Figure 1: Risks inherent in cycle paths.
These methods are:
The first problem is the law. Technically, cycling along the footway is prohibited by law. The penalty for cycling along the footway can be as high as £2500, but is typically £20. However, the police tend to ignore cycling on the footways, in part because they are always short of staff, and in part because Paul Boateng, who signed the law into effect, send out a guidance note, which says this:
"Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required." - James Daley, Independent, 13-11-2007.
This undercuts the need for cycle paths, in the first place.
There is, however, two better reason for many people not to cycle on the footways.
Firstly, the cyclist will have to give way to, and be careful around, pedestrians, and for this reason, cycling on the footways will always be much slower than cycling on the road. One particular hazard is a dog on a leash, with the owner on one side of the footway, the dog on the other, and an invisible trip-wire in-between. Footways can be very narrow, and very unsuitable for mixing cyclists and pedestrians.
Collisions between pedestrians and cyclists can be serious. According to 'Cycling England', in 2005, 64 pedestrians were killed or seriously injured by bicycles, and 5947 were killed or seriously injured by cars. This sounds good for cyclists, but typically only 2% of journeys are made by bicycle, and 85% by cars, in the urban environment. On this basis, cars are twice as dangerous to pedestrians as bicycles are, but only two times more dangerous. It is a mistake to assume that whereas bicycles and cars cannot mix on the roads, pedestrians and cyclists should be expected to mix well on the footways.
Secondly, the footways in the urban environment are intersected by driveways and side roads, as is shown in Figure 1. Cars leaving a driveway typically cross the footway, and wait at the edge of of the road to proceed, which blocks the footway for pedestrians and cyclists. Also, car drivers leave and enter the side roads, and are much more aware of the other vehicles on the road and less on the cyclists and pedestrians on the footways. If the cyclist is proceeding slowly (at 10mph or less), and are prepared to stop at every side road, then the cyclist will be reasonably safe. If, however, they cycle quickly, or do not stop at side roads, then the cyclist risks being injured or killed.
Figure 1: Risks inherent in cycle paths.
On balance, therefore, cycle paths are not particularly useful (given the laws in place), and for fast cyclists are quite dangerous.
Figure 2 shows how a cyclist should attempt to ride this road. They are sufficiently close to the kerb so that the cyclists doesn't unnecessarily impede the cars coming up from behind them, but they are suffciently far out that car drivers have to slow down in order to overtake them properly. At traffic islands, the cyclist is sufficiently far out that the car drivers have to wait behind for the few seconds that it will take for the cyclist to pass the island. The cyclist can turn right at any time, and can move out to pass parked cars - if the car door is opened, they need to be a door width away from the car at the time.
Figure 3 shows some of the effects of the cycle lane. The cyclist cannot turn right at most junctions, since they are now in a separate lane, and are pinned to the kerb - they have to wait a while to manouvere into an advanced cycle box at special junctions (assuming that it isn't already occupied by a car). The cycle lane is sufficiently narrow so that cars can pass by at full speed, with the dangers of collision at that speed. The cycle lane, if it passes parked cars, pins the cyclist within distance of an opened car door. Where the road narrows, such as near a traffic island, the cars may have to enter the cycle lane in order to pass it. As with cycle paths, car drivers leaving a driveway will most likely wait at the road edge, blocking the cycle lane.
Of course, there is no compulsion in law on a cyclist to use the cycle lanes, but if they cycle in the remaining road area, car drivers are likely to abuse them for getting in their way. Additonally, car drivers are less likely to expect the cyclist to leave their lane.
Cycle lanes have no redeeming features at all, and should be removed immediately.
Figure 2: Before the cycle lane
Figure 3: After the cycle lane
Cycle lanes and cycle paths have been copied wholesale from Holland, in the hope that some of the cycling magic in the Netherlands can rub off on the UK's roads. Unfortnately, not only does this copying make the roads more dangerous, but it doesn't always work in Holland. According to the Ministry of Transport and Waterways (4MB PDF link) -
"Although there are more than 7,000 kilometres of cycle paths in Dutch cities, almost half the kilometres cycled are on roads with a combined profile for car and bicycle traffic. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as the number of cars is limited and they don’t drive too fast. (More interestingly: cyclists often prefer a quiet residential street to an autonomous bicycle path alongside busy traffic arteries)" - p52
Figures 4 and 5 show the towpath in Bath, UK. The problems with using a towpath are obvious - narrow routes, and poor sight lines. This is because originally it was only intended to be used by a horse to pull the canal barges along at walking pace. Figure 5 shows an artistic representation of the towpath, from the same viewpoint, at night - and it is almost that dark, too! No streetlighting is provided, limiting the usefulness of this facility during the dark winter months.
Cycle tracks also tend to follow the original route, which is not necessarily the shortest route. The shortest routes tend to be the routes of the major roads. In some cases, the difference in route lengths can be very large, and a problem for people who are cycling in a hurry.
 |
 |
| Figure 4: Bath towpath (daytime) - Author | Figure 5: Bath towpath (at night) - Author |
Arguably the easiest vehicle on the road to use is the motor-scooter. A modern motor-scooter, with a CVT gearbox, only has four controls - right brake (front wheel), left brake (rear wheel), steering bar and throttle. Cars have more controls, with manual gearbox cars requiring co-ordination between accelerator, clutch and brakes. Motorbikes are harder yet, having a sequential gearbox, and getting a smooth gearchange requires some practice.
By contrast, a modern derrailleur bicycle has 24 gears (split between two settings), two brakes, a steering bar and pedals, and requires the gearbox to be changed down before the vehicle comes to a halt. The vehicle, being slower than other vehicles on the road, is ridden to the left of the lane, is overtaken by just about everything else, and requires good communication with other road users. It is arguably the most difficult of private vehicles to drive properly. There are a large number of cyclists who are quite convinced that they have got the hang of it, but who wobble, pedal in the wrong gear, and change position without signalling or shoulder checking.
Occassionally, the idea of compulsory training is suggested, in other words, licensing. This would be as bad as no training. At the moment, there are only a few classes of road user who are on the road by right, as against by permission (a license). These classes include pedestrians, cyclists, and horse-drawn vehicles. All three of these examples suffer from the arrogance and, sometimes aggression, of a minority of car drivers. At least the legal status of cyclists is protected. With licensing will come, inevitably, a list of requirements which cyclists must adhere to. "Not that road - it's too dangerous!" "You must wear a cycle helmet!" - and so on. This is unlikely to produce the increase in cycling that most people want to see.
The easiest way to handle training is to offer bicycle training when the bicycle is being sold. If accepted, the bicycle can then be shipped by van directly to the training centre. The training should be free of charge - since the notion that bicycles must be cheap persists. If someone is only willing to spend £50 or £100 on a new bicycle, they are not likely to spend £20/hour on cycle training.
Bicycle training promotes confidence in travelling by bicycle. Even a few hours of training greatly increases the level of skill that cyclist possess, and after training, people cycle further and more often. Cycle training can reduce accident rates by a factor of 3 or 4 in children. A TRL research paper also indicates that cycle training improves the safety of child cyclists.
Bicycle training can be provided very cheaply. Figure 6 shows a cycling facility in Alice Park, Bath, Uk, where children can play, and learn how to cycle safely at the same time.
Figure 6: Cycle training facility, Alice Park, Bath, UK - Author
The best way to get people cycling is to encourage them from an early age. One problem with children cycling is that as they grow, they grow out of the bicycle. A solution is for the local council to buy a small number of children's bicycles, and loan them out on the basis of a deposit. Given that money appears to be available for the provision of free bicycles to adults, who can easily afford a bicycle (new or secondhand) themselves, this would be a better use of the money. (The same approach could also be adopted for prams and other such articles which children quickly grow out of).
There is an alternative type of bicycle known as a recumbent bicycle. In this type of bicycle, the cyclist leans backwards. Braking is superior to a conventional bicycle, and because a flyscreen can be fitted, the improved aerodynamics means that the bicycle can move faster. The flyscreen can also shield the rider from rain.
The lower height of a recumbent bicycle is not generally signficant. Car drivers can see the road markings, which stand proud by only a few millimetres, and they can easily see a recument bicycle, which is of a similar height to a car.
Figure 7 shows a typical recumbent bicycle, in this case a 'Gold Rush' from Easyracers. Bicycle such as these can be bought from $625, although the item shown would cost $3495. Recumbent bicycles tend to be more expensive than conventional bicycle, partly because they are built in smaller volumes, and partly because there is more to them.
Figure 7: Gold Rush/Easyracers (source:Easyracers)
Organisations which support cycle helmets include:
The most prominent organisation opposing cycle helmets is CycleHelmets.
The good news is that bicycle helmets work. The bicycle helmet works by absorbing the vertical impact of the head onto a hard surface. Forward speed is scrubbed off by the rider sliding along the tarmac. The speed of impact is set to approximately 12mph, which is the speed that the head would impact with if someone fell over. The soft lining of the helmet absorbs the shock of impact, and reduces the deceleration of impact to a level which the brain can absorb. Contrary to popular opinion, a cycle helmet that splits into two has not saved the life of the wearer - in fact, the helmet has failed to work properly. A cycle helmet that works properly is crushed, not split.
The bad news for the pro-helmet lobby is that the country with one of the lowest rates of helmet use, Holland, has the safest cycling. This is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Cycling deaths against helmet usage (Source: cyclehelmets.org)
Holland has cycle lanes and cycle paths, which, as we have seen, are for many cyclists more dangerous than cycling on the roads. The Dutch rarely wear cycling helmets either. The reasons for the lower rate of fatalities appears to be two-fold. Firstly, the Dutch have a law which places far more responsibility on car drivers for accidents with cyclists - the car driver has to show that the cyclist was reckless. Secondly, the Dutch cycle so much more than people do in the UK, and the number of cyclists has a major effect on the casualty rates.
The UK publication, WebTAG 3.14, section 1.8.7, indicates that the casualty rate per cyclist falls with the increasing number of cyclists.
The predicted casualty rate is given by the equation
Where
The shape of the graph is shown in Figure 9. As the number of cyclists increases the accident rate per cyclist decreases.
Figure 9: Relationship between cycling rates and accident risk
Why does an increase in the number of cyclists on the road reduce the casualty rates for cyclists? Figure 10 provides a clue. In Amsterdam, for example, 35% of journeys are made by bicycle. So, every car driver is likely to know someone - a relative, friend, or business colleague - who cycles. Cyclists are 'one of us', and they are deserving of respect.
By comparison, in the UK, only 2% of journeys are made by bicycle. Many car drivers do not know someone who cycles, and therefore cyclists are 'one of them'. This effect of this has been experienced by almost all cyclists in this country from time-to-time, ranging from a casual indifference to the safety of cyclists to open aggression.
Figure 10: Proportions of journeys made in Amsterdam (Source: City of Amsterdam)
Or at least one would have thought so.
There is a design of junction though which is almost designed to cause as much diffculty for inexperienced cyclists as possible. The junction layout is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 11: Unhelpful junction design - Bath, UK - Author
In this design, the only permitted movements are left and ahead, and one lane would suffice for both. However, in an attempt to increase the capacity of the junction, two lanes have been provided, and the ahead movement has been moved, without warning to the offside. To proceed ahead, the cyclist has to manouvere as if they were turning right.
How did this arise? The junction was undoubtedly modelled using one of the commercial modelling package. The traffic at the junction was observed, and recorded by turning direction and vehicle type. In accordance with best practice, the motorised traffic was added up, with bias for vehicle size. In all likelihood, the count of bicycles was not included in the total, and if it was, the effect on the outcome would have been small.
The specific needs of cyclists were ignored.
The two lanes don't do much. Figure 11 shows the traffic queueing back from the stop line. Please note that the majority of traffic is going straight ahead, and the turning lane is basically unused.
Figure 12: Traffic behaviour at the junction - Author
Close by is a roundabout, with a similar lane arrangement, with the ahead flow on the offside. This is shown in Figure 11. Roundabouts are especially dangerous for cyclists, since cyclists mistakenly tend to cycle close to the outside of the circle, and car drivers, approaching the junction, look towards the centre of the circle for oncoming cars. In cycling terms, the design of the roundabout is very poor.
Figure 13: Adjacent roundabout - Bath, UK - Author
Other approaches, however, either will not help at all, or make the problem worse. These include:
