It's time to treat cyclists as legitimate road users
(click images to enlarge)
A ‘jug handle turn’ – nice!
A cycle lane failing to assist cycling– if only it were a shock
Pedestrians need this footway,so why put a cycle lane there?
I may not be a prophet but I would just like to point out that my forecast, last month, that parking would be a major issue in 2007 seems to have been bang on the button. For, just hours after submitting that prediction to the editor, I saw the newspaper hoarding that is pictured opposite. If pictures of parking tickets sell newspapers, then who knows where the public fascination with this issue will end?
Moving swiftly onto this month's topic, however, I begin by stating my opinion that, were the Audit Commission (or whoever it is does this kind of thing) to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the value for money delivered by expenditure on different transport modes, then (allegedly) cycle-friendly schemes would (proportionally) outclass all-comers in the waste-of -money stakes. This opinion is completely unsupported by verifiable evidence and I may, of course, be wrong. If so, I'm sure you'll let me know.
If I'm right, however, then let me assure you that it gives me no pleasure at all. As a keen advocate of cycling and, indeed, a keen cyclist, I'm all in favour of projects that enhance the lot of those who travel by velocipede. It's just that my experience is that many of the projects that are supposed to have this outcome simply don't. Take 'jug-handle turn' facilities, for example, which are intended to take the danger out of right turn manoeuvres (see top picture). Ever seen one used by a cyclist? Neither have I, though I've seen plenty used for storing puddles and general highway detritus. They're a nice idea, I suppose, but almost all cyclists (i.e. everyone except children whose accompanying parent is trying to teach them how to do 'the right thing') are simply going to go to the outside lane and turn right in the old-fashioned way.
As for one of the staple 'cycle improvement' products - cycle lanes - the benefits delivered by these are surely patchy at best. Some are formal, some aren't, but motorists seem to treat them all with pretty equal contempt. Unless, that is, there's plenty of width in the carriageway and a metre-wide green ribbon doesn't significantly impede the forward progress of their car/van/lorry/bus.
This latter observation is rather telling, in my view, since it points to the conclusion that cycle lanes either (a) don't really work when the carriageway width is under pressure or (b) aren't really necessary when there's tarmac to spare. This is not, by any means, to say that the status quo, wherein cyclists usually only dine on the leftovers from the motorists' table, is acceptable. But it is to say that the tools we're used to using to redress the balance too rarely do anything of the sort. So what, you might reasonably ask, do I suggest as a better way to go? Well, as the first part of my answer, let me quote from a report I read the other day. It said that, "There are two main principles that underpin our cycling proposals
* cyclists should be on the carriageway first and foremost, and all of the highway network (except for trunk roads) should be designed to encourage cycling; and
* the best cycling conditions are created through traffic calming and reduction in traffic speeds, rather than by the provision of cycle lanes and paths."
I think these principles are essentially sound. Streets should be designed so that cycling in the carriageway is simple and safe. Cycle lanes on the footway, of which I have seen far too many, are normally a hazard to both cyclists and pedestrians and are, frankly, bottle-jobs: "We don't dare take capacity from motorists but pedestrians won't squeal half so much." Making the carriageway generally more cycle friendly is easier to say than to achieve, of course, but that shouldn't stop it from being our goal. Besides, it's what the DfT says we ought to be doing.
Which brings me to the second part of my answer, in which I refer readers (not for the first time) to Local Transport Note 1/04. This sets out a 'Hierarchy of Provision' that lists the first intervention to be considered in improving conditions for cyclists as reducing traffic volumes and the second as reducing traffic speeds. Right-ho, then: we'll do that. Thanks. Can it really be so simple? Don't be daft. Two rather disturbing questions spring at once to my (possibly fevered) mind. The first is, "Does the DfT really mean this and, if it does, is it prepared to fund cycle schemes predicated on reduced traffic capacity and speeds?"
The second relates to the concern that one of the main reasons we spend money on 'cycle schemes' is because that's how our performance in promoting cycling is measured. Funding for redesigning streets, including traffic calming, will be harder to get (what transport 'pot' does it come from?) and the benefits are difficult to assign to a single mode. That being the case, will our traditional funding mechanisms lead, perversely, to the continued prioritisation of expenditure on well-meant but ineffectual schemes?
What do you think?
John Dales is on the Commissions for Architecture & Built Environment's enabling panel and is responsible for helping to deliver CABE's 'Streets for People' programme of urban design training for highways and tranportation professionals. He is director of transport and movement at urban design consultant Urban Initiatives. This series of articles was originally commissioned by and published in Local Transport Today magazine.
