Effective road and traffic management

Written evidence from the Motorcycle Action Group (UK) (ETM 49)

The Motorcycle Action Group welcomes this opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee.

Formed in 1973, MAG is a volunteer-led organisation of 50,000 riders, clubs and businesses. As the representative voice of motorcyclists we campaign across a wide-range of issues that affect the riders’ interests and rights.

BACKGROUND

Motorcycles use less road space compared to cars (whether travelling or parked), do not add to traffic congestion to the same extent and have higher vehicle occupancy rates. They enjoy shorter journey times than any other mode of road transport and with some relatively straightforward shifts in highways practice can show even greater advantages.

The Department for Transport’s National Travel Survey shows 60% of motorcycle trips are for commuting, business or education, compared to 27% for cars (2009 figures).

There has been a significant increase in the number of licensed motorcycles and total distance travelled by motorcycles over last twenty years. The combined effects of general traffic growth and rising fuel costs means the upward trend in motorcycling can be expected to continue as motorcycles are well suited to many individual urban and inter-urban journeys.

It also appears that where a motorcycle is bought primarily for leisure purposes, the rider is highly likely to be a car driver who could be readily persuaded to switch modes for at least some commuting and other non-leisure trips.

However, transport policy and practice continues to neglect motorcycle use, which in turn is preventing it from contributing fully to local and national transport objectives.

The need to raise awareness of motorcycles as a legitimate transport mode is based on the principle that motorcycle use has increased without local or central government advocacy or encouragement. There is a need to make provision for motorcyclists; ignoring any vulnerable mode is unacceptable, especially where use of the mode is growing naturally.

GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES’ ROLE

Road congestion adversely affects large numbers of communities and travellers on a regular basis. It is right that government at all levels should take an interest in reducing congestion, especially in urban areas.

The Eddington Transport Study, published by DfT in 2006, found that:

· 55% of commuter journeys are to large urban areas

· 69% of business trips are less than 15 miles in length

· 89% of delay caused by congestion is in urban areas

The cost of traffic congestion to the UK economy is very high, although different sources use a variety of measurements so the range of estimates appears to be in the order of £10-20bn per annum.

The Road Traffic Acts place both general and specific duties on national and local highways authorities, so that local and strategic road networks should be safe and efficient for all classes of road user.

However, the potential impacts of highway policy and practice on motorcycle users are rarely considered; consequently the road network is not as safe or efficient for riders as they are entitled to expect.

The principal aim of the Government Motorcycle Strategy (2005-10) was to ‘mainstream’ motorcycling,

"…so that all the organisations involved in the development and implementation of transport policy recognise motorcycling as a legitimate and

increasingly popular mode of transport."

www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/vehicles/motorcycling

The Committee has already conducted an enquiry in to the effectiveness of this Strategy and, whilst there were some very positive outcomes it is clear that there is still a very long way to go before the vision expressed above is realised.

The effect is that the potential benefits of motorcycle use, including the reduction of congestion, are suppressed through institutional blindness to this group of road users.

One example of this is the inertia, sometimes deliberate resistance, shown by local and national travel policy and planning practitioners to help commuters, employers, etc. to realise the available advantages of motorcycle use.

Mass transit by bus or rail is not a door-to-door service for most people; where public transport can form a sensible element in business, social or commuter journeys there remains the need for independent travel by road at either end. The idea of combining private and public transport through ‘trip-chaining’ is well-established yet there is little evidence of efforts to integrate motorcycle users’ with public transport for any part of their journey.

The Institute of Highways Engineers summed-up the problem a decade ago in "Guidelines for Motorcycling: improving safety through engineering and integration"

"2.7.1 Motorcycles can reduce congestion, reduce parking space requirements and improve accessibility, especially at places and times when public transport is limited. Motorcycles also provide a cost-effective mode of transport for those with limited resources. In view of their vulnerability, the specific safety needs of motorcyclists need to be carefully considered by road designers and traffic engineers in the design, implementation and maintenance of any works on public roads. However, it is unlikely that professionals on the operational side of road infrastructure provision will make a step change in their approach to catering for motorcyclists if the lead has not been set by policymakers at local, regional and national level."

www.motorcycleguidelines.org.uk/mg_02_7.htm

Motorcycling is often reported to account for 1% of distance travelled by all traffic, but around 20% of all casualties (NB: the number of rider casualties continues to reduce, but not as quickly as for other groups of road user). While there is genuine concern at local and national level about this disparity, that concern has yet to result in 1% of total roads expenditure and 20% of all safety-specific spending being allocated to measures that directly benefit motorcycles users. Conversely, other road user groups have been allocated very large amounts of public resource to improve facilities or safety.

This shift in policy and practice will require a higher level of resource than is currently allocated to motorcycling, but this could be achieved if a more proportionate share of the existing budgets was targeted on some of the most critical aspects of road design, management and maintenance that affect motorcycle users. Principally the two major factors associated with rider casualties;

· collisions with larger vehicles; typically at or near a junction while the rider has ‘right of way’

· rider loss of control; typically when grip is lost during a change of direction, or while braking

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, ROAD USER CULTURE AND BEHAVIOUR

Travel by car largely defines the culture, behaviour and management of our roads. Cars account for the highest proportions of vehicles on the road, distance travelled and number of journeys. The needs of other modes tend to be marginalised, a fact recognised (but not yet adequately addressed) by the DfT:

The National Travel Survey (2009) shows that 69% of commuting or business trips are made by car, but that 85% of commuter car trips are single occupancy.

www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/nts/latest/nts2009-09.pdf

Overall, the average number of people carried per car trip is only 1.6 persons, a figure that has remained constant for many years. Typically, cars have seating capacity of around 4-5 people including the driver, the dimensions of these vehicles are reflected in the amount of road space taken in traffic and when parked.

The Government’s Motorcycle Strategy comments on research commissioned by the DfT to assess the impact on traffic congestion where people choose to travel by motorcycle. The conclusion was that, although this is a complex issue, a switch from single occupant car journeys to motorcycle would clearly bring congestion benefits.

The introduction of the London congestion charging scheme saw an immediate increase in the use of motorcycles as a result of their exemption from the charge and a reduction in collisions involving motorcycles within the charging zone.

To maximise the environmental benefits of a switch from cars to motorcycles there also needs to be a commensurate increase in convenient and secure parking provision. This is an important policy consideration; given the relative ease with which motorcycles can be stolen, the absence of secure parking near to the riders’ destination can be a severe barrier to motorcycle use or lead to inappropriate or illegal parking. Because motorcycles make far more efficient use of parking space, the unit cost of providing motorcycle parking is low. Indeed, making no charge for motorcycle parking is a simple way to reduce demand for car parking space.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS FOR ROAD MANAGEMENT

For motorcycle users the main concerns are to do with the urgency, frequency and reliability of the finished state of road openings and repairs, ie; the end result is often more important than the disruption from the works themselves.

To quote once more from the IHE guidelines:

"… the specific safety needs of motorcycles with their reliance on an adequate and consistent friction between their tyres and the road surface, have sometimes been overlooked by policy makers, planners, road designers and maintenance engineers. Raising awareness among these professionals will help redress the balance in providing for motorcycles."

MAG notes the publication in April 2010 of the DfT’s Code of Practice "Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways". It is hoped this will reduce the frequency of road repairs as it provides for a wider range of approved materials and working methods to undertakers carrying out works.

www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/network/local/streetworks/cop/sroh/

Beyond that, there is a need to take the opportunity to ensure consistent levels of grip for motorcycles across the whole of the carriageway, addressing the many faults and features that result in a sudden change of available grip to the tyres of single-track vehicles in particular.

The launch of the ‘Get A Grip’ campaign at a Parliamentary reception in November 2010, and at the largest UK motorcycle consumer show ‘Motorcycle Live’ soon after, has resulted in a number of local highways authorities starting to take more notice of these issues. The campaign is led by MAG with support from the IHE, Asphalt Industry Association and manufacturers of innovative alternatives to traditional low-grip features on the road – in the first instance replacing traditional metal surfaced inspection covers in high-risk locations (especially around bends and junctions) with modern alternatives that offer good grip-levels similar to the surrounding carriageway throughout their service life.

BUS LANES AND OTHER ASPECTS OF ROAD LAYOUT

Bus Lanes: Introducing a bus lane can result in other traffic lanes being ‘squeezed’ and less road space for motorcycles to percolate through congested traffic. This adds to vehicle congestion and the avoidable hazards faced by motorcycle users.

Government guidance on permitted vehicles in bus lanes has moved from a presumption against to a neutral stance. Local authorities are told to decide for themselves but there remains inertia against change at local level.

As part of its continuing analysis of permitted use of bus lanes by motorcycles (including mopeds and scooters, referred to collectively as ‘Powered Two Wheelers’), Transport for London commissioned research to assess the scale of any time savings and consequent emission reductions from PTWs compared to cars. www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/pt-emissions-study.pdf

After comparing the performance of small, medium and large engine capacity motorcycles, against small, medium and large cars travelling identical commuter journeys in London, TfL found that PTW journey times were 29.3% lower than comparable car journeys, or 36.6% quicker when PTWs can use bus lanes.

Other benefits include lower fuel consumption, reductions in emissions of Carbon Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Carbon Monoxide, Total Hydrocarbons and Benzene. Compared to comparable small, medium and large PTWs using Bus Lanes, Petrol cars emit an average of between 2 and 6 times more CO2, between 1.5 and 6.5 times more Oxides of Nitrogen than PTWs using bus lanes and consume an average of between 2 and 6 times more fuel than PTWs using bus lanes.

NB: The reduction in PTW journey times and emissions from using bus lanes is itself significant, but does not account for the scale of these reductions. PTW use of bus lanes cuts their CO2 emissions by between 0.4% to 9.0%, cuts Oxides of Nitrogen by 0.4% to 10.1% and cuts fuel consumption by 0.4% to 9.0%.

Advanced Stop Lines: Advanced Stop Lines at traffic signals have been shown to provide a relatively safe area for two-wheelers to set-off and make safer turning manoeuvres after filtering to the head of stationary traffic. To date their use has almost entirely been for the benefit of pedal-cycle users, DfT’s attempts to examine the benefits to motorcycle users have been resisted by local authorities with the result that riders of both human-powered and motorised two-wheelers may be unnecessarily disadvantaged.

Traffic Calming devices: Traffic calming aims to reduce traffic speed and discourage traffic seeking to avoid congestion hot spots. However, the design of common traffic calming devices can create unnecessary hazards for motorcycle users where the geometry or materials used create grip problems (an example of what may become an increasingly common practice was reported in Motor Cycle News

www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2010/February/feb2610-road-with-200-manhole-covers-per-mile/_/R-EPI-122430 ) or where the design appears to rely on creating potential conflict between opposing vehicles (an example of the potential outcome was reported by a local paper recently

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/wakefield_driver_is_cleared_of_causing_biker_deaths_1_3086397 ).

Roundabouts: Roundabouts can assist traffic-flow at junctions, but again there are issues with design aspects that appear to be unnecessarily hazardous for riders. These include features that are likely to causes loss of grip (eg; demarcating HGV overrun areas with low kerb-stones and conversion of ‘T’ junctions in to mini-roundabouts without levelling the road surface), or reduce the ability of other vehicle drivers to see motorcycles on the roundabout (eg; modified sight-lines and visual barriers that restrict drivers’ view of circulating traffic), etc.

CONCLUSION

There is no doubt that the potential for motorcycling to contribute positively to local and national transport objectives, not least tackling traffic congestion, is yet to be fully realised. The principle causes have remained largely unchanged over recent decades. The challenge expressed by previous Ministers remains as valid today as it was when the motorcycle community first sat down with Government to help draw up its Motorcycling Strategy nearly a decade ago:

"We want to see an end to old stigmas and stereotyping – motorcycling can be a modern, practical way of getting around, and we all need to recognise it as such." www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/vehicles/motorcycling/

March 2011