Consultation on providing for pedestrians and cyclists

Jo Stoller said:

dft.gov.ukdocumenOpen ↗
ts/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=10382&l=2

"LTN 1/04 Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and
Cycling. This is a new document which brings our policies
on walking and cycling together for the first time. It
pulls together a considerable amount of existing guidance
from various sources, and links it with other policy
areas, e.g. Health, Land-use Planning, and Social
Inclusion.

LTN 2/04 Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for
Pedestrians and Cyclists. This document updates LTN 2/86
Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians published in 1986."

This is probably one of the most important messages posted
on this group recently and really should not be overlooked.

The current draft does *for example* still allow for the
dangerous and intimidating 3m carriageway gap:

"4.3.12 Horizontal measures include build-outs, chicanes,
and central refuges. Motorists will not usually attempt to
overtake cyclists where the available width is 3.0m or less
(TAL 9/94 Horizontal Deflections, and TAL 1/97 Cyclists at
Road Narrowings). Widths between 3.1m and 3.9m should be
avoided as it is in this range that motorists will often
attempt to overtake cyclists where there is insufficient
room to pass safely. Cycle bypasses should be provided where
possible, but careful design detailing is needed to avoid
problems with drainage, sweeping and to prevent obstruction
by parked vehicles. A bypass should not require cyclists to
travel additional distance, or require them to give way
before rejoining the main carriageway. Central refuges are
helpful to pedestrians, and can encourage people to cross
the carriageway at places where there is good visibility.
For a central refuge to safely accommodate cyclists,
wheelchair users and pedestrians with pushchairs, it needs
to be at least 2.0m wide "

It is important that it is responded to, as individuals and
as cycling groups, as it will for the basis of the advice
given to local authorities.

It is *our* opportunity to do something about the future of
cycling in the UK.

Mark.

Following on from Mark's message. . .

Quoted message said:

This is probably one of the most important messages posted
on this group recently and really should not be overlooked.

They're quite good. Obviously written by somebody who knows
their stuff. The IHT bit (try ALL on-road options first
before looking at cycle paths etc) is very encouraging.

Worth downloading and keeping in the library.

Quoted message said:

The current draft does *for example* still allow for the
dangerous and intimidating 3m carriageway gap:

"4.3.12 Horizontal measures include build-outs, chicanes,
and central refuges. Motorists will not usually attempt to
overtake cyclists where the available width is 3.0m or less
(TAL 9/94 Horizontal Deflections, and TAL 1/97 Cyclists at
Road Narrowings). Widths between 3.1m and 3.9m should be
avoided as it is in this range that motorists will often
attempt to overtake cyclists where there is insufficient
room to pass safely. Cycle bypasses should be provided
where possible, but careful design detailing is needed to
avoid problems with drainage, sweeping and to prevent
obstruction by parked vehicles. A bypass should not require
cyclists to travel additional distance, or require them to
give way before rejoining the main carriageway. Central
refuges are helpful to pedestrians, and can encourage
people to cross the carriageway at places where there is
good visibility. For a central refuge to safely accommodate
cyclists, wheelchair users and pedestrians with pushchairs,
it needs to be at least 2.0m wide "

I'm not sure what your gripe is with this. The
undesirability is clearly stated and reasons given but
recognises the needs of others may affect the solution in a
real world. What would you have it say instead?

I was a bit disappointed wrt trunk roads.

Quoted message said:

It is important that it is responded to, as individuals and
as cycling groups, as it will for the basis of the advice
given to local authorities.

It is *our* opportunity to do something about the future of
cycling in the UK.

So tell us the headings of your response.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the e-commerce business came to
a . [email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm Witham Cycling Campaign
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides East Anglian Pub cycle rides

Peter Fox said:

Following on from Mark's message. . .

Quoted message said:

This is probably one of the most important messages
posted on this group recently and really should not be
overlooked.

They're quite good. Obviously written by somebody who
knows their stuff. The IHT bit (try ALL on-road options
first before looking at cycle paths etc) is very
encouraging.

I agree I think it’s much better than anything else I read
to date, including "The the Cycling Friendly Infrastructure:
Guidelines for Planning and Design." and "A Road Safety Good
Practice Guide".

Quoted message said:

Worth downloading and keeping in the library.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The current draft does *for example* still allow for the
dangerous and intimidating 3m carriageway gap:

"4.3.12 Horizontal measures include build-outs, chicanes,
and central refuges. Motorists will not usually attempt
to overtake cyclists where the available width is 3.0m or
less (TAL 9/94 Horizontal Deflections, and TAL 1/97
Cyclists at Road Narrowings). Widths between 3.1m and
3.9m should be avoided as it is in this range that
motorists will often attempt to overtake cyclists where
there is insufficient room to pass safely. Cycle bypasses
should be provided where possible, but careful design
detailing is needed to avoid problems with drainage,
sweeping and to prevent obstruction by parked vehicles. A
bypass should not require cyclists to travel additional
distance, or require them to give way before rejoining
the main carriageway. Central refuges are helpful to
pedestrians, and can encourage people to cross the
carriageway at places where there is good visibility. For
a central refuge to safely accommodate cyclists,
wheelchair users and pedestrians with pushchairs, it
needs to be at least 2.0m wide "

I'm not sure what your gripe is with this. The
undesirability is clearly stated and reasons given but
recognises the needs of others may affect the solution in
a real world. What would you have it say instead?

The the Cycling Friendly Infrastructure: Guidelines for
Planning and Design. (Produced by the D.E.T.R and the
Institute of Highways and Transport, 1996). Uses very
similar words, in fact adds additional caveats:

“Central refuges should not be used unless there is a
pedestrian crossing requirement or the safety of cyclists
is not adversely affected. Where a bypass is not possible,
the remaining gap should be either sufficiently wide to
allow vehicles to pass cyclists in safety, or sufficiently
narrow to prevent attempted overtaking within the
narrowing. Gaps of 3.1-3.9m seem to be least satisfactory
from the cyclist's perspective. A gap of 4.4.5m is
recommended (LTN 2/95 The Design of Pedestrian Crossings
paragraph 3.3) although if the aim is to control vehicle
speed this will have little effect.”

“In schemes designed for speeds in excess of 30 miles/h or
where wide vehicles are common, the gap should be a minimum
of 4.5m for one-way traffic; where speeds are below 30
miles/h and traffic is light, a narrower gap of 3m may be
acceptable if the 4.5m gap cannot be achieved.”

And

“Cyclists should not be “used” as traffic calming devices –
for example as a means of slowing motorists at a road
narrowing by leaving insufficient room for the two to pass
through at the same time.”

My local authority thought that this allowed them to use 3m
gaps in a 30MPH road with heavy traffic. The words need to
be far more explicit.

Do you realise what it feels like to cycle down a busy road
with a 3m narrowing offset from the centre-line?

victory.plus.com26.JPGOpen ↗ is a 3.08m gap.

I can confirm my perception of more danger and it is
intimidating. This has been confirmed by others, reasearch
and expert advice.

My words would be *along the lines* of:

“Central refuges must leave a carriageway gap of at least
4m, unless a bypass is installed, or traffic is already
calmed to below 20MPH by other methods. (e.g. A Home Zone).

Quoted message said:

I was a bit disappointed wrt trunk roads.

Quoted message said:

It is important that it is responded to, as individuals
and as cycling groups, as it will for the basis of the
advice given to local authorities.

It is *our* opportunity to do something about the future
of cycling in the UK.

So tell us the headings of your response.

I am working on my response.

Do you intend to respond?

Following on from Mark's message. . . [good stuff snipped] I
take your point.

I'm not sure if this is really in the scope of the
document. However as an appendix it would be really handy
for the useless traffic engineers to look at with the
DONT's clearly stated.

Quoted message said:

I am working on my response.

Do you intend to respond?

I will have to have a proper read.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bridge building business
collapsed [email hidden]

Mark said:

“Central refuges should not be used unless there is a
pedestrian crossing requirement or the safety of cyclists
is not adversely affected.

I think this or should be an and.

Quoted message said:

Where a bypass is not possible, the remaining gap should
be either sufficiently wide to allow vehicles to pass
cyclists in safety, or sufficiently narrow to prevent
attempted overtaking within the narrowing. Gaps of 3.1-
3.9m seem to be least satisfactory from the cyclist's
perspective. A gap of 4.4.5m is recommended (LTN 2/95 The
Design of Pedestrian Crossings paragraph 3.3) although if
the aim is to control vehicle speed this will have little
effect.”

“In schemes designed for speeds in excess of 30 miles/h or
where wide vehicles are common, the gap should be a
minimum of 4.5m for one-way traffic; where speeds are
below 30 miles/h and traffic is light, a narrower gap of
3m may be acceptable if the 4.5m gap cannot be achieved.”
... My local authority thought that this allowed them to
use 3m gaps in a 30MPH road with heavy traffic. The words
need to be far more explicit.

Do you realise what it feels like to cycle down a busy
road with a 3m narrowing offset from the centre-line?

Only too well. It requires claiming the lane, as you would
when passing an isolated parked car on a similar road.

Quoted message said:

victory.plus.com26.JPGOpen ↗ is a 3.08m gap.

I can confirm my perception of more danger and it is
intimidating. This has been confirmed by others, reasearch
and expert advice.

My words would be *along the lines* of:

“Central refuges must leave a carriageway gap of at
least 4m, unless a bypass is installed, or traffic is
already calmed to below 20MPH by other methods. (e.g. A
Home Zone).

4m is not enough. The 4.5m figure is correct. At 4m buses
and HGVs will attempt to overtake with too little clearance.

3m or less is not ideal, hence the caveats about speed, but
is no trouble at 30 as long as you are not hugging the kerb.
Drivers then slow down if necessary. It may be that every
2.8-3m road narrowing should be associated with a speed
camera or hump to keep speeds down to 30.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that it
leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Lots of interesting width related stuff snipped.

On slow roads with lots of peds crossing then narrow
carriageway widths preventing overtaking are fine. In most
circumstances. However, what happens when stationary queues
of cars & buses build up. This is the case on West St,
Fareham every day between about 1600 and 1830; a solid jam.

The refucges with narrow carriageways then prevent cyclists
from overtaking and filtering. You are forced to take 20
minutes to do .5 km (as the cars do), get off and push on
the pavement, or (as everybody does in reality) go on the
wrong side of the road to 'overtake' the refuges. There's a
lot of refuges so this is a real pain not a minor irritant.

Colin McKenzie said:

Mark said:

“Central refuges should not be used unless there is a
pedestrian crossing requirement or the safety of cyclists
is not adversely affected.

I think this or should be an and.

Yes it should be, but that what the Guidelines for Planning
and Design states. :-(

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where a bypass is not possible, the remaining gap should
be either sufficiently wide to allow vehicles to pass
cyclists in safety, or sufficiently narrow to prevent
attempted overtaking within the narrowing. Gaps of 3.1-
3.9m seem to be least satisfactory from the cyclist's
perspective. A gap of 4.4.5m is recommended (LTN 2/95 The
Design of Pedestrian Crossings paragraph 3.3) although if
the aim is to control vehicle speed this will have little
effect.”

“In schemes designed for speeds in excess of 30 miles/h
or where wide vehicles are common, the gap should be a
minimum of 4.5m for one-way traffic; where speeds are
below 30 miles/h and traffic is light, a narrower gap of
3m may be acceptable if the 4.5m gap cannot be achieved.”
... My local authority thought that this allowed them to
use 3m gaps in a 30MPH road with heavy traffic. The words
need to be far more explicit.

Do you realise what it feels like to cycle down a busy
road with a 3m narrowing offset from the centre-line?

Only too well. It requires claiming the lane, as you would
when passing an isolated parked car on a similar road.

I wish it were that easy, and divers that respectful. In
conducting research for my current campaign I've had a
letter from someone who stopped cycling because he found
cars skidding behind him, cutting him up to get to the
island first, and even overtaking both him and the island.
I've also been in correspondence with John Franklin about
these islands and he agrees that center islands such as
these are a major menace, and no method of defensive riding
provides adequate protection against the hazards they
introduce whilst for less assertive cyclists they
effectively amount to a ban on cycling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

victory.plus.com26.JPGOpen ↗ is a 3.08m gap.

I can confirm my perception of more danger and it is
intimidating. This has been confirmed by others,
reasearch and expert advice.

My words would be *along the lines* of:

“Central refuges must leave a carriageway gap of at
least 4m, unless a bypass is installed, or traffic is
already calmed to below 20MPH by other methods. (e.g. A
Home Zone).

4m is not enough. The 4.5m figure is correct. At 4m buses
and HGVs will attempt to overtake with too little
clearance.

I agree. I got the 4m measurement from reasearch carried out
by the DETR, where it stated that HGV's can overtake with
safety, (TAL 15/99).

On balance of all the eveidence I've got and local
authorities wanting to "bend the guidlines" I think that
4.5m is right.

Quoted message said:

3m or less is not ideal, hence the caveats about speed,
but is no trouble at 30 as long as you are not hugging the
kerb. Drivers then slow down if necessary. It may be that
every 2.8-3m road narrowing should be associated with a
speed camera or hump to keep speeds down to 30.

Unfortunatly a significant number of drivers do not slow
down if necessary, and should not be required to slow down
just because there is a cyclist in the way. (TAL 15/99
states "This theory was borne out at one of the video sites
in Oxford where a lane width of 3 metres led to a number of
conflicts caused by drivers attempting to overtake cyclists
with very little clearance.”)

Thanks for the comments.

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie

Not Responding said:

Lots of interesting width related stuff snipped.

On slow roads with lots of peds crossing then narrow
carriageway widths preventing overtaking are fine. In
most circumstances. However, what happens when stationary
queues of cars & buses build up. This is the case on West
St, Fareham every day between about 1600 and 1830; a
solid jam.

(See my response to Colin which may cover your first point).
I've heard about West Street causing problems. I will try
and visit there.

Quoted message said:

The refucges with narrow carriageways then prevent
cyclists from overtaking and filtering. You are forced to
take 20 minutes to do .5 km (as the cars do), get off and
push on the pavement, or (as everybody does in reality) go
on the wrong side of the road to 'overtake' the refuges.
There's a lot of refuges so this is a real pain not a
minor irritant.

This is something I've considered todate. Thanks.

Mark said:

Colin McKenzie wrote:

Quoted message said:

I wish it were that easy, and divers that respectful. In
conducting research for my current campaign I've had a
letter from someone who stopped cycling because he found
cars skidding behind him, cutting him up to get to the
island first, and even overtaking both him and the island.

I've no problem with them overtaking both me and the
island - they're endangering themselves and their licenses
rather than me!

This cutting-up and sudden stopping may be a function of
how fast you cycle - though it's also affected by
positioning. It very rarely happens to me - they brake but
not too suddenly.

Before the narrowing, I look behind. If I want the next car
to stay behind, I move out. This nearly always wakes them up
in time to slow down gracefully.

Quoted message said:

I've also been in correspondence with John Franklin about
these islands and he agrees that center islands such as
these are a major menace, and no method of defensive
riding provides adequate protection against the hazards
they introduce whilst for less assertive cyclists they
effectively amount to a ban on cycling.

I don't think it's quite that bad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3m or less is not ideal, hence the caveats about speed,
but is no trouble at 30 as long as you are not hugging
the kerb. Drivers then slow down if necessary. It may be
that every 2.8-3m road narrowing should be associated
with a speed camera or hump to keep speeds down to 30.

Unfortunatly a significant number of drivers do not slow
down if necessary, and should not be required to slow down
just because there is a cyclist in the way.

This is an extraordinary statement. Drivers do NOT have a
God-given right to overtake cyclists. If there's no room,
you slow down and stay behind, just as you would if you
caught up a cyclist in a 3m gap between two long rows of
parked cars.

Quoted message said:

(TAL 15/99 states "This theory was borne out at one of the
video sites in Oxford where a lane width of 3 metres led
to a number of conflicts caused by drivers attempting to
overtake cyclists with very little clearance.”)

Driver reluctance to slow down to cyclist speed increases
with the speed difference. The faster they're going, the
less time they have to decide and the more they have to slow
down. A combination of stricter speed limit enforcement (to
reduce the speed differential), and cyclist education (to
take up the right position at the right time) would improve
the experience for slower cyclists to the level I get now.

None of which alters the fact that they should be removed
wherever possible.

Cyclists have been complaining to me about one particular
island which I have measured as around 3m both sides. It's
on a hill, and I was hoping to narrow the gap on the
downhill side and get 4.5m uphill. But the root problem is
drivers generally doing 40 (the limit is 30) despite the
blind bends. The island was put in to stop them hitting head-
on and to give peds a chance to get across. Given all this,
it will be very difficult to remove it.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the comments.

De nada

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that it
leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Colin McKenzie wrote loads of good stuff:

Quoted message said:

Mark said:

Colin McKenzie wrote:

Quoted message said:

I wish it were that easy, and divers that respectful. In
conducting research for my current campaign I've had a
letter from someone who stopped cycling because he found
cars skidding behind him, cutting him up to get to the
island first, and even overtaking both him and the
island.

I've no problem with them overtaking both me and the
island - they're endangering themselves and their licenses
rather than me!

This cutting-up and sudden stopping may be a function of
how fast you cycle - though it's also affected by
positioning. It very rarely happens to me - they brake but
not too suddenly.

Before the narrowing, I look behind. If I want the next
car to stay behind, I move out. This nearly always wakes
them up in time to slow down gracefully.

Quoted message said:

I've also been in correspondence with John Franklin about
these islands and he agrees that center islands such as
these are a major menace, and no method of defensive
riding provides adequate protection against the hazards
they introduce whilst for less assertive cyclists they
effectively amount to a ban on cycling.

I don't think it's quite that bad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3m or less is not ideal, hence the caveats about speed,
but is no trouble at 30 as long as you are not hugging
the kerb. Drivers then slow down if necessary. It may be
that every 2.8-3m road narrowing should be associated
with a speed camera or hump to keep speeds down to 30.

Unfortunatly a significant number of drivers do not slow
down if necessary, and should not be required to slow
down just because there is a cyclist in the way.

This is an extraordinary statement. Drivers do NOT have a
God-given right to overtake cyclists. If there's no room,
you slow down and stay behind, just as you would if you
caught up a cyclist in a 3m gap between two long rows of
parked cars.

Perhaps I wan't clear. I meant to say that cyclists should
not be used as the traffic calming device.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(TAL 15/99 states "This theory was borne out at one of
the video sites in Oxford where a lane width of 3 metres
led to a number of conflicts caused by drivers attempting
to overtake cyclists with very little clearance.”)

Driver reluctance to slow down to cyclist speed increases
with the speed difference. The faster they're going, the
less time they have to decide and the more they have to
slow down. A combination of stricter speed limit
enforcement (to reduce the speed differential), and
cyclist education (to take up the right position at the
right time) would improve the experience for slower
cyclists to the level I get now.

None of which alters the fact that they should be removed
wherever possible.

Cyclists have been complaining to me about one particular
island which I have measured as around 3m both sides. It's
on a hill, and I was hoping to narrow the gap on the
downhill side and get 4.5m uphill. But the root problem is
drivers generally doing 40 (the limit is 30) despite the
blind bends. The island was put in to stop them hitting
head-on and to give peds a chance to get across. Given all
this, it will be very difficult to remove it.

I think this may explain our similar but different views.
The context I'm thinking of is a series of eight of these
pedestrian refuges in a village. The thought of looking
behind positioning yourself eight times on a trip to the
local shops, and eight times on the way back is a major
deterrent to cycling. Less assertive cyclists (most others)
potentially have greater problems.

Aclamaciones,

Mark.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the comments.

De nada

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie