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.
