Most accidents involving vulnerable road users occur at junctions in urban areas where they compete for road space and priority with motor vehicles. In order to help to address the problems encountered by vulnerable road users at junctions, Road Safety Division commissioned a five-year project to identify low-cost measures for wide-scale implementation at junctions with the aim of raising the overall levels of safety for vulnerable road users.
To develop and evaluate low cost measures to improve the safety of vulnerable road users at junctions.
In total, 31 different measures were developed with 24 measures progressing to trials. Measures were implemented at 156 locations, some of which consisted of a single junction while others consisted of a 'corridor' of junctions. In total, 240 junctions received some form of treatment.
The schemes trialled were as follows:
- Raised junctions;
- Coloured junctions;
- Raised crossing area;
- Danger area illumination;
- Entry and exit zebra crossings;
- Junction countdown markings;
- Coloured pedestrian crossings;
- Reduced exit widths at traffic signals;
- Main road cycle routes;
- Hatched centre lines;
- Wide centre lines;
- Solid centre line and lane lines;
- Junction speed limits;
- Sight screens; and
- Annular cycle lanes.
The findings of the project reinforced the point that when undertaking any changes to the road system, changes measured within a few months of implementation of the scheme may not reflect the long-term situation. Similar caution is require
The main findings relate to each scheme and consider whether these are suitable or not for wider implementation, and if so whether further development or legislation is required. It was found that in some applications the scheme worked and in others it did not. In many instances where the scheme results are considered to be neutral or have low impact, the decision on their use would need also to reflect how well they might complement other activities being undertaken by the highway authority. Because of the nature of the findings it was found out that it could be misleading to present them as they stand. Therefore it was recommended to carry out a further distillation of the results and to publish this as the basis for information to local authorities about what worked and what did not, and which schemes might work in particular situations.