Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

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

Research into London commutes also reveals stepped cycle tracks are more effective than kerb protected lanes in reducing injury odds

A study of cyclist casualties in London has found that painted advisory cycle lanes increase the risk of cyclist casualties, with the authors urging that highways authorities cease installing lanes of that type and convert existing ones into protected cycle lanes.

Published under the title Cycling Injury Risk in London: Impacts of Road Characteristics and Infrastructure, the study was led by Thomas Adams of Transport for London (TfL) and was based on collisions that happened between 2016 and 2018 and which were notified to police.

Because the STATS 19 road casualty report forms completed by the police only include home postcode data rather than the start point of the journey, researchers decided to focus on incidents that were likely to have happened on commutes.

Narrowing the data down to incidents that occurred between 7am-10am on a weekday and involved people aged over 16, left researchers with 2,876 injury points, of which 86.7 per cent were slight injuries, and 13.0 per cent were serious injuries.

There were also seven fatalities, reflecting 0.2 per cent of the total.

Using a variety of tools to predict routes and add control points between home and injury locations, models were created to control for road characteristics as well as road user flows, whether motor traffic, cyclists or pedestrians.

The study found that when compared to no infrastructure, kerb protected cycle lanes reduced the odds of injury by 40 per cent.

The reduction provided by stepped cycle tracks was even greater, at 65 per cent, although the authors cautioned that was based on low numbers.

In terms of painted lanes, mandatory ones – marked with a solid white line – were no different from having no infrastructure at all.

However, advisory cycle lanes – those marked with a broken white line, and which motorists are allowed to enter – caused the odds of injury to increase by 34 per cent.

Explanations of the various different types of cycle lanes are shown in the figure below, taken from TfL's London Cycling Design Standards.

Cycle lanes (TfL).PNG

Other findings included that junctions were associated with a threefold increase in injury odds, while bus lanes decreased them but not to the same extent as protected cycle lanes did.

The study also found evidence of a ‘safety in numbers’ effect, saying that injury odds decrease as cycle flow increases, and suggested that a doubling of the number of people commuting by bike in the morning leads to a 13 per cent reduction in odds of an injury.

Professor Rachel Aldred, co-author of the article and Director of Westminster University’s Active Travel Academy, said: “This research shows a clear difference in cycling safety between high-quality protected infrastructure and advisory lanes, with the former reducing injury risk and the latter raising it.

“Transport authorities that want to make cycling safer need to avoid putting in new paint-only infrastructure and start converting existing advisory lanes to safer protected tracks and lanes,” she added.

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.

Add new comment

48 comments

Avatar
mikewood | 3 years ago
0 likes

Is it just me that can't get on with "advisory" and "mandatory" being applied to cycle lanes? All of them are merely advisory for a cyclist as we dont have to use them however using the term mandatory leads to the misunderstanding that we MUST use them and when we don't, we are subjected to the abuse similar to todays nmotd

Avatar
Hirsute replied to mikewood | 3 years ago
1 like

Trouble is if you dig into the detail of SIs and the ilk, that is what they are called, so trying to change the name isn't going to help unless you change it in all the legislation.

Avatar
the little onion replied to mikewood | 3 years ago
3 likes

The mandatory/advisory refers to motor traffic, as I understand it (it is advised that they shouldn't enter an advisory lane unless they have too, whereas it is mandatory that they shouldn't enter a mandatory lane, except in emergencies such as pulling over to let an ambulance through)

All cycle lanes are optional, for cyclists. This is clear in the highway code, and thanks to Cycling UK, has been upheld in the courts (R. v Daniel Cadden, 2007, if I recall).

Avatar
mikewood replied to the little onion | 3 years ago
2 likes

That's my point really! They are mandatory non-motor vehicle lanes, not a mandatory cycle lane. You are correct, the Highway code is very clear, unless you only read what you want or maybe not at all which seems to be happening.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to the little onion | 3 years ago
3 likes

Strictly speaking, the Highway Code just says that you must not enter a mandatory lane. It makes no allowances for emergencies, ambulances, etc.

It then goes on to tell you not to enter an advisory lane 'unless it is unavoidable'.

So by implication, you shouldn't enter a mandatory lane, even if it's unavoidable...

Avatar
Tom_77 | 3 years ago
8 likes

Minimum widths for cycle lanes:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Near me it's rare to see a cycle lane that's more than 1m in width.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Tom_77 | 3 years ago
3 likes

  

...

surprise

Avatar
sheridan replied to Tom_77 | 2 years ago
0 likes

Tom_77 wrote:

Minimum widths for cycle lanes:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Near me it's rare to see a cycle lane that's more than 1m in width.

One part of the Cycle Superhighway (3) has a two-way section that isn't even 1.5 metres across - for added danger it has a couple of curves and blind corners at each end.

Avatar
Prosper0 | 3 years ago
8 likes

It's difficult, as a quick and experienced road cyclist I find wide painted mandatory cycle lanes very useful. The problem is implementation, normally they are hilariously narrow, advisory and as such - full of parked cars. 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Prosper0 | 3 years ago
6 likes

Prosper0 wrote:

It's difficult, as a quick and experienced road cyclist I find wide painted mandatory cycle lanes very useful. The problem is implementation, normally they are hilariously narrow, advisory and as such - full of parked cars. 

That width is the thing. Sometimes they're only a metre from the kerb. As I tend to ride at about that distance they mean nothing. Add to that some drivers think then that rule 163 magically does not apply. Ha, who am  I kidding. They haven't read HWC in the first place....

Avatar
brooksby replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
4 likes

So what's the narrowest painted lane that you have seen, road.cc people?

(My record is the approach to the Clifton Suspension Bridge from Clifton, where the dashed white line is approximately the same width out from the double yellow 'no parking' lines as they are from the kerb...).

Edited: As seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/xJUStyp1KxhLX9br9

Edited (2): I had a look at this one properly on my way home. From the kerb, over the cobbles and then over the double yellow lines is about thirty centimetres. So from the double yellows to the outside of the dashed white line is about another thirty centimetres. It does get narrower as you approach the final bend to the bridge until it just kind of merges into the double yellows...

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
1 like

Possibly this one - Google Street View doesn't really do it justice, but that (squashed) bicycle symbol is still wider than actual lane...

https://goo.gl/maps/1PwwHQUb1pmEZK8q8

Avatar
Shake replied to OnYerBike | 3 years ago
0 likes

I like this one, where the cycle lane is so wide that there isn't enough room for the cars to use the "normal lane". Equally as dangerous 
https://goo.gl/maps/FRH9944NVPGF4a6Z6

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to Shake | 3 years ago
1 like

Shake wrote:

I like this one, where the cycle lane is so wide that there isn't enough room for the cars to use the "normal lane". Equally as dangerous 
https://goo.gl/maps/FRH9944NVPGF4a6Z6

Actually I think that's a good idea (although I'd like to see more bicycle symbols and/or coloured tarmac). It makes it clear that cyclists are entitled to use the road and don't have to stick in the gutter, and that drivers shouldn't overtake any closer to the cyclist than the edge of the cycle lane. If that means they have to wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic before overtaking then so be it (they probably should be doing that anyway on that road).

Obviously there's a risk that drivers will simply ignore the cycle lane, but even so I don't think it's made it any more dangerous than not having a cycle lane.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to OnYerBike | 3 years ago
1 like

Well it's better than this: https://goo.gl/maps/tEytBaqw2WurvZU28

A cycle lane that's not wide enough for cycling, and a main lane that's not wide enough for most cars, that are then squashed in to an even narrower space as you bear left past the island.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
0 likes

In terms of narrowness, though, this one round the corner from there wins out: https://goo.gl/maps/sg815dmqSHGu7RTKA

Avatar
mdavidford replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
0 likes

And this one a little further on is pretty good too: https://goo.gl/maps/sg815dmqSHGu7RTKA

Yes - that bike does appear to have actually disappeared under the gutter.

Avatar
Shake replied to OnYerBike | 3 years ago
1 like

In experice from using the lane I think it's bad. Drivers have to drive in the cycle lane to avoid the oncoming vehicles, thus enforcing the idea that drivers can just drive in the cycle lane if they wish. Secondly, I imagine it might give other cyclists the impression that they could use the whole cycle lane without thinking about cars (which is obviously never a good idea and you should always check to make sure the road is clear before moving out. 

Avatar
makadu replied to OnYerBike | 3 years ago
3 likes

OnYerBike wrote:

Shake wrote:

I like this one, where the cycle lane is so wide that there isn't enough room for the cars to use the "normal lane". Equally as dangerous 
https://goo.gl/maps/FRH9944NVPGF4a6Z6

Actually I think that's a good idea (although I'd like to see more bicycle symbols and/or coloured tarmac). It makes it clear that cyclists are entitled to use the road and don't have to stick in the gutter, and that drivers shouldn't overtake any closer to the cyclist than the edge of the cycle lane. If that means they have to wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic before overtaking then so be it (they probably should be doing that anyway on that road).

Obviously there's a risk that drivers will simply ignore the cycle lane, but even so I don't think it's made it any more dangerous than not having a cycle lane.

Did you read the article? 

  • However, advisory cycle lanes – those marked with a broken white line, and which motorists are allowed to enter – caused the odds of injury to increase by 34 per cent
Avatar
OnYerBike replied to makadu | 3 years ago
1 like

makadu wrote:

Did you read the article? 

  • However, advisory cycle lanes – those marked with a broken white line, and which motorists are allowed to enter – caused the odds of injury to increase by 34 per cent

Yes I did thank you very much. I absolutely agree that MOST advisory cycle lanes increase the risk. However, that doesn't mean that ALL advisory cycle lanes increase risk. Talking specifically about the one Shake posted about, I suggested that that one in particular might be good. It certainly obviates the obvious problems with most advisory cycle lanes - that they force cyclists to hug the kerb and that they give drivers a false sense that it is safe to pass as long as they don't cross the cycle lane.

I might be wrong - that cycle lane might be just as dangerous as others - but as that study did not distinguish between wide and narrow advisory cycle lanes then it really doesn't help answer that question. If you really want to be pedantic, then there are many other reasons why it is highly inappropriate to take the average injury odds from a study based in London and apply it to every other cycle lane in the country.

Avatar
quiff replied to Shake | 3 years ago
0 likes

I can think of two examples like that. This one, near Ambleside: https://goo.gl/maps/V8M8r13kwXVaaJ2Y7 . I've only used it a couple of times, but found drivers pretty respectful. Then this, in the centre of Cardiff, where to be honest I have more experience as a driver than a cyclist: https://goo.gl/maps/FfsEYNTsain8FkMV8 . Note how the centre divider marking vanishes. I never know if that's an intentional ploy to make drivers uncertain about the width of the road and therefore more cautious, or just because the road isn't officially wide enough to mark out two cycle lanes and two standard lanes.   

Avatar
mikewood replied to quiff | 3 years ago
0 likes

Have stayed in one of the cottages on the right in Ambleside but not yet ridden a bike down there

Avatar
arowland replied to Shake | 3 years ago
0 likes

I disagree that it is "equally as dangerous" as a cycle lane that is too narrow. The danger from narrow bike lanes is obvious: drivers tend to regard the lane as somehow separate from the rest of the road and think that the lane is wide enough without their having to take any avoiding action. That is why they then pass too close. Moreover, they help to cement in drivers' heads the idea that cyclists 'only need' a small amount of space and perform close passes in other situations too, out of ignorance.

The lane you mention avoids that problem by showing clearly how much space should be left by passing traffic. It is not mandatory so other vehicles are permitted to use the space when it is not required by a cyclist. When a cyclist is in the lane, it is obvious that the following vehicle must wait to overtake until it is safe to do so and should not encroach on the lane in the process. I would want all cycle lanes to adopt that practice -- though properly segregated lanes are far better, and painted advisory lanes have been shown to increase the risk of injury [https://findingspress.org/article/18226-cycling-injury-risk-in-london-im....

I do, however, agree with previous posters that the nomenclature of 'advisory' and 'mandatory' lanes is confusing, and the wording of Rule 140, which includes "Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable" (instead of "unless required by a cyclist") can be unhelpful in the situation pictured, where motor vehicles are more or less obliged to at least partially encroach on the cycle lane or risk a head-on collision with oncoming traffic. Hopefully the new Highway Code will address some of these issues.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
2 likes

They don't bother with lines in Spelthorne Council

https://goo.gl/maps/pbgLWmdoavzHyqbi8

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes

hirsute wrote:

They don't bother with lines in Spelthorne Council

https://goo.gl/maps/pbgLWmdoavzHyqbi8

Wow, the message is clear. "Cyclists are supposed to squeeze themselves into the kerb"

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes

Oh - we have some of those too: https://goo.gl/maps/erkXuM13Sm5pqKS37

Weirdly, right opposite one that does have lines.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
0 likes

Nice to know someone gets paid to do this.

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
3 likes

brooksby wrote:

So what's the narrowest painted lane that you have seen, road.cc people?

(My record is the approach to the Clifton Suspension Bridge from Clifton, where the dashed white line is approximately the same width out from the double yellow 'no parking' lines as they are from the kerb...).

Edited: As seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/xJUStyp1KxhLX9br9

You didn't mention the cobbles!

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
0 likes

I've never noticed that, but then I usually cross the bridge going the other way. I don't think they consulted with any cyclists before implementing that.

Edit: Coming from the other direction, there is this little gem. I guess they tried.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4541839,-2.6297853,3a,75y,27.77h,58.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srdbPmiIPwxXju3w8FIvQ6Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Edit: Edit: The picture at the top of this article is from approaching the bridge from Ashton Court direction - I though it looked like it initially but didn't confirm it until playing with Google maps.

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes

I'd never even noticed that bit, Peter, and I come over there every day (?).  I thought your streetview was going to be before you get to that, where there's a painted lane and a raised road divider, and two trees that they never cut back so their branches near the base actually block the cycle lane... 

Pages

Latest Comments