On the Burpham section the restricted highway width in 2 places forces a design whereby pedestrians and cyclists are required to share long stretches, rather than having their own segregated paths. This has long been recognised as a highly undesirable design and only to be used as a last resort (paragraph 6.5.4 of LTN 1/20). These are the zones where large numbers of schoolchildren are regular pedestrians at peak travel times, as are shoppers at Kingpost and Aldi throughout the day.
In conjunction with the areas around the bus stops, the non-segregated cycle and footways comprise about 45% of the total bi-directional length. The Scheme is less than 55% effective.
A recent tragic case in Cambridgeshire has highlighted the consequences of not ensuring that adequate segregation is provided, particularly when adjacent to a traffic carriageway: Auriol Grey: Huntingdon cyclist killer fails in appeal bid - BBC News
Buffer Space between the cycle track and carriageway is recommended to be 0.5m, but along the whole of the scheme there is no indication of any buffer space at all (Figure 6.3 of LTN 1/20) This might be acceptable where cycle tracks are wider, but where the cycle track is only at the Absolute Minimum Width of 1.5m, then it will be easy for vehicles, especially coaches and HGVs with extensive overhanging mirrors, to encroach the recommended 1.5m passing space of the Highway Code without realising.
LRAG has sought advice from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) about the relevance of this rule when cyclists were not on the carriageway but were in a segregated track.
The response has stated that this situation has never been tested in case law, and so unequivocal advice cannot be provided. However, they have stated: “From the perspective of allowing cyclists to feel that they have the space that they need to continue their journey safely, I would suggest still abiding by the passing distances detailed in the Highway Code”.
In conjunction with the areas around the bus stops, the non-segregated cycle and footways comprise about 45% of the total bi-directional length. The Scheme is less than 55% effective.
A recent tragic case in Cambridgeshire has highlighted the consequences of not ensuring that adequate segregation is provided, particularly when adjacent to a traffic carriageway: Auriol Grey: Huntingdon cyclist killer fails in appeal bid - BBC News
Buffer Space between the cycle track and carriageway is recommended to be 0.5m, but along the whole of the scheme there is no indication of any buffer space at all (Figure 6.3 of LTN 1/20) This might be acceptable where cycle tracks are wider, but where the cycle track is only at the Absolute Minimum Width of 1.5m, then it will be easy for vehicles, especially coaches and HGVs with extensive overhanging mirrors, to encroach the recommended 1.5m passing space of the Highway Code without realising.
LRAG has sought advice from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) about the relevance of this rule when cyclists were not on the carriageway but were in a segregated track.
The response has stated that this situation has never been tested in case law, and so unequivocal advice cannot be provided. However, they have stated: “From the perspective of allowing cyclists to feel that they have the space that they need to continue their journey safely, I would suggest still abiding by the passing distances detailed in the Highway Code”.