- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
London cyclist approaching junction.jpgResearch finds measures aimed at making drivers slow down increase danger to cyclists
Pinch points built into the design of roads that narrow the carriageway with the aim of forcing motorists to slow down are instead making cyclists feel unsafe as drivers try to squeeze past them, according to an academic at the University of Westminster.
Senior transport lecturer Dr Rachel Aldred and innovative cycle-light company Blaze teamed up last autumn to launch the Near Miss Project, seeking to gauge the extent of an issue that commonly affects all bike riders and deters many from cycling in the first place.
According to Dr Aldred, a pilot project found that “the average person experienced three near miss type incidents in just one day,” 30 September last year. Now, she has written a blog post based on the initial findings of the project, which ran for a fortnight from 20 October to 2 November.
The post addresses the issue of “carriageway narrowing, which might involve pedestrian build-outs, crossings with refuges, road works, parked cars and so on,” which Dr Aldred notes is implemented “to slow motor vehicles and attempt to make drivers behave better.”
She adds that according to Urban Design London in its 2014 sourcebook Slow Streets,
Drivers slow down when they feel the space they are travelling in is narrow. This is because they feel less sure of the space available to them. Pedestrians and other activity next to the carriageway are closer, more visible and more likely to encroach onto the carriageway and the driver has to negotiate with on-coming traffic in less space, meaning that vehicles may reduce their speed.
The document goes on to recommend pedestrian buildouts and 3 metre carriageways, since they would make overtaking dangerous and thereby encourage drivers to wait behind cyclists rather than attempt to pass them.
As Dr Aldred points out, that conflicts in 2002, the Transport Research Laboratory was critical of such infrastructure, saying:
Measures that deliberately require cyclists to obstruct traffic in order to produce a traffic calming effect should be avoided. The strategies adopted by some cyclists to deliberately hold up drivers until the cyclist believes it is safe for them to pass are likely to provoke particular hostility.
Dr Aldred said: “The TRL paper is now over ten years old, and it feels like the approach has shifted, given that the use of ‘primary position’ (or ‘taking the lane’) is a cornerstone of Bikeability cycle training.
“The Near Miss Project provides an opportunity to explore this debate further from the viewpoint of cyclists who’ve experienced near misses.
“I hadn’t intended to start with writing about this topic, but looking at the qualitative data – descriptions of experiences, feelings, responses to incidents – I was immediately struck by the frequent mention of ‘pinch point’ or more general terms related to road narrowing.
“An initial count suggests these featured in around one in twelve of our nearly 5,000 incident descriptions. This includes incidents in London, in villages, and everywhere in between.”
Her blog post is accompanied by a number of examples of incidents caused by carriageway narrowing gathered as part of the research.
Those include the anxiety that pinch points cause many riders, the additional risk posed at such locations by other factors such as poor weather, and incidents where cyclists felt themselves at risk or intimidated as a result of having to take primary position, including motorists acting aggressively towards them.
“Where does this leave design guidance? Asks Dr Aldred. “I think we need to think carefully about carriageway narrowing and buildouts, given driver behaviour at pinch points and the impacts it may have on cycling.
“As the UDL sourcebook says, a three metre wide space is clearly not wide enough for a 1.8m wide car to safely and comfortably overtake a cyclist. However, the experiences described here suggest narrow carriageways are not preventing close overtakes.
“Even with such little space, a minority of drivers want to try to overtake; if a cyclist is near the gutter they may experience a close pass, and if a cyclist is in primary position they may experience abuse and harassment, perhaps even being driven at,” she adds.
You can read the full blog post, including the first-hand accounts taken from participant in the Near Miss Project, here.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 7 min 8 sec ago
This is why I question the utility of shared-use paths; you're constantly dodging flamethrower-dogs and their operators. Mind you, they're...
- HoarseMann 33 min 44 sec ago
If the police only consider that worthy of a warning letter, then I'd have no confidence there's any deterrent to stop that happening again....
- HoarseMann 54 min 48 sec ago
It does seem a bit ridiculous having an outright ban on cycles at all times, yet permit holders can drive down there whenever they like and...
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 22 min ago
Well, yes, that's kinda my point. I think stating that "Norway is socialist" is a questionable perspective. I'd say it was a Nordic social...
- Bezzard74 1 hour 39 min ago
The Be Calm section - 100% ...
- don simon fbpe 1 hour 43 min ago
Now, if we're talking gravel bikes, that's a whole different story. Gimme, gimme, gimme! Apologies for the Facebook link....
- wtjs 1 hour 45 min ago
The police are operationally independent, in fact the regional Police and Crime Commissioners have to swear in their oath of office that they will...
- brooksby 1 hour 50 min ago
"'Right", said Fred, "we'll 'ave to get a move on…"
- JohnnyEnglish 3 hours 34 min ago
Thanks for the review. I like that Orbea have included aero extras and wish more manufacturers would stick two fingers up at the UCI - at least in...
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 10 min ago
Excellent - I think I'll replace my emergency tube that is a real squeeze to get into the little Topeak bottle cage bag thingy....
Add new comment
51 comments
Touch wood, I can't remember a memorable moment at a pinch point, not because I've not come across bad driving at them but they are pretty physical and I've been able to anticipate things and I tend not to use farcilities.
Not many 8 year olds have ID to register bikes though, so that's unlikely to be the result.
One of the most common forms of abuse I routinely get from drivers is when taking primary at places where it is recommended by bikeability training. There are 2 issues with this. The first is the drivers ignorance of a cyclists rights on the road. The second is more importantly the disregard for cyclists safety. The whole reason why they dish out the abuse is because they clearly think they can pass in a place where they shouldn't.
Your 2nd point is definately the more important. This morning on my 1 mile ride to the local BMX track I was nearly hit by a car emerging from a driveway - still covered in ice and full of fog so it's no surprise the driver didn't see me: complete disregard for anyone's safety. I was then overtaken on a residential street whilst positioned centrally with my arm outstretched to signal my intent to turn right. This was on a one mile cross-town ride on quiet residential roads, the kind of journey a child might make to get to school. Not cool.
The worst I have to deal with on my commute is ones where they taper the gap. So the road starts wide - too wide for primary to prevent a motorist overtaking you - and then the central island gets wider so the road gap gets narrower forcing the driver over into you.
But even if they are a constant width narrow enough to stop a car passing you in the narrowing there's enough that will try to get past you coming up to it and then when alongside you and faced with the island will pull in squeezing you into the gutter or off the road.
And consider A-roads like the A4 in Berkshire, where cars routinely do 80mph and which is used by many HGVs. It's very wide in places (effectively more than three lanes) but every now and then, at random junctions, they have created pinch points with islands and bollards.
It certainly isn't comfortable to be approaching one of these at 15mph and hear Mr. Fast Audi or Mr. HGV approaching at speed from behind.
And as pointed out - plenty of space to provide a (segregated, even) cycle lane, but noooooooo...
I know this road well (as a driver) and often think how univiting it would be to cycle because of the behavior of other drivers. I'm often driving at the speed limit on this road and your friend Mr. F Audi will come flying past me like I'm standing still.
I'd say most of the "improvements" and cycling infrastucture plans are started with the best intentions. No single council can counter the pervasive culture of speed and aggression or insulated apathy that a lot of car/lorry & bus drivers display. Usually the only way to change attitudes and behaviour is get people to experience things from the other perspective. I don't want to weave in and out of daft cycle lanes, often dodging pedestrians nor do I want to feel I have to be in the middle of the road, holiding a line, with Eddie Stobart breathing down my neck. There's a balance to be achieved somewhere with a bit more respect and tolerance that might come from better driver education rather than restriction.
I hate pinch points. Everyone on a bike hates pinch points. Some guff on that matter, with a tragic ending:
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/feeling-the-pinch/
Your alternative painted markings are interesting and I've given a bit of thought to priorities lateley since being involved in 2 collisions with cars on junctions where I had priority. In both cases I was riding on the main carridgeway and positioned in the same place that I would have been if I were driving a car or riding a motorbike.
It seems to me that planners have come to the conclusion, backed by my own experience, that british drivers are not capable of yeilding priority to cyclists. Therefore any infrastucture that requires drivers to give priority to cyclists is inherently dangerous for bike riders. Design infrastructure that requires cyclists to yeild to drivers at every interaction and hey presto: 'safe' design. Cyclists will take appropriote care as it's their neck on the line and if a collision does happen it's almost always going to be the fault of the cyclist. We've probably all seen the British interpretation of the Dutch roundabout which demonstrates this thinking perfectly.
The problem is that de-prioriting cycling does nothing to promote it as a means of travel. Our approach is opposite to the best examples in the world.
I have to say road furniture like traffic islands and those road calming chicanes are a bane. As someone else said, they're usually full of road detritus because they don't get cleaned. And worst of all it encourages bad drivers to speed up to get passed cyclists. I'm no slouch on a bike, and it's rather tedious that while I'm doing the sort of speed that the road designer hoped for some bell-end is trying to overtake me or ram me coming the other way.
All pedestrian refuges should be replaced with Zebra crossings with cameras to catch and fine those who ignore them. If driver behavior is the problem enforcement is the answer.
Perhaps you are missing the point that the rules for zebra crossings also apply to cyclists! You have made a case for cyclists to be identifiable.
Well check out this dumb one. It's even worse - it just has one of those "cyclists evaporate here" "END" signs.
I never cycle through the cycle lanes on these, but have trouble persuading cyclist friends quite how dangerous they are!
Primary position works, but you really have to watch out for oncoming traffic even when you have priority.
These things encourage stupid driving from people trying to race through before oncoming traffic reaches the pinch point.
I also loath the "speed cushions" that seem to incentivise motor vehicle drivers into swerving into cyclists. Unfortunately my local council seems to love them.
dumb_pinch_point.jpg
The reason for "speed cushions" is so that ambulances and fire engines can drive quickly down the road without hitting the bumps like a normal sleeping-policeman.
Except, of course, that they allow drivers of courier vans, buses, Range Rovers etc to drive similarly quickly.
I know that's the idea, but they really are stupid aren't they? Driving over them repeatedly can also cause damage to the inner side-walls of motor vehicle tyres that isn't easily spotted without putting the vehicle on a lift. This can lead to blow outs. As you point out, some of vehicles most dangerous to pedestrians (Range Rovers etc) are least affected them, and this is also the case for humps
The smallest, lightest cars are also affected most by both, which is silly.
In fact I can't think of any feature intended primarily for traffic calming that actually makes cyclists safer. What really annoys me is that there seems to be a rule that 20 mph limits (which do make cycling slightly better in my experience) have to be accompanied by traffic calming measures. I wish they could just be accompanied by average speed limit cameras!
No, they don't. Look at what 20sPlenty are doing, with Councils going for 20 mph areas which don't have to have physical measures - but will need community support and enforcement.
That really is a terrible design.
Those 'speed cushions' are a funny one too. I drive a family estate car and have no need to alter my speed to negotiate them, not that you'd be likely to find me travelling at excessive speeds anyway.
Here is some pointless traffic calming, I don't bother going up the tiny gap which is often full of slippery stuff. There's 5 of these in a row, they didn't think this through.
There are many traffic calming island things on my commute with a segregated cycle lane that goes straight up the side away from any cars which go around the island.
The problem is that the cycle lane is so narrow, full of leaves, dirt, sometimes ice, that it is not worth using it.
Penalties for silly drivers is the only way we can share the roads
It's those speed humps that car drivers have to hit exactly straight-on in order to get over semi-smoothly that scare me. Several times I've been cycling along and some plonker passing me suddenly veers hard to the left to get over the speed hump. These things don't encourage anyone to slow down, anyway.
If councils are going to fit these damn things then they have to make sure they start well away from the kerb.
Parkside running alongside Wimbledon common has a pedestrian refuge every 100m or so, and is a terrifying to cycle. This may have originally been done to protect walkers going to the common, but it will discourage cycling.
parkside.jpg
if there's room in the road sufficient to put in protected refuges that large, then there's room for proper segregated cycle lanes...
Try Grand Drive, it's worse. There are a few roads of the same kind in the borough, they probably all have the same heritage with someone in the 80's.
Parkside also has other problems, it's a bit of a mini New Forest with regards to cycling.
I was going to come out with a sarky 'do the bears do it in the woods' type comment.
But... while this may be blindingly obvious to anyone to have ridden a bike on UK roads - this is something which does need to be said, and the report/blog does address the point very well.
The basic issue is : does the infrastructure change force the driver to behave differently (and thereby help other road users) or just hope they behave differently - and have a negative impact if they dont?
I'd have thought any decent designer with half a brain would design out the second option. But then...
The idea is fine but the execution is poor. The narrow parts need to be very narrow so that a car cannot pass a cyclist and the cycle lane needs to take the cyclist into the primary position. Add signs that say "Do not pass cyclists at pinch points - Stay back ". And CCTV.
These things are so dangerous. All you can do is ride defensively and hope the person behind you is paying attention and isn't a nutter bike hater.
I complained to the RTA about some of these but they seem hell bent on adding them stating it helps pedestrians cross the road safely......road clear cross, road not clear don't cross.
Road wide and busy and pedestrian stuck....
Although have to ask what is wrong with a zebra crossing in that scenario... Other than drivers believing that they don't actually have to stop.
We really need more police enforcing the law and less road furniture. Roads are, usually, places where people live, we need to move away from the idea that roads are there for the benefit of drivers.
The thing that is 'wrong' with zebra crossings or light-controlled crossings is that they impact the all-important 'traffic-flow'. Pedestrian refuges represent a minimal concession to pedestrians without impacting the movement of traffic on the carridgeway. Ignore cyclist (which they usually do when designing these things) and it's a win-win solution.
On the main road closest to where I live there are a series of these things. As a driver they don't impact me at all, as a pedestrian they make crossing the road possible at busy times (although still not easy) but as a cyclist they are a real pain. It means constantly changing between primary and secondary or risking very close passes through the narrow sections. I find if I'm pushing on a bit drivers will struggle to find a gap to overtake at all for the length of the road. Unfortunately, many drivers are not inteligent enough to realise that they are being prevented from overtaking by the road design and direct their frustrations at cyclists themselves instead.
Pages