Segregated cycle facilities
1089401
225092163
2008-07-11T21:01:22Z
Taprobanus
933368
trying to clean up
{{POV|date=July 2008 (Entire Article rooted in Vehicular Cycling ideology)}}
'''Segregated cycle facilities''' are [[road]]s, tracks, paths or marked lanes which are designated for use by [[cyclist]]s and from which motorised traffic is generally excluded
==Terminology==
{{main|Segregated cycle facilities: Official definitions and legislation}}
[[Image:BikeLane.gif|right|thumb|400px|Bicycle Lane sign in Markham, Ontario]][[Image:Bike-diamond-lane.jpg|right|thumb|400px|A bicycle lane]][[Image:Beach Bike Trail 2005-01-16 MDR Calif.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Los Angeles County Beach bike trail, facing North towards Marina Del Rey and Santa Monica Mtns. Imaged from Playa Del Rey, California.]][[Image:Portland Bike Stencil.jpg|thumb|right|200px|[[Portland, Oregon]] [[bicycle boulevard]] stencil]]
While the names and definitions of the various cycle facility types vary from country to country, those types essentially fall into two categories; "On-road" and "Off-road".
"On-road" types are typically termed "cycle lanes" ([[United Kingdom]], [[et al.]]) or "bicycle lanes" ([[USA|United States]], et al.), and consist of portions of a roadway or the shoulder which have been designated for use by cyclists.
"Off-road" types may exist on their own dedicated right-of-way or else run alongside an existing roadway. In the USA, off-road unsurfaced trails are commonly called "bike trails" or "mountain-bike trails", while surfaced trails that are separate from roadways and which meet more rigorous standards for width, grade and accessibility are commonly called "bike paths." In the UK and some other jurisdictions, the terms "cycle path" or "cycle track" are sometimes used as a blanket term for any such off-road facility.
For the purpose of accurate discussion this article observes the following conventions.
*'''Cycleway''': Road (UK) or path (USA, Canada) dedicated to cyclists on separate right of way.
*'''Cycle track/Cycle path''' or Sidepath: Roadside converted-footway type structure alongside (but not on) a carriageway (UK) or sidepath alongside (but not on) a roadway (USA).
*'''Cycle lane''': A lane marked on existing carriageway (UK), or a marked and signed portion of a roadway or shoulder (USA), that is designated for cyclist use.
{{Portal|Cycling}}
== History ==
=== Pre-motorisation ===
By the end of the 19th century, cycling was growing from a hobby to an established form of transport in various countries. Cyclists began to campaign to improve the existing, often poorly surfaced, roads and tracks. In the US, via groups such as the [[Good Roads Movement]].<ref name="goodroads1">{{cite web
|title=League of American Wheelman 1896 Ride
|publisher=League of Illinois Bicyclists
|url=http://bikelib.org/mapstrails/law1896ride.htm
|accessdate=2007-08-29
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|title=Lincoln Highway: Photos: From Wyoming Tales and Trails
|publisher=www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com
|url=http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/lincoln.html
|accessdate=2007-08-29
}}</ref> In the UK, the [[Cyclists' Touring Club]] distributed a treatise entitled ''Roads:Their construction and maintenance''.<ref name="oakley1">The Winged Wheel, by William Oakley Cyclists Touring Club, 1977</ref> <!-- winged wheel pge 5 --> In Germany concerns arose regarding conflicts between cyclists, horse traffic and pedestrians leading to sections of routes being upgraded to provide smoother surfaces and/or separate portions for distinct groups.<ref name="bhorn">{{cite web
|title=The decline of a means of mass transport to the history of urban cycle planning
|author=Burkhard Horn (translated by Shane Foran)
|work=Bicycle Research Report 136
|publisher=Allgemeiner Deutscher Fahrrad Club/European Cyclists Federation (on the Galway Cycling Campaign website)
|date=[[1991-03-09]]
|url=http://galwaycycling.org/archive/info/bhorn_abstract.html
|accessdate=2007-08-29
}}</ref>
One example of an early segregated cycle facility was the nine-mile, dedicated ''Cycle-Way'' that was built in 1897 to connect [[Pasadena, California]] to [[Los Angeles, California|Los Angeles]]. Its right of way followed the stream bed of the [[Arroyo Seco (Los Angeles County)|Arroyo Seco]] and required 1,250,000 board feet (2,950 m³) of [[pine]] to construct. The roundtrip toll was US$.15 and it was lit with electric lights along its entire length. The route did not succeed, and the right of way later became the route for the [[Arroyo Seco Parkway]], an automobile [[freeway]] opened in 1940.<ref>{{cite web
|title=California's Great Cycle-Way
|author=T. D. Denham
|work=Infrastructure
|publisher=U.S. Federal Highway Administration
|url=http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/the_great_cycle_way_.htm
|accessdate=2007-08-29
}}</ref>
=== Post motorisation (Pre World War II) ===
With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of bicycle users.<ref name="oakley1"/> By the 1920s and 1930s the German car lobbies initiated efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate motorists and improve the convenience of motoring.<ref name="vbriese"/> In the UK, the cycling lobby was attempting to remove motor vehicles from the roads, by calling for the building of special "[[motorway|motor roads]]" to accommodate them.<ref name="davis">{{cite book |title=Death on the Streets: Cars and the mythology of road safety |author=Robert Davis |publisher=Leading Edge Press |year=1992 |isbn=0-948135-46-8}}</ref> This idea was opposed by the ''Motorists' Union'', who feared that it would lead to motorists losing the freedom to use the public roads.<ref name="davis"/>
==== Germany ====
In Germany, the [[National Socialist German Workers Party|National Socialist]] regime was committed to promoting the mass use of private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to the attainment of mass-motorisation. Accordingly a mass programme of cycle track/cycle path construction was implemented <ref name="vbriese">[http://galwaycycling.org/archive/info/vbriese_abstract.html Cycle tracks for the expansion of motorised traffic] Volker Briese, Bicycle Research Report 218, Allgemeiner Deutscher Fahrrad Club/European Cyclists Federation, 28/05/1994</ref>. In addition, new laws were imposed to force cyclists to use segregated cycle paths.<ref name="vbriese"/> to which it is reported that German cyclists objected.{{Fact|date=August 2007}} The National Socialists outlawed cyclists' organisations and either seized their assets or alternatively subsumed them into the state controlled ''Deutschen Radfahrer-Verband''.<!-- http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/?o=QzzM&page_id=46873&v=7E Banning of Solidaritat http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad-_und_Kraftfahrerbund_Solidarit%C3%A4t http://www.rrvdornheim.de/BIO.HTM --> By 1936, the German motoring press was also discussing the use of narrow cycle lanes marked on the carriageway, to facilitate overtaking and to frustrate cyclists in the "unpleasant" practice of cycling side-by-side.<ref>Die Radfahrer im Straßenverkehr, Wenz, Deutsches Autorecht 1936, 259</ref>
==== United Kingdom ====
In 1926, the [[Cyclists' Touring Club]] (CTC) discussed a [[Motion (democracy)|motion]] (which was eventually defeated) calling for cycle tracks to be built on each side of roads, for "the exclusive use of cyclists", and that cyclists could be taxed providing the revenue was used for the provision of such tracks.<ref name="t_19260412">{{cite news |title=The Cyclists' Touring Club: Proposal for Special Cycle Tracks Defeated |publisher=The Times |date=[[1926-04-12]]}}</ref> The first (and one of the very few) dedicated roadside optional cycle tracks was built, as an experiment for the [[Department for Transport|Ministry of Transport]], beside [[Western Avenue]] between [[Hanger Lane]] and [[Greenford]] Road in 1934.<ref name="t_19340607">{{cite news |title=Roadside Cycle Tracks: An Experiment At Greenford |publisher=The Times |date=[[1934-06-07]]}}</ref> It was thought that "the prospect of cycling in comfort as well as safety would be appreciated by most cyclists themselves".<ref name="t_19340607"/> However, the idea ran into trenchant opposition from cycling groups, with the CTC distributing pamphlets warning against the threat of cycle paths.<ref>The Perils of the Cycle Path, Cyclists Touring Club, 1935</ref><ref name="oakley1">The Winged Wheel, by William Oakley Cyclists Touring Club, 1977</ref> Local CTC associations organised mass meetings to reject the use of cycle tracks and any suggestion that cyclists should be forced to used such devices.<ref> [http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/thinkingcyclist/1935.html Notes from history and the Hull mass cyclist demonstration of 1935] By Howard Peel, The Bike Zone, The Thinking Cyclist, Accessed 23/01/2007</ref> In 1935, a packed general meeting of the CTC adopted a motion rejecting ministerial plans for cycle path construction.<ref name="oakley1"/> The CTC were listened to, and the use of cycle tracks largely fell out of favour in the UK.
=== Post World War II ===
[[Image:Nuernberg-spitalbruecke-spital-v-s.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Cycleway, "Bicycle street" and Pedestrian/Cyclist bridge in Nuremberg, Germany]]
Post-war German governments chose to continue the transportation objectives of their National Socialist predecessors, hence cyclists were viewed as an impediment to motorised traffic to be excluded and restricted whenever feasible <ref name="bhorn"/>. These policies eventually resulted in Germany largely eliminating cycling as a significant form of transport{{Fact|date=January 2008}}. In the UK, little use of separate cycleway/cycle track systems took place except in the so-called "new towns" such as [[Stevenage]] and [[Harlow]]. From the end of the 1960s in [[Nordic countries]], the Swedish SCAFT guidelines on urban planning were highly influential and argued that non-motorised traffic must be segregated from motorised traffic wherever possible. Under the influence of the SCAFT guidelines cyclists and pedestrians were essentially treated as a homogeneous group to be catered for using similar facilities. The SCAFT guidelines strongly influenced cities such as [[Helsinki]] and [[Västerås]] to build large cycle path networks. By the late 1960s and 1970s, with the cyclists mainly gone, many German towns even began removing cycle tracks so as to accommodate more car parking. Increasing traffic congestion and the 1970s oil shocks contributed to a resurgence in cycling in some countries. However, outside of SCAFT-inspired developments in Nordic countries, the use of segregated cycle facilities was mainly confined to university towns with established populations of bicycle users.
=== 1970s USA ===
In 1971, California state government contracted with [[University of California, Los Angeles]] (UCLA) for the design of bikeways (bicycle paths, bicycle side-paths, bicycle lanes).<ref>
{{cite paper
| author = UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Science
| coauthors = Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering
| title = Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines
| publisher = State of California, Division of Highways
| date = April 1972
| url = http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/BikewayPlanningGuidelines1972.pdf
| format = [[PDF]]
| accessdate = 2008-01-22 }}
</ref>
UCLA largely copied Dutch bicycle facilities practice (primarily sidepaths) to create their bikeway designs, but the derived designs were not made public.<ref name="biketrans">
{{cite book
| last = Forester
| first = John
| authorlink = John Forester
| title = Bicycle Transportation
| publisher = [[MIT Press]]
| date = August 1994
| pages = 24-25
| isbn = 0-262-56079-8 }}
</ref>
The California Statewide Bicycle Committee (CSBC) was created by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 47 in the 1973-74 session.<ref name="scr47"> {{cite web
| last = Ullrich
| first = Howard
| title = SCR 47 Statewide Bicycle Committee
| work = Final Report
| url=http://www.cyclelicio.us/files/scr-47-report.pdf
| accessdate = 2008-01-22 }}
</ref>
The CSBC was initially composed of eight representatives of governmental and motoring organizations. A cyclist representative, [[John Forester (cyclist)|John Forester]], arranged to become a member at the second meeting. As the committee worked, he concluded that its real motivation for moving cyclists aside was the convenience of motorists, although the stated reason was the safety of cyclists.
<ref>
{{cite paper
| first = John
| last = Forester
| authorlink = John Forester
| title = AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF, DAVID PROKOP v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
| url = http://www.cabobike.org/prokop/Amicus-Forester.pdf
| format = PDF
| accessdate = 2008-01-23}}
</ref>
Forester discovered the UCLA bikeway designs that the proposed laws were to implement, and recognized that those designs increased the dangers of car-bike collision wherever traffic crossed or turned. With the cycling opposition that he raised, Forester was able to discredit the designs and prevent enactment of a mandatory side-path law. This forced the state to start over with new bikeway design standards, which were released in 1976. Those designs were subsequently copied by the [[American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials|Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials]] (AASHTO) to form the first edition of the AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities, which is widely followed in the USA.<ref name="biketrans"/>
The CSBC arranged with Kenneth D. Cross for the first reliable statistical study of car-bike collisions, expecting that this study would support their argument that same-direction motor traffic was the greatest danger to cyclists. When presented to the Committee in [[Sacramento]] on [[June 19]] [[1974]],
Cross's study showed the opposite; only 0.5% of car-bike collisions had occurred between straight-ahead cyclists and overtaking straight-ahead motorists. <ref>
{{cite paper
| author = Kenneth D. Cross
| title = IDENTIFYING CRITICAL BEHAVIOR LEADING TO COLLISIONS BETWEEN BICYCLES AND MOTOR VEHICLES
| publisher = Anacapa Sciences, Inc.
| date = [[June 19]] [[1974]]
| url = http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm
| format = [[HTML]]
| accessdate = 2008-01-22 }}
</ref>
The study, whose distribution was limited to those who attended the presentation, was not mentioned at all in the Committee's Final Report to the Legislature.
<ref name="scr47"/>
Cross later had a contract with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to produce an improved study (on a pseudo-random national sample) with results that were much the same.
<ref>
{{cite paper
| author = Kenneth D. Cross
| title = A study of bicycle/motor vehicle accidents: Identification of problem types and countermeasure approaches
| publisher = United States, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
| date = September 1977
| url = http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25400/25439/DOT-HS-803-315.pdf
| format = [[PDF]]
| accessdate = 2008-01-22 }}
</ref>
In Forester's opinion, this second study by Cross is one of the finest available on the subject. In contrast, less detailed replications performed in the late 1990s at the University of North
Carolina Highway Safety Research Center were based on research that, in the words of one of the authors, "is fatally flawed".<ref>
{{cite paper
| author = Wayne Pein
| title = Critique of FHWA BL vs. WCL Study
| date = May 2003
| url = http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/critique_blvswcl.pdf
| format = [[PDF]]
| accessdate = 2008-01-23 }}
</ref>
=== 1980s to present ===
The 1980s saw the start of experimental cycle route projects in Danish towns such as [[Århus]], [[Odense]], and [[Herning]]. In addition, the 1980s saw the Netherlands begin a large programme of cycle facilities construction as part of a "bicycle masterplan". Following the "bicycle boom" of the early '80s, German towns also began revisiting the concept.<ref>Another look at Germany's bicycle boom: implications for local transportation policy & planning strategy in the USA, H. Maddox, World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 7, No.3 pp. 44-48, 2001</ref> The use of segregated cycle facilities is promoted by a large segment of the cycling community, for example lane and path cyclists, and also by many organisations associated with the [[environmental movement]]. The rise of the "Green" movement in the 1990s has also been accompanied by requests for the construction of "cycle networks" in many countries. This has led to various high profile "cycle network" projects examples of which can be found in [[Bogotá]], [[Montreal]], [[Dublin]], [[Portland, Oregon|Portland]] and many other cities.
[[Image:LouBikeLane.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A newly added bike lane in [[Downtown Louisville]], [[Kentucky]]]]
== The safety of segregated cycle facilities ==
The issue of the safety of segregated cycling facilities is one of extreme controversy. Proponents frequently proclaim segregation of cyclists as being necessary to the provision of a safe cycling environment. In contrast, reviews of the international literature suggest a predominant finding of increases, some significant, in the rate and severity of car/bicycle collisions due to such segregation <ref>[http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html Cycle Path Safety Summary of Research], John Franklin, Accessed 23/01/2007</ref>. The basis of this safety disagreement may be the existence of two different types, or levels, of risk; actual and perceived. David Engwicht has written that: ''"The degree of safety is dependent on the differential between actual and perceived levels of risk - not on how much risk is actually inherent in the environment."''<ref name=intrigue>[http://www.lesstraffic.com/Articles/Traffic/intrigue.htm Does increasing intrigue and uncertainty compromise safety?], David Engwicht, Accessed 8 June 2007</ref>.
Since the 1930s, the established cycling lobby in the UK and Ireland has taken a critical and measured view of the utility and value of segregating cyclists<ref name=parker1>[http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/parker/gettingrid.html Getting rid of the Cyclists: Frank Urry and the 1938 DoT Advisory Committee] by Jeremy Parker, Bikereader.com (Accessed 27/01/2007)</ref>. In 1947, in response to official suggestions that cyclists should use cycle-tracks, the CTC adopted a motion expressing ''determined opposition to cycle paths alongside public roads''.<ref name="oakley1"/> In 2007, official claims of safety for cycle tracks provoked a position paper from the umbrella body for UK cyclists' groups stating ''"Cycle Campaign Network knows of no evidence that cycle facilities and in particular cycle lanes, generally lead to safer conditions for cycling"'' <ref>[http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/latest/doc/070611hc.pdf Proposed revised Highway Code] Response to the further changes to rules 61 and 63, Cycle Campaign Network, June 2006</ref>.
A 2006 report concludes that "bicycle safety data are difficult to analyse, mostly because bicycle trip data (and thus accident probability per trip) are hard to uncover" (see NCHRP Report 552, 2006, "Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities", National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation research Board of the National Academies, page F-1). The Netherlands and Denmark, which have achieved the highest rates of cycle usage combined with the best records for safety in the world, used to give their segregated cycle path networks primary importance in gaining these twin goals. However, the largest study ever undertaken into the safety of Danish cycle facilities has found that actual safety has decreased as a result.<ref name=copenhagen1>[http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/070503_Cycle_Tracks_Copenhagen.pdf Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen], S.U. Jensen, C. Rosenkilde, N Jensen, Road & Park, City of Copenhagen, Presentation to European Cycling Federation AGM 2006 </ref> More recently, [[Shared Space]] redesigns of urban streets in those and other countries have achieved significant improvements in actual safety (as well as congestion and quality of life) by replacing segregated facilities with integrated space.
=== Direct safety ===
[[Image:cycle path collision risks.jpg|right|thumb|375px|Diagram showing relative increases in collision rates for users of cycle paths]]
==== Urban roads ====
The source of the direct safety problem lies in the nature of the predominant car/bicycle collision types. The majority of collisions on urban roads occur at junctions and involve turning vehicles.<ref>[http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section2/td4295.pdf TD 42/95, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges], Part 6, Geometric Design of Major Minor Priority Junctions</ref> Rear-end type collisions are only a major factor on arterial or interurban roads.<ref>[http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch2.html Chapter 2 Car-Bike Crashes 1 Those Bothersome Bumps From Behind], Listening to Bike Lanes Jeffrey A Hiles, September 1996. (Accessed 12th June 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/13.pdf Motorist Overtaking Failed To Detect] - Part I, Crash-Type Manual for Bicyclists by Carol Tan, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center FHWA-RD-96-104, 1996</ref> <ref>[http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/13b.pdf Motorist Overtaking Failed To Detect] - Part II, Crash-Type Manual for Bicyclists by Carol Tan, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center FHWA-RD-96-104, 1996 </ref> <ref>[http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/15.pdf Motorist Overtaking - Counteractive Evasive Actions] - Part I Crash-Type Manual for Bicyclists by Carol Tan, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center FHWA-RD-96-104, 1996</ref> <ref>[http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/15b.pdf Motorist Overtaking - Counteractive Evasive Actions] - Part II Crash-Type Manual for Bicyclists by Carol Tan, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center FHWA-RD-96-104, 1996 </ref> <ref>[http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16.pdf Motorist Overtaking—Misjudged Passing Space] - Part I Crash-Type Manual for Bicyclists by Carol Tan, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center FHWA-RD-96-104, 1996</ref><ref>[http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf Motorist Overtaking—Misjudged Passing Space] - Part II Crash-Type Manual for Bicyclists by Carol Tan, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center FHWA-RD-96-104, 1996</ref> More width for cyclists to use on rural/arterial roads with few junctions might lower the net number of collisions, although the data does not help answer the question of whether separating cyclist from other users would make a significant difference one way or the other<ref>[http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch2.html Chapter 3 Car-Bike Crashes 2 A Broader View], Listening to Bike Lanes Jeffrey A Hiles, September 1996. (Accessed 12th June 2006)</ref>.
For urban roads with many junctions, accident analysis suggests that segregated cycling facilities are likely to produce a net increase in the number of collisions. These conclusions are supported by the experience of countries that have implemented segregated cycling facilities. In the [[United States|U.S.]]<ref> [http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm 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.</ref>, [[United Kingdom|UK]]<ref name=redway>[http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html Two decades of the Redway cycle paths of Milton Keynes], J. Franklin, Traffic Engineering and Control, pp. 393-396, July/August 1999</ref>, [[Germany]], [[Sweden]]<ref>Leif Linderholm: ''Signalreglerade korsningars funktion och olycksrisk för oskyddade trafikanter ─ Delrapport 1: Cyklister''. Institutionen för trafikteknik, LTH: Bulletin 55, Lund 1984, In: ''»Russian Roulette« turns spotlight of criticism on cycleways'', [http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html Proceedings of conference »Sicherheit rund ums Radfahren«], Vienna 1991.</ref>, [[Denmark]]<ref>Junctions and Cyclists, S.U. Jensen, K.V. Andersen and E.D. Nielsen, Velo-city ‘97 Barcelona, Spain.</ref>, [[Canada]] <ref> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10487343&dopt=Abstract Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates], L. Aultman-Hall and M.G. Kaltenecker, Accident Analysis and Prevention (31) 675–686, 1999 </ref> and [[Finland]]<ref>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.</ref>, it has been found that cycling on roadside urban cycle tracks/sidepaths results in significant, up to 12 fold, increases in the rate of car/bicycle collisions. At a 1990 European conference on cycling, the term [[Russian roulette]] was openly used to describe the use of roadside cycle paths.<ref>[http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/adfc173.htm Vélo Secur 90 -- Issues of bicycling Safety. Report from the German Cycling Federation</ref>
In [[Helsinki]], research has shown that cyclists are actually safer cycling on the roads mixed in with the traffic than they are using that city's 800 km of cycle paths <ref> [http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/helsinki.htm Abstract:The risks of cycling], Dr. Eero Pasanen, Helsinki City Planning Department (Undated) (Accessed 23/01/2007)</ref>. The [[Berlin]] police and Senate conducted studies which led to a similar conclusion in the 1980s <ref>[http://john-s-allen.com/research/berlin_1987/index.html]Berlin Police Department study, 1987, in English translation and in the original German, with commentaries (Accessed 08/07/2007) </ref>. In Berlin 10% of the roads have cycle paths but these produce 75% of fatalities and serious injuries among cyclists <ref>[http://old.adfc-berlin.de/radweg.cm#unfall Cycle track or carriageway use with the bicycle?], by Christian Marten, Allgemeiner Deutscher Fahrrad Club (ADFC), Berlin branch, 2002. (Accessed 23/01/2007) </ref>. In the UK town of Milton Keynes it has been shown that cyclists using the "off-road" [[Milton Keynes redway system]] have, on a per journey basis, a significantly higher rate of fatal car-bicycle collisions than cyclists who simply cycle on the ordinary unsegregated roads<ref name=redway/>. Cycle lanes / bike lanes are less dangerous than cycle paths in urban situations but even well-implemented examples have still been associated with 10% increases in casualty rates.
However particular concern attaches to the use of cycle lanes in specific urban situations, especially large roundabouts. For adult cyclists, the standard safe cycling advice for handling roundabouts is to try to maintain a prominent position while circulating <ref>[http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/book.html Cyclecraft: Skilled Cycling Techniques for Adults], John Franklin, The Stationery Office Books, UK, 2004 ISBN : 0117020516 </ref>. The use of cycle lanes runs counter to this advice and places cyclists outside the main "zone of observation" of entering motorists; who represent the overwhelming source of risk (50% of collisions) <ref> Pedal Cyclists at Roundabouts, Layfield R.E. and Maycock G., Traffic Engineering and Control, June 1986</ref>. In 2002, cycle lanes were removed from a roundabout in the British town of [[Weymouth]] after 20 months because the casualty rate had increased significantly <ref>[http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/news/ccn45.pdf Cycle lane withdrawn after casualty rise, Cycle Campaign Network News, page 5, Issue No 45 March 2002]</ref>. German research has also indicated that cyclists are safer negotiating roundabouts within the main traffic mix rather than on separate cycle lanes or cycle paths <ref>Sicherung von Radfahrern an städtischen Knotenpunkten. Schnüll, R., Lange, J., Fabian, I., Kölle, M., Schütte, F., Alrutz, D., Fechtel, H.W., Stellmacher-Hein, J., Brückner, T. & Meyhöfer, H., Bericht zum Forschungsprojekt 8925 der Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen BASt Nr. 262. Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen BASt, Bergisch Gladbach, 1992</ref>. A recent paper on German roundabout design practice states baldly ''"Cycle lanes at the peripheral margin of the circle are not allowed since they are very dangerous to cyclists"''.<ref>Roundabouts : A State of the Art in Germany, Werner Brilon, paper presented at the National
Roundabout Conference, Vail, Colorado, USA, May 22 – 25, 2005</ref> ''See also'' [[cycle facilities at roundabouts]].
==== Rural / Arterial roads ====
[[Image:I-205 Bike Path.JPG|thumb|205px|right|Interstate 205 bike path between [[Portland, Oregon]], and [[Vancouver, Washington]]]]
Direct rear impacts with cyclists are a more prominent collision type in arterial/rural road type situations. When they occur in such circumstances they are also associated with significantly increased risk of fatality. Data collated by the [[OECD]] indicates that rural locations account for 35% or more of cycling fatalities in [[Denmark]], [[Finland]], [[France]], [[Great Britain]], [[Japan]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Spain]]. <ref>Figure IV.7 Pedestrian and cyclist accidents by road type. RS7:Safety of Vulnerable Road Users, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, August 1998 </ref>
UK police-recorded cycling collision data indicates that at non-junction locations, where a cyclist was struck directly from behind, there was an overall fatality rate of 17%. The risk of fatality increases with speed limit of the road. Where such collisions occurred on 30 mph roads a 5% fatality rate was recorded, climbing to 13% at 40 mph, 21% at 60 mph and a fatality rate of 31% on 70 mph roads. <ref>Stone, M. & Broughton, M. (2003). Getting off your bike: Cycling accidents in Great Britain 1990-1999. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35, 549–556. </ref>
The use of appropriately designed segregated space on arterial or interurban routes does appear to be associated with reductions in overall risk. In [[Ireland]], the provision of [[Shoulder (road)|hard shoulders]] on interurban routes in the 1970s reportedly resulted in a 50% decrease in accidents<ref>The bicycle, a study of efficiency usage and safety., D.F. Moore, An Foras Forbatha, Dublin 1975 </ref>. It is reported that the Danes have also found that separate cycle tracks lead to a reduction in rural collisions.
<!--
==== Cycleways ====
The safety of cycleways. or roads and trails open exclusively to non-motorised modes. is difficult to assess prescriptively. In terms of car/bicycle collisions this is clearly mediated by how the cycleway network rejoins the main road network. The consequences of other risks; falls, cyclist-cyclist collisions and cyclist-pedestrian collisions are frequently not recorded in official accident figures and may be available only via local hospital surveys.
Blurb on influence of traffic mix and expectations of users.
As a general rule those cycleways with the highest percieved safety tend to be those engineered explicitely on the assumption of vehicular rather than pedestrian traffic. Thus the most popular examples tend to be converted road or railway alignments or else constructed to the same standards used by road and railway engineers.
-->
=== Indirect safety ===
There is evidence that one of the main factors influencing the individual safety of cyclists is the base number of cyclists using the roads. See [[safety in numbers]] effect. Therefore it is arguable that if a segregated cycle facility does genuinely act to create a more attractive cycling environment, and actually attracts more people to cycle, then this effect should contribute to an overall increase in safety. For instance, a study of the accident impacts of re-engineering bicycle crossings in the [[Sweden|Swedish]] city of [[Gothenburg]] attributes collision rate reductions in part to significant increases in cyclist volumes at the treated sites.<ref>An expert judgment model applied to estimating the safety effect of a bicycle facility, Leden L., Garder P., Pulkkinen U., Accident Analysis and Prevention, Volume 32, Number 4, pp. 589-599(11), July 2000</ref> In addition it has been shown that, in Western countries, the health benefits of regular cycling significantly outweigh the risks due to traffic danger.<ref>Cycling Towards Health and Safety, Hillman et al, British Medical Association, Oxford University Press, 1992</ref><ref>All-cause mortality associated with physical activity during leisure time, work, sports, and cycling to work. L.B. Andersen, P. Schnohr, M. Schroll, and H.O. Hein , Archives of Internal Medicine. 160(11), pp. 1621-8, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4153 Briefing Note: The Health Benefits of Cycling], Adam Coffman, Cyclists Touring Club (Accessed 8th June 2007)</ref> Therefore, notwithstanding a net increase in collisions, measures that promote cycling should produce an overall societal health benefit.<ref name=copenhagen1/> Dutch analysts have argued as a statistical exercise that given that three times as many cyclists as car occupants are injured in collisions, and that cars harm about three times the number of other road users as bicycles do, then in situations where casualties due to car traffic predominate, increasing the number of cycling journeys whilst reducing the number of car journeys will reduce the total number of casualties<ref name="swov">{{cite web
|title=SWOV Fact sheet: Cyclists
|url=http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/FS_Cyclists.pdf
|publisher=NL Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV)
|date=2006
}}</ref> However, given their historical purpose, a positive relationship between the use of segregated cycle facilities and increased cyclist numbers cannot be assumed.
The "safety in numbers" argument has also been used to explain the apparent success of cycle facilities in some cities. In most cases, the most prominent examples of "successful" cycle networks were implemented in towns that already had significant numbers of cyclists.<ref name=parker1/> It is argued that in such cases this existing large cycling population already exerts a strong "safety in numbers" effect, and it is this, rather than their diversion onto off-road tracks that accounts for the higher safety seen.<ref>[http://www.cyclinginstructor.com/cyclinginstructor.nsf/($Category1)/E0A4E09F5D74812F80257177004D9A87/$FILE/c2014.pdf?OpenElement Assessing the actual risks faced by cyclists], M. Wardlaw, Traffic Engineering & Control, December 2002. 352-356</ref> <!--Conversely, cycle-network sceptics argue that when imposed in low cycling environments, similar measures will have a greater tendency to increase danger by attenuating whatever limited effect the existing cyclist population was exerting.{{Fact|date=May 2007}}--> More people might start cycling if the perceived safety of doing so improved sufficiently. Segregated cycle facilities are one way to improve the perception of safety. There are other approaches, such as [[Shared Space]], which improve actual safety in part by decreasing the difference between real and perceived safety.<ref name=intrigue/> See the [[Utility cycling]] article for other examples of measures to improve both actual and perceived safety.
=== Remedial measures ===
[[Image:Canberra bicycle lane.jpg|right|thumb|250px|A bicycle lane in [[Canberra, Australia]]. These lanes are painted green where motorists and cyclists are more likey to experience conflicts, such as where traffic must cross the cycle lanes to turn left.]]
Various remedial measures have been developed in an attempt to solve the identified safety problems of segregated cycle facilities. In some environments these represent established engineering practice while in others they may have to be retroactively applied in response to complaints and safety concerns. Examples include the addition of a separate system of [[traffic signal]]s for bicycle traffic. This can get extremely complex, particularly if there are already separate traffic signal phases for [[pedestrian]]s, motorised traffic and [[public transport]] modes such as [[tram]]s and/or [[bus]]es.
The need for a separate system of traffic lights also means that building a functioning, completely segregated, cycle path system is a non-trivial exercise in terms of both expense and engineering effort. Some treatments involve raising the cycle track onto a speed ramp type structure where it crosses side roads. In addition, various road markings have been developed in an attempt to remedy the issue of increased junction collisions. Examples of these include the use of special road markings e.g. "sharks teeth" or "elephants footprints" and special coloured treatments using red, green or blue coloured tarmac. When such treatments are implemented retroactively they are often proclaimed as safety "improvements" [http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/033Summer/06color.html]. However, cycle-facility sceptics view such claims as, at best, disingenuous. They argue that in many cases the actual purpose is to "restore" the level of safety that existed before the marking/construction of the segregated cycle facility.
An associated approach may be to "traffic calm" the bicycle traffic by introducing tight curves or bends to slow the cyclists down as they near a junction. Alternatively traffic engineers may simply remove priority from the cyclists and require them to yield to turning traffic at every side road. In 2002, engineers proposing a sidepath scheme in the Irish University city of [[Galway]] stated that cyclists would be required to dismount and "become [[pedestrian]]s" at every junction on the finished route.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://galwaycycling.org/archive/news3.html#story1
|title=Cyclists told to get off and walk at oral hearing on Seamus Quirke Rd
|date=July 2002
|publisher=Galway Cycling Campaign
|accessdate=2006-07-13
}}</ref>
== Road traffic legislation and its implications ==
One of the potential pitfalls for observers trying to interpret the operation of segregated cycle facilities is that legal assumptions which apply in one environment do not apply elsewhere. For instance, in contrast to most English speaking countries, some Northern European countries, including Germany, France, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands have defined liability legislation. <ref>[http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0603_SSC_RS-Bill-Commons-Cttee_brf.doc Road Safety Needs a New Vision], Road Safety Bill: A Safer Streets Coalition briefing for the House of Commons Standing Committee, Safer Streets Coalition (UK) 2006.</ref> Thus there is a legal assumption that motorists are automatically considered liable in law for any injuries that occur if they collide with a cyclist.<ref>[http://www.cemt.org/pub/pubpdf/00VulnerE.pdf Safety in Road Traffic for Vulnerable Users], European Conference of Ministers of Transport, OECD 2006</ref> This may hold regardless of any fault on the part of the cyclist and may significantly affect the behaviour of motorists when they encounter cyclists.<ref>[http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/20620/ETRA-apologises-for-incorrect-motorist-liability-press-release ETRA apologises for "incorrect" motorist liability press release], Bike biz Breaking News, Mar 4th 2005</ref> <ref>[http://www.dcn.org.uk/downloads/2007-05_view.pdf Driver liability in Newsletter no 57], Dorset Cyclists’ Network, May 2007</ref> In some countries, it may already be legal for cyclists to overtake motor-vehicles on the inside, and cyclists doing so may enjoy the protection of the law. In this case, the use of segregated cycle facilities conforms to existing traffic law. In other jurisdictions, similar "undertaking" manoeuvres by cyclists may be illegal.<ref>[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html S.I. No. 182/1997: Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations], 1997, Irish Statute Book</ref> Such distinctions form the basis of the argument that segregated cycle facilities encourage behaviours that flout existing traffic law and in which cyclists enjoy no legal protection. <ref>[http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/bikelane.htm The Effect of Bikelane Sysem Design Upon Cyclists' Traffic Errors,] John Forester, August 1978; Revised April 1982</ref><ref>http://galwaycycling.org/archive/paths/paths02.html "Rules of the Road" a la Galway Corporation Galway Cycling Campaign 2002</ref><ref>[http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/lanes.htm Cambridge bike lanes:] political statement or road improvement? John S. Allen (Accessed 8th June 2007)</ref>
This variation also applies to the operation of traffic signals, or most importantly cyclist-specific traffic lights. For instance in Germany, but also elsewhere, at junctions with segregated facilities, all the traffic in a given direction; motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, may get a green signal at the same time.<ref>[http://gettingaroundgermany.home.att.net/zeichen2.htm German Traffic Signs & Signals] Brian's Guide to Getting Around Germany (Accessed 7th June 2007)</ref> Turning motor traffic is obliged to wait for cyclists and pedestrians to clear the junction before proceeding. In this situation all the transport modes get equal green time. In contrast, UK and Irish practice restricts pedestrians to a dedicated signal phase, separate from and usually much shorter than, the green phase for motorists (e.g. 6-12 seconds vs. signal cycle times of anything up to 120 seconds). <ref>[http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol8/section1/ta1581.pdf Pedestrian Facilities at Traffic Signal Installations:] Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 8 Section 1 Part 1 - TA 15/81, UK DfT, 1981</ref><ref>[http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol8/section1/ta1681.pdf General Principles of Control by Traffic Signals] Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 8 Section 1 - TA16/81, UK DfT, 1981</ref> If cyclists were to be segregated and treated in a similar manner this would infer a significant reduction in green time for the cycle-traffic at every junction. In the English city of [[Cambridge]] the use of cyclist-specific traffic signals is reported to have resulted in increased delays for cyclists, leading some to ignore the cycle-facilities and stay on the road. <ref>[http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/papers/LeftTurnLanes.pdf Left Turn Lanes] Cambridge Cycling Campaign, Document No. N9814 July 1998</ref> A similar example occurred in a [[Paris]]ian bikepath scheme in 1999. Cyclists faced twice the number of traffic signals as motorised traffic and were expected to wait over one minute to get seven seconds of green time<ref>[http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/paris/mdb.htm The scandal of Maréchaux], Opinion of bicyclists' organizations concerning the special corridor for the PC1 bus, Mouvement pour la défense de la bicyclette et al, October 1999 (Accessed 08/03/2007)</ref>. Conversely in Copenhagen, cyclist-specific traffic signals on a major arterial bike lane have been linked to provide "green waves" for rush hour cycle-traffic.<ref>[http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/news/ccn85.pdf Green wave for cycles], Cycle Campaign Network News, No 85, November 2006</ref>
== The design vehicle and design users ==
[[Image:Dutch-two-tiered-parking.jpg|left|thumb|200px|Dutch bicycles: Internal Gears or Single-speed with coaster (back-pedal) brakes]]
Other potential pitfalls in interpreting the operation of segregated cycle facilities are the issues of design vehicles and design users. The Netherlands is a flat country and Dutch town planning keeps cycling distances short. The typical Dutch town bike or "granny bike" has either no gears or a three speed hub gear and uses back pedal brakes. In other countries with different geographies and cycling cultures, bicycles may tend to have 7 to 15 gears (not counting duplicates), and a reasonably fit adult commuter can expect to reach speeds of 30 km/h (20 mph). Sports cyclists can travel even faster. With tailwinds or downhill gradients, some cyclists may exceed 50 km/h (30 mph). While a Dutch sidepath system may work for Dutch cyclists, serious questions have been raised since at least the 1970s that other cyclists using faster bicycle types cannot use such a system safely at what, for them, are normal cycling speeds.<ref>[http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/TransQuart01.htm The Bikeway Controversy], J Forester, Transportation Quarterly, Vol 55 No 2. Spring 2001</ref> The Danish Roads Directorate acknowledges that the advent of faster bicycle types has not benefited safety since their cycle track system ''"functions best when cyclists travel at relatively low speeds"''<ref name="dk_concepts">[http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/publikationer.asp?page=document&objno=17291 Collection of Cycle Concepts], Danish Roads Directorate, Copenhagen, 2000 </ref> <!-- http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/pdf/cykelrapport/163-176Chapter14.pdf Pge 171 -->
[[Image:Bicyclistonexpressway.jpg|right|thumb|250px|A bicyclist merging into traffic on Foothill Expressway in Los Altos, California.]]
In some cases designers may focus on a particular design user. The UK’s [[Sustrans]] guidelines for the [[National Cycle Network]] are based on recreational use and assume a design user who is an unaccompanied twelve-year-old. The Dublin Transportation Office has advertised their cycle facilities as being based on a design user who is an unaccompanied ten-year-old. This then raises the issue of what happens if different cyclist types find themselves forced onto such devices either by legal coercion or as a result of motorist aggression. This issue is captured in a 1996 review of the Sustrans approach from the Proceedings of the [[Institution of Civil Engineers]]. "''The fast cycle commuter must not be driven off the highway onto a route that is designed for a 12-year-old or a novice on a leisure trip, because if that happens, the whole attempt to enlarge the use of the bicycle will have failed'' " <ref>Book reviews, The National Cycle Network-guidelines and practical details, M.N. Fargher, Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Transport, 117, p. 239, August 1996</ref>
== Maintenance issues ==
[[Image:cycle lane debris.jpg|left|350px|thumb|Debris on substandard (1 m) cycle lane at semi-rural location where regular sweeping is absent]]
Moving motor vehicles generate a "sweeping" effect that pushes debris such as grit and broken glass to the edge of the roadway. By excluding motor traffic, cycle lanes and cycle tracks become parts of the road that are no longer routinely "swept" thus collecting more broken glass and gravel. In addition, some off-road designs are simply not accessible to standard road sweeping equipment. One UK study estimated that cycle path users are seven times more likely to get punctures than are road cyclists. <ref> Two decades of the Redway cycle paths of Milton Keynes, J. Franklin. Traffic Engineering and Control, Aug. 1999. </ref> Both sides of the argument acknowledge that many cyclists will simply refuse to use poorly maintained facilities. Cycle facilities skeptics go further and argue that there is no point funding new cycle facilities unless there is a simultaneous commitment of increased funds to maintenance and sweeping afterwards. Similar problems arise in areas subject to high leaffall in autumn, or high snowfall in winter, any cycle facilities must be subject to regular clearing or else rapidly become unusable. Danish guidance specifies three different categories of cycle track.<ref name="dk_concepts"/> Category "A" tracks must be kept clear of snow 24hrs a day while category "B" tracks only need to be swept or cleared on a once-daily basis, category "C" receive less regular winter maintenance. For example, the city of Copenhagen spends of the order of DKK 9.9 million (US$1.72 million, EUR1.33 million) annually on maintaining its cycle track network <!-- 22/01/07 Currency calculated http://www.x-rates.com/calculator.html based on Jan 207 values --> <ref>[http://www.vejpark.kk.dk/byenstrafik/cyklernesby/uk/bicycleaccount2004/maintenance.htm Cycle track maintenance, Copenhagen City Commune, Accessed January 2007.] </ref>. German federal law requires local authorities to declassify cycle tracks that do not conform to strict design and maintenance criteria<ref> New rights for cyclists, Allgemeine Deutsche Fahrrad Club (ADFC), November, 1997 </ref>.
{{clear}}
== Segregated cycle facilities and transportation cycling ==
[[Image:Roundabout cyclelanes.JPG|right|200px|thumb|Cycle lanes on a [[roundabout]] in [[Newbury, Berkshire| Newbury]], [[Berkshire]], [[England]].]]
There is well-established historical precedent for the use of cycle facilities as a means of promoting motoring at the expense of cyclists’ access.<ref name="vbriese" /><ref name="bhorn" /> Despite this, it has become customary for certain commentators, particularly those associated with the environmental and/or motoring lobbies, to proclaim segregated cycle facilities as the "measure of choice" for restoring cyclist access to western cities. Perhaps understandably, this is highly controversial and is a source of, occasionally quite bitter, dispute. See also [[cycle path debate]].
In contrast, in 1996 the Cyclists' Touring Club and Institute of Highways and Transportation jointly produced a set of guidelines ''Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure'' which placed segregated cycling facilities at the bottom of any hierarchy of measures designed to promote cycling.<ref>Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure: Guidelines for Planning and Design: Institution of Highways and Transportation, Cyclists Touring Club, 1996.</ref> Planners at the Directorate Infrastructure Traffic and Transport [http://www.ivv.amsterdam.nl] in [[Amsterdam]] place cyclists and motorists together on roads with speed limits at or below 30 km/h, but segregate them by means of bicycle lanes when motorists are permitted to travel faster. However, this is in a context where most of the measures prioritised by ''Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure''; HGV restrictions, area-wide traffic calming, speed limit enforcement etc, are already in place. See the [[Utility cycling]] article for more detail.
=== Evidence ===
Between the late '80s and early '90s the Netherlands spent 1.5 billion guilders (the equivalent of US$945 million) on cycling infrastructure, yet cycling levels practically stayed the same.<ref>The autumn of the Bicycle Master Plan: after the plans, the products, Ton Welleman, Dutch Ministry of Transport, Velo-city conference Basle, 1995</ref> When the flagship [[Delft]] Bicycle Route project was evaluated, the results were ''“not very positive: bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety”''.<ref>SWOV Fact sheet Bicycle facilities on road segments and intersections of distributor roads, SWOV Institute for Road Safety, Leidschendam, the Netherlands, October 2004</ref> In the UK, a ten year study of the effect of cycle facilities in eight UK towns and cities found no evidence that they had resulted in any diversion from other transport modes to cycling <ref>UK: Cycle Routes, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/95, UK Department for Transport, 1995</ref> A similar finding had been reported for Denmark in 1989, where it was found that there was no correlation between cycle facilities and increased cycling unless active traffic restraint measures were also present. In Denmark as a whole, the establishment of a huge cycling infrastructure has been accompanied by cycling levels that have stayed roughly stable (with minor fluctuations) since 1975. The construction of 320 km of "Strategic cycle network" in [[Dublin]] been accompanied by a 15% fall in [[bicycle commuting|commuter cycling]] and 40% falls in cycling by second and third level students. In contrast, in the late 1970s and early 1980s cycling underwent robust growth in Germany, the UK and Ireland while there was little or no investment in cycling infrastructure.<!-- See discussion in archived talk pages -->
=== Cycle facilities vs. facilitating cyclists ===
[[Image:Millcreektrail1.jpg|thumb|left|The first completed stretch of a planned [[City of Parks|recreational loop]] around [[Louisville, Kentucky]], [[USA]]]]
A key criticism made by the opponents of such schemes is that the focus is often on constructing "cycle facilities" rather than "facilitating cyclists". It is readily apparent that there are many cities that have extensive cycle networks and also high levels of cycling. However, the most prominent examples tend to be compact, often mediaeval, university cities. This common theme has been taken to suggest that other underlying factors are driving the levels of cycle use.
Some commentators even argue that the "cause and effect" being seen is actually the reverse of that which is often claimed: That it is the presence of large numbers of cyclists that tends to precipitate the construction of segregated cycle facilities. For instance, bike planning in [[Davis, California]] was driven by the prior existence of a "dramatic volume" of cyclists in the 1960s.<ref>Comprehensive Bicycle Plan, City of Davis Public Works Department, May, 2001</ref> Possibly the best that can be said, is that in various cities, the safety of cycling, and the number of cyclists present, will result from a complex interaction of spatial planning, population density, legislative environment, and wider traffic/transportation management policies. <!-- In [[Windsor, Ontario|Windsor]], [[Ontario]], [[Canada]], the [[Parks in the city of Windsor, Ontario#Bike_Trails|city-wide network of trails]] began in the 1970s as people began to ride their bicycles more often, causing a need for safe corridors of cyclist travel. As the trails were extended and built, this brought the curiosity of more cyclists, and now Windsor has a very large network of trails, and a large number of bicycle riders that use the trails.--> The evidence suggests that within this mix, segregated cycle facilities can play either a positive or negative role, but this role will be secondary to other factors. The [[utility cycling]] article provides a more detailed treatment of these issues.
== Cycle facilities in promoting recreational cycling ==
[[Image:Mosel maare cycleroute.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Mosel Maare Cycle route]] on converted Railway corridor between Daun and Wittlich (Eifel: Germany)]]
Separate cycleways and bike trails are less controversial when used to promoting recreational cycling. In Northern European countries, cycling tourism represents a significant proportion of overall tourist activity. Extensive interurban cycleway networks can be found in countries such as Denmark, which has had a national system of cycle routes since 1993. These may use roads dedicated to exclusively cycle traffic or minor rural roads whose use is otherwise restricted to local motor traffic and agricultural machinery. The UK has recently implemented the [[National Cycle Network]].
Where available these routes often make use of abandoned railway corridors (See picture right of Mosel Maar Cycle route). A prominent example in the UK is the [[Bristol & Bath Railway Path]] a {{unit mile|13|0}} off-road [[cycleway]] that forms part of [[NCR 4|National Cycle Route 4]]. Other UK examples include [[The Ebury Way Cycle Path]], [[The Alban Way]], the [[Hillend Loch Railway Path]] and the [[Nicky Line]]. In 2003 the longest continuous cycleway in Europe was opened, along the [[Albacete]]-[[Valdeganga]] highway in [[Spain]], a total distance of 22 km <ref>http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:1SgLl9zPBIsJ:www.lacerca.com/local%25202003/pagina(11-04-03)-6.htm+%22mas+largo+de+europa%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=uk</ref>. [[Bogota's Bike Paths Network]] or "Ciclo-Ruta" in Spanish, designed and built during the administration of Mayor Enrique Peñalosa attracts significant recreational use.
<!-- In the US, some railroad right of ways (usually no longer used for train traffic) have been expanded to include (converted completely to) a [[rail trail]]. While most rail trails permit cycling, they are not segregated cycle facilities since they're not designated for the preferential or exclusive use of cyclists. -->
==Sharing as opposed to segregation==
*[[Shared space]]
*[[Shared lane marking|Sharrows]]
*[[Hans Monderman]]
In terms of multi-use [[trail]]s, a "shared trail" may refer to a shared trail corridor with or without segregation within the corridor. In this context, segregated cycle facilities are a subset of shared facilities. Segregation may be supported by physical separation.
==See also==
*[[Bogotá's Bike Paths Network]]
*[[Cycle path debate]]
*[[Effective Cycling]]
*[[List of cycleways]]
*[[List of rail trails]]
*[[Rail trail]]
*[[Trail]]
*[[Utility cycling]]
*[[Vehicular cycling]]
*[[Door zone]]
== References and further reading ==
===References===
{{Reflist|2}}
=== Additional reading ===
* [http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/publikationer.asp?page=document&objno=17291 Collection of Cycle Concepts], Danish Roads Directorate, 2000.
* [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp1000.pdf Bikeway Planning and Design], Chapter 1000, Caltrans Highway Design Manual, California USA, February 2001.
* [http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html Cycle path safety: A summary of research]
== External links ==
===Historical===
*[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/the_great_cycle_way_.htm California's Great Cycle-Way] - printed in ''Good Roads Magazine'', 1901
*[http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html Cycle Path Safety: A Summary of Research] - John Franklin
*[http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/history.html A history of cycle paths in Europe and USA ] - John Franklin
*[http://galwaycycling.org/archive/info/vbriese_abstract.html History of cycle tracks in Germany ] - up until 1940
*[http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/thinkingcyclist/1935.html History of cycling in the UK ] - Howard Peel
*[http://galwaycycling.org/archive/info/bhorn_abstract.html National Socialist traffic planning] - introduced the exclusion of cycle traffic
===Contemporary===
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/gcziko/sets/72057594104077802/ Bicycle sidepath hazards] - at a university campus
*[http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month Facility of the Month] by the [[Warrington Cycle Campaign]]
*[http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf Road safety and perceived risk of cycle tracks and lanes] in Copenhagen
*[http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=5677 Shared Space] - a UK [[TV]] news piece about an urban alternative to segregated cycling facilities
*[http://www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/index.htm Vassar Street critique] - a detailed look at a sidepath design in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]
{{cb start}}
{{Utility cycling}}
{{cb end}}
[[Category:Road infrastructure]]
[[Category:cycling]]
[[Category:Urban studies and planning]]
[[Category:Transportation planning]]
[[Category:Cycling safety]]
[[be-x-old:Роварная дарожка]]
[[bs:Biciklistička staza]]
[[ca:Carril bici]]
[[cs:Stezka pro cyklisty]]
[[da:Cykelsti]]
[[de:Radverkehrsanlage]]
[[es:Ciclovía]]
[[eo:Biciklovojo]]
[[eu:Bidegorri]]
[[fr:Aménagement cyclable]]
[[hr:Biciklistička staza]]
[[it:Pista ciclabile]]
[[he:שביל אופניים]]
[[nl:Fietspad]]
[[ja:自転車道]]
[[pl:Ścieżka rowerowa]]
[[pt:Ciclovia]]
[[ru:Велосипедная дорожка]]
[[sv:Cykelvägar i Sverige]]
[[uk:Велосипедна доріжка]]
[[zh-yue:單車徑]]
[[zh:單車徑]]