Light segregation: Difference between revisions
m Espresso Addict moved page Light segreation to Light segregation: Typo |
m typo |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Cycle lane and Zicla traffic segregators, Temple Mills Lane E10.jpg|thumb|A cycle lane protected by Zicla-brand armadillo]] |
[[File:Cycle lane and Zicla traffic segregators, Temple Mills Lane E10.jpg|thumb|A cycle lane protected by Zicla-brand armadillo]] |
||
[[File:Hill Street cycle lane, Jersey 2.jpg|thumb|A wand-protected [[Contraflow lane|contraflow]] cycle lane in [[St Helier]], Jersey]] |
[[File:Hill Street cycle lane, Jersey 2.jpg|thumb|A wand-protected [[Contraflow lane|contraflow]] cycle lane in [[St Helier]], Jersey]] |
||
'''Light segregation''' or '''light protection''' is an engineering technique to protect cyclists using a [[Bike lane|cycle lane]] by placing physical objects next to the cycle |
'''Light segregation''' or '''light protection''' is an engineering technique to protect cyclists using a [[Bike lane|cycle lane]] by placing physical objects next to the cycle lane marking. |
||
It first became a recognised treatment on the issue of the [[National Association of City Transportation Officials|NACTO]] Urban Bikeway Design Guide in the [[United States]] in 2011, though it existed in different countries before then. They are intended to be a cheaper and easier-to-implement alternative to kerb protection. The estimated cost of kerb protection is £700,000/km, however the cost for light segregation is only around £60,000/km. Light segregation permitted [[Seville]] to implement a {{Convert|50|mile|km|adj=on|order=flip}}-long cycle network in four years.<ref name=":0">{{Cite report |url=https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/light-protection-cycle-lanes_2.pdf |title=Light Protection of Cycle Lanes: Best Practices Discussion Paper |last=Deegan |first=Michael |date=2018 |publisher=International Transport Forum}}</ref> |
It first became a recognised treatment on the issue of the [[National Association of City Transportation Officials|NACTO]] Urban Bikeway Design Guide in the [[United States]] in 2011, though it existed in different countries before then. They are intended to be a cheaper and easier-to-implement alternative to kerb protection. The estimated cost of kerb protection is £700,000/km, however the cost for light segregation is only around £60,000/km. Light segregation permitted [[Seville]] to implement a {{Convert|50|mile|km|adj=on|order=flip}}-long cycle network in four years.<ref name=":0">{{Cite report |url=https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/light-protection-cycle-lanes_2.pdf |title=Light Protection of Cycle Lanes: Best Practices Discussion Paper |last=Deegan |first=Michael |date=2018 |publisher=International Transport Forum}}</ref> |
||
Revision as of 02:43, 17 October 2022
Light segregation or light protection is an engineering technique to protect cyclists using a cycle lane by placing physical objects next to the cycle lane marking.
It first became a recognised treatment on the issue of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide in the United States in 2011, though it existed in different countries before then. They are intended to be a cheaper and easier-to-implement alternative to kerb protection. The estimated cost of kerb protection is £700,000/km, however the cost for light segregation is only around £60,000/km. Light segregation permitted Seville to implement a 80-kilometre (50 mi)-long cycle network in four years.[1]
Benefits
In Royal College Street, Camden, London, light segregation was introduced. The number of cyclists increased by 70% and the number of collisions reducedd from 18 per 15 months to 3 per 15 months.[1] Users feel safer on light-segregated cycle lanes than paint-only cycle lanes.[2]
Criticism
However, light segregation has been criticised for creating a trip hazard for pedestrians and a collision risk for cyclists.[1] Objects in the carriageway may also be struck by a vehicle, which might also harm vulnerable road users. Light segregated lanes when badly designed can compromie accessibility for disabled people, prevent access to the kerbside for motor vehicles (e.g. to let passengers out of the vehicle). Another issue are bus stops. Light segregation would require buses to stop away from the kerb or in the cycle lane. The solution - bus stop boarders - put cyclists and boarding/deboarding passengers into direct conflict with one another. Bus stop bypasses cannot be achieved through light segregation, but can be tied into light segregation schemes.[2]
Products
Different products which can be used for light segregation are:[1]
- Flexible posts
- Lacasitos
- Armadillos
- Orcas
- Planters
- Wandorcas
References
- ^ a b c d Deegan, Michael (2018). Light Protection of Cycle Lanes: Best Practices Discussion Paper (PDF) (Report). International Transport Forum.
- ^ a b London Cycling Design Standards (PDF) (Report). Mayor of London.
| In-roadway bikeways |
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right-of-way paths |
| ||||||
| Health, safety and infrastructure |
| ||||||
| Design guidelines |
| ||||||
 | This article has not been added to any content categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles. (October 2022) |