The Scottish Government

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

4 THE SCOTTISH ROAD NETWORK

4.1 The Scottish Executive, through Transport Scotland, ensures that the trunk road network is managed and maintained to appropriate standards. Day-to-day work involves among other things the inspection, maintenance and repair of the road surface, bridges, drains and lighting together with the grass cutting, road sweeping and salting and snow clearing required to ensure that traffic can continue to flow safely.

4.2 The statutory responsibility for the network of local roads and bridges lies with individual local authorities. Councils are therefore responsible for the management, maintenance and improvement of all public roads in their areas, which do not form part of the trunk road network.

4.3 Road defects are of considerable concern to motorcyclists and cyclists and whereas motorists may experience discomfort or in severe case damage to their vehicles, motorcyclists encountering the same defect may experience "loss of control" with potentially very serious consequences. Similarly, poor design of roads and their infrastructure can pose increased risk to motorcyclists. It is imperative that laid down design criteria are fully complied with for the benefit of all road users.

4.4 Against a background of a significant increase in use of motorcycles the Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers (IHIE) identified a lack of practical advice for highway engineers, traffic engineers, road safety officers and transport planners. With the backing of a number of partners (British Motorcycle Federation, Department For Transport, The Highways Agency, County Surveyors Society, Motorcycle Action Group and the Motorcycle Industry Association) IHIE produced guidelines aimed at providing a safer , integrated, transport environment whilst reducing rider vulnerability.

4.5 These guidelines, which are equally applicable to Scottish roads, constitute best practice. Their adoption will represent a major step towards integrating motorcycles into transport policy. Key areas for consideration are summarised in Appendix B.

4.6 Other areas for consideration include:

• A review of the impact of transport planning on road safety.
  
• The provision of secure parking.
  
• Incorporation of motorcycles within local transport strategies.
  
• Motorcycle access to bus lanes and advance stop lines.

4.7 In particular transport strategies should be evaluated according to their potential for casualty reduction across all modes, including motorcycling.

4.8 In order to reduce rider vulnerability it is essential that motorcycles are included in transport strategies so that roads departments and local authorities can implement measures which take the needs of motorcyclists into consideration.

4.9 Although the issue of motorcycle access to bus lanes and advanced stop lines has been contentious a number of existing schemes or trials suggests that "vulnerable" road users such as cyclists and motorcyclists can use such facilities without disadvantaging the other.

4.10 The DfT's present advice on bus lanes, "TAL 2/07 The Use of Bus lanes by Motorcycles " encourages a more objective assessment than the previous advice LTN 1/97 "Keeping Buses Moving" which recommended that motorcycles should not normally be permitted to use them. The onus is on the Local Authority to weigh up the benefits and disbenefits of permitting use. Engineers and planners should take into consideration the safety benefits for motorcyclists by permitting access, considering the possible negative impact on other vulnerable road users particularly pedestrians and cyclists, impact on bus journey time reliability, the potential for modal shift if motorcycling is seen as a more convenient form of transport and the reduction in congestion for other traffic on routes currently used by motorcyclists. The arguments about other vehicles using bus lanes revolve around the reduction in benefits for buses. This is not an issue with motorcycles. But there has been a longstanding concern about cnflicts with cyclists and to lesser extent pedestrians. For cyclists the concern stems from the differential rate of travel of cyclists and motorcyclists, given the increased traffic flow in an uncongested bus lane, and the visibility of cyclists compared with buses, giving rise to a perception of greater risk and a less attractive cycling environment. For pedestrians, evaluating the differential rate of travel and the awareness of motorcycles in bus lanes generate perceived safety concerns.

4.11 A number of authorities in England have allowed motorcycles into bus lanes. To date there has been no evidence of increased accidents to substantiate the perceived higher risks of allowing PTWs into bus lanes either where motorcycle use is allowed or in Transport for London (TfL) or DfT trials. Furthermore, there are potential safety benefits to motorcyclists (a reduction in motorcycle accidents of between 0% and 31% in DfL trials) if they are able to use bus lanes rather than filter through traffic queueing alongside the bus lane. Motorcyclists contend that they are more visible to pedestrians when using bus lanes than when filtering through stationary or slow moving traffic.

4.12 In areas where cyclist and pedestrian safety is not an issue, such as the priority bus lane on the A90, motorcycle access should be considered.

4.13 The provision of advance stop lines (ASLs) for cyclists at signal junctions is now widespread. Motorcycle representatives have sought to allow the shared use of ASLs by motorcyclists. However this has raised concerns. The DfT therefore have commissioned research to look at the effects of allowing motorcyclists to use ASLs at a number of trial sites. While conflict between pedal cycles and motorcycles was not identified as a problem, the trials highlighted a number of design issues regarding the shared use of ASLs, especially the provision of separate filter lanes for PTWs. The UK Government, in the Motorcycling Strategy, has committed itself to carrying out further trials.

4.14 There is a gap in the advice available to roads engineers about the particular requirements for providing safety for motorcyclists on the road network. While it is true that in most areas of road construction will generally cover motorcycles, there are some particular needs for PTWs that need to be taken into account. For example: not placing steel manhole covers where motorcycles are likely to be cornering sharply, and not locating road humps where motorcyclists are likely to be cornering or where such placement is likely to cause conflict with oncoming vehicles.

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]