Why psychlepaths?

Infrequently asked questions: Why psychlepaths?

Cyclepaths - psychlepaths to some in uk.rec.cycling - are one of a family of cycle facilities. Terms like cycle path, cycleway, cycle lane and cycle track tend to be used more or less interchangeably although they have different meanings. More importantly, they can be differentiated into three distinct classes: shared-use, cycle-only and advisory. The middle of these three applies in particular to those (usually green or red) cycle lanes at the sides of the road, delineated by a solid white line. These are referred to as mandatory cycle lanes, with the unfortunate consequence that some people think that cyclists must use them. That is not the case - the word mandatory refers to the fact that motor traffic must not use them.

Problems with cycle facilities
Cycle facilities have a number of problems, some of which are common to all facilities and some which are specific to one or more types. The common problems are:


 * They build a false perception that cycling is unusually dangerous - actually it's driving which is dangerous, cyclists are the victims, not the cause, and even then the benefits outweigh the risks.
 * They build a false perception that without facilities, mass cycle use is not possible.
 * They build a false perception that cyclists should not be on the roads
 * They build a false perception that where a facility exists, any cyclist who does use the roads is in some way asking for whatever befalls them at the hands of careless drivers.
 * They build a false perception of cyclists as "requiring" special provision, when the only special provision we actually need is for drivers to follow the Highway Code.
 * They can never cover more than a small part of the mix of journeys and destinations cyclists might want to access.
 * They inhibit the learning of safe cycling practice by encouraging people to think of bicycles as being other than vehicles.
 * They often run out at the point of greatest danger, due to physical restrictions of road space.
 * There are no standards for surface quality, and typically no budget for sweeping, gritting or other maintenance.
 * They often remove priority from cyclists at the points of greatest danger.
 * They generally reduce the risk of being hit from behind (low probability, high risk of injury) for a substantial increase in conflicts at junctions (high probability, medium-high risk of injury), giving no overall safety benefit, or possibly even a reduction in safety.

The last point, that of increasing (or not reducing) risk is counter-intuitive. But then, as you'll have gathered by now, much of what goes on in road safety is the opposite of what "common sense" would tell us. I think Bob Davis may be credited with coining the description "bicycle Bantustans" to describe segregated facilities. Like the Bantustans in apartheid South Africa, they are predominantly designed to fix a "problem" by restricting its victims.

Cycling expert wrote a letter to  outlining the poor safety record of cycle facilities:. Many of the points he raises are unanswerable and in many cases there is no way a facility could be designed which did not embody the above problems. The Government has now more or less given up on the fiction of cycle facilities as a safety aid, and portrays them instead as encouraging cycling. Evidence for this is also hard to come by, possibly because of the very perception of danger which their promotion creates. History of cycle facilities

Stop me if I've said this before... Cycle facilities date back to the first part of the 20th Century, most notably in 1930s Germany where their notoriously benign and enlightened government of the time built cycle tracks and lanes as part of the drive to mass motoring. The aim was to get cyclists out of the way of cars, and the fact that the facilities made cycling less convenient was not seen as a problem. The idea was enthusiastically taken up in the UK, especially by H Alker Tripp, then Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, who believed that cars, pedestrians and cyclists could not coexist, and that segregation was necessary "for our own good" as it were.

The first cycle lane in the UK was laid down along the A40 Western Avenue, London, in 1935. An analysis of these early facilities states that they only extended along parts of the sides of the roads, so did not help at junctions (actually this may turn out ot have been a blessing in disguise), left-turning motor traffic had priority (these days it only thinks it does), cyclists had to give way at minor service roads, and the tracks were frequently blocked by parked cars, and were badly maintained. Seventy years later I don't think much progress has been made, since exactly the same criticisms are levelled now. It seems likely that these are inherent flaws.

The experience of 1930s Britain has special relevance because in both Germany and the UK the "problem" was seen as being one of the vulnerable road users rather than those with more power, those who were actually bringing all the danger to the situation; and because this car supremacist attitude, which is now defended on the basis that cars are the dominant mode for personal transportation, is shown to be embodied in official policy at a time when cars were a minority mode by number of journeys, ownership, mileage or any other measure. More journeys and more distance were covered by cycle at this time than by motor, and private motoring was restricted to the wealthy and privileged. A key questions which defenders of motorists' privilege have to answer is: at what point in the transition from car as minority mode to majority mode by distance (but still minority by journeys, with pedestrians being the majority) did it become right for drivers to arrogate ownership of the roads? That they have done so from the earliest stages of motorisation is unquestionable.

So, the idea of cycle facilities comes not from cyclists but from those who want to get cyclists out of the way. That is as good a starting point as any for understanding their weaknesses.

Cycle Routes
Cycle routes, of which the best known example is probably the National Cycle Network, are signed routes for cyclists directing them away from the most cyclist-hostile pieces of infrastructure and via supposedly more cyclist-friendly alternatives.

Weaknesses of cycle routes include:


 * Lower maintenance standards on the roads selected, especially in winter - winter cycling is often best done on bus routes, as they are gritted first.
 * They offer highways authorities an excuse for not dealing with the original problem, that of cyclist-hostile infrastructure.
 * Routes are often designed for leisure cyclists and will include gravelled tracks and towpaths which are unsuitable for purposeful utility cycling.
 * Routes can be indirect and significantly longer.
 * Topology is sometimes forgotten (cyclists don't particularly like being diverted from a flat road to a 1 in 4 hill!).
 * Some of the small roads turn out to be rat-runs.
 * The routes may criss-cross arterial roads, causing delays and increased chances of junction conflicts.

In their favour there is some evidence that signed cycle routes encourage leisure cycling and although there is not much linking increased leisure cycling to mode shifting it is undoubtedly the case that owning a bike in the first place will lower the barrier to making utility journeys.

Cycleways
This term has no legal definition but is understood, according to the National Cycling Strategy Board (RIP) as meaning a route that includes specific cycle benefits or engineering measures. I guess the Bristol-Bath route could be taken as an example of this. The implication is that like bridleways for horses or footways for pedestrians, cyclists have been made a primary or at least significant factor in the design of the route. Some countries apparently define a cycleway as a route for the exclusive use of cyclists. On the whole the lack of a clear and consistent definition (or any legal definition or officially acknowledged description) probably indicates that this term is not useful.

Cycle Lanes
These are lanes, usually along the sides of major roads, dedicated to cycle traffic. Cycles are also permitted in most bus lanes.

There are two major subdivisions of cycle lanes: mandatory and advisory. Mandatory lanes are delineated by a solid line and must not be used other than by the specified types of vehicle, be they cycles and/or buses and/or taxis. Parking in these is usually prohibited (yeah, right!). Advisory lanes are delineated by a broken white line (and often broken bottles).

Weaknesses of cycle lanes include:


 * Often substantially narrower than the recommended minimum 2.0m width. An absolute minimum of 1.5m applies to mandatory cycle lanes, although this turns out not to be entirely absolute as restrictions down to 1.2m are permitted where there are sever constraints on road space.
 * Place cyclists out of drivers' scanning zone, increasing problems at junctions in particular.
 * Encourage drivers to treat the cycle lane as being physically separate, so that it is not necessary to slow down or move out when passing cyclists . The minimum recommended clearance when passing a cyclist is 1.5m, drivers will often pass much closer than this when there is a cycle lane - as if the white line is some kind of physical barrier protecting the
 * Encourage the idea that cyclists are asking for "something for nothing" and taking road space away from "legitimate" road users. Many drivers say cycle lanes take space away from vehicles, conveniently forgetting that cycle are vehicles.

In addition we have the usual faults of cycle facilities, particularly the tendency to vanish just when the danger is greatest.

It is important to remember that, unless there is a specific regulation to the contrary, cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes (or any other type of cycle facility for that matter). There are good reasons why you might prefer to use the main carriageway, especially if this will help you to avoid conflicts at junctions (e.g. with left-turning heavy goods traffic). Another key reason for not using advisory lanes in particular is that they are very often too narrow, placing the cyclist considerably to the left of even the secondary riding position.

The best advice is to treat the cycle lane as any other lane. Imagine that the little picture of the bike is missing - would you still use the lane? If not, keep on the main carriageway.

Cycle paths
Once again there is no formal definition but this term is widely understood to mean a shared-use cycle lane on a footway. In my view these are the most pernicious of all facilities - they are also in my experience the ones most likely to attract the "get on the cyclepath!" style of comment. They reveal more clearly than any other facility the true agenda behind much cycle provision, and motorists' attitude to it. Consider: how often have you heard complaints about cyclists riding on the pavement? In one case we are berated (rightly in my view) for riding on the footway, in another we are bullied for not doing so. The magic paint pot does not remove the fundamental dangers of pavement cycling, which include:


 * Street furniture and other obstructions.
 * Every side road must be crossed, rather than passed (with priority) on the carriageway.
 * Increased crash risk at junctions due to being out of drivers' sight lines.
 * Conflict with pedestrians (and dogs on leads).
 * Low build and maintenance standards.
 * Designed for foot traffic, potentially with tight turns and restricted sight lines.

Footways were designed for pedestrians (although arguably here, too, as an attempt to get the more numerous but less powerful out of the way of cars), and bicycles are vehicles.

The other key problem with cycle paths is that they follow the American idea of the cyclist as a wheeled pedestrian rather than a human-powered vehicle. The Government seems to give tacit support to this in its guidelines for fixed penalty notices, which it says should not be handed out to cyclists who are riding "responsibly" on the pavement out of genuine fear of traffic. I would argue that it would be better to tackle the source of the problem, the danger posed by motor traffic, rather than turn a blind eye to infractions by those intimidated off the road by it. Although the Government clearly recognises the cause of the problem the response indicates that there is no commitment at all to addressing it.

Cycle track
This term has a specific legal definition in the Highways Act: "a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles with or without a right of way on foot." What that mouthful amounts to is: a cycle track is a right of way for pedal cycles, on which pedestrians may also be granted access, but from which motor traffic is excluded.

There is a clear implication that this covers off-road cycle facilities. These have their place (the Bristol-Bath route being an example of one which works for many kinds of cyclists) but they don't escape the fundamental problems of all facilities, most notably the very restricted number of such facilities which can exist.

Nor is the evidence for their desirability anything like conclusive. The Bristol-Bath path might be good, but there is little doubt that the Milton Keynes Redways have a poor safety record for reasons which are intimately bound up with their base design assumption that cycles are necessarily inferior to, and should therefore defer to, motor traffic. Ultimately many cycle tracks are designed for a specific type of cycling and are inappropriate to other types. In particular, tracks designed for leisure cycling are very often entirely unsuitable for purposeful journeys such as commuting.

Comebacks
Some snappy comebacks have been suggested to the shout of "get on the cyclepath!". One of these is "Get on the motorway!", another is a blast on the Air Zound, and "mind your own business!" has a certain following. But probably the least inflammatory response is to wave cheerily as if you haven't heard a word they said, and you think it might be a workmate calling out a brisk good-morning. And get their number if they try to intimidate you. Some police actually do care (especially now more forces are starting to use bikes again).

Conclusion
Cyclists are generally not obliged to use cycle facilities, and are very often less safe on them than on the main carriageway. The history of cycle facilities is characterised not by cyclist demands for separate provision, but by motorist attempts to arrogate ownership of the roads. Many cycle facilities are atrociously designed and others are predicated on one particular type of cycling, such as leisure cycling. Examples of good quality cycle paths which introduce genuine improvements of cyclist safety - especially ones where a similar or better result could not have been produced simply by slowing the motor traffic down - are notoriously hard to find.