Consultation on providing for pedestrians and cyclists

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...st?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."

Jo Stoller wrote:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...st?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. . .
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.

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.

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 .

www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm Witham Cycling Campaign
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides East Anglian Pub cycle rides

Peter Fox wrote:

Following on from Mark's message. . .

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 Infrastructu Guidelines for
Planning and Design." and "A Road Safety Good Practice Guide".


Worth downloading and keeping in the library.

Agreed.



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 Infrastructu 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?

http://www.victory.plus.com/temp/26.JPG 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).


I was a bit disappointed wrt trunk roads.


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.

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

2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk

Mark wrote:
“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.

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.

http://www.victory.plus.com/temp/26.JPG 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 wrote:
Mark wrote:

“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. :-(



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.



http://www.victory.plus.com/temp/26.JPG 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.


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.



Colin McKenzie

[Not Responding] wrote:

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.


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 wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrote:

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.

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.

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.

(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.

Thanks for the comments.

De nada

Colin McKenzie



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