- 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
- bobbinogs 0 sec ago
Spot on, but Labour appear to be re-learning about the age old lesson that politics is trickier when you are in charge than when sat on the...
- hawkinspeter 23 min 27 sec ago
The Highway Code does tend to put pragmatism first - make all efforts to avoid a collision rather than enforcing your traffic priority.
- mitsky 23 min 38 sec ago
I look forward to the day that BBC's Tom Edwards and their Facebook admins admit they were wrong and apologise for blocking me for pointing out...
- the little onion 32 min 25 sec ago
The solutions are either:...
- Mybike 2 hours 1 min ago
Maybe they should spend less time behind a screen and more time outside on a bike and there youll see many many different type of people riding...
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 34 min ago
If you're in a rush, just leave earlier, okay?
- STATO 3 hours 28 min ago
Thanks! Question is, buy now, or wait for a potential Black Friday deal...
- Cugel 3 hours 45 min ago
Just so. And how does "late-stage capitalism" get away with it? By suborning then owning the minds and behaviours of a vast swathe of the...
- hawkinspeter 4 hours 5 min ago
There's a specific problem with getting an AI model to continue training called "overfitting" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting). This is...
Add new comment
51 comments
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 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?
I reckon there's enough width there for something that looks like this: http://www.streetmix.net/Al__S/23/unnamed-st
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
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!
Perhaps a change to the highway code to make overtaking any road user at an island might make some difference?
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.
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.
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....
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/December...
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 road design, actually quite cretinous. Oh, I see further up the thread it's in Merton and is from 2008.
I don't imagine many cyclists actually use the 'cycle-lane' bit. I certainly wouldn't; I'd just stay in the 'normal' lane.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Traffic Islands, drivers and cars, don't you just love 'em.
island.jpg
Is the Pope only a Catholic when a university study confirms it?
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.
Pages