Professional Documents
Culture Documents
From 2012, TfL began working with DfT and When considering cycle flows, it is important to taking out slip lanes and reducing corner radii
other key stakeholders, including borough note that certain cycle movements may be low (TRL, Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety
representatives, on a series of off-street trials because they are difficult and uncomfortable to PPR 580, 2011)
at the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) make rather than because there is no demand
Behavioural factors are prominent, with the
test track. Some interim findings from this for movement in that direction. If parallel, but
two most common contributory factors being
research have fed into this document but some less direct routes have high cycle flows, then a
failed to look properly and failed to judge
conclusions may not be available until 2015, and junction avoidance effect may well be operating.
other persons path or speed this indicates
so will be incorporated into guidance at a later
that infrastructure that influences road user
stage. Wherever possible, innovations in the
For any junction, greater numbers of traffic behaviour generally may be more significant
trial stage have been highlighted in this chapter
lanes generally make for more hostile cycling than interventions that seek to target specific
in anticipation of their eventual full inclusion in
conditions. Simplifying junction layouts and safety issues (TfL, Pedal cyclist collisions and
LCDS, subject to trial results.
reducing the amount of lane-changing that casualties in Greater London, 2011)
takes place on junction approaches can be
5.1.3 Junction analysis of great benefit to cyclists. 5.1.4 Corner radii
It is important for any junction improvement to
be based on a comprehensive understanding Relatively minor adjustments to junction
of the place and movement functions of the The junction assessment tool (see section 2.2.5), geometry can have a significant effect on the
location. Sources of information on this include: or similar method of analysis, should be applied speed of turning vehicles. The advantages to
to any planned intervention, firstly to establish safety that arise from reducing speed need to be
Collision history, showing locations, severity conflicts and cycling movements that are difficult balanced against the need to provide adequate
of injury and details of the circumstances or uncomfortable to make, and then to assess visibility and allow larger vehicles to turn.
Area-wide analysis: relationship between the the extent to which a proposal addresses those
issues. It is important, however, to keep in mind Small corner radii, often used in conjunction
junction in question and cycling routes, location with raised entry treatments or raised tables,
of public transport stops, information about all desired outcomes: tackling a specific conflict
issue could compromise another key outcome, can reduce the speed of turning traffic, help
bus routes, the strategic importance of the simplify tactile paving layouts and reduce
streets, kerbside activity, motor traffic speeds such as directness (avoidance of delay) and may
result in poor compliance and more risk taking. crossing distances for pedestrians and cyclists.
Traffic flow data (including cycling), broken They are also of benefit to cyclists both on-
down by time of day and by mode, and traffic Key conclusions that can be drawn from past and off-carriageway because they reduce the
modelling research and from analysis of collisions include zone of risk. Unnecessarily large corner radii
the following: can encourage higher speeds by motorists and
Pedestrian flows, including trip generators and should be reduced where feasible, particularly
variation by time of day this should include Some of the most significant benefits
come from reducing motor vehicle speeds at priority junctions and where there is an identified
where crossings currently exist and show relationship with cyclists or pedestrian casualties.
pedestrian desire lines through reducing traffic lane widths,
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Junction design issues 04
Small radius (eg 1 metre) Large radius (eg 7 metres) Pedestrian crossing arrangements (two stage
crossings require islands that may necessitate
larger radii in order to allow turning movements
by larger vehicles)
Uphill or level gradients (rear-end shunts could
be an issue downhill where turning vehicles
may decelerate abruptly to turn)
Designers should start from the assumption
Cycle and car speeds compatible Danger from fast turning vehicles
cutting across cyclists
that corner radii should be minimised to benefit
vulnerable road users, and then test whether this
Comparison of small and large corner radii raises any issues. Junction design and the size of Swept path analysis
(adapted from Manual for Streets) corner radii need to support calming and speed
reduction measures, as described in section 3.3.
Indicative ranges of corner radii to support speed It is important not to design geometry solely
Many existing streets operate in a satisfactory limits on the street in question are: based on occasional use by large vehicles, such
way with minimal corner radii, even a kerb
0-3 metres for 20mph speed limit as refuse or removal trucks. In all instances,
quadrant only. The most appropriate radius
the designer should take into account the
depends on site-specific conditions. Variables to 2-6 metres for 30mph individual site characteristics when choosing
take into account include:
3-10 metres for more than 30mph the appropriate corner radii. Provided drivers
Motorised vehicle speeds can make the turn within the overall road space
available, it is rarely necessary to design so that
Carriageway width and number of lanes (larger Tracking large vehicle movements
they can do so while remaining entirely in a single
vehicles may straddle lanes to turn where As part of the design process, swept path nearside lane.
there is more than one, thereby justifying a analysis should be used to track the paths
smaller radius) of larger vehicles around corners (Manual for In most circumstances, the safety benefits to
Streets, 6.3.13). It is usually acceptable for large cyclists of tighter geometry and the slowing of
Traffic volume and composition (where many
vehicles to enter the opposing general traffic motorised vehicle turning movements outweigh
larger vehicles are turning, their ability to do so
lane or adjacent with-flow lane in order to turn, risks to cyclists that exist in relation to larger
by moving out to turn may be constrained)
provided there are no physical constraints to vehicles moving out to the centre of the
Angle of intersection at junction (larger radius them doing so. There may need to be some local carriageway or a different traffic lane to make a
is likely to be needed for any turn through less strengthening of the footway to allow for larger left turn. Turning vehicles should, according to
than 90 degrees) vehicles occasionally overrunning, although this Highway Code rule 183, give way to a nearside
is not generally desirable because of its impact cycle lane, while cyclists should not seek
on pedestrian safety and comfort. to undertake at priority junctions where any
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Junction design issues 05
possibility exists that a vehicle may be turning Reducing visibility should not compromise cycle
left. A risk assessment on a given site should safety at priority junctions and a risk assessment
be undertaken to identify the risk of larger should be undertaken to check whether reduced
vehicles turning well away from the nearside and Y distances and tighter geometry generally are
to examine whether other mitigating measures acceptable from a cycling perspective. There
(such as further speed reduction techniques or may, for example, be occasions where horizontal
banning turns) might be of more general benefit. deviations to improve cyclists sight lines or
speed humps should be added on the approach
5.1.5 Visibility splays to a crossing, junction or shared-use area.
Figure 5.3 Cycle and pedestrian crossings over general traffic lanes
5.2 Crossings
Junctions under Stand-alone locations
signal control
5.2.1 Crossing types
Crossings are a significant part of the cycling Crossings that may
be used by cyclists [1] Parallel [2] Signal-controlled cycle-only
network in London for three quite different
pedestrian/cycle ** [3] Signal-controlled shared (including toucan)
reasons:
[3] Shared [4] Priority (parallel) pedestrian/cycle ***
Crossings that cyclists can use are important pedestrian/cycle [5] Mid-link cycle priority
for safely negotiating roads with high
movement function, for linking cycle routes [6] Uncontrolled / informal
and for giving coherence to cycling networks.
The type and location of these crossings has a
No cycling* Pedestrian-only Signal-controlled pedestrian-only (pelican, puffin)
bearing on the directness, coherence, comfort
and safety of cycling provision
Crossings can occasionally act as a traffic Notes
calming measure and contribute to generating * While these types do not allow cyclists to 2015. Once the change in regulations comes into
gaps in traffic flow that cyclists can use to turn use the crossing, they can support nearby cycle effect, type [4] is preferred to type [3], provided
from minor roads to major roads and vice- movements in instances where the cycle desire that at least one of the two facilities that it
versa. So, even where a cyclist cannot use or line is offset from the crossing, as described above. links has separate provision for pedestrians and
is unlikely to use a given crossing, it can still cyclists.
contribute to their level of service **At a stand-alone location, signal-controlled
parallel cycle and pedestrian crossings would For the purposes of this guidance, toucan-type
Pedestrian crossings of cycle facilities, require conversion to a junction so this is, in crossings are dealt with as a single type type
whether part of the main carriageway or effect, type [1]. [3], regardless of whether they are part of a
elsewhere, need to be planned to maximise signal-controlled junction.
accessibility and to avoid excluding vulnerable ***Type [4] is included in the consultation draft
pedestrians when introducing certain types of of TSRGD (2015), issued in May 2014, but will
cycle infrastructure not exist in regulations until TSRGD is adopted in
Level difference
or diagram
1049.1 raised
delineator
Elephants
Tramline footprints markings
tactile
Diag 1001 stop line
Ladder Off-highway cycle track/path
tactile
Loop or
Sign to button actuation
diagram 957
Square elephants footprints markings are Transitions to and from carriageway This is simpler to achieve with shared use
recommended for both type [1] and [2] arrangements, where a dropped kerb ahead of
Consideration should be given to how cyclists join
crossings, although pedestrian crossing studs the crossing may allow cyclists to make a clear
and leave such crossings how cycle movement
are also sometimes used for this purpose. transition from on- to off-carriageway, and then
on the tracks or shared use paths may join cycle
The consultation draft of TSRGD (2015) to wait with pedestrians, although this does not
movement on the main carriageway.
includes elephants footprints to mark a parallel alleviate the problems associated with shared
cycle route at a crossing under signal control. Certain arrangements may put cyclists in conflict use footway facilities see section 4.6 for
This should add consistency and will bring the with pedestrians on, or waiting at, the crossing. further details.
UK into line with other parts of Europe on use Layout and design of signal control should
of a square-format marking for cycle crossings. avoid encouraging cyclists to move through the
crossing area during the pedestrian green phase.
Signal-controlled cycle
crossings, using elephants
Type [2]: stand-alone cycle crossing at footprint markings through
Goswell Road the junction
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Crossings 11
Cycle gaps
At some signal-controlled locations, providing
cycle gaps through islands may be more
appropriate than marking elephants footprints
across the carriageway. It can be helpful to use
Keep Clear or yellow box markings so that
queuing traffic on the carriageway does not block
the crossing. Providing such markings needs to
be balanced with impact on other users and on
the street scene. They should only be used in
exceptional circumstances.
Cycle gaps
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Crossings 12
Transitions
As with the signalised equivalent, careful
consideration is needed of cycle transitions
between the crossing and the main carriageway
in order to minimise conflict between cyclists
and crossing pedestrians.
However, design of transitions (and other conditions
likely to arise) depends on details yet to be
established in regulations and practice. For example,
two sets of elephants footprints markings on one
The case for parallel priority crossings. In the UK (left), regulations have not previously allowed for
crossing, should it be permitted, could help clarify
a parallel cycle route at a priority crossing cyclists are asked to give way twice. A much simpler
cycle movements and reduce conflict.
approach exists in Stockholm, right, where cycle crossings with elephants footprints are provided
within the controlled area of the zebra-type priority crossing. Design of areas either side of the crossing is
important. Ideally, the crossing should be used
where cyclists and pedestrians have separate
provision on both sides and where cyclists can be
kept separate throughout. Although less desirable,
the parallel crossing is likely to be preferable to the
Point closure to toucan crossing where only one side is separate and
motorised traffic the other shared. The crossing should not, however,
be used to link one shared use facility with another.
Figure 5.5 One-way lane widths at refuge islands where no cycle lane, track or bypass is provided
Cycle bypasses
An alternative is to design a bypass to a pinch-
point. This should avoid deviating cyclists or
creating conflict with pedestrians, and must
be accessible to users of all types of cycle.
Any vertical change required for use of the
bypass by cyclists should not exceed 1:10,
transitions should be smooth and step-free
and a minimum width of 1.5 metres between
obstructions should be provided.
The bypass should be designed to prevent
blocking of the entrance and exit by other
vehicles, which may require waiting and loading
controls but preferably should be done without
relying on enforcement. The facility must
be designed so that cyclists can rejoin the
carriageway without giving way.
For stand-alone pedestrian crossing of cycle of zebra crossing over a cycle track that Mini zebra crossing over a cycle track,
tracks, the basic options are: does not require zig-zag markings and where Stockholm
inclusion of the belisha beacon is optional
Uncontrolled crossing
(but recommended). Blister tactile and tactile
As with uncontrolled crossing of the main
tails are still required, which helps people
carriageway, this consists of a dropped kerb,
with visual impairments to find the crossing.
or raised table or hump, with appropriate
This priority crossing would bring the UK
blister tactile paving. Further signing may be
into line with other countries that use small,
added to promote courteous behaviour, and
uncomplicated striped crossings over cycle
additional cycle speed calming measures may
tracks. Stripes narrower than the minimum
be appropriate (see section 4.5.16). Contrasting
380mm currently prescribed may be required
tone and surface material may be considered,
(but this will be clarified in TSRGD)
to support legibility by people with low vision
Tactile paving requirements for crossings are
Signal-controlled crossing
summarised in section 7.3.3.
This is not generally recommended unless
as part of a larger junction. Blister tactile and
tactile tails are required
Zebra crossing
A conventional zebra crossing may be applied
to a cycle track, and give priority to pedestrians Pedestrian crossing over a cycle track in Seville,
crossing. TSRGD (2015) will prescribe a type with extra warning for cyclists
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Crossings 20
For two-way tracks crossing two-way side roads, It is not recommended unless traffic speeds and
bending-out by 5 metres is the recommended volumes are very low and other measures can
option. Where island separation is wide, this be put in place to enhance visibility of cyclists
can be achieved with little or no deviation of the even then, it should be subject to a site-
cycle track. Continuing a two-way track through specific risk assessment. Closing side streets to
a priority junction without deviation is possible, motorised traffic is likely to be the only reliable
but brings with it various risks, related to the way of dealing with these risks.
visibility of cyclists to turning motorised traffic.
Indicative layout 5/07: Two-way cycle track with priority over side road, showing options for
pedestrian crossing of cycle tracks
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Priority junctions 26
2.0m min.
recommended
Indicative layout 5/08: Cycle track with keep clear at priority junction to maximise visibility
for right-turning motorists
5.4.2 Procedures for traffic signals Using ASLs and Advanced stop lines (ASLs) can help cyclists move away from a safer, more
feeder lanes advantageous position at a signal-controlled junction at the start of a stage
For any scheme involving traffic signals, authorities and so, selectively, can assist cycle movements through a junction.
are required to comply with procedures set out
in Design standards for signal schemes, SQA064 Banning selected Generally in conjunction with other measures listed here, certain vehicle
(2014) and any subsequent document updates. motorised vehicle movements could be banned to improve cycle safety and directness. This
TfL Traffic Infrastructure prepares these design movements should be done as part of a wider traffic management approach rather than
standards and is the Signals Authority for on a case-by-case basis.
London, responsible for the design, installation,
commissioning, maintenance and decommissioning Convert to a Signal removal can have some beneficial effects where the volume and mix
of traffic signals and associated equipment. priority junction of traffic and nature of conflicting movements does not necessarily justify
TfL Network Performance is responsible for the the existence of a signal-controlled junction. See section 5.3.
management and operation of Londons traffic
signals and their accompanying systems, Remove all priority As part of an integrated, area-wide approach, designers may explore the
technologies and equipment. and declutter potential benefits of removing signal control and priority altogether in order
to promote more consensual road user behaviour generally. See section 3.4
The Traffic Management Act 2004 places a on calming through street design.
Network Management Duty on all local traffic
authorities (LTAs) in England. The Duty requires
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Signal-controlled junctions 29
the LTA to ensure the expeditious movement of signals for cyclists that require them to wait a
traffic on its own road network, and facilitate the long time at signals. TfLs guidance states that 5.4.3 Traffic signals for cyclists
expeditious movement of traffic on the networks at junctions with pedestrian crossing facilities, The options covered here are generally trial
of others (noting that this includes pedestrians signal cycle times should only exceptionally be measures that are being developed to enable
and cyclists). longer than 90 seconds. separation of cyclists movements through
TfL Network Performance therefore uses Decluttering by minimising use of, or removing, junctions. They all have the potential to
journey time reliability as a practical measure to traffic signals is positive for more attractive streets. become important parts of the toolkit for
help clarify the legal responsibility. Modelling Although it offers some adaptability through cycling infrastructure in the UK. Tried-and-
is the tool used to measure scheme impact the ability to manage signal timings, junction tested designs and layouts will emerge in time
on the network and effects on journey time remodelling with substantial changes to traffic but in order to develop agreed, standardised
reliability. The way this is applied across London signal infrastructure, may also place limits on the approaches, it is recommended that any
is described in the Traffic modelling guidelines growth of cycling on a given route and necessitate proposals to use any of these measures are
(version 3), issued in September 2010. further re-engineering in the near future. discussed with TfL or DfT from an early stage.
350-450
110-160
90-110
Low-level cycle signals information about equipment and generic design 2100
min
considerations. The following paragraphs give a
A further stage of the trials has seen testing summary of that guidance.
of a smaller signal head, mounted closer to
cyclists eye level on existing signal poles. The A low-level cycle signal may be used: 1200
min
consultation draft of TSRGD (2015) includes these As a primary signal, to control traffic
low-level cycle signals as alternatives to the high- exclusively made up of cyclists
level, full-size signal head, specifying a minimum
mounting height of 1200mm (to the underside of For early release, where the cycle signal gains
the signal head). They may be mounted on a pole right of way before its associated vehicle signal
used by high-level signal equipment or on their As a repeater, mounted at cyclists eye-level
450 min
own 3 metre-high, wide-based pole. under full-sized signal heads and showing the All measurements are in millimetres
TfL Traffic Infrastructure has developed draft same information as the high-level signals High-level and low-level signal head sizes and
guidance (SQA0651 Design for low-level A primary low-level cycle signal may only be mounting heights, showing an optional box
cycle signals) that will bring together TRL off- used in conjunction with a stop-line. sign with banned right turn (low-level signal
street trial research, on-street trial results, is acting as a repeater)
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Signal-controlled junctions 31
Left-turning and
ahead cyclists run 5.4.6 Cycle gate
with ahead general
traffic A cycle gate is an alternative method of giving
cyclists some time and space to move away from
a junction ahead of motorised vehicles. It could
be applied where there are a large number of
left-turning motorised vehicle movements, or
scissor movement conflicts, although it requires
Nearside cyclists a substantial amount of space in terms of road
turn right in two width and depth of reservoir. It is essential that
stages (see layout
5/11) or right turn the signal operation gives cyclists enough time to
is banned clear potential points of conflict.
The cycle gate relies on there being two sets
of signals and two stop lines for cyclists the
first acts as a gate to allow cyclists into a cycle
Left-turning traffic reservoir ahead of general traffic to await a
held at separate green light at the second stop line. The reservoir
signals during ahead should not be marked in such a way as to make
movement
it appear like an ASL for example, it should not
Indicative layout 5/09: Hold the left turn have coloured surfacing or be marked with cycle
concept symbols. Consideration for pedestrian waiting
and crossing times also needs to be made,
particularly in areas of high pedestrian flow.
Layout principles for cycle gate are as follows: turns) and is a potential solution to the problem
of enabling cyclists to turn right when they are
The cycle lane/track on the approach must be
in segregated infrastructure on the nearside.
physically segregated, at least 1.5 metres wide,
The alternative would be to provide a gap in the
preferably 2 metres, to allow for overtaking. Primary signal for segregation well ahead of the junction to allow
It may have coloured surfacing, up to the first general traffic
right-turners to move out into general traffic and
cycle stop line Reservoir make the turn in the conventional manner.
The general traffic stop line should be
positioned behind the advanced cycle stop line
The segregating strip should widen to allow
clearance for mounting the traffic signal head;
for a signal head mounted in front of a traffic
2.0m
signal pole, the segregating strip should be at recommended
least 1.3 metres
Cyclists
stop line
The distance from the first cycle stop line to
the advanced stop line at the junction (the Low-level cycle
signal (LLCS)
depth of the reservoir) should be at least 15
metres; this is to disassociate the two stop High-level signal with
LLCS as repeater
lines from each other and reduce the see-
through issue between the two sets of traffic
signals Indicative layout 5/10: Cycle gate, from
SQA0651 (note that actual layout of each
Signal layouts with dedicated cycle phases may installation must be in accordance with the
also be considered. Typically this is appropriate appropriate signal section site requirements)
where one or more arms of the junction allow
access for cyclists only, but it may also be
applied where cyclists are physically segregated 5.4.7 Two-stage right turn
from other traffic.
Traffic signals for cyclists have also been
proposed for use with two-stage right turns
this is being explored in off-street trialling. Two-stage left-turn marking at junction in
Making a right turn in two stages while staying Stockholm (top); and cyclists in different
on the nearside of other traffic is an approach streams in Copenhagen (bottom) left turners
used in some other European countries (for left are heading to the waiting area to the right
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Signal-controlled junctions 35
It is already possible to make a right turn Lanes marked through junctions can assist
informally, although this not yet supported by cyclists making two-stage right turns informally
specific road markings and signs. The cyclist by giving them lines to wait behind in between
crosses one arm of the junction in an ahead the two stages of their turn. In other countries,
movement, pulls into the left and stops where two-stage right turns have more formal
beyond the pedestrian crossing studs on the status, road markings and surface colour are
arm adjacent where they started. They then often used to mark waiting areas or lines to
turn through 90 degrees to face their exit arm assist making the second stage of the turn.
and wait for the traffic signals to allow them a
second ahead movement. In this way, they can
stay on the nearside and avoid having to move
across lanes of traffic in order to turn right.
Informal two-stage right turn from the right-hand arm to top arm
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Signal-controlled junctions 36
Signing
It is proposed that a sign will be created to
instruct cyclists how to undertake the turn ahead
of the junction. This is likely to be based on the Trial of two-stage right turn, showing low-level cycle signals for early release
map-type sign to diagram 2601.2 of TSRGD.
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Signal-controlled junctions 37
Cycle priority and protection at the Light or island segregation may be considered
conflict point as a way of protecting cyclists. This can protect
the junction approach and focus the point of
Where a slip road joins a main road, the cycle
crossover, encouraging motorists to keep their
lane on the main road may, again, be continued
distance from the cycle lane.
through the conflict area and highlighted for
other road users using surface colour and The principle of using island separation could be
appropriate markings. Diagram 1003 give-way applied to bespoke junction redesign in order to
markings should also be used on the nearside give protection to cyclists. Separation of this kind
of the cycle lane, to require vehicles joining is likely to form the basis for future experimental
the main road to give way to cyclists and other layouts, in conjunction with innovative use of
vehicles on that road. traffic signals. Any proposal using these methods
should be regarded as a trial.
Important considerations include ASL capacity and the practicality and comfort of making right-turn
manoeuvres using the ASL
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Signal-controlled junctions 44
Design requirements
The minimum recommended depth for the
ASL box is 5 metres (although regulations allow
4 metres). The consultation draft of TSRGD
(2015) proposes increasing the maximum to
7.5 metres. Authorisation from DfT may be Diagram from TSRGD consultation draft (2015), Narrow lead-in lane on street with no centre
sought for 5- to 7.5-metre deep ASLs in the Table 69, Item 47, showing ASL without lead-in line, so vehicles tend not to queue over the
meantime (TfL has authorisation for this for or gate entry lead-in lane
TLRN and Cycle Superhighways). 7.5-metre deep
ASLs are recommended for higher cycle flows.
A set-back of 1.7 to 3 metres is required between The solid longitudinal lines that bound the ASL
the advanced stop line and pedestrian crossing box on either side must be provided, unless that
studs. 1.7 metres is recommended for cycle part of the carriageway is delineated by a raised
routes as it can lead to cyclists waiting in safer and kerb. In practice, this is usually the case for the
more visible locations ahead of stationary traffic nearside and relates to the offside where there is
and can allow for tighter geometry at the junction. an island. Colouring the ASL box is not required
Swept path analysis must inform the choice: a unless there is an identified need to highlight the
greater set-back distance may be required to location as a point of particular conflict.
avoid encroachment from the swept path of large
vehicles where there are no splitter islands.
Alternatively, a part-width ASL may be
appropriate.
Nearside lead-in lanes pass waiting vehicles on the nearside. Where buses The general traffic lane adjacent to a lead-in
and HGVs are present, a short lead-in may be more should be a minimum of 3 metres wide. If an
A mandatory lead-in lane to an ASL is
appropriate. advisory lead-in lane is 2 metres or more wide,
recommended, although advisory lead-ins and
then the adjacent general traffic lane may be
gate entry are also possible. A balance needs Protection for the lead-in lane may be
reduced down to a minimum of 2.5 metres
to be struck between the added protection and considered. Road user behaviour under different
wide, although this is likely to mean some
subjective safety that a mandatory lane is able traffic conditions needs to be taken into account,
encroachment on the lead-in at busier times.
to offer over an advisory lane, and the greater with the aim of encouraging drivers to give as
Where there are narrow traffic lanes and only
flexibility in use of space that an advisory lane gives. much space on the nearside as possible. The
a narrow lead-in is possible, it is likely to be
need for consistency of provision should also
In some circumstances, an advisory lead-in lane preferable to omit the lead-in altogether and
be taken into account if mandatory lead-ins
wider than 1.5 metres next to a narrow (3 metres encourage cyclists to take a primary position in
are provided on a given road, they should ideally
or less) general traffic lane may be preferable to the nearside lane through use of centrally placed
appear at every signalised junction.
a narrow (1.2 metres) mandatory lead-in next to a cycle symbols.
wider general traffic lane, if it encourages drivers
to give more space on the nearside.
The consultation draft of TSRGD (2015) proposes
a change in regulations to permit cyclists to cross
the first stop line at any point, meaning that
lead-in lanes and gate entries will be optional
from 2015.
1.7m
recommended Diagram
Where a lead-in is provided, it should be at least 1057
1.5 metres wide. A width of 1.2 metres may be 5.0m min. marking
preferable to no lead-in, depending on the likely recommended (2750mm)
level of encroachment by motorised vehicles, but 2.0m
it will not permit access entirely within the lane recommended
by all types of cycle. Lead-in lanes may benefit 2.0m
from colour, where there is a need for conflicting recommended
movements to be highlighted, and TSRGD diagram
1057 cycle symbols to discourage encroachment. 2.5m min. 2.5m min. lane widths
3.0m min. if lead-in 3.0m min. if lead-in is
is mandatory mandatory
Ideally, the lead-in should be as long as the
maximum general traffic queue length during peak
Indicative layout 5/12: Nearside advisory lead-in lane to ASL: adjacent to a) one and
periods. The benefits of a long lead-in need to be
b) two general traffic lanes
balanced against the risks of encouraging cyclists to
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Signal-controlled junctions 46
1.0m
Diagram
1009 1.0m
marking
Up to 4.5m
Part-width ASLs
In some situations, part-width ASL boxes, which
are included in the consultation draft of TSRGD
(2015), may be appropriate. They do not cover 1.7m
recommended
the full width of all the approach lanes and tend
to be better observed by motorists than full- 5.0m min.
recommended
width ASLs. They may be applicable where:
Right turns are not permitted (for cyclists or all
vehicles) 2.0m min.
recommended
There are multiple right-turning lanes
Tracking of vehicle movements into the arm of Part-width ASL used where right-turning
the junction shows that they would encroach vehicles would over-run a full-width ASL
on the ASL reservoir if it were full-width Ruckholt Road, Waltham Forest
A nearside lane is controlled with a left-turn Indicative layout 5/15: Part-width ASL
filter signal
Split ASLs
Split ASLs are possible on a single junction arm
where movements are separately signalled and
where lanes are physically separated by an island.
Where there are multiple traffic lanes, there may The consultation draft of TSRGD (2015) proposes To achieve the optimum position, and reduce
be a case for marking recommended positioning that ASLs will be prescribed for use at stand- the risk of tampering and vandalism, mirrors will
for different cyclist movements through use of a alone signalised crossings as well as signalised usually be mounted on the nearside primary
split ASL with a dividing line and direction arrows junctions. Until the regulations come into force, signal pole, with 2.4 to 2.5 metres cleartance to
for cyclists. site-specific authorisation will continue to be the footway. Ongoing maintenance costs must
required for this use. be considered by the scheme sponsor.
A good example would be where there is a left
filter movement for general traffic that precedes
the ahead movement, and where it would Blind-spot safety mirrors
be appropriate to indicate specific suitable At junctions with ASLs, blind-spot safety mirrors
places to wait for cyclists undertaking different mounted on signal poles can help give motorists
movements. Site-specific authorisation is a better view of cyclists in a lead-in lane on
required for this technique. their nearside and in the ASL box. Area-wide
authorisation for their use was granted by DfT to
local authorities in England in February 2012 and
they were included in the consultation draft of
TSRGD (2015).
There is currently little evidence of the safety
benefits of blind-spot safety mirrors and trials of
their effectiveness have been inconclusive.
Any decision to include blind-spot safety Blind-spot safety mirror showing view of
Diagram nearside lead-in lane
1059 mirrors should be taken by the authority
markings responsible for signing (rather than traffic signal
Diagram
equipment). However, since they are mounted
1009 on signal poles, their installation will need
marking to be considered and assessed by TfL Asset
Diagram Management Directorate in a similar way to
1038 any other signal equipment. A risk assessment
markings should also be made, with mirrors being most
appropriate at junctions with both ahead and
Indicative layout 5/16: Split ASL
left-turn movements and where there are high
cycle and HGV flows.
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Roundabouts and gyratories 49
Raising driver awareness of cyclists roundabout. Types are defined in DMRB TD16/07
5.5 Roundabouts and gyratories (2007), as follows, with a comparison provided in
Giving cyclists clear, unobstructed passage
figure 5.9.
up to, through, and on the exit from the
roundabout Normal a roundabout with a kerbed central
5.5.1 Cyclists use of roundabouts island at least 4 metres in diameter, usually with
Encouraging cyclists to take a visible position
flared entries and exits. Small versions have
Roundabouts and gyratories are rarely away from the nearside when circulating
a single-lane circulatory carriageway. Larger
comfortable facilities for cyclists to use. It is
Managing traffic and conflicting manoeuvres versions can have multiple lanes, or enough
essential to understand cyclists desire lines and
through the use of signals width on the circulatory carriageway and on the
manoeuvres in order to provide for their safety.
arms to accommodate two or three vehicles
Providing an alternative route or by-pass for
At many UK roundabouts, the geometry creates alongside one another.
cyclists that does not result in additional delay
difficulties for cyclists by not sufficiently
Compact a roundabout having a central island,
reducing motor vehicle speeds. On the other
with single-lane entries and exits, and with a
hand, the ability to keep moving through the As a rule, the larger the roundabout, circulatory carriageway that does not allow two
junction with no loss of momentum makes the greater the problems for cyclists. cars to pass one another.
some types of roundabout, when well designed, On cycle routes, large roundabouts and
potentially more appealing to cyclists under some gyratories should be considered for Mini indicated by a domed or flush circular
circumstances than signal-controlled junctions. conversion to simpler signalised junctions solid white road marking to diagram 1003.4 of
or more cycle-friendly roundabout types. TSRGD, between 1 and 4 metres in diameter,
Most collisions involving cyclists arise from
Where roundabouts remain, speed instead of a central island.
vehicles entering the roundabout and colliding
with cyclists who are on the circulatory reduction is highly recommended. Signalised a roundabout having traffic signals
carriageway. For all types, general approaches on one or more of the approaches and at the
that can help reduce risks to cyclists include: corresponding point on the circulatory carriageway
itself. Design guidance for signalised roundabouts
Reducing entry, circulatory and exit speeds, 5.5.2 Roundabout types
is provided in DMRB TD50/04 (2004).
eg by tightening entry and exit geometry and
Roundabouts vary greatly in the UK by type,
reducing excessive visibility Double a junction comprising two roundabouts
location and usage. The size of a roundabout,
(normal, compact or mini) connected by a short
Reducing motorised traffic volumes and the volumes and speeds of motorised
link and designed as a single system rather than
traffic it accommodates, has an impact on
Reallocating unused carriageway space, such two separate roundabouts.
the subjective safety of vulnerable road users,
as reducing number of approach lanes to one
particularly cyclists. Pedestrians also suffer
Minimising the need for drivers to change lane where they are required to undertake circuitous
on the roundabout and often hazardous routes to negotiate a large
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Roundabouts and gyratories 50
and the signals may operate full-time or part- Provide entry deflection to the left on entering
time. Taken together with differences in numbers the roundabout
of arms and lanes, there are therefore many
Provide islands to segregate cyclists at entry/
permutations governing how they operate.
exit and greater deflection for motorised
Whether they provide good facilities for cyclists
vehicles
tends to depend on the detail of how potential
conflicts have been managed. Remove unused carriageway space and
increase size of deflector islands while ensuring
Minimising risks to cyclists pinch-points for cyclists are not created
The greatest degree of separation that could be Provide spiral lane markings for general traffic
implemented would be to remove cyclists from to improve lane discipline
the circulatory lane of the roundabout altogether. Put the whole junction on a table, which can
Subject to design considerations set out in help reduce speed on entry and exit, but is
section 7.5, grade separation can be effectively Off-carriageway cycling at roundabout in Berlin
motorists give way to crossing cyclists unlikely to make a difference to speed on the
achieved through use of subways and bridges. circulatory carriageway
Alternatively, cyclists on each entry arm may
be led off-carriageway to cross other arms on Other ways to reduce the risks to cyclists include: Note that many of these measures suggest
parallel pedestrian/cycle or toucan crossings. For conversion to another roundabout type a
large roundabouts, pedestrian and cycle access Minimise the number and width of entry, exit compact or continental form. For a cycle route,
through the centre of the roundabout may be a and circulatory lanes; more than one entry this is preferred to modifying a conventional
good option to explore. lane greatly increases the number of potential roundabout.
conflicts involving cyclists at the roundabout
In this instance, the potential for delay to cyclists see figure 5.9 for guidance on lane widths
and for pedestrian-cyclist conflict from shared 5.5.4 Mini-roundabouts
infrastructure needs to be balanced with the Reduce circulatory speeds by introducing
over-run strips around the central island of the Mini-roundabouts are not generally recommended
safety benefits of removing cyclists from the for inclusion on cycle routes. The main problems
carriageway. The needs of vulnerable users, both roundabout, thereby reducing the width of the
circulating carriageway they raise are failure of vehicles to observe give
pedestrians and cyclists, must be taken into way due to the geometry and failure to reduce
account. This includes providing adequate widths Minimise entry and exit flares (between 20 speed through the junction. Where they exist,
and dropped kerbs to ensure accessibility for degrees and 60 degrees) generally, aim to they should be considered for replacement
users of all types of cycle. provide arms that are perpendicular, rather where they have more than one entry lane and/or
than tangential to the roundabout where there is an angle approaching 180 degrees
between the entry and exit arms (and therefore
little horizontal deflection).
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Roundabouts and gyratories 52
Interventions that could improve existing mini- addressing cycle and pedestrian safety issues As outlined in TAL 9/97, continental
roundabouts for cycling include: because they reduce motor vehicle speeds roundabouts, which may be suitable for flows of
significantly and they prevent weaving and between 5,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day, are
Minimising entry and circulatory widths and
overtaking on the circulatory carriageway, making likely to have a positive impact on cyclists safety
speeds
it easier for cyclists to adopt the primary riding and comfort because:
Altering geometry to create greater deflection position around the roundabout.
Their tighter geometries encourage all vehicles
angles
to take the junction more slowly
Making it impossible for vehicles to overtake
They provide only one lane on entry and exit
within the roundabout circulatory area
on every arm
Reducing single lane carriageway to a
The central island is larger relative to the
maximum width of 5 metres
overall size of the junction when compared to
Increasing the central dome marking (to TSRGD a conventional roundabout, meaning that the
diagram 1003.4) to 4 metres diameter to slow entry path curvature of circulating vehicles is
general traffic increased (they are deviated more and therefore
cannot take the roundabout at higher speeds)
Incorporating a speed table to reduce speeds
on entry and exit They are recommended for use in lower
speed, lower traffic volume contexts (towards
Incorporating additional deflector islands
Compact roundabout in UK with overrun strip the lower end of the 5,000 to 20,000 vehicles
for motor traffic (and considering omission
per day range)
of keep left bollards from those islands
wherever possible, as these can impair the They are also advantageous for pedestrians
visibility of turning motor vehicles and their because the tighter geometry allows for
indicator lights such a proposal should be pedestrian crossings on desire lines much closer
subject to a risk assessment) to the entry to the roundabout than would be
the case for conventional roundabouts.
5.5.5 Compact and continental International best practice shows that
roundabouts roundabouts of this type may also be
appropriate in situations where cycle flows are
These two types of roundabout are described, heavy (cyclists comprising a very high proportion
respectively, in DMRB TD16/07 (2007) and in of all traffic). This has been seen to be reinforced
TAL 9/97, Cyclists at roundabouts: continental in some instances by prominent use of the cycle
design geometry (1997). They can be useful in Continental roundabout in Lund, Sweden symbol on the circulatory carriageway.
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Roundabouts and gyratories 53
Informal roundabouts at Moor Lane, City of London and Bexleyheath town centre,
Dutch style roundabout
both of which have a roundabout-like feature in the carriageway
London Cycling Design Standards [Chapter 5] Roundabouts and gyratories 55
Little feeling of safety through close proximity taken to cycling provision and to management of directness perspective. However, care needs to
to large volumes of fast-moving traffic and/or motor traffic speed and volume. This may only be taken to avoid putting cyclists into conflict
large vehicles factors identified in chapter 2 entail part-removal or partial remodelling of a with fast-moving opposing traffic. A higher
as leading to particularly low levels of service gyratory or one-way system. degree of separation, such as use of full or light
for cyclists segregation, might be appropriate in such cases.
Lack of directness one-way movement Return to two-way working Where one-way systems are likely to remain, and
generally leads to longer journeys and does Other selected interventions can also be made where space is available, an opportunity exists
not allow cyclists to follow desire lines to improve conditions for cyclists. Taking a to run cyclists in contraflow around much of
filtered permeability approach and allowing the system. This can constitute a high level of
Lack of legibility movement through such
cyclists to make movements that are banned service, provided each junction within the system
junctions tends not to be intuitive and requires
for other vehicles, together with opening up is designed so as to minimise conflicts and
extensive signing
one-way sections to contraflow cycling, are of delays for cyclists. It can help in avoiding issues
Intimidating road conditions the prospect obvious benefit for cyclists from a coherence and related to integration with bus infrastructure.
of moving across lanes of moving traffic to
get into the appropriate road position
Gyratory redesign
Gyratory removal and a return to two-way
working, although likely to be a major project, is
an option that can help address the above issues.
It is more intuitive, likely to be lower speed,
almost always leads to more direct journeys
and can enliven and humanise streets that
previously were blighted by fast-moving bursts
of one-way traffic, helping to foster a more
diverse range of active street and land uses.
The focus of any gyratory redesign should be on
enabling more direct journeys with less delay,
particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, and on
allowing more conventional approaches to be
T
RL O
ne Road Network
Bibliography PPR 436, Literature review of road safety Traffic modelling guidelines (version 3)
at traffic signals and signalised crossings (2010)
D
esign Manual for Roads and Bridges (2009)
D
fT
TD50/04 (2004) T
RL Traffic Signs Manual (2003)
T
fL PPR240, Behaviour at advanced cycle stop
lines (2005) A
ECOM
Design standards for signal schemes Traffic Signs Policy Review: Research
SQA064 (2014) T
RL Project into the Awareness of the Meaning
D
epartment of the Environment, PPR703: Trials of segregation set-back at of Traffic Signs Project PPRO 04/16/24
side roads (2014) (2011)
Transport and the Regions
Guidance on the use of tactile paving T
RL Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian
surfaces (1998) Shared Zebra Crossing Study (2006) Crossings Regulations and General
Highway Code D
fT Directions (1997)
Signing the Way (2011)
T
RL
Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety (2011) D
fT
TAL 10/93, Toucan: an unsegregated
D
fT crossing for pedestrians and cyclists (1993)
LTN 2/08: Cycle Infrastructure Design (2008)
D
fT
D
fT TAL 4/98, Toucan crossing development
LTN 2/95, Design of Pedestrian Crossings (1998)
(2012)
D
fT
D
fT TAL 9/97, Cyclists at roundabouts:
LTN1/95, Assessment of Pedestrian continental design geometry (1997)
Crossings (2012)
D
fT
D
fT & DCLG TAL5/05 Pedestrian facilities at signal-
Manual for Streets (2007) controlled junctions (2005)
T
fL D
fT
Pedal cyclist collisions and casualties in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06, General
Greater London (2011) principles of traffic control by light
signals, 2006, Part 1 (2006)