Photo Credit: The Slow Bicycle Movement

A new report from UK’s Department of Transport proves that traffic calming works. Looking at infrastructure and how it affects cyclists, they draw the following conclusions:

• Junctions are a major source of incidents for cyclists
• Junctions where cycle lanes meet roads are particularly problematic and can, says the report, negate all the positive safety values of the cycle lane itself
• Slippery roads are more serious than pot holes in the road
• 20 mph (30 kph) speed limits are seen as important ways of calming traffic

ECF's position...

We very much believe in lower speed limits the figures show reduced rates of accidents at lower speeds and less damage done when there is an accident. Results from a study by the Norwegian Institute of Transport Economics [1] show that:

“…there is a strong statistical association between speed and road safety. As an example, it can be estimated that a 10% reduction in the mean speed of traffic will result in a 37.8% reduction of the number of fatalities”

To put this in perspective it was estimated that a 10% reduction in “Exposure to darkness” and “Drink-driving” gives a reduction in fatalities of 1.7% and 1.0% respectively. Another study from the UK’s TRL[2] also found that the introduction of 32kph limits (20mph) on residential roads could produce a 50% reduction in cyclist “killed and seriously injured” (KSI) casualties. A more recent report in April 2009, found reductions were still continuing including a 17% reduction in cyclist casualties and 38% reduction in fatalities and serious injuries for cyclists[3]. DfT's recent report it would seem is yet another confirmation that traffic should be tamed.

Road Signs or Speed Humps? 

Should we opt for physical calming measures which can be expensive, can create unintended pockets of danger but are very effective in controlling speeds? Or do we go for speed limit signs which are cheap, create an easier flowing traffic but are less effective at lowering speeds.

Also we have known all along that junctions are a problem for cyclists but the issue raised by the report that segregated cycle lanes may have their benefits reduced or even negated by the dangers posed at the junction of road/cycle lane needs to be explored more fully. This is especially more important as cycling infrastructure is becoming more and more a part of European roads. I guess another positive from this is that we are no longer simply looking at whether we should have cycling infrastructure but rather how we can also improve on it.

Interestingly the report suggests that bicycle lanes and Advanced Stop Lines are not as beneficial to cyclist’s safety. However this seems to go against what transpires in the rest of Europe and can be explained by the poor state of the UK’s cycle lanes than claiming that cycle lanes are not beneficial to safety per se.

Road casualty Britain: 11 years of deaths and injuries mapped and visualised

About the Author

Ceri Woolsgrove is the ECF Policy Officer for Road Safety & Technical Issues. He is from the UK and has worked extensively in London, Brighton, Liverpool (UK), Hang Zhou (China) and now in Brussels. His previous employment was for an organisation representing the transport industry in Brussels. Ceri has a Master’s degree in Globalization and International Policy Analysis from the University of Bath, and Social and Political Thought from the University of Sussex.

Resources