DEVELOPMENT OF ROAD CROSSINGS FOR RIGHTS OF WAY USERS
Background
In the absence of specific Government guidance recommending standards for
rights of way road crossings, the development of promoted routes in Somerset
was virtually halted by conflict between the Rights of Way and Highway Safety
teams. The ability to adopt new routes was directly dependant on available
visibility splays, which are based on the requirements normally applied to the
Trunk road network. Some of these standards are set out in the following
relevant documents although this list is not exhaustive:








DMRB TA 90/05 The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and
equestrian Routes
DMRB TA 91/05
Provision for non-motorised users
DMRB TA 57/87
Roadside Facilities for Ridden Horses
DMRB TD 50/04
Road users’ Specific requirements
DMRB TD42/95
Geometric design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions
DMRB TD9/93
Highway Link design
Traffic Advisory leaflet 3/03 Equestrian Crossings
Various British Horse Society Guidance in particular ‘No 13 Horse
Crossings’.
The problem emerged that there are very few places within the County where
visibility can be achieved to meet those standards that were set out in the
relevant Guidance. By their nature rural roads are often bounded by hedgerows
or foliage, and are seldom straight. Moreover, traffic speed is rarely restricted
except by the national speed limit. The routes selected for promotion mean that
even with careful route selection, fast or busy roads have to be crossed in some
places. However, the current visibility requirements included within the
documents highlighted above, can only be met by either;


Major physical works – such as hedge removal, tree cutting or bank
removal over quite considerable lengths of the highway
Physically slowing down the traffic.
The first option is likely to be vetoed by the Planning Authority and the second
option is difficult to achieve and is covered by separate legislation. Speed limits
are unlikely to be effective in isolation, or supported by the police; speed humps
are not acceptable without lighting and public consultation; horse crossing signs
tend to be ignored if there is an overprovision locally, or the crossing has low
usage; and flashing warning signs operated by horse riders are prohibitively
expensive. Perversely, the only places where visibility requirements could be
met are usually on straight sections of road where invariably traffic is moving
fastest.
The Department for Transport has previously made it clear that no Guidance for
Rights Of Way road crossings will be issued and that decisions regarding the
suitability of crossings should be made on a pragmatic basis, giving full
consideration to the road conditions and traffic behaviour at the crossing point.
Somerset County Council Rights of Way and highway safety teams, have
therefore developed an assessment practice that will allow the development of
routes without compromising user safety.
Somerset Assessment Process
The over riding aim in the development and promotion of any route is to identify safe
crossing points for all users and then the development of the route must take shape
using those crossings.
Initially the designated Rights of Way officer undertakes an inspection of all
crossings proposed as part of a route that is being considered for promotion.
This first evaluation is based on officer experience and training with the highway
development control team and will determine whether this is a crossing point
that may pose a highway safety problem for any of the categories of user. If this
is the case then a Rights of Way officer will accompany the Principal Highways
Development Control Officer (one officer covers the county for this purpose to
ensure consistency) to inspect the site. Jointly they will assess the local
environmental conditions and whether there are any reasons to justify a
reduction from the appropriate standards and guidelines.
The starting point in any assessment is whether the provision of the full
standards can be achieved using the above documents and there will be cases
where the provision of these full standards will be required. Examples of this
would be Class 1 roads, County routes and freight routes that are heavily
trafficked. At the proposed crossing point there may be no speed restriction
(other than the national limit) and visibility may be seriously sub standard. If, as
well as any of these circumstances, the layout of the road precluded any speed
reducing measures or indeed the provision of any light controlled crossing, the
promotion of the crossing would be abandoned and the route renegotiated.
However, it has been established in Somerset that many proposed crossings
are on quiet rural roads where the full standard of visibility cannot be achieved.
With permitted speeds of up to 60mph the required visibility splay for horses
crossing would be a minimum of 3 metres back from the carriageway edge, with
visibility for 345 metres to the nearside carriageway edge in both directions, with
no obstruction between 900mm and 2.4m above the adjoining road level.
Whilst crossing may be within an area where the national speed limit applies, in
many places the actual speed of passing vehicles is much lower, and there is
good justification for a reduction in the required visibility.
With a Rights of Way network that has evolved historically, and has not
changed as traffic conditions have done so, there will be many existing
crossings that fail to meet these requirements. When assessing a road crossing
that is substandard, it is not possible to take into consideration or offset the fact
that the creation or promotion of the new route may take many walkers, riders
12 June 2009
2 /5
or cyclists off busy roads where the danger is perceived to be higher. From a
holistic point of view this would be the pragmatic approach, but it would be
virtually impossible to make an objective assessment of the collective danger to
those using the roads as opposed to the danger of the road crossing. Also for
consideration when promoting a new route, is the expectation that more people
will get on their horses or bikes than those who previously braved roads
perceived to be a hazard. If the crossings along that new route are not
appropriate, then the Authority finds itself in the situation where it is
encouraging users into a situation where safety is compromised.
Assessment Criteria
When looking at a crossing to determine whether there is a justification to relax
the requirements, the local road conditions and surroundings are assessed and
the following points are considered;







Classification of carriageway
Nature of the road
Existing and achievable visibility splays
Speed of passing traffic
Accident statistics
Verges or footways
Other mitigating circumstances
Mitigating circumstances can include;

Forward visibility for walkers or riders may be limited if they are on the
carriageway but need to cross over to a linking route, but perhaps they
could cross earlier and use the verge to proceed to the desired point.

Horizontal alignment of the carriageway may be sufficiently severe to
slow down approaching vehicles to the point where a reduced visibility is
acceptable.
It is also necessary to look further than the junction of a route with the first
public highway carrying vehicular traffic. It may be that this is a route joining an
exceedingly quiet unclassified road but that this road will then have a
substandard junction with the next road and there is no alternative route
available to the user. If there were another route that could be taken by users
then this further junction would not be a material consideration. But if the only
option available to the user is to negotiate this substandard junction or crossing,
or to return the way they have come, then it should become part of the
assessment for the suitability of the route.
Sometimes minor works, often within the highway, will improve safety. If the
trimming of vegetation is a requirement for the crossing to be considered
acceptable, then the ongoing maintenance needs to be permanently included
within a schedule.
12 June 2009
3 /5
Triggers For Involvement
The important factor in our involvement in any scheme is whether SCC has any
financial or management responsibility for the scheme. This extends to AONB
developments and any projects that are externally funded, such as a Lottery
grant, Somerset Aggregates Levy funding, or similar. Routes that are promoted
by private individuals – who often write books and pamphlets – are not the
responsibility of the Authority. It should be noted however, that every care is
taken in not allowing or supplying items, such as way marker discs, for use
along independently provided, private/permissive routes as this suggests that
consent has been given by the Authority to the choice of route and by
implication the road crossings.
The necessity for looking at a road crossing for rights of way users arises
wherever there will be an increase in the use of that crossing from the status
quo. This could be
1. The creation of a new right of way which will obviously put people where
they have not been before and bring about a change in the activity at that
point on the road.
2. The promotion in any way of a route that will lead to an increase in use of
a crossing point. This could include making it a part of a county or locally
promoted route where the production of leaflets detailing the route (that
has previously not been given any publicity) will lead to an increase in its
use.
3. The acceptance of a dedication of higher rights along a route – e.g. if a
public footpath is dedicated as a bridleway and therefore will now carry
horse riders and cyclists rather than just pedestrian traffic. This has
created some problems for rights of way officers where the Surveying
Authority also has a duty to investigate and act upon evidence that
routes previously existed or historically had higher rights. If conclusive
evidence is found, then the legislation has to be enacted and the
‘suitability’ of the route is irrelevant. Such routes must be added to the
Definitive Map and Survey, regardless of road safety issues. It is often
cheaper and quicker to accept dedications from landowners so as to
avoid costly public inquiries, but it may not be possible to accept a
dedication on highway safety grounds.
Publications
If a promoted route has needed an assessment and perhaps some works
are required to improve safety at a crossing point, it is recommended that an
‘alert’ is included within the description of the route in any published material
(leaflets or web description etc.). For example “This is a busy road, take care
when crossing”. It is also recommended that a notice is erected on any path
furniture in advance of a crossing to remind people to take extra care.
12 June 2009
4 /5
Future Route Development
Somerset has taken a view that whenever undertaking the development of a
new route or in utilising existing routes for new promoted trails, the starting point
is always to establish the most suitable crossing points, and have them
assessed. From there, any negotiations to add routes to the network should
relate to bringing users of the route to that approved crossing point.
This is a paper that sets out how Somerset County Council undertakes this
process. It is a pragmatic and forward thinking approach to providing new rights
of way, without compromising highway safety for vulnerable users, but still
being mindful of the relevant guidelines.
Sally Vickery
Rights of Way Group, Somerset County Council
Helen Vittery
Transport Development Group, Somerset County Council
12 June 2009
5 /5