Painted advisory cycle lanes increase risk of cyclist casualties, study finds

I'm always bemused by the "CYCLISTS MUST DISMOUNT" sign (non-official, though the bridge is private property anyway). Does it refer to cyclists using the pavement (which makes sense as it's very narrow so you wouldn't really be able to overtake) or to cyclists looking to re-join the road? (For the record the only time I've dismounted was to take photos of Gromits).

Gert Lush

I assumed it means don't ride your bike along the footway over the bridge?

This one in Hampshire is very narrow and particularly dangerous as it encourages cyclists to use the edge of the roundabout, where drivers are less likely to see them.

My record is the approach to the Clifton Suspension Bridge from Clifton

Yes, this is indeed much worse than nothing at all, and shows that the council officers haven't been on a bike for decades

I think you'll like this one. Main carriage way too narrow for most cars or buses (yes it is a bus route) but bound by a double white line and a cycle lane.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/h1ek7jUdnf1Mq41U6
Tbf, Google have managed to capture a moment in time when the hedgerow is under control it's even worse when the brambles start encroaching as well.

IanMK wrote:

I think you'll like this one. Main carriage way too narrow for most cars or buses (yes it is a bus route) but bound by a double white line and a cycle lane. https://maps.app.goo.gl/h1ek7jUdnf1Mq41U6 Tbf, Google have managed to capture a moment in time when the hedgerow is under control it's even worse when the brambles start encroaching as well.

JHC.... They should just paint F-off great cycles filling each lane to point out the road is a cycle lane....

What this bit of road near Sherrington needs is a speed limit (that, admittedly, no-one will pay any attention to) rather than useless, worse-than-nothing cycle lanes which are doubtless completely ignored like the double unbroken white lines. I assume these lanes are the (wrong) response to a narrowing of the road? Other Google frames show an ordinary width 2 lane road on either side of this section?

There's a shared path further up along the A509. I've always assumed the they put in this nonsense to dissuade cyclists from carrying on the A509. It's just a normal width road but made worse by the double white lines. A bit further back the cycle lanes abruptly end. There's no apparent reason / change in the road. I did contact the council about it but of course got no response.

Completely agree

It is good to see a proper researched study into the subject with an objective analyse (though with low study numbers which may project a understandable margin of error) it does though reinforce other studies carried out in the past that showed motor vehicle drivers will pass a cyclist closer than if no line was present. I find that advisory cycle lanes (broken white lines) tended to be applied with much less care in following supposedly required standards. Particularly in terms of width and consistency than the mandatory cycle lanes (solid lines) which may also help explain the differences in casualities.  Advisory lines tend to be more variable in width, changing along a road length and were placed down as a cheap solution and allowed a local council to tick a box to show they fulfilled a requirement to make some provision for cycling ? Instead as shown by the study they actually increase the risk and actual harm to the user group they are suppose to help ? Instead we should be designing and implementing proper engineered solutions that are fit for purpose and meet the needs of the user group they are being designed for. As shown on numerous (if not every) occasion with a proper solution you will get a increase in people using that route to cycle and they will be made up of a more diverse population in age, gender and ethnic breakdown.

If I read the summary correctly it looks like the authors guessed at routes cyclists might have taken based on their home postcode and then used that to infer what sort of cycle infrastructure the rider was on when they had an accident. Didn't sound like a well researched study to me...? What am I missing?

Problem is drivers treat cyclists in a painted lane the same way they do a car in a painted lane ... no need to perform an overtaking manouevre because "they are in one lane, I am in another". 

Rule 163 goes out of the window, because they are not "overtaking" you, they are simply moving faster in their lane than you are in yours. 

That's why I tend not to use them. 

 I really wish they would just delete them all.

Agreed