Cycles of all sorts

Examples: Wide kerb lanes

One engineering method for reducing social friction on roads with marked travel lanes between cyclists and drivers of wide vehicles (such as buses or HGVs) is to provide Wide Kerb (nearside) lanes (UK) or Wide outside through lanes (USA). These extra wide lanes increase the probability that overtaking drivers will be able to pass cyclists at a safe distance without having to change lanes. They also provide more room for cyclists to filter past queues of cars in congested conditions.

Cycle friendly infrastructure argues for a marked lane width of 4.25 m. It is argued that, on undivided roads, this width provides cyclists with adequate clearance from passing HGVs while being sufficiently narrow to deter car users from attempting to “double up” and form two lanes. This “doubling up” effect may be related to junctions. At non-junction locations, greater width might be preferable if this effect can be avoided. The use of such wide lanes is specifically endorsed by Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities the European Commission policy document on cycle promotion.

Examples: Cycle lanes and Cycle tracks

The use of segregated cycle facilities such as cycle lanes and cycle tracks is often advocated as a means of promoting utility cycling. However, the use of such devices is highly controversial both in terms of safety and cycling promotion. In terms of safety, separate cycle lanes or cycle tracks can seriously undermine safety if inappropriately designed or if used at inappropriate locations. Similarly, while it is possible to use separate facilities to promote cycling, it is also possible to use them for the opposite purpose: for removing priority from cyclists and giving it to motorists. Thus it is argued that the use and potential effects of separate and unequal public facilities for cyclists cannot be viewed in isolation from the underlying design, management and legal philosophies that govern the overall transportation infrastructure.