Strategy behind the Standard
It is important to consider the provisions for cyclists through roadworks to ensure they are given special provision and are able to navigate the roadworks safely.
Best Practice Guidance to be used by Essex Highways.
Temporary signs and markings can be used to highlight issues to other road users, while markings and traffic cones or wands can be used to create protected space for cycling.
One of the main issues for cyclists at roadworks is that traffic lanes are narrower than usual and often bounded by vertical features such as fencing and bollards. In combination with close overtaking by motor traffic, this can be intimidating. Guidance on appropriate lane widths and associated techniques to help enhance cyclists’ safety is in Table 13-1 below:
| Lane width | Implications |
| <3.2m | Consider 20mph speed limit |
| 3.2 to 3.9m | To be avoided |
| 3.9m+ | Wide enough for all vehicles to overtake on lower speed roads (20mph) |
| 4.25m+ | Wide enough for all vehicles to overtake on higher speed roads |
ECC Recommendations
A detailed guidance note on how to allow for cyclists at roadworks has been produced by Essex Highways “Cycling at Roadworks (2020)” which takes reference from the London Cycle Design Standards. This document should be referred to when designing provisions for cyclists at roadworks.
How the Standard should be applied
Ensure to complete the process checklist seen below to ensure that people who cycle are properly considered at roadworks. Guidance relating to the areas raised in the checklist can be found in the document.
For any departures from the process, you will require approval through the departures process
Process Checklist
When designing provisions for cyclists at roadworks, the below checklist should be followed:
| Cycling at Roadworks – process checklist | ||
| 1 | Have you undertaken a site specific risk assessment to determine: | |
| -Level of use ? | ||
| -Vehicular mix ? | ||
| -Geometry ? | ||
| -Level of risk to people who cycle ? | ||
| 2 | Have existing cycle facilities/level of service been retained where practicable? If not, see below: | |
| -Maintain access for people who cycle by implementing contra-flow working? | ||
| -Has adequate signage on approach been provided to indicate cycle access is maintained and warn road users of contra-flow working? This is especially applicable on rural routes and warnings for those cycling (whether road is closed or excepted for cycles) be provided at earliest opportunity. | ||
| 3 | Maintain access for people who cycle by diverting motor vehicles? | |
| -In the case of (3), do signs indicate access for cycles is maintained on all approaches? | ||
| 4 | Where it is not possible to maintain access for people who cycle, can motor vehicles and people who cycle be diverted along different routes? | |
| 5 | Where access can only be achieved by retaining cycle access on carriageway with motor vehicles: | |
| -Have appropriate lane widths for people who cycle been achieved? | ||
| -If narrow lanes, ‘do not overtake cyclists’ signs specified? | ||
| -Have the length of works been considered to reduce exposure and improve comfort of people who cycle ? | ||
| -Have temporary speed limit reductions been implemented? | ||
| -If the answer to any of (5) is no, why not? | ||
| 6 | For one way working, requiring temporary traffic signals: | |
| -Do signal timings allow clearance times for people who cycle and slow moving traffic? | ||
| -Has additional allowance of time been made on uphill gradients? | ||
| -Have adequate warnings been given to road users? | ||
| -Are temporary signal cables in existing ducts or using wireless portable traffic signals? | ||
| 7 | Have correct signing and clear warnings been given to road users of diversions and hazards, incorporating “do not overtake” where necessary, as well as highlighting slow moving vehicles? | |
| 8 | Are there effective barriers to work sites, preventing people who cycle from entering (barriers / closely spaced cones to deter cycle encroachment)? | |
| -Where continuous barriers are used, are cycle ‘escape areas’ provided? | ||
| -Are the length and number of pinch points minimised? | ||
| 9 | Is an alternative off-carriageway cycle facility necessary? | |
| 10 | Off line cycle diversion required (potentially different diversions for motor vehicles and cycles)- ensure cycle diversion is appropriate? | |
| -Temporary off carriageway cycle facility signed and TTRO? | ||
| -Cycle safety, and surface checked on diversion? | ||
| 11 | Provide correct surface, ghaving considered the needs of people who cycle: | |
| -Has surface been checked for exposed ironworks? | ||
| -Are cable covers suitable | ||
| -Have appropriate ramps, boards and transitions been used? | ||
| 12 | Has an offside merge been provided on two lane carriageways? | |
| 13 | If all alternatives have been rejected, as a last resort, have “cyclists dismount” signs been provided? | |
| 14 | If no alternative, have “cycling prohibited” signs been provided? | |
| 15 | Is a Road Safety Audit required? |