Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for riders, says Australian study
Painted cycle lanes may make roads more dangerous for bike riders, according to a new report by Victoria, Australia-based Monash University.
The study, reported on here by the Herald Sun, followed 60 people who regularly commute by bike in Melborune and followed them on their daily routes.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/bicycle-lanes-no-guarantee-of...
Deputy head of prehospital emergency and trauma research, Ben Beck, said that the lanes made cyclists more liable to be subjected to close overtakes.
“Specifically, passing events on roads with a bicycle lane and a parked car were on average 40cm closer than events on roads with no bicycle lane or parked cars,” he explained.
“The magnitude of that difference is quite substantial. As someone who cycles myself, we all know that a painted lane next to parked cars is not a safe space.”
The solution he proposed? Unsurprisingly, create more protected cycle lanes for riders.
Rosie Pham, who took part in the study, said: “It’s scary and luckily nothing’s happened to me but there’s been a lot of near-misses, and when people yell, that scares me and I wonder if they are going to hit me.”
Add new comment
22 comments
Though drivers don't get less per mile if they drive old cars (much less depreciation) or very efficient ones, less cost of fuel per mile.
My last place of employment paid lip service to the encouragement of cycling, there was a cycle to work scheme, but it took 3-6 months and seemed to only be open to one person at a time. But bikes were banned from the site, and we had to lock our bikes outside of the very secure fence. Cars allowed in of course, and many email reminders about not speeding. And a massive new car park withing the highly secure site is about to be built.
Be very tricky, and expensive, to try and cope with in general - the amount you can claim is also set out in the HMRC’s Approved Mileage Allowance Payments and related legislation.
Sadly all too common. I live near Rolls-Royce in Bristol and they have a large car park with signs on the fence surrounding it "cyclists dismount". I'd love to talk to the H&S nerd who thought that sign was necessary, useful or would be obeyed.
Exactly, someone I knew did the drive in a plug in hybrid, reckoned it cost about 2p per mile.
She got full car rate regardless.
The new Wahoo is.....Drum Roll.....the Bolt is now available in a limited edition colour of Blue or Pink.
https://uk.wahoofitness.com/devices/bike-computers/gps-elemnt-bolt
Oh and you can get a free T-short if you order today
I get travel expenses in my job, the per mile rate is significantly lower by bike than by car.
Which has always struck me as a bit odd.
Seems logical if they are actual expenses, not so if they're incentives.
40p per mile? That's less than minimum wage at my speed.
I think my local MP protests too much - he's no novice. He did the Coast to Coast last year for charity. You don't do that if you're 'not very good at cycling' (although depends on the definition of 'very good' I suppose).
It's nice having a local politician who is a keen cyclist though! Makes a change from all those that demonise us.
The problem I have with the on-road painted cycle lanes is that they are contrary to the advice to give cyclists at least 1.5m when passing them and reinforces the idea that close passes are absolutely fine - the vehicles are in another lane, so must be safe, right!
Drivers then translate that distance as acceptable anywhere, even where the lanes aren't painted.
They've put them in as part of re-surfacing the main road past where I live, despite the pavements being designated as shared use.
Probably for several reasons; some cyclists will stay on the road anyway, they wanted to make the lanes narrower to slow motors, they didn't want fast cyclists on the footpath, they had some paint left over.
Fast confident cyclists will be on the road anyway and you can't go that fast on the pavements due to the number of driveways, side junctions, lamp posts, telegraph poles and signs.
It's mostly lip service to say "look at how much we're doing to encourage cycling", but, in one place, it's entirely legal to park in the cycle lane - I asked the council what they were doing about the cars parked in it and they said it was fine in that location, but they hadn't got the signs up yet!
You could say they've done it to annoy motorcyclists - putting the cycle lanes in pushed the cars closer together and made it much harder to filter down the middle on my noisy bike!
Calorie counter here, which can be tailored individually.
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1350958587
The Australian research reinforces other studies which show the same thing; on road cycle lanes aren't safer.
I look forward to the UK government taking this on board, learning the lessons, making evidence based decisions, and carrying on exactly as they were doing. After all, they've ignored all the other evidence. Apart from Alliston of course, but most of that was made up.
Around what ballpark figure are we talking then BTBS?
it depends on how much weight you are lugging around, and how fast you are going,.but Id have thought the average cyclist is going to burn around 60 calories at best per mile, so 500-600 range for there and back would probably be about right.
Yeah I would say this was bang on. 500 calories an hour is fairly normal.
Around what ballpark figure are we talking then BTBS?
For me at 98kg doing a hardish ride it'd be circa 60-65 cals a mile, less commuting. if they had said a 12 mile round trip commute to burn 1000 cals (I think they said up to) then that's still a pretty big number that would be outside of the vast majority of peoples efforts on a commute. Over 6 miles how many people could actually burn that many, it's absolutely miles off IMHO.
As mentioned, they talked about a '6 mile commute' - if that's one-way then their figure ('burning around 500 calories' ) looks more than reasonable, e.g. the average adult male in the UK is 83.6kg, and using a random calorie counter @ https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-biking that equates to 732 calories at 14-16mph (using 12 miles in ~50 minutes), and 702 for 12 mph. For women (average 70.2kg) the figures are 614 and 590 respectively.
It's then a question of whether they meant a round trip or route distance - IME people talk about the distance to/from work more than round-trip distances, and when they have talked about the latter they've generally mentioned that it's a round trip figure, not one way. That's just my experience however. All in all though, it's not really a take-away from their video that I find worth picking apart and criticising them for.
The Endura claim about burning 500 calories over a 6 mile commute, er, I don't think so mate! Good message otherwise though drop the piss pots!
I suppose it depends if it is 6 miles from door to office and then reverse in the afternoon. Strava / Wahoo / Apple watch have me running 800-1000 cals a day doing about that although I'm normally not doing a leisurely pace which will skew it higher.