it thats a different issue. Its like cars driving on sidelights, spots or one headlight, or indeed no lights. Incidentally hi Viz is primarily aimed at being seen during the day. Though I do think it helps at night myself. Reflectors are what can be seen at night when a light hits them.

Qualitymark

By the way, for anyone quoting Rules of the Road, that's not what will be in question if you're haled into court (God forbid!) - it'll be the Irish Statue Book.

monument

Segregation isn't just or maybe isn't even mainly about actual safety. Given how safe Dublin is numbers wise for cycling, increasing safety as the key goal of segregation seems pointless. It should be about a range of things, including:

Increasing the numbers of cyclists -- making cycling realistically attractive to more people.

Prioritising cycling -- giving cycling its own space and a good level of priority

Improving perceived safety -- once actually safety is not affected, percived safety is a more important tool to get people cycling

Improving comfort -- overlaps with perceived safety, but the feeling of comfort of Dutch / Dainish cycle paths is noteworthy in its self.

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Most of those can be avoided with the application of common sense, so it would be useful to see a breakdown. No point in looking for infrastructure if idiocy is the problem.

Thankfully well designed infrastructure can protect against idiocy. It's fairly key to road design.

On the other hand, the problem with a solution which requires an "application of common sense" is that common sense is not common.

doozerie wrote: »

Perhaps the benefit was that more people flocked to bicycles, making everyone more aware of cyclists and therefore more considerate towards them - if so, then segregation should take second place to promoting the benefits of cycling to encourage more people to cycle.

Following that logically:

Segregation = people flocked to bicycles = greater safety + more peope cycling = result!

Thus if segregation = people flocked to bicycles, and the aim is "people flocked to bicycles", then segregation is key.

doozerie wrote:

And even if we accept that segregation is the solution to the cycling world ills, can we even come close to approximating the same kind of infrastructure in this country given our existing city and road designs.

Not sure what exactly you mean, but:

Dutch streets used to look very much so like our streets look.

Dutch and Dainish cycling paths have been put on very large and very small streets. Amsterdam is a prime example of city centre area with a network of overall small streets.

coolbeans wrote: »

An awful lot of whatwhat you've described could be alleviated by proper road positioning. A lot cheaper than segregation too.

Look at it this way: A few cyclists taking the lane among cars really isn't an effect use of space compared to that same lane been dedicated to cyclists and many cyclists using it.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Nobody is questioning the reduction in deaths. What is open to dispute is the idea that you can build any kind of roads infrastructure you want and then "fix it" by adding in some roadside cycle facilities afterwards.

Telling people that the Danes fixed the problem by adding cycle facilities misses a plethora of other factors that mean we can't draw direct comparisons with our situation.

To give just one example: According to the Danish Roads Directorate, none of their cities have multi-lane one-way systems designed to keep cars moving.

It's a package.

The idea is you change streets (and the street network) for segregation, not that just tack segregation on to the side of the road.

Tacking segregation on to the side of the road has already been tried in Ireland -- overall it does not work.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

It's a package.

The idea is you change streets (and the street network) for segregation, not that just tack segregation on to the side of the road.

Tacking segregation on to the side of the road has already been tried in Ireland -- overall it does not work.

Thats exactly the point - when someone is offering you "segregation" without doing anything to review or revise the "management philosophy" for the underlying roads network - then it is time to get worried.

rp

reallyunique wrote: »

If this attitude starts to spread amongst the general child population there is little hope that 20% of journeys will be made by bike in their lifetime.

Don't be too concerned - there are other factors that will effect the bike's modal share, like how long is cheap petrol going to be available? And stats from the UK and elsewhere are showing a steady decline in people getting driving licenses.

bambergbike

monument wrote: »

Thankfully well designed infrastructure can protect against idiocy. It's fairly key to road design.

Forgivingness is a great idea in theory, but what protects one idiot often endangers another.

When trees on a road are cut down in the name of forgivingness because a young drunk driver has slammed their car into a tree on that particular road at three in the morning, I always wonder how a driver who can't see a huge tree with a ring of reflective paint around the trunk is going to see pedestrians or cyclists.

Two cycling-specific examples:
A rural road near me with a parallel two-way cycle track has a two-layer crash barrier at a sharp bend so that motorists who overcook the corner don't fall off the road and tip over into the cycle lane. Result: Cyclists are sent down a steep hill and around a bend with their heads very close to a metal crash barrier at head height. Another rural road in the same general vicinity has a two-way cycle track that takes cyclists down a corkscrew hill with their faces mere inches from metal cages filled with stones shoring up an embankment. Designers can get so hung up on protecting cyclists from cars that they forget to protect them from walls and metal barriers that are less forgiving of cyclist errors.

monument wrote: »

Tacking segregation on to the side of the road has already been tried in Ireland -- overall it does not work.

Segregation in sense of clearly separating cyclists from both motor vehicles and pedestrians (and only lumping them in with vehicles like mopeds or electric bikes that travel at similar speeds) has not really been implemented very comprehensively in Ireland.

monument

rp wrote: »

Don't be too concerned - there are other factors that will effect the bike's modal share, like how long is cheap petrol going to be available? And stats from the UK and elsewhere are showing a steady decline in people getting driving licenses.

If things go down the route you suggest, cycling may still not be the "winning" mode. The bus (or more likely improved bus services / BRT) could be the main winner in modal share, or there could be successful pushes to make trams the main on-street mode of transport. Or a mix of bus / tram / cars for those who can still afford them.

Or electric cars could become mainstream and we'd be still left with all or much the same space and congestion problems, along with the inactivity problems etc.

Even if cycling was the "winner" of the trend you're describing, how long would we have to wait for that to happen? Should everybody sit back in the meanwhile?

bambergbike wrote: »

Forgivingness is a great idea in theory, but what protects one idiot often endangers another.

When trees on a road are cut down in the name of forgivingness because a young drunk driver has slammed their car into a tree on that particular road at three in the morning, I always wonder how a driver who can't see a huge tree with a ring of reflective paint around the trunk is going to see pedestrians or cyclists.

Two cycling-specific examples:
A rural road near me with a parallel two-way cycle track has a two-layer crash barrier at a sharp bend so that motorists who overcook the corner don't fall off the road and tip over into the cycle lane. Result: Cyclists are sent down a steep hill and around a bend with their heads very close to a metal crash barrier at head height. Another rural road in the same general vicinity has a two-way cycle track that takes cyclists down a corkscrew hill with their faces mere inches from metal cages filled with stones shoring up an embankment. Designers can get so hung up on protecting cyclists from cars that they forget to protect them from walls and metal barriers that are less forgiving of cyclist errors.

Would never happen if -- like the Dutch do best -- you give cyclists not only protection, but also priority.

bambergbike wrote:

Segregation in sense of clearly separating cyclists from both motor vehicles and pedestrians (and only lumping them in with vehicles like mopeds or electric bikes that travel at similar speeds) has not really been implemented very comprehensively in Ireland.

Exactly.

Also: I'd warn against mixing cyclists and mopeds, at least in urban areas. It has not worked out that well in the Netherlands. It's apprently the bane of cyclists in Amsterdam (lots of crashes and near misses).

smacl

monument wrote: »

Improving perceived safety -- once actually safety is not affected, percived safety is a more important tool to get people cycling

What I infer from this is you're suggesting we build a load of new infrastructure for people who don't already cycle, to encourage them to cycle, based on the premise that the reason they're not cycling is that it is too dangerous. From previous discussion, you point out repeatedly that cycling is already one of the safer forms of transport in urban areas, and therefore the principal blocking factor to people taking up cycling is perceived rather than actual risk. If that is the case, the crap cycling infrastructure we already have is just as fit for purpose as the all singing, all dancing infrastructure of our dreams that we presently can't afford, and greater efforts should be made to sell what's there and paid for to a larger audience.

Thus if segregation = people flocked to bicycles, and the aim is "people flocked to bicycles", then segregation is key.

That's a big if, with big cost implications. It would be interesting to look at the number of people who have started cycling as a result of the BTW scheme, versus the number that have started because of new cycle lanes, and the relative cost to the tax payer per new cyclist.

I'm not even slightly convinced that the principal reason that the Irish masses are not flocking to bicycles is the lack of segregated cycle lanes. Particularly habitual car users, who've never cycled regularly. They might cite perceived dangers as their excuse, but IMHO an excuse is all it is. Take it away and they'll find another one.

doozerie

monument wrote: »

Following that logically:

Segregation = people flocked to bicycles = greater safety + more peope cycling = result!

Thus if segregation = people flocked to bicycles, and the aim is "people flocked to bicycles", then segregation is key.

No, segregation is not necessarily key, even applying the logic above. Segregation *might* be an example of one thing that encourages more people to cycle, but even if so it's just one means of encouraging cycling, not the only one, and whether it is a key one depends entirely on your point of view.

Personally I favour trying other approaches to encouraging cycling before going down the costly and disastrous (to date, in Ireland) segregation route.

tomasrojo

BostonB wrote: »

Thats UK law. I was talking about these European places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Road_traffic_legislation_and_its_implications

UK and Ireland don't have the same liability which is one possible reason why they give cyclists more consideration. Its not lights and Hi Viz jackets as Augmerson suggested as they don't have/need them.

The post is about strict liability, with especial reference to the Netherlands though. He admits he found it hard to unearth English-language information about liability in the Netherlands, but in as far as he could it seems that the Netherlands doesn't have strict liability; that is, if the motorist can show he wasn't at fault, he isn't liable, but the burden to show he wasn't at fault falls on him, rather than the burden being on the cyclist to show the motorist was at fault.

So, to answer this:

Augmerson wrote: »

I've seen cycling at night, dressed in black to dark clothing, with no reflectors or hi-vis over here. Who is liable if the motorist hits the cyclists then?

I think you're asking what would happen in the Netherlands? I assume that if the motorist has a witness that will state the cyclist was negligent in some way (which does not include a failure to wear hi-viz), then he can avoid liability.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, let alone a Dutch lawyer specialising in road-safety cases.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

Also: I'd warn against mixing cyclists and mopeds, at least in urban areas. It has not worked out that well in the Netherlands. It's apprently the bane of cyclists in Amsterdam (lots of crashes and near misses).

And how! Well, it could be a statistical freak event, but my first cycle in Leiden with a Dutch friend resulted in her nearly being taken out by a moped coming around a blind corner at high speed in the middle of a two-way cycle path.

bambergbike

monument wrote: »

Also: I'd warn against mixing cyclists and mopeds, at least in urban areas. It has not worked out that well in the Netherlands. It's apprently the bane of cyclists in Amsterdam (lots of crashes and near misses).

Well, I couldn't care less about mopeds, really. I don't know that there are enough of them in Ireland for us to be very bothered about where we put them. But they travel at much the same speed as electric bicycles, and we are going to have to work out where they go. If somebody is using a bike with a motor because they have become too frail to manage their shopping or cycle with the extra weight of a grandchild in a child seat without the motor, does that justify kicking that cyclist off the cyclist-specific infrastructure and telling them to go and mix it up with traffic?

Qualitymark

bambergbike wrote: »

Well, I couldn't care less about mopeds, really. I don't know that there are enough of them in Ireland for us to be very bothered about where we put them. But they travel at much the same speed as electric bicycles, and we are going to have to work out where they go. If somebody is using a bike with a motor because they have become too frail to manage their shopping or cycle with the extra weight of a grandchild in a child seat without the motor, does that justify kicking that cyclist off the cyclist-specific infrastructure and telling them to go and mix it up with traffic?

In the Netherlands bicycle lanes can be used by:

* bicycles (including backfietsen, tricycles and tandems)
* mopeds
* tiny low-power cars for disabled and very old people.

The mopeds tend to be a curse because they go a lot faster than the others and tend to weave in and out, scaring the bejasus out of everyone and appearing without warning.

Qualitymark

Piece about cycling in Copenhagen, by the way http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_efficient_planet/2012/11/green_wave_can_the_u_s_embrace_biking_like_denmark_has.html?wpisrc=obinsite

monument

smacl wrote: »

What I infer from this is you're suggesting we build a load of new infrastructure for people who don't already cycle, to encourage them to cycle, based on the premise that the reason they're not cycling is that it is too dangerous....

It's as much about comfort and prorirty as it is about danger.

smacl wrote: »

If that is the case, the crap cycling infrastructure we already have is just as fit for purpose as the all singing, all dancing infrastructure of our dreams

Not likely given the disconnection of the current off-road "network".

Big diffrence between actual danger and perceived danger.

smacl wrote: »

that we presently can't afford,

Dublin and, more or less so, other Irish cities can't afford to do nothing. The city is congested even in a downturn, the road network has been hovering around critical capacity for too long and the population is growing.

Nationally our health problems linked to inactivity are mounting and problems relating to emissions are not going away too quickly.

smacl wrote: »

and greater efforts should be made to sell what's there and paid for to a larger audience.

You want money spent on marketing and PR for the current cycling infrastructure which is often disjointed, often lacks priority, which is shared with parking, which is shared with large buses, which is poorly maintained!?

Sounds like the biggest waste of money.

smacl wrote: »

That's a big if, with big cost implications. It would be interesting to look at the number of people who have started cycling as a result of the BTW scheme, versus the number that have started because of new cycle lanes, and the relative cost to the tax payer per new cyclist.

Dutch / Dainish style cycle paths have a net return to the tax payer.

smacl wrote: »

I'm not even slightly convinced that the principal reason that the Irish masses are not flocking to bicycles is the lack of segregated cycle lanes. Particularly habitual car users, who've never cycled regularly. They might cite perceived dangers as their excuse, but IMHO an excuse is all it is. Take it away and they'll find another one.

You're not even slightly convinced but survey after survey in Ireland and the UK shows the same thing?

And your argument is that -- even if it is the reason and it's addressed -- people will move the goal posts... That kind of sounds like moving the goal posts in advance of people possablly doing the same.

doozerie wrote: »

No, segregation is not necessarily key, even applying the logic above. Segregation *might* be an example of one thing that encourages more people to cycle, but even if so it's just one means of encouraging cycling, not the only one, and whether it is a key one depends entirely on your point of view.

Personally I favour trying other approaches to encouraging cycling before going down the costly and disastrous (to date, in Ireland) segregation route.

Nobody is suggesting following the already failed Irish designs and well-designed segregation isn's costly in light of the return it gives.

In any case, what other things?

bambergbike wrote: »

Well, I couldn't care less about mopeds, really. I don't know that there are enough of them in Ireland for us to be very bothered about where we put them. But they travel at much the same speed as electric bicycles, and we are going to have to work out where they go. If somebody is using a bike with a motor because they have become too frail to manage their shopping or cycle with the extra weight of a grandchild in a child seat without the motor, does that justify kicking that cyclist off the cyclist-specific infrastructure and telling them to go and mix it up with traffic?

Because the only legal electric bicycles are only electric assist and are not as fast or as heavy or as large as mopeds.

Qualitymark wrote: »

In the Netherlands bicycle lanes can be used by:

* bicycles (including backfietsen, tricycles and tandems)
* mopeds
* tiny low-power cars for disabled and very old people.

The mopeds tend to be a curse because they go a lot faster than the others and tend to weave in and out, scaring the bejasus out of everyone and appearing without warning.

Mopeds are not allowed on all cycle paths everywhere -- they tend to have to use the paths in the country but in built up areas it varies.

bambergbike

monument wrote: »

It's as much about comfort and priority as it is about danger.

Agreed, of course. But I think that changing traffic law and improving enforcement and driver & cyclist education hold out as much or more promise as pure engineering solutions. Removing priority from motorized traffic turning across the path of cyclists would be a good place to start.

monument wrote: »

You're not even slightly convinced but survey after survey in Ireland and the UK shows the same thing?

I haven't trawled through every relevant survey, but I was fascinated by a report on one conducted by the consultants preparing the walking and cycling strategy for Galway. The main point they took from it was that people want more dedicated cycle infrastructure. But they had a section for comments, and they got an overwhelming number of comments about driver behaviour. ("Thirty three percent of comments received stated drivers in Galway had little awareness of cyclists, generating significant danger on the roads.") That sentence is just tucked away at the back of the strategy in a brief summary of the survey results - but that single issue is really the elephant in the room. It could have formed the backbone of the strategy.

The Cavan strategy, to take a random contrasting example, had a section on policy context that identified three objectives from the National Cycling Policy Framework that would be particularly relevant for Cavan town:

- improving the image of cycling;
- improving driver education and driving standards;
- enforcement of traffic law

The consultants in Galway could have arrived at similar conclusions on the basis of their survey results, but they didn't.

*I've quoted from the draft Galway strategy, I haven't got the version that was adopted by the council recently to hand - http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/Publications/DRAFTStudiesSchemes/240112_02.pdf).

monument

bambergbike wrote: »

Removing priority from motorized traffic turning across the path of cyclists would be a good place to start.[\Quote]

Motorists turning across cyclists have priority?

bambergbike

monument wrote: »

Motorists turning across cyclists have priority?

Well, I wish they didn't and I hope I'm misinterpreting the statute book and will be proved wrong on this one. Qualitymark quoted from it the other day (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html):

A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”

My reading of that is that if a motorist and a cyclist to his/her left reach a junction at the same time, any attempt by the cyclist to go straight through the junction before the motorist turns would be illegal undertaking. The rules of the road say that motorists should yield to pedestrians and cyclists who are already crossing, but there is no mention of the scenario where the motorist is about to turn and the cyclist or pedestrian is about to go straight, but not yet in the mouth of the junction. Other than by yielding, a cyclist can avoid the illegal "undertake" by taking up road positioning in the main traffic stream (or possibly by overtaking on the outside), but those options are tricky if your starting position is a cycle lane on the inside.