Report of Head of Transportation Services

AGENDA ITEM 6

BOROUGH OF POOLE

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP – 18th SEPTEMBER 2014

REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

AUDIBLE SIGNALS AT JUNCTIONS AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To consider issues around the provision of audible signals (bleepers) at signalised pedestrian crossings across the borough.

2. DECISIONS REQUIRED

It is recommended that the Portfolio Holder approve:

2.1 That signalised junctions (listed in Appendix A) will no longer be equipped with audible signals

2.2 Re-affirm that stand-alone signalised pedestrian crossings (listed in Appendix B) will continue to be equipped with audible signals

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 The DfT Regulations of 1995 provide guidance for the use of audible signals. They state they cannot be used at staggered crossings where it is divided into two halves, or when two crossings are close together at a junction. In these instances a pedestrian - particularly those with visual impairments -may hear the signal from the other stage and think it is safe to cross when actually it is not safe to do so.

3.2 In residential areas, the volume may need to be reduced in the evening or turned off at night because the repetitive noise can cause irritation to residents or businesses. Indeed audible bleepers can be removed if a local authority receives objections.

3.3 There is no statutory requirement to provide audible signals at any location, although they traditionally have been provided in Poole over a number of years.

3.4 Current Position – Signalised Junctions (Appendix A)

The majority of junctions, as listed in Appendix A, do not have bleepers for the reasons stated in item 3.1 above. The exceptions are highlighted and it is recent changes on Ashley Road where bleepers have not been reinstated for the reasons stated in item 3.6 below which has prompted calls for the approach to be reviewed.

3.5 Audible equipment was first introduced when signals had far side pedestrian display (red man/ green man). In Poole when traffic signals are refurbished they are redesigned in line with DfT guidance, which includes the provision of nearside pedestrian displays, rotating tactile cone under the display unit, overhead pedestrian detection, low voltage controllers and, LED lamps.

3.6 In addition the industry standard is to move away from the provision of the audible equipment, emphasising the rotating tactile cone instead.

The reasons for this change are as follows:

(a) Originally visually impaired people could not always see the signal on the far side of the road and needed the audible signal to help. The new near side displays are now very much clearer than the far side ones, so that the audible signal now provides little benefit.

(b) Bleepers can make it difficult for pedestrians to determine if traffic has stopped as they can mask the sound of a vehicle in motion, and hence make it difficult for a visually impaired person to judge if it is safe to cross. This is even more of a concern with the quieter engines of newer cars.

(c) When considering the ‘stop, look, listen’ criteria the bleeper can mask the ‘listen’ advice for all users of the crossing, especially the visually impaired who may have developed hearing skills that they rely upon.

(d) Pedestrians could be distracted in discussions and walk out onto a crossing immediately on hearing a bleep, without actually visually checking to see that it is safe to do so.

(e) The audible signals can easily be confused with similar sounds from other nearby sources such as car alarms, property alarms, vehicle reversing horns and other machinery warning systems. Furthermore this noise can be a source of irritation for neighbours.

(f) Consistency – relying on the rotating cone feature means that this applies in all junctions throughout the borough / conurbation, including staggered crossings and at junctions where two or more crossings are close.

(g) The newly refurbished crossings incorporate overhead detectors which pick up pedestrians on the crossing, and if necessary extend the period of time allowed for the pedestrian to cross.When a bleeper is used it is only active for a pre-set period of time coinciding with the green man being displayed. This could create a situation whereby pedestrians are part way across the road when the bleeper stops, resulting in a potential ‘panic’ situation fearing that vehicles will start to move.

3.7 Further advantages of the rotating cone system are:

·  No masking the sound of traffic.

·  Helps visually impaired people ‘listen’ and determine that traffic has actually stopped and it is safe to cross.

·  Doesn’t give crossing users a false sense of security.

·  Tactile signals do not generate noise irritation for neighbours.

3.8 Current Practice of Neighbouring Authorities

Bournemouth Borough Council:

No longer install audible signals at any of their signal controlled junctions.

Dorset County Council:

Have never installed bleepers at any of their signal controlled junctions.

3.9 Issues with not providing audible bleepers:

(a) Local people have been accustomed to listening out for bleepers. For example when the two sites on Ashley Road were recently upgraded without bleepers, comments were received from representatives of Leonard Cheshire Home that the previously used audible bleepers were very helpful.

(b) At the Councils’ Getting About Group the view was a preference for bleepers whenever possible. This came from people with learning disabilities, not just the visually impaired.

4. Stand alone signalised pedestrianised crossings (Appendix B)

4.1 These consist of the following :

(a) Pelican crossings - pedestrians only

older style equipment with far sided displays

(b) Puffin crossings – pedestrians only

newer style equipment with near side displays, overhead pedestrian detection, etc

(c) Toucan crossings – pedestrians and cyclists

Newer style equipment with near side displays, overhead pedestrian and cycle detection

4.2 The majority of these facilities have bleepers, which it is proposed to retain. The exception is a small number which have staggered crossings divided into two halves, where in line with DfT Guidance, the use of bleepers would be inappropriate.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 In refurbishing traffic signals there is minimal cost difference associated with the provision of audible bleepers.

5.2 If there was a requirement to retrospectively fit bleepers to an installation that currently does not have them, the cost of the new units and re-programming would be approximately £2,000 per site. There is no budget provision for this.

6. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 None.

7. EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Audible signals were introduced some years ago to assist partially sighted pedestrians in respect of using far sided pedestrian displays. However over the years their usefulness has been reduced due to the factors noted above, and furthermore the tactile cone feature now provides the guidance needed for partially sighted users.

8. CONCLUSION

8.1 On the basis of the information contained in this report it is considered that audible bleepers should no longer be provided on signal controlled junctions.

8.2 It is proposed that the provision at stand alone pedestrian crossings will continue, in line with neighbouring authorities across the conurbation.

Julian McLaughlin

Head of Transportation Services

Officer Contact: John Rice (01202) 262111

Appendix A – Schedule of traffic signal controlled junctions

Appendix B – Schedule of signal controlled pedestrian crossings

1