|
Notes from meeting to discuss cyclist/vehicle priority issues on Cable Street
28 August 2002 at LBTH Council Offices, Southern Grove
Present:
Lyndal Peters, LBTH [LP]
Gwyn Owen, LBTH [GO]
Rosie Hoque, LBTH [RH]
Brian Lyus, DfT [BL]
G* K*, DfT [GK]
John Lee, TfL [JL]
Alix Stredwick, THW [AS]
Owen Pearson, THW [OP]
RH gave a brief overview of the development of the Cable Street two-way cycle track.
BL outlined the current traffic regulations which determine that vehicles have priority over cyclists at road and a cycle track junctions. He then confirmed that this situation would be reversed in the forthcoming revision of the traffic regulations as long as the cycle track was part of a raised 'traffic table' so that motorised traffic is forced to slow down when approaching the junction. These regulations would become legal by the end of the year.
Specifically relating to Cable Street this change in the regulations would mean that legally the side street give way markings could be moved back to the edge of the cycle track and the give way markings on the cycle track itself could be removed altogether. It was noted that the give way markings on the cycle track either side of the car wash entrance were not legally required as this was private access and so could be removed immediately - LP agreed to this.
Discussions then moved on to whether it would actually be safe to move any of the give way markings despite the change in regulations.
LBTH reported that since the new cycle track had been in place they had had no reports of any collisions. As the reduction of cyclist/vehicle collisions was the main aim of the development of the cycle track it was agreed that it had so far succeeded. BL would therefore recommend to leave the markings as they are. AS and OP stressed that this was not acceptable as a matter of principle. Currently if a collision occurs then the road markings will indicate that the cyclist was at fault. They expected more onus to be placed on the motorist entering or turning off Cable Street to be aware of the fact they are crossing a cycle track.
LP's cycle counts showed that cyclists were not in fact slowing down or stopping at the give way markings.
The main concern expressed by BL was the risk of collision between cyclists travelling in the same direction as the vehicle traffic and not being seen by motorists turning right off Cable Street.
However it was noted that had the scheme not been raised as well as being made two-way, i.e. remaining a lane not a track, the cyclists would now legally have priority over the side-road traffic, although the situation with regard to visibility of cyclists by motorists would be exactly the same (if not worse because the cycleway would not be raised above road level).
GK and JL described possible methods designed to make turning motorists more aware that they could be cutting across the path of a cyclist. These included:
- GK: A build-out before the junction forcing vehicles to make a sharper turn into the side street, therefore slowing them down and enabling them to get a clearer view up and down the cycle track. It was agreed that the problem with this approach is the narrowness of Cable Street.
- JL: Experimenting using new style "dragon teeth" (row of triangles) markings on the cycle track/road boundary combined with "footprint" cycle markings to draw motorists attention to the fact they are crossing a cycle track.
- GK: Making the 'sweep' of the T-part of the junction more square and right-angled rather than the current wide curve which encourages motorists to cut corners when turning into the side road. BL and RH explained that this would mean large lorries would find it very hard to get in and out of the side road without going onto the pavement. So it was not agreed as a viable option.
The discussion also moved on to the differences between cycle lanes and tracks. Examples of similar one way road/two way cycle way schemes in Camden were discussed where cyclists have been given priority on the cycle lanes/tracks.
AS and OP showed the group the innovative example of how the designers of the Camden scheme have carefully thought about priorities regarding cyclists and pedestrians at bus stops. BL explained that this arrangement was not in keeping with current legislation and signage. (But they have gone ahead with it anyway!)
JL stressed that cyclists should be more aware of their own safety needs in relation to other traffic. BL stressed that it was human nature for motorists to not be sufficiently aware of the safety needs of more vulnerable road users.
The meeting concluded that when the new traffic regulations come into place it will be up to LBTH whether any action is taken to alter the current priority arrangement.
BL said it was up to LBTH to take the risk and AS said it was up to LBTH to take the opportunity.
LBTH could modify an existing road sign to make motorised traffic aware of the existence of a two-way cycle lane, sending the sign to BL's department for authorisation (this is what LBTH have done already - and BL still pointed out where non-standard unauthorised signs were in place on the route).
Essentially there are two aspects to this case: the legal reasons and the engineering reasons why cycle schemes are given priority or not over minor roads.
|
