Segregation or Integration?
The question posed today by the Fat Lad, which I picked up via The Bicycle Diaries was,
Are dedicated bike lanes protecting you from cagers or treating cyclists as 2nd class road users?
It’s one of those subjects like the ‘H’ word that’s sure to generate a stack of opinions, usually backed up with Science. Real Science, not like that bogus so-called research you were trying to peddle.
You get the picture.
Or do you? I wasn’t not sure I did, so I did a trawl through the Creative Commons licensed photos on Flickr, seeing what I could find to put across both sides of opinion on this question. See what you think:
. . . but I’m sure you’ve got better photos than this to make your point! Leave a comment and a link here to point the way.
There are indeed so many discussions going on, similar to the bogus ‘H’ ones, it hurts my brain. It seems that many feel that ’segregated infrastructure’ has a divisive inclination, that is separates cyclists from the rest of traffic. It doesn’t. The whole point about a segregated bicycle infrastructure is that it IS integrated. For instance, there’s no real point to a separate bike lane when it ends just meters before a junction, right?
Ok, that’s just for starters, I’m getting riled up already :).
Segregated bike infrastructure is fine, along the road bike lanes are okay too, if properly designed and executed. In the US however they want to build MUP’s (Multi Use Paths) then insist that cyclists have to use them. They also build bike lanes and then don’t clean or repair them and refuse to enforce parking laws when people park in them, or dump debris in them or snow or whatever.
Aaron
In Germany Autobahns are segregated for cars. Does that make cars second rate?
Hardly, because they are well designed, well financed and work as a network that gets drivers where they need to go as safely as possible. If we had Autobahns that went from three lanes to one, with passing places, it would say the same to droivers and they would howl.
A badly designed bike lane in isolation is dangerous and clearly says cyclists are second rate, a well designed network says they are an important part of the transport matrix. I suspect most opponents of bike lanes are talking about the former, and I doubt this argument rages in the Netherlands.
Andy - the Autobahn / motorway / freeway analogy is a really good one. It’s about keeping things that move at dramatically different speeds, with dramatically different masses segregated. So in they don’t allow pedestrians, cyclists, or (in the UK at least) farm vehicles / earth movers to use them.
Like segregated bike lanes, if they’re not fully integrated with destination points, people don’t actually use them. I remember the M11 used to stop well short of Cambridge in the 1980s. It was a road to no-where, and despite the fact that the rest of the motorway network was already reaching crisis point, it was a little-used road. Driving up it, you’d be lucky to even see another car. Sounds a lot like many bike lanes in the UK now!
I wonder whether UK cyclists have become so used to battling through traffic that we’ve actually become co-dependent on having a really crap infrastructure. After all, if it were easy, it wouldn’t be virtuous, would it?
OTOH, we just KNOW that if the council is going to build a bike lane, they’re going to do it in just such a rubbish way that it will be worse than useless: see here and here and even here and that was just the ones I could be bothered to photograph…
I don’t really get why people debate this. It’s pretty simple as I see it:
1) There are bad (narrow) integrated cycle lanes. These are generally too narrow as to be dangerous (the car thinks that everything that’s not the cycle lane is theirs).
2) There are integrated cycle lanes in silly places that cars are allowed to park in (wishing I had photos of Uxbridge Road in Shepherds Bush, London, to demonstrate this)
3) There are good integrated cycle lanes
4) There are (at least) two types of cyclist.
a) those that can usefully and safely use segregated cycle lanes/shared pedestrain paths - usually people who want to easily and safely get from A to B, or families on outings
b) those serious MTB’ers or road bike riders who aren’t going anywhere, but who want to ride fast and hard - it’s usually not appropriate for these people (I include myself among them) to be on a segregated lane with other, slower, cyclists.
Therefore:
- Integrated cycle lanes are good if they’re well designed, which is not always the case; badly designed cycle lanes do treat cyclists badly.
- Segregated cycle lanes are good, but not for everyone
- Cyclists should be allowed to use or not use special cycle lanes as they see fit. If they choose not to use them it’s at the risk of the cyclist.
Is any of that debatable?
Looking at much of the provision we have, I’d say no: local authorities generally go for option 1.
Hah! Agreed.
Many cycle lanes are token gestures to cyclists rather than being of any real benefit. My home town (Swindon) has some good segregated lanes shared with pedestrians, which I use on my daily commute, and some good shared bus lanes that let cyclists take some nice quiet shortcuts. But the on-road stuff may as well not be there.
Maybe I’ll try and get some photos - once the snow has gone and we can see the lines again.
The debate, in my opinion, needs to be how we get from a state where cycling is for the minority and therefore funding is low, to a state where cycling is popular, and funding increases…
or possibly:
from a state where funding is low and so cycling is for the minority, to a state where funding increases, raising popularity.
Chicken? Egg?
Hmm…
I have to say that generally this seems quite positive. I like Andy’s analogy of German autobahns.
The one thing that doesn’t ring true is the idea that Magicroundabout has that “fast” cyclists will want to use the road. That really depends on the quality of your segregated provision.
It’s not true here. We have those cycling autobahns that Andy alludes to. Segregated paths are good for everyone. It’s where the roadies train, and we’ve an awful lot of them around here. It’s where you can commute really quickly.
It’s always quicker to stick to the cycle paths than it would be to try to take the roads.
By taking the cycle path (there is no shared use with pedestrians) I get the shortest route and have fewer traffic lights. I can ride between here and Groningen 30 km north in under an hour on the cycle path, stopping at just one traffic light on the way. If I was to use the road then my journey would be a little longer and there are four sets of traffic lights and a couple of roundabouts to slow down for before I even leave Assen.
Unfortunately, there is nothing of sufficient quality in the UK. If there was, then perhaps the cycling rate would grow.