Painted advisory cycle lanes increase risk of cyclist casualties, study finds

Trouble is if you dig into the detail of SIs and the ilk, that is what they are called, so trying to change the name isn't going to help unless you change it in all the legislation.

The mandatory/advisory refers to motor traffic, as I understand it (it is advised that they shouldn't enter an advisory lane unless they have too, whereas it is mandatory that they shouldn't enter a mandatory lane, except in emergencies such as pulling over to let an ambulance through)

All cycle lanes are optional, for cyclists. This is clear in the highway code, and thanks to Cycling UK, has been upheld in the courts (R. v Daniel Cadden, 2007, if I recall).

That's my point really! They are mandatory non-motor vehicle lanes, not a mandatory cycle lane. You are correct, the Highway code is very clear, unless you only read what you want or maybe not at all which seems to be happening.

Strictly speaking, the Highway Code just says that you must not enter a mandatory lane. It makes no allowances for emergencies, ambulances, etc.

It then goes on to tell you not to enter an advisory lane 'unless it is unavoidable'.

So by implication, you shouldn't enter a mandatory lane, even if it's unavoidable...

...

Tom_77 wrote:

Minimum widths for cycle lanes:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Near me it's rare to see a cycle lane that's more than 1m in width.

One part of the Cycle Superhighway (3) has a two-way section that isn't even 1.5 metres across - for added danger it has a couple of curves and blind corners at each end.

Prosper0 wrote:

It's difficult, as a quick and experienced road cyclist I find wide painted mandatory cycle lanes very useful. The problem is implementation, normally they are hilariously narrow, advisory and as such - full of parked cars. 

That width is the thing. Sometimes they're only a metre from the kerb. As I tend to ride at about that distance they mean nothing. Add to that some drivers think then that rule 163 magically does not apply. Ha, who am  I kidding. They haven't read HWC in the first place....

So what's the narrowest painted lane that you have seen, road.cc people?

(My record is the approach to the Clifton Suspension Bridge from Clifton, where the dashed white line is approximately the same width out from the double yellow 'no parking' lines as they are from the kerb...).

Edited: As seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/xJUStyp1KxhLX9br9

Edited (2): I had a look at this one properly on my way home. From the kerb, over the cobbles and then over the double yellow lines is about thirty centimetres. So from the double yellows to the outside of the dashed white line is about another thirty centimetres. It does get narrower as you approach the final bend to the bridge until it just kind of merges into the double yellows...

Possibly this one - Google Street View doesn't really do it justice, but that (squashed) bicycle symbol is still wider than actual lane...

https://goo.gl/maps/1PwwHQUb1pmEZK8q8

I like this one, where the cycle lane is so wide that there isn't enough room for the cars to use the "normal lane". Equally as dangerous 
https://goo.gl/maps/FRH9944NVPGF4a6Z6

Shake wrote:

I like this one, where the cycle lane is so wide that there isn't enough room for the cars to use the "normal lane". Equally as dangerous 
https://goo.gl/maps/FRH9944NVPGF4a6Z6

Actually I think that's a good idea (although I'd like to see more bicycle symbols and/or coloured tarmac). It makes it clear that cyclists are entitled to use the road and don't have to stick in the gutter, and that drivers shouldn't overtake any closer to the cyclist than the edge of the cycle lane. If that means they have to wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic before overtaking then so be it (they probably should be doing that anyway on that road).

Obviously there's a risk that drivers will simply ignore the cycle lane, but even so I don't think it's made it any more dangerous than not having a cycle lane.

Well it's better than this: https://goo.gl/maps/tEytBaqw2WurvZU28

A cycle lane that's not wide enough for cycling, and a main lane that's not wide enough for most cars, that are then squashed in to an even narrower space as you bear left past the island.

In terms of narrowness, though, this one round the corner from there wins out: https://goo.gl/maps/sg815dmqSHGu7RTKA

And this one a little further on is pretty good too: https://goo.gl/maps/sg815dmqSHGu7RTKA

Yes - that bike does appear to have actually disappeared under the gutter.

In experice from using the lane I think it's bad. Drivers have to drive in the cycle lane to avoid the oncoming vehicles, thus enforcing the idea that drivers can just drive in the cycle lane if they wish. Secondly, I imagine it might give other cyclists the impression that they could use the whole cycle lane without thinking about cars (which is obviously never a good idea and you should always check to make sure the road is clear before moving out. 

OnYerBike wrote:

Shake wrote:

I like this one, where the cycle lane is so wide that there isn't enough room for the cars to use the "normal lane". Equally as dangerous 
https://goo.gl/maps/FRH9944NVPGF4a6Z6

Actually I think that's a good idea (although I'd like to see more bicycle symbols and/or coloured tarmac). It makes it clear that cyclists are entitled to use the road and don't have to stick in the gutter, and that drivers shouldn't overtake any closer to the cyclist than the edge of the cycle lane. If that means they have to wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic before overtaking then so be it (they probably should be doing that anyway on that road).

Obviously there's a risk that drivers will simply ignore the cycle lane, but even so I don't think it's made it any more dangerous than not having a cycle lane.

Did you read the article? 

• However, advisory cycle lanes – those marked with a broken white line, and which motorists are allowed to enter – caused the odds of injury to increase by 34 per cent

makadu wrote:

Did you read the article? 

• However, advisory cycle lanes – those marked with a broken white line, and which motorists are allowed to enter – caused the odds of injury to increase by 34 per cent

Yes I did thank you very much. I absolutely agree that MOST advisory cycle lanes increase the risk. However, that doesn't mean that ALL advisory cycle lanes increase risk. Talking specifically about the one Shake posted about, I suggested that that one in particular might be good. It certainly obviates the obvious problems with most advisory cycle lanes - that they force cyclists to hug the kerb and that they give drivers a false sense that it is safe to pass as long as they don't cross the cycle lane.

I might be wrong - that cycle lane might be just as dangerous as others - but as that study did not distinguish between wide and narrow advisory cycle lanes then it really doesn't help answer that question. If you really want to be pedantic, then there are many other reasons why it is highly inappropriate to take the average injury odds from a study based in London and apply it to every other cycle lane in the country.

I can think of two examples like that. This one, near Ambleside: https://goo.gl/maps/V8M8r13kwXVaaJ2Y7 . I've only used it a couple of times, but found drivers pretty respectful. Then this, in the centre of Cardiff, where to be honest I have more experience as a driver than a cyclist: https://goo.gl/maps/FfsEYNTsain8FkMV8 . Note how the centre divider marking vanishes. I never know if that's an intentional ploy to make drivers uncertain about the width of the road and therefore more cautious, or just because the road isn't officially wide enough to mark out two cycle lanes and two standard lanes.   

Have stayed in one of the cottages on the right in Ambleside but not yet ridden a bike down there

I disagree that it is "equally as dangerous" as a cycle lane that is too narrow. The danger from narrow bike lanes is obvious: drivers tend to regard the lane as somehow separate from the rest of the road and think that the lane is wide enough without their having to take any avoiding action. That is why they then pass too close. Moreover, they help to cement in drivers' heads the idea that cyclists 'only need' a small amount of space and perform close passes in other situations too, out of ignorance.

The lane you mention avoids that problem by showing clearly how much space should be left by passing traffic. It is not mandatory so other vehicles are permitted to use the space when it is not required by a cyclist. When a cyclist is in the lane, it is obvious that the following vehicle must wait to overtake until it is safe to do so and should not encroach on the lane in the process. I would want all cycle lanes to adopt that practice -- though properly segregated lanes are far better, and painted advisory lanes have been shown to increase the risk of injury [https://findingspress.org/article/18226-cycling-injury-risk-in-london-im....

I do, however, agree with previous posters that the nomenclature of 'advisory' and 'mandatory' lanes is confusing, and the wording of Rule 140, which includes "Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable" (instead of "unless required by a cyclist") can be unhelpful in the situation pictured, where motor vehicles are more or less obliged to at least partially encroach on the cycle lane or risk a head-on collision with oncoming traffic. Hopefully the new Highway Code will address some of these issues.

They don't bother with lines in Spelthorne Council

https://goo.gl/maps/pbgLWmdoavzHyqbi8

hirsute wrote:

They don't bother with lines in Spelthorne Council

https://goo.gl/maps/pbgLWmdoavzHyqbi8

Wow, the message is clear. "Cyclists are supposed to squeeze themselves into the kerb"

Oh - we have some of those too: https://goo.gl/maps/erkXuM13Sm5pqKS37

Weirdly, right opposite one that does have lines.

Nice to know someone gets paid to do this.

brooksby wrote:

So what's the narrowest painted lane that you have seen, road.cc people?

(My record is the approach to the Clifton Suspension Bridge from Clifton, where the dashed white line is approximately the same width out from the double yellow 'no parking' lines as they are from the kerb...).

Edited: As seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/xJUStyp1KxhLX9br9

You didn't mention the cobbles!

I've never noticed that, but then I usually cross the bridge going the other way. I don't think they consulted with any cyclists before implementing that.

Edit: Coming from the other direction, there is this little gem. I guess they tried.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4541839,-2.6297853,3a,75y,27.77h,58.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srdbPmiIPwxXju3w8FIvQ6Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Edit: Edit: The picture at the top of this article is from approaching the bridge from Ashton Court direction - I though it looked like it initially but didn't confirm it until playing with Google maps.

I'd never even noticed that bit, Peter, and I come over there every day (?).  I thought your streetview was going to be before you get to that, where there's a painted lane and a raised road divider, and two trees that they never cut back so their branches near the base actually block the cycle lane...