Cycle track crossings of minor roads

Transcription

1 Cycle track crossings of minor roads Prepared for Charging and Local Transport Division, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions A Pedler and D G Davies TRL Report TRL462

2 First Published 2000 Reprinted with corrections 2005 ISSN ISBN X Copyright TRL Limited 2000, This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of a Contract placed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Any views expressed are not necessarily those of the Department. TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.

3 CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction Research objective Previous safety studies Current UK design guidance 4 2 Research method Site selection Video surveys Interviews 5 3 The sites and results Bath - Brassmill Lane/Bristol and Bath cycle route Location and design of Brassmill Lane crossing Video survey Interview survey Conclusions Bedford Halsey Road/Kempston Road Location and design of Halsey Road crossing Video survey Interview survey Conclusions Oxford Prestwich Place/Botley Road Location and design of Prestwich Place crossing Video survey Interview survey Conclusions Oxford Davenant Road/Woodstock Road Location and design of Davenant Road crossing Video survey Interview survey Conclusions Shrewsbury Grange Road/Roman Road Location and design of Grange Road crossing Video survey Interview survey Conclusions 15 4 Comparing the five sites 15 iii

4 Page 5 Conclusions and recommendations Conclusions Design recommendations 17 6 Acknowledgements 17 7 References 18 Appendix A: Site plans 19 Abstract 25 Related publications 25 iv

5 Executive Summary Cycle tracks can help cyclists to avoid sharing busy roads with motor. One of the main problems with providing them, however, is the design of the crossings of minor roads. This introduces a hazard and cyclists are usually required to give way. Highway authorities have been reluctant to give priority to cyclists on the cycle track over on the side road, in case drivers fail to observe the priorities and casualties occur. This project investigated sites with a variety of crossing arrangements, most with priority for cyclists. It forms part of a larger project for DETR into cycle engineering and cycle facilities. TRL used video cameras to monitor 1,512 cyclists at five different cycle track crossings of minor roads. TRL also interviewed 223 cyclists at the sites. The sites were selected on the basis of design, cycle and motor vehicle flows. The following sites were chosen:! Bath - Brassmill Lane/Bristol-Bath cycle route.! Bedford - Halsey Road/Kempston Road.! Oxford - Prestwich Place/Botley Road.! Oxford - Davenant Road/Woodstock Road.! Shrewsbury - Grange Road/Roman Road. The report provides an analysis of interaction rates for cyclists on the different types of crossing. It also provides design recommendations. It concludes that improvement to cycling conditions on the major road should be considered first. Where cycle tracks are provided, crossings of minor roads should be bent out where site conditions allow. Where traffic flows are sufficiently light and visibility good enough, cyclists can be given priority by bending out the crossing and raising it on a road hump. At the first two sites the cycle track crossing was bent out from the major road and the cyclist had priority. At the next two sites the crossing was straight (not bent out) and cyclists had partial priority. At the fifth site, there was no bend out and cyclists had to give way. From the video surveys, all traffic movements were recorded and classified by manoeuvre. The videos were then analysed for interactions between cyclists and motor at the crossing and on the parallel major road. The flows, types of manoeuvre and at fault were recorded. The interviews gave additional information about the types of cyclist using the crossing and their views on its design, operation and safety. The study found that cycle tracks with priority for cyclists across minor roads appeared to work reasonably satisfactorily in some circumstances, but some hazardous interactions were also observed. Cyclists remaining on the major road had fewer problems at the junctions with minor roads. The majority of cyclists, however, did use the cycle track, particularly the less confident types of cyclist, such as children. Pedestrians also used the crossing, appearing to benefit from the set-back Give Way lines and raised crossing. No pedestrian cyclist conflicts were observed on the crossings. Most problems were observed at sites with straight across crossings, largely due to poor visibility to the right from the minor road, and to high flows of traffic on the major road. In these conditions, drivers tended to pull forward and obstruct the crossing. Due to buildings, etc., it was not possible to bend out the cycle track at these sites. At all of the sites, there was a significant percentage of cyclists who were unsure or wrong about the traffic priorities on the crossing. However, in most cases this made them more cautious. 1

6 2

7 1 Introduction 1.1 Research objective Cycle tracks can help cyclists to avoid sharing busy roads with motor and hence increase cyclists comfort and safety. One of the main problems with providing them, however, is the design of the crossing of minor (side) roads, where cyclists are usually required to give way. Highway authorities have been reluctant to give priority to cyclists in case drivers fail to observe the priorities and casualties occur. The objectives of the research are to identify situations where cyclists appear to come into conflict with motorists or pedestrians on cycle tracks crossing side roads, and to make recommendations regarding the design of cycle track crossings. This project investigates five sites with a variety of crossing arrangements, including priority for cyclists. It forms part of a larger project for DETR into cycle engineering and cycle facilities. 1.2 Previous safety studies In a hospital based study of cyclist accidents (Mills, 1989), most of the accidents reported involving cyclists aged 13 and above occurred at junctions. The most common manoeuvre involved cyclists passing a minor road on their left and being struck by an emerging motor vehicle, or by an on-coming motor vehicle turning right into the minor road. A study of accidents on Stevenage cycleways (Rainbird, 1979) between 1972 and 1977 revealed 10 accidents taking place at the junctions of cycleways with minor roads. Five of these accidents occurred at the same junction and involved motor crossing the cycleway from the minor road before emerging onto the major road. A Swedish study (Garder et al, 1998) assessed effects of converting conventional cycle crossings (marked by white rectangles) to raised cycle crossings. This showed that such features reduced risks to cyclists by an average of 30%. The number of cyclists increased by 50%. Safety per cyclist improved by 20% as a result of the increased bicycle flow, and by a further 10-50% as a result of the improved layout. An increase in cyclist speed, however, reduced this safety benefit. The speed of turning was reduced by 40%. Safety for pedestrians was also improved. The concluding points were that conventional cycle paths along arterial roads increase cyclists risk at junctions; cyclist safety is increased when crossings are raised and painted in a bright colour; finally, low motor vehicle (and cyclist) speeds are essential in complicated environments if cyclist safety is to be high. An American study of adult cyclists (Moritz, 1996) found that, although minor roads are the most likely place for a bicycle crash, the more serious crashes are more likely to occur on major roads without bike facilities. Schnull (1993) looked at the safety of cyclists going straight ahead at junctions without signal control. He concluded that cyclists on the roadway or bicycle lane are at less risk than cyclists on bicycle paths with proper crossings. A clear delineation of these crossings is needed to draw attention to both the interaction area and the priority situation. Differently surfaced cycle crossings are safer than crossings with road markings only. Wegman et al (1988) investigated the safety effects of bicycle facilities in The Netherlands. The research showed that stretches of road (including minor junctions) with cycle paths are safer for cyclists than those without cycle paths, or those with cycle lanes. It also concluded that junctions are safer for cyclists if the connecting stretch of road has no facility or bicycle lane. This is explained by the fact that turning traffic is confronted too suddenly with cyclists, because they were not seen on the previous stretch of road, or that car speed is higher when cyclists have separate facilities. The article concludes that cycle paths lead to an increased safety on stretches of road but the path should be ended before a junction. Nielsen and Bernhoft (1995) looked at cyclist safety in Denmark. In collisions where cyclists are continuing straight on, but other drive straight out into their path, it was thought that it could have been difficult for drivers to perceive cyclists. This could be due to missing lights, poor visibility conditions or simply inadequate orientation. The ADONIS catalogue of best practice to promote cycling draws on a Danish example of cycle paths extending across junctions. The idea behind this was to stimulate the car driver to look for the cyclist, especially car drivers who turn right (driving on the right). Furthermore, it separates the different sorts of traffic from each other, especially cars and bicycles which drive/ride in the same direction on the major road (Danish Road Directorate, 1998). Truncated cycle tracks at intersections were also examined. Truncated cycle tracks in Denmark are cycle tracks that are terminated some distance before the intersection, causing car drivers and cyclists to mix before the junction. The cycle track is cut off metres before the intersection. The cyclists ride down a ramp to the carriageway level, into a cycle lane with a reduced width. Cyclists therefore keep their own area but, because they are in a narrower lane at the carriageway level, alertness of car drivers and cyclists for each other should be improved. A behavioural study revealed that more motorists adjusted their speed to suit the cyclists after the truncated cycle track crossings were installed, leading to an increased level of road safety for cyclists at major urban intersections. Before and after studies revealed that fewer motorists ignore the right of way of cyclists when turning right in front of them, and the cycle areas at the intersections increase the alertness of the cyclists (Danish Road Directorate, 1998). In Denmark, bent out crossings (referred to as staggered ) were provided on cycle paths at intersections with minor roads (mostly residential roads). According to the Danish Road Directorate (1998), this contributes to an increasing attentiveness of cyclists, and car drivers are forced to reduce their speed because of the crossing. This design creates an area 5 metres long, where turning cars can stop before the cycle path without blocking the road for cars behind them. 3

8 The degree of bend out depends on the area that can be observed through the side windows of a motor vehicle turning right (driving on the right). Cyclist speed is also reduced (to a maximum of 20km/h). Early results suggested a decrease in the severity of accidents (but not the overall numbers), as fast riding cyclists are forced to reduce their speed, and the attentiveness of cyclists and car drivers is increased. Turning cars can see cyclists more easily and are not forced to make risky manoeuvres. 1.3 Current UK design guidance For heavily trafficked roads, and roads with high traffic speeds, segregation of cycles from motor is generally recommended where feasible. The arrangements for the cycle track to cross minor roads are crucial to the safety and continuity of the route. The Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT, 1996) Guidelines acknowledge these problems and describes the following layouts that may be appropriate, according to local circumstances:! Cycle track crossing bent out by 4-8 m from the major road.! Cycle track crossing straight across, with no bend out, immediately adjacent to the major road.! Cycle track truncated and merging with the major road carriageway to cross the minor road junction. Whereas Local Transport Note 1/86 Cyclists at Road Crossings and Junctions (DOT, 1986) had recommended that cyclists on the crossing should give way to traffic on the road, the Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure Guidelines (IHT, 1996) (endorsed by the then DOT) established that priority could be given to the cycle crossing, subject to safety considerations, by means of Give Way markings on the carriageway. The IHT Guidelines recommend that the cyclists priority be emphasised by means of coloured surfacing and/or a road hump, which should comply with the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations (1990). These designs are elaborated in the Sustrans/Arup design guidance for the National Cycle Network (Sustrans, 1998), including recommended criteria for deciding when it is appropriate to give priority to the cycle crossing. The Scottish Executive (1999) consultation document on cycle facilities for trunk roads in Scotland also incorporates these designs. It recommends, however, against providing a hump on the straight across design because of the lack of stacking (waiting) space between the cycle crossing and the major road 2 Research method 2.1 Site selection TRL interviewed cyclists and monitored five cycle track crossings using video cameras. Initially, TRL requested details of appropriate sites for monitoring through an advertisement in Local Transport Today. Local authorities volunteered suitable sites and sent detailed designs and photographs of cycle tracks crossing a minor road. Five sites were selected on the basis of design, type of area, cycle and motor vehicle flow. The main difference between the sites was whether the cycle track was routed straight across the minor road or whether the cycle track was bent out from the major road. Other design differences included whether the cycle track crossing was humped and coloured and whether cyclists had priority over motor to cross the minor road. The five sites chosen for analysis were:! Bath - Brassmill Lane/Bristol-Bath cycle route.! Bedford - Halsey Road/Kempston Road.! Oxford - Prestwich Place/Botley Road.! Oxford - Davenant Road/Woodstock Road.! Shrewsbury - Grange Road/Roman Road. The speed limits on all the main roads were 30mph except Roman Road in Shrewsbury (40mph). The speed limits on all the minor roads were 30 mph. Photographs of the sites are provided in Section 3 and scale plans of the junction provided in Appendix A. These show details of the cycle facilities, road signs and markings. Key features of the sites are shown in Table Video surveys Video surveys were carried out on weekdays on the following dates in July and September 1999, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 Video survey dates Number of Site Date of video monitoring cyclists observed Brassmill Lane 7 July Halsey Road 13 July Prestwich Place 5 September Davanent Road 2 July Grange Road 5 July Total 1,512 Table 1 The selected sites and key features Site Track Crossing Signs and Crossing Cyclist Area name type type Humped? markings colour priority Purpose Bath Brassmill Lane On road then cycle track Bent out Humped Give Way markings Red Full Commuter/Leisure Bedford Halsey Road Segregated shared use Bent out Humped Give Way markings No Full Commuter/Shopping Oxford Prestwich Place Segregated shared use Straight Humped Give Way markings No Part Commuter/Shopping Oxford Davanent Road Segregated shared use Straight Humped Give Way markings No Part Commuter/Shopping Shrewsbury Grange Road Segregated shared use Straight Flat Standard markings No No Commuter/School 4

9 Each video was analysed for the number of cyclists and motor on the major road passing the junction with the minor road, for the number of cyclists using the cycle track crossing and the number of entering or exiting the minor road. The types of manoeuvre were recorded. Interactions between cyclists using the cycle track crossing and motor were noted. A interaction was defined as a situation where the subject cycle, which is using the correct cycle track, comes very close to, and is impeded/obstructed in its passage by a stopped/moving motor vehicle, pedestrian or other cycle. In addition, an interaction is also when one or both parties who are forced to deviate from their passages rapidly avoid an imminent collision/accident, or if they are forced to stop abruptly. 2.3 Interviews The purpose of conducting interviews with cyclists was to discover their views on the safety and convenience of the crossing, including those cyclists who chose to remain on the major road. Interviews were carried out on week days, as shown in Table 3. Cyclists on the track were interviewed as well as cyclists who had chosen to cycle on the road. Table 3 Interview survey dates Number of Site Date of interview respondents Brassmill Lane 11 October Halsey Road 19 October Prestwich Place 5 October Davanent Road 7 October Grange Road 12 October Total The sites and results 3.1 Bath - Brassmill Lane/Bristol and Bath cycle route Location and design of Brassmill Lane crossing The Brassmill Lane cycle track crossing is part of the Bristol-Bath Cycle Route. The crossing was installed in June It was developed as part of the work to extend the cycle route between Bristol and Bath, which follows a disused rail line and canal towpath. When the route reaches Brassmill Lane the cycle route continues into Bath with a combination of cycle track and cycle lane. A number of design options were considered for the minor road crossing. This option was recommended in the National Cycle Network guidelines (Sustrans, 1998). To reduce the accident risk of cyclists crossing minor roads it was decided that installing a cycle crossing that bends out from the major road and giving cyclists priority, would be the best design. To add emphasis, the cycle track is coloured red and is raised on a road hump. Brassmill lane crossing is shown in Plate 1. A plan of the Brassmill Lane crossing is given in Appendix A. Plate 1 The Brassmill Lane cycle track crossing Video survey The video survey at Brassmill Lane in Bath took place on 6 th July 1999 between 07:00 hours and 15:00 hours. Between these hours 167 cyclists used the cycle track crossing (Manoeuvre 8 to 7 and Manoeuvre 7 to 8) and 480 motor crossed the crossing (Manoeuvre 9 to 3, 1 to 3, 4 to 6 and 4 to 10). Video analysis showed that a range of people used the cycle track crossing, both young and old, male and female. Figure 1 and Table 4 show the most common manoeuvres. A significant feature of the Brassmill Lane cycle track which makes it different from the other sites is that there is no equivalent parallel on-road route for cyclists to use until they reach the crossing (cycling from 8 to 7). It was observed that some cyclists chose to use the road and only used the cycle track when it was the only choice for their route. The cyclist movements 4 to 10 and 1 to 3 represent the cyclists who chose to use the road at the earliest opportunity. The manoeuvres highlighted in bold text are most likely to lead to a interaction as they represent cyclist and motor in a possible cross-over situation. On the morning of the video survey, 2 interactions were identified. (See Table 5). The Brassmill Lane interactions are difficult to classify and therefore it is difficult to identify the negative aspects of the layout of the crossing. It is possible that visibility constraints and inadequate warning of the cycle track crossing and cyclists caused the van driver some confusion. However, both interactions occurred whilst the cyclists and motor were behaving in the correct way. Neither of the interactions were classified as potentially dangerous Interview survey Forty-one cyclists were interviewed in Bath at the Brassmill Lane crossing. Half of those interviewed were commuting and 40% were cycling for leisure purposes. Of the 41 interviewed, 87% of the cyclists cycled along this 5

10 Not to scale 9 Brassmill Lane 72 Motor Cyclists 116 Motor Motor 169 Motor Motor Cyclists 10 Cyclists 91 Cyclists Brassmill Lane Industrial Area Count period Figure 1 A diagram showing manoeuvres at Brassmill Lane Table 4 Cyclist and motor vehicle manoeuvres at Brassmill Lane 07:00 09:01 11:01 13:01-09:00-11:00-13:00-15:00 hours hours hours hours Total % Common cycle manoeuvres: 8 to to to to Other Total Common motor vehicle manoeuvres: 1 to to to to to Other Total Table 5 Interactions at Brassmill Lane Time of Either inter- Description of party to Correct action interaction blame? procedure? 08:42 2 cyclists 4 to 10, stopped by traffic 9 to 10 No Yes 14:19 1 cyclist 8 to 4 confuses van 9 to 3 No Yes section of cycle track at least once a week and therefore, those interviewed had good experience of using the cycle track crossing. The Brassmill Lane crossing gives cyclists priority over motor on the minor road. It was found however, that some cyclists were confused as to who had priority at the crossing. Over half of the respondents (54%) thought that cyclists had the priority but 37% (wrongly) thought that drivers had the priority. Cyclists who use the cycle track crossing said that they tend to exercise extra caution when crossing Brassmill Lane, with 85% saying they always slowed when crossing. Cyclists were asked whether they considered the cycle track crossing was safe; 18% thought the crossing was very safe, 54% thought it was fairly safe and 18% thought it was fairly unsafe. Of those who thought the crossing was fairly unsafe, many observed that motor do not always stop to give way to cyclists and also that visibility for cyclists and car drivers is not good due to the large bushes which obstruct cyclist and driver vision. Most of the cyclists using the crossing found it easy to use (91%) due to the low flows of motor traffic and the good design. One cyclist suggested an improvement to the crossing should include changing the Slow marking to Caution - Traffic Conclusions In terms of the number of interactions which arose on the day of the video survey, Brassmill Lane cycle track crossing appears to function safely. However, some 6

11 cyclists interviewed highlighted features of the crossing which could lead to more dangerous interactions between cyclists and motor. Cyclists at Brassmill Lane have full priority over motor when approaching and using the crossing. Some cyclists, however, are unclear about the priority on the crossing. An improvement to the signing and markings at and near the crossing may reduce this confusion. In addition, the bushes near the crossing reduce visibility for cyclists and drivers. Overall, the layout and low flows of motor result in a crossing that is perceived by cyclists as safe and easy to use. Only two interactions were observed in an 8-hour period. Some minor modifications at the site could improve its overall safety. 3.2 Bedford Halsey Road/Kempston Road Location and design of Halsey Road crossing The Halsey Road cycle track crossing was installed in 1997 and gives full priority to cyclists using the crossing. It is bent out from the major road and is humped. The cycle track either side of the minor road runs parallel to Kempston Road. The crossing was developed to improve cycle routes into Bedford. Plate 2 shows the Halsey Road cycle track crossing. A plan of the Halsey Road crossing is given in Appendix A Video survey The video survey at Halsey Road in Bedford took place on 13th July 1999 between 07:00 hours and 11:00 hours. Plate 2 Halsey Road cycle track crossing Between these hours 171 cyclists used the cycle track crossing (Manoeuvre 8 to 7 and Manoeuvre 7 to 8) and 547 motor crossed the crossing (Manoeuvre 9 to 3, 1 to 3, 4 to 6 and 4 to 10). Figure 2 and Table 6 show the most common manoeuvres. Of the 112 cyclists making the cross-junction movement (1 to 6 and 7 to 8), only 14 (12.5%) did not use the cycle track, but preferred to cycle on the road. Female cyclists, many of whom were either accompanying young children or were elderly, were more likely to use the cycle track than the road. Not to scale 9 Kempston Road 35 Motor Motor Motor 14 Cyclists Motor Motor Halsey Road 8 98 Cyclists 73 Cyclists 7 Count period Figure 2 Manoeuvres at Halsey Road 7

12 Table 6 Cyclist and motor vehicle manoeuvres at Halsey Road 07:00 09:01-09:00-11:00 hours hours Total % Common cycle manoeuvres: 7 to to to Other* Total Common vehicle manoeuvres: 1 to to to to to Other* Total * Does not include movement 9 to 10, as not visible from camera angle The manoeuvres highlighted in bold text are most likely to lead to an interaction as they represent cyclist and motor in a possible cross-over situation (see Table 7). During the video survey 18 interactions were identified. Many of these interactions can be categorised as drivers or cyclists giving way to each other on the crossing. Although a relatively large number of interactions have been recorded, very few were hazardous. In fact, many of the cars and cyclist were showing signs of increased awareness and caution when using the crossing to prevent a dangerous situation arising. The majority of interactions were due to cyclists and cars being confused about who had priority at the crossing, or cyclists being unsure whether a car would give way to them. When considering the correct procedure column it can be seen that drivers behaving in the intended way caused ten of the eighteen interactions. The interactions at 09:27, 09:36 and 10:23 were identified as dangerous. Two of these interactions involved a car blocking the cycle crossing resulting in the cyclist making a dangerous manoeuvre around the motor vehicle. The remaining dangerous conflict at 09:36 was due to a driver not giving way to the cyclist Interview survey Fifty-two cyclists were interviewed in Bedford at the Halsey Road crossing. 78% of those interviewed were commuting. Of the fifty-two interviewed, 91% of the cyclists cycled along this section of cycle track at least once a week and therefore, those interviewed had good experience of using the cycle track crossing. The Halsey Road crossing gives cyclists full priority over the minor road traffic. However, only 60% of the respondents thought that cyclists had the priority compared to 31% who thought that drivers had the priority. Cyclists who use the cycle track tend to exercise extra caution when crossing. 90% always slow when crossing. Cyclists were asked whether they considered the cycle track crossing was safe; 52% thought it was fairly safe and 33% thought it was fairly unsafe. Cyclists who felt unsafe using the crossing were mainly concerned about priorities. Nineteen cyclists said that motorists didn t stop to give way or that cyclists and drivers were unsure about who had priority at the crossing. Many cyclists added that road signs and markings should clarify to drivers that cyclists have priority. A good design feature of the crossing was the humped cycle track as this meant that cars had to slow down and, this also helps to clearly designate the crossing as a cycle way. Although 73% of cyclists found the crossing easy to use, 23% found it difficult. The main difficulty was being unsure of whether cars would stop to give way to the cyclists. In addition, there were local factors at the site which made using the cycle track difficult. From Plate 2 it can be seen that there are tramline tactile paving slabs on the approaches to the cycle crossing which unbalance cyclists. In addition, the allocation of cycle space results in pedestrians walking between the road and the cycle track. This is uncomfortable for pedestrians, meaning that some choose to walk on the cycle track. Table 7 Interactions at Halsey Road Time of interaction Description of interaction Either party to blame? Correct procedure? 07:06 Cyclist 1 to 3 avoids cyclist 8 to 7 No Yes (Driver) 08:27 Car 9 to 3 stops for cyclist 8 to 7 ( very close ) Driver No 08:30 Car 9 to 3 slows for cyclist 7 to 8, second cyclist 7 to 8 slows for same car 9 to 3 No Yes (Driver) 08:42 Car 1 to 3 very close to cyclist 8 to 7 No Yes (Driver) 08:53 Cyclist 7 to 8 stops for car 9 to 3 Driver No 09:02 Cyclist 7 to 12 stops for car 9 to 3 Driver No 09:13 Cyclist 7 to 8 swerves round coach 9 to 3 Driver No 09:27 Car unneccesarily blocking the crossing, cyclist went around back of car and view obstructed to cars coming the other way. No Yes (Driver) 09:36 Cyclist dismounts for car 1 to 3 Cyclist No 09:55 Cyclist 7 to 8 dismounts for cars 1 to 3 & 4 to 6 Cyclist No 09:58 Car 9 to 3 stops for cyclist 8 to 7 No Yes (Driver) 10:07 Cyclist 8 to 7 stops for car 9 to 3 Driver No 10:15 Cyclist 8 to 7 delayed by car 9 to 3 Driver No 10:22 Car 1 to 3 stops for cyclist 7 to 8 No Yes (Driver) 10:23 Car 9 to 3 stops for cyclist 7 to 8 No Yes (Driver) 10:47 Car 4 to 6 stops for cyclist 8 to 7 No Yes (Driver) 10:48 Car 1 to 3 stops for ped 8 to 7 No Yes (Driver) 10:58 Car 1 to 3 stops for 3 cyclists 8 to 7 No Yes (Driver) 8

13 Cyclists suggested the following improvements to the crossing:! Road markings must be made clearer.! A give way sign should make the priorities clearer Conclusions Cyclists have full priority to cross the minor road. Some cyclists, however, are confused about whether cars or cyclists have priority and this makes cyclists feel unsafe when using the crossing. The interview and video surveys highlighted that cyclists exercise caution at this crossing by being alert to other road users and slowing down. Cyclists do this because they are unclear about the priority or are aware that drivers may not give way. Although this confusion results in some cyclists feeling unsafe, it does slow cyclists as they approach the crossing and therefore reduces the chances of a serious incident. Overall, cyclists liked the design of the crossing, especially the humped feature. This requires motorists to slow down at the crossing as well as providing a smooth and flat, designated cycle track. 3.3 Oxford Prestwich Place/Botley Road Location and design of Prestwich Place crossing The Prestwich Place cycle track crossing was installed in It is part of the continuous segregated cycle route along Botley Road into Oxford from the west of the city. The crossing gives part priority to cyclists. Cyclists give way to drivers turning in from the major road but have priority over drivers turning out of Prestwich Place. The crossing is humped and straight, providing no reservoir for drivers to stop if cyclists are on the crossing. There is a 3.0 metre wide bus lane on Botley Road adjacent to the cycle track. The visibility splay from Prestwich Place along Botley Road is restricted due to buildings. If a motor vehicle stops at the give way line, behind the cycle track, the driver will be able to see only approximately 30 metres along the carriageway to the right (assuming an X distance of 2.4 metres from behind the first give way line). Visibility along the cycle track is inevitably more restricted by the building. Plate 3 shows the Prestwich Place cycle track crossing. A plan of the Prestwich Place crossing is given in Appendix A Video survey The video survey at Prestwich Place in Oxford took place on 5 th September 1999 between 07:00 hours and 11:00 hours. Between these hours 275 cyclists used the cycle track crossing (Manoeuvre 8 to 7 and Manoeuvre 7 to 8) and 20 motor crossed the crossing (Manoeuvres 4 to 10, 4 to 6 and 1 to 3). Figure 3 and Table 8 show the most common manoeuvres. Table 8 shows that only 7% of cyclists travelling along Botley Road into Oxford City Centre on the morning of the survey (movement 13 to 14) chose to cycle on-road rather than on the cycle track. Women and children were more likely to use the cycle track than the road. The manoeuvres highlighted in bold text are most likely Plate 3 Prestwich Place cycle track crossing to lead to a interaction as they represent cyclist and motor in a possible cross-over situation. On the morning of the video survey, 5 interactions were identified (See Table 9). All but one interaction were due to a motor vehicle stopping on the crossing, causing a cyclist to divert around the car. This type of interaction can be partly attributed to the constraints of the junction. The intention is that motor waiting to turn onto the major road should wait behind the give way markings, before the humped cycle track crossing. This allows cyclists priority to cross the minor road whilst cars wait for a gap in traffic on the major road. An interaction often (in percentage but not absolute terms) arises when drivers turning out of the minor road do not stop behind the humped cycle track crossing but instead stop on the crossing, obstructing the cyclist s path. Motor turning into the minor road, however, have priority over cyclists crossing the minor road. If this situation arises, cyclists should give way to the driver turning into the minor road. The reasons for drivers blocking the cycle track are likely to be the need to improve their view of traffic on the major road (including the cycle track) and, in busy traffic conditions, to move forward to take advantage of gaps in the traffic. It is possible that some drivers did not know that they were supposed to stop behind the crossing and give way to cyclists. However, there was evidence that some drivers did know. For example, at 07:23 a car reversed off the crossing to allow a cyclist to cross. The visibility splay from Prestwich Place along the major road is limited due to buildings. This also makes it impossible to bend out the cycle track. Along with the heavy traffic on the major road, this is almost certainly major reason for the cars stopping on the cycle track. In addition the cycle track crossing is humped and if the car stops behind the hump to give way to cyclists, acceleration is reduced, as the driver has to drive over the hump before 9

14 Not to scale Botley Road Motor 4 Motor Motor 1 19 Cyclists, 131 Buses Bus Lane Cyclists Cyclists Motor Prestwich Place Count period Figure 3 Manoeuvres at Prestwich Place Table 8 Cyclist and motor vehicle manoeuvres at Prestwich Place 07:00 09:01-09:00-11:00 hours hours Total % Common cycle manoeuvres 7 to to to to Other Total Common vehicle manoeuvres 1 to to to to to to Other Total entering the major road. This type of interaction may have been increased due to the video survey occurring in the busy morning peak time, when traffic flow was high and steady with few gaps in the traffic. Vehicles therefore needed faster acceleration to pull out of Prestwich Place. This type of interaction however, often causes cyclists to make a potentially hazardous manoeuvre around the obstructing car. Most cyclists cycled around the front of the car and into the road before returning to the cycle track on the other side of the junction. The interactions at 07:18 and 08:42 were identified as dangerous as both cyclists swerved into the major road to avoid the car on the crossing Interview survey Fifty cyclists were interviewed in Oxford at the Prestwich Place crossing, with 82% of those interviewed commuting. Of the 50 interviewed, 90% of the cyclists cycled along this section of cycle track at least once a week and therefore, those interviewed had good experience of using the cycle track crossing. Table 9 Interactions at Prestwich Place Time of Description Either party Correct interaction of interaction to blame? procedure? 07:18 Cyclist 7 to 8 forced out in front of car 4 to 10 Driver No 07:22 2 Cyclists 7 to 8 go round pedestrian 1 to 8 07:23 Car 4 to 10 backs away to allow Cyclist clear path to proceed Driver No 08:42 3 Cyclists 7 to 8 forced into major road by car 4 to 6 Driver No 08:55 Cyclist 7 to 8 forced round back of car 4 to 10 Driver No 10

15 The Prestwich Place crossing gives cyclists only part priority to cross the minor road. Only 25% of the cyclists interviewed thought that cyclists should give way, compared to 61% who thought that drivers should give way. This confusion about who has priority could result in interactions between cyclists and motor. This arrangement of partial priority for cyclists and motor is difficult for users to understand. Cyclists who use the cycle track tend to exercise less caution than observed at other sites when crossing the minor road. Only 29% always slow when crossing, 24% usually slow and 42% occasionally slow. Cyclists were asked whether they considered the cycle track crossing was safe; 55% thought it was fairly safe and 14% thought it was fairly unsafe. Cyclists felt safer at this junction as fewer cars exit or enter Prestwich Place. Cyclists suggested the following improvements to the crossing:! Driver stop line (on exit from Prestwich Place) should be moved back to give cyclists priority.! Take cycle track off pavement and provide a cycle lane.! Install mirror to improve driver visibility. track, the driver will be able to see only approximately 45 metres along the carriageway to the right (assuming an X distance of 2.4 metres from behind the first give way line). The visibility along the cycle track is even more restricted. Plate 4 shows the crossing at Davenant Road. A plan of the Davenant Road crossing is given in Appendix A Conclusions The interview survey highlighted that cyclists are confused about who has priority at the cycle track crossing. Cyclists, however, appeared to exercise less caution than at other sites surveyed. There were no interactions caused by motorists and cyclists being unsure of priority. The key difference between the Prestwich Place crossing and the crossings at Brassmill Lane, and Halsey Road, is that Prestwich Place does not have a cycle track crossing which bends away from the major road. This is not possible due to site constraints. The video showed this results in interactions between cyclists and motor as the latter stop on the crossing and block the cyclists path. This sometimes causes them to make a potentially hazardous manoeuvre around the car. However, as flows into and out of Prestwich Place are very low, this reduces the chance of an incident. 3.4 Oxford Davenant Road/Woodstock Road Location and design of Davenant Road crossing The Davenant Road cycle track crossing was installed in 1993 to create a continuous cycle route along Woodstock Road into the centre of Oxford. The improvement to the cycle facilities in the area was aimed directly at encouraging school children to cycle to school. The crossing gives part priority to cyclists. Cyclists give way to drivers turning in from the major road but have priority over drivers turning out of Davenant Road. The crossing is humped and straight, providing no reservoir for drivers to stop if cyclists are on the crossing. There is a 3.0 metre wide bus lane on Woodstock Road adjacent to the cycle track. The visibility splay from Davenant Road along Woodstock Road is restricted due to the buildings. If a motor vehicle stops at the give way line, behind the cycle Plate 4 Davenant Road cycle track crossing Video survey The video survey at Davenant Road in Oxford took place on 2 nd July 1999 between 07:00 hours and 11:00 hours. Between these hours 107 cyclists used the cycle track crossing (Manoeuvre 8 to 7 and Manoeuvre 7 to 8) and 201 motor crossed the crossing (Manoeuvre 9 to 3, 1 to 3, 4 to 6 and 4 to 10). Figure 4 and Table 10 show the most common manoeuvres. Table 10 reveals that the majority of cyclists using Woodstock Road prefer to use the on-road route (in the bus lane) rather than the cycle track. The majority of cyclists (61%) travelling towards Oxford City Centre used the bus lane. Cyclists using the cycle track tended to be female or older males. The manoeuvres highlighted in bold text are most likely to lead to an interaction as they represent cyclist and motor in a possible cross-over situation. Ten interactions were identified in the video survey (see Table 11). Interactions at Davanant Road were similar to those observed at Prestwich Place due to the similarities in design and layout. The majority of interactions therefore, were caused by motor stopping on the cycle track crossing. The video analysis, however, also highlighted an interaction between the vehicle stopped at the minor road waiting to pull out and cyclists moving from 13 to 14 in the bus lane. Motor were pulling out beyond the mouth of the junction into the bus lane to wait for a gap. At Davanant Road therefore, motor conflicted with both cyclists on the cycle track and cyclists on the road. However, it was noticeable that the cyclists in the road who were affected by an obstructing car were less 11

16 Not to scale Bladon Close 9 Woodstock Road Motor 6 83 Motor 2859 Motor Cyclists, 97 Buses Bus Lane 8 96 Cyclists 11 Cyclists Motor 43 Motor Davenant Road 12 Count period Figure 4 Manoeuvres at Davenant Road Table 10 Cyclist and motor vehicle manoeuvres at Davenant Road 07:00 09:01-09:00-11:00 hours hours Total % Common cycle manoeuvres 13 to to to Other Total Common vehicle manoeuvres 1 to to to to to to Other Total affected than cyclists on the cycle track. The cyclists on the road made less of a deviation in their path than the cyclists on the track. The interaction at 09:01 was identified as particularly dangerous as the cyclist was forced to swerve into the main carriageway. The interactions involving 2 cyclists, one on the cycle track and one on the road were also particularly hazardous Interview survey Fifty-one cyclists were interviewed at the Davenant Road crossing, with 82% of those interviewed commuting. Of the 51 interviewed, 89% of the cyclists cycled along this section of cycle track at least once a week and therefore, those interviewed had good experience of using the cycle track crossing. The Davanant Road crossing gives cyclists partial priority: they are required to give way to drivers turning in from the major road but have priority over drivers turning out of Davanant Road. The majority of cyclists (63%) thought that drivers had to give way compared to 27% who Table 11 Interactions at Davenant Road Time of Description Either party Correct interaction of interaction to blame? procedure? 07:22 2 Cyclists 7 to 8 obstructed by car 3 to 10 (Go around ) Driver No 08:16 Cyclist 8 to 7 deviates behind 2 cars Driver No 08:26 2 cyclists 7 to 8 & 13 to 14, forced around car 4 to 10 Driver No 08:27 2 cyclists 7 to 8 & 13 to 14, forced around car 4 to 10 Driver No 08:35 2 Cyclists 7 to 8 & 13 to 14, forced around 2 cars Driver No 08:36 1 Cyclist 7 to 8 forced around car 4 to 10 Driver No 08:43 2 Cyclists 7 to 8 & 13 to 14, forced around car 4 to 10 Driver No 08:44 2 Cyclists 7 to 8 & 13 to 14, forced out by car 4 to 10 Driver No 09:01 Cyclist 7 to 8 swerves to avoid car 4 to 6 Driver No 09:04 Cyclist 7 to 8 swerves to avoid car 4 to 6 Driver No 12

17 thought that cyclists should give way. 43% always slow when crossing and 47% usually slow. Cyclists were asked whether they considered the cycle track crossing was safe: 57% thought it was fairly safe and 10% thought it was fairly unsafe. Cyclists observed that the crossing was safe because cyclists had good visibility of the road traffic, whereas, car drivers had poor visibility. In addition, as Davenant Road is fairly busy, many cyclists take more care as they are unsure whether motor are going to give way. The majority of cyclists (70%) using the crossing found it easy to use compared to 17% who found it fairly difficult. The difficulties highlighted were the dropped kerb being too severe and the problems of looking in all directions for traffic, especially with a junction opposite Davanant Road. Cyclists suggested the following improvements to the crossing:! Need better visibility at the junction for drivers.! Better signs.! Should be sign for drivers turning left to inform them they are crossing a cycle track.! Enforcement of rights of way.! (There are) no warning signs for drivers.! More distinct cycle track.! Cars to give way. 3.5 Shrewsbury Grange Road/Roman Road Location and design of Grange Road crossing The Grange Road cycle track crossing was installed in 1990 (approximately) as part of the cycle track along Roman Road. The cycle track was developed to improve the safety of children who cycled to school, especially as Roman Road was then the A5. It has since been bypassed. The cycle track crossing gives no priority to cyclists and is designed as a straight route across the minor road. Plate 5 shows the Grange Road cycle track crossing. A plan of the Grange Road crossing is given in Appendix A Conclusions The evidence from the video and the interview surveys suggest that Davanant Road crossing presents difficulties for users. Some cyclists are unclear about whether they have priority and are unsure whether are going to give way. The partial priority for cyclists is unusual and probably harder for users to easily understand. Cyclists have to be aware of traffic approaching from many different directions, especially as there is a junction almost opposite Davenant Road. Although cyclists have good visibility they are aware that drivers visibility is generally poor. This poor visibility results in increased interaction between motor and cyclists both on road and on the cycle track, as drivers need to edge forward to improve their vision. In addition, the humped cycle track crossing discourages drivers from giving way to cyclists as it slows their acceleration when pulling out onto the major road. A comparison between this cycle track crossing and the similar site at Prestwich Place emphasises the need for sites to have good visibility. In addition, other factors such as high vehicle flows on the major and minor roads increase interaction and reduce the perceived safety of the crossing. Prestwich Place and Davenant Road both have an alternative parallel bus lane for cyclists to use. The low flows of motor out of Prestwich Place and the good visibility for all road users encourage cyclists to use the cycle track. At Davanant Road there are more motor vehicle turning movements, a good on-road alternative route and confusion about whether will give way. Therefore, cyclists feel safer using the road. Plate 5 Grange Road cycle track crossing Video survey The video survey at Grange Road in Shrewsbury took place on 5th July 1999 between 13:00 hours and 18:15 hours. As Figure 5 shows, there were two junctions that could be surveyed simultaneously. Junction 1 Between these hours 75 cyclists used the cycle track crossing (Manoeuvre 8 to 7 and Manoeuvre 7 to 8) and 131 motor crossed the crossing (Manoeuvre 9 to 3, 4 to 6 and 4 to 10). Figure 5 and Tables 12 and 14 show the most common manoeuvres. On the afternoon of the video survey 5 interactions were identified at junction 1 (see Table 13). Junction 2 Between these hours 69 cyclists used the cycle track crossing (Manoeuvre 8 to 7 and Manoeuvre 7 to 8) and 226 motor crossed the crossing (Manoeuvre 9 to 3 and 1 to 3). Table 14 shows the most common manoeuvres. On the afternoon of the survey, 1 interaction was identified at junction 2 (see Table 15). Tables 12 and 14 show that approximately a quarter of cyclists choose to cycle on-road (Manoeuvre 1 to 6). The majority of cyclists using the crossing were children. 13

18 Not to scale Roman Road Motor Motor Motor 19 Cyclists Motor 19 Cyclists Cyclists Cyclists 17 Cyclists Motor 118 Motor 108 Motor 2 7 Grange Road (Junction 1) Grange Road (Junction 2) Count period Figure 5 Manoeuvres at Grange Road Table 12 Cyclist and motor vehicle manoeuvres at Grange Road (Junction 1) 13:00 15:01 17:01-15:00-17:00-18:15 hours hours hours Total % Common cycle manoeuvres 7 to to to Other Total Common vehicle manoeuvres 1 to to to to Other Table 14 Cyclist and motor vehicle manoeuvres at Grange Road (Junction 2) 13:00 15:01 17:01-15:00-17:00-18:15 hours hours hours Total % Common cycle manoeuvres 7 to to to Other Total Common vehicle manoeuvres 1 to to to Other Total Total Table 13 Interactions at Grange Road (Junction 1) Time of Description Either party Correct interaction of Interaction to blame? procedure? 13:08 Cyclist 7 to 8 forced around stopped car 4 to 10 Driver No 14:58 Car 4 to 10 reverses for cyclist 7 to 8 Driver No 17:08 Cyclist 7 to 8 forced round back stopped car 4 to 6 Driver No 17:21 Cyclist 7 to 8 forced round back stopped car 4 to 6 Driver No 17:42 Cyclist 7 to 8 forced round back stopped car 4 to 6 Driver No 14