I am very happy with Pete's question as the first question in such a
study, being even more general than were my suggestions. My two
suggested questions should then follow, giving various different
perspectives on the issue, but not clouding the initial response to his
more general question. Comparison between the answers would be
interesting.
My main point in suggesting the study is that whilst the width issue has
received considerable attention, the promotional effect of cycle lanes
(whether positive or negative) does not appear to have been studied.
Yet that is surely a crucial issue in policy formulation, since policy
generally aims to increase cycle use, and since safety is in part a
function of the numbers of people cycling.
[Incidentally closer average width of passing does not necessarily mean
more safety overall. For example, it may be that whilst a cycle lane
encourages a majority of drivers to pass closer, yet it keeps out a
minority who would otherwise have passed too close].
I guess, based on our experience in Edinburgh, the ideal would be for
cyclists to be interviewed at 3 otherwise similar locations, one without
cycle lanes, one with black cycle lanes, and one with coloured.
One problem with my suggestion is that it is not investigating the
impact of widespread onroad facilities (widespread within a locality)
which, again going on Edinburgh experience, seems to have an impact over
and above that of individual facilities taken in isolation.
Finally, I have extracted quotes from some of the many letters sent to
Edinburgh council in the recent consultation by cyclists here who feel
that coloured cycle lanes (and cycle lanes in general) have encouraged
them or colleagues to cycle, and will forward them to anyone interested
rather than take up yet more space here.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Peter Owens wrote:
That question will tell you nothing other than the persons belief
system. ie you are asking an entirely hypothetical question - not how
comfortable they feel in a given situation, but whether they believe
that a cycle lane would make it better or worse.
The question should simply be to ask cyclists how comfortable they feel
in a given situation. i.e. ask random cyclists to rate the comfort of
that stretch of road without cycle lanes on a scale of 1-10 and ask a
similar question on a stretch without cycle lanes.
It is likely that you would find that cyclists riding on the stretch
without the cycle lanes would rate the road more comfortable without
suffering the slip stream of trucks. (the cyclist in my report
certainly did). However, it is entirely possible that many of those
riding on the stretch with cycle lanes would believe the situation would
be even worse if the cycle lanes were removed - while those riding on
the stretch without cycle lanes would think how much better it would be
with a cycle lane.
You could try showing them fig3a and fig3b from the report and ask them
wich they would prefer? Your suggestion that you shouldn't do this in
case it influences their choice is rather odd. For a cycle facility to
actually promote cycling, what is important is the actual experience of
riding that road. They may believe that a road could be improved by
painting a white line - but they will soon discover the closer trucks
and a cycle lane can only promote cycling if it actually improves
conditions for cyclists.
Question (b) is even worse. A constant justification for segregation is
this kind question. When asked why they don't cycle they will cite the
absence of facilities. When you point out to the same people that the
facilities exist they think of another reason.
---------------------------------
Excuse another email (shorter). It has struck me that a useful piece of
evidence in this debate could be to interview passing cyclists, for
example at the two locations in the Warrington study (i.e. similar
locations and populations, with and without cycle lane). Ideally
locations with/without coloured surfaces could also be selected.
Either all passing cyclists would be interviewed, or else they must be
selected by a random method, and they could be asked...
a. Do you feel safer or less safe cycling here because there is / is not
a cycle lane? [much safer, slightly safer, slightly less safe, much
less safe - possibly not offering 'no difference']
Possibly also ask...
b. Would you be more / less likely to cycle here if there was / was not
a cycle lane?
If it is found that they feel safer, it is an indication that the cycle
lane is likely to increase cycle use (or slow any decline), given that
perception of safety is the main factor thought to be deterring cycling.
This would then need to be taken into account, alongside the distance
evidence, in any policy recommendations.
If they feel less safe then, taken with the evidence on distance, there
would be little argument for keeping the lanes.
Of course there could be follow-on questions, e.g. about distances, or
changes they wanted to see, but these should not be asked in advance of
(a) above, in order not to influence that initial opinion.
Finally, this suggested study does not cover the question of widespread
visible facilities, but it does give a fuller picture on the effects of
specific ones.
|