The lanes in Edinburgh work quite well in spite of their odd placing and
tendency to run out where they are most necessary. They have the desired
effect of advertising a cycle's presence and (like bus lanes) motorists
assume they have more power than they do. Every morning I find a single
lane of motors where once there were two because they have been
conditioned by a cycle lane that 'ran out' earlier. The really curious
piece of traffic management is the cycle area before traffic signals
where there is a tiny entrance lane that barely stretches one car back.
Whatever its practicality, what it does do is legitimise weaving up a
queue to the lights. In general the Edinburgh lanes are a benefit so
long as they are integrated into main road space and not segregated.

Nicholas Oddy

-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Walker
Sent: 07 February 2006 11:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: widespread visible onroad cycle facilities[Scanned]

You raise some interesting points there, although I'm not sure the two 
issues need be so separate. One possible interpretation of the increase 
in cycling you refer to (and I throw this out as a thought rather than 
hard fact) might be that the creation of cycle lanes doesn't 
necessarily make people feel safer as such, but rather acts as a form 
of advertising, regularly illustrating the potential to cycle and - 
perhaps more importantly - demonstrating official approval of the act. 
I lived in York at the time the city got serious about cycle lanes and 
I'm sure that one of the real consequences was that people started to 
think of the city as being "a cycling city" and so rode more.

If this mechanism, or something similar, is operating then we should 
definitely ask parallel questions about whether the lanes are safe, and 
if not, what other mechanisms might be put in place to give the same 
form of advertising of and official encouragement for cycling.

Ian
-----
Dr Ian Walker,
Department of Psychology,
University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY,
England.

Tel: +44 (0)1225 383908
E-mail: [log in to unmask] (academic)
E-mail: [log in to unmask] (other matters)
Website: www.drianwalker.com

On 7 Feb 2006, at 11:37, Dave duFeu wrote:

> 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.
>
=======================================================================
>
>