Lethal cycle lanes

There are some extremely dangerous road markings on Park View Road in Welling .

These markings mark an advisory cycle lane adjacent to a parking/loading area on the westbound side just outside Welling United football ground.

The width of the parking/loading area is 1.8m (the standard width). The width of the immediately adjacent cycle lane is 1.2m .

The width of the parking bay is quite standard and acceptable, however it is quite unrealistic to think that all vehicles parked there will fit within that width. In practice very few would. Cars are generally getting wider and a Ford Focus is 1.84m (not including door mirrors) while the width of a Ford Transit is given by Ford as 2.36m (http://www.fordtransitdirect.co.uk/newsales/newvans/transit/technicalspec.aspx). These are hardly exotic or extreme vehicles. When you bear in mind that most people don't want to scuff their alloys, you can add another 0.1m on for the gap between the vehicle and the kerb.

The cycle lane is 1.2m which is well below the 1.5m "absolute minimum" specified in a Scottish Government document (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/cbd/cbd-07.asp). In the same document, it specifies that in cases where cycle lanes are immediately adjacent to parking areas (as here), there should be a 1m gap between the parking area and the cycle lane. I know I've been using that site to support my argument up to now, but at this point I have to take serious issue with them. 1m is nowhere near enough gap. I've already shown that vehicles will generally more than fill the width of the parking area. Add to this, the fact that a quick experiment shows that the doors on my Ford Focus, when opened fully, extend 1.2m beyond the car.

In other words, if I parked perfectly in this bay and in a momentary lapse of concentration opened my door without checking the mirror properly I could kill a cyclist if any part of his body was inside the cycling lane.Whatever the regulations say, this is the reality of the basic geometry.

I drive a car. I also frequently ride a bike along this stretch of road at speeds in excess of 20mph. I find the bike lanes quite handy as they show me exactly where I shouldn't be cycling. We can all laugh a bitter ironic laugh at that comment, but I really worry about less well informed and more timid riders who feel that they should be riding in this area. Also there is the awareness that, when I am riding outside the lane, passing motorists feel within their rights to pass me really close as I'm "in the wrong place".

The upside-down world of advisory cycle lanes

I've been enjoying the riveting read that is the Kent County Council Cycling Strategy for Kent 2006-11. This has to be one of the most telling quotes extracted from it:

In order to reduce the possibility of cyclists being squeezed at pinch points, it is essential that widths between the kerb and refuge/central island are carefully considered:

4.5m (1.5m cycle lane, 3.0m vehicle running lane)

4.0m in general, 3.0 in general (1.2m cycle lane)

If the above cannot be achieved, the cycle lane should not be marked. Running lanes must not be smaller than 3.0m.

Let's look at what's being said here. The first stipulation sounds ok. It implies that if there are 4.5 metres available, then there's really no great contention for road space between a cyclist and a motor vehicle. I'd certainly go along with that. Provided there's no parking, 4.5 metres is bags of space for everyone. And in this case, I have to ask why it is necessary to mark a cycle lane at all with all the expense that entails. If there's a cyclist there, they can see them and take care. If there isn't a cyclist there it doesn't really matter what they do.

With the next provision we begin to see the way things are going. At 4 metres (which is still not too bad in an observed 30mph limit) things start getting a bit funny. Two odd things happen, the cyclist who previously needed 1.5m now only needs 1.2m (naturally a car still needs the same space) and, even more curiously, 1.2 + 3 = 4.

The real crunch comes with the last two sentences. It states that the running lane must always be 3m and that if there is insufficient space for a cycle lane it should not be marked.This is really interesting stuff. The implication of these messages is quite clear

1) the car never has to give way to anyone. They have their 3 metres and that is an inviolable right.
2) When there is plenty of space and no contention, the bicycle is afforded the protection of a bit of paint. When contention starts, it is stronly implied that it is the cyclist who has to beware and the cyclist who should give way, even to vehicles that are currently behind them.

It is difficult to see how these provisions help with the headline policy that:

“KCC will encourage cycling as an alternative to the private car for local journeys”

Personally I'd like to see the exact reverse situation

1) Remove redundant cycle lane markings where there is no contention for road space
2) Put in road markings where there IS contention for road space.

For example in the case of a width restriction of 4m or less I would like to see an advisory cycle lane of a full 1.5M marked for the length of the width restriction. This would impress upon the motorist that if they look like they are going to arrive at that width restriction at the same time as that cyclist, they won't have enough space to go through together and that overtaking at that point would not be safe.

This particular problem only focuses on the more general problem of what a 'cycle lane ends' sign actually means. There's a kind of implication that some sort of rights, benefit or protection previously accorded to cycles have been removed. The secondary implication following from that is that some sort of special priority has been accorded to motor vehicles. In reality it certainly doesn't mean that motorists 'dont have to worry about cyclists any more'. If it means anything at all, it means a motorist should expect to see cyclists coming into contention with them for road space. This is surely more in need of a sign or a road marking than the total non-news that, for the last two miles of wide road there was plenty of space for everyone.