This report summarises the results from the third sub-trial of a larger track trial investigating the reactions of road users to Low Level Cycle Signals (LLCS) under different junction configurations. The trials were conducted at a specially constructed typical “urban” four-arm junction built at TRL’s test track. In this trial the LLCS were positioned on a separate pole to the standard traffic signals, with the LLCS being at the second stop line and the main signals being at the first stop line. The two stop lines were 5 metres apart, resulting in a 5-metre cycle reservoir on each approach to the junction. To understand the relative effects of mounting the main signals and LLCS on separate poles, these trials were compared against the results of earlier trials where the LLCS signals were mounted on the same pole as the main signals. The junction layout was trialled both with and without an early release for cyclists ahead of the vehicle traffic. Trials were conducted for five different road user groups over ten days, with a total of 300 participants: cyclists (5 days); car drivers (3 days); motorcyclists (½ day); HGV drivers (½ day) and pedestrians (1 day). Key findings are listed at the end of each sub-section and are referenced here in square brackets. The evidence from these trials without early release (cyclists, car drivers, motorcyclists, HGV drivers and pedestrians) supports the progression to on-street trialling of LLCS mounted on separate poles to the main signals. The evidence suggests that the system would be well understood [F1.a, F1.c] and would not adversely affect perceived safety [F8.a]. There was no evidence to indicate that the height and angle of the LLCS should be different from those tested in this trial [F3.d]. Compared with the trial where the LLCS were on the same pole as the main signals, more cyclists said they looked at the LLCS and fewer said they looked at the main signals when waiting at the junction [F4.b]. More car drivers and motorcyclists said they looked at the secondary signals and fewer motorcyclists said they looked at the main signals when waiting at the junction [F4.c, F4.d]. The relative location of the main signals and LLCS could offer a benefit to cyclists through improved compliance of motorists with stopping before the cycle reservoir [F5.c, F5.d]. The only caveats are that as a result of the new layout, a small proportion of cyclists initially stopped before the first stop line [F5.e], there was an increase in the average Entry Time of cars [F6.d] and there was also an increase in pedestrians crossing upstream of the crossing [F7.a]. Other caveats from previous reports were also still valid, namely that a small proportion of pedestrians misinterpreted the meaning of the signals to be for cyclists crossing the road [F1.b]. The evidence from these trials with an early release (cyclists and car drivers) supports the progression to on-street trialling of LLCS with an early release mounted on separate poles to the main signals. The findings were similar to the trials of LLCS with an early release on the same pole as the main signals; some differences were that more cyclists said they used LLCS [F12.a], more cyclists said they noticed the difference between the shorter and longer early releases [F10.d] and there were fewer observations where the car driver moved off on the early release [F14.a]. The caveats above from the trial without an early release apply, as well as those from previous reports, in particular that with an early release a small proportion of cyclists thought they had right of way when turning right across oncoming traffic [F14.e, F14.f]. (Author/publisher)
Abstract