- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Bike Lane SymbolCouncil says it won't reinstate cycle lanes after road resurfacing -- because they put cyclists in danger
A council has said it won’t reinstate cycle lanes on a road it has just resurfaced – because the narrowness of the carriageway puts cyclists in danger if the lanes were in place.
In a tweet posted yesterday, Hertfordshire County Council said: “Following a safety review, we won't be replacing the cycle lanes in North Road, Hertford after the recent resurfacing.
“Our safety engineers found the narrow cycle lanes were doing more harm than good, by encouraging drivers to pass too close to cyclists.”
A section of the A119 North Road was resurfaced last month between St Andrew Street and the roundabout with the B1000 Welwyn Road, while in May, similar works were carried out on the section of the A119 between Hertford and Watton-at-Stone.
The council’s view that the bike lanes put cyclists at risk ties in with the findings of a study from Australia that we reported on back in April.
> Painted cycle lanes result in closer passes by motorists finds study
The study, published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, followed 60 regular bike commuters in Melbourne.
Their bikes were fitted with a device called a ‘MetreBox' to calculate the distance drivers gave when overtaking.
Among the findings was that passing events that happened on a road with a painted bike lane or a parked car had an average passing distance 40cm less than on a road without a bike lane or parked car.
Lead author Dr Ben Beck, Monash University's Deputy Head of Prehospital, Emergency and Trauma Research, said: "Our results demonstrate that a single stripe of white paint is not sufficient to protect people who ride bikes.
"In situations where the cyclist is in the same lane as the motorist, the driver is required to perform an overtaking manoeuvre.
“Whereas in situations where the cyclist is in a marked bicycle lane, the motorist has a clear lane ahead and not required to overtake.
“As a result, we believe that there is less of a conscious requirement for drivers to provide additional passing distance."
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
- Simon E 4 sec ago
You should ask a few bike shops about the reality, you might be surprised....
- captain_slog 42 min 28 sec ago
Indeed. You can get a brush for that and still have change for Haribos.
- TheUntypicals 56 min 32 sec ago
Sustrans Teesside/Middlesbrough has done nothing for the cycle lane remaining strangely silent and inactive all the while taking a fortune off...
- KDee 1 hour 57 min ago
Probably a friend of Herbie, or Christine.
- HarrogateSpa 2 hours 2 min ago
Although she was deputy Mayor of London for Transport, she is now MP for Swindon South.
- David9694 3 hours 17 min ago
Tensions escalate over violations in Devon no-car zone...
- David9694 3 hours 23 min ago
Car ploughs into Fair Oak home and crushes couple's cars https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24762662.car-ploughs-fair-oak-home-crus...
- HoarseMann 16 hours 10 min ago
Not quite the same scenario, but has some similarities......
- HoarseMann 16 hours 28 min ago
“It all happened so fast,” the bus driver said in his statement. “To my horror I saw a male laid on his back with a mobile phone on his chest and...
- wtjs 17 hours 14 min ago
no one cares enough to fix it...
Add new comment
22 comments
For a moment there I thought to myself, "Ah sensible evidence-based decision for a change!" But then the truth oozed out, and as BTBS says, this is more than likely a cost-cutting excuse to not do anything.
Where is the proper infrastructure? I've seen it in this country while staying in the Travelodge in Stratford (London), there are floating bus stops and everything, and it gets used. The relative costs make proper cycling infrastructure a must for LAs and gov (CB's request for funding for 1800 miles Vs the redevelopment of one roundabout https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/jun/24/what-14bn-... )
'A cyclist and a driver are sitting together in a small clearing in a forest.
"Hey," says the driver. "Does it bother you, having shit in your hair?"
"Well..." replies the cyclist. "It does, y-"
The driver picks up the cyclist and wipes his arse with him'
This is ONE example, Herts CC are fucking rubbish, they don't give a shit. Urban transport plan for North Herts 1999 is replicated in 2012 for the cycling section as nothing has been done in 13 years, as of 2019 that remains the same. same old BS excuses that it's not a priority. This isn't about cycling safety, it's about aving a few quid and using the 'safety' of cyc;ists as for the reasoning. They still put painted cycle lanes on roads in recent times, the usual pointless shit. They still put barriers on cycle routes that rpevent people cycling, they still won't address problems like how to cross a busy dual carriageway bypass where the cycle crossing is in the crown of the bend and hidden by the big fuck off signpost, they still won't reduce speed limits on NSL roads that clearly have no business having that limit, invl ones with no path and yet is the only road that side of the residential area that leads to the nearest high school.
They'll plant a ton of flowers on the wide grass verge along the main through road to the motorway junction whilst people on bikes get close passed by motorists incl HGVs who are doing 40mph (that's the speed limit) and also have to cope with a pedestrian refuge on that stretch too. No thought as to putting in a cycle lane on the road that goes from two residential areas toward the town.
They'll continue to allow parking on both sides of all the roads entering into the town centre thus creating more dangers for people on bikes. I could go on, this is just a small no. of examples just n my small town, there's thousands more of shit across the county that HCC do/don't so, but yeah, let's give them a Blue Peter badge for a tiny little thing that is a load of pony in the first place.
To make it safer they could have banned motors from one side of the road completely and used that lane for bi-directional cycling, easy a you like, zero costs over what they've outlayed and creates a nice wide and direct lane for people on bikes with no a single motorists to fuck up their day.
If paint is the only possibility, they should at least paint the lane 2m wide minimum, with a rule that it must be respected whilst overtaking a cyclist, on pain of an automatic six points if any camera footage shows them breaking the rule.
May I make a request, that just as we shouldn't use the word "accident" and instead use incident or crash, that we don't use "segregated" but rather separated or protected. Segregation is morally wrong.
I've been using the word collision for quite some time and will seek argument with anyone who uses the word accident. Toddlers and drunk people have accidents, neither group should be operating a motorvehicle.
"A bicycle was involved in a collision with a driver."
Herts have done half a job. The more important 50% that they have missed is to put in lanes with physical protection.
There may be road.cc readers who don't find it necessary, but again and again, polls show 60-70% of British people just won't ride a bike on busy roads because they are scared of getting run over.
To my mind, painted cycle lanes are only suitable on roads of sufficient width and a 20mph limit, of which only a tiny amount of the nation's roads qualify. Anything else requires segregated infra with space and a physical barrier (a raised kerb and some grass verge will do in most cases) to allow all cyclists to feel safe.
Alas, not with Tony Page in charge of it.
Well done Herts. A decision based on evidence for once.
Now if only Reading would do the same with some of their so-called "cycle lanes".
We will be asking the BaNES council to recognise that any painted cycle lane under 2m in width is dangerous and encourages a close pass as people drive to the line. The Dutch CROW manual suggests cycle lanes should be between 1.7m and 2.25m. Some councils are now dictating 2m minimum.
I'm also thinking of finding any painted symbols and adding the 1.5m passing distance with a mini-car symbol with an arrow between.
[bike symbol] <==== 1.5m =====>[car symbol]
I note that in spain any cycle warning sign also includes this.
Screenshot 2019-07-12 at 11.48.02.png
Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder why they don't treat the problem logically.
If there's a problem with motorists performing close passes (which is illegal), then surely that's an enforcement issue. Put in a camera or two and maybe even some notices declaring the area to be monitored for poor driving and then collect lots of fines for the motorists performing unsafe overtakes.
I'll preface by saying that most of the vehicles that pass me on the road give me plenty of room. My personal experience is that something like 95% are great, >4% get a bit too close, and a small percentage are flat out dangerous.
IF cyclists knew that the police would prosecute motorists for close passes, then more cyclists would use cams and submit incriminating eveidence. The issue would then become self policing.
Once the bad motorists get the message that it's NOT acceptable and they WILL get points and fine, then the issue will mostly disappear. Until the police get on board and start prosecuting, then only a death or serious injury will get a reaction.
'then only a death or serious injury will get a reaction.'
I applaud your optimism.
So what do the Highways Engineers propose as a solution to improve cycling safety?
Clearly the cycle lanes are ineffective.
Rigorous, extensive full time enforcement of a 30mph is the only alternative?!
A119 Hertford.jpg
There's nothing wrong in that photo, other than the too-narrow advisory cycle lane. The mini driver is not required to keep out of any cycle lane with broken line markings.
They are required to by the highway code (rule 140).
Or is this going to be one of those pedantic arguments about the meaning of 'required' ?
Really?
"Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply."
Seems pretty clear (my emphasis for - er - emphasis).
The key word is 'must'. Unless that's present, anything that follows it in the highway code - no matter how unambiguous it seems, is advisory only.
But if you go back the the original, it talks about 'required' - no reference to any code/law
The highway is clear that motorists are required to do/ not do under rule 140 , hence me posting about debating what is meant by 'required'.
Pedantically, we don't know if the mini is parked either which is a different scenario to being in motion.
Well, they are, unless it's unavoidable. Which it doesn't appear to be, in the photo.
Excellent decision driven by a data-based analysis, rather than the bureaucratic clap-trap we get from most local authorities. I’d get rid of 70-80% of cycle lanes in Surrey for the exact same reason. A lot of the cycle lanes are either covered in debris (the lost art of road sweeping), too narrow or turn you into a pedestrian.