Cycling Golden Rules
1
A Best Practice Handbook for Highway
Engineers and Planners on cycling
infrastructure design and installation.
November 2009
This “Golden Rules” handbook is intended to be helpful! It is the result of numerous discussions at the Newcastle Cycling Forum (composed of
ordinary cyclists from across the city) about how, where and why cycle schemes are installed and subsequently maintained.
If infrastructure is installed correctly first time it greatly reduces the maintenance liability, potential insurance claims and cost of reinstallation and
enhances the experience for all its users for years to come. The Forum recognises that the Council does now attach greater importance to cycling
matters than in the past. However, there are many examples, in Newcastle as in other cities, where cycle routes and facilities have been less than
ideally planned, designed or implemented. This makes using them a daily frustration for many cyclists. Whilst there is copious guidance on correct
Cycle Infrastructure Design (CID), this handbook aims to address some mistakes and poor practices found in existing local schemes, and to assist key
designers and decision-makers to build attractive, continuous and high-quality sustainable routes for people.
In Best Practice, cyclists should be given a clear advantage over motorised traffic wherever possible. The “golden rules” in this handbook are by no
means exhaustive, but are felt to be the key rules, proper appliance of which will make cycling easier and a more attractive, healthy and sustainable
option for most people. This supports Newcastle City Council’s various planning, transport, health and environmental strategies.
Comment on the handbook is welcomed by the authors.
Authors – on behalf of Newcastle Cycling Forum
James Adamson: Area Manager (North East), Sustrans
Heather Evans: CTC
[email protected]
0191 261 6160
Sustrans, Cross House,
Westgate Rd, Newcastle
upon Tyne, NE1 4XX
[email protected]
0191 273 8042
www.ctc.org.uk
www.tynesidectc.org.uk
Cllr Stephen Psallidas: Cycling Champion, Newcastle City Council
[email protected]
0191 2094115
2
Problem
Page
Golden Rule
TRAFFIC-FREE PATHS
1. Obstructive barriers
4
“Barriers should be a last resort. There should be no need for a cyclist to dismount”
2. Obstructions in off-road paths
5
“Street furniture, utilities and services should be installed OFF cycle paths to allow ease of use”
3. Poor surfacing and drainage
6
“Cycle Paths require appropriate drainage and camber”
4. 90 degree bends
7
“Corners in cycle paths need to be smooth to aid traffic flow, visibility and safety”
5. High dropped kerbs
8
“Dropped kerbs must be FLUSH with road surface”
6. Sunken gulley covers
9
“Gulley covers must be replaced flush with the surface& oriented not to trap wheels”
7. Poorly restored utility trenches in roads
10
“Utility trenches & other roadworks must be fully restored and flush with the road”
8. Road closures and cyclist bypasses
11
“Unless there are safety reasons, all street closures must permit cyclists easy passage”
9. Lack of good cyclist bypasses
12
“Junctions and calming islands should have cyclist bypasses wherever possible”
10. Speed humps without cyclist bypasses
13
“Speed humps must have adequate adjacent bypasses for bicycles”
11. Cycle lanes too narrow
14
“Cycle lanes must be a sufficient width in order to be useable and safe”
12. Advanced Stop Lines
15
“ASLs must be of a consistently high standard “
13. Poor Cycle Parking
16
“Cycle parking must be good quality and well sited”
Further information
17
ON-ROAD CYCLE ROUTES
NB Additional notes from the DfT’s “Cycling Infrastructure Design” manual are provided at the bottom of each ‘rule’ page.
3
Golden Rule # 1: “Barriers should be a last resort, not an automatic feature. There should be no need for cyclists to dismount”
Problem: Obstructive Access Control Barriers
(TRAFFIC-FREE PATHS)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
St. Lawrence Road, St. Peter’s Basin
Coxlodge Waggonway (Haydon Grange)
Entry on to Hadrian’s Cycleway (NCN72) is impossible without
dismounting and still difficult for the many that have panniers.
Tricycles and wheelchairs cannot use this facility, and its colour may
be difficult to see in low light, creating a further hazard. NB this barrier
has since been changed but there are numerous like it elsewhere.
Good access control with 2m gap, and widened path to rear to allow
bike to swing through. Helps slow speed before road crossing
WITHOUT forcing the cyclist to dismount. This type is also suitable for
tricycles and families with tag-a-longs and buggies. 2km to the west
on the Waggonway is a good example of staggered bollards.
NOTE: Correctly spaced single bollards are preferred. When installed correctly these deter motorised transport and allow efficient passage for bicycles, trikes and tag-a-longs/buggies.
DfT CID (p48): “Motorbike barriers should only be introduced after a definite need has been established because [these measures] invariably exclude cyclists. Wheelchairs and mobility
scooters WILL ALSO BE EXCLUDED. Dismounting to manoeuvre a cycle with an occupied child seat through barriers can be hazardous. BOLLARDS are preferred for an ACB.
4
Golden Rule # 2:
“Street furniture, utilities & services should be installed OFF cycle paths to allow ease of use, especially in passing”
Problem: Obstructions in Traffic-free paths
(TRAFFIC-FREE PATHS)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
Coxlodge Waggonway (installed 2008)
Coxlodge Waggonway (installed 2007)
The lighting column has been supplied via a trench from a roadside
connection. The column has been erected within the cycle path, thus
greatly reducing its useable width. (The path has since been widened,
but the column continues to reduce its effective width).
Lighting is set back in dedicated infrastructure allowing full use of
available space for all users.
NOTE: DfT CID (p47): “where a footway or footpath is being converted for cycle use, [Street furniture] may need to BE MOVED. [Street furniture] on the inside of bends
should be SET BACK”
5
Golden Rule # 3:
“Cycle Paths require appropriate drainage and camber. Gullied edging may also be necessary”
Problem: Poor surfacing and drainage
(TRAFFIC-FREE PATHS)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
Denton Dene Cycle Path
Leazes Park
There is no drainage or camber to this sealed-surface path, resulting in
a boggy, cut-up mess. This photo was taken after a week with almost
no rain.
Good camber and cleared and visible gullies lead into drains that
leave the path clear of water and much debris. This section of path is
on a level plain in the park.
NOTE: DfT CID (P43): “Crossfall should be between 1% and 2.5% to ensure adequate drainage. On straight sections, the track should fall to either side from the centre.
Drainage gullies should be set flush. Grating slots should be at right angles to cyclists’ line of travel.”
6
Golden Rule # 4:
“Corners in cycle paths need to be smooth to aid traffic flow, visibility and safety”
Problem: 90 degree bends
(TRAFFIC-FREE PATHS)
Poor Practice (with remedy)
Good Practice
Coast Road cycle route (Newton Rd junction)
Coxlodge Waggonway
The original 90° bend here was poor practice (new wide curve path
realignment solves this).
Wide splayed junction of paths offers good visibility and allows easy
turning at the T-junction.
NOTE: DfT CID (P53): “Visibility splays are required to ensure cyclists can see and be seen”.
7
Golden Rule # 5:
“Dropped kerbs must be FLUSH with road surface”
Problem: Dropped kerbs
(ON-ROAD CYCLE ROUTES)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
Greenfield Road
[Newcastle - location unknown]
This dropped-kerb has not been installed flush, making it unpleasant to
use for cyclists. An “improvement” fill of bitumous wearing course to
alleviate the problem has been poorly applied.
This kerb has been properly dropped, fully flush with the highway’s
wearing course. There is also no “feathering” of the wearing course
where it “lips” over the kerb.
NOTE: DfT (CID P46): “The transition between surfaces should IDEALLY be FLUSH. A dropped kerb at the carriageway edge should be wide enough to accommodate
cyclists turning without them needing to pull out towards the centre of the carriageway.”
8
Golden Rule # 6:
“Gulley covers must be replaced flush with the surface and oriented not to trap wheels”
Problem: Sunken Gulley Covers
(ON-ROAD CYCLE ROUTES)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
Sandyford Road
Sandyford Road
This sunken cover is at precisely the point in the no-car lane which
would be used by cyclists, and could be a hazard, particularly in the
wet or by forcing cyclists to swerve. Thought should be given to volume
and weight of traffic, especially on bus routes and at bus stops.
A perfectly flush reinstallation of a gully cover; the grilles are orientated
to prevent problems to cyclists (45-degree or “Zigzag” drain covers are
best). The repair has been well sealed at the edges to prevent future
damage.
NOTE: DfT (CID p46): “gratings should be orientated at right angles to cyclists’ flow to avoid wheels becoming caught”
9
Golden Rule # 7:
“Utility trenches & other roadworks must be fully restored and flush with the road”
Problem: Poorly restored trenches
(ON-ROAD CYCLE ROUTES)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
Nunsmoor Road
Richardson Road
This traffic counter cable cutting was poorly refilled, causing pitting and
subsequent breakaway resulting in this pothole. This is situated adjacent
to an island reservation meaning cyclists can be pinched into the
pothole if they are not taking the dominant road position. Entering this
pothole could easily throw a cyclist off their bike.
This utility trench has been restored flush, with (unusually) road markings
restored simultaneously; cycle lane markings are often left unrestored.
The repair is holding up well, even under the braking of buses in the
adjacent bus stop. If for some reason it is impossible to restore a trench
fully flush, a convex fill is less hazardous than a concave one for cyclists.
NOTE: DfT CID (P50): “proper maintenance is ESSENTIAL if a cycle route is to remain attractive to users. Potholes, ruts, debris and poorly reinstated surfaces can create
hazards for cyclists both on and off-road.”
10
Golden Rule # 8:
“Unless there are demonstrable safety reasons, all street closures must permit cyclists easy passage”
Problem: Permanent road closures and cyclist bypasses
(ON-ROAD CYCLE ROUTES)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
Grantham Road, Sandyford
Grantham Road, Sandyford
Road closed, but cyclists cannot easily get through the closure; there are not
Road closed – but easy access for cyclists through bollards; yellow lines
even any dropped kerbs. Road closures should offer an excellent opportunity
prevent blocking.
to give cyclists a clear advantage over motorised traffic.
NOTE: DfT CID (p28): “traffic calming measures are predominantly aimed at reducing motor vehicle speed, it is USUALLY appropriate to provide a means for cyclists to circumvent
them.” (p22): [where a route is closed to motorised traffic] consideration should always be given to allowing cyclists to continue using the route by installing a cycling gap”.
11
Golden Rule # 9:
“Junctions, calming islands & other traffic control features should have cyclist bypasses wherever possible”
Problem: Lack of good cyclist bypasses
(ON-ROAD CYCLE ROUTES)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
New Mills
The Fossway
This bypass on a busy bus-route allows easy, flowing passage for cyclists
along the length of New Mills whilst allowing faster vehicles to pass
safely. The gap can also be easily cleaned by street sweepers.
This control build-out island could have accommodated a cyclist
bypass (two on the same stretch of road do). The sign could be
straddled over the island and footway.
NOTE: DfT CID (p28): “ Cyclists’ bypasses are particularly beneficial at chicanes. Cyclist bypasses should be AT LEAST 1.2m wide. Bypasses need to be REGULARLY SWEPT as detritus is a
skid hazard; the bypass should ideally be wide enough to accept a mechanical sweeper.”
12
Golden Rule # 10:
“Speed humps/cushions must have ample, adjacent bypasses for bicycles & tricycles, including parking areas”
Problem: Speed humps without cyclist bypasses
(ON-ROAD CYCLE ROUTES)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
Marleen Avenue (Heaton Cycle Route)
Mowbray Street (Heaton Cycle Route)
Cyclists are pinched into the fence in this drainage channel which is
too narrow to use and confusing for cyclists. This traffic-calmed street
should attract cyclists but instead the humps may be an obstacle.
The bypass is wide enough for bicycles to pass (and just wide enough
for a tricycle). This gives cyclists a clear advantage and allows them to
proceed at normal speed while slowing motorised traffic.
NOTE: Speed cushions are preferred. DfT NOTE (CID p29/30): “A cyclists’ bypass allows the hump to be avoided altogether and facilitates drainage. Speed cushion
gaps that cyclists are intended to use should be UNOBSTRUCTED by parked vehicles”
13
Golden Rule # 11:
“Cycle lanes must be a sufficient width in order to be useable and safe”
Problem: Cycle lanes too narrow
Poor Practice
(ON-ROAD CYCLE ROUTES)
Good Practice
B6918, Woolsington Village
Hunter’s Road, Spital Tongues
This cycle lane is far too narrow, meaning cyclists are forced close to the kerb.
National standards cycle training teaches cyclists to ride 1m from the kerb to
avoid kerbstones, gulley covers, potholes and debris. This cycle lane is <700mm
wide (less than many handlebars) meaning the cyclist would be outside of the
lane if riding to nationally agreed standards.
This section of cycle lane is 1.3m wide and so does not comply with DfTrecommended best / safe practice. However, compared to the poor practice
example, it more safely houses a standard bicycle and would accommodate
a tricycle and child-carrying trailers, albeit with little clearance from vehicles.
NOTE: Giving cyclists adequate room within a cycle lane is paramount to their and other road users’ safety. It also makes cycling a more appealing option.
According to the DfT’s (CID – p35-37): “Poorly designed lanes make conditions worse for cyclists. Cycle lanes should guide cyclists through complex junctions and
provide ROUTE CONTINUITY. Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on busy roads, or where traffic is travelling in excess of 40 mph. A minimum width of 1.5 metres may
be acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit. Cycle lanes less than 1.2 metres wide cannot easily accommodate tricycles or child carrying cycle trailers wholly within
the lane. Where one-way systems are introduced, consideration should always be given to maintaining two-way working for cycles.”
14
Golden Rule # 12:
“ASLs must be of a consistently high standard to allow cyclists to use them effectively and reiterate their function to other road users”
Problem: Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs)
(ON-ROAD CYCLE ROUTES)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
Shields Road, Byker
Sandyford Road/Portland Terrace junction
Very few motorised vehicles respect this type of ASL. Its ambiguous
markings do not categorically state that this box is for cyclists ONLY
whilst waiting at red lights.
This ASL has a good leader lane to allow access into the substantial
and well marked box area. Road users can be in no doubt about
who is entitled to use this box. On two-lane roads, a second leaderlane should be used where possible.
NOTE: ASLs provide safe, priority space for cyclists and are a good example of best practice giving priority to cyclists over motorised vehicles. However, for them to be effective
they must have a leader lane of adequate width and length and be of a visual standard that makes their function explicitly clear to all road users. From DfT CID (p55): “ASLs need a
lead-in lane to allow cyclists to pass the first stop line. Feeder lanes of a minimum width of 1.2m may be acceptable.”
15
Golden Rule # 13:
“Cycle parking must be good quality and well sited”
Problem: Poor quality cycle parking
(ON-ROAD CYCLE ROUTES)
Poor Practice
Good Practice
City centre location [private land, deliberately not named]
Northumberland St / Blackett St junction
This is a classic illustration of how ‘wheelbender’ bike racks get their
name. They are never acceptable under any circumstances, but are
not uncommon in Newcastle, even in recent developments.
Public cycle parking which follows ‘best’ practice is in limited supply in
Newcastle. However, some locations around the Monument may be
considered as examples of ‘good’ practice.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: Quotes from DfT CID: “The absence of secure, convenient cycle parking can be a serious deterrent to cycle use….Proximity to the destination is the major influence on a
cyclist’s choice of where to park…Location and level of security are the main issues to be addressed…Stands that support the cycle by gripping the front wheel alone should be
avoided…” Sustrans lists key criteria as being: Well located for demand, facilities securely attached to ground or wall, subject to frequent/continual oversight, safe access e.g.
dropped kerbs, and parking ideally being covered (either by existing overhang or by dedicated shelter).
16
Recommended Reading and Further Information
DfT Cycle Infrastructure Design (CID) Note 2/08 October 2008
Hard Copy - £29
PDF – FREE - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf
Latest information on design standards for cycle infrastructure schemes including critical dimensions and
regulations.
Sustrans Connect2 and Greenway Design Guide
CD of PDF – FREE
Contact Sustrans (Newcastle Office: 0191 261 6160)
A definitive guide to planning and building useful greenways that enable walking and cycling, with
detailed information on feature options.
Cycling England Guidance
Design and Checklist – many useful resources
http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/engineering-planning/design-checklist/
17