This document was initially produced to help to ensure consistancy in letters from members of the campaign when responding to Camden Council's traffic management schemes. This is based on a submission to Camden's Environment Department in July 1995; they have agreed to much of it in principle... but we are still waiting for them to produce a version for general use by in-house officers and external consultancies, as they said they would.

Introduction

• Cycle routes should be as direct and attractive as possible. Whilst back-street routes may suit the relaxed or very cautious cyclist, the majority will not use them if they are circuitous. See the accompanying LCN guidelines for further details.
• All traffic management schemes on the London Cycle Network should give high priority to the safety and convenience of cyclists.
• Cycle routes should have signposting at all junctions where a left or right turn is required, and should be marked at frequent intervals with a cycle logo on the road surface; both to provide guidance for cyclists, and remind other road users of their presence. Signs should be maintained - many in the borough have been struck by vehicles, and are either pointing in the wrong direction, are unreadable as they are so badly bent, or have simply dropped off.
• Access to cycle facilities should be designed with consideration to actual hazards to cyclists, and their perception of danger; cyclists should be able to enter & exit without having to perform sharp turns. An example of poor access design to an otherwise excellent facility is the Somers Town cycle crossing of Crowndale Road - the southern access point requires some nifty handlebar manipulation, and likewise the northern access, with the added danger of very poor sightlines to the west and the possibility of motor traffic travelling in either direction along a road which is only wide enough for one lane (south end of College Place).
• Cycle parking should be placed as close as possible to where it is actually required, and should never be tucked away out of public view.
• Also see LCC's London Cycle Network guidance

  Traffic calming measures

Note that in general, vertical deflections (in particular speed humps & speed tables) are more cycle friendly traffic calming measures than narrow chicanes and pinch points, and are the preferred option if cycle bypasses cannot be implemented due to insufficient road width.

Road Closures

Road closures are close to the ultimate traffic calming device; they prevent through motor traffic and thus remove rat running, and also discourage local journeys by motor vehicle. Yet they allow permeability by pedestrians & cyclists (as long as cycle gaps are designed in), thus encouraging journeys by more sustainable transport modes. Road closures are highly civilising features, and offer the potential to use part of the closed off road for non-transport purposes (eg planting of trees, play areas for children, seating).

The only downside to road closures with cycle gaps is the increasing (illegal) use of them by mopeds and motor cycles. It should also be noted that if lockable gates or bollards are employed (to allow emergency or other service vehicle access), sometimes individuals may decide to break the locks to allow unrestricted passage by motor vehicles.

Camden Council has a formal policy of providing cycle gaps in all road closures, so any closures without gaps should be challenged via a formal objection to the scheme. Gaps should always have a cycle logo marked on the road surface on both sides of the closure, and should be no less than 1.5m wide (absolute minimum 1.1 metres to allow use by pedal powered delivery bikes).

In areas with a high vehicle parking densities, protection to prevent gap access obstruction by parked vehicles should be employed.

A typical road closure solution, which sports narrow gaps and requires cyclists to weave to negotiate the gap, and will also often put them at risk from carelessly opened car doors. Also, pedestrians tend to favour crossing at this point as they know they will not encounter a fast moving car... but the cyclists are focussing on negotiating the obstacle, and not on pedestrians who might be crossing. More seriously in terms of cycle access, kerbside gaps give rise to the increasingly high likelihood that even with double yellow lines on either side of the closure, motor vehicles will park and totally block the gap.

The preferred solution. The table gives pedestrians a crossing point which is at the same level as the pavement, and cyclists are slowed by the ramp. The bollards give cyclists much more leeway in terms of their preferred carriaway positioning, and the permeability of the bollard configuration makes it virtually impossible for motorists to park and obstruct the closure to the degree that they prevent cycle access.

Cycle bypasses

• The DETR Traffic Advisory leaflet 9/94 on Horizontal Deflections (build outs, pinch points, chicanes, traffic islands etc) recommends providing cycle lanes through or bypassing these type of schemes where the pinched road width is 3.5m or less. ). We recommend that the path taken by cyclists to use a bypass should not require a turn of greater than 10 degrees (otherwise it will slow cyclists down too much, and most will not use the bypass). Where bypasses are used, then measures should be considered to ensure that cycle access is not blocked by parked vehicles, or obstructed by parking to the extent that they are impractical to use. If bypasses cannot be provided for any reason, then traffic calming measures other than horizontal types should be employed.

Cycle bypass to cushions with parking protection

Cycle bypass to standard humps with parking protection

(middle hump does not require bypass due to sinusoidal hump profile which is easily negotiated by cyclists)

Sinusoidal Humps

Sinusoidal humps are easier for cyclists to navigate than standard humps; Islington has used humps with tapered sinusoidal edges (eg in Prebend Street) on several of its cycle routes, and we recommend that Camden adopts this practice, particularly on roads which are official cycle routes, or have higher than average cycle flows.

Sinusoidal road hump

• Diagrams from Sustrans excellent manual: National Cycle Network Guidelines & Practical Details 1997*

Central traffic islands:

• Protection for cyclists is becoming increasingly important as parking in the vicinity of these measures and excessive vehicle speeds, often effectively create chicanes, with the cyclist being pinched in between fast moving traffic and the kerb or parked vehicles. The most widespread problem is with traffic islands, when there is heavy pressure on vehicle parking which is either parked opposite the islands, or (where the road is too narrow for this to be possible) having vehicles parked up to around 3-5 metres from the island thus creating a chicane. Malden Road is a good example of this latter effect, which is potentially extremely dangerous.

Cycle bypass to central traffic island/pedestrian refuge

Obstruction of bypasses:

Of vital importance is ensuring that parking pressures do not result in a design with car parking allowed close to the bypass with resulting sharp entry and exits to the bypass, which will render the scheme ineffective and potentially more dangerous than without a bypass. If vehicle parking is allowed in the vicinity, then the dangers of conflict with motor vehicles as cyclists exit back into the main traffic flow must be addressed.

Cycle bypass with small buildouts when there is high parking stress (not to scale - buildouts should be further away from islands to reduce turning movement required by cyclists and risk of pinching by cars on entry & exit)

A well meaning attempt... but it failed

Motor traffic is slowed by around 20% to 30 mph by the width restriction, but the 1% of cyclists who use the bypass are slowed by at least 50% to around 5 mph due to the tight turns required upon entry and egress. The solution is simple: cut the kerb buildouts back by around a metre, and reduce the kerbline angles. Southampton Road, Camden, NW5.

Speed cushions:

Why they are not a cycle friendly measure

Competion for flat roadspace

Cushions force traffic to use the same piece of flat road space. Depending on traffic volumes and road conditions, this can be very dangerous as it can result in frustrated motorists aggressively trying to push their way into the restricted space adjacent to a cushion. There is rarely enough room for a cycle and car to safely pass at a set of cushions.

Cushions positioned alongside parked cars are particularly dangerous, as many cyclists will be persuaded by motor traffic to pass on the inside of the cushion, thus putting themselves at risk of colliding with an opening car door.

Pushing cyclists into unfamiliar road positions

Cyclists of various persuasions and expertise may routinely cycle anywhere in the carriageway, ranging from in the gutter/skimming parked cars, in the middle of their lane, or even close to the centre line. Wherever cushions are located, some cyclists will be forced to veer from their preferred positioning into that dictated by the gaps between the cushions. This requirement for cyclists to reposition themselves is inherently dangerous as many motorists will not anticipate this.

Where inexperienced cyclists are forced into a more dominant (and for them, uncomfortable) road position, this may lead to last minute weaving, and/or a visually perceptible loss of confidence (which more aggressive motorists will exploit). Also, motorists will tend to zig-zag to negotiate cushions, which means that they may suddenly manoeuvre without warning.

Larger vehicles not slowed by cushions

Wide wheelbase vehicles (vans & lorries) can speed over cushions as their wheels straddle the obstacle; some of the top of the range cars with expensive suspension are also able to overcome much of the speed reduction intentions of cushions. Given the disproportionately high rate of cyclist casualties with respect to lorries, this cannot be in cyclists' interests, let alone pedestrians'. Indeed, one would presume that if a street is being traffic calmed, you would want to discourage heavy vehicle use, not provide them with a potential rat run.

DETR Guidance recommends bypasses for cushions

There is a DETR traffic advisory leaflet (on horizontal and vertical traffic calming measures) which advises the use of cycle bypasses where cushions are deployed; clearly even the experts are nervous about cushions & cyclists.

*Worst case impact of speed cushions which have not been positioned with cyclists in mind.*

Making cushion less cycle-unfriendly

There will be occasions where speed cushions have to be used (eg due to objections to other vertical measures from the emergency services or bus operators) and there is not room for suitable cycle bypasses (see above).

In these cases, the cushions should be positioned so that

• the centre point between two cushions is approximately one metre away from the kerb, or where there is adjacent car parking, one metre from the outside edge of the parking bay; or
• the inside edge of the cushion is approximately one metre away from the kerb, or where there is adjacent car parking, one metre from the outside edge of the parking bay.

This positioning is consistant with the optimum road positioning for cyclists in terms of safety, and thus reinforces the safe riding position. Of course there will be many cyclists who for whatever reason cycle closer to the edge of the carriageway, or nearer the centre; so even optimally placed cushions will still lead to cyclists pulling in or out to negotiate cushions.

Examples for cushions alongside parking bays

CCC suggests that the cushions layout is modified as shown below.

The 1 metre wide advisory cycle lanes above are positioned right next to the many car parking bays lining the road; this may encourage less experienced cyclists to cycle too close to parked cars, with the possibility of being doored by someone flinging open a car door without looking.

In this real life example the road is not wide enough to allow for the ideal of a 1 metre wide gap away from parked cars, with a 1 metre wide lane. We recommend the use of narrower cycle lanes which have a gap between the inside of the lane and the outside of the parking bays. We suggest (although this is far from ideal) that the cycle lane has 0.5 metre wide gap away from parking bays, and is 0.75 metre wide.

Speed tables

In February 2000 Camden Council agreed to an important principle which was put forward by the Campaign and pedestrian representatives: that speed tables at junctions should always have double yellow lines along the kerb adjacent to the speed table, thus ensuring the table is free from parked cars. The reasoning for this is two-fold. Firstly this will reduce the hazards for cyclists by freeing up roadspace in the vicinity of motor vehicles negotiating junctions. Secondly, and more importantly, it will greatly improve accessibility and crossing safety for pedestrians; this is especially critical for those who are less mobile (eg due to physical incapacity, or with a pushchair). We hope that in time, other inner city areas will follow Camden Council's principled stand on this issue.

The Campaign also believes that the default design for speed tables which are not located at junctions, should also be for double yellow lines along the length of the table. In the 1980's the concept of street severance, where high volumes of motor traffic divide communities, started to be understood by traffic planners. However the impact of high levels of parking stress, which is now commonplace in inner city areas, has not yet been taken on board.

With a shortage of kerb space for parking, and the high manoeuvrability of motor vehicles (especially small hatchbacks), means that many residential streets suffer considerable lengths of bumper to bumper parking; this is tricky for able bodied people to negotiate, let alone for those who are less mobile. Even if a pedestrian can find a 2 foot gap to get out into the road, they can be difficult to see for oncoming motorists, and when they get to the other side of the road there is no guarantee that they will be able to easily reach the pavement. Thus pedestrians trying to cross the road between two junctions may be unable to do so safely, and are faced with a lengthy detour in order to reach the other side of the road. This negates attempts to encourage more people to walk.

The benefit of banning parking at tables located away from junctions is that it guarantees a place where a pedestrian can cross from one pavement to the other, will improve sightlines for pedestrians and motorists, and of course the table will offer the pedestrian a level crossing surface, and will also ensure that traffic speeds are reduced at the crossing point.

Pavement buildouts:

These generally increase hazards for cyclists, and their use should not be combined with traffic islands, unless specific protection for cyclists is provided. Pavement buildouts have a similar effect to a vehicle parked for 24 hours a day, and cyclists are often pinched by vehicles who do not expect cyclists to move into the centre of the lane. Buildouts at junctions can also be dangerous, as vehicle drivers are often distracted when they are manoeuvring, so attention needs to be given to further traffic calming in the vicinity of such measures to ensure vehicles are adequately slowed.

Parking chicanes

A worrying development are the proposals for Morewell Street to site parking bays on alternate sides of the road to prevent a straight through line of vision - this is a new form of chicane with obstructed sight lines, and is detrimental to the safety of all road users.

20 MPH Zones

One of the most effective traffic calming measures introduced by the borough, and one which has a significant impact in improving the safety for cyclists, is 20mph zones (eg as in Calthorpe Street). This limit should be introduced into as many residential areas as possible, but must be accompanied by measures which do have a genuine impact on traffic speed reduction; otherwise the concept of 20 mph zones will become devalued and will not be respected by motorists.

Bus Lanes

Bus lanes should always permit use by cyclists. Wherever possible, bus lanes should be 4 metres wide; this will allow buses to comfortably overtake cyclists without having to veer outside the lane markings.

Parking control

• The creation of additional parking bays (on or off the public highway) simply encourages the greater use of vehicle ownership and use, so should be challenged unless the grounds for providing them are overwhelming.
• Pressure on parking space in the borough has resulted in many parking bays less than the minimum recommended distance from junctions (11 feet), irrespective of safety considerations. Parking ideally should be illegal for a distance of 10 metres from all junction types, with double yellow lines to reinforce this.
• Parking should be banned from all cycle lanes (ie all lanes should be mandatory for 24 hours per day and have double yellow lines along the kerb), and within 10 metres of all traffic calming measures which can be used by cyclists (5 metres for road closures with cycle gaps).
• Diagonal or echelon parking (eg in Gloucester Avenue ... an important cycle route) poses great hazards to pedestrians & cyclists as driver sight lines are seriously impaired when they manoeuvre in or out of the bay. The council should not implement echelon parking bays under any circumstances. The dangers are particularly acute when vehicles are parked bonnet towards the kerb, as the motorist has to reverse out into the carrieway ... for much of this manoeuvre cannot see oncoming traffic. A further disadvantage is that a series of diagonally (and also perpendicularly) parked vehicles creates a barrier which is highly inconvenient for pedestrians when crossing the road; it is not uncommon to see pedestrians walking for some distance in the carriageway before they find a big enough gap between cars so that they do not have to double back on their route to reach the pavement.

One-Way Streets

One way streets normally increase traffic speeds, may require substantial detours by cyclists, and often introduce additional hazardous junction manoeuvres.

The Camden Cycling Campaign believes that one-way streets are intrinsically environmentally unsustainable traffic management measures, and is opposed to the creation of any further one-way streets in the borough.

One way working penalises benign transport modes in order to accommodate more destructive ones, and has an adverse effect on most local travel patterns, as destinations become further away and thus more difficult to get to. This distortion has an impact on local centres, and can lead to a significant decline in their use.

See our policy paper A Sustainable Transport Case Against One Way Streets

© Paul Gasson