In the last couple of years I have started cycling further afield often taking in some of the great National Cycle Network and other unfamiliar roads. This highlights some interesting solutions to creating cycle infrastructure where previously there was none and usually on a shoestring budget. Living and working in the countryside I don’t have the cut and thrust of the urban cycle commute, worrying about advanced stop lines and endless busses and lorries all vying for pole position at the next set of lights so I cannot profess to know what is required of city networks. What I see does however leave me with many questions, thoughts of my own and maybe some sympathy with planners when it comes to creating cycle infrastructure.

Where do you start in regards to planning and designing cycle infrastructure…

Everyone is crying out for better infrastructure but what is its aim?

Is its prime reason to get a cyclist from A to B in the safest manner possible regardless of the distance to be travelled? Is it to remove cyclists from the main carriageway to prevent them slowing down motorised vehicles? Is it to promote cycling as a first, second or even third class form of travel? Is it a nod to environmental policy regardless of usability?

Who is cycle infrastructure aimed at?

Is it the old person who uses their bike to go down to the shop to get a pint of milk and a loaf of bread at their leisure? Is it the youngster with their BMX meeting their mates or going down the park ? Is it the person casually cycling to work? Is it the lycra clad commuter hunting down that next timed segment? Is it someone who uses their bike to tour the country? Is it someone getting fit or maintaining fitness by expecting to ride hard

Two simple questions with so many points. How do planners even start to accommodate this diversity or do they ignore it altogether?

The two fall back methods of accommodating cycling appears to be

Painting a broken line down the side of a carriageway. Cycling on the pavement either segregated by a solid white line or total shared use.

The painted line at the side of the carriageway can work reasonably well on large roads where the cycle lane is suitably wide, however, highways planners often like to put islands in the centre of the road and so narrow the cycle lane at this point. This means that as a vehicle approaches the island they follow the edge of the cycle lane and believe because they are outside of the cycle lane that they are giving the cyclist plenty of room. In reality some of these lanes narrow to less than 1 metre and therefore little margin for driver error or cyclist wobble. The other common theme with these lanes is that they just end. It may be because the road has just become too narrow and at this point the line cuts across the cycle lane putting the cyclist at a disadvantage to the motorist. At worst these lanes end at a curb, expecting the cyclist to make a 90 degree turn onto the pavement or into the main carriageway.

Cycling on the pavement is always a poor solution for so many reasons. On shared use paths there is always conflict between user groups, the cyclists are always going too fast, the pedestrians are being obstructive. For this to work the user groups need to be fully aware of each other and treat each other with respect. Cyclists need to slow down when passing, use their bell to indicate their presence and keep to the left where possible. Pedestrians need to be aware of cyclists, walk to the right and keep children close and dogs on a lead (or is that the other way around?). In reality this far too often breaks down into chaos with both cyclists and pedestrians being selfish.

The thin white line segregating pedestrians from cyclists also seldom works. Far too often this nod to safety and convenience is blighted overgrown hedges narrowing the useable width so that everyone is competing for the same space. No one can decide which side of the line they should be on and often the lanes cross causing more confusion.

Both forms of cycling on the pavement share two other common issues. Because the pavement does not form part of the carriageway, in rural areas especially, they are not swept meaning the leaves, sticks, grit and rubbish cause a hazard. The second and by far the largest issue is that these pavement routes give way to every side road, farm gate and driveway meaning that there is far more stop and starting than when cycling on the road. This problem of yielding to the world and his wife is made worse at road junctions where commonly the path/lane turns the corner into the side road and then crosses (not forgetting to give way), often with a ninety degree turn. Crossing a side road in this way causes many issues. Pedestrians and cyclists coming in the opposite direction may be missed when checking through 270 degrees to see if the road is clear to cross causing collisions and near misses. The cyclist has to stop and then start again when safe to do so, in busy traffic this can make it difficult to cross, especially when drivers forget they have a indicators.

At worst these poorly designed pavement options are unusable by anyone who actually wants to go somewhere at a reasonable speed and therefore a return to the road is the only option. Sadly this often results in the poorly informed motorist assuming the cyclist is causing an offence by not using the pavement and acting aggressively as a results of this. Always interesting to ask a driver when they last read a copy of the Highway Code.

So what is needed?

Most importantly cycling on the pavement is not a solution, it turns cycling into a third class form of travel having to give way to both motorised vehicles and pedestrians. It causes conflict and often takes in a circuitous route and the increased number of junctions store more potential danger.

What’s required is thinking outside the box, the metal box of the motor vehicle. Anyone involved with planning cycling infrastructure should get out on a bike, ride the route at the busiest time, then go away and think. Go cycling in the Netherlands, not only looking at their infrastructure, but pay special attention to their attitude to cycling from both the cycle path and the motorist. Although the Netherlands has 1000’s of miles of two lane dedicated cycleways there are also many miles of on carriageway cycle lanes.

Here I think is a very interesting scenario, we often see pictures of the Dutch off carriageway cycle lanes with a large verge between the cycle lane and the road, but their really are places where the white line down the side of the road works well, so well in fact that in some places the lane on just one side of the road is for cycle traffic in both directions, and further to this the cycle lane may cut across the road to the other side. When the cycle lane switches side who has “Right of Way”? The cyclist of course, imagine that in your local small town. It scared the hell out of me the first time I used it, but then you realise something special. The special thing is that the driver expects to give way to the cyclist.

At side roads the normal situation is for cycle lanes have priority and vehicles turning into or out of have to give way to those on the cycle lane as well as the road. Even when this is not the case drivers more often than not still yield to the cyclist, I believe that this is because the well designed infrastructure has conditioned the motorist to behave in this manner.

I do believe good cycling infrastructure does not have to be expensive, but done correctly can have a massive positive impact on the way in which cyclists and motorists conduct themselves on the road. Cycling infrastructure doesn’t need to be about Cycling On The Pavement.