Active Mobility — Understanding Human Behaviour and Mitigating Risks
With the increasing amount of enforcement and policies regarding Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and bicycles, are these measures truly effective or does other factors come into play?
Introduction
The Active Mobility Act 2018 was introduced to allow enforcement of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) and Cyclists to ensure the safety of pedestrians, yet, the rate of accidents involving PMDs still continued to rise even when the new rules and speed limits were in place, signalling public outcry which led to the eventual decrease of speed limits on footpaths.
The lower speed limit, however, was rarely enforced, which further reinforces the idea that riders are intruders to footpaths. This will be further elaborated in a future article.
Ramping Up of Cycling Infrastructure
Under the National Cycling Plan 700km of cycling paths has been announced, 120km of cycling paths built by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) for its Cycling Path Network (CPN) and 300km built for National Parks (NParks) Park Connector Network (PCN).
There are various typologies of cycling paths, the most recent being red thermoplastic cycling paths (for LTA’s CPN) and asphalt surfaced cycling paths (NParks PCN).
From the Active Mobility guidebook which consolidates common standards for Singapore’s cycling paths, common features includes markings to indicate a dedicated, shared path and strips to slow down. Accompanying it are signs to visually caution riders and pedestrians for various hazards.
These infrastructural provisions looks good on paper, but has the intended outcome been accomplished?
Case Study of Some Improvement Works
When pedestrians were the only ones using the footpath, there was little to worry about blind spot conflicts, a pedestrian could easily stop and react to another approaching from beyond the curve.
However, with PMDs and cyclists being allowed on footpaths, the amount of reaction time decreases for pedestrians to react after riders appear from the blind spot, causing conflict.
Various solutions has been implemented and this is an example as such, using visual cues to guide users away from points of conflict, or highlight a potential conflict zone. These are appropriate relating to the severity of information, which requires attention to be drawn.
Here, another improvement work is shown to highlight a hazard, a carefully concealed side gate of a development. Pedestrians could be injured by oncoming riders on the footpath outside the compound. This marking highlights the concealment with a bright marking, alerting riders to slow down.
The Case with Excessive Path Markings and Signages
With the current existing standards, signs and markings are placed at regular intervals at the intersections between pedestrian and cycling paths to slow users down. These intersections could occur within less than 100m from each other, which could be deemed as excessive.
Owing to the overuse of such signs and markings, users may choose to ignore signs that has become a normal occurrence, defeating the purpose of such signs. Additional signs placed at ‘hotspots’ would hence, likely be ignored.
On the other hand, pedestrians, cyclists and PMD riders, unlike vehicular drivers, are not trained to read signages, markings and convex mirrors by default. Hence, more sensory approaches would be more suitable where necessary to alert, rather than putting up standard signages for entire stretches of paths.
Information banners could even be more helpful, rather than such signages, to remind pedestrians to give way to each other and co exist harmoniously, emergency information in case of an accident, for instance.
The colors, sizes and placement of signs may also contribute to the ineffectiveness of such solutions. A warning should ideally stand out from the environment when needed to highlight the importance and severity of a condition. Signs should be placed lower near eye level so that it is immediately noticed.
Common Behaviour of Pedestrians and Riders to Cycling Infrastructure
Pedestrians were using the cycling path for walking. It might be due to the lack of colour contrast of cycling paths to footpaths. Pedestrians also have the practice of pedestrians keeping left on footpaths further away from the road for safety.
Similarly, due to the shade the Walk2Ride shelter provided, the cyclist cycling under the sheltered footpath to be shaded under the hot afternoon sun. Such shelters could be designed with such concerns in mind in future with wider shelters.
A new bicycle crossing that has just been open in the day, this photograph shows users using the designated sections of the bicycle crossing in the evening.
This shows that with good design and integrating the site context and circulation routes, users will use as the designer intended.
What should the way forward be?
Existing design requirements should be made more flexible and integrate more performance-driven metric or allow performance-driven solutions in place to reduce unnecessary visual clutter to the streetscape (for instance, SCDF’s Fire Code).
Both pedestrians and riders alike should be educated on hazards and measures to reduce such risks instead of inconveniencing any party using the footpath or cycling path.
The goal of urban design should ensure a safe and conducive environment for pedestrians and riders to harmoniously ride than that of theoretical.
Got any suggestions or comments? Please leave them down below or drop us a message!
