Revising Cycling By Design « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Revising Cycling By Design

(48 posts)

Started 8 years ago by sallyhinch
Latest reply from sallyhinch

No tags yet.

12 Next »

sallyhinch
Member

I'm not sure if it's been widely announced yet, but the process has started to revise Cycling by Design, the Scottish design guidelines (technically they only apply to trunk routes at the moment but they are very influential in how councils design cycling infrastructure on their own roads).

For those not steeped in kerb nerdery, the current version is here

It was published in 2010 and things have moved on massively since then, so hopefully the new guidance will be a step upwards, along the lines of the London Cycling Design Standards, or even the Crow Manual. I'm assured that the consultants involved are looking at international best practice, but you can bet whatever they start with will get watered down at every stage.

We'll be doing a workshop at the Walk, Cycle, Vote training day with the consultants involved so that will be a good way to give some input but I'm also trying to collate good examples of why the current design guidelines don't work - for example on my blog here https://cityexile.wordpress.com/2016/11/17/cycling-by-mistake/

If you have a blog, twitter account or other space where you can do something similar, it would be great to pull these together and pass them on to the consultants. I'm not sure how much difference it would make, but every little helps! If you do post something, please add it here.

Posted 8 years ago #
uphill
Member

Good effort for highlighting this :) Is there a way to respond online...?

Here are my suggestions..
The section (4.3) dealing with narrowings at centre islands seems ok to me – it essentially says there should be a cycle lane separated from the road past the island. However what I think is lacking is general guidance on road narrowings, including tight bends where traffic cuts the corner slightly which are also have effectively narrowed clearance. I suspect that as a general rule, not followed by some cycle lanes in Edinburgh and elsewhere, is that any cycle lane that approaches a narrowing in the road and stops before it, is adding rather than decreasing danger, by encouraging a cyclist to stay left before being forced into a clash with traffic at the narrowing.

Page 14 includes “cyclists making illegal manoeuvres such as weaving through traffic queues” - I think this should simply say “cyclists having to weave through traffic queues” . I am not aware that weaving is illegal so long as done carefully – how else can you advance in messy stationery traffic where it is not possible to advance all of the time either on the inside or outside? The paragraph is about examples of signs that existing provision is not working for cycles.

Air crash style accident investigation of every accident and near miss, with specific
recommendations for changes to standards is what we need.

Posted 8 years ago #
sallyhinch
Member

@uphill - as far as I know, there's no online consultation on it at the moment. There was a survey during the Cycling Scotland conference but it was aimed at the 'users' (i.e. councils building the stuff, not the actual poor sods who have to cycle on it) and pretty broad brush stuff. There may be another one during the training day so keep an eye out.

Posted 8 years ago #
fimm
Member

Like this?
East Preston Street bike lane wiggle

Posted 8 years ago #
sallyhinch
Member

yup! Got that one bookmarked already

Posted 8 years ago #
neddie
Member

Why don't cyclists use facilities made for them?

https://www.blipfoto.com/entry/2243130555447116790

(Gilmore Pl)

Posted 8 years ago #
NiallA
Member

Sally,

You mentioned somewhere on your blogpost about the feeder lanes into ASZs. We had a conversation on here a few months back about the legal issues around this, and IIRC the situation has changed very recently - there is now no obligation for cyclists to enter only via dashed lines or feeder lanes. Thus, one area to look at might be what the design guidelines say about this, and push for them to be updated to reflect this newer, more sensible approach.

Posted 8 years ago #
HankChief
Member

I must get round to blog about Meadowplace Road

CCE thread

Meadow Place Road by HankChief, on Flickr

The cycle lanes are 1.5m wide but most of that is paint. The multiple central refuges mean that wide passes are no longer possible and the markings make it look like if drivers stay on the black tarmac they're fine.

Made it much worse to cycle on. With no parking on it and only a few entrances (& 2 schools) it should have had a segregated lane on it :-(

Posted 8 years ago #
HankChief
Member

And right on queue, me & the kids get a close pass on it this morning.

Driver was on black tarmac, us on red but I could have touched her wingmirror.

Not good :-(

Posted 8 years ago #
David Hunter
Member

Very pleased to see this thread; I think the lack of up to date, authoritative guidance is increasingly a real problem. Another important piece of (UK) guidance is Inclusive Mobility http://https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-mobility, which has been influential in making streets better for disabled but is now hopelessly out of date (2005). The DfT re considering updating this apparently, but is seems unlikely to happen soon. I think that many of the recent conflicts involving cycle design (floating bus stops come to mind, which are covered by neither Cycling by Design nor Inclusive Mobility) would be eased if well-researched and 'joined-up' design guidance was available.

Posted 8 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"if well-researched and 'joined-up' design guidance was available"

If only those too went together!

Posted 8 years ago #
sallyhinch
Member

edd1e_h - that's great too, thanks. I'd quite like a doorzone cycle lane example ...
@Niall - the guidance definitely hasn't caught up with the new legal position because it is still calling for feeder lanes, but in the long term I think that just marginally improving ASLs would really be a waste of time - I'd like to see them made more or less irrelevant.
@HankChief -yes, blog please!
@David Hunter - do you know if that guidance applies to Scotland? I did ask the consultants if they had people with additional mobility needs on their team or would be including them and they were a bit cagey about it, muttering something about budgets ...

Posted 8 years ago #
David Hunter
Member

sallyhinch - 'Inclusive Mobility' is non-statutory UK guidance but has influenced a umber of Scottish (and RUK) documents - for example the Scottish Government's 'Designing Streets'. If the consultants do not consider equality aspects of their brief, I think they (and probably their client) will be in clear breach of the 2010 Equality Act. If you'd like to contact me privately with the details of the consult and ideally the brief, I would be happy to look into this further?

Posted 8 years ago #
Frenchy
Member

I'd quite like a doorzone cycle lane example ...

Old Dalkeith Road in Edinburgh: Google Street View

Happy to go take photos if necessary.

Also large chunks of the Quality Bike Corridor: Link 1, Link 2 etc.

Ratcliffe Terrace, where that last link is, is problematic for a few reasons, I'll try and remember to expound on them in the next couple of days.

Posted 8 years ago #
sallyhinch
Member

those are great, thanks. Details of other problems which are less obvious would be good too!

Posted 8 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

sally - there is separate Scottish accessibility guidance "Roads for All", which you can find at:

http://www.transport.gov.scot/sites/default/files/documents/rrd_reports/uploaded_reports/j256264/j256264.pdf

There is also a Roads for All forum, chaired by TS and involving various road and disability bodies.

Transport Scotland is covered by the public sector equality duty. If you are really keen then cast your eye over the attached for an explanation of how this applies to Transport Scotland and the wider SG:

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0042/00421238.pdf

I wouldn't get your hopes up about a revised Cycling by Design, after all the CROW manual is already referenced in the current version.

Posted 8 years ago #
Frenchy
Member

@sallyhinch - the big problem with Ratcliffe Terrace is actually beautifully captured by Google Street View, just slightly up the hill from Link 2 I posted - Here. Cars and vans park in the bike lane after the bike lane has returned to the kerb. Drivers following a cyclist may be anticipating the cyclist moving back to the kerb, and this leads to conflict and close passes, because the cyclist insists on not cycling through the solid vehicle.

The way to address this, I think, is to keep the cycle lane out into the middle of the road (perhaps even allowing more loading bays...). The reason this wasn't done on Ratcliffe Terrace appears to be that there 'isn't enough space'. But cyclists end up taking primary position in the main lane anyway, so it would make sod all difference to traffic flow, but lead to cyclists' behaviour being much more predictable and therefore hopefully cause less conflict.

It's worth noting that the most recent Street View images for most of Ratcliffe Terrace were taken in May - the signs and kerb markings have since been corrected to show that loading is not permitted at any time on the double yellow line section.

Posted 8 years ago #
Frenchy
Member

Whilst I'm ranting about the QBC...

Another problem is this point here.

Drivers come along here, and tend to cut into the bike lane. I'm wording that badly, so have a diagram:

http://i.imgur.com/PE1ddyC.jpg

It can be bloody terrifying.

I think the solution, from a Cycling by Design perspective anyway, is to avoid having traffic islands so close to points where the bike lane changes direction. I'll try and find out by Saturday if this is covered in Cycling by Design at the moment.

Posted 8 years ago #
UtrechtCyclist
Member

Hi Sally, thanks for this thread. Three things I'd like to see in the new cycling by design.

1) Sometimes when you have a segregated cycle lane you want to give a green light to bikes that are in the segregated lane but not to bikes that are on the road. For example, if you have a segregated lane going across the top of a T-junction, it's effectively bypassing the junction and can have green a lot of the time but you still want the cyclists in the segregated lane to stop for the pedestrian green man (and cyclists on the road to obey the normal road signals). What is the best way of doing this?

This is particularly difficult if you don't have space to stick the traffic lights between the segregated lane and the road (which would require a lot of space, apparently traffic lights need to be set back a long way from the road because otherwise cars will hit them).

This was a real issue when designing the Pilrig Street/Leith Walk junction, and they didn't manage to solve it. If they had managed to work out a solution this would have meant that cyclists only had to wait at red when the pedestrians are crossing, this would have been a big improvement.

2) I think I read somewhere that cyclist headstart lights are now legal (where cyclists get a five second headstart at the traffic lights). Are these in cycling by design yet?

3) There was a recent case of plans for soft segregation being abandoned on a poorly lit stretch of road (somewhere near Blackford hill I think) because of fears for the safety of motorcyclists. Clear guidance on how best to install soft segregation in poorly lit areas would be great.

Posted 8 years ago #
wingpig
Member

"Sometimes when you have a segregated cycle lane you want to give a green light to bikes that are in the segregated lane but not to bikes that are on the road. For example..."

As seen on the St Leonard's Street segregated lane, at the pedestrian crossing just before Hermit's Croft. It's presumably to stop bikes going through at the expense of crossing pedestrians, but it's a bit weird in practise...

Posted 8 years ago #
Frenchy
Member

There was a recent case of plans for soft segregation being abandoned on a poorly lit stretch of road (somewhere near Blackford hill I think)

Pretty sure this was Braid Hills Drive - not sure of the details.

Posted 8 years ago #
sallyhinch
Member

A bit more about Saturday's workshop http://walkcyclevote.scot/cycling-by-design-help-to-influence-the-future/

Posted 8 years ago #
sallyhinch
Member

@Frenchay (and others) - what do people think about parking-protected bike lanes (i.e. where the bike lane is put between the pavement and the parking)? I know some UK cyclists are dubious about them because but they are fairly standard practice in the Netherlands and Denmark (usually with a raised kerb) and beginning to be adopted in the US (where bike lanes are much much wider than UK ones - a bit like most things in the States, I guess). They would still put bikes in the passenger doorzone but this wouldn't be such an issue if wide enough, especially if there was a forgiving kerb (i.e. sloping so that you can get onto the pavement to escape if a passenger door opens suddenly). Also, cars always have drivers but only sometimes have passengers so it's statistically less likely to happen.

There's some issue with enforcement, especially if there's no kerb, as drivers are used to parking up against the kerb and may need a bit of encouragement to leave the lane clear. But they are obviously much less affected by double parking and there are fewer conflict points as bikes don't have to worry about drivers who are more focused on that elusive parking space than the bike ...

Posted 8 years ago #
neddie
Member

I'd be happy cycling with my children along a parking-protected bike lane, but not with the bike lane on the other side.

Posted 8 years ago #
sallyhinch
Member

Actually got around to reading the London Cycling Design Standards - at least the first chapter. The design principles are excellent. If Scotland comes up with something similar I'd be delighted

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lcds-chapter1-designrequirements.pdf

Posted 8 years ago #
uphill
Member

I'd like to nominate the cycle lane leading to the Dean Bridge at the town end as highly dangerous. Pic today. The carriageway reduces suddenly from around 6 metres before the bridge to around 3.2 metres on the bridge. The approach is a downhill bend. Both cyclists and drivers approaching the bend see order - a nice cycle lane to the left, plenty black tarmac to the right, all go, then pow, all forced together at the foot of the hill. My opinion is that this lane increases risk rather than decreasing it and so would be better off not being there. An experienced cyclist should take the lane.

As a general rule, the guidance needs to stress that special risk exists wherever width reduces including effective width reductions due to alignment.

I think I'd be very happy with parking protected cycle lane, especially to avoid the Leith Walk problem of constant double parking :)

Posted 8 years ago #
Frenchy
Member

@Sally - Yes to segregated bike lanes being parking-protected! The other advantage is that, if someone does get doored, they don't then also get run over by the following cars.

My opinion is that this lane increases risk rather than decreasing it and so would be better off not being there. An experienced cyclist should take the lane.

I wonder if it'd be better to have the bike lane carry on over the bridge. Drivers therefore see the bike lane and think "Oh, cyclists are going to be cycling here". The amount of space a cyclist requires on the bridge is then explicitly shown. It does mean that drivers have to drive in the bike lane, though. Similar infrastructure can be seen on the road past the racecourse in Musselburgh - here.

I'd be really interested in people's thoughts on this, because it surprises me that such infrastructure isn't more prevalent, and I wonder if there are good reasons for this that I just haven't thought of.

Posted 8 years ago #
Frenchy
Member

Does anyone have any suggestions for improving junctions like this? How would the Dutch deal with this?

Although it's actually a left turn for vehicles going on to the W Approach Road, no turning of the steering wheel is necessary, which makes it tempting for drivers to just plough forwards, without properly checking the cycle lane, or without giving way to cyclists. I always take primary here, but that doesn't always feel safe either.

Posted 8 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"I wonder if it'd be better to have the bike lane carry on over the bridge"

Yes.

I'm quite sure CEC would say 'no room' - in spite of the fact it's done elsewhere and it's perfectly legal to drive in dotted line cycle lanes.

Another problem is that lines here would get worn away quite quickly and CEC seems incapable of repainting lines 'when required' rather than as part of some (far too long) cycle.

Posted 8 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Does anyone have any suggestions for improving junctions like this?

Close it!

(And have WAR bikes + buses only)

Notorious junction, a real disincentive for new/nervous/non cyclists.

Actually it was even worst when it was first created! Slight change in kerb line and size of opening (can't remember detail).

Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Revising Cycling By Design

Reply »

RSS Feeds

Links