Help Forum

Help requested posted on 25th May 2017:

Cycling Zebras

This is a question to local authorities who have installed the new TSRGD 2016 parallel (cycling) Zebras.

We currently have a roundabout (Union Street turbo-roundabout) with 4 unofficial cycling Zebras i.e. just Zebras but with cycle tracks leading to them, installed before the changes to the TSRGD, so that we left a blank space for the cycle crossing for future upgrade. You can see them on Google at https://goo.gl/maps/cqR7i8o8gV12

These have been functioning well, with just one slight cyclist casualty in the first year of installation over the 2.5 years, in spite of vehicle flows of around 34,000 and 300 cyclists crossing each day at the roundabout.

We now need to repaint them. We intend to convert them to full TSRGD 2016 parallel crossings, but to be honest are quite unhappy with the regulations, in particular the only option of sign 544 with 547.8 plate “parallel crossing” seems woefully inadequate to tell motorists that they are now legally obliged to give way. We also feel that the use red blister at the cycling side is confusing.

Has any local authority used additional signage, used different tactile paving or any other useful experiences to share?

Patrick Lingwood

Reply to this request


Response posted on 26th May 2017 by:
Mark Foweraker

E: m.foweraker@cardiff.gov.uk
T: 029 2078 8522

Cycling Zebras : Parallel Crossings

In Cardiff we have implemented one parallel crossing and others are due to be opened soon. Sorry none show on StreetView.

We have not used any signs to 544 and 547.8 as the approach visibility is adequate and they are all tabled.

After discussion with our Equalities Officer (who involved RNIB and Guide Dogs) and or road safety and design teams we decided to place red corduroy paving (8 round ribs per 400 mm slab) parallel to the kerb instead of the red blister.
There is a 400 mm (approx.) gap between the zebra blisters and the cycle corduroys, usually black tarmac but could be black corduroy.
The 'tail' comes up from the blister so if you masked off the cycle part the layout is conventional. The key reasoning is that tactile paving is for visually impaired users and so the tail is to guide them to the pedestrian area and the corduroy is to warn, in the absence of a kerb, that there is an immediate danger beyond, i.e. the carriageway. We thought about using the guidance path tactile, but the similarity in pattern to the shared/segregated tactile slab and the lack of availability in red were important, but if you could get red, then a possibility.

It is important to remember that tactile paving is primarily for the visually impaired and their needs are paramount. The dropped kerb (0 to 6 mm) is for wheeled users and so the design of them must be primarily for those groups.

Sketches of our layout are unofficially available from me and we are still open for discussion on this issue.


Response posted on 26th May 2017 by:
Mark Foweraker

E: m.foweraker@cardiff.gov.uk
T:

Cycling Zebras : Parallel Crossings

I forgot to mention that we are aware of research that shows drivers are nearly as likely to give way to cyclists waiting to use a zebra as they are to give way to pedestrians, so we did not think driver awareness was an issue. The important thing is for the users who are crossing to follow the Highway Code and to ensure that drivers have stopped (are stopping) before they cross (whether zebra or signal controlled).

One typo, "and or road safety" should be "and our road safety" and road safety means both education and engineering.

A final point is I remember the first toucans where the cycle bit and the pedestrian bit were separated and it caused nothing but conflict, so we made the width dual use. I wonder if in 10 years time, your layout will be what we are using, instead of trying to segregate cyclists and pedestrians? My views are my own and I reserve the right to be wrong.


Response posted on 1st June 2017 by:
Dan Trump

E: Daniel.Trump@devon.gov.uk
T:

Cycling Zebras

Hi Patrick,

In Devon a number of parallel crossings have been installed, in different locations and of varying dimensions. From my knowledge we haven't had any collisions on them (to date).

What is cyclist behaviour like currently Union Street? Do they give way or assume dominance? Conversely the same question but in respect to drivers. If you have only had one slight PIC in circa 3 yrs are the warning signs necessary?

With regard to tactile paving, off the top of my head i believe it was omitted from the cycle side, aligning the visually impaired on the pedestrian side and removing the LOC risk for cyclists. I'll need to check this. TSRGD doesn't prescript tactile paving provision and the tactile paving guidance is out of date with practice.

I'll dig out some photos today and email them over with their respective locations.

Dan


Response posted on 6th June 2017 by:
Mark Foweraker

E: m.foweraker@cardiff.gov.uk
T:

Cycling Zebras

Hi Dan, having no tactile paving and a 0 to 6 mm kerb was an option we considered but rejected as being a too higher risk for visually impaired users.
We considered 'segregated footway cycleway paving in tramline' Guidance Path and Corduroy in red and decided on the latter as having the right message for the visually impaired.
Our cycling Officer is content that cyclist should not have exceptional issues and should be easily identify the risks involved in crossing this surface.

As with Patrick, I can send you the full reasoning if you would like to see it.


Post a response to the above help request by completing the form below:

Your name
Your email
Your telephone (optional)
Subject
My response is:
Captcha: