Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Mind your Language - "Protected" not "Segregated" !

A bit of a bee in my bonnet. I'd like to see "segregated" fall out use around descriptions of active travel infrastructure, and be replaced by "protected", for two reasons:

1 - Importantly "protected infrastructure", "protected cycle tracks" etc correctly implies that the people walking, wheeling and cycling need to be protected from the dangers of motorised vehicles.

2 - "Segregated" is a negative not a positive concept, which vaguely smacks of South Africa circa 1950.

Can I encourage us to make the switch in our own use, and it will eventually feed into general usage.

What about it?

 

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

16 comments

Avatar
mattw | 1 week ago
2 likes

Thank-you for the interesting comments on this thread.

So  support for both "separated" and "protected" then, depending on context.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to mattw | 1 week ago
1 like

mattw wrote:

Thank-you for the interesting comments on this thread.

So  support for both "separated" and "protected" then, depending on context.

I'd agree with that and will not be using "segregated" to refer to cycle lanes in future. I hadn't considered it previously, so thanks for raising this thread.

Avatar
ktache | 1 week ago
4 likes

Completely agree, and have requested others on this site to stop using "segregated" as the word is full of negative connotations.

I think separated is preferable.

Avatar
chrisonabike | 1 week ago
1 like

Some (maybe include yourself?) have pointed this out to me previously.  I agree that "segregated" is the wrong word.

I now favour using "separated" when stating what we want as opposed to "protected".  That is because in the UK "protected" in practice means "we have intermittently placed objects on the far side of an on-carriageway cycle lane".  The problems with such "protection" - particularly in the UK - are several:

 - All the usual issues of cycle lanes apply - narrow, poor surface quality (often the worst part of the carriageway), that's where the metal access covers / drains are, water / snow / debris (from cars, the road itself, vegetation) gathers there (even more so where there is "protection").
 - None of the examples I've seen are continuous - the protection is intermittent (see below) and these are interrupted at most bus stops, all junctions, often at minor side roads or even driveways.
 - The objects used to protect are various - e.g. orcas, wands, blocks, planters - and are more or less dangerous / inconvenient to cyclists and pedestrians.

Of course, in the UK the quality of any infra also depends on a commitment to enforce it e.g. prevent motor vehicles driving and stopping within it.  You might argue this would be more of an issue without "protection" but in my experience it actually doesn't matter - motor vehicles get everywhere.

In my very small sample cautious cyclists / new cyclists are - quite sensibly - more likely to use completely separate cycling facilities than cycle lanes, protected or not.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to chrisonabike | 1 week ago
1 like

Isn't the issue that these are, in principle, two distinct things?

One is a separated area for bikes to help their progress and give encouragement, but when it comes to conflict, they usually abandon separation so they are neither separated nor protected.

Protected bike lanes (as was demonstrated in the recent right turning HGV over a lane debate) are a different concept which is a bike lane specifically designed to protect the cyclist from traffic. So where there is a conflict, motorised traffic is supposed to be entirely subservient to the whims of the cyclist. So one does not claim protection, the other has passive features to assert the priority of the cyclist.

So a separated bike lane might arrive at a Toucan Crossing, a protected bike lane arrives at a protected bike lane crossing where legally the traffic is entirely obliged to concede to the cyclist if crossing it might cause the cyclist to slow or evade.

The problem is that the motoring community hasn't signed up to the concept, so the protection of a protected bike lane is legal and theoretical as opposed to a separated bike lane which may be inferior legally but in practice may be superior.

To achieve safe cycling you therefore need a combination of both physical separation and strong legal protection.

It would be interesting, for example, to see an implementation at the infamous HGV right turn, of bike sensors in the lane and a traffic light implementation that only gave a green light to traffic when the protected bike lane was entirely empty over a significant distance or a significant time had passed without a gap being sensed.

Of course, the cost of trying to force drivers to abide by their responsibilities is out of proportion. In reality it is likely that a significant proportion of drivers would object to this imposition and risk crossing such a red light in the hope it was not monitored. The reality is that the only way to protect a cycle lane in conflict with a road is by barriers, as we see at railway crossings, but even when faced with the superior momentum of an InterCity 125, some people are inclined to take a chance. That's the environment road designers are faced with. Remember, when it comes to speed, 80% compliance is (used to be???) considered a successful implementation.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to IanMSpencer | 1 week ago
3 likes

IanMSpencer wrote:

Isn't the issue that these are, in principle, two distinct things?

They are indeed.

I think we agree e.g. the mention of "protected" actually backfires?  Because in the context of UK cycle infra it has a special meaning which has nothing to do with "protection" as we normally understand it?

I'm not sure "protected" is used much in the Dutch cycling infra terminology.  Separate areas - yes.  Lots of consideration given to safe interaction of modes where it is needed (another alien concept to the UK) - yes.  I think that's helpful as it's less about "how do we keep the demon driver (a necessary evil) from deading us" and more about safe and efficient interaction for both modes.

Also - the UK kind of "protective" object ("magic" or decorative wands, Orcas etc.) is - AFAIK - practically unheard of in the country where the highest proportion of journeys have been made by bike for the longest time - e.g. NL.

I have waved flags for "protected infra" UK-style - but actually more and more I consider this verging on a waste of effort and money.  This is why I specified "when stating what we want".

It's difficult because in the UK it's not just that we're finding suitable words for concepts the UK doesn't have.  We have cognitive interference from a different set of concepts (which derive from "maximum throughput / permeability of motor traffic").

People make "feeling" judgements - particularly of "safety".  So when the vast majority of people (who never or rarely use cycing as a transport mode) say "protected" I think they mean they want to feel safe.  Being right next to motor traffic in high volume or high speed is not perceived as safe (nor is being in it).  It seems clear that that adding decorative features to our painted cycle gutters (wands, blocks, armadillos, orcas) isn't tempting many more people either.  Sadly these may objectively reduce safety since people trip over them / ride into them - and of course they clearly don't dissuade some drivers.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to IanMSpencer | 1 week ago
1 like

IanMSpencer wrote:

One is a separated area for bikes to help their progress and give encouragement, but when it comes to conflict, they usually abandon separation so they are neither separated nor protected.

...

Protected bike lanes (as was demonstrated in the recent right turning HGV over a lane debate) are a different concept which is a bike lane specifically designed to protect the cyclist from traffic. So where there is a conflict, motorised traffic is supposed to be entirely subservient to the whims of the cyclist. So one does not claim protection, the other has passive features to assert the priority of the cyclist.

Of course - priority is not protection and it can even be the opposite.  (As an example - I tend to lean towards David Hembrow's view on what the safer arrangement is on for cyclists on roundabouts - which is a minority view even in NL although there is apparently disagreement over the crash data here).

Avatar
mattw replied to IanMSpencer | 1 week ago
1 like

I think one difference you are pointing up there is between what UK authorities call "cycle tracks" and "cycle lanes" - the latter being a area of the carriageway identified as being for cycling.

(That distinction does not seem to exist in those terms in other countries where I see discussions.)

One interesting case where "cycle track" has been used is in the current "pavement parking enforcement by video uploads" pilot in Cheshire, where they identify "parking on a cycle track" as one thing that can be reported, but not explicitly on a cycle lane.

https://www.cheshire.police.uk/police-forces/cheshire-constabulary/areas...

Avatar
wtjs replied to mattw | 1 week ago
1 like

https://www.cheshire.police.uk/police-forces/cheshire-constabulary/areas...

It's the duty of anyone on here who lives in the pilot area (Crewe) to send in those reports ASAP on the grounds that 'cycle track' is obviously a superset of 'cycle lane', so we can see what happens. My jaundiced view, based on the dodgy geezers at Lancashire police, is that this pilot will go the same way as OpSnap Lancs in which they don't do any of the things they claim they will do, and then excuse themselves on the grounds of 'we're busy'

The Roads and Crime Unit will triage the report and will deal with the person responsible. This may include issuing fines or educational courses depending on the severity of the offence committed

This uses the same mode of weaselling as Lancashire, using the word 'may', which obviously includes 'we may do nothing at all'. My guess is that there won't be any fines or educational courses (such penalties being perfectly acceptable for this offence) and there will be many claims of 'words of advice' being offered (=worthless as a deterrent)

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 1 week ago
2 likes

I will if you spell check first. cheeky

Avatar
mattw replied to IanMSpencer | 1 week ago
0 likes

Lol.

My keyboard has a stutter.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to mattw | 1 week ago
1 like

#notypistinvolved

Avatar
mattw replied to IanMSpencer | 1 week ago
0 likes

Indeedy-doody.

It's worse on the laptop, where the "e" key keeps breaking - which can restrict my vocabulary and make me very creative if I do not have the remote keyboard to hand.

Twould be terrible were I in Yorkshir.

Avatar
andystow replied to mattw | 1 week ago
1 like

mattw wrote:

Indeedy-doody.

It's worse on the laptop, where the "e" key keeps breaking - which can restrict my vocabulary and make me very creative if I do not have the remote keyboard to hand.

Twould be terrible were I in Yorkshir.

Turn on num lock, hold ALT, then on number pad type 69 or 101 and release.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to mattw | 1 week ago
5 likes

mattw wrote:

Indeedy-doody.

It's worse on the laptop, where the "e" key keeps breaking - which can restrict my vocabulary and make me very creative if I do not have the remote keyboard to hand.

Twould be terrible were I in Yorkshir.

Copy and paste from t'internet.

Here, I've got some spares

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Avatar
mattw replied to hawkinspeter | 1 week ago
0 likes

I tend to focus on aitches, which are abandoned refugees where I am.

I provide succour for dropped aitches - so I have boiled Heggs for breakfast every day.

Latest Comments