But all the evidence shows that drivers pass cyclists closer when there is a
narrow cycle lane than if there was none, increasing the risk of collision.
If you're saying that the cycle lane enables cyclists to pass stationary
traffic, then that is useful, but they are unlikely to improve safety or
encourage new cyclists.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Mann
Sent: 23 November 2010 13:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 1.5 m passing distance laws
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Simon P J Batterbury
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> -Personally I would prefer a 0.5m cycle lane on a narrow road, than
wishing
> for a 1.5m lane that will never ever be built because the road is too
> narrow. 0.5 is something at least. Transort engineers worried about safety
> won't build narrow lanes anymore. Shame.
We've got some at 0.9m (next to a congested single 3m traffic lane)
which are fine:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom
&ll=51.752368,-1.278489&spn=0,0.019205&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.752371,-1.278603
&panoid=8iFMh2ynrRT4mEFtNBJ20g&cbp=12,117.34,,0,5
and some at 0.8m (sometimes a bit less, and next to a not-so-congested
2.8m traffic lane) which feel a bit hairy:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford,+United+Kingdom
&ll=51.749774,-1.311536&spn=0,0.019205&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.749774,-1.311536
&panoid=tXL_gsVBrtDjMm4oGVkffA&cbp=12,117.68,,0,5
I wouldn't go quite as low as 0.5m (and it depends a lot on traffic
speed), but I agree entirely with your general point.
Richard
|