I was thinking about why authorities install scrappy pieces of cycle lane in silly places (e.g. between runs of parked cars). My conclusion is that authorities like to be able to say that they manage x miles of cycle lanes, even if that statistic comprises of tiny chunks of lane which are totally unusable.
Now that the cycling community is calling for segregated facilities for cycling, perhaps it's time to lobby for a statutory definition that excludes these ridiculous lanes. Before lobbying, however, we need to think up some minimum standards.
Some ideas:
- Minimum width: 1 metre per direction. Is that wide enough?
- Minimum length: 15 meters. I don't think a lanes shorter than this are worth counting.
- Non-mandatory lanes shouldn't count at all (e.g. ones which cars can drive or park in). I'm thinking of all of those lanes that disappear under parked cars for all or part of the day.
- The last 5 meters of an lane that could end in an obstacle which requires a cyclist to rejoin the main traffic flow should not count (e.g. a bus stop).
- The first 10 meters after and the last 10 meters of any lane before any "cyclists dismount" sign should not count. Could you imagine a car driver being asked to get out and push? I'n my view a "cyclist dismount" sign indicates that the authority has given up on any attempt to provide suitable infrastructure.
Those are my suggestions to get the ball rolling. What are yours?