Text Size
Friday, 01 January 2021 20:09

Chichester pop up cycle lane safety audit Featured

Rate this item
(0 votes)
problem area map problem area map wsp london

CHICHESTER POP UP CYCLE SCHEME

Stage 3 Road Safety Audit

2.1.4 The Audit Team visited the site together on 22"“ September between 8am and 1pm. The weather
was dry and overcast/ sunny intervals. The road surface was dry during the site visit. There was
a steady flow of traffic and a medium flow of pedestrians and cyclists. The site visit was also
attended by West Sussex Police and‘ of West Sussex County Council.

The purpose of the scheme is to reallocate road space to cyclists to encourage more cycling trips
during the COVID-19 pandemic, through the use of segregation provided by traffic wands and other
temporary traffic management measures, signing and road markings.

 

4. PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED AT THIS STAGE 3 ROAD SAFETY
AUDIT
4.1. PROBLEM 1

Location: Throughout the Scheme
Summary: Cylinders used for different purposes, creating confusion for all road users.

The orange cylinders that have been used throughout the scheme are used to create areas where
cyclists are segregated from traffic, and to create areas where cyclists are not permitted and should
share the narrowed road space with other traffic.

During the site visits it was observed that neither the cyclists or other road users were clear on the
intention in the areas where cyclists were not intended to go. Frequent conflict and verbal abuse of
cyclists was observed at these locations.

“COV|D Pop Up Cycle Lane Ahead” signing has been used on the approach to areas where cyclists
are not permitted, further confusing matters.

Cyclists were observed on site to slow down in the circulatory carriageway to enter between closely
spaced wands on the outside of the circulatory carriageway that were not intended for cycle use.

This could result in collisions between cyclists and other vehicles, or aggression towards cyclists
whereby they might hesitate and collide with each other, orfall off.

 

Areas not intended for cycle use, Via Ravenna
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that areas not intended for use by cyclists are closed with a solid barrier.

 

4.2.

PROBLEM 2

Location: Roundabouts throughout the scheme

Summary: Cyclists and other road users unable to identify suitable entry and exit points to the
scheme, resulting in collisions between cyclists and shunts between other vehicles.

No specific entry and exit points are provided at the roundabouts throughout the scheme. All of the
cylinders are the same colour and spacing and from the driver / rider view point it is difficult to
identify the intended route for cyclists.

Examples of this are where gaps are provided for cyclists to turn right to leave the lane or to cross
a roundabout exit arm, and where cyclists join the cycle lane from a roundabout circulatory
carriageway.

Drivers may fail to realise that cyclists must pull out around any signing within the taper in order to
join the lane, resulting in side-on collisions with cyclists, or shunts between following vehicles.

Cyclists stopping to turn right may be hit by other following cyclists. Cyclists proceeding along a
lane through a roundabout may fail to negotiate with a cyclist entering from a roundabout, resulting
in one of them falling.

Cyclists may hesitate in the circulatory carriageway deciding which gap to use to enter the cycle
lane, causing other vehicles to brake hard, resulting in shunts.

Cyclists entering the lane from a roundabout at a difficult angle may fail to turn, hitting the kerb and
falling off.

 

Lack of clarity between areas intend for cycle use, areas closed off, exit point from circulatory
carriageway to cycle lane, and intended route for cyclists heading to New Park Road.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that all entry and exit points are marked with a different colour wand to help all
road users identify appropriate gaps and anticipate each others path.

It is recommended that give way triangles are placed in advance of the marked gap so that cyclists
proceeding along the lane give way to those joining from the roundabout circulatory areas.

 

4.3.

4.4.

 

PROBLEM3

Location: Throughout the scheme

Summary: Inconsistent signing where cyclists are expected to use pedestrian crossings, resulting
in hesitation and conflicts with other road users, including pedestrians.

At some roundabout locations, cyclists are expected to go past the roundabout and turn across the
pedestrian crossing point, re-joining the cycle lane on the entry arm to proceed around the
roundabout.

There is inconsistent signing to advise cyclists that they should do this, or to advise pedestrians
that the crossing point is shared.

The crossings may also be used to traverse the roundabouts in the opposite direction.
This could result in conflicts between cyclists, and between cyclists and pedestrians.
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the routesfor cyclists using the crossing points is clearly signed, with map
type signs.

PROBLEM4

Location: Throughout the scheme

Summary: Cyclists failing to identify dropped kerbs at pedestrian crossing places, resulting in
sharp braking and collisions between cyclists.

Cyclists who may want to use dropped kerbs and shared footways to navigate around roundabouts
in contraflow rather than cross the exit arms may not be able to easily identify where the kerbs are
when approaching within the pop up cycle lane. They may brake suddenly, causing following
cyclists to swerve and fall.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that different coloured cylinders are provided to identify all crossing points,
regardless of whether it is intended that they form part of the cycle route.

 

4.5.

 

PROBLEM 5
Location: Throughout the scheme

Sunmary: Lack of clarity giving way to cyclists at roundabouts and junctions, resulting in T-bone
collisions with cyclists.
The line of cylinders fomiing the edge of the cycle lane across entry points to roundabouts infers

that the give way line has been pulled forward to the edge of the vehicle carriageway. This could
result in drivers overshooting the give way line into the cycle lane v.here cyclists could ride into the

 

Car giving way at the edge of the cycle lane rather than in advance ofit
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Give Way markings are refreshed on dl approaches where the cycle
lane continues around roundabouts and signs are provided to advise Drivers to Give Way to pop
up cycle lane at the give way line.

 

4.6.

 

PROBLEM 6
Location: Northgate gyratory

Summary: Cyclists observed going against the direction of traffic within the cycle lanes

Cyclists were observed going against the direction of traffic within the cycle lane. Although there
were low volumes of cyclists within the lane itself, there is no indication for drivers that cyclists are
likely to be crossing thejunctions from both directions and they are unlikely to look to their left to
check for cyclists going the wrong way. This could result in cyclists being struck by vehicles at the
junctions.

At points where the existing islands restrict the width of the lanes, there may be conflicts between
opposing cyclists.

Cyclists using the lane in contraflow
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that specific desire lines are identified where it would be beneficial to allow
contraflow cycling and provide additional signing and road markings to promote safe use of the
cycle lanes in contraflow.

 

4.7.

 

PROBLEM 7

Location: Avenue de Chartres approach to Westgate Roundabout
Summary: Vehicles merging left into the path of cyclists, resulting in side swipes and shunts.

The cycle lane terminates on the approach to the roundabout, and the central cylinders continue in
a straight line up to the central island. The existing hatch markings that direct drivers around the
splitter island at the roundabout are still present, but drivers are now expected to drive over them.

This guides drivers to merge left at the point where cyclists no longer have protected space. This
could result in side swipe collisions between cyclists and other vehicles.

The revised alignment for other vehicles does not guide them around the splitter island. The only
other guidance is the keep left bollard on the small island, which is set back a long way from the
kerb of the splitter island and may be hidden from view by the cylinders. The realignment of the
traffic lane could result in vehicles striking the island, or sudden manoeuvres to avoid hitting it,
resulting in shunts.

 

Wands and hatching on the approach to central island on Avenue de Chartres
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the existing hatch markings and zig zags are removed and realigned to
properly indicate the vehicle approach to the island and discourage drivers from “squeezing out”
cyclists, with additional cycle logos provided up to the give way line.

 

4.8.

 

PROBLEM 8

Location: Westgate Roundabout exit onto Avenue de Chartres

Summary: Wand location on the exit arm of Avenue de Chartres discourages cyclists from taking
a primary position around the roundabout which could lead to vehicle / cycle collisions

A temporary pop up cycle lane bounded by wands has been provided on Avenue de Chartres in a
southbound direction from Westgate Roundabout. Cyclists using the roundabout were observed
to take a primary position which discourages vehicles from overtaking and encourages cyclists
away from the entry arms, providing increased visibility to /from the cyclist.

The location of the wands on the exit arm require a cyclist to align themselves closer to the outside
of the roundabout which may lead to reduced visibility of the cyclist from West Street resulting in
collisions. Cyclists may change direction to enter the cycle lane on the circulatory carriageway and
following vehicles may not anticipate this, leading to side swipe collisions.

Wands on exit arm of Westgate roundabout to Avenue de Chartres

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the first wands on the exit arm are removed.

 

4.9.

 

PROBLEM 9

Location: Spitalfields Lane
Summary: Vehicles merging with cyclists, resulting in side swipe and shunt collisions.

The exitfrom the Oaklands Way Roundabout onto Spitalfield Lane has previously been reduced to
a single lane by providing hatching on the offside, in order to create a right turn pocket for vehicles
entering College Lane. The provision of the cycle lane has meant that the general traffic lane now
passes over the hatching, which has not been removed.

At the end of the splitter island the cylinders forming the cycle lane end, and additional cylinders
on the centre line guide vehicles to merge into the cycle lane. The lane marking forming the edge
of the hatching could be construed as a give way line for vehicles merging left, giving cyclists
priority. As this is not the intention, it is open to misinterpretation and some drivers may not expect
the vehicle in front to stop, resulting in shunts. Some cyclists may believe they have priority over
merging vehicles, resulting in side swipe collisions.

Hatchmarking in general traffic lane, Spitalfields Lane
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the hatch marking and lane marking are removed, and additional, larger
cycle logos are provided in the centre of the lane at the merge point, and a sign is provided on the
splitter island indicating “cyclists merging from the left’’.

 

4.10.

 

PROBLEM 10

Location: Avenue de Chartres, between Deanery Close and Southgate

Summary: Cyclists merging with traffic on the approach to the junction, result in side swipe
collisions.

The cycle lane in Avenue de Chartres breaks in advance of Deanery Close to provide for the left
turn into the car park, and then continues for a short length in advance of the pelican crossing,
where it breaks again for a vehicle access. Downsteam of the crossing the road is marked as 2
lanes, both turning left into Southgate. At the junction with Market Avenue and South Street, both
lanes turn right into Market Avenue so cyclists will need to be in a primary position in lane 1 to
make this turn. The cylinders downstream of Deanery Close may restrict their ability to do this.

Vehicles heading towards South Street are likely to merge left ahead of the south street junction,
restricting cyclists ability to take up a primary position.
There are no cycle markings after the cylinders to remind drivers to make room for cyclists.

This could result in cyclists being hit by other vehicles, or being “squeezed” on the approach to the
junction, causing them to fall.

The width of the pop up cycle lane is restricted due to the left turn out of Deanery Close and the
central island. Cyclists entering the lane will need to travel closer to Deanery Close junction where
they may be less visible to drivers exiting the junction. This may lead to vehicle / cycle collisions.

 

Cycle lane cylinders on the approach to Southgate
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that cyclist and driver interaction is observed over several peak periods, and if
beneficial, the cylinders are removed.

It is recommended that a sign is provided on the central island indicating “cyclists merging from the
left’’, and additional, larger cycle logos are provided in lane 1 to indicate to drivers that cyclists are
merging into general traffic.

 

4.11.

PROBLEM 11

Location: Avenue de Chartres / Via Ravenna roundabout

Summary: Reduced lane width and cycle provisions and lack of consistency on roundabout may
lead to confusion for cyclists and drivers resulting in cycle / vehicle collisions.

Pop up cycle lanes have been provided with physical separation in the form of wands on the
approach to the Avenue de Chartres and Via Ravenna roundabout on both Avenue de Chartres
arms. There are also signs within the cycle lane guiding cyclists to crossing facilities and gaining
access to the shared footway around the roundabout.

The Via Ravenna arm has been reduced to one lane and “pop up cycle lane ahead” signs provided,
however the spacing of the wands prevent cyclists from accessing this area and the area closed
off ends at the circulatory carriageway.

Drivers may expect cyclists to enter the coned off area of the carriageway and not give space for
cyclists, leading to cycle / vehicle collisions. Cyclists may try to enter the closed off area at a slow
speed and swing out into traffic to gain an easier entry angle, resulting in cycle / vehicle collisions.

Cyclists in the general traffic lane do not have the opportunity to access the pedestrian crossing
areas of the roundabout and will need to navigate the roundabout in the general flow of traffic.
Vehicles were observed to be travelling at a relatively high speed around the roundabout and
nervous or hesitant cyclists may take unsuitable gaps in the traffic resulting in cycle / vehicle
collisions on the circulatory carriageway.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that a pop up cycle lane is provided on Via Ravenna in place of the closed off
area and extended into lane 1 on the northbound Avenue de Chartres to provide facilities for cyclists
to access the pedestrian crossing areas on the roundabout and shared footway.

 The full risk assessment document

 

 

 

Read 294 times Last modified on Sunday, 03 January 2021 12:55

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.