Cyclists and traffic islands: June 2007

CCC will not oppose lane narrowings resulting from the installation of pedestrian islands because:

• they are useful for pedestrians
• narrowing of the lanes will result in reduction of speed

In general pedestrian infrastructure makes the road look more like an urban environment for people (including cyclists) and less like a motorway cutting through residential areas.

However the dimensions of the gap between the island and the edge of the road is crucial:

For a

2) I believe that in fact narrower lanes of about 3 - 3.5 meters are safer then 4 to 4-5 meters because at 3.5 meter it should be clearer to everyone that there is no possibility of overtaking a cyclist . 3) i think that these restrictions should be clearly marked with painted cycles signs on the road surface or on signposts indicating that the correct position for cyclists is in the middle of the lane. Line markings on the side of the lane should also direct all users towards the centre of the lane

See below for a diagram illustrating the above solution with a bus and car passing where the kerb to refuge width is 3.4 metres on each side of the island.

Three of the most compelling reasons for this policy are:

1. It reinforces cyclist priority in the case of car/cycle conflict at the pinch-point, and encourages motorists to think in terms of lane discipline when overtaking.
2. Loss of cycle facilities just at the point where they are needed most is responsible for some of the loudest and most legitimate complaints from cyclists. The cyclist is left wondering where they are supposed to go, and what they are supposed to do, at this point.
3. Loss of lane markings subconsciously inform the motorist that cyclists will conveniently de-materialise.