Cyclist safety at road works

TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY Cyclist safety at road works Prepared for Driver Information and Traffic Management Divison, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions D G Davies, T J Ryley, G A Coe and N L Guthrie TRL REPORT 370

First Published 1998 ISSN 0968-4107 Copyright Transport Research Laboratory 1998. This report has been produced by the Transport Research Laboratory, 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. Transport Research Foundation Group of Companies Transport Research Foundation (a company limited by guarantee) trading as Transport Research Laboratory. Registered in England, Number 3011746. TRL Limited. Registered in England, Number 3142272. Registered Offices: Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire, RG45 6AU.

CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Aims and objectives 3 1.2 Extent of road works in the UK 3 1.3 Definitions and legal framework 3 1.4 Issues affecting cyclists 3 2 Project methodology 3 3 Accidents involving cyclists at road works 1992-1996 4 3.1 Summary of the accident data 4 3.2 Comparison of AICARW and AICNARW 4 3.3 Discussion 7 4 Cyclist and driver behaviour at road works 8 4.1 Video survey 8 4.2 The sites 8 5 Layout of road works 17 5.1 Survey by highway inspectors 17 5.2 Route diversions 18 5.3 Contract conditions and codes of practice 20 6 Conclusions and recommendations 20 6.1 Conclusions 20 6.2 Discussion of lane widths 20 6.3 Recommendations 21 7 References 22 8 Acknowledgements 22 Appendix A: Survey form used by highway inspectors 23 Abstract 25 Related publications 25 iii

iv

Executive Summary The number of road works in Great Britain is estimated to be in the order of three million per annum. About 200 cyclists are reported injured each year at road works in Great Britain, including some 40 serious or fatal injuries, although the road works are not necessarily a contributory factor in all cases. The objective of this project is to investigate the extent of any accident problem and, if appropriate, to see if ways can be found to improve safety. It is part of a larger research project (Innovative Cycle Schemes) funded by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The project comprises three main elements: an analysis of accidents involving cyclists at road works for the five years 1992-1996 using STATS19 road accident data for Great Britain; video filming of five road works sites to obtain information on driver and cyclist behaviour; and a survey by local authority highway inspectors of road works in their areas, to provide information on aspects of the layout of road works that might affect cyclists. The accident analysis shows that cyclists are involved in 5% of accidents at road works. Although this does not itself constitute a particularly serious problem - cyclists are involved in 11% of all accidents - the average injury severity for cyclists involved in these accidents is above the average for accidents involving cyclists elsewhere. Accidents involving cyclists at road works have many of the same features as accidents involving cyclists not at road works. However, there are certain differences. In particular, they are more likely to involve an adult cyclist, to involve a car striking the rear or off-side of the bicycle, or to involve the cyclist hitting an object in the carriageway. They are also more likely to occur on A roads and on roads with higher speed limits, which may explain the above average accident severity. The video film at five sites recorded 2,272 cyclists in 86 hours. Instances of non-standard road user behaviour, in which a cyclist was involved, were noted and analysed to see if they involved potential risk. Cases of non-standard behaviour observed include drivers overtaking cyclists with minimal passing distance, driving on the footway to pass, drivers following very close behind cyclists, cyclists riding on the footway to avoid narrow lanes or delay, and cyclists ignoring a Road Closure sign to gain access. No collisions or accidents were observed. The information supplied by the highway inspectors on the layout of road works showed that the width of lanes was typically 3.0-3.5 metres over a 50 metres distance, controlled by temporary traffic signals. In virtually all cases, the inspectors did not note any particular hazards for cyclists or any special provision for them as part of the layout of the road works. The main conclusion from the research is that drivers attempt to overtake with inadequate width. This should be addressed by more use of lower temporary speed limits, possibly in conjunction with speed reducing measures, and revised guidelines on lane widths, backed by driver education and changes to the Highway Code. 1

2

1 Introduction 1.1 Aims and objectives The purpose of this project is to investigate the safety of cyclists at road works. In particular, to examine the implications of road works for the safety of cyclists, the extent of any existing accident problems, and where possible the use of techniques, innovative or already developed, which could be used to overcome any problems. The project is concerned with the temporary conditions - the cones, guard rail, temporary surfaces, etc and the consequent traffic behaviour, rather than the type or quality of the excavation work or the reinstatement. The project forms a part of a wider study by TRL, funded by DETR, into Innovative Cycle Schemes. The aim of the overall project is to investigate and advise on schemes providing for the safe and convenient movement of cyclists in both an urban and rural context, for existing or proposed roads, or other appropriate routes, and for both permanent and temporary conditions. 1.2 Extent of road works in the UK The number of road works in Great Britain has been estimated to be in the order of three million per annum, prior to the increase in cable TV installation. This represents, on average, 8.3 openings per year per kilometre of road. These range from minor openings in the footway, lasting less than an hour, to major works such as structural maintenance of the carriageway, or bridge strengthening, possibly involving road closures and diversions over weeks or months. 1.3 Definitions and legal framework In this report, the term road works is used in its common language sense, to encompass all types of works affecting the highway ( road in Scotland). This includes highway works (maintenance and improvements) and street works (works to services such as gas and water located in or above the highway). It is concerned with those aspects that may affect the road user, particularly the cyclist. The legal definitions are more complex. Road works are activities involving work on apparatus in or above the street, and are governed by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (Parts III and IV), and the regulations and codes of practice made under the Act. (The legislation refers to street works in England and Wales and to road works in Scotland. In this report the term road works is used to cover both.) The layout and safety procedures for road works are contained in Safety at street works and road works. A code of practice (DOT, 1992), often referred to as The Blue Book, issued by the Secretary of State under sections 65 and 124 of the Act. Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual (DOT, 1991) includes issues not covered by the code of practice and is an essential source of further information; although the document does not have the status of a code of practice. Guidance on safety at road works is also contained in advice notes published by the County Surveyors Society (CSS, 1994). Other works carried out by highway authorities are covered by more general provisions in highways legislation. 1.4 Issues affecting cyclists Various aspects of road works, such as reduced lane widths, temporary road surfaces and the timing of temporary signals, have the potential to cause safety problems for cyclists. Lane widths may be reduced well below normal widths: the Code of Practice (DOT, 1992) states that, in locations where traffic is expected to consist of cars and light vehicles (i.e. very few heavy vehicles), the lane width may be reduced to 2.75 metres (minimum desirable) or 2.5 metres (absolute minimum); it recognises that long sections of narrow lane can cause difficulties for cyclists but does not contain any specific advice. Although many aspects of safety at road works have been investigated (for example DOT 1982), there does not appear to be any previous research into the specific issue of cyclist safety at road works. The Cyclists Touring Club has published a policy statement (CTC, 1997) on highway repair and maintenance issues, including the layout of road works. Dutch recommendations on the layout of road works to accommodate cyclists are contained in Sign up for the bike. Design manual for a cycle-friendly infrastructure. (CROW, 1993, Chapter 10). However, these detailed arrangements, although valuable, are probably more applicable to situations where there are segregated cycle facilities and large numbers of cyclists - often not the case in the UK. 2 Project methodology The research consisted of the following three main phases: 1 Analysis of accidents involving cyclists at road works, using STATS19 road accident data for the five years 1992-96 for Great Britain. The factors looked at include: accident mechanism ie. cyclist alone or cyclist collision with another vehicle; accident severity; road type; junction type; daylight/darkness and other factors. 2 Video filming of five road works sites, selected to represent a range of conditions that cyclists normally encounter. The sites included different methods of traffic control (priority give-way, stop-go boards or temporary signals), locations (at or away from junctions) and settings (urban or rural). Site selection was made with the cooperation of the local highway authority. All sites complied with Chapter 8 regulations. The video filming provided information on driver and cyclist behaviour and interactions related to the road works, including possible conflicts. It is also used to monitor such aspects as traffic signal timings to see if cyclists have sufficient time to pass through the road works. 3 Survey by highway inspectors. Discussions were held with the highway inspectors of two local highway authorities to listen to their views on the issues. Subsequently, they completed survey forms, designed by TRL, for the road works that they visited, photographing key features. This provided information on the layout of road works, including lane widths, temporary road surfaces, methods of controlling traffic, and any other features likely to affect the safety of cyclists. The completed forms and photographs were returned to TRL for analysis. 3

3 Accidents involving cyclists at road works 1992-1996 This section presents the results of an analysis of reported accidents involving cyclists at road works from STATS19 injury accident data, for the five years from January 1992 to December 1996 for Great Britain. Accidents at road works are defined in this report as those accidents at which road works were present, as recorded by the Police at variable 1.24 on the STATS19 form. (Variable 2.12 records whether any vehicle struck the road works.) Because of the large number of road works and road accidents, it should not be assumed that the road works were necessarily a contributory factor to the accidents in all cases. There is a large random element in the location of road accidents and some would be expected to occur at road works simply by statistical coincidence. The objective of the analysis is to examine the nature of Accidents Involving Cyclists at Road Works (abbreviated in this report to AICARW). The accident variables considered include accident severity, user age and sex, light conditions, weather, time of day, carriageway type, junction type, vehicle involvement, vehicle manoeuvre and point of impact. The variables for AICARW are compared with the same variables collected for Accidents Involving Cyclists Not At Road Works (abbreviated to AICNARW). The STATS19 accidents data are shown in Tables 1 to 15. 3.1 Summary of the accident data Over the five year period there was a total of 1,162,306 personal injury accidents, involving all road user groups, recorded in the STATS19 database, of which 18,276 (1.6%) occurred at road works (Table 1). Over the same period there were 124,221 accidents involving a cyclist and, of these, 950 (0.8%) occurred at road works. Accidents at road works, therefore, make up a higher proportion of accidents for all road users than for cyclists. Some of this difference can probably be explained by the relatively high incidence of reported motorway accidents which involve road works, which of course do not include cyclists (DOT 1982). It may also explain why cyclists are involved in 10.7% of all accidents but only (5.2%) of accidents at road works (Table 2). The 950 AICARW involved 952 cyclists (at least one accident involved more than one bicycle) (Table 3). This resulted in 947 cyclist casualties (Table 4) of which 11 were fatalities and 171 were seriously injured (Table 5). This gives an accident severity index (percentage of accidents involving casualties killed or seriously injured) for AICARW of 0.19, slightly above the index for AICNARW (0.16) over the same period. The difference is statistically significant. The accident severity index for all road users at all locations over the five year period is 0.18. On average, therefore, there are approximately 190 AICARW each year, resulting in approximately 2 fatal injuries, 35 serious injuries and 150 slight injuries to cyclists. The vast majority (88%) of the 950 AICARW also involved a motor vehicle (Table 7). However, the motor vehicle occupants were very unlikely to be injured (Table 4). 880 motor vehicles were involved in these accidents and 33 motor vehicle occupants were injured in these accidents. Only nine AICARW (1%) involved pedestrians, resulting in ten pedestrian casualties. 3.2 Comparison of AICARW and AICNARW The main characteristics of AICARW are summarised below (taken from Tables 6 to 10); and compared with AICNARW. AICARW AICNARW Most involved: l another vehicle 88% 95% # l male cyclists 80% 79% l adult cyclists (over 16) 77% 65% # Most occurred: l during daylight hours 81% 80% l when the road surface was dry 78% 77% l in speed limits 30 mph or less 78% 84% # l on single lane carriageways 74% 80% # l on A roads 55% 39% # Note: # = difference between characteristic of AICARW and AICNARW is statistically significant at the 99% certainty level. This analysis shows that most AICARW are similar to most AICNARW in most respects. However, AICARW differ from AICNARW (statistically significant difference at the 99% level) in that they are more likely to involve adult cyclists (Table 6), to involve no other vehicle (Table 7), to occur on dual carriageways (Table 9), on A roads (Table 10) and on roads with speed limits above 30 mph (Table 11). Of the 110 AICARW involving no other vehicle, a higher proportion (32%) occurred in darkness, than the proportion (18%) of the 840 AICARW involving other vehicles that occurred in darkness (Table 8). However, in terms of all AICARW, there was a lower proportion of accidents occurring in darkness (19%) than for AICNARW (21%). No significant differences were found in weather conditions for AICARW and AICNARW. The proportion of AICARW occurring on dual carriageways (12%) was higher than the proportion of AICNARW occurring on dual carriageways ( 7%) (Table 9). On A roads the proportions were 55% and 39% respectively (Table 10). The relationships between vehicle speed and injury severity are similar in AICARW and AICNARW: the higher the speed limit, the more seriously injured the cyclist tended to be. Injury severity also increases with the road classification (A, B, C, etc.) which is probably also a reflection of the higher speeds and higher volumes of heavy vehicles on higher class roads (Tables 10 and 11). All of these differences are statistically significant at the 99% level. If the location of the accidents is examined in terms of junction type (Table 11), then the distribution of accidents was generally similar for AICARW and AICNARW. However, 30% of AICARW occurred away from junctions compare to 27% of AICNARW - a difference statistically significant at the 95% level. This probably reflects the higher incidence of road works on non-built up roads. 4

Table 1 The proportion of accidents occuring at road works and elsewhere (GB, 1992-1996) Accidents AICARW 950 0.76% AICNARW 123,271 99.24% All accidents involving cyclists 124,221 100.00% Table 3 Vehicles involved in accidents involving cyclists at road works (GB, 1992-1996) Pedal Pedes- Motor cycles trians vehicles Total AICARW: Vehicles/ peds involved 952 10 880 1,842 All accidents at road works 18,276 1.57% All accidents not at road works 1,144,030 98.43% All road accidents 1,162,306 100.00% AICARW = Accidents involving cyclists at road works AICNARW = Accidents involving cyclists not at road works Table 2 The proportion of accidents at road works and elsewhere involving cyclists (GB, 1992-1996) Accidents AICARW 950 5.20% All accidents at road works 18,276 100.00% All accidents involving cyclists 124,221 10.69% All road accidents 1,162,306 100.00% Table 4 Casualties by road user type in accidents involving cyclists (GB, 1992-1996) Motor Pedal Pedes- vehicle cyclists trians occupants Total AICARW 947 10 33 990 AICNARW 122,137 2,108 4,816 129,061 Table 5 Severity of cyclist casualties in accidents involving cyclists (GB, 1992-1996) Fatal Serious Slight Total casualties AICARW 11 1.16% 171 18.06% 765 80.78% 947 AICNARW 967 0.79% 18389 15.06% 102,781 84.15% 122,137 All road accidents 17,211 1.48% 194,593 16.74% 950,502 81.78% 1,162,306 Table 6 Age and sex of cyclists involved in accidents (GB, 1992-1996) <16 16-59 60+ Unclassified Total AICARW: Male 155 20.37% 541 71.09% 44 5.78% 21 2.76% 761 AICNARW: Male 32,455 32.73% 59,187 59.69% 4,775 4.82% 2,747 2.77% 99,164 AICARW: Female 25 13.09% 149 78.01% 14 7.33% 3 1.57% 191 AICNARW: Female 6,850 27.36% 16,153 64.51% 1,407 5.62% 628 2.51% 25,038 AICARW: Both sexes 32,635 32.60% 59,877 59.81% 4,833 4.83% 2,771 2.77% 100,116 AICNARW: Both sexes* 39,330 31.51% 75,410 60.41% 6,183 4.95% 3,903 3.13% 124,826 * Includes a small number with sex unclassified Table 7 Accidents involving cyclists by accident type (GB, 1992-1996) Pedal cycle + motor vehicle* Pedal cycle only Pedal cycle + pedestrian Total AICARW 840 88.42% 101 10.63% 9 0.95% 950 AICNARW* 116,497 94.50% 5,117 4.15% 1,657 1.34% 123,271 * Includes 397 accidents in which a pedestrian was also involved. 5

Table 8 Light conditions at accidents involving cyclists (GB, 1992-1996) Daylight Darkness Total* AICARW 765 80.53% 184 19.37% 950 AICNARW 97,837 79.37% 25,372 20.58% 123,271 AICARW: No other vehicle involved 75 68.18% 35 31.82% 110 AICARW: Other vehicle involved 690 82.14% 149 17.74% 840 *Includes a small number with conditions unclassified Table 9 Carriageway type at accidents involving cyclists (GB, 1992-1996) Single carriageway Dual carriageway One way street Roundabout Total* AICARW 701 73.79% 113 11.89% 36 3.79% 94 9.89% 950 AICNARW 99,125 80.41% 8,683 7.04% 3,597 2.92% 10,713 8.69% 123,271 *Includes a small number with carriageway type unclassified Table 10 Distribution and severity of accidents involving cyclists by road class (GB, 1992-1996) A* B C Unclassified road Total AICARW: Fatal & Serious 112 58.95% 23 12.11% 17 8.95% 38 20.00% 190 AICNARW: Fatal & Serious 7,974 39.85% 2,493 12.46% 1,990 9.95% 7,553 37.75% 20,010 AICARW: Slight 409 53.82% 107 14.08% 78 10.26% 166 21.84% 760 AICNAR: Slight 40,002 38.74% 12,226 11.84% 9,942 9.63% 41,091 39.79% 103,261 AICARW: All severities 521 54.84% 130 13.68% 95 10.00% 204 21.47% 950 AICNARW: All severities 47,976 38.92% 14,719 11.94% 11,932 9.68% 48,644 39.46% 123,271 * Includes a small number on Motorways and A(M) class roads. Table 11 Distribution and severity of accidents by speed limit at accidents involving cyclists (GB, 1992-1996) mph < 30 40 50 60 70 Total AICARW: Fatal & Serious 126 66.32% 26 13.68% 7 3.68% 29 15.26% 2 1.05% 190 AICNARW: Fatal & Serious 14,775 73.84% 1,559 7.79% 193 0.96% 2,907 14.53% 568 2.84% 20,010 AICARW: Slight 617 81.18% 57 7.50% 17 2.24% 54 7.11% 15 1.97% 760 AICNARW: Slight 88,952 86.14% 6,276 6.08% 572 0.55% 6,507 6.30% 916 0.89% 103,261 AICARW: All severities 743 78.21% 83 8.74% 24 2.53% 83 8.74% 17 1.79% 950 AICNARW: All severities* 103,727 84.15% 7,835 6.36% 765 0.62% 9,416 7.64% 1,484 1.20% 123,271 * Includes a small number with speed unclassified Table 12 Junction type at accidents involving cyclists (GB, 1992-1996) Private drive Not at or within Roundabout T junction Other junction or entrance 20m of junction Total AICARW 105 11.05% 365 38.42% 151 15.89% 44 4.63% 285 30.00% 950 AICNARW* 12,265 9.95% 49,990 40.55% 20,456 16.59% 7445 6.04% 33,107 26.86% 123,271 * Includes a small number with junction unclassified 6

Table 13 Object in carriageway hit by pedal cycle, at accidents involving only cyclists (GB, 1992-1996) Other manoeuvre Road works Kerb / unclassified None Total AICARW 35 31.82% 4 3.64% 17 15.45% 54 49.09% 110 AICNARW 0 0.00% 615 9.08% 261 3.85% 5,898 87.07% 6,774 Table 14 Vehicle manoeuvre of cyclists and motor vehicles, at accidents involving cyclists (GB, 1992-1996) Going Left turn Right turn Changing Other manoeuvre ahead manoeuvre manoeuvre lane Overtake / unclassified Total AICARW: Pedal cycle 703 73.84% 23 2.42% 85 8.93% 26 2.73% 71 7.46% 44 4.62% 952 AICNARW: Pedal cycle 95,911 76.84% 3,495 2.80% 12,351 9.89% 2,505 2.01% 6,852 5.49% 3,712 2.97% 124,826 AICARW: Motor vehicle 359 40.80% 94 10.68% 149 16.93% 33 3.75% 98 11.14% 147 16.70% 880 AICNARW: Motor vehicle 52,963 44.39% 13,206 11.07% 22,955 19.24% 1,553 1.30% 9,620 8.06% 19,016 15.94% 119,313 Table 15 First point of vehicle impact in accidents involving cyclists and another vehicle (GB, 1992-1996) Did not impact Front Back Offside Nearside / Unclassified Total Pedal cycle: AICARW 400 47.51% 123 14.61% 181 21.50% 96 11.40% 42 4.99% 842 AICNARW 64,446 54.59% 15,227 12.90% 19,537 16.55% 13,411 11.36% 5,431 4.60% 118,052 Motor vehicle: AICARW: 363 41.25% 62 7.05% 124 14.09% 253 28.75% 78 8.86% 880 AICNARW 57,577 48.26% 8,411 7.05% 20,491 17.17% 26,338 22.07% 6,496 5.44% 119,313 Only 1% of AICNARW also involved objects in the carriageway (Table 13). However, 117 (12%) of the 950 AICARW involved an object in the carriageway. This is a statistically significant difference to the 99% level. Objects in the carriageway includes temporary items at road works such as cones and signs. AICARW involving no other vehicle were more likely to hit an object in the carriageway (51%) than AICARW involving other vehicles (8%). Of the cyclist-only AICARW, 32% hit an object connected with the roadwork. Table 14 shows the type of manoeuvres cyclists and drivers were making before the accident, at accidents involving cyclists. At the AICARW, most cyclists involved in the accidents were continuing ahead (74%). The majority of drivers were also continuing ahead (40%) or overtaking (11%), with a minority turning left (11%) and turning right (17%). For both cyclists and drivers, AICARW are more likely to involve overtaking manoeuvres and less likely to involve continuing ahead movements, than for AICNARW (statistically significant differences at the 95% level). The points of impact, for cyclists and motor vehicles, at AICARW and AICNARW where a motor vehicle was also involved, are shown in Table 15. More AICARW than AICNARW involved a cyclist being hit on the offside (22% compared to 17%) and less often in the front (48% compared to 55%). Nearside impacts to motor vehicles in AICARW were higher than in AICNARW (29% compared to 22% and frontal impacts were correspondingly lower (41% compared to 48%). All these differences are statistically significant at the 99% level. The higher occurrence of side-on collisions and lower occurrence of frontal collisions at AICARW may be due to the reduction in road width at road work sites, which tends to bring cyclists and motor vehicles closer together on the carriageway. 3.3 Discussion It is well established that accidents involving cyclists are heavily under-recorded in official STATS19 records. Under-reporting is much higher for pedal cyclists than for other road user groups. Under-reporting of pedal cyclist accidents is particularly high for those accidents where no motor vehicle is involved and also for accidents that occur in rural areas. As accidents involving cyclists at road works are somewhat more likely to be of this type than all cyclist accidents, the degree of under-reporting may be higher than average. Given that there is a very large number of road works undertaken during a year and that these are spread throughout the country, if accidents involving cyclists occurred at entirely random locations, one would expect a certain number to occur at road works (roughly proportionate to the duration of the works and the length of carriageway occupied) even if the road works were in no way a contributory factor to the accident. As road works 7

are carried out more frequently in urban areas, where most cycling also occurs, the possibility of coincidence is increased. Therefore, the fact that some accidents involving cyclists occurred at road works does not, of itself, prove that they were a contributory factor or that road works constitute a danger to cyclists. However, the fact that there are certain significant differences between accidents involving cyclists at road works and accidents involving cyclists not at road works does suggest that there are specific risks (and possibly safety benefits too) for cyclists at road works. 4 Cyclist and driver behaviour at road works 4.1 Video survey A total of 2,272 cyclists were recorded on 86 hours of film, using video cameras at five sites. The sites were: 1 London Road (A30), Camberley, Surrey 2 Stoke Road (A245), Cobham, Surrey 3 Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire 4 Hollow Way, Oxford 5 Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford Details of pedal cyclists and motor vehicle flows, recorded from the video film at the five sites, are shown in Tables 16 and 17 respectively. Of the sample, 84% were estimated to be aged between 16 and 59 and 72% were male. Most cyclists were filmed twice, once by each camera, as they moved from one end of the site to the other. The total number of individual cyclists at all the sites was therefore about 1,500. Most of cyclists cycled on the road (81%) but a number of cyclists used the footway (12%), particularly at Stoke Road and Hollow Way. A small proportion of cyclists (13%) made a route deviation - defined as altering their course on approach to the road works, for example by moving onto the footway or cycling inside the traffic cones. Most route deviations were at Hollow Way (179 out of 297). The interaction of cyclists with pedestrians and motor vehicles at road works was examined and is shown in Table 18. Non-standard behaviour was defined as occurring when a cyclist, or other road user interacting with the cyclist, was forced to alter their route or pass close to another road user, stop, wait, brake or swerve. There were 173 cases of non-standard behaviour observed. Since the sites were not monitored without the road works present, it was sometimes difficult to assess from the cyclist manoeuvres whether the cyclist would normally make the manoeuvres if the site did not have any road works. Most of the 143 cases of non-standard behaviour were judged to be due to road works. Most cases of non-standard behaviour did not involve any obvious risk to the road user; those that did (16 cases) were classified as a conflict. A conflict in this report is deemed to be a situation with accident potential. No accidents were observed. 4.2 The sites Photos of the Camberley and Cobham sites are shown in Plates 1 to 4. London Road (A30), Camberley, Surrey (Figure 1) London Road was filmed using two cameras on 18 August 1997, when road works had been installed to resurface the carriageway, covering parts of a 40 mph and 50 mph zone. One lane of the two-lane carriageway was coned off to vehicular traffic; the traffic lane was 4.6 metres wide. The road works were approximately 100 metres long, which varied through the day as the road works were being moved along the road (on alternate sides of the carriageway), to surface different sections of the road. Stop-go boards were used to control the two-way traffic. Traffic flows were high compared to most of the other sites, with around 500 motor vehicles per hour travelling in each direction over one lane of carriageway during both the peak and the off-peak periods. The proportion of the traffic flow comprising heavy vehicles was also high, at 5% during the sample of film examined. Conversely, cyclist flows were the low with an average two-way flow of eight cyclists per hour. There was a footway on the road works side of the carriageway. Of the 122 cyclists recorded, 32 cycled (illegally) on the footway, often to avoid the road works and traffic queues. Most of the cases of non-standard behaviour at the site were not deemed as dangerous. Five cyclists were observed holding up motor traffic, partly due to a central island at the site which made it difficult for drivers to overtake cyclists. The traffic queues formed at the site meant that some cyclists were cycling on the inside of the traffic or cycling inside the cones to get to the front of the queue. Two cyclists also stopped ahead of the stop sign at the front of the traffic queue, which put them close to oncoming traffic. Two cases of conflict were observed. One involved a cyclist appearing to ignore the stop board and riding against the oncoming traffic, putting themselves at risk of colliding with oncoming traffic. The other incident involved a van on the site unloading traffic cones, which a cyclist had to overtake at speed with several motor vehicles following. Stoke Road, Cobham, Surrey (Figure 2) The section of Stoke Road studied is residential; it includes stretches of 30 mph and 40 mph speed limits. It was filmed on 18 August 1997 using two cameras while the street was being resurfaced. The road works reduced a two-lane carriageway to one lane and the surface of the carriageway was uneven in places. The remaining lane was narrow (approximately 3.1 metres wide), making it difficult for drivers to overtake cyclists. There were footways on both sides of the carriageway, cluttered with objects from the road works. The site was characterised by a lot of large machinery, signs and traffic cones, all of which were being moved around the road works site for most of the day filmed, to resurface both sides of the carriageway. One junction (Leigh Hill Road) was completely closed 8

Table 16 Cyclist information Site 1 2 3 4 5 Camberley Cobham Crowthorne Oxford Oxford Hythe London Road Stoke Road Old Wokingham Hollow Way Bridge St Date (1997) 18/8 18/8 18/8 18/8 9/9 16/10 23/10 30/9 30/9 30/9 Camera 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 Start time 08:38 08:14 09:39 09:48 07:30 07:30 15:30 07:55 07:41 08:26 Finish time 16:38 16:32 17:19 17:26 19:30 19:30 19:30 15:14 17:20 14:35 All sites total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Cyclists Number 58 64 73 116 84 64 29 388 544 852 2272 100% Age <16 9 16% 12 19% 19 26% 22 19% 3 4% 8 13% 3 10% 86 22% 80 15% 32 4% 274 12% distribution 16-39 40 69% 46 72% 45 62% 79 68% 62 74% 41 64% 15 52% 198 51% 284 52% 571 67% 1381 61% 40-59 8 14% 4 6% 8 11% 12 10% 19 23% 13 20% 10 34% 72 19% 157 29% 215 25% 518 23% 60+ 1 2% 2 3% 1 1% 3 3% 0 0% 2 3% 1 3% 32 8% 23 4% 34 4% 99 4% Sex Male 42 72% 49 77% 51 70% 68 59% 66 79% 56 88% 25 86% 279 72% 405 74% 566 66% 1607 71% distribution Female 16 28% 13 20% 22 30% 47 41% 8 10% 6 9% 3 10% 107 28% 129 24% 271 32% 622 27% Don t know 0 0% 2 3% 0 0% 1 1% 10 12% 2 3% 1 3% 2 1% 10 2% 15 2% 43 2% Direction A 23 40% 24 38% 39 53% 55 47% Junction - - - - One-way - - 18 2% n/a B 35 60% 40 63% 34 47% 61 53% - - - - - - - - - - 833 98% n/a Route On road 36 62% 46 72% 37 51% 30 26% 84 100% 64 100% 27 93% 242 62% 471 87% 795 93% 1832 81% On footway 18 31% 14 22% 31 42% 74 64% 0 0% 0 0% 2 7% 78 20% 48 9% 14 2% 279 12% Other 4 7% 4 6% 5 7% 12 10% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 68 18% 25 5% 43 5% 161 7% Route Yes 8 14% 7 11% 12 16% 25 22% 1 1% 7 11% 0 0% 179 46% 11 2% 47 6% 297 13% deviation No 50 86% 57 89% 61 84% 91 78% 83 99% 57 89% 29 100% 209 54% 533 98% 805 94% 1975 87% 9

Table 17 Motor vehicle flows Site 1 2 3 4 5 Camberley Cobham Crowthorne Oxford Oxford London Road Stoke Road Old Wokingham Road Hollow Way Hythe Bridge St Date (1997) 18/8 18/8 18/8 18/8 9/9 16/10 23/10 30/9 30/9 30/9 Camera 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 Start time 08:35 08:08 09:39 09:48 07:30 07:30 15:30 07:55 07:41 08:26 Finish time 16:38 16:32 17:19 17:26 19:30 19:30 19:30 15:14 17:20 14.35 Peak Direction 1 Total flow 554 523 - - 1089 800 - - 292 - (8:00-9:00) % HGVs 7% 5% - - 2% 1% - - 1% - % Buses 0% 0% - - 0% 0% - - 6% - Direction 2 Total flow 842 718 - - 191 167-51 395 950 (8:00-9:00) % HGVs 3% 3% - - 3% 4% - 29% 0% 5% % Buses 0% 0% - - 0% 0% - 6% 3% 6% Off peak Direction 1 Total flow 499 478 347 344 235 198-2* 269 - (10:00-11:00) % HGVs 6% 6% 1% 1% 10% 4% - 0% 2% - % Buses 0% 0% 6% 8% 0% 0% - 0% 4% - Direction 2 Total flow 516 560 315 361 105 101-43 205 997 (10:00-11:00) % HGVs 5% 5% 1% 1% 10% 2% - 16% 0% 7% % Buses 0% 0% 6% 6% 1% 0% - 12% 6% 6% * = No vehicles should be going in this direction 10

Table 18 Cyclist interactions on film Site 1 2 3 4 5 Camberley Cobham Crowthorne Oxford Oxford All London Stoke Old Wokingham Hollow Hythe total Road Road Road Way Bridge St sites 1 2 3 Date (1997) 18/8 18/8 9/9 16/10 23/10 30/9 30/9 Number of cyclists on film 122 189 84 64 29 932 852 2272 Examples of non-standard behaviour Due to roadworks Cyclist holds up traffic 0 10 0 1 0 13 39 (1) 63 (1) Cyclist making turning manoeuvre 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Driver making turning manoeuvre 0 0 0 0 0 4 (3) 0 4 (3) Driver overtaking cyclist (squeezing) 0 0 0 0 0 3 (3) 11 (3) 14 (6) Cyclist facing oncoming motor vehicle (squeezing) 0 0 0 0 0 6 (2) 0 6 (2) Cyclist cuts inside / outside traffic queue 3 4 0 2 0 1 0 10 Cyclist rides inside roadwork area 3 0 0 2 0 3 8 16 Cyclist stops ahead of traffic, in way of oncoming vehicles 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Cyclist rides wrong way down carriageway 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 (1) Cyclist unsure about roadwork markings 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 0 1 (1) Cyclist obstructed by roadworks vehicle (moving) 1 (1) 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 (1) Cyclist obstructed by roadworks vehicle (stationary) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cyclist obstructed by motor vehicle 0 3 0 0 0 9 (2) 0 12 (2) Cyclist obstructed by roadworks signs 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Not due to roadworks Cyclist holds up traffic 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Cyclist making turning manoeuvre 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Driver making turning manoeuvre 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Driver overtaking cyclist (squeezing) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Cyclist encounters pedestrian on footway 1 2 0 0 0 5 8 16 Cyclist encounters pedestrian on road 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Cyclist encounters cyclist on footway 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Total 16 (2) 25 6 6 (1) 0 54 (10) 66 (4) 173 (16) Numbers in brackets refer to the incidents which were classified as conflicts 11

Plate 1 London Road, Camberley, Surrey Plates 2 London Road, Camberley 12

Plate 3 Stoke Road, Cobham, Surrey Plate 4 Stoke Road, Cobham, Surrey 13

This is an example of the layout - the roadworks were moved along the road during the day, on alternate sides. N London Road Roadworks (inside coned-off section) Footway Stop-go board Traffic cone Figure not to scale 4.6m 1.5m Figure 1 London Road, Camberley, Surrey This is an example of the layout - the roadworks were moved along the road during the day, on alternate sides. 7.4m Leigh Hill Road N Road closed - no access 9.30-16.30 Roadworks (inside coned-off section) Footway 1.5m Stoke Road Footway 6.2m Temporary traffic light Traffic cone Figure not to scale Tilt Road Figure 2 Stoke Road, Cobham, Surrey 14

to traffic by cones; at another junction (Tilt Road), a workman was employed to direct traffic in and out of the road. This junction adjoined one end of the road works, and there was insufficient carriageway space for motor vehicles (particularly large vehicles) to turn easily. Temporary signals were in operation at both ends of the road works. Two incidents were recorded (involving 2% of cyclists on the carriageway) where cyclists were unable to clear the road works before the oncoming traffic started to move. Although a minor problem at this site, there was a potential problem that cyclists would be unable to clear the restricted section of road due to signal settings unfavourable to cyclists. Motor vehicle flows were between 300 and 400 an hour in the off-peak. There were few heavy vehicles (approximately 1%) but a relatively high flow of buses (approximately 6%). There were 189 cyclists recorded at this site. Over half (105) of them cycled (illegally) on the footway. It is difficult to assess how many of these cases were due to the presence of the road works; some obviously were as the cyclist changed from the road to the footway, or dismounted, at the start of the road works. There were a number of cases with cyclists involving non-standard behaviour (26), although none was deemed to be serious enough to be classified as a conflict. The narrow carriageway width (3.1 metres) made it difficult for drivers to overtake cyclists. Ten cyclists were observed to have held up motor traffic, with drivers often following close behind the cyclists. Another four cyclists passed motor vehicles queuing at the road works. There were nine cases where cyclists were obstructed, either by a motor vehicle or by an obstacle in their way. Of these, three cyclists were obstructed by stationary roadwork machinery, two cyclists were obstructed by signs on the footway, three cyclists were blocked by vehicles (one vehicle was a bus), and one cyclist had to move around a turning roadwork vehicle. Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire (Figure 3) These works involved conversion of the Old Wokingham Road / Nine Mile Ride junction from signal-control to a roundabout. The speed limit on all arms was 50 mph. One video camera was used on three separate days at different stages of completion of the scheme. Traffic flows varied at this site according to the peak and the direction of flow. In the morning peak period (8:00-9:00) motor vehicle flows on the busiest approach were 1089 and 800 per hour in the two full days of filming. Traffic flows were less than 250 per hour in the opposite direction during the peak, and in both directions in the off-peak (10:00-11:00). Cyclist flows were moderate - in the two full days of filming (12 hours) 84 and 64 cyclists were recorded. On the first day, 9 September 1997, the junction was operating as a two-stage signalised junction. The main difference to conditions before the road works, was the absence of the footway, replaced by concrete barriers. There were six cases of non-standard behaviour on this day, none of which were related to the road works. They were all concerned with manoeuvres related to signalised junction: cyclists turning movements, motor vehicle turning movements or a motor vehicle overtaking a cyclist on entry to one of the arms. The second day of filming (16 October 1997) the junction was still signal controlled, but had a four-stage signal operation, as opposed to the usual two stages. Traffic cones and wooden blocks were in place, which made turning movements considerably more difficult. All six cases of non-standard behaviour were related to the road works. These stemmed from the tighter geometry, cyclists holding up traffic, cyclists riding inside traffic queues and cyclists riding inside the cones to avoid a heavy vehicle turning. One case involved an element of risk: the original road markings for a signalised junction had a right turn lane, which was temporarily being used by oncoming traffic whilst the road works were in place. One cyclist did not realise this and nearly collided with an oncoming motor vehicle. Motorists also appeared to be confused by the temporary lane markings. By the time of the third day of filming ( 23 October 1997, evening only), the roundabout had been installed. The junction dimensions at this stage were very similar to the final design: flared entrances and exits between 5 and 7 metres wide, and a circulatory carriageway 8 metres wide. The main difference was that the junction was tighter, with traffic cones and wooden blocks enlarging the central island and the islands on the arms. No cases of non-standard behaviour involving cyclists were observed during this period. Hollow Way, Oxford (Figure 4) This site is a residential street and was filmed using two cameras on 30 September 1997. It usually has two-way traffic (no line markings in the centre of the road), but due to the road works for utilities, was made temporarily oneway, from the junction with Barracks Lane / Horspath Road, where the first camera was set up. Traffic in the opposite direction was diverted. The second camera, at the other end of the Hollow Way, was located at the junction with Salegate Lane / Fern Hill Road. The street was twoway at this section. Over the whole street, the carriageway was typically 5.8 metres wide, with footways (between 1 and 1.5 metres wide) on both sides. The road work areas were surrounded by metal railings and there were no temporary signals at the site. Motor vehicle flows varied at different ends of the street but were generally less than 400 vehicles per hour in the peak and off-peak. A total of 932 cyclists were filmed at this site, more than any of the other sites. There were 54 cases of non-standard behaviour at this site, although as a proportion of the number of cyclists recorded it was similar to the other sites. The characteristics of the interactions were different at each end of the street. Despite the diversion set up at the sites, many cyclists disregarded the Road Closed signs and entered the street the wrong way. Of these, eight cyclists were then forced into behaving in a non-standard way: three cyclists rode inside the cones and the remainder passed close to oncoming traffic. However, none of these interactions was deemed to be serious enough to be classified as a conflict. At this end of the street, many cyclists (20%) rode on the footway. 15

Day 1. Concrete barriers on 3 corners, footway on remaining corner. Permanent signals N Nine Mile Ride Old Wokingham Road Footway Day 2. Machinery and roadwork vehicles behind cones/wooden blocks N Temporary signals Day 3. Cones all around splinter islands Wooden blocks around central island N 5.6m 6m Permanent traffic signal 5.7m 6.4m Traffic cone Concrete barrier Red and white wooden blocks Figure not to scale 5.8m Footway 8.0m 7m 6.4m 5.0m Figure 3 Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne, Berkshire 16

N Barracks Lane Hollow Way Horsepath Road Roadworks (inside metal railings) Road closed to all traffic travelling Southbound Crescent Road Marshall Road Footway (1.5m wide) Roadworks (inside metal railings) Salegate Lane Fern Hill Road Figure not to scale 5.8m Figure 4 Hollow Way, Oxford In this section of Hollow Way, nine cyclists were obstructed by stationary motor vehicles or by motor vehicles slowing down to stop (two were classified as conflicts). These cyclists had to either slow down dramatically and go round the motor vehicle, or squeeze past in a narrow gap. All of the cases involved either a dustbin lorry stopping to collect rubbish or a motor vehicle parking. At the other end of the street, the layout of the junction and the location of the road works caused problems for road users. Half of the carriageway was blocked to traffic for a length of approximately 5 metres, which formed a temporary pinch-point for the two-way traffic. There were six cases of non-standard behaviour (three were classified as conflicts) that concerned motor vehicles and cyclists turning out of the side roads. A further nine cases occurred at the pinch point (five were conflicts) with cyclists having to pass very close to motor vehicles. All of these cases were attributable to the design of the road works at the junction, which did not give road users adequate space to manoeuvre. Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford (Figure 5) This is a two lane one-way street with road works blocking one of the lanes. The section of carriageway observed was partially blocked off with concrete barriers over the first section, and with cones over the second section. The remaining carriageway is 3.2 metres wide, marginally wider over the second section (approximately 3.5 metres). There was a 1.6 metre on one side; the footway on the other side was blocked by the road works, except for access to a footpath leading away from Hythe Bridge Street. This was a busy site, with over 900 motor vehicles an hour in the peak and off-peak periods. At least 10% of the traffic flow is made up of heavy vehicles and buses. There were 852 cyclists recorded in the six hour period, an average cycle flow of over 100 cyclists an hour. All of the road works during the day occurred inside the concrete barrier, which meant little interference to road users from workmen or machinery. There were 66 cases of non-standard behaviour at the site (four were conflicts), all relating to the narrow width of the carriageway. Most of these (39) were due to drivers slowing down because they were held up behind a cyclist. It was very difficult and dangerous for drivers to overtake cyclists. There were 11 cases where cyclists were squeezed by a motor vehicles overtaking them, three of which were classified as a conflict. Two motor vehicles were filmed mounting the footway in order to overtake a cyclist. Overtaking tended to occur at the section with traffic cones. It was slightly wider than the previous section, and there were eight instances where cyclists cycled inside the traffic cones because the traffic was very close. The positioning of traffic cones can be important at road works because they will determine the width of the carriageway and where cyclists may ride. 5 Layout of road works 5.1 Survey by highway inspectors In order to find out about the types of road works that cyclists encounter, and any potential safety problems, a survey of road works on local roads was carried out. This provided data on a much larger number of sites, though in less depth, than was possible to obtain using video surveys. Highway inspectors from Oxfordshire County Council and Surrey Heath District Council completed 17

N Hythe Bridge Street One Way street Concrete barrier Roadworks inside concrete barriers and coned-off section Pedestrian walkway Footway 1.6m 6.5m 1.2m Footway Traffic cone Figure not to scale Roadworks equipment Figure 5 Hythe Bridge Stree, Oxford TRL survey forms (Appendix A) for road works that they inspected in a three month period. Information was collected on lane widths, temporary road surfaces, methods of controlling traffic, and any other features likely to affect the safety of cyclists. Photographs were taken to record the site layout and any specific features of interest. Road works located only in the footway were excluded as these were thought unlikely to affect cyclists. Data was collected on 49 sites. Almost all of the road works were concerned with utilities works (30 sites) or structural maintenance (8 sites). All were on single carriageway road. There were 16 on 60 mph roads in rural settings and 27 on 30 mph or 40 mph roads in urban settings. There was street lighting at 29 sites; at other sites the road works may have been completed or removed before darkness. Most of the road works were controlled by temporary signals (34 cases) or give and take (13 cases). There was also one case of priority give-way (no controls) and one case of stop-go boards. No site had temporary speed limits in operation. The lane widths at the road work sites ranged from 2.5 to 6 metres, with an average width of 3.5 metres. Most of the sites (38 cases) had a narrow lane width, 3.5 metres or less. The lengths of the schemes ranged from 4 to 300 metres, with and average of 58 metres. None of the sites in the survey had any special provision for cyclists. Features of the road works sites that were felt to be problem for cyclists at the sites, were noted by the highway inspectors. These included road works features such as signal timings, road surfaces, road work signs and footways There were 8 road work sites (1 in 4 of those with signals) where the highway inspectors felt the signal timings did not give cyclists enough time to clear the road works; at one site this was also a problem for motor vehicles. Cyclists at these sites tended to alter their route, by cycling inside the coned off area or on the footway. At one site, a lack of time for cyclists at the signals was not considered to be a problem for cyclists, due to the carriageway width (4.5 metres). The road surface was considered to be a problem for cyclists at a handful of sites, due to temporary metal plates (4 sites) or sloping fillets (1 site). At another four sites, with temporary signals, the presence and position of cable protectors was felt to cause a problem for cyclists. In terms of signing, at one site it was felt there was inadequate signing for cyclists, whilst at another site a shared use footway / cycleway was obstructed by several road work signs. Many cyclists used the footway at the sites to avoid the road works. At one site both footways were closed. 5.2 Route diversions Details were also collected of a major bridge strengthening scheme (Carrow Road bridge) in Norwich (Plates 5 and 6). Traffic was diverted along a route (already heavily trafficked) more than double the length of Carrow Road. A temporary 10 mph speed limit sign was located at the works but not along the diversion. Throughout most, if not all, of the duration of works, through access was maintained for pedestrians and cyclists. This allowed cyclists to avoid longer exposure on a more heavily trafficked road, and was much shorter and more convenient. However, there was no advanced signing of this arrangement and cyclists tended to divert with the motor traffic. The diverting cyclists were exposed for a longer period, and to additional hazards, whereas had they used the original route (now free of motor traffic) they 18

Plate 5 Carrow Road, Norwich Plate 6 Carrow Road, Norwich 19