To take forward to the debate, "the cycle area before traffic signals"
relates to an Advanced Stop Line (ASL), introduced in the UK over the last
20 years or so and originating from the Netherlands. The ASL role is
primarily safety - to enable cyclists to the front of the queue on a red
light and thus minimising the conflict where bikes turn across motor
vehices (bike ahead, MV left or bike right, MV ahead). I was involved in
some work about 10 years ago for the DfT, whislt at TRL, to examine motor
vehicle (MV) / bicycle movements at signalised junctions.
That said, I would agree with other contributors, that having a 'box' ahead
of motor vehicles (as with other cyclist facilities) shows the importance
of cycling to other road users!
Kind regards
Tim
Dr Tim Ryley
Lecturer in Transport Studies
Transport Studies Group
Department of Civil and Building Engineering
Loughborough University, Leicestershire LE11 3TU
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1509 223422
Quoting "Oddy, Nicholas" <[log in to unmask]>:
> 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.
> >
> =======================================================================
> >
> >
>
|
