Engineering Honours Thesis - Separated Bike lanes

[TheAnswerSeeker]

G'Day All,

First time poster here and hello to you all.
As the subject and name suggests, I am seeking answers for my final year Engineering Honours thesis which is titled "Total Safety of Separated Cycle Lanes through major cities and patronage use."

I am in my early research stages and I am looking for your help.


I do have a direction that I am likely to take, but for now what I am very hopeful of is a brain dump from the cycle community on everything and anything related to separated cycle way/lanes.
If you have examples of good ones, bad ones, reasons why the designers should be castrated or celebrated. What cross sectional elements of the lanes you think should be essential or are redundant, anything and everything that you believe is worthy of input.

I am approaching this cycling community for your thoughts as users. My research has led me to the definitions of four types of possible cyclists exist. These groups are commonly identified as the following “Strong and Fearless”, “Enthused and Confident”, “Interested but
Concerned” and the “No way No How”
Would I be correct in assuming the the readers here would generally fall within the “Strong and Fearless” and “Enthused and Confident” categories?
If at all possible, I would love to hear from the "Interested but concerned" group, because ultimately, this is the group of riders with the greatest possibility of improvement.

I sincerely thank you for your time and will certainly appreciate any assistance you are willing to offer.

Disclaimer: I am employed by a local government authority and the results may one day hopefully go some way in improving the practices we employ, but this thesis is solely for my own academic purpose.

[trailgumby]

I'm really impressed that you're reaching out to the cycling community and seeking to engage with us.

Too often cycling infrastructure is simply imposed, with councils then left scratching their heads and complaining that they do all this work for riders and then we don't appreciate it. In business and the free market economy that happens too, but the lesson is usually harsh and results in the perpetrator losing money and going out of business. It's called failing to do proper market research.

I think you'll have trouble engaging the "Interested but concerned" group through this site. We are enthusiasts. By the sound of it, the ones you want to find are the ones not riding, but who might ride if they felt safer.

Perhaps if you could get into contact with the spouses and partners of forum members here, you might stand a better chance of reaching your target group. There might be issues of skew related to the sample, but it would be a start.

Does that help? Does anyone have better ideas?

[redsonic]

I agree with you TG that it more likely our friends and relatives that fit into the "interested but concerned" category. I immediately thought of my sister when I read that category.
I am probably "enthused but concerned"
AnswerSeeker, you probably want to clarify what a separated cycle lane is; to me it would be an on-road lane with infrastructure (such as guttering or bollards) separating cyclists from vehicular traffic and from parked cars. If this is what a separated cycle lane is, I have never seen one in Brisbane.
The title of your thesis probably shouldn't state "total safety". Is there such a thing? I am reminded of the poor child killed yesterday by a 4wd in the car park outside a medical centre.

[Drizt]

The Melbourne implementation of Copenhagen lanes on La Trobe and Wellington are a big bag of fail. So much so that I prefer to mix it up with the buses on Lonsdale to avoid the mayhem on La Trobe.

The biggest problem with La Trobes Copenhagen lanes is that there are far to many driveways and crossovers that car drivers pull into without looking for cyclists. Add to that the parked cars between the traffic lane and bicycle lane obscures the driver's vision it is a recipe for disaster. The hilly nature of La Trobe adds speed to the equation and when you are trapped by concrete barriers it is very difficult to take evasive action.

My understanding of proper Copenhagen lanes is that they are also height separated. Meaning a driver must drive over a curb/lip to cross the bicycle lane. This physical transition means a driver knows when they are crossing a bicycle lane and thus they need to slow down and look for bicycles.

I've nearly been taken out dozens of times and I have seen plenty of cyclists actually get taken out on la Trobe. A mate actually ended up needing an ambulance ride and a new bike

My advice for any bicycle related infrastructure is:
Learn from what works around the world.
Don't try to add your own interpretation to an already successful strategy.
Don't put in half arsed infrastructure because you are trying not to upset motorists.
Safety should always trump convenience.
People who don't ride regularly should not be allowed to design cycling infrastructure.

[Scott No Mates]

I have ridden a few of the local bike lanes on the north Shore with varying degrees of satisfaction. I don't class myself as much more than an occasional commuter/enthusiast.

Forgive my descriptions as they're probably not totally correct.
Epping Road - North Ryde to Lane Cove: separated bike lane/shared path
This section is a glorified footpath with expansion joints every few feet, driveways & road crossings - I don't enjoy the majority of this section except for the part between Mowbray Rd & Pittwater Rd where there are no driveways.

Longueville Rd to Naremburn - Very effective. Separated cycleway/shared footpath at times.
No car crossings, shared footpath beside the freeway. A short on road section.

Naremburn shops to Cammeray - shared path. Less than a glorified footpath. Very narrow, runs beside the 80kmh freeway traffic lane without a barrier, path gets split by light pylons forcing bikes closer to the traffic (near Merrimburn Ave bridge), forced crossing of Brook St freeway entry ramp causing a back up of cyclists waiting to cross.

West Street to North Sydney - on road section in the 'dooring lane' - no separation from traffic.

Harbour Bridge - separated path: great, except for access at either end.

M7 cycleway - shared cycleway. Great bit of infrastructure even if there's the odd pedestrian. My only complaint, nowhere to refill my bidon.

Iron Cove Bay - shared path/separated cycleway. Good in parts around Rodd Point and over the Iron Cove Bridge. Too many joggers & pedestrians who think that they're bikes.

On-road painted lanes - pretty useless generally, not a big fan.

Cycle crossing traffic lights - should get the same priority/time as pedestrian crossing.

[kenwstr]

I have never cycled on a sparated bicycle lane. During a short visit to Copenhagen as a pedestrian, I found myself constantly in conflict with cyclists on these lanes. After crossing the road, I'd slowly realise I was standing in a cycleway, not a footpath. It appeared more part of the footpath then the road. At a bus stop, you have to line up on the foot path and check for bikes before crossing the cycle lane to board the bus. Same thing with accessing parked cars. Obviously not a problem for locals but there was one time I had to grab an American to stop him stepping into the path of a bike, he would have been knocked flying for sure. It was worse for me as the traffic goes the other way to what I'm used too in Aus. So, I don't think separated lanes are a total solution. Maybe, just changes the focus of conflict. I suspect the best that can be done is minimising risk, not eliminating it. For example, do you have 20 people cross the lane to board a bus or do you divert the bus across the lane to a bus stop on the footpath side of the lane so there is only one object crossing it, not 20? Copenhagen as both options. depending on the popularity of the stop presumably. Also Copenhagen has a lot of space unlike Australian cities so it's easier to modify infrustructure. It's a very different culture there, hardly any trash, everything is neat and in order, things are finished off properly and tidy.

Ken

[trailgumby]

My advice for any bicycle related infrastructure is:
Learn from what works around the world.
Don't try to add your own interpretation to an already successful strategy.
Don't put in half arsed infrastructure because you are trying not to upset motorists.
Safety should always trump convenience.
People who don't ride regularly should not be allowed to design cycling infrastructure.

You have absolutely nailed it, and the last point completes the package.

My arguments with the traffic "engineers" ( ) at the now defunct Warringah Council would never have escalated the way they did if they had been regular riders, as they would have then had a clue.

If you don't mind, I am going to shamelessly steal that.

[Drizt]

Steal away no worries

[TheAnswerSeeker]

thank you everyone for your efforts, it is all very much appreciated.

To clarify some points to engage the discussion some more;
- my thoughts behind the wording of Total Safety, is rather than to have or imply something totally safe, it's more in line with covering the aspects of safety, totally. That is looking at all the elements included.
- a separated bike lane, for this purpose I will be defining it as an on-road, barrier/infrastructure separated, cycle only lane.
- at this stage for the initial research I am looking for high level (enthusiast) cycling advice on both locations of examples and analysis on them.

What I am hoping to do from here is to contact the specific Councils and/or State Governments who were responsible for the installation and try and get their design considerations and standards that they have used and look to see the extended design reasoning on where they have had to vary from the standard.

My comments regarding the next category of cyclists will be further down the track when I have some more details to put together some questions and theories that may lead to them getting out more.

Ultimately, my research may well end up that there simply isn't an appropriate model that does exist now and for my thesis, that could be enough.
Until that time, you will have me in here asking more and more questions to see how you all feel and what can be done to make things better.

Thank you again.

[Thoglette]

- my thoughts behind the wording of Total Safety, is rather than to have or imply something totally safe, it's more in line with covering the aspects of safety, totally. That is looking at all the elements included.

Well you need to go and read up on how safety is achieved and what leads to unsafe situations.

Bike lanes cannot achieve "safety" because they cannot be everywhere: unless you remove cars and trucks completely from our suburbs.

The root cause of the safety problem is driver attitudes and behaviour. Which includes victim blaming and abrogation of responsibility (both in law and in thought). It is made worse by our long term failure to provide effective alternativeb transport modes.

What I am hoping to do from here is to contact the specific Councils and/or State Governments who were responsible for the installation and try and get their design considerations and standards that they have used and look to see the extended design reasoning on where they have had to vary from the standard.

Again, you're looking in the wrong place. Australian standards are, by definition, a decade behind best practice in any field. And in the case of road safety for non-MV road users we, like every anglophone country, are closer to three decades behind best practice.

bDoT WA had the Dutch Cycling embassy visit a few years back and they are close to best practice: look here

You have a further problem with government elements simply ignoring "current practice", even when published in the same state.

My comments regarding the next category of cyclists will be further down the track when I have some more details to put together some questions and theories that may lead to them getting out moren.

You need to go and do the reading. I'm not aware of an engineering course in this country that teaches you how to do that. (And your post indicates that you've not done the necessary reading)

There is already a significant body of work on this out in the field, with Zeegers 2015 possibly the place to start. The Stirling council (WA) has a good set of practical guidelines for subsets of the utility & commuter cyclist.

I have to apologise for my tone and lack of backup as I'm too short of time right now to add all the links: PM me and I'll get you a selection of literature to read

The most important responses so far

Learn from what works around the world.
People who don't ride regularly should not be allowed to design cycling infrastructure.

[find_bruce]

I'd be a little concerned about your categories. Sure they are a useful tool for thinking about bike lanes, but they are loaded with assumptions that can prove dangerous. A couple of examples - a new e-bike rider can fit in the “Interested but Concerned” category, but ride as quickly as the other 2, without necessarily having the hazard awareness that comes from experience. Other cyclists that fit awkwardly are those on non-traditional bikes - recumbents, trikes & so forth & the disabled. The later in particular are assumed not to exist.

Finally you need to consider not just who is cycling, but where they want to go - eg there is a cycleway for 2 blocks of King St in the Sydney CBD, but after that, bad luck, you are left with a dangerous merge at traffic lights before mixing with 3 lanes of traffic. Sydney City Council have been trying to complete east-west access across the CBD for years, but this has been frustrated, particularly by the buffoon who was previously impersonating the minister for roads. Another example is Canada Bay clowncil, having spent millions on the Bay run, decided in their wisdom to significantly reduce the number of places in which you could access the path, based on invalid assumptions about where they thought cyclists were coming from.

Another point is to ask why is the separated bike lane being proposed? The usual reason is safety, but what is all too often neglected is that every single intersection is a potential hazard. It is of little comfort if a separated bike lane protects you from traffic, only to get run down by a vehicle entering or leaving a service station, apartment block or anywhere else where the paths cross. A couple of examples spring immediately to mind Epping Rd Cycleway (NSW) at the new Meriton Apartments & the Bourke Rd cycleway - largely industrial area with trucks crossing & even parking on the bike paths.

Interesting that you want to talk to councils & state governments, as part of the problem is the lack of communication between them, or at least a lack of common goals. A good example of this is the Kent St cycleway in Sydney, well located, relatively few driveway access issues, but its practical use is largely destroyed by the extremely poor traffic light sequences. Cyclists get a red wave where every block they have to stop & wait for ~1 minute before getting a green to travel only to the next intersection - it easily adds 10 minutes to a relatively short journey. Traffic lights are good examples of the low priority given to cyclists. Sometimes there is no bicycle symbol at all, in many places the bicycle signals are constantly red with you having to stop & request a green, wait a light cycle, even though there is no conflicting traffic - again Epping Rd is a good example of this.

[find_bruce]

Another example re traffic lights is Union St cycleway in Sydney, where the majority of road users are cyclists. There is a detalied report on the issue with the lights that was commissioned by the RMS, with the most recent version being 2012. The issue is dealt with at 6.2 on page 28 as follows

Another issue discussed in the working group meetings is the bicycle detector logic. As explained in Section 3, the current bicycle detectors are timed presence detectors. They place a demand for the bicycle
phase after a pre-set period (currently zero seconds), but the demand is cancelled if the bicycle moves out of the detection zone. In this sense, they are ‘non-locking’ detectors, whereas most vehicle detectors are ‘locking’ detectors – the demand remains even if the vehicle moves off the detector. Council has suggested that all cycleway detectors should have ‘locking’ detector logic so that the likelihood of the bicycle phase operating is maximised.

In our view, the key difference is the degree of compliance with red traffic signals. Motor vehicle drivers are largely very compliant with red signals, whereas cyclists are largely not. If the bicycle detector logic were ‘locking’, there would be many traffic signal cycles when the bicycle phase operated for no reason (as a result of the cyclist riding through the red signal and not being present at the start of the bicycle phase). Cyclists riding in the opposite direction over the detector (i.e. on the wrong side of the cycleway) would also unnecessarily demand the bicycle phase (unless the presence timer was set to, say, two seconds). This would add unnecessary delay to other road users (including pedestrians) and could create complaints about ‘faulty’ or inefficient traffic signal operation.
Until cyclists’ compliance with bicycle signals and lane discipline improves, we support the current bicycle detector logic arrangements

Emphasis added

Yep, according to the RMS, the unwritten aspect evident in this part of the report, is that the design of the lights is done with the expectation that cyclists will not comply with red lights, a design that is self fulfilling.

There are various other issues that are apparent from what is written & what is omitted from the report, including

• The bicycle lights are not sequenced – so no green unless a bicycle stops, hence waiting 2 minutes at every set of lights along the journey.
• it’s apparently unreasonable for other vehicles to wait 6 seconds if no bicycles, but reasonable to expect cyclists to wait 2 minutes at every light.
• The inherent contradiction in the RMS position is that the cyclists were "arriving in platoons at about 120s intervals" - ie they were complying with the red lights which only permit them to cross for 6 seconds every 120 seconds.
• The bicycle lights are not connected to pedestrian lights – pedestrian light goes green, but bicycle light stays red.
• The report noted that majority of road users on Union St were cyclists, had a 90% chance of getting a red light. Motor vehicles had less than 40% chance of a red light but apparently the lights
  are working “fairly”.

[ausrandoman]

People who don't ride regularly should not be allowed to design cycling infrastructure.

Shout it from the rooftops!

[ausrandoman]

... I would love to hear from the "Interested but concerned" group ...[/i]

You don't mention whether you ride but it sounds to me as if you would fit in the "interested but concerned" group.

Here are the three most important things you can do to improve the practical value and validity of your thesis.

Fit a video camera front and rear then

1. Fit a video camera front and rear then get on a bike and ride around the city, on unmarked roads, in on-road bike lanes, on segregated bike lanes, on off-road bike paths.
2. Fit a video camera front and rear then get on a bike and ride around the city, on unmarked roads, in on-road bike lanes, on segregated bike lanes, on off-road bike paths.
3. Fit a video camera front and rear then get on a bike and ride around the city, on unmarked roads, in on-road bike lanes, on segregated bike lanes, on off-road bike paths.

And ... alleluia! All power to your work!

[burger]

I was in the 'intrigued but concerned' class when I started commuting form Carlingford which I probably would NOT have done had the shared infrastructure to the city wasn't in place.
I heartily agree with Scott No Mates descriptions

Epping Road - North Ryde to Lane Cove: separated bike lane/shared path
This section is a glorified footpath with expansion joints every few feet, driveways & road crossings - I don't enjoy the majority of this section except for the part between Mowbray Rd & Pittwater Rd where there are no driveways.

Longueville Rd to Naremburn - Very effective. Separated cycleway/shared footpath at times.
No car crossings, shared footpath beside the freeway. A short on road section.

Naremburn shops to Cammeray - shared path. Less than a glorified footpath. Very narrow, runs beside the 80kmh freeway traffic lane without a barrier, path gets split by light pylons forcing bikes closer to the traffic (near Merrimburn Ave bridge), forced crossing of Brook St freeway entry ramp causing a back up of cyclists waiting to cross.

West Street to North Sydney - on road section in the 'dooring lane' - no separation from traffic.

Harbour Bridge - separated path: great, except for access at either end.

On-road painted lanes - pretty useless generally, not a big fan.

Cycle crossing traffic lights - should get the same priority/time as pedestrian crossing.

Others also spoke about traffic light timing, getting dumped onto the road in the city and Driver attitudes are also on point!

I am about to recommence my commuting and am definitely 'enthused but concerned' at the moment, particularly about Driver attitudes and believe that this will not change until a significant campaign such as he 0.05 alcohol is run and the 1m passing rule is properly enforced.

cheers, stu.

[TheAnswerSeeker]

Thank you all for your time and assistance.
The examples and thoughts put forward which will definitely help in shaping the direction of further the research.

I will continue to check in regularly so please feel free to add any additional examples out there and your reasons for what elements you see are either good and/or bad.

cheers.

[g-boaf]

I agree with the comments above that people who don't ride shouldn't be allowed to design cycling infrastructure.

The council convenience lane (the car parking lane with bicycle signs painted on it to look pretty) is among the worst and most useless types of infrastructure. Riders can't use it because cars are parked in it, but drivers see the signs and painted bike signs and expect that we somehow ride through or over the top of those parked cars, and when we don't they react angrily to us riding in the normal traffic lanes.

What on earth are councils thinking when they do that sort of thing? Or have they perfected some "no clipping" mode.


And the other annoyance is disconnected infrastructure between different local government areas, sometimes disconnected only by a matter of a few kilometres. The gold standard for infrastructure at least here in Sydney seems to be the M7 cycleway between Prestons and Bella Vista. Continuous 39km of cycleway that is well lit at night and allows even average riders to get along at efficient speeds.

We need more like that in Sydney, and connected to each other to make a network of cycleways that will allow people to commute from their homes to work efficiently and quickly. You can use the road, but it's just not as peaceful.

[Nate]

Too much labeling in your first post - you're supposed to be an engineer, stick with data & fact - dont label people by their supposed attitudes. Understand the users (NOT people) you're supposed to be designing for & their attributes.

I read some great stuff from Australiasian college of road safety - go & have a read: http://acrs.org.au/publications/acrs-co ... -database/

The key is separation of (kinetic) energy - high energy needs to be separated from low energy, that's one of the fundamentals for road designs.
Bicycles occupy a vast range which makes it difficult - so do some analysis of the solutions & where they do & do not apply. The answer will always be a MIX of systems to provide solutions to a mix of users.

some really quick ballpark numbers... (person 100kg, car 1500kg)
ped walking (AT) 5km/h = 84.5J
cyclist (AT) 10km/h = 365J
cyclist (AT) 20km/h = 1,512J
cyclist (AT) 50km/h = 9,660J
Car (AT) 20km/h = 22,687J

So you can easily start to see where there's significant differences.
Will i mix it with slow moving traffic when i'm capable of 40-50km/h through the city? yes... its within an order of magnitude
Would i do that on a cycle path next to pedestrians? 85J vs 9,6660... a few order of magnitudes different...

[eeksll]

- a separated bike lane, for this purpose I will be defining it as an on-road, barrier/infrastructure separated, cycle only lane.

I don't have the opportunity to commute on the definition above. If OP changes their definition, I have quite a few stupid cycle lanes that are not separated by a barrier.

Amy Gillet Bikeway
This is a fair way out from where I live. So I don't commute on this bikeway, I have ridden it occasionally on weekend rides

The thing I don't like about this design, is cycle way runs parallel to the main road, but far back enough that when crossing a road, the cyclist needs to give way. So the OP may need to drag around on google maps to see more examples along this bike way. There are quite a few here.

the linked example, a cyclist on the bikeway will need to give way to all traffic turning onto Hutchens road from Onkaparinga valley road, and also giveway to all traffic turning off Onkaparinga valley road into Hutchens road. Its easier to just ride on Onkaparinga Valley road, plus when I am riding there, its never really that busy on the road, making the road and even more attractive option.

Some bikeway
not sure what this one is called. But much the same issue as above. THere are quite a few "cross roads" connecting the 2 parrallel roads.

The bike way runs down a large "median strip" sort of thing, cyclist have to give way at all these cross roads. Given the shortness of the cross roads, cyclist needs to actually look at cars coming from both directions and both roads to see if any cars might actually be turning into the "connectin cross road".

Of the good ones, the southern express way bike path is pretty good and so is the south eastern freeway bike path.

[Thoglette]

These groups are commonly identified as the following “Strong and Fearless”, “Enthused and Confident”, “Interested but Concerned” and the “No way No How”
Would I be correct in assuming the the readers here would generally fall within the “Strong and Fearless” and “Enthused and Confident” categories?

Not without providing some decent definitions for the above. It presumes a single dimension, which is naive at best.

You need to look at purpose of riding, and whether the riding is an activity in its own right or whether it is a means for allowing another activity. In the latter class you also need to subdivide into those willing and unwilling to utilise specialised clothing and/or 'end of trip factilities' (i.e. does the riding activity mandate a shower at the end)

Someone might be "strong and fearless" on their daily ride the local train station but "interested and concerned" on a weekend group ride.

The only single dimension KPI which makes sense in planning transport routes for cyclists is average speed (as noted by others and utilised by most planners (e.g. City of Stirling Integrated Cycling Strategy

If at all possible, I would love to hear from the "Interested but concerned" group, because ultimately, this is the group of riders with the greatest possibility of improvement.

The group of riders with the greatest possibility of improvement is those who are no longer riding.

Bike lanes are a minor (if cost effective RAC WA 2012
) part of solving the actual problem: the actual and perceived dangers posed by Australian drivers.

Much more important is education of the population as a whole, from school children to police officers; enforcement of existing laws; and removal of MHLs (which both directly discourage cycling and signal that it is a dangerous activity).

The Heart Foundation and Cycling promotion fund did a number of surveys about half a decade ago which provide a strong statistical basis for this position
https://heartfoundation.org.au/images/uploads/publications/Cycling-Survey-2011-Riding-a-Bike-for-Transport.pdf
https://heartfoundation.org.au/images/uploads/publications/Cycling-Survey-2013-Women-and-Cycling.pdf
https://heartfoundation.org.au/images/uploads/publications/Cycling-Survey-2012-Active-Travel-to-School.pdf

Most other surveys carefully avoid the MHL topic (e.g. RAC WA 2015), but do pick up on the "fear of drivers".

Segregation is useful when vehicle speeds and volumes are high but is impractical in most situations. Which is why most of the EU runs 40kph domestic streets and often a legal model which has the motor vehicle driver at fault by default.

But back to your original question: what's the biggest problem with bike lanes? While the correct answer is "the belief that they will solve all our cycling problems" it is closely followed by not completing and not connecting them.

There was a lovely article in the West Australian a few years back by one of the op-ed writers who, having complained no end about cyclists, tried commuting on the principle shared path north of Perth. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of it (does anyone?)

[twowheels]

I have previously commuted to work approx 10km each way, a mix of road & bike paths. Due to distance and what I often need to take to/from work I no longer commute. I would describe my cycling as utility, to a destination and with purpose. I do incorporate recreational cycling occasionally. Still a mix of road and bike paths.
With my previous commute riding and current riding I seek the path of least resistance. I am constantly changing my route on regular journeys to find an easier way. This may be to avoid hills, high kerbs, particular roads, seeking easier crossing points. Sometimes the path of less resistance takes a longer route.

I've just ridden a new route with an on road cycle path. At one point the cycle path dog legs to the right because cars are permitted to park in marked parking bays. A traffic island is installed presumable to prevent the first parked car getting rear ended. The problem is that if the car parks too far back the bike lane is blocked by the car and the traffic island causes a chicane.

These types of examples are perhaps best experienced, ideally personally, I riding around yourself at various times of day/week. Another option might be to set up a cloud drop box for photographs with descriptions/ locations that members could post to.

best wishes

[Mulger bill]

...Some bikeway
not sure what this one is called. But much the same issue as above. There are quite a few "cross roads" connecting the 2 parallel roads.

The bike way runs down a large "median strip" sort of thing, cyclist have to give way at all these cross roads. Given the shortness of the cross roads, cyclist needs to actually look at cars coming from both directions and both roads to see if any cars might actually be turning into the "connectin cross road".

About this one and similar I've ridden myself...
The sweeping curves and nice landscaping do a great job of adding a little distance to the trip and reducing sightlines, making every curve a potential conflict point. Now if I'm just out for a burble along on the FG or HT enjoying a sunny afternoon ride then this is cool.
But what if I'm commuting? Proposed use has to be one of the earliest considerations in the process

[TonyB]

Hi AnswerSeeker,

Have you seen this paper.

White line fever: A sociotechnical perspective on the contested implementation of an urban bike lane network

Tony

[Thoglette]

Have you seen this paper.

Nice find.

It took about six seconds to find the usual evidence of engineering hubris.

our analysis revealed that the focus of the network designers served to prioritise the significance and hence exaggerate the power of the technical.

Followed by the usual failures in implementation.

Cycling in the bike lanes was also problematic with the lanes ‘disappearing’ at road junctions or as roads narrowed.

[bychosis]

Lanes that don't connect and lanes that have too many interruptions are a pain in the ... And I'd rather ride the road.

Locally the council has seen fit to install giveway signs on the sharepaths at driveways when the road rules indicate that motor vehicles should be stopping for path users. There is even a new roundabout with an unfinished arm (blocked to traffic) where they have installed give way signs at the end of the path so users need to give way to cross a section of road that cant get used.