Traffic calming

[Danny Colyer]

Does anyone have any references to hand concerning good practice when
implementing traffic calming measures? I'm particularly interested in
the effects on cyclists of road narrowing and speed cushions.

The road adjacent to the one that I live on is about to have a 20mph
speed limit applied (a good thing). In preparation for this, over the
last couple of weeks pavement build-outs have been installed, to narrow
the road. I'm not entirely happy about them, but can live with them.

This evening I was shocked to find that speed cushions had been
installed between the pavement build-outs, leaving me the choice of
riding along the middle of the road to go between the cushions, or
squeezing through the gap between the cushion and the pavement. There
was no way I was going to try riding over them.

I'm babysitting tonight, so won't have time to hunt for references. But
I'm off work tomorrow, so should have plenty of time to do some research
and write a letter.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Does anyone have any references to hand concerning good practice when
> implementing traffic calming measures? I'm particularly interested in
> the effects on cyclists of road narrowing and speed cushions.

I don't mind narrowing as long as it does not involve the dreaded glass
filled "cycle bypass" that some motorists might expect us to use!

Any sort of ramp or textured surface (eg block paving) is serious bad news,
as they affect cyclists far more than motorists.

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Does anyone have any references to hand concerning good practice when
> implementing traffic calming measures? I'm particularly interested in the
> effects on cyclists of road narrowing and speed cushions.
>

If there is, they don't seem to use them in London!
....
> This evening I was shocked to find that speed cushions had been installed
> between the pavement build-outs, leaving me the choice of riding along the
> middle of the road to go between the cushions, or squeezing through the
> gap between the cushion and the pavement. There was no way I was going to
> try riding over them.
>

Yep, sound just like the ones all over the place here. They're a nuisance,
but just chicanes - go left, go right, go over the top if necessary. You'll
get used to it after a while.... there isn't much choice

Of course, if you do find a way of forcing a change, short of taking direct
action with a JCB I'm sure everyone would like to know.

Rich

 

[Tony Raven]

Danny Colyer wrote:
> Does anyone have any references to hand concerning good practice when
> implementing traffic calming measures? I'm particularly interested in
> the effects on cyclists of road narrowing and speed cushions.
>

The best guide is Section 7 of Cycling Friendly Infrastructure:
Guidelines for Planning and Design (available from CTC) and Traffic
Advisory Leaflet 1/97 (available from DfT) together with Cycle Audit and
Cycle Review (on-line) that requires that off-road provision is at the
bottom of the hierarchy and only for when on road provision is not possible.


http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504721.hcsp
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504706-01.hcsp

Tony

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Danny,

Try this to start with,
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinchpoints.html

 

[Danny Colyer]

Tony Raven wrote:
> The best guide is Section 7 of Cycling Friendly Infrastructure:
> Guidelines for Planning and Design (available from CTC) and Traffic
> Advisory Leaflet 1/97 (available from DfT) together with Cycle Audit and
> Cycle Review (on-line) that requires that off-road provision is at the
> bottom of the hierarchy and only for when on road provision is not possible.
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504721.hcsp
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504706-01.hcsp

Thanks Tony. Interesting to see that the leaflet advising on cyclists
at road narrowings has no problem with narrowings in 20mph zones:
"Where average speeds are below 20mph, cyclists and motorists should be
able to comfortably share space. The maintenance of low vehicle speeds
reduces the need for specific provision for cyclists."

"In 20mph zones, a narrowing will normally need to be 3.5m or less to be
effective in controlling vehicle speeds."

I couldn't find any mention of speed cushions, though. I wouldn't
object too strongly to either a narrowing or speed cushions, given that
the speed limit is to be 20mph, but I think the speed cushions within
the narrowing are dangerous.

I'll have to go and take some photos tomorrow.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Danny Colyer]

findaddress at thebikezone.org.uk wrote:
> Try this to start with,
> http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinchpoints.html

Thanks. From the address that you posted from, I guess you're involved
with this site. FYI, there's a dead link in the above page.
<URL:http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/cycle/01_97/index.htm>
should now be:
<URL:http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504706.hcsp>
(one of the links posted by Tony).

It's an interesting page, anyway.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Paul Luton]

In message <[email protected]>
"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> ...
> > This evening I was shocked to find that speed cushions had been installed
> > between the pavement build-outs, leaving me the choice of riding along the
> > middle of the road to go between the cushions, or squeezing through the
> > gap between the cushion and the pavement. There was no way I was going to
> > try riding over them.
> >
>
> Yep, sound just like the ones all over the place here. They're a nuisance,
> but just chicanes - go left, go right, go over the top if necessary. You'll
> get used to it after a while.... there isn't much choice
>
Just do not go over the sloping sides in icy conditions - you will end up
horizontal. (been there got the sore side).

--
CTC Right to Ride Representative for Richmond upon Thames

 

[Sniper8052]

findaddress at thebikezone.org.uk wrote:
> Try this to start with,
> http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinchpoints.html

Thanks. From the address that you posted from, I guess you're involved
with this site. FYI, there's a dead link in the above page.
<URL:http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/cycle/01_97/index.htm>
should now be:
<URL:http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504706.hcsp>
(one of the links posted by Tony).

It's an interesting page, anyway.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sniper:
The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for pedestrians, excepting at pedestrian crossings, or to denote the difference between two speed limits or mark the entrance to a village, although they may be used for any of the above. The purpose of a traffic island is to seperate opposing traffic which might otherwise come into conflict.
Whilst the page is interesting it proceeds from a mistaken premisis in the first few lines.

Sniper8052

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[dkahn400]

Danny Colyer wrote:

> Thanks Tony. Interesting to see that the leaflet advising on
> cyclists at road narrowings has no problem with narrowings in
> 20mph zones:
> "Where average speeds are below 20mph, cyclists and motorists
> should be able to comfortably share space. The maintenance of
> low vehicle speeds reduces the need for specific provision for
> cyclists."

The problem is that there's a difference between a road in a 20 mph
zone and a road on which average speeds are below 20 mph.

--
Dave...

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Sniper8052 wrote:
> The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for
> pedestrians, excepting at pedestrian crossings, or to denote the
> difference between two speed limits or mark the entrance to a village,
> although they may be used for any of the above. The purpose of a
> traffic island is to seperate opposing traffic which might otherwise
> come into conflict.
> Whilst the page is interesting it proceeds from a mistaken premisis in
> the first few lines.

Well, I know a couple put in to stop motor vehicles hitting each other
head-on by cutting corners. They act as pinch points for cyclists to
be cut up in, since the gap is 3.0m and most drivers speed at 35-40.

There's no room to widen the gaps, and the islands have to stay, so
the only hope is to reduce speeds with cushions.

On kerb build-outs, most are to improve pedestrian visibility at
crossings. this means they could only go where there is a high level
of kerbside car parking. I.e where cyclists will already be far enough
out to miss the build-outs without changing course.

Colin McKenzie

 

[Mike Causer]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:46:50 +1100, Sniper8052 wrote:

> The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for
> pedestrians, excepting at pedestrian crossings, or to denote the
> difference between two speed limits or mark the entrance to a village,
> although they may be used for any of the above. The purpose of a traffic
> island is to seperate opposing traffic which might otherwise come into
> conflict.

In that case why is a new island being constructed this morning on a
straight road 200m from the nearest bend and 100m from the nearest road
junction, in the middle of a village? Oh, and why is it right opposite
the village hall? For that matter, why is there a half-built island on
another straight section of the same road, opposite the Sports & Social
Club, and yet another older one opposite the child nursery? They are
there in a vain attempt to get the cars, vans and lorries to slow down as
they go past these points. And to present a new hazard to cyclists of
course :-( At a place where there _is_ a serious danger of conflict
there is no room to put an island, so there isn't one.

Luckily there is a back route along narrow lanes -- which at the moment is
full of rat-runners avoiding the temporary traffic lights on the High
Street.


Mike

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Sniper:
> The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for
> pedestrians, excepting at pedestrian crossings, or to denote the
> difference between two speed limits or mark the entrance to a village,
> although they may be used for any of the above. The purpose of a
> traffic island is to seperate opposing traffic which might otherwise
> come into conflict.

Well, they often put motorcyclists and cyclists into potential conflict with
opposing traffic when they have to go round the wrong side of the island to
pass queuing traffic, instead of proceeding uninterupted down the middle of
the road Of course, they aren't the only ones that do it - I've also
been passed by cars that way on occasions, because I wouldn't let them
squeeze me into the kerb at the pinch-points they create.

Does anyone ever bother to monitor the 'before' and 'after' effects of all
these islands scattered liberally even along otherwise straight and
junction-free sections of road? Or do the planners just put them in because
they have some vague idea that they are a 'Good Thing'?

Rich

 

[Dave Larrington]

Richard Goodman wrote:

> Does anyone ever bother to monitor the 'before' and 'after' effects
> of all these islands scattered liberally even along otherwise
> straight and junction-free sections of road? Or do the planners just
> put them in because they have some vague idea that they are a 'Good
> Thing'?

Dunno, but just up the road from Larrington Towers they're actually taking
one away and putting in a zebra crossing in its place.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[Danny Colyer]

I've been out taking photos and measurements this afternoon. I was
quite surprised to find that the traffic calming measures comply with
all of the recommendations that I was able find. Given South
Gloucestershire Councils record on dealing with safety concerns
expressed by cyclists, complaining when I can't find any breaches of
guidelines would be particularly futile.

In particular, all of the guidelines that I found recommended a minimum
distance of 75cm between kerb and speed cushions, with one set of
guidelines stating that a minimum of 1m is desirable. On Grimsbury
Road, the narrowest gap between kerb and cushion is 88cm, with most
cushions having gaps of more than 1m. I feel uncomfortable going
through a 1m gap because it forces me out of the primary riding
position, but there are no guidelines to justify a complaint.

Anyway, I've knocked up a webpage with pictures:
<URL:http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/colyer_pictures/grimsbury/>

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Danny Colyer]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> On kerb build-outs, most are to improve pedestrian visibility at
> crossings. this means they could only go where there is a high level
> of kerbside car parking. I.e where cyclists will already be far enough
> out to miss the build-outs without changing course.

I've read several sets of guidelines today that state that speed
cushions shouldn't be used at pedestrian crossings because they
constitute a trip hazard. So it's probably a good thing that there are
no dropped kerbs on any of the build outs where South Gloucestershire
Council has installed speed cushions.

Grimsbury Road has a high level of kerbside car parking, but only along
one side (the East side between Baden Road and Courtney Way, the West
side between Courtney Way and Orchard Vale). The build outs that I
found particularly worrying on Grimsbury Road are the ones that are
opposite the rows of parked cars.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Mark]

Danny Colyer wrote:
> I've been out taking photos and measurements this afternoon. I was
> quite surprised to find that the traffic calming measures comply with
> all of the recommendations that I was able find. Given South
> Gloucestershire Councils record on dealing with safety concerns
> expressed by cyclists, complaining when I can't find any breaches of
> guidelines would be particularly futile.
>
> In particular, all of the guidelines that I found recommended a minimum
> distance of 75cm between kerb and speed cushions, with one set of
> guidelines stating that a minimum of 1m is desirable. On Grimsbury
> Road, the narrowest gap between kerb and cushion is 88cm, with most
> cushions having gaps of more than 1m. I feel uncomfortable going
> through a 1m gap because it forces me out of the primary riding
> position, but there are no guidelines to justify a complaint.
>
> Anyway, I've knocked up a webpage with pictures:
> <URL:http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/colyer_pictures/grimsbury/>
>

Hi Danny,

[The pictures link didn't work for me.]

I've found some specific details of your location that may help. I can't
do more without details, and I'm just about to go out!

You'll need to demonstrate that they are not complying with their stated
strategies, and gain support of your County Councilor / District
Councilors, etc. The ERCDT may also help. There will be a right to ride
rep. in your area that may help.

The ERCDT have reviewed S G Council, that could be of use:
<http://www.nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uk/assets/go_2004/South_West/Southglos.pdf>


<http://www.southglos.gov.uk/NetworkServices/Cycling/cProposals.htm>

States:
All proposals to make changes to our roads contained within the
Council’s ‘capital programme’ (see New Cycle Measures 2003) are examined
by a team of individuals in the Network Services Section of the Council,
including the Cycling Engineer.

-Did the Cycling Enginner approve this scheme? If not ask for their
approval.


<http://www.southglos.gov.uk/acrobat/cycling.pdf>
The CC cycling strategy has many policies, that are probable not met,
including:

Road user hierarchy
CP2 The needs of cyclists will be considered in all transport, land use
decisions and planning decisions in accordance with the principles laid
out in the Cycling Strategy.
Throughout the strategy's implementation, the following road user
hierarchy will be used as a prompt in order to consider needs:
1. Pedestrians and people with disabilities (inc. disabled car users)
2. Cyclists
3. Public transport users
4. Motor-cyclists and taxis
5. Commercial and business vehicles
6. Car borne shoppers
7. Car borne commuters and visitors

-I hope you could demonstrate that the CC are not adopting this hierarchy.

Partnerships
CP3 To continue to progress the Cycling Strategy through consultation
and the building of constructive local partnerships.
Partnership is of critical importance to modern-day decision making, the
democratic process and an important element of Council policy.

-Did the CC comsult with the CTC or similar organisations?

CP6 To undertake a Cycling Review of the Council’s existing and proposed
strategic cycle route network. The results will be used to further the
protection of the network in the interests of cyclists and set
priorities for improvements.
***To establish Vulnerable Road User Audits for all new highway and
land-use developments.***

-Was a Cycle Audit or Cycle Review carried out?

Demand management
CP31 To investigate opportunities for improved conditions for cyclists
as part of demand management measures for motorised traffic.

-Have things improved for cyclists? If not you could probably
demonstrate that they've not adopted the Cycle Friendly Infrastructure
document (your library can get a copy), and hence does not meet there
stated strategy.

A bit rushed, but I hope it'll give you some ideas at least.

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:46:50 +1100 someone who may be Sniper8052
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for
>pedestrians,

You'd better try and convince some councils of this assertion. I can
think of a few who have installed such things precisely to help
pedestrians cross.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Danny Colyer]

Mark wrote:
> I've found some specific details of your location that may help. I can't
> do more without details, and I'm just about to go out!
>
> You'll need to demonstrate that they are not complying with their stated
> strategies, and gain support of your County Councilor / District
> Councilors, etc. The ERCDT may also help. There will be a right to ride
> rep. in your area that may help.

There is indeed. He's a regular here, and can cite far worse examples
of cycle unfriendly infrastructure in S Glos.

> <http://www.southglos.gov.uk/NetworkServices/Cycling/cProposals.htm>
>
> States:
> All proposals to make changes to our roads contained within the
> Council’s ‘capital programme’ (see New Cycle Measures 2003) are examined
> by a team of individuals in the Network Services Section of the Council,
> including the Cycling Engineer.
>
> -Did the Cycling Enginner approve this scheme? If not ask for their
> approval.

That's a good idea. Unfortunately, the traffic calming measures seem to
comply with all of the available guidelines for considering cyclists
when implementing traffic calming. In particular, all of the official
guidelines seem to agree that cyclists prefer speed cushions to speed
bumps or speed tables. Dunno where they get that from, I'd much rather
ride over a speed table than negotiate a speed cushion.

One of their strategies for making cycling safer is to slow traffic
down, so I just *know* they'll argue that the traffic calming measures
have made Grimsbury Road safer for cyclists.

> Throughout the strategy's implementation, the following road user
> hierarchy will be used as a prompt in order to consider needs:
> 1. Pedestrians and people with disabilities (inc. disabled car users)
> 2. Cyclists
> 3. Public transport users
> 4. Motor-cyclists and taxis
> 5. Commercial and business vehicles
> 6. Car borne shoppers
> 7. Car borne commuters and visitors
>
> -I hope you could demonstrate that the CC are not adopting this hierarchy.

I don't think I could. They've obviously put peds first, and I think
they could claim to have considered cyclists by choosing to put in speed
cushions rather than bumps or tables. I'd still rather have tables.

> Partnerships
> CP3 To continue to progress the Cycling Strategy through consultation
> and the building of constructive local partnerships.
> Partnership is of critical importance to modern-day decision making, the
> democratic process and an important element of Council policy.
>
> -Did the CC comsult with the CTC or similar organisations?

I very much doubt it. I strongly suspect that consultation was limited
to residents of Grimsbury Road. I live 200 yards from Grimsbury Road,
so my opinion doesn't count.

> ***To establish Vulnerable Road User Audits for all new highway and
> land-use developments.***
>
> -Was a Cycle Audit or Cycle Review carried out?

If it had been, I suspect they would have proceeded with the same
changes. Because what they've done meets all the traffic calming
guidelines.

> -Have things improved for cyclists? If not you could probably
> demonstrate that they've not adopted the Cycle Friendly Infrastructure
> document (your library can get a copy), and hence does not meet there
> stated strategy.

My first impression is that things have not improved for cyclists, but
I'll ride along there a few more times before making a final decision on
that. The measures certainly seem to be effective at slowing the
traffic down, but I've never experienced a problem with traffic speed
along there. I'm well aware that the residents of Grimsbury Road *have*
experienced problems, and the road is used as a rat run.

The cycling strategy refers repeatedly to Cycle Friendly Infrastructure.
I see from the CTC website that it's available to members for £7.50, I
think I might buy myself a copy.

> A bit rushed, but I hope it'll give you some ideas at least.

It has, thanks. I'm not optimistic, though. Unless I can find
something helpful in Cycle Friendly Infrastructure (which I suspect will
recommend cushions in favour of tables or bumps), the best hope that I
can see is the following from the Cycling Strategy:

"Parents will feel able to use child-carrying trailers on the roads with
confidence."

Every journey that I take with my kids starts off along Grimsbury Road.
Before these measures were applied, I was able to tow them along there
with confidence. Now I'm going to have to pull out around the build
outs and there's no way I'll be able to avoid the speed cushions with
the trailer. I think I might try it tomorrow without the kids. Erm,
actually that might not be possible. As soon as I get the trailer out,
Jenny will want to go for a ride.

I have contacted the council several times complaining about other
installations that are intended to make cycling safer, but which make
trailer use more difficult. They've never replied. I have been
informed by the Cycling Officer that there will be a cycle forum next
month, and I am on the mailing list to receive notice as soon as a date
is set. So perhaps it's time to compile a list of trailer unfriendly
infrastructure.

In the meantime, the speed cushions have been in place for 36 hours at
the most and I've only ridden along there once in that time. I'll ride
along it a few more times to get a better feel of how good or bad it is
before kicking up a fuss.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Paul Luton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> Just do not go over the sloping sides in icy conditions - you will end up
> horizontal. (been there got the sore side).
>

Yup, been there, done that.

Rich