TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR CYCLISTS

Bedingfeld, J., Gould, E. and Knight, P.

Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) Limited
Phull, S.
Department for Transport

ABSTRACT

This study was commissioned by the UKs Department for Transport to carry
out a review of various traffic management techniques used in the UK and
overseas to facilitate cycle movements at traffic signal controlled junctions.
The outcome of the desktop study examined cyclists movements at the
approach and through signalised junctions and put forward a number of
suitable techniques for consideration, based on different scenarios, to deal
with highlighted issues.
2

INTRODUCTION

The latest National Travel Survey (DfT, 2010) illustrates a significant

proportion of journeys made by car which are under one mile in length; 20 per
cent in 2009. Whilst distance travelled by bicycle is increasing, cycling still
only accounted for two per cent of trips of less than five miles in the same
period. The government is keen to promote sustainable modes - walking and
cycling - as integrated modes of travel. On their own or as part of a journey,
walking and cycling can help reduce congestion and support climate change
and health policy objectives. Guidance on cycling infrastructure sets out best
practice to meet the needs of cyclists, so that junctions and crossings can be
designed to facilitate the safe passage of cyclists whilst avoiding undue delay
and interruptions.
Whilst the UK road network provides some dedicated facilities for cyclists
such as toucan crossings and Advanced Cycle Stoplines (ASLs), cycle use
within the UK still remains much lower than in mainland Europe. It is believed
by many that more can be done to generate a safer, more efficient and more
encouraging network of cycling infrastructure, particularly when focusing on
junctions.
There are concerns about cyclist safety and the number of accidents that
occur at or near junctions. The main configurations of collision involving a
bicycle and other vehicle at junctions is when a vehicle turns right or left at a
junction, conflicting with a cyclist going straight ahead/ turning right.
Furthermore, a number of fatal accidents also occur when a large left-turning
vehicle (e.g. HGV or bus) at junction fails to see a cyclist on the nearside.

Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012

1

There has been much research into techniques for assisting and giving priority
to cyclists at signal controlled traffic junctions. Whilst the use of sophisticated
signalling systems and strategies have largely concentrated on the benefits
for motorised traffic, there has been less emphasis on the traffic signalling
techniques for cyclists at junctions.
The implementation of traffic management techniques for cyclists can result in
changes to the layout or timing of signals and junctions. This can result in
impacts on other road users by, for example, creating additional conflicts or
increasing delay, and result in potential consequences for traffic management
of the wider road network. To date, different approaches have been used to
find solutions to these problems.
This study carried out an integrated approach to the assessment of various
techniques for safe cycling (with particular regard to road markings, traffic
signs, signals and engineering infrastructure), with priority measures where
appropriate. Techniques considered both a cyclists approach to traffic
signals and movement through the controls themselves.
The study was designed to provide evidence, and make assessments, on
traffic management techniques used for cyclists in Great Britain and
elsewhere with a view to informing possible trials of new techniques and to
help inform future policy and regulatory changes.
A total of 48 techniques were considered as part of this study, which ranged
from simple road markings and additional detection right the way through to
more complex junction designs involving extensive kerb realignment and land
take. Due to variations in the techniques examined, the study highlighted the
need to use appropriate techniques to match local constraints and also to
maximise net benefits for all road users, as well as cyclists. The assessment
methodology was developed as part of the study to ensure that each
technique was thoroughly appraised for potential use in the UK and its impact
on other road users, cost implications, legislative requirements and other
considerations.
As with other studies reviewing international practice on a particular subject
matter, it would ultimately be for transportation professionals to use sound
judgement of the techniques highlighted to establish which of these may be
appropriate and effective for a particular scheme.
3

METHODOLOGY

A comprehensive literature review of published guidance and research was

undertaken alongside a consultation process with industry specialists and
cycling groups to gain a full understanding of the issues. A total of 48 different
techniques were identified, ranging from relatively small design amendments
to more involved strategic plans that could assist cyclists when negotiating
traffic signal controlled junctions.

Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012

2

Each technique was critically assessed against a range of criteria. The

impacts of the techniques on different travel user groups were assessed, and
each technique was awarded an aggregated score under specific themes
such as impact on capacity, safety, delay and value for money. The practical
challenges that would arise when implementing these techniques were also
rated, including necessary policy and legislation changes required for
adoption, associated costs associated with the technique and highway
disruption. The scoring template used for each technique assessment
summary is shown below.
Scheme / Technique
Description

Ref

Name of Scheme / Technique

A short description of the scheme

Pros

Outline of the advantages of technique

Cons

Outline of the disadvantages of technique

Cyclist

Pedestrian

Other
Road
User

Score

Score

Score

Cost
Implication

Regulation
and
Legislation

Other

Score

Score

Score

The theme scores are a result of

simple aggregation of the scores
awarded to each criterion within
each theme.
Please note the scores are not
directly linked to the Pros and
Figure 1: Scoring Template for Techniques
Cons listed.
A 5-point quantitative scoring system was used to compare the different
techniques. This ranged from -2 denoting a technique which has negative
impacts through to +2 denoting a technique which has significant benefits.
Scores were also assigned a colour from red to green to visually highlight
negative and positive effects and to allow differences in scores to be easily
identified.
The analysis of the results provided the basis to describe and discuss the
opportunities and drawbacks of different techniques. The techniques that were
found to be the most beneficial to cyclists were identified, and various
recommendations were made which highlighted the techniques which are
likely to bring about benefits for cyclists without adversely affecting other road
users. Simple capacity analysis using TRANSYT was undertaken to show
indicative effects on the capacity of a theoretical junction as a result of some
of the recommended techniques.

Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012

3

RESULTS

The techniques which were shortlisted as the most appropriate for greater
widespread use, trials or deployment in the UK are listed below, along with
some of the key recommendations:
4.1 Advanced cycle Stop Line (ASL): It is recommended that the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD, DfT) is altered to
allow the use of a staggered ASL at T-intersections where there is no cyclist
right turn movement.
A trial could be undertaken to ascertain the
effectiveness of this technique for different cyclist flows.
4.2 Single coloured cycle lane through an intersection: This technique is
used frequently throughout parts of Europe and it is recommended that it is
taken forward to trial to ascertain its potential benefits in the UK. It is also
recommended that an off-street trial is undertaken using more than one
coloured cycle lane, prior to a street trial.
4.3 Dwell on all red (derived from dwell on green): This technique is
considered to be an innovative solution that can be adopted in the UK and it is
recommended that it is taken forward to trial.
4.4 Pre-timed maximum for toucans: This technique is a promising solution
which could easily be taken forward to trials. However, it needs to be carefully
considered as it can cause significant delay to roads with a high traffic
demand. It should therefore not be installed where both the cycle demand and
traffic demand is high.
4.5 Bypass for straight ahead movements within the carriageway,
bypass for left turning cyclists (signal controlled) and bypass for ahead
movements within the footway: These were found to be the most beneficial
methods for cyclists which also achieved a capacity and delay improvement
for motor vehicles. They are already in use in the UK but limited details are
provided within UK guidance. It is recommended that the relevant documents
are updated to highlight the benefits provided for cyclists.
4.6 Intergreens designed for cyclist speed and intergreens extended by
detection: It is recommended that these are reviewed at existing sites and
within the existing documentation to ensure that they are appropriately
specified for sites.
4.7 Straightening staggered toucans and making into a single phase:
This technique scored highly for cyclists and would also be beneficial to
pedestrians. The equipment is already in use in the UK and it is
recommended that this technique is trialled in the first instance in the form of a
simulation.
4.8 Conversion to continental roundabout: This technique was identified as
one of few that may improve capacity for motor vehicles whilst at the same
time providing a better facility for cyclists, in situations where vehicle flows are
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012
4

not excessive. It is recommended that the Traffic Advisory Leaflets and

associated guidance documents are updated to ensure that this technique is
adequately described. In addition, in order to determine the threshold of the
number of vehicles where capacity and delay worsen, simulation trials could
be undertaken to compare the effects with a signalised intersection.
4.9 Road marking to highlight loop detectors: It is recommended that a
new road marking is developed and trialled at existing sites which experience
problems with cyclist detection at inductive loops, to ascertain potential
effectiveness. It is also recommended that continued research is focused on
detector technologies with associated issues of guidance and educating
practitioners related to the advantages and disadvantages of loop based
technology in comparison to above ground detection.
4.10 Trixi mirrors: Trixi mirrors are already in use in the UK and Transport for
London has trialled this technique on parts of the London Cycle
Superhighway. It is recommended that they are more widely trialled on UK
roads.
4.11 Co-ordination of signals for cyclists progression green wave:
This has been implemented in both Denmark and the Netherlands, however
due to its requirement for high cyclist / vehicle flows it may have limited
usefulness within the UK at the present time. It is recommended to be taken
forward for potential use in the UK.
4.12 Separate phase for cyclists: It is recommended that this technique is
investigated further, and consultation is undertaken with the relevant
authoritative bodies where this has been used in Europe to more fully
ascertain its impacts.
4.13 Two green periods per cycle for cyclists: The potential application of
this method could be restrictive as evidence suggests that in some places
where this has been implemented in Europe it was subsequently removed
because of the detrimental effects on vehicular delay. It is recommended that
this option is taken forward for further investigation.
4.14 Pre signal for cyclists (aspect or separate red, amber and green
signal head): This technique would be a new method for the UK and would
require changes to the TSRGD (DfT, 2002) and associated guidance
documents. However, the technique could offer significant improvements to
cyclists and as such further investigation should be performed through
consultation and simulated trials.
4.15 Priority for cyclists during inclement weather: This technique would
also be new to the UK and there are relatively expensive installation costs and
potential disadvantages for motorised vehicles. However, it is recommended
that further investigation is carried out through consultation with European
countries or through modelled trials. The weather station monitoring
equipment could use existing weather recording devices already positioned
on- street or the costs could be minimised by sharing the weather monitoring
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012
5

equipment between many sites or investigating the possibility of operating one

monitoring station for a city.
Three techniques stood out as the worst performers: the use of uncontrolled
crossings to allow cyclists to bypass signals when at a crossroads; cyclists
being allowed to turn left on red; and all round cycle stages (known as
scramble stages). The reasons for these techniques being awarded low
scores were due to the negative effects on safety levels for both cyclists and
pedestrians, as well as the potential impacts on other road users, in particular
regarding delay.
Overall, the assessment found a large variation in the magnitude of the impact
of techniques on other road users. The recommended techniques balanced all
needs as far as possible, tending to score well for cyclist safety, improving
capacity and reducing delay whilst at the same time having mainly positive
effects for pedestrians. They also tended to be relatively cost effective for the
planning, design and installation and require little or no amendments to
relevant legislative and guidance documentation.
It is recommended that these techniques are considered further and taken
forward for trials. In some instances the effects of these techniques could be
simulated to keep cost and disruption to a minimum; however it should be
noted that the impacts on other road users will differ on a site-by-site basis.
The Department for Transport will assist local authorities wishing to trial any of
the proposed techniques at suitable sites on-street. This would allow full costbenefit analysis to be quantified and help to understand the benefits of such
techniques in more detail.
5

LIMITATIONS

A number of limitations associated with the study methodology are

acknowledged.
The five point scale approach did not allow the assessment to take into
account the relative importance, or weighting, given to different criteria. For
example, changes to cyclist safety cannot be equally compared with costs to
update legislation. A more focussed assessment, simply comparing the
overall scores for each technique within the cycle theme only would give a
thorough appraisal of the technique from a cyclists perspective without
negatively biasing it with policy change costs or equipment costs.

Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012

6

As the analysis was carried out on models of typical junctions for illustrative
purposes, the exact impact if implemented on a real site could be significantly
different than those documented. Whilst the capacity analysis undertaken as
part of the study is indicative only, it emphasises an important point; that the
implementation of these techniques needs thorough consideration prior to
installation. It is therefore recommended that transport practitioners carry out
detailed traffic modelling of proposed sites to ensure that the correct
technique has been selected, and that impact on other road users is within
tolerable limits.
Some of the proven overseas techniques would have scored higher if UK
legislation and best practice documents covered the necessary information for
their use. Therefore, a number of innovative and promising techniques
received a lower score to reflect the changes that would be required to the
TSRGD (op.cit), other highway engineering guidance and the Highway Code.
The process to update these documents is very time-consuming and as such,
is only carried out periodically. The costs associated with updating these
documents would mean that, if updated, a number of schemes should be
included to deliver best value for money. This would require all the necessary
trials and assessments (to ensure the technique is worthy of adoption) to have
been conducted in parallel, which may not be practically feasible or
economically viable. Conversely, this might then delay the adoption of these
techniques.
Traffic signals and signs are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions (DfT, 2002); however pedestrian crossings are covered in
the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General
Directions (DfT, 1997). Currently, the TSRGD requires that all control
equipment for traffic signals and variable message signs must be of a 'type
approved in writing by the Secretary of State'. In practice, this is carried out by
the Highways Agency.
This requirement means that there is not much flexibility when considering
new ideas for trial. Signals are very tightly prescribed for reasons of safety
and consistency, but it can make it difficult to try new things, even when they
have been proven to be beneficial in similar contexts elsewhere in the world.
The Department is looking at including powers to allow the Secretary of State
to authorise innovative trials in the future.
6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This research study was commissioned in 2011 to look at improving the safety
of cyclists at signalised junctions. The research involved a desk study of
documented traffic management options for providing for cyclists. It also
sought the views and experiences of a range of practitioners throughout the
country, and looked at a number of international case studies.
This study reviewed guidance and practice both in the UK and elsewhere,
recognising the contextual differences that may affect the transferability of
such experience in the UK. It considered differences in road traffic law and
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012
7

regulation, differences in approaches to highway design and signal control

and differences in cycle levels.
A literature review identified 48 techniques in use across the world to aid
cyclists in negotiating signal junctions. These ranged from simple road
markings and additional detection through to more complex junction designs
and infrastructure. Each technique was assessed to determine its suitability
for use in the UK.
The study recommended a shortlist of techniques for consideration as the
most suitable for trial and implementation. Due to the variation of techniques,
it is imperative that the correct technique is utilised on the correct site to
achieve net benefits for all road users, as well as cyclists. It must be ensured
that the selection of any individual technique is carried out taking full account
of the individual circumstances of the location concerned. Factors would
include the level of cycle use (both current and potential) and an
understanding of the characteristics of the users, traffic flows and speeds, and
vehicle types, the extent and nature of existing cycling infrastructure that
feeds the junction e.g. whether on carriageway or fully off-road.
The research considered the idea of allowing cyclists to turn left at a red light.
The research findings back up the current DfT stance concerning this issue in
that this technique would raise a number of serious safety concerns,
particularly for pedestrians, and in order for the government to consider
changing legislation to permit a trial, strong evidence would need to be
presented.

The DfT is not planning a formal launch event but will share and present this
information to cycling forums and discuss the research findings with
stakeholders in developing revisions to the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions. Once the report is published, The Department will
disseminate this work to local authorities.

Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012

8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alta Planning and Design (2009) Cycle Tracks Lessons Learned

Available:http://www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/pres_stud_docs/
Cyclepercent20Trackpercent20lessonspercent20learned.pdf

Cycling England (2009) Cycling England Toolkit for Cycling Towns. DfT,
available http://www.dft.gov.uk/

Cycling England (2011) Cycling England Design Checklist A.08 DfT,

available http://www.dft.gov.uk/

Danish Road Directorate (1998) Best practice to promote walking

(ADONIS) Available http://cordis.europa.eu/transport/src/adonisrep.htm

Danish Road Directorate (2000) Collection of Cycle Concepts Available

http://www.vejdirektoratet.dk/dokument.asp?page=document&objno=1729
1

DfT (1997) Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations

and General Directions 1997 DfT, London

DfT (2002) The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
DfT, London

DfT (2010) National Travel Survey 2009. HMSO, London

Available http://www.dft.gov.uk/

European Safety Council (1999) Safety of Pedestrians and Cyclists in

Urban Areas Available http://www.etsc.eu/oldsite/pedestrian.pdf

Fietsberaad (unknown) The Bicycle Friendly Traffic Light (green light for
cyclists) available http://www.infolizer.com/f6i5etsb25er1a1ad4a1nl/Thebicycle-friendly-traffic-light.html

Fietsverkeer (2004) Limited knowledge of safety effects of infrastructural

facilities Available
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&repository=Limited+knowled
ge+of+safety+effects+of+infrastructural+facilities

Greenshields S, Allen D, York I, and Paradise R. (2006) Shared Zebra

Crossing Study Unpublished Project Report TRL, Crowthorne

Harms, H.J. (2008) Bicycle Friendly Traffic - Evaluation Research

International Technology Scanning Program (2010) Pedestrian and

bicyclist safety and Mobility in Europe
Available http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/links/pub_details.cfm?id=662

Jensen, S.U. (2007) Road Safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in
Copenhagen Available
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Roadpercent20safetypercent20andpercent20pe
rcievedpercent20riskpercent20ofpercent20cyclepercent20trackspercent20
andpercent20lanespercent20inpercent20Copenhagen.pdf

Jongenotter, E. and Akkerman, M. (2003) The Bicycle Friendliness of

Traffic Control Installations
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&section=Kennisbank&mode
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012
9

=detail&repository=The+bicycle+friendliness+of+traffic+control+installatio
ns

Kimber RM, McDonald M and Hounsell NB (1986) The prediction of

saturation flows for single road junctions controlled by traffic signals.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), Crowthorne UK

Korve and Niemeier (2002) Benefit-cost analysis of added bicycle phase

at existing signalized intersection Journal of Transportation EngineeringAsce 128(1): 40-48.

Knowles, J et al (2009) Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britain's

roads: establishing the causes. TRL, Crowthorne

Lingwood, P (2011) Personal Communication received as part of

stakeholder consultation

London Cycle Network (2004) London Cycle Network Design Manual

Available
http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org.uk/uploaded_files/LCN_Design_Manu
al.pdf

Mann, R (2011) Personal Communication received as part of stakeholder

consultation

Peck, C (2011) Personal Communication received as part of stakeholder

consultation on behalf of the CTC

Pucher, J and Buehler, R (2007) Cycling for Everyone: Lessons from

Europe Available
http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Cyclingpercent20forpercent20Ever
yonepercent20TRB.pdf

Russell, T and Carr, D (2010) Giving Cyclists the Green Light: Prioritising
Cycles at Traffic Signals Available:
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/Transport-Streets/file-storageitems/cycle-priority-at-traffic-signals.en

Ryding, H.N. (2007) Green Waves for Cyclists in Copenhagen Best

Practice Guidelines

Sherman, A (2007) Bicycle Detection and Signalization Available

http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/07-2/bike_detection.php

Sustrans (1997). The National Cycle Network. Guidelines and Practical

Details (Issue 2). Sustrans, Bristol.

SWOV (2008) Bicycle facilities on road segments and intersections of

distributor roads Available
http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_bicycle_facilities.pdf

Taylor, D and Mahmassani, H (2000) Co-Ordinating Traffic Signals for

Bicycle Progression. Transportation Research Record 1705, Paper 000280. TRB, Washington

TfL (2005) London Cycling Design Standards

Available
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012
10

Wall et al (2003) Capacity implications of Advanced Stop Lines for

Cyclists. TRL, Crowthorne

Webster, F.V. and Cobbe, B. M. (1966) Traffic Signals Road Research

Technical Paper No. 56. HMSO London UK

Weigand, L (2008) Intersection Treatments to Improve Bicycle Access

and Safety Available:
http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/media/MultiModalpercent20Intersectionpercent20Design.pdf

Wiersma, A (2006) Evaluation of Waiting Time Predictor Available

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&repository=Evaluation+waiti
ng-time+predictor

Wilke, A and Eady, J (2010) Green Lights for Bikes: Providing for bike
riders at traffic signals, SKM: Malvern Australia

Wilke, A and Koorey, G (2005) Accommodating Cyclists at Signalised

Intersections Available: http://viastrada.co.nz/pub/cyclists-at-signals

In addition, the authors are particularly grateful to the following individuals who
contributed time and effort to the consultation process within the study:

Julian Cooke (Iteris)

Jamie Copeland (MMM Group, Canada)

Adam Duff and Alexandra Goodship (Transport for London)

Peter Haidelmayer (CAN-BIKE)

Patrick Lingwood (Bedford Council, on secondment to DfT)

Richard Mann (Low Carbon West Oxford)

Jereme McKaskill (City of London)

Frank Montgomery (University of Leeds)

John Parkin (South Bank University)

Chris Peck (CTC)

Tony Russell (Sustrans, Cycling England)

Bart Sbeghen and Mike Williamson (Bike Victoria, Australia)

Alex Sully (Transport Initiatives)

Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012

11