I am rather concerned at what seems to me the very limited view being
taken of cycle lanes /ASLs in the cycle press. Questions such as the
amount of space between bikes and cars, or whether some cycle lanes are
encouraging bad cycling habits, are all worthy of investigation, but are
being used as arguments against use of cycle lanes.
Surely the number one question is 'Does widespread provision of cycle
lanes/ASLs encourage more people to cycle?' Then we can get on to the
more detailed questions such as the above, and all the various design
aspects.
Even with regard to safety, it seems widely accepted that if more people
cycle then safety per cyclist improves. I suspect that even if there is
a negative safety element to cycle lanes (which I doubt), this is
outweighed by the increasing safety resulting from more people cycling.
Similarly, if motorists are a bit less careful of cyclists because they
see cycle lanes (which some research suggests), they will also, on the
contrary, be more aware of them because there are more of them around.
The reason for my interest in this is that, as far as I am aware, the
only places in UK to have seen substantial increases in cycle use are
London and Edinburgh [There is also the case of the main-road cycle
lanes in Hull]. The only common factor I am aware of in these cases is
the widespread use of very visible onroad cycle facilities.
Furthermore, all 3 cases have seen very substantial improvements in
cyclist safety.
My confidence in this effect has been increased by recent experience in
Edinburgh where the council decided to cease using coloured surfacing
for lanes/ASLs in a big area of central edinburgh, as certain officials
thought them unsightly in relation to Edinburgh's historic grey image.
We in Spokes (the Lothian Cycle Campaign) have campaigned against this,
the main avenue being asking cyclists to write personal letters to
councillors explaining their feelings. At least 60 letters/emails were
sent - all completely individual - a staggering response, and it is
abundantly clear from the many examples that the visible onroad
facilities are a real motivation for people to use bikes for commuting
and generally for getting round the city. They provide a strong
perception of safety (whether or not they are actually more safe), and
they give everyone the idea that it's ok to cycle. [There will be more
details of our campaign, together with many quotes, in the next Spokes
bulletin, early March].
Of course it is much harder, if not impossible, to research this effect
than to research details such as the car-distance question. Hence the
imperative to home in on the latter - it is easy to study! Some studies
have also been done of the effect of one new cycle lane - that too is
inadequate, as it appears to us that it is the widespread presence of
visible facilities that is important.
There is a severe danger of falling into exactly the same trap as the
helmet proponents, i.e. to home in on case studies and on details, and
forget the overall impact on the population. Yet, strangely it is some
of the strongest critics of compulsory helmets who are the most
sceptical about onroad cycle facilities.
Finally, as regards the specific question of cycle lanes and
car-distance, that question should not be 'how much distance?' but 'is
the distance adequate (and in relation to the car speeds) ?'
=======================================================================
Dave du Feu -- Phone: +44-131-650-3202 -- Mail: [log in to unmask]
Computing Officer -- Public Health Sciences / Medical Statistics Unit
Medical Buildings Teviot Place University of Edinburgh EH8 9AG
=======================================================================
** Attachments may be read less promptly. They also fill my mailbox and
risk spreading viruses: please use them only when genuinely useful.
=======================================================================
|