Mark Tranchant said:In this week's Auto Express, P Jenkins asks who is responsible if a
motorist hits a cyclist whilst that cyclist is in an "on-road" cycle
lane
As if I could resist!
The obvious answer to P Jenkins' query re cycle lanes (of course the driver
is at fault!) masks an interesting question: for whose benefit are cycle
lanes constructed? There is a substantial body of evidence showing that
cycle lanes are less safe on average than riding in the main flow of
traffic, and many on-road lanes are not only significantly narrower than the
recommended minimum width, they may be narrower than a bike. Remember, too,
that a bike needs to weave in order to stay upright (which is why the
Highway Code advises giving cyclists plenty of room, and even offers a
pretty picture of How It Should Be Done).
The Stationery Office publishes a book called Cyclecraft (ISBN 0 11 702051
6) which is the nearest thing we have to an official manual on cycling. The
advice is clear: a cyclist needs to choose a road position which ensures
their safety, and this usually translates to roughly the left-hand
wheeltrack of motor traffic (although it may well be much further out at
hazards such as width restrictions).
The reasons for this advice are clear and obvious: it places the cycle in a
position where it is likely to be seen by drivers scanning for traffic; and
it gently reminds following drivers that the cyclist is not a theoretical
construct of zero thickness and infinite rigidity, but a vehicle, which
should be overtaken properly or not at all.
Both of these benefits are subverted by many on-road cycle lanes, and almost
all shared-use facilities.
Happily there is now a programme run by the CTC, Britain's largest cycling
organisation, which seeks to spread best practice in cycle provision.
Ironically, cycle-friendly changes are often substantially cheaper and
easier to introduce than poorly designed "farcilities" which introduce
precisely the kinds of conflict which Mr Jenkins noted.
