Painted Cycling Lanes – An Evaluation of Their Safety Risks
Not all roadways are the same. When considering the application of paint to produce a designated cycling lane there has to be consideration taken to many specifics about a site’s characteristics. Book 18 of the Ontario Traffic Manual is a comprehensive, 364 page document, completed in June of 2021, that attempts to guide “practitioners” about what matters with respect to most issues of cycling infrastructure. While its recommendations appear to be generally sound, pitfalls remain, particularly if its advice is misconstrued or deliberately ignored.
A recent evaluation was made by Gorski Consulting with respect to the conditions existing on Colborne Street near St James Street in London, Ontario and whether it would be reasonable to create a painted cycling lane. In 2022 the City of London announced that it would be proceeding with such a painted cycling lane. Some cyclists were concerned and requested a protected cycling lane instead. As a result of conducting several sessions of multi video-camera documentations we identified the traffic volume and the operating speed of vehicles at the site and then examined the recommendations from Book 18 of the Ontario Traffic Manual as shown below.
The rectangle of orange in the above figure lies in a semi-green zone where, according to Ontario’s guidelines, the installation of a separated (protected) bike lane was not obviously necessitated based on vehicle speed and traffic volume alone.
However Book 18 discusses a number of additional recommendations. While not complete, the following two figures provide some indication of what practitioners might need to consider beyond the speed and volume of motor vehicles.
While the above list of considerations are helpful they are not complete, and there lies the problem.
For example Book 18 contains a discussion about “motor vehicle” traffic volume. In other words if there are a lot of motor vehicles travelling on the roadway then this could trigger the need for a protected lane. But this makes little sense if there is no consideration of the “cyclist” traffic volume. So if the site contains an average of 10 cyclists riding through it the potential for dangerous interactions with motor vehicle traffic would be low regardless of the actual volume of motor vehicles on the road. Conversely, if the site contains an average of 50 cyclists riding through it then the potential for dangerous interactions with motor vehicle traffic increases. So it makes little sense to identify the motor vehicle traffic volume alone without also identifying the cyclist traffic volume.
Another weakness of the guidelines in Book 18 is that they do not place much emphasis on the width of a travel lane as an important consideration. It would seem that a lane that is only 3.0 metres wide does not generate sufficient concern where a lane width of 4.0 metres might be more realistic in many applications. Clearly, narrow lanes are likely to produce a greater potential for dangerous interactions between cyclists and motor vehicles and this needs to be spelt out.
Additionally the above advisements from Book 18 provide minimal mention about the quality of the road surface as being a potential factor in creating dangerous interactions between cyclists and motor vehicles. In many jurisdictions the right edges of travel lanes contain areas of broken asphalt, dangerous longitudinal splits in the surface, or there may be debris left lying in the area where cyclists must travel. A cyclist’s balance can be affected by these road surface conditions. Also the rider may purposely steer away from these areas and into the path of passing traffic. So if the advisements of Book 18 are to be more relevant they must include a better discussion of the hazards posed by road surface conditions.
Furthermore, as shown in the photo at the beginning of this article, roadway curves are areas where dangerous interactions can occur between cyclists and motor vehicles. It is known that drivers of motor vehicles are not perfect in steering around horizontal curves and this causes motor vehicles to stray out of a lane. Conversely cyclists also experience the same problem in keeping their cycles in a consistent lateral path through a curve. This factor must be considered as a contributor to dangerous interactions between cyclists and motor vehicles. Again Book 18 should place a greater emphasis on this point.
The characteristics of the cyclists themselves must also be taken into consideration. Cyclists who ride with various cargo that increases the lateral width of the cycle within a lane should be taken into account for obvious reasons. From many years of observations by Gorski Consulting a variety of unconventional characteristics have been noted when cyclists carry cargo, sometimes increasing the width of the cycle and rider to dangerous proportions. Book 18 could discuss this with greater emphasis.
Areas of vertical curves must also be taken into consideration. If a road segment contains a significant vertical curve (upgrade) it is likely that a certain percentage of cyclists will have difficulty climbing such a hill and the speed of the cycle drops. This slower speed is an indicator that a cyclist is having difficulty climbing such a hill. While travelling slowly the lateral path of a cycle will become more unpredictable as the cyclist’s efforts cause the cycle to sway and change direction. Such difficulties are accentuated in those who are already weaker or inexperienced riders. While anyone is allowed to ride a cycle this means that there is a large difference between athletic/experienced riders and those who may be elderly or young who may have difficulty dealing with more significant roadway slopes. Again more emphasis could be placed in Book 18 to highlighting these important geometric design elements as potential contributors to dangerous conditions.
In the view of Gorski Consulting documentation of naturalistic vehicular motions is an incredibly important step toward understanding road safety conflicts. Over the years Gorski Consulting has completed numerous such documentations throughout Southern Ontario. It is through this process that we come to understand what is actually occurring on roadways versus relying on the reported results from studies by unknown authors at locations that may not be representative of the conditions in Ontario. When you conduct your own studies and complete the analysis of what is documented you are at a better level of understanding of the issue you wish to address.
Thus in our cyclist studies we conduct thorough video observations of many factors that are not normally addressed. Our latest work on the Colborne Street site involves tracking the travel paths of cyclists, transit buses, other oversize vehicles and light passenger vehicles such as cars, SUVs and minivans. As in pervious studies this involves lying a matrix of markers in the lane and then obtaining video of vehicles passing through these markers. We can then look at things like the average lateral position of these units within the lane and how much variance exists in those paths. Such work is extremely important as a substantial number of serious collisions occur when cyclists are struck from behind by motor vehicles attempting to pass them.
Our most recent re-visit to the Colborne Street site (July 16, 2023) indicates that the City of London has commenced its work to create the cycling lanes on both sides of the road. Preliminary paint has been applied by the City and therefore we are able to examine how the site will look like when the cycling lane is completed.
Measurements by Gorski Consulting at the Colborne St site indicate that the northbound lane just north of St James Street was about 3.85 metres in width if one includes the 0.46 metre wide concrete gutter. Without the gutter the lane would be 3.39 metres wide. For the purposes of documenting the lateral paths of traffic units it was decided that the junction between the concrete gutter and the asphalt surface of the lane would be a good reference point.
Upon completing three video sessions at the Colborne St site, average travel paths have been calculated for the four categories of traffic units discussed above. These data are shown in the table below.
So the above table identifies the Average lateral location of vehicles as they passed through the 50-metre distance where roadway markers were applied. As an example, the London Transit Commission (LTC) buses rode through the site at an average of 0.87 metres west of the edge of the concrete gutter. Precisely, the outer edge of the right front tire of the bus was identified. Similarly the outer edge of the right front tires of the “Other Over-Size Vehicles” and the “Light Vehicles” were similarly documented. For Cyclists the centre of the front tire was used as the point of documentation.
Looking at the Standard Deviation of these data it would suggest that the lateral paths of LTC Buses were more variable that the other three categories, but that is not the case. Only 18 observations of LTC Buses were documented. In one of those observations from June 8, 2023 the bus travelled extremely outside of the regular path such that the right front wheel was positioned along the roadway centreline for several locations along the road. This occurred because a delivery van had come to a stop, blocking the northbound lane and the bus moved over across the centreline in order to pass the stopped vehicle. This skewed the results. If that single observation was removed from the table then the LTC Bus Average would be 0.76 and the Standard Deviation would have been 0.1677, So the Standard Deviation of the TLC Buses category would actually be the lowest of the four categories, not the highest.
Once the City of London has completed its creation of the cycling lanes the next step will be to conduct several video sessions to identify how the travel paths of the four vehicle categories have changed. This process may also illuminate how often cyclists or motor vehicles stray out of their designated lanes. We may also obtain useful information regarding how motor vehicles pass cyclists.
Colborne Street contains a transit bus route and this could be a complication for keeping cyclists safe. It can be noted from the above table that the right side of transit buses take a path that is not much different from the path of cyclists. The right front wheels of buses are located at about 0.76 metres west of the concrete gutter while the front wheels of cyclists are located 0.69 metres from the gutter. There are additional attachments on transit buses that protrude to the right beyond the outer edge of the right front wheel. Exterior mirrors would be one example. And similarly the left side of a cyclist/cycle will be positioned further to the left than the centre of the front wheel. So there is potential for conflict to exist. One needs to look at the data however before evaluating the safety risk involved and it is hoped that the data will be a useful source of further knowledge in this area.
Resources such as Book 18 of the Ontario Traffic Manual are used by many in municipal transportation departments in Ontario to conclude that cycling lane characteristics are appropriate because the manual says so. While such resources can be helpful they can also lead to dangerous conclusions if the analyst does not consider that every roadway is unique with unique challenges. Book 18 cannot encapsulate every possibility where dangers may exist. Unfortunately a solid understanding of collision causation can only be obtained from detailed collision reconstruction studies and these are rarely available to the typical municipal analyst, Blind reliance on large data from resources such as police reports means that sometimes analysts fail to appreciate that the vast majority of police reports are completed by officers with minimal expertise in collision reconstruction. Thus systemic error exists in these large data files which is sometimes not understood or detected. A properly trained analyst should understand how and why these systemic errors become entrenched in the data. With such an understanding an analyst can be better prepared to evaluate collision data with caution where caution is needed, and not race to a blind conclusion on a safety issue because the manual says so.
How & Why Did Tristan Roby Become Struck & Crippled? No Explanation Provided
Much publicity is being focused recently on the trial of a motor vehicle driver, Jesse Aaron Bleck, whose vehicle struck a cyclist on Exeter Road near Wonderland Road in London, Ontario, on July 21, 2019. As per previous news articles the cyclist, Tristan Roby, suffered major and permanent brain injuries and is currently reportedly confined to a wheelchair and a very altered future. The collision was reportedly a hit-&-run, meaning that the motor vehicle driver knew that the collision occurred and made a conscious decision to escape. Unexplainably Bleck has pleaded not guilty in his trial. But none of the news articles are providing any useful information as to why Bleck is pleading not guilty and there is no useful evidence being publicized to allow any independent collision reconstruction expert to weigh in on the issue.
This is not new news. This sort of situation is just a continual destructive treadmill built in our society that is focused on a specific issue, guilt of a driver, while failing to acknowledge that there is a far more important issue, public safety, and more more specifically, cyclist safety, that is at issue here. In reality it is the actions of many official entities that are keeping cyclists and other vulnerable persons dumb as door posts, making it more likely that another person, unfamiliar with their safety needs will fail victim in some future tragedy. And the process of blaming a specific person and moving on will continue.
Why was Tristan Roby riding westbound on Exeter Road, reportedly near 2300 hours when it would be dark? Was he wearing a helmet? What type of clothing was he wearing? What type of artificial illumination existed in the area where the collision occurred? Did police determine the speed of Bleck’s vehicle from the physical evidence. Where did the impact occur with respect to the width of the roadway? What debris was deposited on the road and where was it positioned? What damage existed on Bleck’s vehicle and what damage occurred to Roby’s bicycle? These are just a few of the numerous questions that could be answered if the report of the official police investigation was made available. But that will never happen. In the twisted logic that surrounds most trials everyone is interested in bending the facts toward their advantage and this does nothing to get to the full truth that is necessary.
What should be obvious to all of us is that protecting the public from tragic events like this is an important matter. Whether the driver or the cyclist in this specific instance is found guilty, partially guilty, or negligent is not the only thing that matters. What should matter even more is that we come to an accurate understanding of how the collision occurred and why it occurred so that we can educate drivers and cyclists about these dangers and what factors matter. It should be obvious to all of us, yet it is obviously not, that it is important to prevent the next future tragedy. And the next future tragedy is just around the next future corner. Yet we continually refuse to educate drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and others, about what factors really matter and when an incident is unfolding that could become a disaster if someone does not change something. We allow many innocent persons to proceed blindly into such situations without the ability to recognize that they are entering into some major danger. And refuse to arm these persons with the knowledge that could save them.
Gorski Down But Not Out
Infection is a dangerous game. I found this out two weeks ago when I suddenly developed a pain in my right leg for no apparent reason. Ten days in hospital reminded me that infection can strike anyone. Now released I am still trying to deal with the painful results. Hopefully for not to much longer.
This occurrence has been unfortunate because of a detailed review of the Blackfriars Bridge In London which occurred precisely as my medical issue exploded. I was substantially involved as Gorski Consulting completed a traffic study last year at the Blackfriars Bridge. I am glad however that the data and analysis were available to all, regardless of one’s position on how the bridge should be used.
A positive development is that I was informed that the WERCAT team at Western University completed analysis of the data from my traffic documentations of October 5, 2022 on Colborne Street just north of St James Street. This means that we now have results from 3 sessions of traffic studies at the site. I cannot extend a greater appreciation to WERCAT for this effort. I understand that this work was done by a group of young resident doctors who would have a tremendous workload related to their official medical assignments. Indeed, they volunteered their time at no expense to anyone and I am impressed with that dedication. I am committed not to allow this effort to go unrecognized.
Just before my medical problems developed I had just completed a third round of observations at the Colborne Street site in which I have documented the lateral travel paths of cyclists, transit buses, heavy trucks and a percentage of passenger vehicles. I believe this is important work as it will provide base data about how cyclists and motor vehicles interact on an urban roadway. This site is slated to have a painted cycling lane at some future date so comparing the lateral paths of traffic units before and after the lane is developed will help in understanding how cyclists could be involved in collisions with passing motor vehicles. This can lead to some recommendations about where painted cycling lanes may be an acceptable risk and where that risk could be unacceptable. From decades of reconstructing motor vehicle collisions I am aware that there is a higher risk of straying out of a travel lane at locations where there is a roadway horizontal curve. Similarly cyclists have a greater likelihood of straying out of a cycling lane at a curve, where the cyclist speed is low, or where there is a elevation change. These matters need to be identified and discussed. These issues will not be revealed at the Colborne Street site because it contains wide lanes, is straight, and has no elevation changes to speak of. But we must start somewhere and the Colborne Street site is a location where we will be able to see what conditions exist where these problems do not exist. These explorations are time-consuming but I believe they will be worthwhile when good data is made available.
Blackfriars Bridge – Comparison of Dillon Consulting & Gorski Consulting Traffic Studies – Safety Issues
In a report to the City of London dated May 31, 2023, Dillon Consulting described its investigations with respect to the long-term usage of the Blackfriars Bridge located just northwest of downtown London, Ontario. These investigations were conducted in the spring and summer of 2022.
Prior to 2022 a scarcity of data was available with respect to the general issues surrounding the bridge such as traffic patterns and safety issues. This lack of information led many residents to express opinions about these matters without the opportunity to examine basic, objective data. As such Gorski Consulting decided to conduct a traffic study at the bridge and data from that study was made available through several articles posted on the Gorski Consulting website. While it became known that the City of London intended to commence a study that would guide the long-term usage of the bridge there was no information as to what form the study would take and when it might be completed. Thus with the revelation of the Dillon Consulting report it became known that Dillon conducted its study at a similar time as the Gorski Consulting study.
In a prior article posted on June 5, 2023 I provided a comparison of the Dillon and Gorski studies focused on the general findings from traffic volumes. I define traffic here not just as motor vehicle traffic but all traffic, including cyclists, pedestrians and special units such as e-scooters, medical carts, etc. This comparison showed that, during a September 29, 2022 site visit, Dillon observed about 2 times as many motor vehicles and pedestrians per hour than what was observed in the Gorski study. With respect to cyclists both studies observed approximately similar volumes.
While Dillon reported on traffic counts from several dates those data appeared to have been taken by the City of London. Dillon’s own documentations occurred from only the single day of observation, on September 29, 2022. The Dillon observations occurred for a total of 8 hours encompassing the morning and evening peak hours and a two-hour session near noon. One has to be careful when reading the Dillon conclusions as they evolve from a single day and could be affected by unknown events that could skew the results. While the Gorski data came from observations from five different dates, those data were also only from 2-hour video sessions on each day resulting in a total documentation time of 10 hours. Thus both studies are limited by this. Further observations would be useful to provide more certainty about what typically occurs at various days of the week or seasons of the year, particularly with respect to the safety of the site.
While the Dillon Report provided a comprehensive study traffic patterns and what impacts may result from opening or closing Blackfriar Bridge to motor vehicle traffic, it is my observation that the reporting on safety issues was limited. Therefore it is the reason why this second article has been produced; in order to notify all involved that there are safety concerns at the Blackfriars Bridge that have not been fully identified.
Because of their larger number of pedestrian and motor vehicle observations it is my belief that Dillon should have observed a substantial number of interactions in the area where the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) intersected at the pedestrian crosswalk at the east end of Blackfriars Bridge. Even though the Gorski study reported smaller volumes of pedestrians and motor vehicles a number of interactions were observed where the flow at the crosswalk was interrupted as traffic units had to adjust to the presence of each other. An example of this is shown in the photo below taken from observations on June 17, 2022.
At the present time our documentation of the observations at Blackfriars Bridge from the spring/summer of 2022 is incomplete. There is a substantial amount of data that is available however other commitments have prevented a detailed study at this time. As a retiring collision reconstruction and road safety expert I have some time and resources available to conduct this work as a free benefit to the community, however that time and resource is not limitless. It has been reported that the City of London Civic Works Committee will make a decision on the long term usage of Blackfriars Bridge on June 13, 2023. This is only two weeks after the Dillon Report was released. In-between these dates I am aware that a City Staff Report has been prepared and will be submitted to the Civic Works Committee. This rushed time is unusual as it is unlikely that either city councillors nor members of the public can examine the details of these reports in this short time frame.
Never-the-less, while certain data reviews from the Gorski Consulting study have not been completed, I was present throughout the time during each of the five dates when observations were made and I have a reasonably good recall of what conditions existed. Thus given the shortness of time to reply, my comments here will have to suffice.
Review of Safety Issues
Our observations in the Gorski Consulting study were that essentially no one using the pedestrian crossing actually activated the crossing lights. I would not be surprised if a detailed study would reveal that more than 95% of users on the TVP did not activate the crossing lights. This can provide an inconsistent warning to eastbound drivers whether pedestrians/cyclists intend to use the crossing. The push button for activating the pedestrian crossing lights is located at the edge of the curb of the roadway and this arrangement makes it highly unlikely that users would press the button before crossing.
There is also an obvious conflict with respect to how cyclists riding on the Thames Valley Parkway use the pedestrian crossing. Officially cyclists are prohibited from riding through a pedestrian crossing. Yet virtually every observed cyclist did not dismount and simply rode through the crossing. Again I suspect a detailed review would show that more than 95% of cyclists on the TVP simply rode through the pedestrian crossing. This is not unusual behaviour as such cyclist motions are seen elsewhere. Yet when there is no other option to cross the road except via the pedestrian crossing cycling through the pedestrian crossing is far more common here than elsewhere. Unexplainably Dillon Consulting did not mention this in their report and this is why in my previous article I questioned the scope of their assignment as defined by the City. Cyclist behaviour like this is crucially important and the City of London ought to be aware of this.
The presence of stop signs on the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) on approach to the pedestrian crossing is confusing. These stop signs cannot be meant to apply to pedestrians as they would have the right-of-way at the crossing. If the stop signs are meant to apply to cyclists then those signs are being unanimously ignored. But they are also obscured by vegetation or have become removed altogether. An example of this is shown in the following photos which were taken on July 4, 2022. These photos show views looking southbound on the TVP toward the pedestrian crossing toward Blackfriars Bridge. A stop sign exists on approach to the crossing but it is obscured by vegetation.
The site was visited again in the spring of 2023 where it was observed that the stop sign for southbound users of the TVP became missing, as demonstrated in the photos below which were taken on June 4, 2023.
The lack of a visible stop sign for southbound cyclists means that there is a difference in instructions provided to southbound and northbound users of the TVP as they approach the pedestrian crossing at the east end of Blackfriars Bridge. As an example the photo below was taken on April 29, 2022 and it shows a view looking northward from south of the pedestrian crossing. Note that a stop sign is clearly visible (even though it is defaced) along with two tabs below the sign with instructions about how crossings should be made.
The next two photos show the same views of the sign but taken on June 4, 2023.
It can be seen that detailed instructions exist for northbound users of the TVP. Press the pedestrian crossing button; wait for traffic to stop; make eye contact; cyclists dismount and walk your bike across the road. But no such instructions are visible on the north side of the TVP for southbound users. The tabs existed on July 4, 2022, as can be seen in the next photo, however they were totally obscured from view by the vegetation and the chain link fence. And of course the southbound stop sign was obscured from view by vegetation in the spring/summer of 2022 and is now non-existent.
Visibility between drivers and users of the TVP is limited to the south and north of the pedestrian crossing due to vegetation. This visibility changes through the seasons as the vegetation grows. However the visibility is less at the north end of the pedestrian crossing. For example the photo below was taken on July 4, 2022 and is a view looking toward Blackfriars Bridge taken from a few paces north of the crossing.
Looking back at the photos from June 4, 2023 it can be seen that the tabs of detailed instructions are missing along with the southbound stop sign.
The combined effect is that southbound users of the TVP are given no instruction with respect to passing through the pedestrian crossing and they are also faced with the limited visibility caused by the vegetation.
Visibility at the site also changes according to the time of day and the sun’s position. The two photos below were taken on August 9, 2022 and they illustrate how the combination of trees and sun position can make the area of the pedestrian crossing dark in shade while it is sunny and bright on approach to the crossing. Such factors cannot be easily detected from just a single attendance at the site as was done in the Dillon study.
In my presence at the Blackfriars site I have observed what I expected to observe with respect to the high speed of cyclists and other mobile devices travelling on the downslope of Ridout Street toward the pedestrian crossing at the TVP at the east end of the bridge. It is a given that a downslope creates heightened cyclist speeds. This is not an empty comment as substantial documentations by Gorski Consulting at various locations in London support this comment. Some of the westbound riders on devices such as skateboards are not equipped with reliable methods of braking. This can lead to collisions with traffic units entering the study area from every direction.
In their report Dillon Consulting discussed the collision data that they obtained from an unidentified source, but presumably from City data. With respect to collisions occurring near Blackfriars Bridge they provided the following comments:
“Blackfriars Street at the Bridge (Napier to Albert):
There were 18 reported collisions over 8 years from 2004 to 2012; nine of these collisions were ‘single motor vehicle (SMV)-fixed object or unattended vehicle’ or ‘SMVother’; there was also three approaching (head on) collisions, two rear-end collisions, one sideswipe, one turning movement, one right angle (t-bone) collision, and one ‘SMVanimal or pedestrian’.
Five of these collisions occurred in October and three occurred in January, but otherwise there was no pattern observed to these collisions. There have not been any reported collisions since the Bridge was re-opened in late 2018. The conversion from two-way traffic to one-way traffic across the Bridge and better vehicle and cycling facility delineation has likely resulted in fewer collisions.”
I do not share this optimistic view. Looking at Table 5 of the Dillon report shows that there have been no reported collisions since the year 2013, yet all 18 collisions reportedly occurred in 2013 or earlier. That data appears suspicious to me. I have examined other sites in the City of London where many collisions and incidents have not been reported yet the physical evidence that I documented clearly indicated that those events occurred.
Specific to the Blackfriars site, scenarios can exist where collisions are not reported due to the actions of the participants. For example, if a cyclist rides through the pedestrian crossing and is struck by a vehicle that cyclist would likely be deemed at fault because the cyclist should have walked the cycle across the pedestrian crossing. If the collision is reported there is a likelihood that the cyclist could face a traffic fine. So there is an incentive for the cyclist not to report the incident even if injuries were sustained. And similarly the motor vehicle driver would be apprehensive about reporting the incident as impacting a cyclist is often viewed as the fault of motor vehicle drivers.
I am also aware that certain expert reports do not provide a full account of the collisions that occur at a site because the official data does not include collisions from a collision reporting centre.
My examinations at the pedestrian crossing indicate that traffic conflicts are common and the understanding of who has the right of way is clouded by the unpredictable behaviours of all traffic units. I have observed many instances where everyone comes to a stop at the pedestrian crossing and a variety of gestures are used to communicate who should pass through. Yet I have also observed instances where no one has stopped and impacts are avoided by the narrowest margins. I do not accept that the lack of reported collisions since 2013 accurately reflects the conflicts that are actually occurring.
In their report Dillon Consulting provided some comments about their observations during the September 29, 2022 site visit. Those comments have been copied below.
“A few other observations were noted:
1. fifteen pedestrians were observed to walk in the westbound contraflow bike lane; some were observed taking pictures and/or sightseeing;
2. four cyclists were observed to use the sidewalk instead of the cycling facilities on the Bridge;
3. four joggers were observed to cross the Bridge using the eastbound vehicle lane if there were people on the Bridge sidewalk;
4. three people were observed doing a photoshoot on the Bridge westbound cycling lane during the 5:15 PM to 5:30 PM period;
5. two electric scooters were observed crossing the TVP southbound during the 4 PM to 4:15 PM period; and,
6. one vehicle was observed to drive the wrong way over the Bridge (i.e. westbound), which appeared to be a deliberate act (i.e. not a mistake).“
With respect to the first point, I concur that a number pedestrians were observed to be walking in the westbound cycling lane of Blackfriars Bridge. The exact numbers have not been counted and due to the shortness of time I cannot provide that count at this time.
With respect to Dillon’s point #2, I am not surprized that four cyclists were observed riding on the sidewalk of Blackfriars Bridge. I expect such observations also exist in the videos of the Gorski study.
With respect to Dillon’s point #3, I recall observing joggers in the eastbound lane as well as in the cycling lane of Blackfriars Bridge. Again the precise numbers are not available at this time.
With respect to Dillon’s point #4, my recall is that the numbers of pedestrians observed conducting photoshoots on the Bridge were more than just three in the Gorski study and Dillon’s observations may under-report those numbers. A number of pedestrians were observed simply standing on the cycling lane within the Bridge and gazing down at the waters below, either at fish, or birds such, as herons, on the shoreline.
With respect to Dillon’s point #5, I think this under-reports the numbers of e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as other less common vehicles such as mini-motorcycles using the TVP. I suspect that these numbers have risen in 2023 and will likely rise more in the future.
With respect to point #6, the Gorski study will demonstrate that several vehicles travelled the wrong way through Blackfriars Bridge. My best estimate is that about 4 such vehicles were observed.
The Dillon report has made little mention of the fact that various unconventional traffic units exist at the site. While Dillon provided data on the numbers of motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, it is also important to acknowledge that the site is traversed by vehicles and persons with special needs and characteristics. The Gorski Consulting study noted that there were 70 observations of those kinds of less-common traffic units. A couple of examples are shown in the two images below.
A further difference in the Dillon and Gorski studies is that Dillon did not provide a detailed discussion of the speed of traffic units on Blackfriars Bridge and on the pedestrian crossing at the TVP. Although analysis in the Gorski Consulting study is incomplete, data regarding the speed of eastbound vehicles on the bridge was documented. This is shown in the table below.
Similar procedures should have summarized the speed of other units such as cyclists, pedestrians, etc. It is by these methods that we can come to an understanding of the potential for future collisions. Traffic units change their character, motor vehicles will progressive become battery powered and the noise they create could be less, therefore providing less warning of their approach. Similarly future cyclists are likely to ride more e-bikes and there may be more e-scooters and other e-devices. All these can change the collision risk. Thus information about the speed of all traffic units needs to be monitored. Again, while the observations are available in the videos no analysis has been conducted at this time.
Comparison of July 6, 2022 Results
While exploring the Dillon and Gorski Consulting studies I became aware that data was reported by both studies for July 6, 2022. In Table 7 of their report, copied below, Dillon showed data from that date as well as data from other dates. Dillon made the following comment about the Table:
“Table 7 summarizes the traffic data collected at the Blackfriars Bridge by the City and
Dillon between March and October, 2022. The table shows AM, Noon, and PM peak
hour traffic volumes, as well as the 8-hour total volumes. Some entries are blank
indicating that traffic data was not collected at that location, or the data obtained could
not be verified.”
July 6, 2022 was also the date when Gorski Consulting conducted its Session #3. Observations were documented between 0648 and 0848 hours. This is similar to the “AM” period of 0700 to 0900 hours when Dillon reported that someone, likely the City of London, collected their traffic data.
What is peculiar about Dillon’s comments is that I was present at Blackfriars Bridge throughout Session #3 from about 0630 to about 0920 hours. Most of my time was spent at the east end of Blackfriars Bridge where the documentations were focused. I did not observe any official, or even unofficial, persons who would appear to be making any observations of traffic near the bridge. In their report Dillon did not provide any information as to how the collection of traffic data was made, or where precisely it was made. Most likely all the five dates in Table 7, except for September 29, 2022 refer to data collected by the City of London. Clearly data became available and reported by Dillon over the typical 8 hour period (AM and PM peaks and noon time) they discussed throughout their report.
What is confusing is that the observations for the morning of July 6, 2022, presumably collected by the City of London, do not match with the observations obtained by Gorski Consulting. As can be seen in Table 7, the City data for the AM period indicated that 77 eastbound vehicles crossed Blackfriars Bridge. Their data also indicated that 50 pedestrians and cyclists crossed Blackfriars at the TVP.
In comparison the table below shows how many eastbound motor vehicles were observed crossing Blackfriars Bridge during the morning on July 6, 2022 from the Gorski Consulting study. In total 109 vehicles were observed in the Gorski study versus only 77 in the Dillon study. One can appreciate that a difference of one or two vehicles could be acceptable, but the difference is 32 vehicles. That difference cannot be acceptable.
I am certain of the accuracy of my data because it was obtained from examining video which is a permanent record that can be re-examined by anyone. So further investigation is needed to determine why this large discrepancy exists.
The next table shows the results of the Gorski Consulting cyclist observations. This table shows all the directions from which cyclists entered the study area and in which direction they exited the study area. So the first column (“Source”) indicates from which location a cyclist entered the study area. The next three columns indicate where that cyclist exited the study area.
So taking the first row as an example, the “Source” was all the cyclists who entered the study area travelling southbound on the TVP. So the columns in the row show that 39 cyclists crossed the pedestrian crossing and continued travelling southbound on the TVP, next 7 cyclists turned left to travel southbound on Ridout Street, and one cyclist turned right and travelled westbound on Blackfriars Bridge.
The comparison of the Dillon and Gorski data is more tedious because the Dillon study did not separate the pedestrian observations from the cyclist observations. However this can be overcome.
If we understand the Dillon table correctly we should be looking at all our observations where cyclists crossed the pedestrian crossing at the TVP. Those observations would come from where the “Source” is either “SB TVP” or “NB TVP”. We would then select those observations where the cyclists continued to travel either SB or NB on the TVP. So in our table we want to sum the first two cells in the second column (39 +63) which would give us a total of 102 cyclists. Even without examining the pedestrians we can see that the 102 cyclists is already double the 50 observations of Dillon which were comprised of both cyclists and pedestrians. Never-the-less we can complete the analysis by looking at our pedestrian data, which is in the next table.
In our table of pedestrian observations we can select the two cells that we just described for cyclists (16+15) and this indicates that 31 pedestrians crossed Blackfriars at the TVP.
Summing the cyclist and pedestrian observations indicates that the Gorski study found a total of (102 +31) 133 cyclists and pedestrians who crossed Blackfriars versus the City of London data where only 50 such observations were noted. This is a substantial difference in results.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding somewhere however it is difficult to understand how this difference could exist, especially for those observations of cyclists and pedestrians crossing Blackfriars at the TVP. Since I was standing at the pedestrian crossing for essentially the entire period of the documentations I do not understand how the City could obtain its data at this location without my being aware of it. Further inquiries should be made with Dillon and/or City staff to determine if perhaps the date of July 6, 2022 is in error and if, perhaps, the traffic data was collected on a different date.
Discussion
We must be careful in any study to consider whether enough data exists to allow us to provide conclusions that persons, who may not know the details of our study, will reply upon to make some form of decision. Both the Dillon and Gorski Consulting studies provide some guidance as to what might be occurring at the Blackfriars Bridge but, in my opinion, the quantity of data does not warrant anyone coming to a definitive conclusion about what the data means. More data is needed. A case in point is what is shown in the three photos below which show a group of boys, mostly cyclists, who happened to meet in the middle of Blackfriars Bridge and then began to ride eastbound, in the westbound cycling lane. One deviant event like this amongst a small sample of observations can quickly skew the results.
I have raised a number of concerns about the safety of the Blackfriars Bridge site at the intersection with the TVP. At present these concerns are not supported with details from the Gorski Consulting study because that analysis has not been completed. It is my view that traffic at the bridge needs to observed on a regular basis. It is insufficient to simply document traffic volumes and directions of motion, as these do not provide the details of what is actually occurring at any site. I have many years of experience in conducting detailed studies of collisions sites for the purpose of developing base data to use in resolving civil litigation claims or criminal charges. While I’m retiring I believe these methods are valuable tools in evaluating the safety of any site where traffic unit conflicts exist.
Lateral Travel Paths of Cyclists and Motor Vehicles Continue To Be Documented
Many fatal and personal injury collisions occur when cyclists are struck from behind by passing motor vehicles. While it is a topic of hot debate, little objective information is available as to how these events unfold. An important procedure is to conduct studies of the lateral travel paths of motor vehicles and cyclists, particularly in those instances when cyclists are in the vicinity of motor vehicles. This is why Gorski Consulting is presently conducting a study of the detailed lateral motions of motor vehicles and cyclists. Further information on this work will be forthcoming.
You must be logged in to post a comment.