Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links
Publications

< Previous | Contents | Next >

Cycling by Design

8. Footpaths, Footways and Areas Free from Motorised Traffic

Introduction

8.1 The conversion of footpaths, footways and areas free from motorised traffic to permit cycle use should not be regarded as a general or area-wide remedy to cycle safety problems but should be confined to specific links and locations where clear benefits can be derived from such conversion. In such situations it is imperative that the benefits to the cyclist are balanced against any increase in risk and inconvenience to pedestrians. Any potential loss of use and attendant loss of mobility, particularly to disabled, elderly, blind or partially sighted people, will require full and detailed consideration.

8.2 The terms ‘shared use’ and ‘shared facility’ are widely used to describe cycling facilities which have either been converted from pedestrian only use, or purpose built.

8.3 Shared facilities are generally found in two forms:-

8.4 Unsegregated: where pedestrians and cyclists mix freely, and

8.5 Segregated: where two distinct, parallel ways are created. This usually consists:-

(i) A cycle track, where cyclists are legally permitted to ride but which usually has a continuing right of way on foot to allow pedestrians to cross, and

(ii) An adjacent footway or footpath, where only pedestrians have the right of way and on which it is illegal for cyclists to ride. (Refer to Appendix 1 for definitions).

8.6 The adjacent facilities may be segregated by a variety of measures, for example kerb, barrier, verge, raised white line, colour contrast or surface texture.

Conversion of Footways and Footpaths

8.7 Consultation and Publicity :

8.8 Where a need is identified for cyclists to be admitted to existing footways/footpaths, their right to share must be established by changing the legal status of the footway/footpath to a cycle track (Refer to Appendix 1 for details). Any such proposal to convert a footway or footpath to shared use should be taken forward through full and detailed consultation procedures with public and local organisations involved at all stages of the scheme’s development. (Refer to Appendix 2 for current details of interested parties).

8.9 Signs and Markings :

8.10 Once the conversion of all or part of the width of a footpath/footway has been successfully promoted through the statutory procedures the new facility should be implemented with clear markings and signs as follows:-

(i) Unsegregated Facility : signed using Diagram No 956 and marked with Diagram 1057.

(ii) Segregated Facility : Signed using Diagram No 957 with the cycle only section marked with Diagram 1057.

8.11 The ends of either type of shared facility should be clearly marked with Diagrams 1057 and 1058 (Refer to Figure 8.1 for typical example) to avoid the risk of cyclists riding onto an unconverted area.

8.12 Tactile Markings: Tactile surfaces have been developed to enable blind and partially sighted people to position themselves on the correct side of a segregated shared use facility which is not separated by a difference in level (Refer to Paragraph 8.51).

Figure 8.1: Tactile Markings for Segregated Shared Use

fig8.1

8.13 The tactile areas should be installed at the start and end points of a shared use facility and at suitable intermediate locations (refer to Figure 8.1) in order to present blind and partially sighted people with a ‘start’ and ‘end’ message as well as a ‘locational’ message. Tactile slabs in accordance with Diagram No. 1049.2 with ribbed surface should be used (approval from Scottish Ministers is required).

8.14 The slabs must be orientated to offer a ‘ladder’ pattern on the footway or footpath and a ‘tramline’ pattern on the cycle track. A 2.4m length of tactile paving slabs is used to mark the start and end of a shared route and a 0.8m length used as a reminder marking along the length of the route and/or before and after footway or footpath junctions.

8.15 No impression should be given that there is a general permission to cycle locally on footways/footpaths. This may need to be reinforced by local publicity and enforcement action. An audit of the scheme is recommended.

Unsegregated Facilities

8.16 Application:

8.17 The following factors should be used to determine whether or not separation of pedestrians and cyclists is desirable:-

8.18 Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes: If the volumes of both categories are high (combined flows in excess of 200 per hour) pedestrians and cyclists are likely to impede each other when mixed.

8.19 The function of the area to cyclists: On a long distance cycle route, cyclists and pedestrians are likely to impede one another to a greater extent than if the route is mainly used by destination cyclists (Commuter or Local Access Routes). Destination cyclists normally do not travel constantly/ regularly in excess of 20kph.

8.20 The function of the area to pedestrians: In a street with shops on both sides, pedestrians have more need for freedom of movement in lateral directions than on a general walking route, therefore conflicts will be greater.

8.21 Although a limiting flow has been suggested in Paragraph 8.18, local conditions and views/attitudes will ultimately play a more important part in the decision making process than standard criteria.

8.22 Design:

8.23 Once the decision has been made to provide an unsegregated cycle facility then the most appropriate width provision should be chosen from those presented in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Unsegregated Cycle Track Widths

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.

For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.

Making It Work Together