Human Behaviour and Design of Cycle
Facilities
Ton Hummel:
Principal Safety Engineer at Skanska, Bristol UK.

1
Design of Cycle Facilities

• Are cyclists (and drivers) going to behave the way we
intended?
• Are we sure our designs ar...
Behaviour of Cyclist
− Does general behaviour in UK differ from the
Netherlands?
− Does behaviour differ for different typ...
Differences in Behaviour?

4
Important differences
− Speed

− Acceptance of interruptions and detours
− Acceptance of risk

5
What does this mean for our designs?
Example:

Fast commuting cyclist on shared path (footway/ cycle
path).

6
What does this mean for our designs?
Fast commuting cyclist on shared path (footway/ cycle
path).

7
Main requirements of all cycle facilities
1. Safe

2. Short
3. Direct
4. Continuous

5. Comfortable

8
Main requirements of all cycle facilities
Not meeting all 5 requirements is likely to result in
unexpected behaviour.

9
Unexpected Behaviour?

10
Unexpected Behaviour?

11
Unexpected Behaviour?

12
Unexpected Behaviour?

13
Safe Cycle facilities
− Reducing lateral conflicts (cars overtaking cyclists)

− Reducing conflicts at junctions
− Reducin...
Reducing lateral conflicts
− Physical segregation (cycle paths)

15
Reducing lateral conflicts
− Physical segregation (cycle paths)

− Non-physical segregation (cycle lanes)

16
Cycle lanes

17
Reducing lateral conflicts
− Physical segregation (cycle paths)

− Non-physical segregation (cycle lanes)
− Other non-phys...
Reducing lateral conflicts
− Physical segregation (cycle paths)

− Non-physical segregation (cycle lanes)
− Other non-phys...
Mixed traffic. Profiles to avoid.
Safe are:

A. Narrow profile; car can not overtake cyclist in own
lane (or on own side o...
Mixed traffic. Non-critical profile.

21
Myths in design of cycle facilities
1. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

22
Myths in design of cycle facilities
1. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

Photo 1

23
Myths in design of cycle facilities
1. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

Photo 2 (same cyclist; a bit further...
Myths in design of cycle facilities
2. Requiring cyclists to give way is safer than the other
way around.

25
Myths in design of cycle facilities
3. Maintenance of cycle paths is not as “safety critical”
as on routes for motorised t...
Myths in design of cycle facilities
4. Hazardous crossings are safer to negotiate as
pedestrian than as cyclist (cyclists ...
Myths in design of cycle facilities
5. Shared use footways are a good and cheap option

28
Myths in design of cycle facilities
6. Shared bus lanes are a good and cheap option

29
Myths in design of cycle facilities
7. Not providing access barriers at start and end of
cycle paths will lead to misuse

...
Myths in design of cycle facilities
8. Allowing car parking within cycle lane is acceptable

31
Myths in design of cycle facilities
9. Providing cycle facilities is expensive

32
Myths in design of cycle facilities
10. A major shift in modal split is possible without
introducing additional delays for...
Thank you!

Divera Twisk
Ton Hummel

34
Reducing conflicts at Junctions
Important causation factors of accidents with cyclists at
junctions:
− Drivers not seeing ...
Reducing conflicts at Junctions
Potential solutions for those conflict types:

− Advanced stop lines (with proper lead-in ...
Cyclists on Roundabouts

Photo Fietsberaad

37
Cyclists on Roundabouts

Photo Fietsberaad

38
Cyclists on Roundabouts

Photo Fietsberaad

39
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Ton Hummel

807 views
774 views

Published on

Ton Hummel
Love Cycling Go Dutch Conference
Newcastle, 5 November 2013

Workshop 1: Sustainable safety

Published in: Education, Sports, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
807
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ton Hummel

  1. 1. Human Behaviour and Design of Cycle Facilities Ton Hummel: Principal Safety Engineer at Skanska, Bristol UK. 1
  2. 2. Design of Cycle Facilities • Are cyclists (and drivers) going to behave the way we intended? • Are we sure our designs are resulting in correct behaviour? 2
  3. 3. Behaviour of Cyclist − Does general behaviour in UK differ from the Netherlands? − Does behaviour differ for different types of cyclists? 3
  4. 4. Differences in Behaviour? 4
  5. 5. Important differences − Speed − Acceptance of interruptions and detours − Acceptance of risk 5
  6. 6. What does this mean for our designs? Example: Fast commuting cyclist on shared path (footway/ cycle path). 6
  7. 7. What does this mean for our designs? Fast commuting cyclist on shared path (footway/ cycle path). 7
  8. 8. Main requirements of all cycle facilities 1. Safe 2. Short 3. Direct 4. Continuous 5. Comfortable 8
  9. 9. Main requirements of all cycle facilities Not meeting all 5 requirements is likely to result in unexpected behaviour. 9
  10. 10. Unexpected Behaviour? 10
  11. 11. Unexpected Behaviour? 11
  12. 12. Unexpected Behaviour? 12
  13. 13. Unexpected Behaviour? 13
  14. 14. Safe Cycle facilities − Reducing lateral conflicts (cars overtaking cyclists) − Reducing conflicts at junctions − Reducing conflicts at start and end of cycle facilities 14
  15. 15. Reducing lateral conflicts − Physical segregation (cycle paths) 15
  16. 16. Reducing lateral conflicts − Physical segregation (cycle paths) − Non-physical segregation (cycle lanes) 16
  17. 17. Cycle lanes 17
  18. 18. Reducing lateral conflicts − Physical segregation (cycle paths) − Non-physical segregation (cycle lanes) − Other non-physical segregation (for instance use of bus lanes) 18
  19. 19. Reducing lateral conflicts − Physical segregation (cycle paths) − Non-physical segregation (cycle lanes) − Other non-physical segregation (for instance use of bus lanes) − Mixed traffic 19
  20. 20. Mixed traffic. Profiles to avoid. Safe are: A. Narrow profile; car can not overtake cyclist in own lane (or on own side of centre line) B. Wide profile; car can safely overtake cyclist in own lane (or on own side of centre line) Avoid: Critical profiles (anything in between A and B)! 20
  21. 21. Mixed traffic. Non-critical profile. 21
  22. 22. Myths in design of cycle facilities 1. Doing something is better than doing nothing. 22
  23. 23. Myths in design of cycle facilities 1. Doing something is better than doing nothing. Photo 1 23
  24. 24. Myths in design of cycle facilities 1. Doing something is better than doing nothing. Photo 2 (same cyclist; a bit further down his route). 24
  25. 25. Myths in design of cycle facilities 2. Requiring cyclists to give way is safer than the other way around. 25
  26. 26. Myths in design of cycle facilities 3. Maintenance of cycle paths is not as “safety critical” as on routes for motorised traffic 26
  27. 27. Myths in design of cycle facilities 4. Hazardous crossings are safer to negotiate as pedestrian than as cyclist (cyclists dismount) 27
  28. 28. Myths in design of cycle facilities 5. Shared use footways are a good and cheap option 28
  29. 29. Myths in design of cycle facilities 6. Shared bus lanes are a good and cheap option 29
  30. 30. Myths in design of cycle facilities 7. Not providing access barriers at start and end of cycle paths will lead to misuse 30
  31. 31. Myths in design of cycle facilities 8. Allowing car parking within cycle lane is acceptable 31
  32. 32. Myths in design of cycle facilities 9. Providing cycle facilities is expensive 32
  33. 33. Myths in design of cycle facilities 10. A major shift in modal split is possible without introducing additional delays for cars 33
  34. 34. Thank you! Divera Twisk Ton Hummel 34
  35. 35. Reducing conflicts at Junctions Important causation factors of accidents with cyclists at junctions: − Drivers not seeing (or not noticing) cyclist − Not enough space for cyclists − Cyclist doing something unexpected 35
  36. 36. Reducing conflicts at Junctions Potential solutions for those conflict types: − Advanced stop lines (with proper lead-in to provide enough space for cyclists). − Continuation of cycle lanes through junction area (preferably in coloured surface). − Separate stage (or pre-start) for cyclists in signalisation − Continuation of cycle facilities after junction area. 36
  37. 37. Cyclists on Roundabouts Photo Fietsberaad 37
  38. 38. Cyclists on Roundabouts Photo Fietsberaad 38
  39. 39. Cyclists on Roundabouts Photo Fietsberaad 39

×