Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Discussion about street lighting, road signs, traffic signals - and all other street furniture - goes here.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by jervi »

I've been reading some of the TSM to work out how a cycle lane is meant to be marked when it passes through a crossing controlled area, and it seems to be impossible what is supposed to happen when it is wider than 2m

According to TSM Ch6 15.7.7:
In crossing controlled area only certain signs/markings are allowed to be used: (610 (keep left/right), 611 (pass either side), 613 (no left turn), 616 (no entry), 810 (pedestrian one-way signs), 1029 (look left/right markings), 1057 (cycle symbol), 1062 (road hump) & slashes/chevrons & markings associated with the crossing). It goes on to say cycle & bus lane markings must be discontinued through the crossing, but coloured surfacing may be used.

So basically no cycle lane markings are allowed in the crossing controlled area.

But then in TSM Ch6 15.8.1 is states that the zig zag markings of a crossing can be upto 2m away from the kerb / edge of carriageway to allow cyclists to ride between the kerb & zig zags, and in this case a 1057 (cycle symbol) can be used in the gap - effectively a continued discontinued cycle lane.

Makes sense up to that point, but then what happens if the cycle lane is wider than 2 metres?
Does the cycle lane turn into an all-traffic lane through the crossing or does the edge of carriageway need to bend in to narrow the cycle lane to 2m?
What if it is a two-way cycle lane like in first example below?
What if it is a stepped cycle lane, are they exempt because there is kerb segregation?

Lots of questions and I'm asking because there are some cycle lane going on along Brighton Seafront & I'm not to sure how legal the markings of it are, and they are planning on extended it as a 2.5m cycle lane (parts stepped) and treating these areas as cycle lanes through the crossings (both advisory cycle lane markings & zig zags beside each other).

Examples:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.81945 ... 384!8i8192

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.82221 ... 384!8i8192

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.82276 ... 384!8i8192

Planned works happening in a few months time https://sussex-transport.net/wp-content ... rch-22.pdf
User avatar
Dougman
Member
Posts: 974
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:15
Location: Dundee

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by Dougman »

jervi wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 18:47 <snip>
Makes sense up to that point, but then what happens if the cycle lane is wider than 2 metres?
Does the cycle lane turn into an all-traffic lane through the crossing or does the edge of carriageway need to bend in to narrow the cycle lane to 2m?
What if it is a two-way cycle lane like in first example below?
What if it is a stepped cycle lane, are they exempt because there is kerb segregation?
<snip>
If the cycle track is >2m wide, the cycle track gets its own signalised crossing next to the motor vehicle crossing. See Section 10 of LTN 1/20

Edit: spelling
lose: (v): to suffer the deprivation of - to lose one's job; to lose one's life.

loose: (a): free or released from fastening or attachment - a loose end.
pjr10th
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 23:35

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by pjr10th »

It seems to me the UK regs, being too restrictive, are not well suited to these relatively new road features.

Technically, yes, the cycle lane should give up at the controlled zone, including the light segregation. This is why light segregation doesn't work well for wide lanes. It should be a cycle track.

I see three legal options:
* Provide kerb segregation through the crossing or at least legally make it a cycle track not lane.
* Narrow the lane (only works for one way lanes) to 2m through the junction. Motorist desire lines still provide a buffer and wands could be provided along the zig zags.
* Remove the cycle lane. For example have a full lane on the approach continuing from the cycle lane. This wouldn't provide protection, but as it's illegal to stop in it, there's not much reason for motorists to enter it.

The second option could work well if there isn't room for kerb segregation. Remember it is illegal to overtake the front vehicle in a controlled area anyway, so the extra room isn't technically useful.
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by jnty »

pjr10th wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:50 It seems to me the UK regs, being too restrictive, are not well suited to these relatively new road features.

Technically, yes, the cycle lane should give up at the controlled zone, including the light segregation. This is why light segregation doesn't work well for wide lanes. It should be a cycle track.

I see three legal options:
* Provide kerb segregation through the crossing or at least legally make it a cycle track not lane.
* Narrow the lane (only works for one way lanes) to 2m through the junction. Motorist desire lines still provide a buffer and wands could be provided along the zig zags.
* Remove the cycle lane. For example have a full lane on the approach continuing from the cycle lane. This wouldn't provide protection, but as it's illegal to stop in it, there's not much reason for motorists to enter it.

The second option could work well if there isn't room for kerb segregation. Remember it is illegal to overtake the front vehicle in a controlled area anyway, so the extra room isn't technically useful.
I think you're definitely on to something here. Light segregating a bi-directional cycle lane seems a bit muddled. To my mind, light segregation is really just be a way of giving a bit of 'substance' to paint and is probably only suitable for cheap retrofits. You would never design a layout where two independent S2s for any type of vehicle are immediately adjacent to each other with just paint - it would break so many norms of road design and confound the user. Therefore, it follows that it's not really suitable to do it with light segregation either. Hard, kerb segregation should be used to make it clear that there are two separate roads, rather than a situation where for some reason cars and bikes are passing each left-to-left on the same tarmac.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by jervi »

Thanks for the responses, I just needed some other eyes on it before I write an email to their highway department so it will not be constructed in its current design and hopefully they can include some localised kerb segregation at the crossings.
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by FosseWay »

I've never understood why it's deliberate policy not to mark cycle (and bus) lanes through junctions. It's precisely at junctions where cyclists are most at risk from turning traffic that hasn't seen them, and one obvious way of reminding motorists that there might be a cyclist is to mark a cycle lane on the ground.

Obviously vehicles do need to turn across cycle lanes (when safe), so a cycle lane with solid lane marking clearly must have a broken line throughout the area where vehicles can legitimately cross it, but I see no reason not to continue the markings across the junction.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by traffic-light-man »

It's not something I've looked at in too much detail, but in my mind, if the cycle lane is wider than 2m, then it just gets another set of Zig Zags in exactly the same way that a regular multi-lane approach would have.
Simon
User avatar
Debaser
Member
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 16:57

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by Debaser »

FosseWay wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 07:19 I've never understood why it's deliberate policy not to mark cycle (and bus) lanes through junctions. It's precisely at junctions where cyclists are most at risk from turning traffic that hasn't seen them, and one obvious way of reminding motorists that there might be a cyclist is to mark a cycle lane on the ground.

Obviously vehicles do need to turn across cycle lanes (when safe), so a cycle lane with solid lane marking clearly must have a broken line throughout the area where vehicles can legitimately cross it, but I see no reason not to continue the markings across the junction.
We are now allowed to mark cycle lanes through junctions using 'elephants feet' markings. Sounds simple, except this being the UK this is only allowed at signalised junctions. Two steps forward, one step back...
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by Bryn666 »

Debaser wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 17:30
FosseWay wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 07:19 I've never understood why it's deliberate policy not to mark cycle (and bus) lanes through junctions. It's precisely at junctions where cyclists are most at risk from turning traffic that hasn't seen them, and one obvious way of reminding motorists that there might be a cyclist is to mark a cycle lane on the ground.

Obviously vehicles do need to turn across cycle lanes (when safe), so a cycle lane with solid lane marking clearly must have a broken line throughout the area where vehicles can legitimately cross it, but I see no reason not to continue the markings across the junction.
We are now allowed to mark cycle lanes through junctions using 'elephants feet' markings. Sounds simple, except this being the UK this is only allowed at signalised junctions. Two steps forward, one step back...
I've often used guidance markings through junctions. This junction was supposed to be blank because it was designed by car loving civils people with naff all traffic knowledge but I kicked off and said if you're going to route cyclists through it they need guidance because the carriageways 'belly' around islands. https://goo.gl/maps/aid9cRiJCjzSJWFH8
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by FosseWay »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:02
Debaser wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 17:30
FosseWay wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 07:19 I've never understood why it's deliberate policy not to mark cycle (and bus) lanes through junctions. It's precisely at junctions where cyclists are most at risk from turning traffic that hasn't seen them, and one obvious way of reminding motorists that there might be a cyclist is to mark a cycle lane on the ground.

Obviously vehicles do need to turn across cycle lanes (when safe), so a cycle lane with solid lane marking clearly must have a broken line throughout the area where vehicles can legitimately cross it, but I see no reason not to continue the markings across the junction.
We are now allowed to mark cycle lanes through junctions using 'elephants feet' markings. Sounds simple, except this being the UK this is only allowed at signalised junctions. Two steps forward, one step back...
I've often used guidance markings through junctions. This junction was supposed to be blank because it was designed by car loving civils people with naff all traffic knowledge but I kicked off and said if you're going to route cyclists through it they need guidance because the carriageways 'belly' around islands. https://goo.gl/maps/aid9cRiJCjzSJWFH8
That's much clearer for all concerned, especially on the left side of the linked GSV where there's a turning. Traffic turning right into the side road (from the direction facing the camera) can immediately see that there is a cycle lane there, even if their view of approaching traffic is obscured by vehicles queuing. Although cyclists can and do filter in all sorts of situations, good and bad, if there's a cycle lane marked on the approach to the junction, then it's almost guaranteed that cyclists will continue past stationary traffic, since that's what the cycle lane is there to facilitate. All good drivers should be open to the possibility that a cyclist may appear from behind an obstruction, but the presence of the markings changes that to "it's highly likely a cyclist will appear there".

The next challenge to traffic planners is why do this on cycle paths?

You've got a shared-use but demarcated foot/cycleway with a footpath crossing it that gives access to the bus stop. In this particular instance, the problem is compounded by the high, non-see-through fence (which is there to reduce noise disturbance from the main road and, I guess, to help reduce the chance that a kid/dog will run straight out into 70 km/h traffic). Cyclists can't see if anyone is exiting from the bus stop, and anyone exiting from the bus stop can't see if any cyclists are coming. Fine: that's just an unavoidable limitation of surroundings, and from the cyclist's perspective it is capable of mitigation by slowing down a bit and possibly ringing your bell. (Northbound cyclists don't, however, get any warning of the bus stop exit to the right - you need to know it's there, as it otherwise looks the same as for several hundred metres before and after.)

Pedestrians exiting the bus stop, however, have no indication that they're about to cross a major cycle route. Moreover, for the same reason as above, they can't see what's coming from the south. One way of dealing with this would simply to continue the road markings across the junction - it would warn pedestrians that something is different here. I appreciate I'm asking UK highways engineers to comment on Swedish infrastructure, but is there any obvious benefit to suddenly *reducing* the available information to users just where conflict might occur?
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by traffic-light-man »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:02This junction was supposed to be blank because it was designed by car loving civils people with naff all traffic knowledge but I kicked off and said if you're going to route cyclists through it they need guidance because the carriageways 'belly' around islands. https://goo.gl/maps/aid9cRiJCjzSJWFH8
Completely OT, but do you know why these are louvred on all aspects? It bugs me every time I see it, mainly because I can't work out why the reds and ambers would need to be louvred!
Simon
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by jnty »

traffic-light-man wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 13:18
Bryn666 wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:02This junction was supposed to be blank because it was designed by car loving civils people with naff all traffic knowledge but I kicked off and said if you're going to route cyclists through it they need guidance because the carriageways 'belly' around islands. https://goo.gl/maps/aid9cRiJCjzSJWFH8
Completely OT, but do you know why these are louvred on all aspects? It bugs me every time I see it, mainly because I can't work out why the reds and ambers would need to be louvred!
It seems to me that there's two schools of thought with louvres - one being that you only need to do the green aspect, cos if you misread a red aspect as applying to you when it doesn't it's not really a problem, and another being that any misread is a problem so cover everything. I'd say this one is another strong argument for directional signals on all aspects (ignoring that this layout doesn't even use them for the green aspect!)

I suppose there's an argument that if you're turning right and see a red-and-amber aspect from here you might erroneously accelerate and cause problems.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by traffic-light-man »

jnty wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 13:50It seems to me that there's two schools of thought with louvres - one being that you only need to do the green aspect, cos if you misread a red aspect as applying to you when it doesn't it's not really a problem, and another being that any misread is a problem so cover everything. I'd say this one is another strong argument for directional signals on all aspects (ignoring that this layout doesn't even use them for the green aspect!)

I suppose there's an argument that if you're turning right and see a red-and-amber aspect from here you might erroneously accelerate and cause problems.
It depends on the situation. Typically, with distance-limiting situations, I'd only expect to have to louvre the greens if the starting ambers and the two stop lines are concurrent, or at least close to. If the starting ambers differ and the downstream-most stop line starts up early, then I'd be tempted to louvre the amber as well. I might consider louvres on reds if it's to ensure the aspect is only seen by a certain approach for whatever reason, but I'd be leaning towards non-adjustable louvres (like this) and a valid need to do it in the first place - the problem can probably be designed out by moving the signal heads to more suitable locations which would prevent the need for any louvres. Guidance suggests not using red louvres at all.

I've seen greens louvred in advance of give way lines before to lessen the conflict between the green signal and the downstream give way, which I understand, but I can't think of why you'd louvre the other aspects in this instance, particularly the red.

I suspect the lack of green arrow here is intentional to try and prevent the sense of priority on the left turn.
Simon
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by Bryn666 »

traffic-light-man wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 15:40
jnty wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 13:50It seems to me that there's two schools of thought with louvres - one being that you only need to do the green aspect, cos if you misread a red aspect as applying to you when it doesn't it's not really a problem, and another being that any misread is a problem so cover everything. I'd say this one is another strong argument for directional signals on all aspects (ignoring that this layout doesn't even use them for the green aspect!)

I suppose there's an argument that if you're turning right and see a red-and-amber aspect from here you might erroneously accelerate and cause problems.
It depends on the situation. Typically, with distance-limiting situations, I'd only expect to have to louvre the greens if the starting ambers and the two stop lines are concurrent, or at least close to. If the starting ambers differ and the downstream-most stop line starts up early, then I'd be tempted to louvre the amber as well. I might consider louvres on reds if it's to ensure the aspect is only seen by a certain approach for whatever reason, but I'd be leaning towards non-adjustable louvres (like this) and a valid need to do it in the first place - the problem can probably be designed out by moving the signal heads to more suitable locations which would prevent the need for any louvres. Guidance suggests not using red louvres at all.

I've seen greens louvred in advance of give way lines before to lessen the conflict between the green signal and the downstream give way, which I understand, but I can't think of why you'd louvre the other aspects in this instance, particularly the red.

I suspect the lack of green arrow here is intentional to try and prevent the sense of priority on the left turn.
It's because it's Blackburn - drivers were steaming through past the Give Way sign (you can see someone has clattered it). Driving standards are abysmal, facilitated by a council that believes motorists are victims so when you raise the fact that we could, you know, enforce red lights with cameras there was radio silence.

Glad I left. Truly one of the most incompetent highway authorities in the UK, and that's some going.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
pjr10th
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2020 23:35

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by pjr10th »

traffic-light-man wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 15:40
jnty wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 13:50It seems to me that there's two schools of thought with louvres - one being that you only need to do the green aspect, cos if you misread a red aspect as applying to you when it doesn't it's not really a problem, and another being that any misread is a problem so cover everything. I'd say this one is another strong argument for directional signals on all aspects (ignoring that this layout doesn't even use them for the green aspect!)

I suppose there's an argument that if you're turning right and see a red-and-amber aspect from here you might erroneously accelerate and cause problems.
It depends on the situation. Typically, with distance-limiting situations, I'd only expect to have to louvre the greens if the starting ambers and the two stop lines are concurrent, or at least close to. If the starting ambers differ and the downstream-most stop line starts up early, then I'd be tempted to louvre the amber as well. I might consider louvres on reds if it's to ensure the aspect is only seen by a certain approach for whatever reason, but I'd be leaning towards non-adjustable louvres (like this) and a valid need to do it in the first place - the problem can probably be designed out by moving the signal heads to more suitable locations which would prevent the need for any louvres. Guidance suggests not using red louvres at all.

I've seen greens louvred in advance of give way lines before to lessen the conflict between the green signal and the downstream give way, which I understand, but I can't think of why you'd louvre the other aspects in this instance, particularly the red.

I suspect the lack of green arrow here is intentional to try and prevent the sense of priority on the left turn.
To bring the weird and wonderful world of Jersey traffic lights into this thread:

3 A1
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZpRpw6fm2wpJqjP46

Somewhat bizarre decision to louvre only the secondary red signal on this approach. The only explanation I can think is to stop vehicles misinterpreting that red as the pelican crossing red, then stopping at the pelican. But, I wonder why -

• there is such a concern about people unnecessarily stopping, but not illegally going.
• the secondary is of concern and not the primary? possibly a sightline issue, but you can barely see either light until you're right on the pelican due to an obstructing building.
• there was any concern about someone mistakenly stopping for a light over 80 metres away from them, especially when there are two green lights right there for them.

What's more, the Louvre ends up making it more difficult to see a red which is already obstructed from a long distance because of the bizarre choice of placing them both one behind the other, which has confused me as someone who drives along there with frequency (let alone a poor tourist).
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Question on cycle lanes through crossing controlled areas

Post by traffic-light-man »

That's almost certainly louvred to stop traffic within the junction misinterpreting it as another stop line. It does seem like a strange place to have sited it though nonetheless.
Simon
Post Reply