Key Bristol cycle lane to be scrapped – because council claims it causes flooding

Vassili Papastavrou wrote:

It should be noted that the proposal is to remove the cycle lane AND make the carriageway narrower by at least the width of the cycle lane.  This is likely to stop cyclists passing stationary traffic and when the traffic is moving riding in primary position is a bit scary for lots of people

Exactly. Each lane (not cycle lane) is only just big enough for a bus, so there's going to be lots of people trying to not hold up big vehicles by hugging the kerb and then getting squished.

I'm sure it'll all be fine when they build the Bristol underground railway...  

brooksby wrote:

I'm sure it'll all be fine when they build the Bristol underground railway...  

Is that before or after the Portishead train line?

brooksby wrote:

I'm sure it'll all be fine when they build the Bristol underground railway...  

When I used to go to transport meetings in Bristol, this would regularly be raised, but the proposers were unable to provide any mechanism for funding it, even at the predicted costs, and as we all know, such schemes inevitably go massively over cost.

Agreed - the tree roots along there are terrible.

I think key is "when done well" which is very, very rarely. The design standards recommend 2m minimum width, and state lanes narrower than 1.5m should not be used. I'm really struggling to think of many cycle lanes that meet those standards. 

And when cycle lanes are not done well (as is far more often the case) then I would argue they are in fact worse than nothing, encouraging cyclists to ride in the gutters and drivers to overtake closely. The available statistics would suggest that advisory painted cycle lanes in fact make cycling more dangerous, while even mandatory lanes do not reduce risk (although there are of course numerous limitations to that study).

EDIT - "I don't like them - but keep this one!"

Well, yes - but in the knowledge that this is really about "more space for cars" or "there is a problem with something not related to bicycles - so get rid of the bicycles".  So yeah - this one looks a bit rubbish but my point would be "first unblock the drains, then get rid of the cycle lane AND a lane of traffic and make a proper cycle path - or put a proper cycle path on e.g. a nearby street".

STATO wrote:

I like painted cycle lanes, they are a step up from nothing when done well, but still a huge step down from something a child could cycle on. However there are many cycle campaigners who will campaign against painted infrastructure, even when it will increase safety of those who are cycling now, because of a fear it will prevent better infrastructure in the future)

I've mulled over this for a while.  My verdict is that at least in the UK they're a waste of paint and money.  You've summed it up yourself - "something a child could cycle on".  That's what's needed.

Ditch existing ones that are less than 1.5 metres wide.  Or don't - it makes little difference.  They don't encourage much more cycling and the paint will soon wear off.  Don't waste money on new ones.  Exception: if protected continously, even if done crudely e.g. by dumping concrete Jersey barriers alongside.  Mostly because this will at least narrow the carriageway and encourage slower driving.  Can't do that?  Don't bother.

An "advisory cycle lane" is an utter waste of money, a mandatory cycle lane is a waste of money and a (UK) protected cycle lane is normally a fairly expensive placeholder waiting for someone to finish the job properly.  You still find vehicles in the latter and usually by design.  In Edinburgh they are frequently interrupted for bus stops, where "the carriageway is too narrow" e.g. at pedestrian refuges etc.

If you already had a widespread cycling culture and these were just a minor part of a much bigger, better system there might be an argument for this.  In the UK these are generally declared to be "flagship" infra however. #developingworldcyclinginfra

I'm sure we can all supply evidence of vehicles parked / driving in cycle lanes, things stored in cycle lanes, cycle lanes regularly excavated for any kind of construction or utility works, cycle lanes under water water / full of snow / hidden under various kinds of debris, cycle lanes which disappear at certain times or in places along their length or simply produce exclamations of "WTAF?!" when you see them.

'Ditch existing ones less than 1.5'

Thats litterally my point here. Where they exist people want them kept or improved. Bit reponses to my post are telling me they are bad and more dangerous to users of that road then not being there. So why so many posts complaining about it being removed? I dont see anyone responding to him on twitter telling him to accept the removal as 'yes the road might end up narrower but apparently the stats say it will be safer'.... somehow <sarcasm>

STATO wrote:

'Ditch existing ones less than 1.5'

Thats litterally my point here. Where they exist people want them kept or improved. Bit reponses to my post are telling me they are bad and more dangerous to users of that road then not being there. So why so many posts complaining about it being removed? I dont see anyone responding to him on twitter telling him to accept the removal as 'yes the road might end up narrower but apparently the stats say it will be safer'.... somehow <sarcasm>

That's a good point.

Generally, I'm not a big fan of painted infrastructure, but there are places where it modifies driver behaviour and I think improves cycle safety.

That particular stretch of Whiteladies Rd tends to have a lot of buses going along there and althought the cycle "lane" is quite narrow and somewhat bumpy from the tree roots, I think it makes it safer. My response to the consultation was simply that removing the lane will make it more dangerous for cyclists and I believe that to be true.

I think the difference between useful painted lanes and dangerous painted lanes may be the average vehicle speed along the road and its width. Fast roads with a bit of paint probably give false confidence to the cyclists and drivers and then mistakes are made. Slower roads (and I'd say that Whiteladies Rd near the BBC building is relatively slow) allow for less jostling amongst the cars, so they tend to just pootle along following the vehicle in front - that leaves the assault course of a lane reasonably free for scooters and cyclists. There's no room for parked cars along there, so that may be a factor too.

STATO wrote:

... but apparently the stats say it will be safer'.... somehow <sarcasm>

Jeremy Vine's post on Twitter yesterday, and the idiot storm it created illustrate exactly why it is often safer without a painted cycle lane. 

Drivers simply drive past you in their lane without giving any consideration whatsoever to how close they are to you, and a narrow, painted lane leaves no room for the rider to create space for themselves ... taking the view that it is perfectly fine because both car and bicycle are in their own lanes. 

On that basis (and the fact that most of the painted lanes around us include a healthy sprinkling of parked cars ... even when the lane is positioned to the right of a row of parking spaces) I generally don't use them and would rather they weren't there. 

The problem here is that that opinion is mitigated by the simple impression that solving an unrelated problem by removing the cycle lane highlights the attitude of the council to cycling generally and the kind of priority it gives to infrastructure so, to me, the protest is less about keeping that specific lane and more about protesting the fact that the council don't appear to care about cyclists at all. 

'The problem here is that that opinion is mitigated by the simple impression that solving an unrelated problem by removing the cycle lane highlights the attitude of the council to cycling generally and the kind of priority it gives to infrastructure' but we just agreed the painted lane was bad.  It is being removed to narrow the road as a whole, so we get;

No painted lane = safer

Narrower road = slower + safer

Less flooding = safer (cyclists not having to ride through puddles).

Short of closing the road or a lane to make a separate raised cycle lane, everything they are doing makes the road 'better' to cycle on by many of the arguments against painted lanes.

I would expect them to make a proper cycle path or otherwise add proper cycle provision - unless there is so little traffic that you can put "don't overtake cycles" signs up.  (Like the local chap suggests - apparently "The traffic lane is very wide ").  They could narrow the road slightly to find space or if not possible by one carriageway to make the space.  They could look at the network and add proper cycle provision elsewhere which will enable whatever "journeys" this section is covering.

However it sounds like - and please correct me if you're a local as I'm not - the authorities see a problem affecting motor vehicles.  There appear to be some obvious reasons for this, which are nothing to do with bikes.  I don't think they're getting rid of the cycle lane for safety reasons - I think they see it as just in the way of them fixing the reported motor vehicle access issues.

If you start with the axiom "there cannot be less capacity for motor vehicles" then we can all give up.  It is a choice of course, not a fact of nature.

Why they can't just fix the drains, I don't know.

As well you know people are complaining about infra being removed (while also saying "the infra wasn't good") because it's because "crumbs from the table" are about all you normally get.  Authorities commonly operate on a "like it or we'll assume the only 'cyclists' are ones we don't want" basis.  You certainly can make the cycling casualty figures go down if you reduce the already small number of cyclists.  Pretty sure motorways look good on the cycling safety numbers.  I don't call a desirable outcome though.

chrisonatrike wrote:

However it sounds like - and please correct me if you're a local as I'm not - the authorities see a problem affecting motor vehicles.  There appear to be some obvious reasons for this, which are nothing to do with bikes.  I don't think they're getting rid of the cycle lane for safety reasons - I think they see it as just in the way of them fixing the reported motor vehicle access issues.

When it floods, it's a problem for everyone using that road, so it's not just a motor problem. They need to fix the drains first.

I know and I'd love to think they when they had "all road users" in mind this included cyclists.  But...

It is not just tremoving paint, it is making the carriageway narrower and forcing cyclists into the path of lorries and buses

I agree - so would you accept "Key Bristol cycle lane to be scrapped – because council claims something else causes flooding"?  I think that still captures all salient points.

(As in - all our road infra represent choices.  "We had to ..." and "we just can't" always need qualifying with "because we decided to prioritise x" where "x" is normally "throughput / storage of motor vehicles").

brooksby wrote:

Consultation URL:

https://bristol.citizenspace.com/sustainable-transport/whiteladies-road-...

Closing date for comments 8th June 2022

Thanks - I've submitted my opinion that removing the cycle lane will be very dangerous for cyclists.

You beat me to it, mungecrundle!  On top of the blocked drains, all along that road are "Big Houses" which have been turned into offices, and all of their front 'gardens' are tarmacced over as car parking.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Maybe a major cause of the flooding is the creeping doom of concreting and tarmacing over of green space in a never ending quest to build infrastructure suitable for driving and storing motor vehicles?

You may be onto something!