Never mind the cranks, most Irish cycle paths need to be wider Comment & Analysis: Despite the main user complaint about the Clontarf to City Centre cycle path being too narrow for overtaking, theres still a lot of denial about the importance of cycle path width. Those who say some cycle paths are too wide are usually looking at correctly sized cycle paths. Its worth pointing again to the Dutch standard for single-directional cycle paths, which were revised in 2022:The minimum width needed by two cyclists to cycle side by side safely and comfortably, regardless of intensity. This minimum width is set at 230 centimetres.Given the regardless of intensity bit and our mix of e-bikes and the growing use of cargo bikes, etc, theres no reason this shouldnt be the target width for cycle paths in Ireland too.Most proposed cycle path widths are still too narrow, and when pushed by councillors to build cycle routes faster, the first reaction of Dublin City Councils active travel office was to set lower standards, which is clearly a mistake, especially when they were not meeting the basics of the current standards on most of their projects. They are hardly alone on this.There does not need to be a high risk of actual injury for this to become an issue comfort on a cycle path can determine whether people are willing to use it. The Clontarf route is already busy, and when theres not enough space for people to overtake without getting a bit too close, it will feel risky even when collisions are uncommon and usually minor.As this website has pointed out too many times, the experience in London and elsewhere is that creating narrowing of cycle paths at places where pedestrians cross usually has the opposite effect creating more conflict between people on foot and on bikes. Narrower cycle paths also increase the risk of people clipping kerbs this is especially a problem for people who cycle who are older or disabled. This includes those using larger bikes or mobility aids, as well as standard bicycles and pedal-assisted electric bicycles.The above quote from Dutch guidance is from the CROW Manual Updates Bike Lane Width Recommendations, which are worth reading in full, including:The common thread in the studies consulted is clear: the narrower the bike path, the higher the safety risks. The effect is especially large for one-way bike lanes. Globally, for one-way bike paths, 10 percent more width decreases the number of collisions by 13 percent.I know I annoyed a lot of people with my obsession with pushing for a two-way cycle path on the Clontarf route. But these issues such as bicycle-bicycle crashes would have been less likely to occur on a two-way path that uses the same space as the two cycle paths that were constructed.As always, it has to be said that two-way cycle paths need to be designed carefully and do not suit every situation. But they still suit more situations than they are being used for. Anyway, other design elements can also affect the usable width of a cycle path, including not placing fencing and other objects too close to the cycle path and using forgiving kerbs on both sides of the path, but especially on the inside, allowing the person being overtaken to keep to the left or go left if needed.The time to reexamine the importance of width is now, before more and more cycle paths are built without adequate width if 10% more width decreases the number of collisions by 13%, then every little bit of extra space helps, even if it might sound like an extra 0.2m or so is marginal, it could make the difference in making cycle paths feel and be safer or not.
English
Arabic
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek