Cycle path debate
|
|
A cycle path or bike lane is a track or road designated for use by cyclists that is generally segregated from roads used by motor vehicles. It may be built for the purpose, or it may be an existing path marked as a cycle path. In some countries cycle paths are shared with pedestrians.
Cycle paths are widely used in parts of Europe, especially in towns in the Netherlands. Most cycle paths are in urban areas; however, they can also be intended to link towns and cities, such as the National Cycle Network in Britain. Cycle paths are often made alongside canals or on the trackbed of disused railways. Cycle paths are essentially utilitarian in nature and they should not be confused with bicycle trails, off-road tracks used by recreational cyclists.
Cycle paths are controversial among cyclists and transport planners. Some cyclists would prefer to ride on a wider road, where a car can safely pass them, instead of riding on a cycle path. Some motorists would like all cyclists removed from all roads.
The UK Department for Transport asserts that all types of cyclist will use high-quality well-maintained traffic-free routes if they are more direct than the equivalent on-road alternative and there are no personal security issues. The core of the cycle path debate is that very few cycle paths meet all these criteria.
The Department also usefully recognizes five types of cyclist:
- The fast commuter - confident in most on-road situations, and uses routes with significant traffic volumes if they are the most direct
- The utility cyclist - prefers separate paths at busy junctions and on roads carrying high-speed traffic
- The inexperienced cyclist - willing to sacrifice directness in terms of both distance and time, for a route with less traffic and more places to stop and rest
- Children - require segregated, direct routes from residential areas to schools, even where an on-road solution is available
- Users of wide or long equipment such as trailers, trailer-bikes, tandems, and tricycles.
In many countries it has proved very hard to design a suitable path to cater for all these types of users within available budgets.
| Contents |
Arguments in favour of cycle paths
- Most cyclist deaths are caused by a collision with a motor vehicle. Cycle paths segregate cyclists from motor vehicles and so save lives.
- Some people are frightened of cycling because of the perceived risk of collisions with motor vehicles. Segregated cycle paths may encourage these people to cycle.
- Cyclists block roads and get in the way of motor vehicles. Cycle paths segregate cyclists from motor vehicles and so allow the motor vehicles to go faster.
- A cycle path may offer a short cut not available to motor vehicles.
- Abandoned railway lines may be lost to development if they are not converted to new uses, such as cycle paths.
- Cycle paths have proved to be very popular where they are built. Especially among families riding with young children.
- A proper cycle path means cyclists are less likely to ride on paths made for pedestrians.
Arguments against cycle paths
- The "cycle path" network will never be as extensive or interconnected as the road network: hence it is less convenient and will inevitably result in cyclists untrained in Effective Cycling being exposed to the road network eventually.
- By encouraging timid, untrained cyclists onto bicycles, cyclepaths lure people into dangerous situations.
- The danger of collision with motor vehicles is highest at junctions. Most cycle paths have many junctions with roads, so the risk of collision may go up for users of cycle paths. Many junctions are very poorly designed.
- Removing cyclists from main roads allows motor vehicles to go faster; this causes more road traffic accidents in general.
- Cycle paths are rarely as well-constructed or maintained as roads. They are often narrower than roads, have tighter corners, worse lighting, poorer surfaces, and more obstacles.
- The maximum safe speed on a cycle path is usually lower than on a road. So journeys on cycle paths take longer than on roads.
- Generally the start and end of any cyclist's journey is on the road system. So to use a cycle path often involves a diversion.
- The majority of injuries to cyclists are not caused by collisions with motor vehicles. So moving cyclists from well-constructed roads to poorly-constructed paths may result in more injuries.
- Cycle paths and car parking spaces do not mix well.
- Cycle paths and bus stops do not mix well.
- Cycle paths and pedestrians do not mix well.
- Cycle paths are rarely kept clean or free from broken glass.
- There is safety in numbers for cyclists on roads (studies suggest that the rate of injuries per cyclist is inversely proportional to the total number of cyclists).
- In some countries the introduction of segregated facilities may be a first step towards the banning of cycling on roads.
Many advocates now talk of recreational trails, shared-use paths, or community paths, recognizing that avid cyclists find cycle paths less than ideal, while they have become very popular for other uses, including walking, jogging, inline skating, wheelchair excursions, cross-country skiing as well as more casual cycling.
See also
- Segregated cycle facilities
- Effective Cycling
- vehicular cycling
- bike lane debate
- Non-motorized vehicle access on freeways
External links
- City of Chicago Bike Lane Design Guide (http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/de/bikelaneguide.htm)
- Why have shoulders and/or bike lanes? (http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/whyhaveold.htm) - Oregon Department of Transportation
- A critical look at bike facilities including bike lanes (http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/index.htm)
- A critique on a sidepath-style bike lane design (http://www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/index.htm) in Cambridge, Massachusetts
- John Forester on bike lanes (http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/bike_lanes.html) (an anti-bike lane view)
- UK Department for Transport, Local Transport Notes (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=10382&l=2)