That the Galway Community Forum Rejects the use of Roadside Cycle Tracks in Galway City

 

Adopted by the Galway City Community Forum October 2nd 2003

 

Summary

The use of roadside cycleway/cycle track/footpath structures by cyclists is inherently alien to Irish traffic law and alien to Ireland's native cycling culture.  The use roadside cycleway/cycle track/footpath/cycle lane structures by cyclists is also associated with significant increases in the risk and severity of collisions between moving motor vehicles and cyclists.  Evidence for this is provided from Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the US, Canada and Finland.

 

Main Body

 

Cyclists: Collisions with motor vehicles

Three quarters of all collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles occur at junctions.  Cycling on footpaths or footpath type devices multiplies the risk of such collisions at every junction encountered, including driveways.  For 25 years, the Irish authorities have been aware of data showing that footway/cycle track cyclists experienced a 135% increase in the risk of accident at junctions.  To quote an Irish report from 1975 "the provision of separate bicycle lanes alongside the main traffic flow is self defeating if no additional provision is made at intersections - because the very real risk of collisions in the merging phase adds to the overloading effect"^[1].  A selection of multiplying factors from the international literature is given in the diagram below.  In particular, using footpaths or other devices to cycle the wrong way against the traffic is associated with massive, e.g. 10-12 fold, increases in the risk of collisions at junctions (motorists are not accustomed to looking for cyclists coming from the wrong direction on the wrong side of the road).  It should be noted that collisions involving footway/cycle track cyclists involve a greater proportion of direct rather than glancing impacts, and consequently incur greater injury severity.

 

 

Sources

·        USA: Risk factors for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions at intersections, A. Wachtel and D. Lewiston, Journal of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, pp 30-35, September, 1994.

·        Sweden: "Russian Roulette" turns spotlight of criticism on cycleways, Proceedings of conference 'Sicherheit rund ums Radfahren', Vienna 1991.

·        Canada: Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates, L. Aultman-Hall and M.G. Kaltenecker, Accident Analysis and Prevention  (31) 675–686, 1999

·        Denmark:  Junctions and Cyclists, S.U. Jensen, K.V. Andersen and E.D. Nielsen, Velo-city ‘97 Barcelona, Spain (Cited in Cycle path safety: A summary of research, John Franklin, 2000).

·        Finland:  The safety effect of sight obstacles and road markings at bicycle crossings, M Rasanen and H. Summala, Traffic Engineering and Control, pp 98-101, February, 1998.

 

 

Collisions with cars: The potential for masking by parked cars

More problems are created if cycle track devices are constructed or designated at locations with a high demand for transient roadside parking by motorists such as on shopping streets.  If car parking takes place outside such a structure, then motorists and cycle track users will be obscured from each other.  This acts to further increase the risk of collisions.

 

Cyclists: Collisions with other cyclists

Most Irish bicycles have a selection of gears, it is perfectly possible for fit Irish cyclists to reach or exceed speeds of 20mph.  The combination results in a situation in which cyclists could be coming at each other on a footpath type structure at combined closing speeds in excess of 40mph.  One Swedish study of injured cyclists found that bicycle/bicycle collisions accounted for 56% of two-vehicle collisions, and that these were strongly associated with cycle tracks^[2].  In Ireland, footway cycling has not been historically been practised.  A similar Irish study did not find this to be a significant accident type.

 

 Cycling on footpaths

It might be argued that the use of roadside cycleway or cycle track devices might be acceptable on certain selected routes.  However this gives cyclists the message that it is somehow safe or acceptable for cyclists to make general use of footway type structures

 

Footway cycling: Safety effects

 

1)       Pedestrians

The presence of cyclists on footways results in a marked reduction in the safety and comfort of pedestrians, especially the very young, the elderly and the disabled.  As already noted, it is perfectly possible for a reasonably fit adult commuter cyclist to reach speeds of 20mph.  On hills it is entirely possible for cyclists to reach, or exceed, speeds of 30mph.  In the footway environment a cyclist moving at such speeds represents a serious injury hazard to pedestrians.

 

2) Cyclists: Falls and collisions with roadside objects

Cycling on footways or footway type "cycle facilities" also has other safety implications for cyclists.  The majority of cycling incurred injuries (up to 85%) result from simple falls^[3], a common cause being surface defects.  In a footway environment there are also additional injury hazards due to lampposts, telegraph poles, bollards and of course pedestrians, who are also at risk of injury.  In many cases it is simply not possible to travel safely at normal Irish cycling speeds on a footway/raised adjacent path.  In one Canadian study, sidewalk cyclists were found to experience a fourfold (x4) increase in the rate of falls and injuries relative to road cyclists^[4].  A subsequent study found a nine-fold (x9) difference in the fall rate of sidewalk cyclists versus road cyclists^[5].  It is reported that in the US, up to sixteen-fold (x16) differences have been found in the injury rates of sidewalk cyclists vs. road cyclists (however, this figure includes injuries from car/cycle collisions)^[6].

 

What about small children or more timid cyclists?

There might be some locations where it might be viewed as relatively harmless for small children or more timid cyclists to use footpaths.  Expecting all cyclists to use footpaths, especially young men, is a recipe for disaster.  There therefore it is asked that the Community Forum reject any policies or practices based on the general promotion of footway cycling.

 

What about cycle lanes?

Cycle lanes

The concept of “Cycle lanes”, if well implemented, well maintained and used at appropriate locations, seems to be popular with many cyclists.  They permit cyclists to maintain progress by filtering past traffic jams.  However, this involves overtaking on the nearside, which is outside the standard rules of traffic.  Cycle lane users are therefore at increased risk of conflict at junctions.  It is reported that in Oxford, the marking of cycle lanes was followed by an "alarming increase" in collisions between right turning motorists and oncoming cyclists^[7].  In many cases, it is possible to facilitiate cyclists by simply providing roads of an appropriate width (4.25m) without any special markings.  Additional problems with cycle lanes include a loss of normal priority that makes overtaking manoeuvres more difficult.  Taking up the standard road positions for turning also becomes more complicated.  This is compounded by an increase in conflict with motorists.  Some motorists will use the presence of any "cycle facilities" as an excuse for aggressive and threatening behaviour towards those cyclists who choose not to use them or who must inevitably leave them in order to carry out the standard weaving, turning or overtaking manoeuvres.  For motorists, the implied provision of a "clear" traffic lane may also act as an invitation to speeding.  When cycle lanes are being advocated, it is often in reaction to the use of the deeply unpopular and detested footway/cycle track type structures.  This may obscure the issue of whether any kind of facility is suitable, applicable or in any way necessary at any given location.

 

Cycle lane widths and overtaking by motorists

On roads that have been marked with cycle lanes, motorists take their cue from the lane marking and no longer change course in response to cyclists.  On cycle lanes of 1.5 - 2m many cyclists will find that they are actually receiving less clearance from overtaking motorists than they would on an unmarked road.  It is reported that even the Dutch have identified cycle lane widths of less than 1.8m as "particularly hazardous"^[8].  Current thinking in the UK is that a minimum width of 2m is preferred, but where the peak hour flow exceeds 150 cyclists per hour, a width of 2.5m, or some other arrangement is required^[9].

 

What does this mean?

 

It means that unless the roadway is wide enough there is no point using cycle lanes or similar markings.  Merely marking narrow cycle lanes is going to make matters worse for cyclists.

 

Remedial treatments for cycle lanes.

The use of cycle lanes violates several basic principles of Irish traffic law and can lead to a net increase in the rate and severity of car/cycle collisions, particularly at junctions.  In response to this, contrasting surface treatments have been tried, using blue, red or green coloured surfacing at identified conflict points.  The object of the contrasting surface treatments is to try and emphasise the conflict point at the junction and reduce the additional dangers introduced by the cycle lane.  The aim is to try and restore the level of safety that existed prior to marking the cycle lane.  This is of critical importance to the issue of cycle lanes and cycle tracks at junctions.  This then raises the issue of whether the indiscriminate use of coloured surfaces on link sections, such as has been done on the Western Distributor Road, might dilute their impact and reduce any beneficial effect at junctions.  The use of contrasting surfaces at junctions does seem to have a safety effect.  This seems to be primarily attributable to positive changes in the behaviour of motorists who are more likely to yield to cyclists.  However, it seems that cyclists may respond to coloured surfaces in a negative manner and are less likely to use hand signals, check for other traffic or yield^[10]. 

 

The general safety of cycle lanes.

The use of coloured surfaces has not been shown to fully restore the pre-existing level of safety.  The UK Cycle Campaign Network (CCN) estimates that in urban areas well-implemented cycle lanes will typically increase risk by 10%^[11].  The Danish Roads Directorate also cites three studies as showing a 10% increase in bicycle accidents where cycle lanes have been established on urban roads^[12].  The primary cause of collisions at side roads is failure to yield by entering motorists  .  Cycle lanes encourage cyclists in the unsafe practice of keeping too far to the left at such locations.  This puts cycle-lane cyclists outside the zone of observation of entering motorists.  In order to tackle this problem it is argued that cycle lanes should be a minimum of 2m wide, and that give way markings on intersecting roads should be at least 3m back from the left edge of the cycle lanes.

Gloucester: A case study on the effects of "cycle facilities" as "cycle promotion"

The English city of Gloucester received £5 million over the last five years for the Gloucester Safer City project.  This was intended to showcase the effects of city-wide road safety initiatives and schemes.  The project included the introduction of 12 miles of cycle lanes and some shared use footways.  The cycle lanes have been very controversial among local cyclists, many of whom felt they had made the roads more dangerous.  Adult cyclist casualties rose by 2%, child cyclist casualties rose by 16%, while the overall level of cycle use fell over the period of the project.  Recent figures suggest a 9% rise in adult cyclist casualties.  In contrast, casualties among powered two-wheelers dropped by 37%.  Overall, serious injuries and deaths among road users dropped by 38%.  The percentage of children being allowed to walk to school rose from 32% to 49%, while there was a 13% reduction in child pedestrian casualties.  In contrast, the 12 miles of cycle lanes do not appear to have facilitated either cycling, or cycling safety, and for the cyclists it is possible they may have completely negated the wider effects of the safety schemes^[13].

 

Are there other problems?  

 

1) Maintenance and punctures

Moving motor vehicles have a "sweeping" effect that pushes broken glass and grit to the edge of the roadway.  Cycle lanes and cycle tracks are parts of the road that are no longer routinely "swept".  Cycle lanes and cycle tracks automatically collect more broken glass and gravel.  It is estimated in the UK that cycle track users are seven times more likely to get punctures than are road cyclists^[14].  This means that there is no point in local authorities constructing any "cycle facilities" unless there is a simultaneous commitment of increased funds to maintenance and sweeping.  It also means that many cyclists, particularly sports cyclists, will refuse to use such “cycle track” devices as a matter of principle.

2) Motorist aggression

It has been shown that on roads with cycle lanes motorists will take less space when overtaking cyclists.  Some motorists also use cycle tracks or cycle lanes as a direct excuse for aggressive and threatening behaviour.  Many cyclists have found that they are now considered "fair game" if they attempt to leave the cycle lane to take up the proper position for turning at junctions.  Previously standard manoeuvres such as overtaking other cyclists or obstacles such as potholes and parked cars are also more difficult.  Those cyclists who choose to avoid cycle tracks so as to ensure their own safety and that of their property often find themselves being verbally abused and physically threatened by some motorists as a result.

 

Galway City Council's "Cycle crossings"

 

 

Headford Road Roundabout

A similar junction layout; this particular example was built in '98/99.  Fifteen years on and apparently Galway corporation was still unable to find road design staff who were familiar with either the rules of the road or the available design guidance.  According to Danish research, cycle paths have been identified as causing major safety problems at signalised intersections^[15].  Swedish researchers have found that cycle path cyclists are 3-6 times more likely to break red lights^[16]  .In Galway this may have been the intent of the designers, (there are no detector loops on the cycle paths nor are there any push buttons provided for the cycle path users).

 

Of particular note is the oil-tanker, the general increase in collisions experienced by cycle-path users also applies to goods vehicles.  According to a German study, cycle track users experience a two-fold increase in the risk of collision with goods vehicles^[17].  A British study of cycling accidents found that 14/15 fatalities involving left turning vehicles were cyclist/goods vehicle collisions^[18].   Goods/commercial vehicle collisions historically accounted for a quarter of Irish cycling fatalities.  However in the last few years this has jumped to nearly 50% of cyclist fatalities.

Why have cycle paths/cycle lanes been constructed in Galway?

The Galway Cycle Campaign has been unable to identify any means whereby a cyclist might reasonably be expected to make safe use of Galway’s “cycle lane” structures at roundabouts, signalised intersections or side roads.  To our knowledge cyclists have been seeking answers to this question since 1987, without reply.  The layout of these structures indicates that they cannot have been intended to increase either the safety or convenience of those road users who use bicycles.  Galway City Council's consultant on such matters, Mr. Frank Harewood, has publicly stated that cyclists will expected to "dismount and become pedestrians" at every junction on Galway City Council’s "cycle routes".

 

Galway City Council is deliberately trying to create a situation where cyclists are actually expected to walk at regular intervals on their way to work, school or the shops.  This strongly suggests that Galway City Council is actually trying to discourage and suppress cycling as a form of transport in Galway.  Many cyclists are convinced that these "cycle lane" devices are actually intended to facilitate higher, and therefore in most cases both illegal and dangerous, driving speeds by motorised traffic.  Since it’s formation, the Galway Cycling Campaign has been seeking either the modification or the outright removal of these devices from the roads in our city.  In the absence of any action from Galway Corporation an appeal was lodged with the Garda commissioner for the removal of all cycle lane markings from the roads in Galway city on grounds of traffic hazard.  This brought the revelation that the road markings used by Galway Corporation have no legal status.  Apparently these devices are all legally footpaths or footways and cyclists (and motorists) are merely supposed to think that we are meant to use them.

 

The provision of extra road space for cyclists

There are clearly situations where it the mix of traffic and road design make it sensible to provide extra road space for cyclists.  It is the view of the Galway Cycle Campaign that at such locations this can be achieved by using standard, well-established, treatments, such as hard shoulder markings or bus/cycle lanes.  These are well understood in Irish traffic law and well understood by Irish road users.   The use of shared Bus/Cycle lanes is already Galway Community Forum Policy.  It is the view of the Galway Cycling Campaign that such treatments, if used in accordance with appropriate design guidance, offer profound advantages over imported alien treatments such as cycle lanes.  We ask that the Galway Community Forum endorse this position

 

So is there a role for “cycle facilities” in Galway?

Yes, but only if they are meticulously designed and intended to solve some clearly defined problem (eg providing two-way cyclist access on one-way streets).  For instance cycleways (roads dedicated to cyclists away from other routes) are extremely useful where they provide more direct routes or handy shortcuts.  Potential routes include through parklands, along railways and along rivers or canals.  Cycle routes are also necessary through pedestrian-zones, in these situations, the designs used need to be suitable and to discourage inappropriate speeds by bicycle users.  On main roads, Hard shoulder markings or even cycle lanes might be useful if used to give cyclists more, rather than less, road space but this might be difficult for motorists to understand.  At many inner city locations simply enforcing parking restrictions could provide more space.  Galway’s cyclists are currently facing numerous problems caused by inappropriate road designs.  These cannot be solved with roadside “cycle facilities” and will in fact be made worse in most cases by tacking on “cycle facilities”.  Spending money on “cycle facilities” without first tackling these problems would be an obscene waste of money.  Constructing "cycle facilities" merely for the purpose of constructing "cycle facilities" is just creating more problems for cyclists and ultimately adding to traffic congestion.  We ask that the Community Forum endorse this position.

 

Background Note: Use of cycle track structures in The Netherlands

The recent use of roadside cycle tracks in Ireland has apparently been "justified" as the being based on previous Dutch practice.  The Dublin Transportation Office has circulated a design manual by a Dutch consultancy firm to Irish Local Authorities. 

 

Dutch Traffic Law

Dutch traffic law was formerly based on the unique assumption that slow traffic must yield to fast traffic.  In the Netherlands, cyclists were required to yield to motorists unless special signs or markings defined cyclist priority^[19].  Under Dutch law, cyclists also have different rules for overtaking and turning than do other vehicle-users.  This contrasts with the Irish situation, where all vehicles, including pedal cycles, operate on the basis of "first come first served", and all drivers, whether of pedal cycles or of motorised vehicles must obey the same rules.  Under Dutch law, the marking of cycle lanes/cycle tracks actually conferred the cyclist with a specific legal priority.  There is no equivalent regulation in Ireland.  Nor to our knowledge is there any similar legislation anywhere in the English speaking world.

 

Despite this, the Dutch have still had to develop all manner of special treatments to reduce the increased car/bicycle conflicts inherent to segregated cycle facilities.  Special cyclist-only traffic signals, coloured surface treatments, special road markings, raised crossings etc have been tried in an attempt to reduce the casualty rate.  (Many of these treatments were either diluted or omitted completely from the design guidance issued to Irish Local Authorities^[20].)

 

In 1992, the Netherlands High Court found that motorists were 50% liable for damages in the event of collisions with vulnerable road users, irrespective of whether the other party was at fault.  More recently, Dutch law was changed to make motorists totally liable in the event of collisions between bicycles and cars^[21].  Again there is no equivalent legislation in this country.

 

Since 1998, the Ministers of Environment and subsequently Transport, have been made fully and repeatedly aware of the international research on the hazards of cycleways/cycle tracks/cycle lanes, and the incompatibility of Dutch practice with the wider Irish context.  To date they have failed to provide any response acknowledging or addressing the issue.  It is now a firm conviction among many cyclists that the Irish authorities are actually imposing these devices in order to facilitate speeding by Irish motorists by providing them with theoretically "cyclist free" routes.

 References