A study of cyclist casualties in London has found that painted advisory cycle lanes increase the risk of cyclist casualties, with the authors urging that highways authorities cease installing lanes of that type and convert existing ones into protected cycle lanes.
Published under the title Cycling Injury Risk in London: Impacts of Road Characteristics and Infrastructure, the study was led by Thomas Adams of Transport for London (TfL) and was based on collisions that happened between 2016 and 2018 and which were notified to police.
Because the STATS 19 road casualty report forms completed by the police only include home postcode data rather than the start point of the journey, researchers decided to focus on incidents that were likely to have happened on commutes.
Narrowing the data down to incidents that occurred between 7am-10am on a weekday and involved people aged over 16, left researchers with 2,876 injury points, of which 86.7 per cent were slight injuries, and 13.0 per cent were serious injuries.
There were also seven fatalities, reflecting 0.2 per cent of the total.
Using a variety of tools to predict routes and add control points between home and injury locations, models were created to control for road characteristics as well as road user flows, whether motor traffic, cyclists or pedestrians.
The study found that when compared to no infrastructure, kerb protected cycle lanes reduced the odds of injury by 40 per cent.
The reduction provided by stepped cycle tracks was even greater, at 65 per cent, although the authors cautioned that was based on low numbers.
In terms of painted lanes, mandatory ones – marked with a solid white line – were no different from having no infrastructure at all.
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.
Explanations of the various different types of cycle lanes are shown in the figure below, taken from TfL’s London Cycling Design Standards.

Other findings included that junctions were associated with a threefold increase in injury odds, while bus lanes decreased them but not to the same extent as protected cycle lanes did.
The study also found evidence of a ‘safety in numbers’ effect, saying that injury odds decrease as cycle flow increases, and suggested that a doubling of the number of people commuting by bike in the morning leads to a 13 per cent reduction in odds of an injury.
Professor Rachel Aldred, co-author of the article and Director of Westminster University’s Active Travel Academy, said: “This research shows a clear difference in cycling safety between high-quality protected infrastructure and advisory lanes, with the former reducing injury risk and the latter raising it.
“Transport authorities that want to make cycling safer need to avoid putting in new paint-only infrastructure and start converting existing advisory lanes to safer protected tracks and lanes,” she added.























48 thoughts on “Painted advisory cycle lanes increase risk of cyclist casualties, study finds”
I’ve been saying this for
I’ve been saying this for years and I suspect that most regular cyclists would probably agree. When they aren’t covered in broken glass, sticks and other road detritus, they give the other road users a false sense of “separation”. I get more close passes when in painted cycle lanes (both broken and solid white line) than on the open road by a huge margin. I really wish they would just delete them all.
Completely agree
Completely agree
It is good to see a proper
It is good to see a proper researched study into the subject with an objective analyse (though with low study numbers which may project a understandable margin of error) it does though reinforce other studies carried out in the past that showed motor vehicle drivers will pass a cyclist closer than if no line was present. I find that advisory cycle lanes (broken white lines) tended to be applied with much less care in following supposedly required standards. Particularly in terms of width and consistency than the mandatory cycle lanes (solid lines) which may also help explain the differences in casualities. Advisory lines tend to be more variable in width, changing along a road length and were placed down as a cheap solution and allowed a local council to tick a box to show they fulfilled a requirement to make some provision for cycling ? Instead as shown by the study they actually increase the risk and actual harm to the user group they are suppose to help ? Instead we should be designing and implementing proper engineered solutions that are fit for purpose and meet the needs of the user group they are being designed for. As shown on numerous (if not every) occasion with a proper solution you will get a increase in people using that route to cycle and they will be made up of a more diverse population in age, gender and ethnic breakdown.
If I read the summary
If I read the summary correctly it looks like the authors guessed at routes cyclists might have taken based on their home postcode and then used that to infer what sort of cycle infrastructure the rider was on when they had an accident. Didn’t sound like a well researched study to me…? What am I missing?
Problem is drivers treat
Problem is drivers treat cyclists in a painted lane the same way they do a car in a painted lane … no need to perform an overtaking manouevre because “they are in one lane, I am in another”.
Rule 163 goes out of the window, because they are not “overtaking” you, they are simply moving faster in their lane than you are in yours.
That’s why I tend not to use them.
I really wish they would
I really wish they would just delete them all.
Agreed
I thought there had already
I thought there had already been several studies which showed this effect? Still, good to have it confirmed again.
As others have said, painted cycle lanes give a false sense of security, for both the cyclist and the driver, so it really shouldn’t be surprising that they are more dangerous. I’m sure Kensington & Chelsea council will be wasting no time in installing one on Kensington High Street.
Known as Murder Strips in
Known as Murder Strips in Belgium.
It’s difficult, as a quick
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.
Prosper0 wrote:
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
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
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
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:
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:
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,
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
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
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:
Did you read the article?
makadu wrote:
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
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
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
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-impacts-of-road-characteristics-and-infrastructure].
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.
brooksby wrote:
You didn’t mention the cobbles!
They don’t bother with lines
They don’t bother with lines in Spelthorne Council
https://goo.gl/maps/pbgLWmdoavzHyqbi8
hirsute wrote:
Wow, the message is clear. “Cyclists are supposed to squeeze themselves into the kerb”
Oh – we have some of those
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
Nice to know someone gets paid to do this.
This one in Hampshire is very
This one in Hampshire is very narrow and particularly dangerous as it encourages cyclists to use the edge of the roundabout, where drivers are less likely to see them.
I’ve never noticed that, but
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
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…
I’m always bemused by the
I’m always bemused by the “CYCLISTS MUST DISMOUNT” sign (non-official, though the bridge is private property anyway). Does it refer to cyclists using the pavement (which makes sense as it’s very narrow so you wouldn’t really be able to overtake) or to cyclists looking to re-join the road? (For the record the only time I’ve dismounted was to take photos of Gromits).
(No subject)
Gert Lush
Gert Lush
I assumed it means don’t ride
I assumed it means don’t ride your bike along the footway over the bridge?
My record is the approach to
My record is the approach to the Clifton Suspension Bridge from Clifton
Yes, this is indeed much worse than nothing at all, and shows that the council officers haven’t been on a bike for decades
I think you’ll like this one.
I think you’ll like this one. Main carriage way too narrow for most cars or buses (yes it is a bus route) but bound by a double white line and a cycle lane.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/h1ek7jUdnf1Mq41U6
Tbf, Google have managed to capture a moment in time when the hedgerow is under control it’s even worse when the brambles start encroaching as well.
IanMK wrote:
JHC…. They should just paint F-off great cycles filling each lane to point out the road is a cycle lane….
What this bit of road near
What this bit of road near Sherrington needs is a speed limit (that, admittedly, no-one will pay any attention to) rather than useless, worse-than-nothing cycle lanes which are doubtless completely ignored like the double unbroken white lines. I assume these lanes are the (wrong) response to a narrowing of the road? Other Google frames show an ordinary width 2 lane road on either side of this section?
There’s a shared path further
There’s a shared path further up along the A509. I’ve always assumed the they put in this nonsense to dissuade cyclists from carrying on the A509. It’s just a normal width road but made worse by the double white lines. A bit further back the cycle lanes abruptly end. There’s no apparent reason / change in the road. I did contact the council about it but of course got no response.
Minimum widths for cycle
Minimum widths for cycle lanes:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906344/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf
Near me it’s rare to see a cycle lane that’s more than 1m in width.
…
…
Tom_77 wrote:
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.
Is it just me that can’t get
Is it just me that can’t get on with “advisory” and “mandatory” being applied to cycle lanes? All of them are merely advisory for a cyclist as we dont have to use them however using the term mandatory leads to the misunderstanding that we MUST use them and when we don’t, we are subjected to the abuse similar to todays nmotd
Trouble is if you dig into
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
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
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
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…