Correspondence with Engineering governing body re road design and cyclists’ safety

Following correspondence earlier in the year on road design and "cycle facilities" I realised that the lack of proper training for roads engineers must be a significant part of the problem. So I wrote to "Engineers Ireland." I’m sending the second reminder today. I wasn’t originally going to put this online, but as it’s waited a few months for a reply I’m putting it up, partly in the hope that individual engineers might take this up with their professional organisation.

——————————————————————————–

From: David Healy / Daithí Ó hÉalaithe [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 29 May 2006 21:46
To: ’emchugh@engineersireland.ie’
Cc: ‘info@dto.ie’
Subject: Modular Roads Course 2006/2007

Dear Mr. McHugh,

I note the programme for your Modular Roads Course. I have been concerned for some time at the lack of understanding road engineers have of the design needs of cyclists and the safety implications for cyclists of their designs. This unfortunately applies not only to engineers who are designing for a general traffic flow including cyclists but also to those who are trying to design specifically for cyclists. The attached correspondence relating to a junction in my constituency reflects such a lack of understanding, if I may refer you to it as an example.

In relation to responses 1 and 2, Mr. Deegan is entirely wrong in his suggestion of how a cyclist should safely use the road. I would refer to Cyclecraft by John Franklin published by the Stationery Office in the UK and recommended reading for the National Cyclist Training Standard in UK. (http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&ProductID=0117020516&From=SearchResults) or alternatively to Oregon Department of Transportation’s Bicyclist Manual 2006 at pages 6 and 7 (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bike_manual_06.pdf )

An understanding of the sources of risk for cyclists and of how cyclists can use the road to best reduce the risk of collision is essential if road design is to cater for safe use by cyclists. Nobody should be designing roads which cyclists use and especially not designing specifically for cyclists without this understanding. Many of the flaws in road design for cyclists in Dublin probably come from such basic misunderstanding.

If this was a single instance, I would not refer to it. However, from travelling around Dublin, I know that when it comes to designing for cyclists, bad design is the rule rather than the exception.

The poor quality of these designs must in part reflect an inadequacy in training or at least could be remedied by better training, which is why I’m writing to you. I would be interested to know if you have or could incorporate sessions on road design as it affects cyclists in your training course. It seems to me that this would be appropriate to both Modules 2 and 4.

I’m copying this to the DTO for information. As funders of much of the cycle-specific infrastructure, they have an interest in having good design applied, and may be able to work with you in relation to CPD issues. I’m sure that the Dublin Cycling Campaign (http://home.connect.ie/dcc/) would also be interested in helping you include these elements in your training course.

Is mise, le meas,

David Healy

Councillor David Healy

Green Party/Comhaontas Glas

Howth ward / Dublin North East

www.davidhealy.com

01 8324087

54, Páirc Éabhóra, Beann Éadair

54, Evora Park, Howth

——————————————————————————–

From: Sean McGrath [mailto:Sean.McGrath@fingalcoco.ie]
Sent: 19 May 2006 16:36
To: verdire@eircom.net
Subject: FW: RE: design of grange road/industrial estate junction.

Dear Cllr Healy

I forward the consultants response FYI.

We are considering changing the layout of the junction to have only two general traffic lanes on the approach from the M50 direction. This will give additional space to allow for full width traffic and cycle lanes in both directions without compromise. There may be some loss in capacity of the junction, but, given the improved comfort for all, it may be worthwhile.

Regards

Sean

—–Original Message—–
From: Martin Deegan [mailto:mdeegan@jbbarry.ie]
Sent: 11 May 2006 13:52
To: Sean McGrath
Subject: [Possible Spam] RE: design of grange road/industrial estate junction.

Dear Sean,

Thank you for the attached. As a regular cyclist and traffic engineer, I have pleasure in responding to Cllr Healy’s points in order as following.

Providing formal cycle facilities highlights the presence and needs of cyclists to motorized road users. The left turning conflict is apparent in this situation at every junction with or without cycle tracks, and is dependent on a measure of good judgment and courtesy between vulnerable road users and motorists. The safest place for the cyclist in this situation is to stay within the appointed cycle track, and not in the middle of the traffic lane where the risk rear end shunt type conflict with fast moving vehicles would undoubtedly be greater.

Referencing point 1 above, the safest place for cyclists is within the allocated cycle lane. This risk is apparent within all urban road environments which have cycle tracks retrofitted.

The traffic lanes have been widened to a minimum of 3.25 metres. This is sufficient for a HGV to pass a cyclist without entering the cycle lane or the adjacent right turning traffic lane.

With reference to the Cllr’s final paragraph:

In the event of an emergency or breakdown, a motorist can pull into the hard shoulder to get out of the flow of traffic and obtain an element of safety. It is not a traffic lane; nor was it designed as a cycle lane, although it serves the purpose well in this instance. Thought must be given to the safety of all road users, in this instance 1.5 metres has been allocated for the cycle lane, and 4.0 metres for the adjacent traffic lane, both dimensions provide a good level of service for both motorists and cyclists, and are well above minimum industry standards.

Best regards,

Martin Deegan

J.B.Barry & Partners Ltd

Consulting Engineers

Dolcain House

Monastery Road

Clondalkin

Dublin 22

Ireland

_______________________________________________________

Tel: +353 (0)1 403 3600

Fax : +353 (0)1 459 4357

Email: mdeegan@jbbarry.ie

_______________________________________________________

The information contained within this e-mail including any attachments is

intended for the sole use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may

contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you receive this e-mail

in error please contact the sender by return and delete this e-mail including

any attachments.

—–Original Message—–
From: Sean McGrath [mailto:Sean.McGrath@fingalcoco.ie]
Sent: 08 May 2006 10:49
To: Martin Deegan
Subject: FW: design of grange road/industrial estate junction.

Martin

Comments from Cllr Healy FYI.

Regards

Sean

—–Original Message—–
From: Mary McPhillips
Sent: 08 May 2006 10:30
To: Sean McGrath
Subject: FW: [Possible Spam] design of grange road/industrial estate junction.

Sean,

Did you get this already

Mary

—–Original Message—–
From: David Healy / Daithí Ó hÉalaithe [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 02 May 2006 14:09
To: Peter Caulfield; Mary McPhillips
Subject: [Possible Spam] design of grange road/industrial estate junction.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for showing us the proposed redesign of the junction last week.

In relation to the design, I have the following comments.

I welcome the removal of one of the 3 eastbound lanes coming into the junction, to give more room for westbound traffic.

I am concerned at the design including cycle lanes within an existing lane. By the design shown, it is not possible for a car or truck to use this lane without travelling in the cycle lane. This seems to be the case northbound entering the junction on the industrial estate road and eastbound entering the junction on grange road. It seems to me that these could have 3 undesirable effects

1. They are likely to encourage cyclists to stay left at the junction. In fact, safe cycling requires that a cyclist travelling straight on should not stay to the left of the lane as to do so would risk a car or truck turning left across them. Safe cyclists will occupy the centre of the straight ahead lane.

2. They may encourage cyclists to travel up on the inside of trucks, which puts cyclists in a particularly dangerous position.

3. They may encourage motor vehicles to pass cyclists without moving fully into the adjacent lane.

If there is a good reason for this design I would like to hear of it.

I am also concerned at the width of the cycle lane over the bridge. The previous situation was a good wide hard shoulder. The new situation should not lead to any reduction in safety for cyclists. There is a tendency for a motor vehicle user to assume that it is safe to pass a cyclist on a cycle lane as long as each road user remains in their lane. This, of course, is not the case, but it is a consequence of cycle lane design. Narrow cycle lanes (especially if associated with other narrow lanes and markings such as central hatching) can encourage motor vehicle users to pass closer than they would otherwise have done. In this case, we are talking about a road with high levels of HGVs, making safe passing even more important for cyclists’ safety and cyclists’ perceptions of safety. The width of the lane was not marked on the plan. However, there is a tendency for road engineers to incorrectly assume that a width of 1.5m is standard. In this case, a width of at least 2m would be appropriate