A recent article in the Times – which claimed that the rapid proliferation of cycle lanes in Paris over the past few years has driven locals away from the city’s buses due to congestion and increased journey times – has been criticised by cyclists and road safety campaigners, who argue that the story is further evidence that “cars never seem to be the problem for some people”.
Earlier this week, the Times – the paper that in 2012 launched its award-winning and highly-praised Cities Fit for Cycling Campaign, which called for the introduction of safe cycling infrastructure – reported that “Parisians are abandoning the city’s buses in despair” thanks to the congestion apparently caused by the French capital’s newly introduced cycling infrastructure.
Overseen by pro-cycling mayor Anne Hidalgo, Paris’ cycling revolution of the 2020s has led to the creation of around 100km of bike lanes in the city, while the number of people riding bikes has doubled since the end of the Covid-19 lockdowns.
A 2024 Paris Région Institute study also found that cycling now accounts for 11.2 per cent of all trips in central Paris (compared to just three per cent a decade before), while car usage has fallen to just 4.3 per cent. Walking, meanwhile, still comprises 50 per cent of all trips in the centre of the city, with public transport coming second at 30 per cent.
> Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to massive investment... but Telegraph writer claims city now “hell on earth”
However, according to the Times, things are apparently looking less than rosy for Paris’ bus network.
“Parisians are abandoning the city’s buses in despair, saying the proliferation of cycle lanes has led to traffic congestion that is affecting journey times,” the article, titled ‘Cycle lanes leave Parisian bus passengers in a jam’, began.
“The buses travel at an average speed of 8.85kph during rush hour, compared with 9.54kph in 2022, according to the RATP, the Paris public transport authority.”
The article then cited a study by the National Federation of Transport Users, which found that Parisian buses now have an average speed of 10.6kph throughout the day, compared to 13.3kph two decades ago.
The Times also pointed out that the total number of bus journeys in Paris was 220 million in 2023, down from 354 million in 2008 – over a decade, it must be said, before the city’s cycling revolution really took root.
“Critics say buses have been a collateral victim of the council’s efforts to get people cycling,” the article continued. “More than €150 million has been spent building cycle lanes in the city since 2021. But Le Monde said this had led to more traffic jams.”
The article also quotes, for balance, Paris’ deputy mayor for public space, transport, and mobility, David Belliard, who rejected this criticism while admitting that the “question of the bicycle is reorganising public space and changing everything”, and noting that officials are working to find a “balance” to improve bus journey times.
> “Do you really need a SUV? I carry my son on a bike, we found solutions”: Parisians vote to triple parking fees for SUVs, with charges for “bulky, polluting” cars set to rise to £15 an hour in central Paris
While the need to improve public transport and make it more attractive to car drivers is integral to any climate-focused transport strategy, of course, this week’s 250-word conflation of longer bus journey times, congestion, and cycle lanes in the Times – as well as Le Monde – has attracted a fair bit of criticism online from cyclists and safety campaigners.
“Maybe they’re abandoning buses for bikes, instead, as they’re faster,” suggested JT (who I assume isn’t former Chelsea captain and penalty choker John Terry? But you never know these days).
“Average speed during rush hour has gone down by .6km per hour. WOW! What a disaster!” wrote Andy. “The big increase in the cycle network only started a couple of years ago, what caused the decline in speed between say 2008 and 2020?
“What has happened to car ownership numbers in that time? I’ll tell you, it increased by 50 per cent between 2005 and 2020, that’s why your delays.”
“Comparing traffic speeds from 20 years ago with the introduction of cycle lanes is disingenuous,” echoed Amos, while Cycling in London noted that the Times article lacked “a whole lot of evidence, but that’s not a surprise”.
“It’s literally ‘someone said’ cycle lanes are the cause,” noted another social media user.
“I can’t remember The Times going on about how general motor traffic impedes bus use,” added Dr Robert Davis, the chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum.
“Cars never seem to be the problem for some people – and they pick on cyclists.”
> Former transport officer’s “cherry-picked” claim that cycling in the Netherlands is more dangerous than the UK slammed as “gibberish evidential gymnastics” aimed at those who “still view bikes as toys in a grown-up world of big choo-choo machines”
However, Davis’ argument was countered by retired Hackney councillor Vincent Stops, who asked “where has this guy been?”
Stops, you may remember, was Hackney’s lead member for transport, while working on streets policy for London TravelWatch, the capital’s statutory transport watchdog, for over 20 years.
In a blog post in 2022, he labelled cycling in the capital a “ruthless and well-resourced minority interest” that has “been allowed to ruin London’s bus service” – and in October 2024 claimed that cycling in the Netherlands is more dangerous than the UK.
So it’s no surprise he’s bought into the Times’ argument that cycle lanes are the ruin of buses everywhere.
“Where has this guy been?” Stop said in response to Davis’ tweet. “Tackling private car numbers was the bread and butter of transport policy from 2000. It was the cycle lobby changed that and prioritised cycles over everything.”
Roger agreed: “Then we had an ex-journo as Mayor with an ex-journo as his transport advisor. Result: totally owned by a single-issue minority lobby squandering squillions of public money to pretty much ‘net zero’ impact on overall mode share. And casualties? And bus stop accessibility? Oh dear.”
That’s right – blame it all on the cycle lanes. And the journalists, of course.
Add new comment
58 comments
Just heard that Timothée Chalamet was fined £65 for not leaving the bike at a docking station.
I can remember, back in the mists of time, when Dylan were a lad, both the Times and Panorama were serious media, not click bait farms. Just like Maggie's.
Well, you wouldn't want to work on that farm, would you?
(edit) Not any more, anyway…
Journey times for cyclists in Paris must have been considerably reduced, also the slower average speeds of buses might be because they are carrying more passengers, so they spend more time at bus stops because more people get on and off the buses.
I stopped in a small backstreet in Egham today to adjust my headgear, when a pedestrian crossed the road and stopped in front of me, she then complained about my bright lights - I told her to cross the road behind me next time. The lights I used were those small cheap square types, so they were not very bright. So it's gone from cyclists don't use lights to cyclists are using lights that are too bright.
Yet another example of Schrödinger's cyclist.
I'm often blinded by lights on our main MUP through town at night. Most of them are cheaper e-bikes like Letric or Rad Power. On the one hand, unlike most of the non-powered bike users on the trail, they at least have lights that always work. On the other hand, the manufacturer has fitted it with a very bright LED with no cutoff or even varying brightness levels. It's just on, and blinding.
Lots of blinding lights out there. If we lived in Germany, they would be banned - not for being too bright, but not being dipped. I've had a 1,200 lumen Ravemen for a few years and it's great: full beam when needed; dipped whenever there's anyone else about. Great beam and no dazzling anyone.
@road.cc, your annual beam tests seem not to emphasise dipped lights. I think you should stop promoting any lights that dazzle people. Either that or start campaigning to ban the lights that dazzle.
I'm reading this at the moment:
https://pelagicpublishing.com/products/traffication
Very interesting.
According to the author, in 1900 there were "fewer than" 800 cars on Britain's roads; by 1904 it was 23,000; by 1910 it was 60,000; by 1958 it was 4,000,000; and it's now approx. 40,000,000.
Britain's cars alone would be a nose-to-tail traffic jam three vehicles wide, stretching around the equator
Back of envelope I reckon it's nearer five lanes. Each car takes 5 m gives 200,000 km. Earth's circumference is about 40,000 km.
This is blowing my mind!
Just walked 2 hours from Shooters Hill to London Brisge Station. SERENE! Every bicycle, ebike, car, van, lorry, bus perfectly behaved. Ebike stopped at red light. Highway Code Priorities all followed. Just... wow! Like some higher power waved their hand over SE London to show, "This how it can be." This often grumpy 69-year old is really quite deeply affected.
And then you woke up.
The way most Limeists I see in central London conduct themselves they had better hope that Death is Not the End because it won't be long before they are Knockin' on Heaven's Door - all it takes is A Simple Twist of Fate. Truly a Motorpsycho Nightmare, I've spent One Too Many Mornings trying to avoid them when riding Down the Highway.
That, and so heavy to lift off from blocking pavement to toss over a low wall onto waste ground. Or maybe just much heavier than expected. That mass will translate into big momentum if they crash into anyone. But, in 2 hours walk from Shooters Hill to Kings Cross Station, even Lime bike, along with every other vehicle and pedestrian was perfectly behaved. Genuinely uplifting
But there are always problems and complaints when one has a new pony or there's a changing of the guards it's probably because true love tends to forget (© R.A Zimmerman 1977)
If anyone claims that cyclists/cycle lanes cause congestion...
Ask them to compare journey times during school term/rush hour versus during school holidays...
Also now with a proportion of people who can work from home, Wednesdays are the busiest days on roads/public transport for people going into offices etc, followed closely by Tuesdays and Thursdays, with Mondays and Fridays being quietest.
The proportional numbers of cyclists on the roads on those days is nothing compared to the number of drivers.
Agree, but you'll get "ah, but it's those commuting cyclists getting in the way of vehicles - plus it only takes one cyclist to hold up all the traffic and everyone gets slowed down..."
While this is generally a "cycling fallacy" there is a (small) grain of truth here. Because: a) motor vehicles are so space-inefficient and b) there are bottlenecks in the road system and c) some of our roads operate close to or at full capacity ... then small delays or losses of capacity can have a big impact across the system. (Thoughtful article here).
The flip side of this of course is you don't need to remove many drivers* to have a positive impact! * (Divert many of those trips to other modes, or they're simply not made - turns out not every trip is vital and non-discretionary.)
That space-inefficiency of course leads to other confimations of existing opinions like "look at the massive queue of cars, next to the almost-empty cycle path!"
So I don't know this helps - but perhaps an "all cyclists / mobility vehicle users drive instead" day every so often might help people understand?
If there's a cyclist on the road what's stopping the cars from overtaking?
I'll give you the answer - it's all the cars coming the other way. The only thing slowing down cars is other cars.
"... what's stopping the drivers from overtaking?"
"The only thing slowing down drivers are other drivers."
I agree to the drift but there's a little more to argue. First, people are only interested in what is different from the status quo (where things are or appear worse). So "if the cyclist weren't there nobody would have to overtake". (Of course - people have to overtake!)
Well, on average cyclists would be proceeding more slowly than motor vehicles (sometimes much slower). So compared to the "no cyclist" situation (no "need" to overtake) yes, they would delay people (depending on how easy it is to overtake, which depends in part on traffic volumes). If, that is, this weren't within an urban area - for in many of those the average motor traffic speed is within easy cycling speed! And of course that is because lots of time is spent waiting at junctions, especially at ones with traffic lights. Why? Because of the other motor traffic! (If there were only cyclists traffic lights wouldn't be needed - nor roundabouts etc.)
Overnight there is no congestion, but the cycle lanes are still there, so cycle lanes cannot cause the congestion.
Not sure if this news report was missed on the live blog as it seems to be a bit quiet.
"£2m settlement for cyclist who suffered "traumatic, life-changing brain injury" in collision"
https://road.cc/content/news/ps2m-cyclist-who-suffered-life-changing-inj...
Why no details about the collision itself?
I appreciate that privacy laws may prohibit the naming of the other party (presumably a driver, and their motor insurer who settled the claim/case) but the specifics of the collision itself would be usefull.
as a sometime visitor to Paris, I'd say that the bus slowdown is more to do with the massive projects to do with the Olympic Games, not cycle lanes.
also, the fact that there has been a huge decrease in buses and bus routes would imply that there's not an easy before-after comparison
Chapeau! But how does it feel?
Can't match your memory of the lyrics * but I do recall there was a lot of hate when Dylan went electric (though not battery)!
* Read an anecdote where an interviewer was asking Dylan about his memory - how did he retain all those lyrics over the years? Apparently Dylan just pointed to the corner where there was a cheap "Bob Dylan songbook"...
Pages