| • Science | • People | • Locations | • Timeline |
There are various types of cycle facility and different countries use differing, often legally defined, terms to distinguish them. In essence, segregated cycle facilities fall into two categories; "Off-road" and "On-road". The term "cycle path" is sometimes used as a blanket term for any off-road device. Caution is required when approaching discussions of the topic. Some of the claims and counter-claims regarding cycle facilities might be best interpreted as competing ideological doctrines rather than established engineering truths. The use of such devices has been a source of a great deal of controversy since the 1930s and some commentators inaccurately use various terms interchangeably. In some cases this is done out of simple ignorance but in other cases this may result from deliberate attempts to confuse matters that involve serious accusations related to fatality, injury and legal culpability. Even the use of the word "facility" is controversial and is disputed.
The term Cycleway (UK & Irl) or Bike Trail ("Class 1 bikeway"; US) is generally used to denote a roadway dedicated to cycle traffic on it's own separate right-of-way. This may include a separate pedestrian zone or path. In some cases, pedestrians and cyclist traffic are expected to share the same road section. In the latter case, the term multi-user path or recreational path may sometimes be used instead.
A Cycle track (UK + Irl) or Sidepath (US) is used to denote a footway or sidewalk type structure that has been designated for use by cyclists and is attached to an existing roadway.
A Cycle lane (UK) or Bike lane ("Class 2 bikeway"; US) is a traffic lane marked on an existing roadway or carriageway and generally restricted to cycle traffic.
At the turn of the 19th century, the bicycle was well on it's way to becoming a mass form of transport in North America and Europe. This created pressure to improve the existing, often poorly surfaced, roads and tracks for use by cyclists. Simultaneously concerns arose regarding conflicts between cyclists, horse traffic and pedestrians. This lead to sections of routes being upgraded to provide smoother surfaces and/or separate portions for distinct groups.
With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of bicycle users. By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate motorists and improve the convenience of motoring. In Germany, the National Socialist regime was committed to promoting the mass use of private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to the attainment of mass-motorisation. Accordingly, a mass program of cycle track/cycle path construction was implemented. In addition, new laws were imposed to force cyclists to use segregated cycle paths. In the UK, similar moves were initiated but ran into trenchant opposition from cycling groups. In particular the Cyclists' Touring Club organised mass meetings to reject the use of cycle tracks and any suggestion that cyclists should be forced to used such devices. The CTC was successful and the use of cycle tracks largely fell out of favour in the UK. In Germany, cyclists' organisations were outlawed. However, it is not clear if this was due to disputes over transport policy, or wider political disputes.
Post-war German governments chose to continue the transportation objectives of their National Socialist predecessors, hence cyclists were viewed as an impediment to motorised traffic to be excluded and restricted whenever feasible. These policies eventually resulted in Germany largely eliminating cycling as a significant form of transport. In the UK, little use of separate cycleway/cycle track systems took place except in the so-called "new towns" such as Stevenage and Milton Keynes. From the end of the 1960s in Nordic countries, the Swedish SCAFT guidelines on urban planning were highly influential and argued that non-motorised traffic must be segregated from motorised traffic wherever possible. Under the influence of SCAFT guidelines cyclists and pedestrians were essentially treated as a homogenous group to be catered for using similar facilities. The SCAFT guidelines strongly influenced cities such as Helsinki and Vasteras to build large cycle path networks. By the late 1960’s and 1970’s, with the cyclists mainly gone, many German towns actually began removing the cycle tracks so as to provide more car parking capacity. Increasing traffic congestion and the 1970s oil shocks contributed to a resurgence in cycling in some countries. However, outside of SCAFT inspired developments in Nordic countries, the use of segregated cycle facilities was mainly confined to University towns with established populations of bicycle users.