Cycling by Design (2021): a review
Transport Scotland have published the revised national level guidance for designing cycle infrastructure: Cycling by Design. I have reviewed the new guidance, paying particular attention to the way in which it articulates issues around disability, gender and provision for cyclists who are not middle-aged men in lycra…
We’ll set aside the Foreword signed by three men (ahem) — and focus on the content. The first obvious thing to note is the length. It’s a whopping 260 pages — admittedly with plenty of images and photos — well organised into 5 main sections covering: planning for cycle users; cycle links; crossings; junctions; and trip end facilities. Each section discusses the issues and sets out key design principles, as well as illustrating a range of possible design solutions applicable under different conditions. This seems both thorough and helpful, and I can imagine campaigners brandishing these illustrations in their discussions with council officers!
The next thing I want to note are the images and photos used in the guide. There are lots of photos, many of them in recognisable Scottish locations, and they portray a diverse range of people. There are women, parents with children in trailers, older people, young adults, disabled and able-bodied people, and a variety of skin tones. There is a lovely photo of a trike carrying a wheelchair with pilot and passenger both smiling broadly. There is a variety of clothing, and people on bikes are shown with and without helmets. This imagery is important because it undermines the stereotype of cycling as something which only fit and able-bodied (white) men can do.
Cycling as an accessible and inclusive thing to do is also supported by the language used throughout the guide. The guide consistently refers to ‘cycle users’ and ‘cycle vehicles’, making it clear that it is inclusive of all forms of cycle and all types of cyclist. Table 2.2 in the guide (shown below) demonstrates different examples of cycle vehicle and key information about width, length and turning circles.
The guide makes it clear that designers should provide for all of these types of cycle vehicle. This consistent insistence on the accommodation of non-standard cycles is really important, and putting this diagram upfront in the section on ‘planning for cycle users’ also puts it front and centre in the guidance.
Thinking in more detail about gender, the guide states that local authorities need a detailed understanding of existing local travel patterns informed by surveys of walking, wheeling and cycling — and that where available data should be disaggregated by age, gender, income and disability. This is a useful starting point, as we know that in the UK women are making far fewer bike journeys than men, whilst in Denmark and the Netherlands women make more journeys by bike than men. It’s good that the guide notes the need for detailed data and giving attention to different types of cyclist — current data about cycling is very patchy, and understanding about who cycles, where they cycle, why and for what purpose is pretty thin.
An important strand of the guide is the use of Level of Service (LOS) to inform design choices, with the expectation that new infrastructure should provide a high level of service for cycle users, and that designers avoid options which provide only a low level of service. On page 51 a table sets out the LOS provided by different infrastructure types in different scenarios. This is mostly unproblematic, e.g. low volume of traffic and low speed of traffic make shared streets possible, while high volume and high speed traffic precludes most types of cycle infrastructure except a segregated and detached cycle way.
I want to focus on this ‘detached’ cycle way because in the guide this type of cycle track is identified as providing a high level of service under all scenarios, and suitable for ‘most’ users. That ‘most’ worries me. Who is included/excluded by that? Research from Xie & Spinney (2018) has shown that off-road (detached) cycle paths are not favoured by women because of personal safety fears. Cycling by Design does include personal safety perceptions into the attractiveness dimension of the LOS approach and notes
“remote cycle tracks may create actual or perceived personal security issues if not well-designed” (p. 68).
Further discussion of this issue in the guide outlines the need to think about path widths, vegetation, visibility, sightlines and lighting. The importance of maintenance is highlighted, noting that overgrown vegetation can have a negative affect on feelings of safety. This is all useful information for designers and practitioners. But, I think it’s an omission not to mention that women are more sensitive to personal safety concerns than men. That sensitivity is an inescapable consequence of living in a patriarchal society where violence towards women and girls is an everyday occurrence and where most women have experienced sexual harassment and/or street harassment. Any assessment which deals in generalisations rather than specifics is likely to result in decisions which favour able-bodied men — because that’s the default almost all of us use when asked to think generally about ‘people’. Caroline Criado Perez’s book ‘Invisible Women’ reveals the staggering extent of the ‘default male’ in design, engineering and science if you need to be convinced. Going back to the LOS assessment for detached cycle tracks set out in Cycling by Design, I’m concerned that the high level of service for ‘most’ users is really a high level of service for most men.
So, there is no mention of gender in the guide and neither is there any mention of the specific needs of other different types of cycle user: children, older adults, or people with disabilities. That’s one of my biggest concerns — that none of the technical guidance is related to actual people, only to generic groups such as confident/less confident cyclists. This is particularly important in some of the technical guidance about slopes, sightlines and so on. Is this guidance inclusive of children on bikes, or older adults, handcyclists or trike users?? We know for example, that children are not able to accurately judge speed and distance — so where a cycle track is likely to be used by lots of children (e.g. going to a primary school) then which factors will make the design more forgiving for kids? Another glaring omission from the guide are e-bikes. Although they come in the same shapes and sizes as other cycle vehicles, it would be useful for the guide to say something about the accommodation of e-bikes within the design parameters set out.
A final thought from me on the content is about future proofing in design. The guide sets out design widths for different cycle flows — but doesn’t mention the desirability of adding width to a cycle track in order to accommodate future growth in cycling. Designers *should* be planning for a considerable growth in cycle journeys — using the Scottish government target as a key number in the equation, rather than just working from existing cycle flows. The recent experience of cities like Paris where cycling rates have soared demonstrate the potential for rapid growth, particularly in town and city centres.
Overall, Cycling by Design (2021) is pretty good. It sets out a clear and inclusive vision of cycling infrastructure, with lots of detailed design treatments and good discussion of issues around each theme. I can see it becoming a useful document for activists as well as practitioners. The only thing it misses is discussion of the specific needs of different groups including women, children, older adults, people with disabilities and e-bike users — and the inclusion of those needs into the LOS approach. All in all that’s a relatively minor complaint in the context of such a full guidance document. Happy cycling everyone!
