English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The Manual of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) includes a roadway marking and accompanying explanatory sign which may be installed on public roads to help guide cyclists position themselves over detection at actuated traffic signals. While adopted into the MUTCD in 2003, little research is available on the effectiveness of the marking and sign. This study evaluates the influence that the roadway marking, roadway marking installed in conjunction with the explanatory sign, and an alternative detector marking comprised of the MUTCD marking installed over a one foot by two feet green rectangle, have on cyclist queuing position at actuated, signalized intersections. Over 300 hours of before and after video data, resulting in 688 observations, indicate that while all three marking options influence cyclist stopping position, only 23.5% of cyclists wait over the MUTCD roadway marking when installed alone. This improves to 34.8% with the addition of the explanatory sign and 48.4% when the marking is applied over the green rectangle. An accompanying survey of 227 cyclists indicates that 45.4% of cyclists understand the roadway marking is meant to show where cyclist should wait in order to be detected. An additional 11.5% understand that the marking indicates the recommended waiting location for cyclist but not that it is for the purpose of detection. Survey respondents who said they preferred to wait closer to the curb (a position which usually prevents them from being over detection) stated that they chose to do so primarily for concerns about safety/visibility and to stay out of the way of motorized vehicle traffic. INTRODUCTION Low stress routes for cyclists consist of slower speed and low volume collector streets that provide a more comfortable and safe environment for riding a bike (1). Where these routes cross busier arterials, signalized traffic control may be required. Due to lower vehicle volumes on the intersecting collector, these intersections often employ actuated signal timing with vehicle detection used to place calls to the signal controller for the minor approach. One common form of this detection is an inductive loop placed in the pavement at, and upstream of, the stop bar. Inductive loop detectors (often referred to as loops) take a variety of shapes and sizes but are most commonly square, rectangular, or circular in geometry. Circular loops are formed with six foot diameters, square loops with six foot long sides, and rectangular loops are usually six feet wide and vary in length depending on the needed detection zone (2). Loops are typically centered in the motorized vehicle travel lane and the detection zone roughly spans the area enclosed by the loop (3). Large vehicles such as cars and trucks are usually detected by loops; however, cyclists are more difficult to detect (2). This is due the higher level of sensitivity needed to detect the smaller mass of bicycles and that bike riders positioned in the middle of the loop may not be sensed (2). Also, the installation of loops in the center of the vehicle lane often does not coincide with the path of travel taken by cyclists (2). This may be in part due to vehicle code in some states (including Oregon where this study was conducted) that requires cyclists to travel as close to the right curb as is reasonably safe (Oregon Revised Statue 814.430). To facilitate cyclists’ stopping in locations where they will be detected, the Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) includes a road marking (see Figure 1a) that may cyclists will be consistently detected. Also included in the MUTCD installed at intersections with the road marking (see Figure 1b a) 9C-05 Bicycle Detector Symbol FIGURE As municipalities seek to increase the number of cyclists on the road and states adopt complete street policies, it is necessary to determine if the existing loop marking and sign are understood and utilized by cyclists. While increasing the number of cyclists involves many elements, one influence on a person’s decision to ride a bike is the time it takes them to reach his destinati indication due to improper positioning over loops can add to this travel time and may discourage In California, determining how to best serve cyclists takes on even greater importance legislation requiring that the road network provide equal service to motorized and non (5). This study evaluates cyclists’ understanding and use of the described in the MUTCD. An alternative marking option installed over a rectangular green background, is also examined MUTCD bicycle detector symbol installed alone accompanying R10-22 sign, and the MUTCD bicycle det foot green rectangle. The evaluation of each installation includes approximately 100 after video data with a minimum of 102 observ and after observations of stopping position were logged across all three test installations. supplemented with a survey completed by bicycle detection symbol, self-reported stopping position at signalized intersections, reasons for choosing the reported stopping position and demographic information. While this study is limited to one field incorporates both objective video data and self quantitative and qualitative data provides a mo use of the bicycle detector symbol by providing context to why cyclists choose to wait a locations at signalized intersections. There is minimal existing research on this topic. The remainder of this paper begins with a presentation of prior res discussions on the data collection methodologies utilized, results and a concluding summary. Both the 4 be placed over the loop is an explanatory sign that may ). b) R10-22 Sign 1: MUTCD Approved Marking and Sign on (4). Failure to receive a green . This is -motorized vehicles bicycle detector symbol and R10 , comprised of the MUTCD road marking . Three installations were , the MUTCD bicycle detector symbol ector symbol installed over a one foot by two hours of before and ations of cyclists’ stopping positions. A total of 688 before 227 cyclists. Survey questions include comprehension of test per installation, it includes a larger number of observations and -reported survey data from cyclists. The combination of re complete understanding of cyclist comprehension and earch followed by a description of the study sites, where be

The Effect of the Bicycle Detector Symbol and R10-22 Sign on Cyclist Queuing Position at Signalized Intersections