Galway Cycling Campaign -Feachtas Rothaiochta na Gaillimhe

Urban Cycle Tracks

An Information Sheet

What is the function of cycle tracks/lanes?

Modern cycle tracks first began to be constructed on behalf of the car lobby in Germany and Holland in the 1920's [1] .   The UK car lobby adopted the idea in the 1930's [2] .  Cyclists were to be forced off the roads "for their own good" so that the motorists could have high-speed routes free of cyclists.  At many locations this remains the primary function of cycle lanes and tracks.

Aren't cycle tracks/lanes intended to make cycling safer?

No, politicians, traffic engineers and town planners have tried to claim that cycle tracks would also make cycling safer.  However, the proponents of cycle tracks have consistently failed to produce any scientific analyses showing how exactly this safety benefit would occur.  Where urban cycle tracks have been constructed they have consistently failed to demonstrate a net reduction in collisions.  

Why is scientific analysis important?

If cycling is to be made safer then the dangers must be analysed first.  Falls account for 85% of cycling accidents, mainly caused by poor road surfaces.  Collisions with other vehicles account for 15% of accidents and of these 70% happen at junctions.  Less than 5% of car/bicycle collisions involve a lawfully proceeding cyclist being struck from behind.  The main cause of collisions at junctions is failure to yield priority [3] , mainly by motorists but also by cyclists.  Trying to segregate cyclists complicates the issue of priority at junctions and increases the potential for conflict.  Keeping cyclists at the extreme edge of the roadway also puts them where the road surface is the worst and where they are most likely to suffer falls.  Logic dictates that cycle tracks can only prevent a tiny fraction of collisions while increasing the risk of the most common collisions.

So what is the actual safety effect of cycle tracks?

Over the last 60 years roadside cycle tracks and "shared use" footpath routes have been shown to have appalling safety records wherever they have been tried.  For over 25 years the Irish authorities have known about data showing a 135% increase in junction collisions [4] .   Similar results are available from countries as diverse as Denmark, Germany [5] , the UK [6] , the US [7] , Canada, Finland [8] and Sweden [9] .   Depending on direction of travel, cycle track users are anything from 2 to 12 times more likely to have an accident than ordinary road cyclists.  German federal law now requires local authorities to remove the signs from cycle tracks that do not conform to strict guidelines [10] .  Cycle lanes marked on roads are less dangerous than roadside tracks but it is still thought that in a "best case scenario" they will result in a 10% increase in the casualty rate [11] .  Even the EU commission has now conceded that cycle tracks "only improve safety for cyclists under certain very strict conditions" and accepts that "badly conceived cycle tracks increase the risks of accidents" [12] .  

So do cycle tracks encourage more commuters to cycle?

No, high quality routes may attract existing commuters from nearby roads but there is little evidence that cycle tracks encourage more everyday cycling.  In fact there is good reason to believe that they have the opposite effect.   The proponents of cycle tracks often try to play on public fears by emphasising the "dangers" of cycling and insisting that cycling is somehow impossible or too dangerous to do unless there are special "cycle facilities".  Cycle track advocates may argue that cyclists are a form of inferior entity which must be somehow "protected" from making normal use of normal roads.  This also assists the car lobby by distracting attention from the main sources of road danger such as inappropriate road designs, motorist behaviour and speeding.  The net effect is to actively discourage cyclists from using the normal everyday roads on which it would never be possible to construct cycle tracks in any case.  Cycling is obviously never going to increase unless cyclists feel able to use normal roads for their normal everyday trips.  There is evidence suggesting that in some cities the construction of extensive "cycle networks" has actually acted to suppress cycling as a form of transport [13] .

What are the advantages of cycle tracks?

For commuters the main advantage of cycle tracks and cycle lanes is that they may provide a section of road clear of traffic so that cyclists can keep moving in congested conditions.  However this involves overtaking on the left, this is outside the normal rules of traffic and puts cyclists at increased risk of collision at junctions.   For leisure cyclists and novice adult commuters they may provide a more comfortable environment where they feel a (false) sense of protection. 

Are there other disadvantages? 1) Using the road

It has been shown that on roads with cycle lanes motorists will take less space when overtaking cyclists.  Some motorists also use 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.

Are there other disadvantages?  2) Maintenance

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 [13].  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.

But haven’t the Dutch and Danish cycle track systems led to increased cycling?

No, this is a gross over simplification, for instance over 35% of train journeys in Holland and Denmark start or end by bicycle.   The key ingredients for this are 1) an efficient, attractive and affordable train service 2) secure bike parking at train stations 3) a town planning policy that results in a sufficient density of population living/working within a reasonable cycling distance of these train stations.  Dutch experience has shown that directly restricting car parking also helps.   Cycle tracks might be nice for some cyclists but are not necessary.

But isn't it safer to cycle in the Netherlands?

Yes, but under Dutch law any motorist who hits a cyclist is automatically liable regardless of the circumstances of the collision.  Holland is also the home of the "Gatso" speed camera and the Dutch have pioneered the use of low speed limits and area wide traffic calming in urban areas.  Even in the Netherlands engineers now accept that urban roads are generally safer if they don’t have cycle lanes.  

So is there a role for cycle tracks in urban areas?

Yes, but only if they are meticulously designed and intended to solve some clearly defined problem.  For instance cycleways (roads dedicated to cyclists) are extremely useful where they provide more direct routes or handy shortcuts.  Cycle lanes/ hard shoulder markings 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 locations simply enforcing parking restrictions could provide more space.  Any local authority that constructs "cycle facilities" merely for the purpose of constructing "cycle facilities" is just creating more problems for cyclists and ultimately adding to traffic congestion.

© Galway Cycling Campaign, October 2000, revised September 2003

The Galway Cycling Campaign can be contacted c/o the One World Centre, The Halls, Quay St, Galway