Safe Speed Forums

Re-write traffic rules to make streets cycle-friendly, says TfL
Traffic Management
Andrew Forster 12.7.13

Boris Johnson has written to transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin with a shopping list of changes to the DfT’s traffic sign rules, which the mayor says could improve road safety, particularly for cyclists.

Transport for London’s proposals include changes to the rules for cyclists turning left at signalised junctions, and a new law giving pedestrians and cyclists legal priority to cross side-road junctions.

Many of the suggestions would require changes to the DfT’s Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 document. Transport for London hopes to influence the review of TSRGD, which is currently underway, with a revised version expected to be published at the end of 2014.

A number of changes are proposed to how cycle advanced stop lines (ASLs) operate, including:
Installing low-level cycle signals at ASLs so the signal for motor traffic can then be moved back to the first stop line
Allowing part-width ASLs to encourage cyclists to keep to the “correct/nearside lane, particularly where right turns are not allowed”
Allowing ASLs to be installed at stand-alone pedestrian signalised crossings

The DfT recently authorised TfL to introduce 7.5-metre deep ASL boxes on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), an increase from the current maximum of five metres. “Nationwide authorisation might be granted depending on the outcome of the changes to the TLRN locations,” TfL notes in its briefing paper.

TfL also wants the Government to make it a civil offence for drivers to encroach into advanced stop line (ASL) boxes when a traffic signal is red. “The police are currently not resourced to enforce ASLs and bringing the offence on a par with yellow box junction and bus lane offences would be more acceptable to motorists,” says TfL.

It also urges ministers to pass the order necessary to decrimininalise mandatory cycle lane infringements. The power already exists, but the order to commence has not been signed off.

TfL wants the DfT to approve new signage declaring a street a ‘Cycle street’. “A cycle street is a link which is designed to restrict use by motor traffic and provide a superior level of service to cyclists,” it explains.

TfL wants pedestrians and cyclists to be given legal priority to cross side-road junctions. “This is implied by rules 8 and 170 of the Highway Code but not covered by law,” it says.

It also wants the Government to allow ‘intelligent ambers’ that would allow cyclists to turn left with caution, giving way to pedestrians crossing. No one was available at TfL this week to explain to LTT exactly how the concept would work, though a spokesman said they were not ‘flashing ambers’.

TfL also wants to introduce ‘green waves’ of linked signals at 20mph “or less” instead of 30mph. It says the use of 30mph green waves favours motor vehicles and disadvantages cyclists.

The DfT should give local authorities more freedom to decide what road signs should be illuminated, says TfL, suggesting the current TSRGD as over-prescriptive. “This is evidenced by the ever growing number of [highway] authorities who are simply not complying with TSRGD,” it says.

The DfT should also take a less prescriptive approach to what signs say. TfL points out that ‘No Entry’ signs can now have a supplementary plate saying ‘except buses’ or ‘except cycles’ but special authorisation is required to erect one saying ‘except buses and cycles’.

TfL wants the DfT to authorise the general use of low-level signals at cyclists’ eye-height (the current minimum height for traffic signals is 2.1 metres). Off-street trials of low-level signals have just begun at TRL and TfL hopes the DfT will authorise on-street trials during 2014.

Another request is for cycle logos to be permitted on the red light of a signal head (they can currently be displayed on the green and amber signals). TfL says allowing the logo to appear on red signals will give all road users greater clarity that the traffic signal is for cyclists. Trials of this arrangement have been completed at TRL and TfL hopes the DfT will authorise on-street trials in 2013/14.

Another request is for the DfT to allow speed awareness courses to be offered to motorists exceeding 20mph speed limits. TfL implies that this would lead to greater police enforcement of the limits.

Transport for London’s proposals include changes to the rules for cyclists turning left at signalised junctions, and a new law giving pedestrians and cyclists legal priority to cross side-road junctions.

The more we pander to one group of road users the more self righteous and irresponsible they will become.

much like your average "i pay road tax" car driver then ?

You might be able to shift the blame onto motorists by this law but the cyclist would be just as dead. The more we pander to one group of road users the more self righteous and irresponsible they will become.

This is a product of the preferential treatment described in this thread. A proportion of cyclists will now just ignore any regulation introduced for their safety if it "gets in their way".

However, car drivers are not pandered to.

They are despised and looked upon as a source of revenue by councils.

Councillors, of course, drive to work and park free in car parks.

Want to go to the cinema in a rural location? The car or its proxy a taxi are your only options.

You appear to assert that people either ride a bike or drive a car and never do both. That's a bit ignorant isn't it?

I know people who drive who jump red lights when they cycle, where do they fit in in your little oversimplified world? And this was a trial, why shouldn't a cyclist take the most direct route if they can?

Would it have been alright if I had ignored the red lights and just gone directly onto the motorway as it was just a trial?

Secondly, your statement about the same person in a car obeying the rules but transgressing while on a bike just proves that it's the poor regulation of cycling that is the problem. It's this that needs addressing. The tiny likelihood of a cyclist being traced as they have no means of identification leads to this kind of potentially dangerous behaviour.

So, you have not answered the first question. Let's try this. If my motorway slip road trial had not been "live" would it have been OK for me to plough straight in thus undermining the purpose of the experiment?

On the second point, why do you think that the behaviour of the person who is a driver is modified when they get on a bicycle?

I personally think when people are in a vehicle they are very much aware of the damage they can cause with a simple mistake, but when on a bike they feel more like a pedestrian. Being able to see much more could be a factor too (I find that in my car visibility is very restricted compared to when I'm on my bike).

Good point, hence why in general (most) motorists are so careful and (many) cyclists are so reckless.

Do you think that, basically, cyclists are more akin to pedestrians or car drivers?