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.

51 thoughts on “Research finds measures aimed at making drivers slow down increase danger to cyclists”
Is the Pope only a Catholic
Is the Pope only a Catholic when a university study confirms it?
racyrich wrote:Is the Pope
Sometimes, yes. When something such as pinch points is so ingrained into design manuals and highway authority preferences, a person or campaign simply going “these are rubbish” is usually ignored. With a large study it’s now possible to go “these are rubbish, look here’s the evidence”. And then be ignored.
Traffic Islands, drivers and
Traffic Islands, drivers and cars, don’t you just love ’em.
As I rode home yesterday the
As I rode home yesterday the woman cycling ahead of me had a very close pass by a bloke in a Peugeot. The driver tried to squeeze by where there was a wide pedestrian island in the middle of the roadway, intended as a traffic calming measure. Well it certainly didn’t seem to calm his driving and she seemed to get a bit of a fright.
It was finding that my
It was finding that my borough had built this traffic calming measure (for my safety), that helped motivate me to be interested in cycling as an issue rather than just a pleasure.
Credit to Facility of the Month for the image.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/December2008.htm
bikebot wrote:
I love the
I love the way the cyclist is clearly instructed to give way to overtaking traffic, a clear recognition that the overtaking traffic will never give way to the cyclist. I bet at busy times a cyclist who stopped there could wait ages until the road is clear.
Where is that? It’s appalling
Where is that? It’s appalling road design, actually quite cretinous. Oh, I see further up the thread it’s in Merton and is from 2008.
wycombewheeler wrote:bikebot
I love the way the cyclist is clearly instructed to give way to overtaking traffic, a clear recognition that the overtaking traffic will never give way to the cyclist. I bet at busy times a cyclist who stopped there could wait ages until the road is clear.— bikebot
I don’t imagine many cyclists actually use the ‘cycle-lane’ bit. I certainly wouldn’t; I’d just stay in the ‘normal’ lane.
Matt eaton wrote:
I don’t
It didn’t remain like that for long, the bypass lanes and give way markings were removed or filled in. It’s now just an ordinarily dangerous road full of traffic islands and pinch points, rather than an insane vision of a warped mind.
I believe the designer responsible had his rights to the stationary cupboard revoked, or something equally humiliating.
Matt eaton
I love the way the cyclist is clearly instructed to give way to overtaking traffic, a clear recognition that the overtaking traffic will never give way to the cyclist. I bet at busy times a cyclist who stopped there could wait ages until the road is clear.— wycombewheeler
I don’t imagine many cyclists actually use the ‘cycle-lane’ bit. I certainly wouldn’t; I’d just stay in the ‘normal’ lane.— bikebot
Agreed: why would you bother swerving out of the normal flow of traffic into a side-lane (that because of less passing traffic will become full of sharp gravel, glass etc)?
Pinch points are a good solution for slowing motor traffic at places where pedestrians must cross – they reduce the time that pedestrians are ‘exposed’ too. But that fundamentally ignores that cyclists exist… which I’m increasingly thinking is the plan all along.
Matt eaton
I love the way the cyclist is clearly instructed to give way to overtaking traffic, a clear recognition that the overtaking traffic will never give way to the cyclist. I bet at busy times a cyclist who stopped there could wait ages until the road is clear.— wycombewheeler
I don’t imagine many cyclists actually use the ‘cycle-lane’ bit. I certainly wouldn’t; I’d just stay in the ‘normal’ lane.— bikebot
and looking at the picture there is no need for any of it. It’s a perfectly wide road.
This is another local authority rouse. They only do stuff like this where there is already plenty of room. As soon as the road narrows and cyclists need some protection they don’t bother.
Matt eaton
I love the way the cyclist is clearly instructed to give way to overtaking traffic, a clear recognition that the overtaking traffic will never give way to the cyclist. I bet at busy times a cyclist who stopped there could wait ages until the road is clear.— wycombewheeler
I don’t imagine many cyclists actually use the ‘cycle-lane’ bit. I certainly wouldn’t; I’d just stay in the ‘normal’ lane.— bikebot
Exactly. It’s one of those situations you need to be looking ahead and get yourself into the lane 50-100m before. It’s the only (relatively) safe way to negotiate such a poor piece or road design.
This is all about driver
This is all about driver behaviour.
You create things, or cycle in certain ways, to encourage drivers to behave in an appropriate manner. Then reality bites! Plenty of drivers will either not change their behaviour or will resent being pushed to do so.
Enforcement and proper penalties for people misbehaving on the road is ultimately the answer – unless we want all of our cycling to be on some special infrastructure that can never take us door to door.
I’m a cyclist and a driver, these days I probably drive a bit more than I cycle. I’m more likely to get stopped these days on my bike because the police think I ought to wear a hi-vis jacket or polystyrene hat than if I drive my car much too fast, bully other road users with my car or use my phone when driving. I don’t do that stuff because have a sense of personal responsibility. Plenty of drivers out there don’t, and never will, unless they honestly believe they’ll be severely penalised should they behave badly.
shay cycles wrote:This is all
Totally agree, it’s about spending money on enforcement and doing away with most street furniture. The rise of needless street furniture started in the late 80’s/ early 90’s mainly led by newly retired MP’s who had been given directorships in the companies that make the stuff.
I think Mark Thomas did a mini documentary about the issue years ago.
shay cycles wrote:This is all
Was this really as far as you got with your thinking?
The road design is the problem, e.g. see… the subject of the article….
Bane of my daily
Bane of my daily commute.
Travelling on a wide suburban A-Road. The Traffic Islands have been put in to reduce traffic speed and stop overtaking (cars), as the carriage way is probably wide enough for three lanes.
The vast majority of drivers give plenty of space until you get to the f—ing islands.
As I commute at the same time I often see the same cars, and someone who would normally overtake leaving 2 – 3 metres, when confronted with a traffic island squeezes through while trying to maintain their speed (around 40 mph)
– all made worse as there is *always* standing traffic less than 2 miles up the road, so they endanger cyclists lives to sit in traffic for 10 seconds longer! ~X(
Perhaps a change to the highway code to make overtaking any road user at an island might make some difference?
RedfishUK wrote:squeezes
[quote=RedfishUK]squeezes through while trying to maintain their speed (around 40 mph)quote]
Redfish, I think you could have just left your post at the above and still be bang on.The biggest problem is that some people see it as their right to drive/ride at whatever speed they feel is safe regardless of the situation.
Safety is a matter of situation, Clad in mm of lycra with plastic bucket on hat, covered head to toe in hi-viz/reflective and brightly lit up with million watt lights that put Blackpool to shame or encased in several tonnes of metal, with safety bags, electronic safety measures or in a 52 tonne battle tank with a 120mm gun and several machine guns. Which is the safest operative?
The safer people feel the more risk they will take!
I don’t think those on two
I don’t think those on two wheels come into local authority thinking at all when they are designing this stuff
North Yorkshire is quite fond of pairs of slippery plastic speed humps with slanting sides all round which force bikes into the centre of the road and into the way of traffic coming from in front and behind. They also like putting in road narrowing build-outs with precedence given to traffic from one direction where drivers tend to think that ‘give way to oncoming traffic’ doesn’t apply if it’s a bike that’s coming the other way.
I don’t know if it’s because councillors and highway engineers don’t understand bikes because they only ever drive anywhere, or they are just not that bright overall, or if they simply view bike riders as expendable and not worth any thought but it does seem to be a common theme of many ‘traffic management’ schemes’ all over the place
The worst ones are where
The worst ones are where they’ve taken a very wide road, and marked the central 1/3 of the road space with dashed lines interspersed with pinch points.
Like this, shared-use bike lane on the pavement. Guess what happens if you attempt to use the road and “take primary road position”?
https://goo.gl/maps/MZTHi
why not just put bike lanes down both side?
ribena wrote:The worst ones
I reckon there’s enough width there for something that looks like this: http://www.streetmix.net/Al__S/23/unnamed-st
These things are so
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.
Simmo72 wrote:These things
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.
mrmo wrote:Simmo72
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.— Simmo72
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.
Matt eaton wrote:
The thing
We really need to stop seeing roads as a means of getting from a to b and see them as places people live, which for most urban roads is the reality. Seeing traffic flow as the prime purpose results in a large number of stupid decisions that make the roads less pleasant to live, to walk and to cycle. If someone needs to cross the road then put in a formal light controlled/zebra crossing and if it delays drivers so be it.
And yes cyclists need to understand that stop means stop, but as c60 people were killed on crossing last year by motor vehicles I would suggest that bikes infringing crossings isn’t a major safety issue.
The idea is fine but the
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.
The basic issue is : does the
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…
I was going to come out with
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.
Parkside running alongside
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.
Pub bike wrote:Parkside
if there’s room in the road sufficient to put in protected refuges that large, then there’s room for proper segregated cycle lanes…
Pub bike wrote:Parkside
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.
It’s those speed humps that
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.
There are many traffic
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
Here is some pointless
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.
Well check out this dumb one.
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.
DaveE128 wrote:
I also loath
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
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!
DaveE128 wrote:I know that’s
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.
DaveE128 wrote:Well check out
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.
All pedestrian refuges should
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.
bikecellar wrote:All
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.
I have to say road furniture
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.
I hate pinch points. Everyone
I hate pinch points. Everyone on a bike hates pinch points. Some guff on that matter, with a tragic ending:
Bez wrote:I hate 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’d say most of the
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.
And consider A-roads like the
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…
CanAmSteve wrote:And consider
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.
The worst I have to deal with
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.
One of the most common forms
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.
ron611087 wrote:One of the
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.
Not many 8 year olds have ID
Not many 8 year olds have ID to register bikes though, so that’s unlikely to be the result.
Touch wood, I can’t remember
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.