Lancashire - the cyclists’ county

Environment Directorate

Lancashire - thecyclists’ county

A code for planning, designing andmaintaining roads and tracks for cyclists

Lancashire County Council

Lancashire - the cyclists’ county

A code for planning, designing andmaintaining roads and tracks for cyclists

Environment Directorate

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: August 2005

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: September 2005

Foreword

I am delighted to see the publication of "Lancashire - The Cyclists' County: A code forplanning, designing and maintaining roads and tracks for cyclists". Cycling has animportant role in the county's transport system. I want Lancashire to be the best place inthe country in which to cycle.

Cycling has a key part to play in combating congestion, improving accessibility and reducingpollution in Lancashire. It can help improve people's quality of life and help enabledevelopment on a more human scale. Cycling also has important health benefits. In ruralareas cycle tourism can help support local businesses.

To achieve our target, cycle use in Lancashire is given a high priority in the planning of ourtransport systems and in new developments. New developments should have easy cycleaccess and be laid out to favour cyclists. Road design should seek to help the flow of cyclists.Public Transport Interchanges should have good cycle access and cycle parking. Cycle pathsneed to be designed and built to a high standard. Innovation is also important. The newguidelines will show designers and planners how to achieve these aims.

County Councillor Tony Martin

Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: September 2005

Copies of these guidelines may be obtainedfrom:

Cycling Officer (Tel: 01772 534609)Environment DirectorateLancashire County CouncilPO Box 9Guild HouseCross StreetPrestonPR1 8RD

[email protected]

The authors acknowledge the indefatigableassistance of the steering group for providingexpert advice in the compilation of theseguidelines. Thanks in particular to Roy Potterand Robin Field for proof reading the documentand checking the index.

Principal author: John Parkin, The University of Bolton, MVA

Other authors: Michael Kitching, MVAAndy Skinner, MVA

Graphic Design: Sarah White, MVA

Cover Photograph courtesy Jon White

Steering Group:Alasdair Simpson, Lancashire CCRobin Field, CTC, LCAGRoland Graham, Cycling ProjectsMatthew Hargreaves, Hyndburn BCRoy Potter, LCAG, CTCPat Douglass, Wyre BC/SustransDick Follows, Dynamo

We also acknowledge the help of Alex Sully ofthe English Regions Cycling Development Teamand Tony Russell of the CTC.

Whilst strongly backing the guidelines overall,Lancashire Cycling Action Group does notendorse the recommendations in every detail.

Lancashire County Council accepts noresponsibility for the use of the guidelines byother highway authorities.

PreambleThis code for planning, designing andmaintaining road and tracks for cycle traffic is tobe used in the disciplines of:

• town and land-use planning;

• transport planning;

• development and tourism promotion;

• development control;

• traffic engineering;

• highway design; and

• highway maintenance.

The code specifies the policies for the creationof cycle friendly infrastructure at the planning,feasibility, new build and maintenance worksstages in the County of Lancashire. They providefor cyclists, tricyclists, tandemists, cyclists withtrailers and other vehicles propelled by musclepower. Disabled users of wheelchairs and selfpropelled 2, 3, or 4 wheeled vehicles are alsoprovided for.

If there are problems with complying with theseguidelines, then advice should be sought fromLancashire County Council’s cyclingdevelopment team.

THESE GUIDELINES APPLY TO ALL ROADS(EXCEPT MOTORWAYS) AND CYCLE TRACKSIN THE COUNTY BOTH ON HIGHWAY ANDOTHERWISE.

THE GUIDANCE OFFERED SHOULD BEFOLLOWED BY ALL AGENCIES, INTERNALAND EXTERNAL TO LANCASHIRE COUNTYCOUNCIL, RESPONSIBLE FOR TRANSPORT INTHE COUNTY.

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: i

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: ii

Amendment Record Sheet

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: iii

Amendment Record Sheet

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: iv

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: v

Contents Section Page Number

Ammendment Record Sheet iii

List of Figures vii

List of Tables and Plates ix

Glossary xi

Section 1: Philosophy 1.1.1

1.1 General Principles 1.1.1

Section 2: Design Principles 2.1.1

2.1 Design Speeds 2.1.1

2.2 Network Engineering 2.2.1

2.3 Safety Facts 2.3.1

2.4 Legal Guidelines 2.4.1

2.5 Cycling Benefits 2.5.1

Section 3: Creating Pleasant RoadConditions 3.1.1

3.1 Principles 3.1.1

3.2 Restricted Access Street 3.2.1

3.3 One-way Streets 3.3.1

3.4 Network Permeability 3.4.1

3.5 Networks in Non-motorised Areas 3.5.1

3.6 Calming Principles 3.6.1

3.7 Junction Measures 3.7.1

3.8 Link Measures 3.8.1

Section 4: Routes Within theHighway 4.1.1

4.1 Widths 4.1.1

4.2 Choice of facilities 4.2.1

4.3 Cycle Traffic and Buses 4.3.1

4.4 Planning and Legal Issues 4.4.1

Section 5: Routes Away from theCarriageway 5.1.1

5.1 Legal Issues & Planning 5.1.1

5.2 Layout Design 5.2.1

5.3 Pavement Design & Maintenance 5.3.1

Section 6: Junctions and Crossings 6.1.1

6.1 Principles and Priorities 6.1.1

6.2 Cycle Track Crossings and PriorityJunctions 6.2.1

6.3 Roundabouts 6.3.1

6.4 Signals 6.4.1

Section 7: Developments 7.1.1

7.1 Planning & Legal Issues 7.1.1

7.2 Developments 7.2.1

Section 8: Parking and PublicTransport 8.1.1

8.1 Planning and Legal Issues 8.1.1

8.2 Parking Design Specification 8.2.1

8.3 Integration with Public Transport 8.3.1

Section 9: Engineering 9.1.1

9.1 Pavement Design 9.1.1

9.2 Design Detailing 9.2.1

9.3 Maintenance and Roadworks 9.3.1

9.4 Structures 9.4.1

Section 10: Signing & Lining 10.1.1

10.1 Principles 10.1.1

Section 11: Index and References 11.1

Index 11.1

References 11.5

Contents

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: vi

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: vii

List of FiguresFigure Page Number

2.1.1 Cyclists’ eye height 2.1.2

2.1.2 Speed versus gradient 2.1.3

2.3.1 Cyclist injury accidents inLancashire 2001 2.3.1

3.1.1 Restricted access street 3.1.2

3.3.1 Contra-flow with no cycle lane 3.3.3

3.3.2 False one-way street 3.3.4

3.3.3 Advisory contra-flow cycle lane 3.3.5

3.3.4 Mandatory contra-flow cycle lane 3.3.6

3.4.1 Essential connection across closedroad 3.4.1

3.4.2 Road closure with side cycle access 3.4.2

3.4.3 Road closure with central cycleaccess 3.4.2

3.7.1 Junction treatments (Raised Table) 3.7.1

3.7.2 Over-run areas 3.7.2

3.8.1 Parking & limited waiting bays 3.8.1

3.8.2 Parking near junctions 3.8.2

3.8.3 Cycle track behind parking bays 3.8.3

3.8.4 Road hump options 3.8.4

3.8.5 Speed cushions 3.8.5

3.8.6 Enforced priority at roadnarrowings 3.8.6

3.8.7 Rumble devices 3.8.7

3.8.8 Traffic islands/refuges 3.8.8

4.1.1 Cyclist’s kinematic envelope 4.1.2

4.1.2 Cross-section descriptions 4.1.3

Tight cross-section 4.1.3

Critical cross-section 4.1.3

Spacious cross-section 4.1.3

4.1.3 Required lane widths at 30mph 4.1.4

4.1.4 Cross-section examples 4.1.5

4.1.5 Features that create tight orcritical cross-sections 4.1.6

4.1.6 Design flow chart 4.1.7

4.1.7 Lines of equal cycling level ofservice 4.1.8

4.2.1 Tapers 4.2.3

4.2.2 Types of off-carriageway provision 4.2.5

4.2.3 Widths of off-carriageway provision4.2.8

4.2.4 Cycle lane layouts 4.2.9

4.2.5 Principles of cycletrack/carriagewaymerge/diverge 4.2.10

5.2.1 Segregated cycle track andfootpath 5.2.2

5.2.2 Motorcycle barrier 5.2.5

5.2.3 Cycle track with horses 5.2.5

5.3.1 Cycle track adjacent to carriagewayconstruction details 5.3.3

5.3.2 Cycle track away from carriagewayconstruction details 5.3.3

6.1.1 Visibility guidance for cycle tracks 6.1.2

6.2.1 Types of provision at priorityjunctions 6.2.3

6.2.2 Cycle track crossing minor road 6.2.4

6.2.3 In-line cycle track crossing side road6.2.5

6.2.4 Layout of cycle track crossingwith cycle track priority 6.2.6

6.2.5 Cycle crossings of carriageway 6.2.7

6.2.6 Right turns provided with ghostislands 6.2.8

6.2.7 Treatment of bi-furcation divergesand merges 6.2.9

6.2.8 Cycle crossing of sliproad on gradeseparated road 6.2.10

6.3.1 Continental roundabout design 6.3.3

6.3.2 Cycle lane approach to roundabout 6.3.4

6.3.3 Possible alternative routes aroundlarge signalised roundabouts 6.3.5

6.3.4 Cycle track around a roundaboutshowing possible carriageway entryand exits and crossings 6.3.5

6.4.1 Signalised junction design 6.4.5

6.4.2 Multi-lane approaches to signals 6.4.6

6.4.3 Alternative ways of achieving aright turn 6.4.7

6.4.4 Signalised junction design for cycleroute crossing and contra-flowlane 6.4.8

6.4.5 Toucan crossing layout 6.4.9

6.4.6 Pegasus crossing layout 6.4.10

7.1.1 Maximising links to developmentsites 7.1.2

7.1.2 Urban design 7.2.2

8.1.1 Cycle parking locations 8.1.4

8.2.1 Standard “Sheffield” stand andwall bar 8.2.1

8.2.2 Sheffield stand variations 8.2.3

8.2.3 Indicative bicycle shed layout 8.2.5

8.3.1 Lancashire station walk catchment(1km) 8.3.2

8.3.2 Lancashire station cycle catchment(3km) 8.3.3

9.1.1 Raised rib slab 9.1.2

9.2.1 Gulley grating 9.2.1

9.3.1 Remedial treatments to existingfeatures 9.3.2

10.1.1 Markings 10.1.4

10.1.2 Signs 10.1.5

10.1.2 Signs (Continued) 10.1.6

List of Figures

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: viii

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: ix

List of Tables and PlatesTables Page Number

1.1.1 Types of UK cyclist 1.1.1

2.1.1 Geometric design parameters 2.1.1

2.2.1 Types of provision 2.2.2

2.2.2 Issues to consider between on-carriageway and off-carriagewayprovision 2.2.3

2.2.3 Cycle Provision and Road Hierarchy 2.2.4

3.2.1 Potential action to create restrictedaccess street 3.2.1

3.3.1 Types of contra-flow provision 3.3.2

3.5.1 Do’s and don’ts in non-motorisedareas 3.5.2

3.6.1 Problem traffic calming measures 3.6.2

4.1.1 Cross-section comments andmitigation 4.1.3

4.2.1 Cycle lane advantages anddisadvantages 4.2.1

4.2.2 Cycle lane widths 4.2.2

4.2.3 Advantages and disadvantages ofdifferent types of on-carriagewayprovision 4.2.3

4.2.4 Advantages and disadvantages ofdifferent types of off-carriagewayprovision 4.2.6

4.2.5 Factors to consider when convertingan existing footway to a cycletrack. 4.2.7

5.2.1 Checklist for designing off-carriagewayroutes 5.2.3

5.3.2 Off-carriageway pavement designoptions 5.3.2

6.1.1 Types of cycle crossing 6.1.2

6.2.1 Criteria for suitability of informalat-grade rights of way crossings 6.2.2

6.2.1 Types of provision at priorityjunctions 6.2.3

6.3.1 Continental roundabout designparameters 6.3.1

6.4.1 Advanced stop line issues 6.4.3

9.3.1 Features needing immediateremedial action 9.3.1

9.3.2 Maintenance requirements 9.3.2

9.3.3 Roadworks width requirements 9.3.3

10.1.2 Signing guidance 10.1.1

10.1.1 Sign heights 10.1.1

10.1.3 Warning signs relevant for cycletracks 10.1.2

10.1.4 Sign illumination requirements 10.1.3

Plates (Photographs) Page Number

3.3.1 Example of false one-way street 3.3.4

3.8.1 Parking or limited waitingprovision 3.8.1

3.8.2 Example of cycle bypass 3.8.6

3.8.3 Narrowings that cause danger 3.8.8

6.2.2 Cycle lanes stopping just wherethey are needed 6.2.8

6.3.1 Advanced entry at roundabout 6.3.4

6.4.1 Example of a non-nearside feederlane approach to signals 6.4.6

List of Tables,and Plates

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: x

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: xi

GlossaryThe words “legal”, “engineering” and“planning” after the terms indicate thecontext of the meaning described.

Adjacent use (Planning): cycle facilities thatare adjacent to a pedestrian route butsegregated from it.

Bridleway (legal): means a right of way onfoot, to ride or lead a horse and to driveanimals. There is also a right to ride a pedal cyclebut right of way must be given to other users.

Byway open to all traffic (BOAT) (legal):route that carries footpath, bridleway andvehicular rights, usually unsurfaced.

Carriageway (engineering): that part of ahighway used by vehicles (that is pedal cyclesand other wheeled traffic).

Cycle (legal): means a bicycle, a tricycle, or acycle having four or more wheels, not being inany case a motor vehicle (S192 of Road TrafficAct 1988). An electrically assisted pedal cycle isnot treated as a motor vehicle (S189(1) RoadTraffic Act 1988).

Cycle lane: Advisory Cycle Lane(engineering): cycle lane indicated by brokenwhite line that allows motor vehicles to cross ifnecessary and park if not so restricted.

Cycle lane: Mandatory Cycle Lane(engineering): cycle lane on a carriagewayindicated by a solid white line and motorvehicles may not cross into the cycle lane.

Cycle path (planning): imprecise term for waywith no legal status, commonly used to indicatea route that is created by licence or permissiveaccess agreement.

Cycle track (legal): right of way constitutingor comprised in a highway, being a way overwhich the public have right of way on pedal

cycles with or without a right of way on foot.May physically comprise all of a footway (un-segregated), or be one part of a footway(segregated), or not be part of a footway at all.Note that pedestrians may still have right of wayeven across cycle tracks that are segregated.

Footpath (legal): means a highway over whichthe public have a right of way on foot only, notbeing a footway. Use of a bicycle is a trespassagainst the landowner. Usually unsurfaced.

Footway (legal): means a way comprised in ahighway which also comprises a carriageway,being a way over which the public have right ofway on foot only. It is a traffic offence to cycleon a footway.

Highway (legal): a way over which the publichas the right to pass and repass, may be anyway, court, alley, footpath, bridleway.

Off-carriageway (engineering): used todescribe a specific cycle facility not on thewheeled traffic carriageway of a highway.

On-carriageway (engineering): used todescribe a specific cycle facility on the wheeledtraffic carriageway of a highway.

Pavement (engineering): the engineeringmaterial used to form the structure and surfaceof footways, cycle tracks and highways etc.(Note: despite common usage, “pavement” inthese guidelines does not refer to a footway).

Permissive routes (legal): routes that may beused by permission of the landowner. Thesemay, for example, be routes through a parkwhere the relevant local authority committeehas permitted pedal cycle use.

Restricted byways (legal): all Roads Used asPublic Paths (RUPPs) are re-designated asrestricted byways under the Countryside and

Rights of Way Act 2000 and will have rights ofway on foot, pedal cycle and for horse ridersand horse drawn carriage vehicles.

Shared use facility (planning): cycle facilitiesthat are not segregated but comprise surfaces“shared” by pedestrians and cyclists but notmotor vehicles.

Traffic free route (Planning): a loose termused to describe routes that are not in acarriageway. They may include routes in forests,parks, along towpaths and old railway lines andmay be permissive routes or BOATs, bridleways,restricted byways or cycle tracks.

Glossary

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: xii

Lancashire - the cyclists' county Rev: 1.0 Date: November 2005 Page: 1.1.1

Section 1:Philosophy

1.1 General Principles

1.1.1 The bicycle and the rider1. The bicycle is a vehicle and it is driven and

powered by the cyclist.

2. The cyclist needs to develop sufficient skillto handle the vehicle and to operate it onthe road network.

3. The cyclist is subject on the highway tousual legal and highway code regulationsand advice.

4. There is no equivalent regulation andadvice for cycling off-highway.Consequently good design andconstruction specifications are needed foroff-highway routes to assist in overcomingthis lack of advice.

1.1.2 The purpose of guidelines1. The guidelines provide a readily usable

reference guide for professionals andothers involved in highway engineeringgenerally, and cycle traffic infrastructureengineering and planning in particular.They are to be used in Vulnerable RoadUser Audits.

2. They should be used to adapt existing anddevelop new infrastructure to anappropriate standard where required forcycle traffic.

3. Their use should assist in increasing thecompetitive advantage of cycling byminimising journey times and by creatingmore comfortable conditions.

4. Overall they should assist in increasing theproportion of the population feelingreadily able to make a positive choice touse the bicycle.

5. The guidelines also help to ensuremaintenance is undertaken appropriatelyand is considered during design.

1.1.3 Attitudes to cycling1. A detailed questionnaire of 650 people

and a small number of questions in anationally representative sample of 3000(TRL Report 481) demonstrated that thegreatest increase in cycling could beachieved by promoting its convenienceand the fact that cycling can provide fastdoor to door journey times.

Table 1.1.1 Types of UK cyclistRegard of Cycling Percentage

of Population

Committed cyclists 7%

Regular cyclists 8%

Occasional cyclists 15%

Do not think of it 18%

Unconvinced / no-needor other regard 52%

Total 100%Source: TRL Report 481

1.1.4 Speeds and competency1. Cyclists’ speed on the flat can vary from

walking pace to around 20 mph. Manycyclists travel at between 20 mph and 30mph on steep or long downhill sections.

Some cyclists will wish to travel as fast aspossible with as few stops as possible.Others may wish to progress at a slowpace. Design needs to accommodate thisrange in speed.

2. Just as general highway design guidanceassumes a level of competence forhighway users, design guidancespecifically for cycling assumes a level ofcompetence also. This applies equally tochild and adult cyclists.

1.1.5 Types of provision1. Different sections of the cycling

community have different views aboutprovision of cycle friendly infrastructure.Some suggest comprehensive routes offthe highway, others suggest the optimumnetwork is available on-carriageway.

2. These design guidelines seek to provideadvice on how to minimise time and effortin cycling for any given journey.

3. The type of provision needs to beappropriate for the route and becomfortable for cyclists (See Tables 2.2.1,4.2.3 & 4.2.4).

4. If routes are on the carriagway, traffic caninfluence the level of comfort a cyclistfeels. The environment can be noisy andair quality poor and traffic moving atdifferent relative speeds to the cyclist canengender fear.

5. Safety still needs to be considered ontraffic free routes and traffic free does notmean accident free. While thesurroundings may be more pleasant, greateffort needs to be placed on appropriatedesigns to minimise cycle-cycle and cycle-pedestrian conflicts.

6. Crossings of highways, particularly if notcontrolled, can pose difficulties also.

1.1.6 CriteriaMany practitioners follow the establishedrequirement first defined in the Dutch cycledesign manual (CROW, 1993):

Coherence: links all departure and destinationpoints of cyclists.

Directness: as direct a route as possible.

Attractiveness: designed and fitted into thesurroundings.

Safety: improves safety for cyclists, includingpersonal safety.

Comfort: quick and comfortable flow forbicycle traffic.

These criteria are further expanded below as aseries of actions to maximise and minimise:

Maximise:

• advantage to cycle traffic;

• the speed range over which it iscomfortable to cycle;

• accessibility for cycle traffic using thenetwork; and

• integration with public transport.

Minimise:

• journey times;

• the number of stops required;

• the number of cycle give ways required;

• the gradient required to ascend anddescend; and

• obstacles and barriers along a route.

1.1.7 Factors to consider1. In line with Cycle Friendly Infrastructure

(IHT, 1996) the following solutions, orcombinations of them, should beconsidered:

• traffic reduction (volume reduction);

• speed reduction;

• junction treatment and trafficmanagement to help cycle traffic;

• allocation of the carriageway width;

• provision of cycle lanes; and

• provision of cycle tracks.

2. It is difficult to achieve overall trafficreduction in an area, but it is possible by

Section 1: Philosophy


reducing traffic on one road to improveconditions for cyclists on that road. Lowspeeds and traffic calming are generallyacceptable to the public on minor roads,but speed limits lower than 30mph on mainroads are not. Measures that prioritisecyclists that result in delays to motorists arenot likely to be popular with the public.

3. Speed reduction techniques include speedlimits, cameras, vehicle activated “SLOWDOWN” signs and traffic calming.

4. Measures to prioritise cycle traffic atjunctions include advanced stop lines orcycle stages in the signal cycle.

5. Space can be allocated to cycle traffic usingmeasures such as cycle lanes. Cycle tracks remote from the carriageway can be wellused if they provide a short-cut.

6. Lancashire County Council’s road userhierarchy can be given real meaningthrough appropriate use of theseguidelines. The hierarchy is:

• pedestrians, including people withreduced mobility;

• emergency service vehicles;

• cyclists;

• public transport, including communitytransport and taxis;

• delivery vehicles; and

• private motor vehicles.

7. An objective of these guidelines is topromote the appropriate allocation ofroad space and priority and reduction ofmotor vehicle speeds to favour cycletraffic, in line with Lancashire CountyCouncil’s functional road hierarchystrategy.

8. Other relevant design guidance is Cyclingby Design (Scottish Executive, 1999a) andNational Cycle Network Guidelines andPractical Details (Sustrans, 1997).

1.1.8 Applicability1. It may be necessary to make changes to

policy documents and practices to reflectthese guidelines. The guidelines apply toall roads, cycle tracks, bridleways andfootpaths for which Lancashire CountyCouncil is the highway authority, includingthose maintained by Districts on behalf ofLancashire County Council. They should beused for any scheme to which LancashireCounty Council is contributing cost and it isrecommended that they are used on otherroads, cycle tracks and paths in the county.

2. Innovative measures that are not includedin these guidelines would also beconsidered if they have been successfullyused elsewhere.

3. Statutory undertakers need to complywith these guidelines in the work that theyundertake in the highway.

4. Developers and their agents will need torefer to these guidelines.

5. These guidelines will assist in thecompletion of Vulnerable Road UserAudits.

6. Where it is difficult to meet therecommendations of these guidelines,designers should carefully balancedifferent users needs giving priority to theneeds of those at the top of the hierarchy.Designers may need to consider whether asub-standard measure is better than nomeasure at all, but should recognise thatsub-standard measures can cause moreproblems than they solve. In such instancesit is recommended that designers consultthe county’s cycling team.




Section 2:Design Principles2.1 Design Speeds

2.1.1 Design speeds andgeometry1. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

TA90/05 (DfT, 2005) provides someinformation for the design of cycle pathlinks constructed in connection with trunkroad schemes. Where motor vehicles arenot present, for example, off-carriagewayprovision, the adoption of design speedsappropriate to cycle traffic will assist inspecifying appropriate geometry.

2. Choice of design speed will depend onassumed principal types of user. Cycletracks and other traffic free routes usedfor commuting and other utility ridingshall normally be to a design speed of 30kph. Reductions to “one-step below”design speed of 20 kph are acceptable, butshould be avoided at certain locations, forexample radii tighter than 39 metresshould be avoided at the bottom of gentlegradients. The 40 kph design speed isprovided for information but may be ofrelevance when considering downhillsections. For leisure routes it may be quiteacceptable to adopt a 20kph design speed.

Table 2.1.1 Geometric designparameters

Design Speed kph 40 30 20

Design Speed mph 25 19 12

Stopping Sight Distance (m) 64 40 22

(DMRB preferred minimum 30)

Horizontal radius (m) 70 39 17

(DMRB preferred minimum 25)

Vertical curve crest K value 9.1 8.2 3.4

(DMRB minimum crest K value 5.0)

(DMRB minimum sag K value 1.6)

Full overtaking sight distance (m) 217 156 94

3. Stopping sight distance is based oncomfortable deceleration at 0.15g. Thevisibility envelope should encompasseverything from cyclists eye height (95%of which are less than 1.81 metres) to theroad surface.

Notes

1) Assumes co-efficient of friction of 0.18 andangle of lean of cyclist limit to 10°.Superelevation will not significantly affectthese radii and hence camber for drainageshould determine the crossfall.

2) Where a cyclist is expected to slow down(e.g. on theapproach to a subway), thedesign speed may be reduced to 10Kphover short distances with the use of SLOWmarkings. At 10Kph Stopping SightDistance is 10 metres and the minimumradius 4 metres.

Section 2: Design Principles


4. Horizontal radii are based on similarformulations as for motor vehicles.Junction radii are given elsewhere.

5. The vertical curve crest K value multipliedby the difference in gradient gives thelength of a vertical curve and is based onthe stopping sight distance criterion.

6. Full overtaking sight distance is based onusual accepted highway principles. Notethat at lower speed cycle traffic readilyinteracts, it is only at higher speed that theissue becomes relevant.

7. Note that it is not possible to impose speedlimits other than 20mph, 30mph andabove on UK highways. It should be notedthat on cycle tracks, cycle traffic mayreadily cycle at speeds greater than 20mph.

8. Consideration should be given to usingslow markings and warning signs asappropriate on cycle tracks.

2.1.2 Gradient1. A gradient of 3% is comfortable and hence

should be regarded as a desirablemaximum. (Note that a power output of75 watts and a minimum speed of 5mphwould imply a gradient of 2.4%). Up to 6%

a gradient remains possible for mostpeople over short distances of 100 metresor so. Gradients of more than 6% shouldbe avoided where possible, for plannedcycle routes but, for short essential links,modern gearing (and recently power-assisted cycles) enable much steeper slopesto be tackled without much difficulty.

2. At constant power output a gradient of5% may reduce a cyclists’ speed to roughlyone third of the speed on the level. Somecyclists may maintain a constant poweroutput, others may respond to hills byincreasing their effort to maintain aconstant speed. The majority are likely toincrease power output and reduce speedto climb a hill. Increased effort is likely toreduce perceptions of comfort.

3. At the base and top of gradientsexceeding 2% a level plateau at least 5metres long is desirable in advance of giveway and stop lines.

4. A longer slacker gradient detour to anascent will always consume more energyand will always take longer for a givenpower output (as there are greaterdistances over which the air resistance androlling resistance have to be overcome).

VisibilityEnvelope

2.2m

1.0mmin

Stopping sight distance

Object

Figure 2.1.1 Cyclists’ eye height

Notes

1) Cyclists should be able to see an object atminimum stopping distance from an eyeheight of 1 metre to 2.2 metres. The objectheight should be taken from ground level(e.g. a pothole) to 2.2 metres high.

Nevertheless, such an arrangement may bemore desirable for some cyclists whoprefer a lower power output.

5. A slacker gradient can be less intimidatingand require less bodily stressful effort onthe part of the cyclist. (Note that slow legmotion is an inefficient way to producepower, so steep gradients feel muchharder work).

6. It is useful to realise that:

• steeper gradients are better at thebottom of a rise, slackening off nearthe top; and

• plateaux at the bottom of a hill on adescent are appropriate beforejunctions, bends etc.

7. Uphill and downhill gradients haveimportant consequences for the designand use of road space. Uphill cyclistscannot maintain traffic speed, cannot lookback easily and are more unstable. Inparticular they must not be expected totackle pinch points or other difficultmanoeuvres (See Table 4.1.1). Downhill itwill be easier to mix with general trafficbut the consequences of a collision aregreater. Cycle lanes, if provided, shouldhave extra width with no abruptmanoeuvres or pinch points.

8. On down hill gradients cyclists stoppingsight distance increases. Obstacles andsharp bends should be avoided at thebottom of long/steep gradients.

9. Wind has a severe effect on speed.Consideration should be given on coastalroutes and other exposed routes to theprevailing direction of the wind andbunds, walls, fences and landscaping thatcould mitigate its effects. Effects may beparticularly pronounced at discretelocations such as promontories and crestsor bends on hills or minor roads leadinginto large junctions.

2.1.3Headroom1. For obstacles longer than 23 metres, a

minimum headroom of 2.7 metres shouldbe provided. For shorter obstructions suchas signs, this may be reduced to 2.4 metres.Where 2.4 metres headroom can not beprovided cyclists should be advised todismount.

2. For ridden horses desirable headroom is3.4 metres and absolute minimumheadroom is 2.8 metres. Where horseriders have to dismount signs andmounting blocks should be provided.



Speed versus gradient

Gradient

Sp

eed

(mp

h)

0-4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

5

10

15

20

25

3075 watts - Slow cyclist

150 watts - Commuter/tourer

400 watts - Racing cyclist

Figure 2.1.2 Speed versus gradient



2.2 NetworkEngineering

2.2.1 Principles1. Provision for cycle traffic is more than the

construction of specific measures. Theneeds of cycle traffic should be catered forin the design of all traffic managementand highway improvement schemes. CycleReview procedures and, specifically forproposed schemes, Vulnerable Road UserAudits will assist in this process.

2. Most cycling in urban areas is on thecarriageway and will remain so. However,traffic management schemes designed tocontrol motor traffic often produceinferior routes for cycle traffic.

3. In many circumstances significant reductionsin journey times can be achieved for cycletraffic by short sections of route that makeessential connections that are inappropriateor impossible for motor traffic.

4. Sometimes this may mean crossing orrunning onto a footway converted to cycletrack for a short section. Great care must betaken not to inconvenience pedestrians orslow cycle traffic to an unreasonable extent.

5. Development control should ensure thatroads in new developments are designedto take into account the needs of cyclistsand that internal layouts (e.g. tosupermarket car parks) allow for safe andconvenient progression of cycle trafficfrom the entrances to the allocated cycleparking facility (see section 7).

2.2.2 Route types1. Cycle route density is created principally by

the existing highway network. It is helpful tohave a high density of routes for cycle traffic.

2. Depending on context, it may be useful toconsider the cycle network as comprisingthree types of route:

• Main-Road Routes which mayinclude all distributor roads;

• Minor-Road Routes to provideadditional permeability and a morepleasant environment; and

• Off-road Routes for recreational useand essential connections.

3. There may be widely varying priorities forthe implementation of routes. Prioritiesmay depend on wider social policies, but itis important to provide for a highproportion of complete journeys to bemade by bicycle in the short term. It is alsoimportant to have a long-term plan, so thatsections of routes that can be fortuitouslyand economically implemented with otherdevelopments are incorporated in them.

4. The features of the Main-Road Routeswould be direct alignments principally on-carriageway with limited time delays atcongestion spots. Proposals forimprovement on the Main-Road Routesshould address delay issues and promoteenhanced priority. Many of the Main-RoadRoutes may also have priority measures forbuses. Other facilities, specifically for cycletraffic, may include cycle lanes to accessadvanced stop lines.

5. Measures on Minor-Road Routes wouldbe most likely to consist of traffic calmedroads, other lower speed connections and20 mph zones. Good crossings of majorroads are very important in establishingthese routes. They must be comprehensiveand could extend over long distances.Direction signing to ensure route visibilitywill be essential.

6. Routes should extend to ultimatedestinations where parking facilities areprovided. At building entrances, forexample, these should not normally befurther than 20 metres from the mainentrance (see section 7).

7. Main-Road Routes may be cycling“Proactive”, “Friendly” or “Neutral” in theterms of IHT (1998) cycle audit and cyclereview. Signed cycle routes will always be“Proactive”.



Ap

pli

cab

ilit

yA

dvan

tag

es

Dis

ad

van

tag

es

Co

mm

en

tSee a

lso

On

-•

mo

st u

rban

sit

uat

ion

s;•

visi

bili

ty t

o d

rive

rs;

•tr

affi

c sp

eed

an

d v

olu

me;

•o

verl

oo

ked

in

Tab

le 4

.1.1

carr

iag

ew

ay

•ru

ral l

anes

/min

or

road

s;•

flex

ible

, •

squ

eezi

ng

at

pin

ch p

oin

ts;

too

man

yFi

gu

re 4

.1.3

(wit

h o

r •

the

bas

ic c

ycle

net

wo

rk.

com

pre

hen

sive

•p

oo

r d

rivi

ng

;cy

clin

g s

trat

egie

s.w

ith

ou

tn

etw

ork

;•

eng

inee

rin

g n

ot

acco

un

tin

g f

or

cycl

e tr

affi

c;Ta

ble

4.2

.3cy

cle l

an

es)

•d

irec

t, s

mo

oth

, lev

el,

•d

iffi

cult

jun

ctio

ns;

con

ven

ien

t.•

con

fid

ence

nee

ded

;•

con

ges

tio

n a

nd

del

ay a

t ju

nct

ion

s.

Ad

jace

nt

to•

esse

nti

al c

on

nec

tio

ns

/ •

mo

tor

traf

fic

free

•co

nfl

ict

wit

h p

edes

tria

ns

/ ho

rse

rid

ers

/ •

po

or

faci

litie

s Ta

ble

4.2

.4ca

rria

gew

ay

byp

asse

s to

so

lve

(exc

ept

cro

ssin

g r

oad

s d

isab

led

;ab

ou

nd

;Fi

gu

re 4

.1.6

par

ticu

lar

pro

ble

ms;

and

jun

ctio

ns)

;•

con

flic

t w

ith

pas

sen

ger

s w

aiti

ng

at

bu

s st

op

s;•

no

t an

eas

y Fi

gu

re 5

.2.1

•lo

ng

str

etch

es b

esid

e•

can

cre

ate

dir

ect

•p

oo

r vi

sib

ility

to

dri

vers

;o

pti

on

to

get

m

ajo

r ro

ads;

sho

rt c

uts

;•

giv

ing

way

an

d d

ang

er a

t ju

nct

ion

s an

dri

gh

t.•

wh

ere

spee

d /

volu

me

/ •

gre

ater

fee

ling

s cr

oss

ing

s;sp

ace

req

uir

emen

ts m

ake

of

safe

ty?

•p

oo

r su

rfac

es a

nd

gra

die

nts

;w

ith

in c

arri

agew

ay

•le

ss s

wee

pin

g, o

r cl

eara

nce

of

sno

w a

nd

p

rovi

sio

n u

nat

trac

tive

.le

aves

usu

ally

un

der

take

n;

•fa

lse

sen

se o

f se

curi

ty;

•p

oo

r d

esig

ns

oft

en e

vid

ent;

•en

cou

rag

es f

oo

tway

cyc

ling

.

Aw

ay f

rom

•sh

ort

lin

ks t

o c

om

ple

te

•tr

affi

c fr

ee;

•m

ain

ten

ance

•

sho

uld

be

to

Tab

le 4

.2.4

carr

iag

ew

ay

a ro

ute

;•

som

etim

es d

irec

t;(c

lear

ing

leav

es, s

no

w);

com

ple

men

t th

e

Fig

ure

4.1

.6•

leis

ure

ro

ute

s;•

few

if a

ny

traf

fic

•p

oo

r su

rfac

es;

road

net

wo

rk a

nd

Fig

ure

5.2

.1•

rou

tes

thro

ug

h p

arks

,h

old

up

s.•

nee

d f

or

or

lack

of

ligh

tin

g;

no

t in

stea

d o

f th

e Fi

gu

re 5

.2.3

gre

en s

pac

es, c

anal

s an

d•

po

ssib

le c

on

flic

t w

ith

road

net

wo

rk;

old

rai

lway

s.p

edes

tria

ns,

ch

ildre

n, d

og

s an

d

•ch

arac

ter

mu

sth

ors

e ri

der

s;b

e ap

pro

pri

ate

•ca

n b

e in

dir

ect;

to in

ten

ded

use

.•

per

son

al s

ecu

rity

per

cep

tio

ns;

•va

nd

alis

m if

use

is lo

w;

•g

rad

ien

ts o

ften

po

or

/un

du

lati

ng

;•

ow

ner

ship

an

d le

gal

situ

atio

n c

om

ple

x;•

con

nec

tio

n w

ith

su

rro

un

din

g r

oad

net

wo

rk c

an b

e p

oo

r.

Tab

le 2

.2.1

Ty

pes

of

pro

vis

ion



2.2.3 Essential connections in anetwork1. Essential connections need to avoid being

“stopped-up” in traffic management andhighway schemes. They can also be createdwhere they do not presently exist.Examples of avoiding loss of connectionsinclude:

• exemptions for banned turns;

• exemptions to one-way streets, i.e.contra-flow cycle lanes;

• cycle use of bus lanes;

• progression through culs-de-sac toadjoining streets;

• use of vehicle restricted areas;

• toucan crossings across major roads;and

• essential links preserved throughdevelopment sites.

2. Examples of creating essential connectionsinclude:

• well defined cycle tracks across pre-existing pedestrianised areas;

• timed access to cycle traffic inpedestrianised areas. Access wouldusually be co-temporal with anyloading and unloading activity,otherwise before 10 am and after 4pm to allow for the commuter peak;

• adapting existing subways;

• routes across parkland;

• using what are otherwise footbridgesover obstacles such as rivers or railways;

• constructing bridges over rivers andrailways etc.;

• using ginnels and passageways(recognising any personal securityimplications); and

• preservation and enhancement ofpermeability through development sites.

3. All of the above require localknowledge, imagination and somedetermination to see through any legalprocesses required.

4. Direction signing of cycle routes,particularly where there are convenientessential connections that may easily bemissed, is an essential feature of provision.

Factor Cycle traffic Cycle trafficon-carriageway off carriageway

Motor Traffic volume lower higher

Traffic speed lower higher

Cyclist type experienced less experienced

Carriagway width wider narrower

Number of junctions and accesses higher lower

Pedestrian flow higher lower

On street parking lesser greater

% HGV lower higher

Table 2.2.2 Issues to consider between on-carriageway and off-carriageway provision

Notes

1) See also Section 4, particularly figures 4.1.6and 4.1.7.

2.2.4 Road Hierarchy1. Cycle provision can also be related to the

road hierarchy.



Footways divergent Cycling not allowed. In new developments consider whether they should from carriagway be cycle tracks rather than from footways.

Cycle tracks divergent Shared with pedestrians.from carriageways

Pedestrian Streets Priority to pedestrians. Consider allow cycling in pedestrian streets, especially if alternative routes for cyclists are poorand have a poor safety record for cyclists.

Cycle Streets Through streets for cyclists, but In a town centre could be the next stage up from restricted access for motor vehicles. pedestrian streets.

Bridleways Cyclists allowed, but should give way Where bridleway is promoted both as a horse, to pedestrians and horse riders. cycling and pedestrian route, consider a sealed

surface for pedestrians with a stone surface for horses.

Quiet Roads Minor roads with low vehicle flows and low speeds promoted as walking, cycle and horse riding routes.

Shared Access Routes Living space. Streets where children May not be appropriate to direct through cycle routesHome Zones can play (including on bikes) in safety. through them.

20mph Zones, Generally attractive to cycle on Tight profiles will generally be acceptable.Traffic calmed streets carriageway.

Access Roads Generally attractive to cycle on Tight profiles will generally be acceptable.carriageway.

Local Distributors Depending on traffic flows may not Consider “spacious profile” with Cycle Lanes or off (eg Main Housing be attractive to cycle on a standard carriageway cycle track depending on traffic flows Estate Roads) width carriageway. and speeds.

District Distributor Will not normally be attractive to “Spacious profile” with cycle lanes or off carriageway Roads (Broad roads cycle on standard width carriageway cycle track.in urban areas) due to traffic volumes.

Primary Distributors Will not normally be attractive to 1. Speeds 30/40mph - consider spacious profile with (A Roads) cycle on standard width carriageway cycle lanes or off carriageway cycle track.

due to traffic volumes and speeds. 2. Speeds greater than 40mph. Off carriagewaycycle track.

Roads of Regional 1. Will not normally be attractive to 1. Generally off carriageway cycle track.Significance cycle on standard width carriageway 2. Cyclists have a legal right to cycle on all A roads (eg single due to traffic volumes and speeds. including high speed trunk roads therefore need to carriageway consider how to provide for them.trunk roads) 3. Some routes of regional significance will also be

important urban routes, therefore it is important that cyclists are provided for on them.

Grade separated 1. Traffic merging and leaving road at 1. Provide a parallel cycle route.A Roads slip roads will make it unsafe for 2. Consider slipway crossovers for cyclists.

cyclists to use the road. 3. Roundabout associated with grade separated junctions will often cause cyclists safety problems.Consider alternative routes or signalisation.

Motorways 1. Cyclists not allowed. 1. Roundabout associated with motorway junctions will often cause cyclists safety problems. Consider alternative routes or signalisation of roundabouts.

Table 2.2.3 Cycle Provision and Road Hierarchy

2.3 Safety Facts

2.3.1 Accidents in Lancashire1. The chart below shows the number of

accidents to cyclists plotted against thecontributory factors quoted as causing theaccident. Of those that are of knowncause, or are attributable in some way, themajority (54%) are attributable to motorvehicles (Factors 1-11). When child (under16 years) cyclist accidents are removed thisjumps to 72% attributable to motorvehicles.

2. Causes of child cyclist accidents arepredominantly cycling onto or off thecarriageway, and emerging from a minorroad into the path of a vehicle. There is nosubstitute for training children to regardhighways as places where rules anddiscipline are required and such trainingmay positively influence a reduction in thenumbers of this type of accident.

3. So far as adult accidents are concerned themajority (67%) of those accidentsattributable to vehicles (factor numbers 8to 11) occur at junctions. There are fewaccidents associated with moving trafficalong a highway (factor numbers 5, 6 and14, 14% in both “caused by cyclist” and“caused by vehicle” categories).

2.3.2 Caution and conclusion1. It should be noted that casualty accidents

are under-reported to the police (DfT,2000b). Of those that are reported, abouta fifth do not appear in statistical returns.There is a tendency to underestimatecasualty severity and, finally, reportingrates for vulnerable road user groups arelower than the average.

2. An absence of cycle traffic on the highwaymay be an indication of the level ofperceived risk. As a result cyclists maychose not to use that road.



2 Veh collides PC pulling out to O/T parked veh1 Other e.g. reversing off drive, Veh loss of control

3 Pedestrian in C/Way4 Veh shunts moving PC

5 Veh O/T then fails to give clearance to PC6 Veh door opened into path of PC

7 Veh O/T then turns left across path of PC8 Veh turning right collides with PC9 Veh enters RBt colliding with PC

10 Veh emerges from minor road into path of PC

11 Other e.g. drunk PC, wrong way on 1-way road12 PC changes lane / RT without looking behind

13 PC undertakes in static traffic14 PC loses control, mechanical failure, falls off

15 PC fails to see stationary / parked veh16 PC emerges from minor road into path of veh

17 PC off / onto footwayunknown / not attributable

Contributory Factors Quoted

Number of Accidents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

16-24 years

25+ years

under 16 years

Cyclist Accidents in Lancashire 2001

Factors related to the driver or motorbike rider

Factors related to the cyclist

Figure 2.3.1 Cyclist injury accidents in Lancashire 2001

Notes

1) From STATS 19 accident data.

3. The corollary to the above is that measuresmust not be introduced which could falselycreate the impression of greater safetywhere no such greater safety exists. Thismay encourage use, but in dangeroussituations.

4. Indeed evidence from Europe (Ekman,1996) suggests that when the level of cycletraffic exceeds a certain threshold, driversare more likely to expect to see cyclistsresulting in a reduction in cycle accidents.20mph and home zones in areas whereyoung children are likely to be playing oncycles will also help to reduce accidents.

5. Analysis of the contributory factorsinvolved in accidents to cyclists inLancashire leads to the conclusion thattraining of child cyclists and attention todesign at junctions would lead to thegreatest reduction in casualties. Simplycycling along the carriageway should notpose significant risk provided conditionsare reasonable, although of course it maybe less than pleasant.

6. Appropriate speed reduction, particularlyin residential areas may also assist inreducing the child cyclist accident rate.

7. Where the driver is at fault in junctionaccidents it is often the failure of drivers tosee cycle traffic that is the cause. Factorsrelating to this are:

• speed of vehicle through junction; forexample at roundabouts with littleentry deflection or junctions withrelaxed radii;

• entry angles that drivers look throughto see traffic over their shoulder;

• visibility available too far back fromthe junction;

• difficulty drivers have in moving awayfrom the junction; and

• poor visibility at the junction.

8. Drivers are also likely to misjudge thespeed of cycle traffic going downhillthrough a junction.

9. It should be noted that commonperceptions of the risk of cycling are notborn out by the safety facts presentedabove.

10. The accident record should not be the onlycriterion for introducing changes to theroad environment (See Section 1.1.6).



2.4 Legal Guidelines

2.4.1 Countryside Act 1968S30 provides a right to ride a bicycle, not beinga motor vehicle, on a bridleway but the cyclistshall make way to pedestrians and persons onhorseback.

2.4.2 Highways Act 1980 definitions

General Provisions

Provides power to local highway authorities andto the Secretary of State as a highway authority.These cover provision of new highways, powersof maintenance and protection of public rightson highways etc.

Cycle tracks

S24(2) enables a highway authority to provide acycle track as highway.

S65(1) empowers a highway authority toconstruct a cycle track as part of a highwaymaintainable at public expense which includes amade-up carriageway and to provide streetlighting on the cycle track.

S65(2) empowers a highway authority to alter orremove a cycle tack provided under S65(1).

S66(4) empowers a highway authority toremove a footway.

S329(1) defines a cycle track as a way comprisedin or constituting a highway with a right of wayfor pedal cycles with, or without, a right of wayof foot.

Footways

S66 places a duty on a highway authority toprovide a footway when necessary or desirablefor the safety or accommodation of pedestrians.

S75 allows an authority to vary the relativewidths of a carriageway and of any footway.

Guard rails etc.

S66(2) provides for the undertaking of specifiedworks on a highway maintainable at publicexpense which consists of or comprises acarriageway, for the purpose of safeguardingpersons using the footway.

S66(3) provides for the undertaking of specifiedworks, on a footpath, for the purpose ofsafeguarding persons using the footpath.

Subways and footbridges

S69(1) provides for the construction of subwaysfor the use of pedestrians to cross a highwayincluding a carriageway. Any subway can bealtered, removed or temporarily closed.

S70(1) gives power to construct, maintain and lightpedestrian bridges across highways. Anyfootbridge can be altered, removed or temporarilyremoved. This provision applies where part of thebridge falls outside the limits of the highway. Landacquisition powers are also available.

Road humps

S90A-F contain powers for constructing roadhumps, either as specially authorised by theSecretary of State for Transport, or inaccordance with the current Highways (RoadHumps) Regulations. For further guidance seeTraffic Advisory Leaflet 7/96 Highways (RoadHumps) Regulations 1996.

Traffic Calming

The Traffic Calming Act 1992 amended theHighways Act 1980 by the addition of S90G-Ithat provide for the construction of the maintraffic calming features other than road humps.They must either conform with the currenthighways (Traffic Calming) regulations or bespecially authorised by the Secretary of State forTransport. Features currently enabled by theregulations are build-outs, chicanes, gateways,islands, over-run areas, pinch points and rumbledevices. For further information see TrafficAdvisory Leaflet 7/93.



Lighting

S97 empowers a local highway authority toprovide lighting on any highway for which it isthe highway authority.

Land acquisition

Part XII contains powers for the acquisition,vesting and transfer of land required forhighway purposes.

Stopping-up

S116 provides magistrates’ courts with a powerto authorise the stopping up or diversion of ahighway.

2.4.3 Wildlife and CountrysideAct 1981S53 requires surveying authorities to keep adefinitive map and statement of rights of wayunder review.

2.4.4 Cycle Track Act 1984

Mopeds

S1 removes the right of mopeds to use existingor future cycle tracks.

Motor Vehicles

S2 made it an offence, with specified defences, todrive or park a motor vehicle (including moped)other than a bicycle on a cycle track. Legal advicemay need to be sought as pre-existing rights ofaccess for motor vehicles may create conflict. S2 issuperseded by S21 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Conversion of footpaths into cycle tracks

S3 provides a procedure under which all or partof a footpath can be converted to a cycle trackunder an order made by the highway authorityand confirmed by them if unopposed. If theorder is opposed, confirmation by the Secretaryof State contingent on a public inquiry orwritten representations is required.

Barriers etc.

S4(1) empowers authorities to provide andmaintain barriers on a cycle track.

S4(2) empowers authorities, where a cycle trackis adjacent to a footpath or footway, to provideand maintain such works as they considernecessary to separate, in the interests of safety,cycle track users from those using the footpathor footway.

S4(3) empowers authorities to alter or removeany works provided under subsection (1) or (2).

2.4.5 Road Traffic Regulation Act1984

General provisions

Covers traffic regulation orders, parking placeorders (including the provision of stands andracks for bicycles) compulsory purchase powersand traffic signs.

S122 imposes a duty upon local authorities tosecure the expeditious, convenient and safemovement of vehicular and other traffic, andthe provision of suitable and adequate parkingfacilities on and off the highway.

Traffic Regulation Orders

S1 allows traffic authorities to make trafficregulation orders which include prohibiting anyclass or classes of traffic from streets, or parts ofstreets, either generally or at specific times.

S9 allows local authorities to make experimentaltraffic regulation orders. Such experimentalorders are limited to a maximum period of 18months.

Parking places

Part IV of the Act enables local authorities toprovide off-street parking places for vehicles,and, by order, to authorise use of any part of aroad as a parking place. These powers areextended under S63 of the Act to enable localauthorities to provide, in roads or elsewhere,stands and racks for bicycles. A schedule needsto be maintained of cycle racks in the highway.





Traffic signs

S64 and S65 contain general provisionsregarding traffic signs, including traffic signalsand tactile markings. Traffic signs must complywith the current Traffic Signs Regulations andGeneral Directions, or be specially authorised onbehalf of the Secretary of State for Transport.

Bollards and other obstructions

S92 gives authorities powers to erect bollards and other obstructions, to give effect to a trafficregulation order made under either S1 or S9.

2.4.6 Town and Country PlanningAct 1990

General provisions

Provides powers for local planning authorities, aduty to prepare structure and local plans andpowers to grant planning permissions.

Development

S55 excludes the following as development:where a Highway Authority carries out worksfor maintenance or improvement within theboundaries of the highway, unless, where theyare not exclusively for maintenance, thisincludes any works which may have significantadverse effects on the environment.

Stopping-up

S247 gives the Secretary of State powers to stop-up highways for the purposes of development.

Extinguishment of vehicular rights

S249 covers orders to extinguish vehicular rights(with or without exceptions to classes ofvehicles), made by the Secretary of State.

2.4.7 Environmental ProtectionAct 1990While not a Highway Authority function, S89requires local authorities and local highwayauthorities to keep the highway clear of litterand clean. For further information see theSecretary of State’s code of practice atwww.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/litter/code/index.htm.

2.4.8 Countryside and Rights ofWay Act 2000S47(2) “road used as a public path” shall betreated instead as a “restricted by-way”.

S48(4) a restricted by-way has rights of way onfoot, horseback or leading a horse and vehiclesother than mechanically propelled vehiclesunder the Road Traffic Act 1988.

S50 Private vehicle rights in addition to publicrights of way may obtain on restricted by-ways.

2.4.9 Transport Act 2000S268 allows a local traffic authority to designatea road as a quiet lane or a home zone. This maybe done by use orders and speed orders butthese powers have not yet been introduced.

S268(3) A use order is an order permitting theuse of a road for purposes other than passage.

S268(5) A speed order is an order authorisingthe local traffic authority by whom it is made totake measures with a view to reducing thespeed of motor vehicles or cycles (or both) on aroad to below that specified in the order.

2.5 Cycling Benefits

2.5.1 Benefits1. Promotion of cycling can create switches in

mode choice away from private motorvehicle. Such mode share changes wouldresult in time savings accruing to generalmotor traffic and to individuals who mayfind their individual journeys quickerand/or less costly by bicycle. Cycling canhelp reduce congestion and the need toinvest in more expensive transport modes.

2. A further benefit of cycling is linked withincreased general health and fitnesswhich has personal benefits as well aseconomic benefits for the nation in termsof health service costs.

3. Employers will benefit from a workforcethat is healthier and stress free and there issome, but growing evidence of lessabsenteeism amongst cyclists. Cycleparking takes up less land space allowingland to be used for other purposes.

4. There are environmental benefits in termsof reduced pollution, noise andseverance as a result of fewer motorvehicles.

5. The bicycle is more affordable than the carand hence there are social equitybenefits to the promotion of cycle traffic.Cycling allows people without cars toreach destinations that they mightotherwise be unable to reach.

6. Particularly in more rural areas, routes maystimulate activity not present beforehand.Such activity may broadly come under theumbrella of tourism and could besignificant. Surveys show that cyclistsspend more than motorists in local shops,pubs and small businesses. There is alsoevidence that, as well as supportingexisting business, new businesses arecreated.

2.5.2 Costs1. There can be significant costs of provision

for cycle traffic, particularly for routesaway from the carriageway where largestructures and earthworks may be beingre-used, for example on old railwayalignments.

2. Consideration needs to be given in theearly stages of any design scheme tosignificant engineering costs that mayemerge.

3. Similarly, provision of new schemes cancreate a requirement for changedmaintenance regimes. These may have costimplications and again should beconsidered by the designer in consultationwith the relevant maintaining agency. Thismay be a highways department, or, forexample, a parks department.

4. Compared to other transport schemes,cycle schemes are relatively low cost.




Section 3:Creating PleasantRoad Conditions3.1 Principles

3.1.1 Coverage1. This section deals with a wide range of issues

to make routes more direct and pleasant forcycle traffic. The intention is to create greaterpermeability and advantage for the cyclist.

2. Traffic management methods suggestedinclude:

• Restricted Access streets: streets forthrough cycle traffic but restrict motortraffic to access only;

• Exemption from one-way streets:streets that are one way for generaltraffic but allow two-way bicycle traffic;

• Network permeability for cycletraffic: street patterns that have deadends for general traffic but not forcyclists; and

• Networks in non-motorised areas:Permission to ride in pedestrian areas.

3. Other schemes that may broadly beconsidered as traffic management, forexample use of bus lanes on cycle routes,or specific facilities at traffic signaljunctions, are dealt with in other sections.

4. Measures presented in this section should bepursued in their own right to promote cycling,and may also be promoted as part of generaltraffic management schemes in an area.

5. Measures in this section may form essentialconnections as described previously, andshould have appropriate direction signing.

6. Networks created by the above methodsshould create comprehensive networksand not dead ends or a need to dismount.

3.1.2 Reduction and restraint1. Traffic reduction and restraint will assist in

making conditions more pleasant for cyclists.

• Traffic restraint, managing thedemand for journeys by motorvehicles to within the notionalcapacity of the existing road network;

• Traffic management, managing trafficonto the most appropriate routesrequires strategic thinking. All trafficmanagement decisions affect cycle trafficand should be taken with a view toincreasing the geographical permeabilityand other advantages for cyclists.

2. Traffic restraint measures include:

• creation of Home Zones or 20mphZones that limit the attraction of astreet for motor traffic, but maintainpermeability for cyclists;

• use of traffic regulation orders to limitaccessibility to streets by certain typesof motor vehicle;

• restriction on parking, both on andoff-street; and

• introduction of traffic calmingmeasures.

3. Traffic Management measures include:

• control of volumes of traffic for exampleon parallel routes, to encourage cyclingon one of the routes;

• control of movements through bansand closures that favour cycle trafficover motor traffic; and

• control of speed through signing orautomatic enforcement (e.g. cameras).

Section 3: Creating Pleasant Road Conditions


5.00m(min)

3.00m(min)

2.15m(variable)

2.15m(variable)

Notes

1) Width dimensions shown for 7.3m carriageway.2) For carriageways less than 6.00m, consideration should be given to parking on

one side only.3) The 3.00m carriageway width is for 2-way cycle traffic.4) Kerb alterations should be in sympathy with design of surroundings.5) Kerb and white line changes should accommodate drainage and highway

sweeping requirements.

Ind

icati

ve

pro

pert

yfr

on

tag

elin

e

Ind

icati

ve

pro

pert

yfr

on

tag

elin

e

Physicalnarrowings to

be designed inrelation to

surroundings,shown

schematic only

10091003

1004

1010

1023

967 967

602 602

619 619

620 620

Road closures(See Figures3.4.2 and 3.4.3)may beappropriate atpoints along thestreet.

1057

Figure 3.1.1 Restricted access street



3.2 Restricted AccessStreet

3.2.1 Restricted Access street1. A restricted access street will usually be a

residential street but the measure may beused in town centres perhaps inconjunction with other trafficmanagement measures. In town centres,they represent the next step down frompedestrian streets. Dean Gate by YorkMinster could be described as a restrictedaccess street with through cycle trafficonly, and there are roads in the centre ofAmsterdam that are cycle only streets.Cycle streets are also common in Germany.

2. Opportunities for motor traffic passingplaces should be provided if the restrictedaccess street is long.

3. A traffic regulation order is needed tolimit motor vehicle traffic to “access only”.

4. Compliance with the order may be an issueand, depending on volumes, risingbollards or other physical control measuresmay be appropriate.

5. Clear cycle traffic direction signing shouldbe employed to alert cycle traffic to therestricted access street.

6. Space created by build outs should becarefully designed to blend aestheticallywith the surroundings.

7. Consideration should be given to the longterm maintenance of any landscapefeatures introduced, particularly if theirinitial costs are being met from a one-offcapital allocation.

Table 3.2.1 Potential action tocreate restricted access street

Visual narrowing by, for example, creatinga carriageway with edge of carriagewaymarkings 3.00 metres apart

Physical narrowing, such as use ofappropriate kerb build outs and planters orother landscape features

Restricting Access, such as motor trafficbeing allowed for access only

Point closure of the road to motor traffic(see Figures 3.4.2 and 3.4.3)



3.3 One-way Streets

3.3.1 Principles1. One-way streets for motor traffic should,

under normal circumstances, always beavailable for cycle traffic to travel along inboth directions, that is a contra-flow should be established.

2. Prevention of two-way cycle traffic onone-way streets will inevitably lead togreater times and distances than wouldotherwise be the case for some cyclejourneys. This will reduce the competitiveadvantage to cycle traffic and force cycliststo use generally busier roads which may beless pleasant to cycle on.

3. Exemptions for cycle traffic should alwaysbe considered when one-way streets forgeneral traffic management arepromoted.

4. One-way streets in town centres are oftenwide (more than one lane), long andencourage higher speeds than averageurban central areas. These situations canbe difficult for pedestrians and cyclists,and the generation of high speedsthrough use of one-way streets should beavoided.

5. Direction signs are likely to be principallydirected at motor traffic routes. Changesto route signing may be necessary to showthe different shorter cycle route created bycontra-flow cycle lanes along one-waystreets.

6. There is evidence that engineersundertaking safety audits are concernedabout contra-flow cycle lanes. Safetyaudits should include consideration of risksto cyclists if they have to use alternativeroutes in the absence of contra-flowfacilities.

7. For further general advice on contra-flowcycle facilities see TAL 6/98.

3.3.2 Contra-flow cycling1. Cyclists feel safe in contra-flow situations.

They are looking into the direction ofoncoming traffic but otherwise have atraffic free route. The risk is largely at sideroads on contra-flow routes.

2. To avoid diminishing the well recognisedeffect of “No Entry” signs, exemptions arediscouraged but may be used if space islimited and the link an essentialconnection. An island, providing aseparate channel for cycle traffic is a betteroption.

3. Cycle traffic will make movementsdifferent to motor traffic at the junctionsat either end of a contra-flow cycle lane,and consideration needs to be given toensuring safety and convenience. Anexample of how to treat a signalisedjunction is given at Figure 6.4.3.

4. Signs along the route need to be placedbeyond junctions where motor traffic mayenter the one-way street and be repeatedas often as deemed necessary to reinforcethe presence of the lane.

5. The cycle symbol (dia. 1057) in thecarriageway should be used similarly.

6. If a contra-flow lane is provided it shouldnormally be 2.0 metres wide if trafficvolumes and speeds are high. Wider lanesmay need to be provided depending onthe speed, volume, composition andvisibility of oncoming traffic and volumeof cycle traffic. Narrower cycle lanes maybe acceptable to complete an essentialconnection provided traffic speeds arelow.

7. Contra-flow lanes need to be wider atbends where otherwise encroachment byon-coming motor traffic might occur (SeeFigure 4.2.4 note 6).

8. Additional islands may be added along thelength of the one-way street to clearlydenote the cycle lane (See Figure 4.2.4note 3).

3.3.3 False one-way streets1. “False” one-way streets may be created

where two-way movement is still allowedalong the street apart from over a shortsection at the end of the street where itjoins with, for example, a main road.

2. A “false” one-way street is useful whereaccess, perhaps via other connecting roadsalong the street, is deemed necessary andwhere there is such demand that bothsides of the road are needed for parking.

3. As an alternative to “false” one-waystreets, it may be appropriate to considerplacing advisory cycle lanes behindparking bays (See also Figures 3.8.3 and4.2.4).

4. The “No Entry” to a “false” one-way streetwill be supported by a traffic regulationorder creating a one-way street over ashort length, usually the length of the kerbline build-out.

5. “False” one-way streets have numerousadvantages:

• very flexible and overcome otheraccess problems sometimes created byone-way streets;

• less signing required;

• the traffic regulation order is ofteneasier to make; and

• There is less objection fromfrontagers.

3.3.4 Legal issues1. Contra-flow conditions may be established by:

• a cycle traffic only lane in the oppositedirection to a one way-general trafficlane; or

• leaving a two-lane highway open toall traffic, but restricting turns at theentrance to the road.

2. Both of these scenarios are possible tocreate by regulation order.



Type of contra-flow provision Conditions for use

No cycle lane • as for false one-way street.

False one-way street • there is a lot of kerbside parking;

• 85%ile speed less that 25mph and flows less than 1,000 vehicles per day;

• street part of 20mph zone or subject to use order or speed order under Transport Act 2000.

Advisory cycle lane • 85%ile speed is less than 25 mph or vehicle flows less than 1,000 vehicles per day;

• encroachment for manoeuvring or overtaking is anticipated;

• occasional loading/unloading is required;

• it is not possible to restrict waiting at all times of the day.

Mandatory cycle lane • waiting and loading can be prohibited;

• no encroachment by opposing direction vehicles is anticipated.

Table 3.3.1 Types of contra-flow provision



967

610 (On bollard)

955 (On bollard)

1003

616

1023

955 1057

1009

1003 (half size)

1023(half size)

1046

1009 (half size)

NP 960.2 NP 960.2

NP 960.2

NP 960.2

Notes

1) Use of sign 960.2 requiresDfT approval.

2) Circumstances maysuggest thatcompromises may needto be made, for examplethe omission of thetraffic islands.

Figure 3.3.1 Contra-flow with no cycle lane



1003616

1023

1057

1046

1009(half size)

610(on bollard)

955(on bollard)

1004

Notes

1) Kerb and white line changes shouldaccommodate drainage and highwaysweeping requirements.

Entry

Figure 3.3.2 False one-way street

Plate 3.3.1 Example of false one-way street



1003 (half size)

1003619

1023

967

1057

1038

967

954.41057

1038

1009

1023(half size)

1046

1009 (half size)

962.1

NP 960.2

NP 960.2

NP 960.2

NP 960.2

606

619

1004

Notes1) Width of cycle lane to be 2.0

metres desirable minimum, widerwhere necessary to help preventoverrunning eg at bends.

2) Parking would be best on themotor traffic side of the street butfor property access reasons mightbe on the cycle traffic side of thestreet.

3) Taper to parking to be no less than1:4 but see Figure 4.2.1.

4) “Prohibition of driving”regulations order will need tospecify direction of motor traffic.

5) Use of sign 960.2 requires DfTapproval.

1032

1 metre dividingstrip (may be

narrower ifoncoming volumeand speed is low)

Figure 3.3.3 Advisory contra-flow cycle lane

Cycle lane



(with segregation at entry and exit).

610 (On bollard)

955 (On bollard)

1003

616

1023

610 (on bollard)

955

1057

1038

955

960.1

960.1 960.1

960.1

1059

1057

1038

10091003 (half size)

1023(half size)

1046

1003 (half size)

1009 (half size)

1049

Notes1) Width of cycle lane to

be 2.0metres, widerwhere necessary to helpprevent overrunninge.g. at bends.

2) Additional traffic islandmay be necessary onlonger sections (SeeFigure 4.2.4 note 3).

3) See Figure 6.4.4 forpossible layout withsignal control.

Figure 3.3.4 Mandatory contra-flow cycle lane

Mandatory cycle lane

3.4 NetworkPermeability

3.4.1 Network permeability1. In town and other district centres, where

careful management of road space isrequired to balance the activityrequirements of different road users, it isalways necessary to consider networkpermeability for cycle traffic.

2. This is equally true in areas where trafficmanagement is introduced to limit use ofresidential roads by longer distance motortraffic.

3. In both of these cases any proposals forcurtailment of the highway network usingeither culs-de-sac or road closures shouldalways take account of the needs of cycletraffic.

4. Street closures for motor trafficmanagement should be kept open forcycle traffic wherever possible to maintainessential connections.

5. The creation of short sections of cycle trackshould be considered where two existingroads, that were never joined, couldreadily be joined to create greaterpermeability and essential connections inthe network.



1023(half size)

1003(half size)

1003(half size)

1023(half size)

Cross-roads turned to non-connecting roadswith cycle route through

955 (On bollard)

Notes

1) Usual minimum width 1.2metres.

2) Kerb alterations should be insympathy with design ofsurroundings.

3) Kerb and white line changesshould accommodatedrainage and highwaysweeping requirements.

1004

1004

Figure 3.4.1 Essential connection across closed road



1057

955(on bollard)

If compliancewith parkingrestrictions aproblem, aphysicalmeasure maybe needed.

1032

1032

955

Notes

1) Usual minimum width per direction is 1.2 metres, wider for higher cycle speeds.Width never more than 1.5 metres to prevent motor vehicle abuse.

2) Waiting and loading restrictions may need to be applied to prevent blockage byparked vehicles.

3) Turning facilities may need to be provided for motor traffic.4) Designated parking spaces may usefully be identified.5) Kerb alterations should be in sympathy with design of surroundings.6) Footway sweepers need to visit regularly.7) Kerb and white line changes should accommodate drainage and highway sweeping

requirements.

1004

1004

1057

1057

1057

Figure 3.4.2 Road closure withside cycle access

Figure 3.4.3 Road closure withcentral cycle access

3.5 Networks in Non-motorised Areas

3.5.1 Principles1. A study by the Transport Research

Laboratory (TRL Report PR15) suggeststhere is little reason to justify excludingcycle traffic from pedestrianised areas, andthat cycling could be more widelypermitted in these areas withoutdetriment to pedestrians. Town centretraffic management schemes often forcecycle traffic onto unsuitable inner reliefroads.

2. Pedestrian areas can reduce dramaticallythe permeability for cycle traffic and mayforce cyclists to use longer, busier and lesspleasant routes. It is often the case thatpedestrian areas in central locations areadjacent to public transport interchanges.Such lack of permeability reducesdramatically the accessibility of publictransport interchanges by cycle traffic.

3. Some parts of a pedestrianised area mayvery distinctly be appropriate only forpedestrians use. In all cases, however,serious consideration should be given toways of allowing access by cyclists to whatwould otherwise be pedestrian only areas.These include:

• unlimited access to the fullpedestrianised area;

• timed access to the full pedestrianisedarea;

• access along the same routes as otherpermitted vehicles such as PSVs anddelivery HGVs;

• access along definedchannelled/coloured routes; and

• combinations of the above (e.g timedaccess along channelled routes).

4. If HGVs or buses are allowed intopedestrianised areas (e.g. for delivery atcertain times of the day) then cycle traffic

should be allowed at least at these sametimes and possibly for longer periods.

5. It is especially the case that if alternativesto routes through the pedestrian area areinadequate, time consuming or otherwiseinappropriate, then routes within apedestrianised area must be available atcertain times of the day.

3.5.2 Legal issues1. The following may be appropriate legal

procedures depending on the outcomerequired:

• Orders to extinguish vehicle rights(with exemptions for cycle traffic)under S249 of the Town and CountryPlanning Act 1990;

• Traffic Regulation Orders under S1 orS9 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act1984 to prohibit, restrict or regulateclasses of vehicular traffic.

2. The Department for Transport advises useof Traffic Regulation Orders even with useof an order under S249 of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990, in order toprovide criminal sanction against offences.

3. Pedestrianised areas, particularly as part ofa development, may be created by landassembly from private land holders. It maybe necessary to create a highway as part ofthe development process to allow for cycleaccess to or across such a pedestrianisedarea. This would normally be constructedthrough the development process andthen adopted under S38 of the HighwaysAct 1980.

3.5.3 Signing and design1. Routes across pedestrian areas need to be

provided with adequate direction signing.For timed access this may involve variablemessage signs with prohibitions andexemptions shown as appropriate atdifferent times of the day.

2. Channelling should guide cyclists awayfrom shop entrances and areas of intense



pedestrian activity using street furniture orchanges in surface texture which fits withthe overall architectural design of thearea. For example where there are cobblesand blocks laid, cyclists would naturallyfollow the blocks. Such routes may belegally designated or not.

3. The choice of whether to providesegregated routes will depend on manyfactors, e.g. footfall, size of area,“peakness” of flows etc. and is a subjectnot easy to provide tight guidance on.

4. Quality provision should be provided forthe “transport” elements of a scheme, justas much as for other parts of the publicrealm.

5. Concerns may persist in respect of feelingsof intimidation on the part of pedestrians.Ways of overcoming this may include:

• advisory “cycle at walking pace” or“cyclists please give way topedestrians” signs (Bristol);

• use of urban rangers, town centreambassadors or other similar towncentre uniformed presence to helpcontrol anti-social behaviour generally,which may include inappropriatecycling (Cambridge).



DO DON’T

• consider allowing for cycle traffic across • ignore cycle traffic desire lines in centralcentral pedestrianised areas; areas;

• back up planning legislation orders with • force cycle traffic around long detours.traffic regulation orders;

• provide adequate signing;

• guide cycle traffic away from shopentrances and areas of intensepedestrian activity

• provide contrasting surfacing to hint at cycle routes;

• provide access to final destination forcycle traffic.

Table 3.5.1 Do’s and don’ts in non-motorised areas

3.6 Calming Principles

3.6.1 Principles1. Traffic calming can make conditions pleasant

for cycle traffic but individual discrete trafficcalming features can cause problems if notwell designed. Some traffic calming featurescan take road space from cycle traffic.

2. Traffic calming may be useful for thefollowing reasons:

• to reduce accidents;

• reduce traffic volumes;

• make the general environment morepleasant; and

• to reduce speeds.

3. None of the above should be seen asintrinsically making the situationnecessarily better for cycle traffic,although reductions in speed and volumemay assist.

4. Of overarching importance is theadaptation of behaviour of traffic to theenvironment through which it passes.

3.6.2 Speed, pleasantness andconflict1. Speeds in urban areas are usually limited

to 30 mph. Often 85%ile speeds on radialroutes into urban areas may be in therange 30-35 mph.

2. Some roads in urban areas, such as dual-carriageway ring roads, may have 40 mphspeed limits. Here the 85%ile speeds couldagain be greater than the speed limit.

3. In rural areas on de-restricted singlecarriageway roads vehicles will not berestricted to lower limits.

4. Differential speeds between cycle traffic andmotor traffic, coupled with proximity, aremost closely related to conflict measuredamongst cyclists (TRL Report 490). Highermotor-traffic speeds are less pleasant forcyclists than lower speeds.

3.6.3 The surroundingenvironment and speed1. The surrounding environment influences

how fast traffic travels. For example a driveris more likely to travel quickly on a wideboulevard than on a narrow village street.

2. The most successful traffic calming schemesare those which combine environmentalmeasures with physical ones.

3. Traffic calming should seek to change theperception of drivers about the area inwhich they are travelling, encouraging lowspeeds and considerate driving. Somedrivers see traffic calming schemes asobstacle courses, and attempt to speed upbetween features.

4. Traffic calming schemes that relate to theirsurroundings are more likely to beaccepted by drivers and not seen as asource of hazard or delay. Traffic calmingfeatures should be designed to coincidewith natural changes in the surroundinglandscape and townscape.

3.6.4 Summary of measures1. Features that can cause difficulty for cycle

traffic include:

• carriageway narrowings;

• horizontal shifts in carriageway;

• priority narrowings;

• refuges;

• vertical deflections.

2. The problems caused are either because ofthe creation of conflict points (See Figure4.1.5) or discomfort from going over avertical feature.

3. Appropriate traffic calming features include:

• humps: gaps to the side or sinusoidalramps;

• speed cushions: gaps to the side;

• rumble strips: gaps to the side;

• over-run areas for motor vehicles tokeep tight geometry;



• bypasses to avoid conflict points atrefuges and narrowings.

4. Traffic calming features intrinsicallyfriendly to cycle traffic include:

• speed cameras and vehicle actuated signs;

• general environmental changes (seeSection 3.6.3);

• appropriate parking layouts; and

• cycle lanes.

3.6.5 Problems with features1. There are many measures presently

popular for addressing certain traffic issuesthat have detrimental side effects so far asthe promotion of cycling is concerned.

2. The effect on cyclists of a tight or critical cross-section (See Figure 4.1.5) is that theyare intimidated or exposed to greaterdanger than would be the case with aspacious cross-section (See Figure 4.1.5).

3. The issues of conflict points created byfeatures in the carriageway is further dealtwith in Section 4, particularly Figures 4.1.4and 4.1.5.

4. Build-outs of any sort deflect cycle trafficinto the path of motor vehicle traffic.

5. They can be created for all sorts of othergood reasons but their severe detrimentaleffect on cycle traffic should be realised.



Measure Desired effect Detrimental effect on cycle traffic

Traffic islands/ • prevent overtaking; • tend to push motor traffic in to line of

refuges • control speeds; travel of cycle traffic;

• pedestrian crossing points; • causes localised narrowing of the

• create gateways; carriageway to a tight or critical cross-

• separation of lanes of traffic. section (See Figures 3.8.8 and 4.1.5).

Ghost islands • to facilitate right turn • tend to push motor traffic into line of

without causing delay or travel of cycle traffic;

conflict with following • causes localised narrowing of the

traffic. carriageway to a tight or critical cross-

section (See Figure 4.1.4).

Kerb build-outs • to protect designated • tend to push cycle traffic into line of

(chicanes, parking bays; travel of motor traffic;

throttles, • to attempt to slow traffic; • causes localised narrowing of the pedestrian

gateway • to create shorter distances for carriageway to a tight or critical cross-

treatment, pedestrians to cross and improve section (See Figure 4.1.5).

crossings, bus visibility for pedestrians.

boarders)

Central • to separate opposing • longer sections of route that are of a

hatching direction traffic streams; tight or critical profile;

• to reduce lane widths to control speed; • on bends tends to push motor traffic

• to control sight lines around bends; into line of travel of cycle traffic;

• to improve conspicuity of layout; • to improve conspicuity of road layout.

• discourage overtaking.

Additional • additional capacity; • creation of tight cross-sections (See

narrow lanes • slower speeds. Figure 4.1.4) encouraging motor traffic

to squeeze past cycle traffic.

Table 3.6.1 Problem traffic calming measures

Notes: 1) See also Figures 4.1.4 and 4.1.5.

3.7 Junction Measures Section 3: Creating Pleasant Road Conditions


Radius to be tight,usually much less than6 metres

Carriagewayraised

Notes

1) Benefit for cycle traffic is lower speed of motor traffic.2) Alterations should be in sympathy with design of surroundings.3) Gullies may need to be added, relocated or raised.4) Kerbs laid across the road as a construction former should be avoided.5) Constrained but adequate sight lines will constrain speed.6) The principle of the sinusoidal profile is the tapered ends. Contractors

may develop their own techniques to create the shape while notcompromising the principle. Alternatively a slope of 1:15 (1:10 max)may be provided (see Figure 3.8.4 for details).

1062

1062

1062

1062

Figure 3.7.1 Junction treatments (Raised Table)



1003

1009

1004

1004

1023

Notes

An uplift higher than recommended is likely to cause cycliststo fall off, especially when crossed at an angle, and may be atrip hazard for pedestrians.

1) Overrun areas allow for tighter junction radii. More details areprovided in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 12/93.

2) The effect can be for cyclists to be forced obliquely onto theoverrun areas. This should be avoided by consideration of cyclistpaths through the junction.

3) The bullnose kerb to these features should not be greater than 16-19mm radius. This preserves a clear boundary for cyclists by contrastwith flat or filleted transitions.

4) The surface should not be so rough as to be dangerous.5) Colour contrasts should be evident under street lighting.6)

A

A

Cross section A-Aa) Bullnose kerb: as suggested by TAL 12/93 but notrecommended for cycle traffic

b) Contrasting surfacing option

c) 45º kerbstones

10mm recommended maximumuplift in vertical plane(tolerance +5mm)

15° max

Carriageway surface

Carriageway surface

Overrun area

flush transition

16-19mm radiusbullnosing

SCALE 1:1

Hatching or colour or Settsor other type of surface

10mm

Figure 3.7.2 Over-run areas

street lighting

3.8 Link Measures Section 3: Creating Pleasant Road Conditions


Notes1) Where parking places are marked out on one side of a road,

it may be better to leave the centre line at the centre of theroad, as cyclists will cycle in the middle of the remaining lanewidth. Drivers are more likely to cross over to the other sideof the road when overtaking cycle traffic. This is preferableto motor traffic attempting to squeeze past cycle traffic intight cross-section lanes (See Figure 4.1.4 and Figure 4.1.5).As cyclists may be riding further out into the carriageway thismay also reduce the chance of them being hit by somebodyopening a car door.

2) Build outs can help pedestrians cross a road and improvevisibility from a side road. However they force cyclists outinto the path of traffic creating conflict points (See Figure4.1.5). They should therefore be used with care anddiscretion.

3) Where there is space, consideration should be given to ahatching strip between the parking bay and running/cyclelane. This will reduce the chance of a cyclist being hit by a cardoor being opened. This is especially important where thereis a high turn round of parked vehicles, for example on ashopping street.

1032

1032

1032

1004

0.5m wide hatching strip

Figure 3.8.1 Parking & limited waiting bays

Plate 3.8.1 Parking or limited waiting provision

Build-outs



Parking Near Junctions

1003

1009

1004

1004

1023

1032

1032

1032

Notes

1) Give-way lines on side roads withparking either side on the main roadshould not normally be brought intothe main carriageway as cyclists maybe cycling through the parking baysif they are unocupied.

2) Give way markings may be broughtinto the main carriageway, if buildouts are used (if main carriageway issufficiently wide).

3) Parking usually set back from thejunction to create appropriate sightlines.

Visibility splayappropriate to mainroad speed to bepreserved

Figure 3.8.2 Parking near junctions



Cycle track behind parking bays

Notes1) Can be provided where there is

advantage to cyclists (i.e. toomany slow moving/maneuveringvehicles on the carriageway orwhere cyclists may more readilybe able to access frontages.

2) For a cycle lane in front of aparking bay see Figures 3.3.3 and3.8.1 note 3.

3) Door opening strip to be abovecarriageway level to limit parkingon the door opening strip.

1032

1004

Footway

Footway Footway

Parking Bay

Cycle Track 1.5m minimum

Cycle Track

Verge or equivalent 0.5m

Verge

Door opening strip 1.0m

Door opening strip

A A

Cross section A-A

Figure 3.8.3 Cycle track behindparking bays

Cycle lane



1004

1057

1.0m absoluteminimum between

hump & kerb

1.5mpreferred1.0mminimum

Advisorycycle lane

Can beextendedto kerb ifdrainage

permits

Edge ofcarriage-waymarkings

If roundtop humpextends tokerb,humpshould betapered,see sectionA-A

Round TopRoad Hump

SinusoidalRoad Hump

Flat TopRoad Hump(With Bypass)

B

A

C

B

A

C

Cross section B-BSinusoidal road hump with tapered edges

Transverse section A-ARound top hump extending to kerb (Scale 1:100)

Cross section C-CFlat topped hump

925mm

300-500mm

925mm

1:15

75mm

75mm

925mm

925mm

925mm

Notes1) The cycle lane width of 1.0m for road

hump with by-pass should occur only overa short distance. No gullies should belocated in or near the bypass.

2) Humps with bypasses may be moreappropriate on busy roads as on quieterroads cycle traffic is more likely to have thefull lane width available to overcome thehump.

3) Where there are parked cars, a gap is notlikely to be of much assistance to cycletraffic.

4) A full width hump may be more expensiveto construct because of drainage costs.

5) The principle of the sinusoidal profile is thetapered ends (in cross section). Contractorsmay develop their own techniques tocreate the approximate shape while notcompromising the principle. The profilemust be gentle as illustrated.

6) Maximum slope to a flat-topped hump tobe 1:15 (Lancashire standard) withsmoothed transitions from the ramp to thehorizontal surfaces.

7) Humps should accommodate drainage andhighway sweeping requirements.

8) Consider the needs of wheelchair userswho are often forced to use the maincarriageway. They find poor verticalfeatures even more uncomfortable thancyclists do and prefer tables to humps.

9) See also Figure 9.3.1 on remedial measuresfor vertical features.

10) More details are provided in TrafficAdvisory Leaflet 7/96.600mm

200mm

Figure 3.8.4 Road hump options

By-pass



1004

1057

1057

Widercarriageways willrequire additionalspeed cushions

1.0mabsolute

minimum

1.8m-1.9m

1.0mpreferred

Notes1) Cushions have advantages on bus routes.2) Road narrowings to bring the width to one

appropriate for humps may be considered.3) Cushions should not be laid so as to create a need

for cyclists to deviate off-course to negotiatethem.

4) No gullies should be located adjacent to or nearthe speed cushions.

5) More details are provided in Traffic AdvisoryLeaflet 7/96.

Figure 3.8.5 Speed cushions



1004

ChicaneIslands

Notes1) If they are used, the principle is that bicycles

should be exempt.2) Cycle bypasses to be not less than 1.0 metre,

preferably 1.5 metres. No gullies should belocated in or near the bypasses.

3) Kerb alterations, so far as feasible should bein sympathy with design of surroundings.

4) Kerb and white line changes shouldaccommodate drainage and highwaysweeping requirements.

5) Consideration should be given to raising thecycle lane to footway level at islands. Gradechanges should be over lengths not less than5m with careful smoothing at each end.Option should not be used where high cyclistspeeds are anticipated.

6) Enforced priority road narrowings withoutcycle bypasses are not recommended.

7) Parking restrictions should be considered onapproaches to enforced priority narrowings.

8) Tapers to islands to be no less than 1:3.Hatching to be avoided as debris will collectand become a maintenance problem.

9) Careful design can help integrate them intotheir natural environment.

NarrowingIslands

Considerationgiven to a raisedtable

a) Chicane

b) Throttles

2.5 - 3.0metres

cycle lane toreturn to

usual width

Dimension notless than 4.0m

1.0mabsolute

minimum

Figure 3.8.6 Enforced priority at road narrowings

Plate 3.8.2 Example of cyclebypass

Chicane

Build-outs



Notes

1) For more details on rumble strips seeTraffic Advisory Leaflet 11/93.

1004

Width 1.0m

Figure 3.8.7 Rumble devices

dual-carriageways



1004

Do notcompromiseon cycle lanewidth even ifthis leavesonly a tokenmotor vehiclelane width

Notes

demonstrable demand

never

1) Motor vehicles turn into the path of cyclists atrefuges and sometimes race them for the gap.They may overtake too closely and thisintimidates.

2) Only normally use refuges if there is afor pedestrians and

where the following minimum width criteria aremet:40mph: 5.0m30mph: 4.5m

3) A 3.0m gap is acceptable at low speed such as atthe exit from a mini-roundabout or slow entry toa side road.

4) These minima must be strictly adhered to ongradients, uphill or downhill, or if there aresignificant numbers of wider vehicles.

5) Consider using a zebra or puffin to cater forpedestrian demand.

6) An over wide advisory cycle lane through anexisting narrow gap will help deter traffic fromdangerous overtaking by leaving only a tokenresidual motor traffic lane. It is important thatthe vehicle lane width left does not encouragedrivers to overtake cyclists. To achieve this, thecycle lane may need to be wider than theminimum 1.5 metres and the vehicle lane lessthan a car width.

7) Narrow cycle lanes should be used past arefuge, as they encourage drivers to drivedangerously near to cyclists in the gap.

8) Space taken from the footway to widen thecarriageway should be considered (see table4.2.2).

9) A cycle symbol should be placed in advance ofthe refuge.

10) As shown it may be worth while using colour forthe cycle lane at pinch-points.

11) See also Table 4.1.1.

1040

1040

1057

Figure 3.8.8 Traffic islands/refuges

Plate 3.8.3 Narrowings that cause danger

gradients

puffin

advisory cycle lane

Gateways


Section 4:Routes Within the Highway4.1 Widths

4.1.1 Width issues for cycle traffic1. Busy roads can be unpleasant to cycle on

where there is inadequate width for avehicle to pass a cyclist without having tocross the centre line of the road. This canresult in a driver giving a cyclist too littleroom when overtaking. It can beintimidating for a cyclist to have a vehiclewaiting close behind him or her for anopportunity to overtake. Having to waitbehind a cyclist until it is safe to overtakecan cause delay and frustration for amotorist.

2. If cycle flows are to increase it is importantthat, as far as possible, adequate space forcycle traffic is provided on main roads.Dutch design advice (Crow, 1993) givesuseful guidance on the space requirementsof a cyclist.

4.1.2 Lane cross sections1. These design guidelines adopt as a basis

for discussion the concepts of “spacious”,“critical” and “tight” lane cross-sections,taken from the Dutch Design Manual(Crow, 1993).

2. An adequate lane cross-section is requiredto allow for overtaking space of a bicyclepast a motor vehicle and also of a motorvehicle past a bicycle.

3. A “spacious” cross-section is the ideal. Itprovides sufficient space, for motorvehicles to overtake bicycles safely withoutcrossing into the adjacent lane. See Figure4.1.2

4. A “critical” cross-section cross-sectionoccurs where the majority of motorvehicles may be encouraged to overtake abicycle within the lane, but withinadequate clearances. Wider vehicleshowever will need to move over the centreline of the road.

5. A “tight” cross-section is too narrow for amotor vehicle to overtake a bicycle withinthe lane. Motor vehicles following cycletraffic within a tight cross-section, orsuddenly braking to do so, can be veryintimidating. Cycle traffic can operatecomfortably in a tight cross-section only ifthe speeds and volumes are low andovertaking by using the outside oroncoming lane is easy. The creation of atight cross-section, for example byfootway widening, may be considered inurban central locations, but can beintimidating for cyclists being followed bymotor vehicles.

6. Figure 4.1.3 indicates dimensions of vehiclesand gaps between vehicles for speeds of 30mph. Narrower roads or narrowings in theroad below these dimensions can causeproblems for cycle traffic.

7. The dimensions in Figure 4.1.3 represent aspacious cross-section. A 7.3 metre widecarriageway does not adequately provide forhigh cycle traffic flows. To provide for highflows a 1.5 metre wide cycle lane may beconsidered or an off-carriageway cycle track.

8. If cycle lanes are too narrow they mayincrease the hazard from motor vehicles.Drivers may think that they are able todrive “right up to” the cycle lane line,leaving less room than is required for thecycle traffic.

Section 4: Routes Within the Highway


Profile of a Cyclist

1.90

m

Stationaryposition

Kinematic envelope

0.75m0.75m

1.00m

0.25m

up to 0.90m typically

Deviation course(speed>11km/h)

1.85

m

2.50

m

0.125m

Trailer

minimum 1.05mto nearestmotor vehicle(See Figure4.1.2)

0.125m

approximately0.25mto kerb(seeFigure4.1.2)

Eye height2.2m max

Figure 4.1.1 Cyclist’s kinematic envelope



gCarriagewayroad width

• At 30 mph cars and cyclists can passeach other comfortably with 4.26mlane width.

• At 30 mph with significantnumbers of HGVs/PSVs overtakingcan take place comfortably with5.05 m width.

• Wider than 4.20m, motorists may formtwo lanes in congested conditions.

• TO BE AVOIDED.

• Standard UK DMRB Vol 6 Sec1 Part1 TD9/93 lane widths of 3.65mmean that a heavy goods vehicle orPublic Service Vehicle with cycleovertaking manoeuvre wouldencroach the oncoming lane.

• On roads with narrow lanes motorvehicles will follow cyclists until anappropriate gap in oncoming oroutside lane traffic.

• For use only where speeds are 20mph or less and where trafficvolumes are low so that a motoristonly needs to follow a cyclist for ashort distance before overtaking.

Spaciouscross-section

Critical cross-section

Tight cross-section

Figure 4.1.2 Cross-section descriptions

Spacious Critical TightDefinition Sufficient room to safely Dangerous close No room within the lane

overtake cycle traffic overtaking for overtaking of cycletraffic

Dimensions At 30 mph: 4.20m (cars only) 3.10 to 3.75 metres 3.10 metres or less (cars)or 5.05m (HGVs) orAt 20mph: 3.75m (cars only) 3.60 metres or lessor 4.60m (HGVs) (with HGV traffic)

Comment • acceptable at most • not advised as it • only normally acceptablespeeds but more space encourages dangerous for short distances;or separation needed overtaking; • speeds lower than 20mph;as speed increases. • more acceptable if it is • good visibility;

easy to overtake (e.g. • more acceptable if nextlittle oncoming traffic, to lanes that allow easyno central island). overtaking (e.g. no

barrier, little traffic).Mitigation • reduce speeds; • reduce speeds;

• an advisory cycle lane • wide advisory cycle lane or cycle logos within the to alert drivers to cycle main carriageway may traffic presence and lack help to boost cyclists’ of overtaking space.confidence and keeptraffic to the right.

Application Main roads, distributor Not recommended without Residential roadsroads with cycle lanes off-carriageway cycle path

Table 4.1.1 Cross-section comments and mitigation

Notes

1) Table 4.1.1 is relevant to:• Cycle lane widths (Table 4.2.2).• Refuges (Figure 3.8.8).• Kerb build-outs and footway widening

(Figure 4.1.5).

• Adding traffic lanes, hatching and ghostislands (Figures 4.1.6 and 6.2.6).

• Dual carriageways (Figure 4.1.4).• Hills and gradients (Section 2.1.2).



1.5m

1.05

m0.

75m

0.25m

1.5m

0.25m

0.75

m1.

05m

8.5m

1.5m

1.5m

0.25m

0.75

m1.

05m

1.8m

0.8m

1.8m

1.05

m0.

75m

0.25m10

.1m

2.60

m0.

80m

2.60

m

2.05

mca

rto

kerb

2.05

m

Figure 4.1.3 Required lane widths at 30mph2-lane road With Car

HGVs onlyGap to kerb 0.25 0.25Cycle 0.75 0.75Cycle/motor vehicle gap 1.05 1.05Motor vehicle 2.60 1.80M. vehicle/m. vehicle gap 0.80 0.80Motor vehicle 2.60 1.80Cycle/motor vehicle gap 1.05 1.05Cycle 0.75 0.75Gap to kerb 0.25 0.25

10.1 m 8.5 mMinimum cycle lane width 1.5m 1.5mMinimum running lanewidth 3.55m 2.75m

Notes

1) At lower speeds less width is required andat higher speeds more width is required.



Notes1) See Figure 3.8.1 for further detail on

parking and limited waiting bays.2) See also Table 4.1.1.3) On a dual carriageway with 30mph

speed and low HGV flows, the nearsidecould for example be 4.2 metres andthe offside lane 3.1 metres.

4) Alternatively on a dual carriagewaywith low flows, the number of runninglanes could be reduced to one lanewith a cycle lane. This will also helpreduce speeds.

3 Tightlanes

2 Spaciouslanes

Tight

Spacious

Spacious

Informal parkingplaces

Tokenresidual

lane,can beuseful,

seeFigure 3.8.1Spacious

Formal parkingbays and other

build-outs

Free flowing,unrestricted

traffic inboth

directions

Emptyspacesleave

de factocycle lanes

Position of newcentre line is the

main problemxCollision

area

GOODCycling

Conditions

POORCycling

Conditions

Tightor critical

Critical LaneProfilesPOOR

Dual Carriageway

Tight

Spacious

Nearside Lane wider(full 2.0m needed

cyclists in 40+mphtraffic)

for

BETTER

Figure 4.1.4 Cross-section examples

build-outs

dual-carriageways

Gateways

Ghost islands


Section 4: Routes within the highway

1004

1004

1004

1040.2Tight/critical

Tight/critical

Tight/critical

Spacious

Spacious

Spacious

Spacious

Spacious

Spacious

Conflict point

Possible remedy; a cycle bypass:

Tight/critical

Tight/critical

Tight/critical

Build-outs and hatching

Notes1) If it creates a tight or critical

profile, central hatching shouldonly be used where traffic flowsare light.

2) The remedy of a bypass may or maynot be feasible, depending on thepurpose of the build-out.

3) Sweeping the carriageway adjacentto the build-out will be a problem.

4) Using the footway is a possiblesolution but only if tapers bothvertically and horizontally areacceptable, see Figures 4.2.1 and4.2.2.

5) It is always better to avoid a pinchpoint.


xCyclist

MotorVehicle

Figure 4.1.5 Features that create tightor critical cross-sections

build-outs

Gateways

Refuges

4.1.3 Design for existing roads1. The Design flow chart in Figure 4.1.6

assists designers in deciding on whetherand what sort of on-road provision may bemade for cycle traffic.

2. It may be used in reviewing existingfacilities or where improvements aresought in a route for cyclists.

3. Figure 4.1.7 shows lines of equal cycle levelof service deduced from work by Landis et.al. (1997). For example, on a road carrying4,000 vehicles per day a similar level ofservice for cycle traffic is obtained with awidth of 4.0m at 30mph or 4.5m at 40mph or

6,000 vehicles per day with a width of 4.5mans a speed of 30mph. Designers may use thechart as a guide for the design of trafficmanagement schemes and new roads.

4.1.4 Design for new roads1. Estates roads will usually have low volumes

of traffic and road widths to suit.

2. Distributor roads and other new mainroads should normally be designed with aspacious profile to accomodate cycle lanesor off-carriageway cycle paths. The choiceof facilities is discussed in the next section.



20 mph areas• Design measures to

reduce volume of trafficto 5,000 vehs/day

• Mix cyclists with trafficin lane of any crosssection

Collect:• Volume• Speed• Percentage heavy vehicles• Cyclist user views• Site visit/safety data

30 mph areas• Seek to reduce volume

of traffic to 7,000vehs/day; and

• Seek to create aspacious lane cross-section with cycle lanes

• Where traffic volumesare very high considersegregated facilities.

• Low volumes - tightprofile

30+ mph areas• For volumes up to

7,000 vehs/day seek tocreate spacious lanecross-sections withcycle lanes

• Consider need forsegregated facilities atgreater flows than this

Consider role of route:• Main or access cycle link• Lengths of cycle journey using link• Levels of frontage parking• Number of junctions• Number of accesses• Pedestrian flows

Figure 4.1.6 Design flow chart



Figure 4.1.7 Lines of equal cycling level of service

Vehicles per day

Traffic Speed (mph)

0% HGVs5% HGVs

2000

0

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

5.00m

4.50m

4.00m

3.50m

3.00m

4.2 Choice of facilities

4.2.1 On carriageway and cyclelanes1. There are three ways of providing space

for cycle traffic:

• a lane shared with motor traffic;

• a Mandatory Cycle Lane; and

• an Advisory Cycle Lane with orwithout parking restrictions.

Cycle lanes of the correct width ensuredrivers give cyclists adequate width whenovertaking them.

2. Mandatory cycle lanes (Figure 4.2.4) aresegregated with a solid white line (Dia.1049) and it is a traffic offence for motorvehicles to move in them (see also para4.4.2).

3. Advisory lanes are marked with a dashedwhite line (Dia. 1004) and motor vehicles areallowed to move in them if they are clear ofcycle traffic. This makes it easier to providefull width cycle lanes where space is limited.

4. The cycle lane should be used to direct acyclist to the most appropriate part of theroad. Often, they have not been used in thisway. Poorly designed lanes will increasedanger for cycle traffic as they will not beable properly to stay within them, againstthe expectation of motor vehicle drivers.

5. Cycle lanes may create the impression of afacility which is in some way safer for cycletraffic. This may not be the case and iscertainly not the case if cycle lanes are toonarrow for the conditions.

6. The absence of a cycle lane is nearly alwayspreferable to a cycle lane that is toonarrow i.e. below 1.5-2.0m (see Table4.2.2). This is principally because motoriststend to drive right up to the line, whichmay be too close to cycle traffic. They alsodirect cyclists too close to the kerb, often ahazardous and uncomfortable place.

7. An exception to this may be approaching ajunction to allow for a cyclist to bypassqueueing traffic. A narrow cycle lane is notrecommended where, during the greenaspect of the signals, speeds are higherthan about 20 mph.

8. Cycle lanes should not be absent wherethey are most needed, for example toassist in protecting space or directingtraffic flow through a junction or atnarrowings. Consideration should be givento joining up cycle lanes past constrictionsinto continuous lanes.

9. Cycle lanes between two lanes of runningtraffic should never normally be less than 2metres wide.

10. Coloured surfacing is not usually requiredfor cycle lanes. It may be considered atcertain points where there is a greater riskof collision problems to assist in enhancingthe visual presence of the cycle lane. Theseshould be used sparingly.

Table 4.2.1 Cycle laneadvantages and disadvantagesCycle Lane Cycle Lane Advantages Disadvantages

• Can usefully direct • Can direct cyclists cyclists to be in the inappropriately;most appropriate • Motor vehicles positions on the road; may drive “up to

• Can separate motor the line” and, vehicles from cycles; where the lane

• Provide a legal width is means for cyclists to inadequate, “undertake” other provide less spacetraffic in a queue; for cycle traffic

• Highlight the than required;potential presence • difficult toof cyclists; overtake within

• May encourage the cycle lane.more cycling;

• Provide a degree ofroute continuity.

11. An engineering review on the surface ofthe carriageway by riding on a cycle shouldbe undertaken before the introduction of





a cycle lane. Rough and uneven surfacesshould be re-surfaced and ironworks re-laid if necessary.

12. Table 4.2.2 shows minimum cycle lanewidths. Where cycle lanes may provide anadvantage for cycle traffic at widths lessthan these, then consultation with cyclinggroups should take place first before theyare implemented.

13. Where speeds are greater than 40mph,consideration should be given toincreasing the width of the cycle lane.There is a possibility that traffic may use acycle lane of 2 metres or more as a runninglane. A hatching strip between the cyclelane and running lane is another option.Where speeds are higher than 40mph,consideration could also be given toreducing the speed limit if only 1.5metrewide cycle lane can be installed.

Table 4.2.2 Cycle lane widthsDesign Gradient MinimumSpeed Cycle Lane Width

Over 30 mph flat 2.0 metres

30 mph flat 1.5 metres (see notes 2 & 3)

30 mph greater 2.0 metresthan± 3.0%

14. Additional treatments may include (SeeFigure 4.2.4):

• separation from car parking by a 1.0metre (0.5 metre minimum) hatched strip;

• greater separation from other motortraffic by a hatched strip;

• addition of an occasional separatingisland.

15. Abrupt changes in lane direction should beavoided. This is necessary for both motortraffic and for cycle traffic. The tableindicates the maximum taper inclinationsfor traffic at different speeds. Note that thedesign must consider both cycle traffic andmotor traffic separately and guard againsttoo great an inclination for both types oftraffic where they are in separate streams.

16. Tapers to create the start of a cycle lane (andalso a bus lane) may be at not greater than1:10. It is the speed and direction of motortraffic that should be the main determinantof the position and taper of the cycle lane,not so much the cyclists’ speed or the shapeand position of the kerb.

Notes

1) Cycle lane widths less than theserecommended may create significanthazard for cycle traffic.

2) These widths assume appropriate lanewidths for other traffic lanes, see figure4.1.3. Narrow motor traffic lanes will resultin motor vehicles driving up to the cyclelane dividing line. In these situations widercycle lane widths (up to 2 metres) and evennarrower motor traffic lane widths shouldbe considered to ensure the preservation ofthe kinematic envelope for cycle traffic.

3) Where the carriageway is very wide,a half-metre hatching strip betweenthe cycle lane and vehicle lane willgive cyclists greater protection andhelp reduce vehicle speeds.


5) DMRB TA 90/05 recommends a desirablewidth of cycle lanes on trunk roads as 2metres and a minimum width of 1.5metres.

6) Yellow lines can help deter parking in cyclelanes.



Speed Change indirection taper

96kph / 60mph 1:50

50kph / 30mph 1:20

40 kph / 25 mph 1:9

30 kph / 19 mph 1:7

20 kph / 12 mph 1:4

Notes

1) Note that a cyclist may easily cycle at 20 mph,particularly downhill, and so sharp changes indirection at this speed are not possible.

Type of lane Advantages Disadvantages

No cycle lane • better downhill; • may not provide adequate

• better where cycle traffic should not manoeuvring space without a lane.

feel constrained to move along a

certain path, e.g. at junctions.

Mandatory lanes • exclusive space for cycle traffic. • often difficult to provide sufficient width;

• inflexible;

• inapplicable at junctions.

Advisory lanes • flexible, as encroachment by motor • parking can mean the lane is useless;

vehicles allowed; • if parking restrictions imposed, raised rib

• can be used even where road of yellow painted line can be

cross-section is narrow; problematic, especially in narrow cycle

• may be used past hazards (e.g. central lanes (i.e. less than 1.5m).

refuges or left hand bends) if the width

is 1.5 metres or greater.

Table 4.2.3 Advantages and disadvantages of different types of on-carriageway provision

Notes

1) Where space is limited it is better toprovide an uphill cycle lane and nodownhill cycle lane.

Figure 4.2.1 Tapers



4.2.2 Cycle tracks1. Cycle tracks may be categorised as follows

(See also Figure 4.2.2):

• A - remote from the highway;

• B - cycle-only track kerb separatedfrom the remaining carriageway andfrom the footway;

• C - cycle-only track separated from theremaining carriageway by a dividingstrip, often kerbed;

• D - Adjacent use footway and cycle track;

• E - Shared use footway and cycle track.

2. All cycle tracks should be smooth, level anddirect and at least as good in quality asadjacent or nearby carriageways.

3. Tracks REMOTE FROM THE HIGHWAY(Type A) are dealt with in Section 5.

4. CYCLE-ONLY TRACKS - KERB SEPARATEDFROM THE REMAINING CARRIAGEWAY(Type B) provide an additional degree ofseparation from motor traffic and may beappropriate where motor vehicle speedsand volumes are high or where cyclevolumes are high or could be high basedon provision of this type. Great attentionto detail is needed with kerbed routes,particularly at junctions, passing places andwhere there are many pedestrians crossingrandomly. Adequate width to allow safeovertaking by other cyclists is also essential.

5. CYCLE-ONLY TRACKS SEPARATED BY ADIVIDING STRIP (Type C), particularly ifkerbed, will create significantmaintenance problems.

6. CYCLE TRACKS SAME LEVEL AS FOOTWAYConversion of parts of the footway to cycleuse should be avoided unless widths allowand there is an advantage to cycle traffic(Types D and E).

7. Cycle tracks should normally be onboth sides of the carriageway. This willhelp ensure that the cycle traffic has betteraccess to premises and side roads. It willencourage them to use the track on theleft hand side of the road, which may

reduce the chance of an accident involvinga driver failing to see a cyclist from theright at a junction. In unlit areas cyclistslights heading towards oncoming vehicleson a two cycle track can cause confusion.

8. A gap of 0.5 - 1 metre is desirable at theside of a cycle track to allow for hedgegrowth, or to locate signs or lampcolumns.

9. Where there are hazards adjacent to theside of a cycle track such as a ditch orembankment slope greater than 1 in 3,consideration should be given to measuresto protect cyclists such as fencing orshrubs. The risks are greater on bends andat night.

10. On high speed roads consideration shouldbe given to physical separation betweenthe carriageway and cycle track. If ahardstrip is provided this can be countedas part of the separation. The desirableminimum separation is 1.5 metres on roadswith a speed limit of more than 40mph.



Figure 4.2.2 Types of off-carriageway provision

4.2.3 Joining and leaving thecarriageway1. The accident data (Section 2.3) has shown

that joining and leaving the carriageway ispotentially hazardous.

2. Significant care needs to be taken inplacing locations where cycle tracks enterand leave the carriageway. For examplethis should not be where traffic isaccelerating or turning.

3. Good locations are at junctions wheremotor traffic already anticipatesconflicting movements.

4. Principles for linking tracks andcarriageway.

• all tracks and off-road facilities needsafe, practical and convenient links toother tracks and to the carriagewaynetwork;

• motor traffic (rightly) does not expectcycle traffic to be moving on and offthe carriageway at other than placesthat have clear visual clues that cycletraffic may be joining or leaving;

• parallel merges for cycle traffic ontothe carriageway should be provided asopposed to give ways; and

• cycle traffic must not be expected tojoin or leave the carriageway at pinchpoints.

Cycletrack

A - remote from carriageway

Cycletrack

Carriageway

Footway

B - cycle-only track kerb separated fromfootway and carriageway

Carriageway

Footway/Cycle track

E - shared-use footway and cycle track

Cycletrack

Dividing strip

possible barrier

Carriageway

Footway

C - cycle-only track kerb separated fromfootway and divided from carriageway

Cycletrack

Carriageway

Footway

D - Adjacent-use footway and cycle track(see also Figure 5.2.1)

Notes

1) Widths are indicative only, see Figure 4.2.3.

Letter Type Advantages Disadvantages Typical use Two or one wayDesignation

A Remote from May provide useful May be night time security issues Any level of, Usually two-way,highway alternative direct routes use if directions to be

Absence of unpleasantness provides reinforced by due to motor traffic essential arrows on the

connections surface

B Cycle-only Design speed same as Construction and drainage costs High cycle One-way only,track kerb highway Cycle Track level potentially high flows with theseparated may rejoin carriageway Trip hazard for pedestrians direction of flow from footway level at junctions Increased land take same as adjacentand No obstructions In busy areas pedestrians may walk on traffic One-way carriageway (unlike cycling on footway) cycle track anyway reinforced by

Only ever in same Increased construction cost Dia 652 and direction as traffic creates Higher maintenance cost arrows on surfaceno conflict problems if necessaryBetter for the visually ormobility impairedReduced unpleasantness due to motor traffic

C Cycle-only Design speed same as Construction and drainage costs High cycle Better to be one-track kerb highway potentially high flows way as aboveseparated No obstructions Significant drainage and sweeping from footway (unlike cycling on footway) problemsand divided Safety strip between track Difficult to enforce one-way from and carriageway movement of cycle trafficcarriageway If wide enough, a place Trip hazard for pedestrians

for signs etc. Not suitable in streets whereReduced unpleasantness pedestrians cross at any point ratherdue to motor traffic than specific crossings

Higher verge cutting costsGreater land take

D Adjacent-use Less land take Pedestrians Low speeds required for cyclists Very low Better to be footway and and cyclists can cross Conflict with pedestrians cycle flows one-way, could be cycle track white line to pass If provided as two-way then there are two-way over short

Cheaper to maintain MAJOR conflict problems. sections to provideReduced unpleasantness At junctions cyclist will be forced to essentialdue to motor traffic act as though they are pedestrians. connections

Usual footway obstructions(signing, etc.) cause problems.Difficult to enforce preferred one-waymovement of cycle trafficOn two-way tracks drivers do notexpect on-coming cycle traffic on left

E Shared-use Reduced unpleasantness All as above Very low Better to befootway and due to motor traffic Even more conflict with pedestrians flows one-waycycle track Almost impossible to enforce one-way

movement of cycle traffic

Table 4.2.4 Advantages and disadvantages of different types of off-carriageway provision

Notes

1) Off-carriageway provision should normallybe placed on both sides of the carriagway.





4.2.4 Factors to consider whenconverting an exising footway toa cycle track1. It is important that schemes that involve

the conversion of existing footways tocycle tracks do not result in disbenefits forpedestrians, especially people withdisabilities or visual impairment. Nationaladvice is available from the Departmentfor Transport on this.

2. Disabled and visually impaired groupsshould be consulted about any proposalsto convert a footway to a cycle track.

3. It should not be automatically assumedthat cyclists can be better served off-carriageway if an on-carriageway solutionis not feasible. It is necessary todemonstrate that an adjacent or shareduse path will be attractive to new cyclists,those already using the carriageway,whilst addressing the needs of new cyclists.

4. Any proposal to convert a footway to acycle track should:

• Be safe for all users, including thosewith disabilities and visualimpairments;

• Be easily accessible from side roads,private accesses and the carriageway,and avoid frequent give ways;

• Be at least as convenient as the onroad equivalent;

• Be well designed, attractive,comfortable to use and have a goodriding surface.

5. To convert a footway to a cycle track, thefootway must be removed under section66(4) of Highways Act and a cycle trackconstructed under Section 65(1) of the act.(See section 4.4.1).

Table 4.2.5 Factors to considerwhen converting an existingfootway to a cycle track.1. Whether good cycling conditions can be

provided on the carriageway, either byreducing traffic volumes or speeds or byallocating road space to cyclists.

2. Effect on pedestrians, including blind anddisabled people.

3. Benefits for cyclists. Cyclists are not likelyto use a shared path if it has frequentgive ways.

4. Type of cyclists likely to use facility e.g.school children.

5. Gradients. On steep hill considerationshould be given to widening the path orincreasing the separation betweencyclists and pedestrians.

6. Existing and potential use by cyclists andpedestrians.

7. Accident statistics.

8. Effect on frontage e.g. closeness towindows.

9. Number of roads and private accessescrossed. A higher number of roads andprivate accesses crossed increase thechance of an accident happening.

10. Conflict with pedestrians going to shops

11. Physical constraints of site.



Notes (all dimensions in millimetres)

1) Where there are cycle tracks on both sides ofthe road arrows may be needed to indicate tocyclists the direction in which they are expectedto use the cycle track.

2) Kerb separation from footway necessary whentrack remains part of carriageway. Kerbseparation may be used on shared use footwayswhen volumes of pedestrians or cyclists is high.Fencing either between the cycle track and thecarriageway or the cycle track and the footwaymay be used where there is good reason toenhance segregation.

3) Where verge causes maintenance problems theadditional width may be provided in blacktopwith lining to indicate the cycle track. Bollardsmay be placed intermittently along the verge toprevent abuse of the cycletrack by motorvehicle (e.g. for parking).

4) Unsegregated options may be considered whereeither pedestrian or cycle traffic is low, in thiscase widths as for the cycle track may beappropriate.

5) Where the cycle side of a path segregated by awhite line is less than 2 metres wide, cyclists willhave to cross it to pass another cyclist. This isgenerally only acceptable where flows ofpedestrians and cyclists are low, or there arewidth constraints.

6) Available widths and anticipated cycle andpedestrian volumes may suggest that narrowerwidths could be acceptable.

7) Where, because of physical constraints, a fullwidth can not be constructed, considerationcould be given to a narrower path with passingplaces. The passing places should be at leastevery 50 metres and in sight of one another.

8) Where a two way cycle track is provided on oneside of the road, it is recommended that a highdegree of separation be provided between thecycle track and carriageway, to avoid cyclists’lights confusing oncoming vehicles.

9) In some cases provision for horses will beneeded alongside a carriageway as well ascyclists. Horses do not have a legal right to usecycle tracks. However Section 71 of theHighways Act 1980 places a duty on highwayauthorities to provide an adequate verge forridden horses where this is necessary ordesirable. In such cases the verge should not beobstructed by signs.

10) Guard rails should only be used to separatecycle and pedestrian paths for a short distanceas there is a risk that cyclists’ handlebars andpedals will collide with them.

11) Unsegregated shared use paths have operatedsatisfactorily down to 2 metres wide. Howeverthe preferred minimum width is 3 metres.

12) Where the combined flow of cyclists andpedestrians is more than 200 in a peak flow, forexample outside a school, consideration shouldbe given to segregation or to widening thepath.

13) See also Figure 5.2.1.

Adjacent One-way cycle One-way Two-way Cycle track footwayto track to allow cycle cycle Separated from

ocassional passing track (1) track (2) footway by(3)

Open ground 2500 mm 1500 mm 3000 mm 50 mm kerb 2000 mm

Walls / bushes etc. 2500 mm 1750 mm 3250 mm 50 mm kerb 2000 mm

500 mm vergeto carriageway 2500 mm 1500 mm 3000 mm 50 mm kerb 2000 mm

Open ground 2000 mm 1500 mm 3000 mm White line / 2000 mm1500mm min colour contrast 1500 mm min

Walls bushes etc. 2250 mm 1750 mm 3250 mm White line / 2000 mmcolour contrast

- - - 3000 mm shared use path

Figure 4.2.3 Widths of off-carriageway provision

cycle

Track

foo

tway

Barrieroropen ground

Barrieror

open groundor

500mm vergeto carriageway

sh

are

du

se

path

Barrieroropen ground

Barrieror

open groundor

500mm vergeto carriageway

a) b)



958.1

1057

1003

1009

1004

1004

1009

1049

1058

1057

1049

1057

962.1

959.1

Notes1) Advisory cycle lane marked across

junction even if mandatory elsewhere.In some circumstances considercoloured strip without lane marking toprevent impression that cycle lane isgive way line.

2) Coloured surfacing used in cycle laneonly where additional conspicuitywould help prevent inappropriatevehicle encroachment.

3) Traffic islands may helpreinforce separationof cycle lane frommotor vehicle lane.

4) On very steep descents, or where cyclespeeds are high, cycle lanes may needto be wider than the standard. (SeeTable 4.2.2).

5) Hatching may bebeneficial where acycle lane is narrowerthan recommendedor where motorvehicle speeds arehigh.

6) The introduction of a cyclelane at a bend, perhaps withhatching, can help providespace for cyclists.

7) A hatching strip betweenparked vehicles and cyclelane may be beneficial(advisory lanes only)especially on shoppingstreets, where theturnover of parked carsis likely to be high. Thiswill reduce the chance of a cyclistbeing injured by somebody opening acar door.

8) Gullies with gratings parallel to kerbshould be replaced when introducingcycle lanes.

1032

1004

967

Figure 4.2.4 Cycle lane layouts

traffic islands

hatching

Gradient

Refuges



Notes1) Merges and diverges to and from

carriageway should be at a 1:4taper or slacker. (but see Figure4.2.1).

2) The carriageway may need to benarrowed prior to the merge.

3) Any changes in level to cycle tracknot to occur where horizontalchanges in direction of the cycletrack occur.

4) Vertical changes to be avoided andlimited to a maximum gradientrelative to the general profile of1:40.

5) Gradient changes to be smoothed.6) A diverge mirroring the merge (as

shown) is a further alternative.7) A kerb upstand of 10mm is required

where pedestrians and cyclists crossthe kerbline, otherwise they shouldbe flush.

1004

1057

Tactilemarkings ifadjacent tofootway(see Figure9.1.1)

Any channel linebreak or kerb laidflush to beperpendicular tocycle traffic flow(see note 3)

Smooth transitionrequired off thecarriageway (seealso note 6)

Hatched or kerbbuildout mayprovide additionalprotection at merge(see note 2)

1049

Ramp ifrequired(see note 4)

A A

Cycle lane rejoinscarriageway

• impossibleangles.

• radius of 4m OK• only acceptable

where majority ofcycle traffic iscrossing, notmerging.

Section A to A

No ramp oncycle track asit is difficult tohold bike againstthe fall of a ramp

Kerb laid flush tocarriageway andcycle track

Carriagewaycamber

Longditudinal fall needs to besufficient to avoid ponding.

Figure 4.2.5 Principles of cycletrack/carriagewaymerge/diverge

Gradient

4.3 Cycle Traffic andBuses

4.3.1 Bus lanes1. Cyclists should be allowed to use all bus

lanes. Where existing bus lanes do notallow such use then traffic regulationorders should be remade to allow such use.

2. The following summarises bus lane widthsin relation to the cross-sections defined inTable 4.1.1.

• Tight: 3.6 metres width and less: a buswould have to move out of the laneto overtake a cyclist;

• Critical: 3.6 metres to 4.4 metres: cancreate the impression that thereenough room to pass when there isnot in reality;

• Spacious: 4.4-5.2 metres wide at 30mph, greater widths required athigher bus speeds.

3. Without too many buses or too great aspeed, bus lanes can be the best cycle lanesavailable. Advantages of bus lanes include:

• improvement in safety;

• improvement in convenience;

• maintenance of permeability in areasclosed to motor traffic; and

• distances cycle traffic from motor traffic.

4. Bus lanes may operate on a timed basisand such timing should have regard to theneeds of cycle traffic.

5. There are some problems with bus lanes asidentified below:

• buses may tend to travel faster thanthey otherwise would as they arefreed from congestion;

• bus lanes may create narrower lanesfor traffic in the opposite direction,hence creating critical, or even tightcross-sections where they did not existpreviously.

6. In places, taxis have been allowed in buslanes. Taxis can cause cyclists problems innarrower bus lanes and if high cyclevolumes are expected, then in line withthe hierarchy of users, considerationshould be given to the effect of taxis oncycle traffic.

4.3.2 Bus stops and cycle tracks1. Consideration needs to be given to the

layout of an off-carriageway cycle track inthe vicinity of a bus stop.

• there may be conflict with passengerswaiting for a bus or getting on andoff it;

• cycle traffic may be impeded;

• cyclists might collide with a bus shelterin the dark.

2. Possible solutions are:

• A wider verge by bus stop, so buspassengers have a landing pointbefore crossing the cycle track;

• running the cycle track at the back ofthe footway rather than on thecarriageway side;

• bending the cycle track away from thecarriageway at the bus stop;

• reflective strips on the bus stop.

3. In some cases, conflict with passengerswaiting at bus stops may be a reason forpreferring on carriageway provision to anoff carriagway cycle track.

4. Bus boarders can cause problems forcyclists deflecting them onto the path oftraffic.



4.4 Planning andLegal Issues

4.4.1 Advice on convertingfootways1. A proposal to convert a footway or part of

a footway to a cycle track requires that:

• the footway be “removed” under thepowers in section 66(4) of theHighways Act 1980; and

• the cycle track be “constructed” undersection 65(1) of the Highways Act1980.

2. The process need not involve constructionwork but there needs to be clear evidencethat the highway authority has exercisedits powers. This can be provided by aresolution of the cabinet member.

3. The order needs to be specific about whichpart of the footway will become cycletrack. Rights of way on foot are notaffected by such orders, unless the orderspecifically excludes pedestrians.Consultation (i.e. notices on the footway)is advisable though not statutorilynecessary.

4. By virtue of Section 21 of the Road TrafficAct 1988 it is an offence to use a motorvehicle on a cycle track, and the making ofTraffic Regulation Order is no longerrequired to control such use on a cycletrack.

5. A shared facility should be clearly signed.Usually orders are cast such thatpedestrians can walk on the footway andthe cycle track, but cyclists must not strayonto the part designated for pedestrians.

6. Crossings of a footway, for example from acarriageway to a route away from thecarriageway (e.g. a permissive routethrough a park or cycle track leading awayfrom the carriageway) usually do not needconversion orders and in this sense aresimilar to a driveway or other access

crossing of a footway. Short sections ofcycle track along a footway leading to suchoff-carriageway routes may however needconversion to a cycle track.

7. The engineering layout and design of thepavement will need to be consideredcarefully for any footway to cycle trackconversion. (See Sections 4 and 9).

4.4.2 Advice on cycle lanes1. Mandatory cycle lanes are given effect by

the use of a Traffic Regulation Order. It iscommon practice to reinforce a mandatorycycle lane with “no parking at any time”and “no loading at any time” trafficregulation orders where parking mayotherwise take place.

2. It should be noted, that the crossing of thewhite line is a moving traffic offence, onlyenforceable by the police. Parking behinda solid white line with no traffic regulationorder preventing parking leaves trafficwardens and decriminalised parkingauthorities with no powers to enforce.

3. It is worth noting that decriminalisedparking authorities and traffic wardenscan enforce parking restrictions on cycletracks, whether created under S65 of theHighways Act 1980 or under a Cycle TrackAct 1984 Order.

4. Solid white lines should be carried acrossprivate accesses, but only broken whitelines should extend across junctions.

5. Advisory cycle lanes are sometimespromoted and these do not need TrafficRegulation Orders. This may be expedient,but as motor vehicles may freely enter thelane, then abuse through parking is morereadily observed. Advisory lanes areneeded where vehicles have to encroachonto the cycle lane to pass along the road.



4.4.3 Advice on highwayextinguishment1. Restrictions on the use of highways by

vehicles is usually dealt with under trafficregulation orders.

2. As part of general land use or specificallyin connection with development, a localplanning authority can extinguish rights touse a highway by vehicles. Types of vehiclemay be specifically described in the orderand therefore allow for continued use ofpedal cycles.

3. This power has been exercised in relation,for example, to pedestrianisation schemes.

4. Traffic regulation orders would alsonormally be made so that prosecutioncould be carried out against offenders.This may be unnecessary if the design ofthe scheme is self-enforcing, for examplethrough physical measures.



Lancashire - the cyclists’ county

Documents

Transcript of Lancashire - the cyclists’ county