This report summarises the results from the first sub-trial of a larger track trial investigating the reactions of road users to Low Level Cycle Signals (LLCS) under different junction configurations. These findings are focussed on how road users (cyclists, car drivers, motorcyclists, HGV drivers and pedestrians) responded to them as repeaters for standard traffic signals on the same pole; that is they changed at the same time as the main signals. The trials were conducted at a specially constructed typical “urban” four-arm junction built at TRL’s test track. The trial consisted of a “control” and “treatment” experiment, with the LLCS covered and uncovered to understand the relative effect of the signals on behaviour. Trials were conducted over ten days, with a total of 248 participants: cyclists (3½ days); car drivers (2 days); motorcyclists (1 day); HGV drivers (1 day); pedestrians (1 day) and partially sighted pedestrians (1 day). Key findings are listed at the end of each sub-section and are referenced here in square brackets. In summary: 1. Generally, the LLCS were well understood (75% to 95% across the different road user groups) [F1.a]. There was only a minor concern that a small percentage of pedestrians, cyclists and car drivers interpreted them as pedestrian crossing signals, potentially as Toucan crossing signals [F1.b]. All the partially sighted pedestrians understood that they were not for them [F1.c]. 2. Most road users (at least 80%) considered that cyclists would benefit from LLCS [F2.a]. About 80% of cyclists were in favour of them, and over 90% of most other road user groups (excluding motorcyclists) were not negative towards them [F2.b]. 3. Suggestions for improvements included to make the signals bigger and more obvious and also to provide an early release [F2.c]; about three-quarters of the cyclists said that the height and angle was ‘about right’ [F2.d]. 4. Most cyclists used them as an extra source of information [F3.a]; in particular whilst they typically used the main signals on their approach to the junction, 70 to 80% of cyclists used the LLCS whilst waiting to turn left [F3.a]. At the uncontrolled crossing, about half of the pedestrians said that they used the LLCS, with approximately 10% stating they were the most important factor when deciding to cross [F3.b]. 5. The LLCS did not adversely affect compliance at the junction. There was a slight reduction in the percentage of cyclists who went through the junction on a red signal [F4.a]. The stopping position of participants was largely unaffected, although there were some small variations in some scenarios [F4.b], [F4.c]. The times car drivers and cyclists started moving and entered the junction were also unaffected [F5.a]. 6. No cyclists said that junction felt more unsafe with the LLCS and about half said the junction was either safer or much safer [F6.a]; LLCS were perceived to provide clearer information at a convenient height, made some cyclists feel more confident, while others suggested that LLCS may make drivers more aware of cyclists [F6.b]. 7. About a quarter of motorcyclists and a quarter of car drivers said the safety impacts were positive, with some saying that they found the extra information useful, while others said it made them more aware of cyclists. A similar proportion of motorcyclists and car drivers said there were negative impacts on safety due to the LLCS, giving reasons including confusion, distraction, too much information and the potential for other road users using the signals. Most pedestrians thought that LLCS had no effect on them, and none said that the junction was more unsafe [F6.c], [F6.d]. The evidence from this trial supports the progression to on-street trialling of LLCS as repeaters on the same poles as the main traffic signals. The evidence suggests that the system would be quickly understood by nearly all road users, would not adversely affect safety and could offer a benefit to cyclists as a convenient source of information. The only caveat is that a small number of pedestrians misinterpreted the meaning of the signals to be for cyclists crossing the road. It is probable that pedestrians would correctly interpret them in the context of on-street applications; however, some monitoring of behaviour to confirm this would be advisable. (Author/publisher)
Abstract