The shocking and deadly statistic behind painted cycle lanes

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Many people who cycle on roads probably instinctively know that painted cycle lanes do little to ensure a rider’s safety. Some would even assert that they’d prefer no dedicated infrastructure if the choice is that or some paint, where the latter can lead to more instances of close passes and driver hostility (whether or not intentional).

In his recent appearance on the Active Travel Cafe, the National Commissioner for Active Travel, Chris Boardman, presented a shocking statement which firmly backs up this perception:

I found this out last year, and I’ll say it verbally – we haven’t quite got it into guidance form yet because it’s a real big one – [in] the study, we looked at … well over a hundred different sites, of LTN 1/20 compliant, really good stuff, and stuff done the old way which is a white line, seventy-five centimetres out from the pavement and can’t do the junctions.

We actually found that if you do it the old way, you kill ten percent more people than doing nothing, and you get no uptake because it doesn’t make people feel safe. If you build to LTN 1/20 properly and continuously, you get at least – between twenty and sixty percent increase in uptake and you halve the number of deaths.

That’s pretty powerful stuff. And I don’t mind saying that because I know the data behind it and I think it’s robust enough for me to stand up for it, and to go out in this recording.

But at some point, that’s likely to come back in court for people, that “you actually knew this was the case and you went and built it substandard.” So, that’s another motivation, fear of risk. The risk is if I don’t build to this standard, there’s now evidence that says that I could be held negligent. That’s a really important one.

So, we’re working on that now. I’ve actually had it in a few speeches already, but that’s pretty bombshell stuff. And that really helps get behaviour change for people who are risk averse because you make the risk not doing it properly.

Chris Boardman, Active Travel Cafe, 17 September 2024 (YouTube). Emphasis added.

That is indeed a powerful statistic, and one that clearly explains why painted-lane cycleways are so poor, why their uptake is negligible at best, and why people continue to cycle on pavements alongside these lanes – assuming they bother to cycle at all.

Just some of the problems include:

• Drivers still passing too close, with more frequent occurrences where drivers perceive each user – they the driver, and the cyclist being passed – to be in their own space. Yet the danger from passing vehicles does not change with a bit of paint on the road.
• Debris in the lane which can require a rider to take avoiding action, moving out into the general traffic lane.
• Danger at junctions where, if lanes continue, they can put riders at risk of collision from drivers edging out into the main road; some areas send painted cycle lanes between two general traffic lanes, risking drivers cutting across or into cyclists.
• Pinch point risks where the available space narrows due to, for example, traffic islands.
• Still sharing the same physical space as heavy vehicles including HGVs.

Given the presence of far better standards present in the cycle infrastructure design guidance (aka LTN 1/20), highways bosses should indeed be fearful that local authorities may be held negligent in the event of harm coming to a user of painted “infrastructure”. The data is there from Active Travel England (though yet to be formally published) that clearly shows providing painted lanes contributes to increased risk – again, something that many already knew. Now, that risk has been quantified.

When it comes to providing safe infrastructure, there are no half measures, no shortcuts, and no cheats. If local authorities want to enable modal shift, they must meet the standards to provide a coherent, direct, safe, comfortable and attractive network that is suitable for all demographics.