# and the difference is....?



## dellzeqq (3 May 2013)




----------



## GrasB (3 May 2013)

One is in an idillic location the other is in a carpark?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 May 2013)

One's a crop design, the other's a....(I guess you know how this sentence finishes)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 May 2013)

one was created by idiots and the other is a crop circle?


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 May 2013)

One of them won't kill people?


----------



## Ern1e (10 May 2013)

Uhm not to sure but !


----------



## Flying Dodo (10 May 2013)

Rebecca & I will be going round and round one of those in Bracknell, next Thursday. They've said helmets are compulsory! It should be interesting..........

Here in Luton, we've had a similar one of these daft things for a number of years.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 May 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> Rebecca & I will be going round and round one of those in Bracknell, next Thursday. *They've said helmets are compulsory!* It should be interesting...........


that's to prevent boredom induced brain damage......


----------



## Flying Dodo (10 May 2013)

I'm more worried about being hit by a car not stopping. They can't expect a car to stop on a roundabout to give way to a cyclist. I mean that's just daft isn't it?


----------



## ColinJ (10 May 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> Here in Luton, we've had a similar one of these daft things for a number of years.


Well at least that one doesn't rely on motorists entering or leaving the roundabout giving way to cyclists crossing in front of them!


----------



## ColinJ (10 May 2013)

Great minds think alike ...


----------



## Flying Dodo (10 May 2013)

ColinJ said:


> Well at least that one doesn't rely on motorists entering or leaving the roundabout giving way to cyclists crossing in front of them!


 
No, the cars edge forward over the green paint anyway, so if a cyclist tried to go round that way, they couldn't!


----------



## ColinJ (10 May 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> No, the cars edge forward over the green paint anyway, so if a cyclist tried to go round that way, they couldn't!


Oh - I only looked at the exit from the roundabout! 

I would assume that cars would do that, but some cyclists might be more trusting ...


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2013)

The last cyclist looks a little squashed. Is it ET?


----------



## ozzage (15 May 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> I'm more worried about being hit by a car not stopping. They can't expect a car to stop on a roundabout to give way to a cyclist. I mean that's just daft isn't it?


 
The Luton one is crap and far more likely to kill people. In the TFL mockup the cars won't have to stop ON the roundabout. They end up crossing the cycle track virtually at right-angles and have space to stop before-hand, obviously (and for the zebra).

I like the design and it works well in NL. It'll certainly take some getting used in the UK but all such things have to have a beginning.


----------



## numbnuts (15 May 2013)

We in Southampton are having one, well I'm not going to use it unless I've got a camera fitted to me helmet


----------



## marzjennings (15 May 2013)

One was designed by an art student high on weed and the other a road management student low on IQ.

I really can't get over how bad a road design that is.

As a cyclist wishing to ride straight on, am I suppose to follow the special needs outer circle or would I be allowed to follow the more direct route?


----------



## jefmcg (15 May 2013)

marzjennings said:


> One was designed by an art student high on weed and the other a road management student low on IQ is a crop circle.


FIFY


----------



## Flying Dodo (15 May 2013)

ozzage said:


> The Luton one is crap and far more likely to kill people. In the TFL mockup the cars won't have to stop ON the roundabout. They end up crossing the cycle track virtually at right-angles and have space to stop before-hand, obviously (and for the zebra).
> 
> I like the design and it works well in NL. It'll certainly take some getting used in the UK but all such things have to have a beginning.


 
Mmm - I'm not convinced. On the BBC News, they clearly showed a car stopping to give way to a cyclist and at least half of the car was on the roundabout itself - it hadn't fully turned onto the exit road. And bear in mind this example has the exits/entrances all at 90°. In real life that often isn't the case. And in the same segment it showed a car NOT stopping and if the cyclist hadn't already stopped, they would have got hit.

I'm off to TRL tomorrow as part of another test batch of cyclists to go round their facilities, so assuming I'm on the Dutch roundabout test, I'll be able to give you first hand experience.


----------



## plastic99 (17 May 2013)

Just to avoid misunderstandings, this is pretty much a carbon copy of a Netherlands roundabout (complete with Dutch road markings) to see how it works (and no, I don't know why they couldn't just go to the Netherlands). 

Little wonder that it isn't immediately obvious to British road users. There was never any intention to build a roundabout like this with Dutch road markings in the UK; the next stage is to work out how this can be best implemented using UK road markings, and what changes in the regulations might be required (see here).

Of course another good way to understand how this kind of roundabout works (perfectly well) in the Netherlands would be to refer to the excellent Bicycle Dutch blog, which has a detailed article (including comprehensive explanations and video) on this very subject. Go educate yourself!
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/a-modern-amsterdam-roundabout/



> They can't expect a car to stop on a roundabout to give way to a cyclist. I mean that's just daft isn't it?


Almost as daft as the idea that a car driver would stop to allow a pedestrian to cross on a zebra crossing. Oh... 
(and if you visit the article linked above you will see that the drivers generally don't stop *on* the roundabout).


----------



## GrasB (17 May 2013)

plastic99 said:


> Almost as daft as the idea that a car driver would stop to allow a pedestrian to cross on a zebra crossing.


Oft in the UK drivers don't stop even when people are on the crossing.


----------



## Flying Dodo (17 May 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> Rebecca & I will be going round and round one of those in Bracknell, next Thursday. They've said helmets are compulsory! It should be interesting..........
> 
> Here in Luton, we've had a similar one of these daft things for a number of years.


 

Sadly, TRL didn't have us going round and round in circles on their Dutch roundabout - it was endless looping around traffic lights with different phasing and eye level repeater lights. However, as they didn't have any cars trying to edge us out of the way, it was hardly realistic. And I told them so.


----------



## ianrauk (17 May 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> Sadly, TRL didn't have us going round and round in circles on their Dutch roundabout - it was endless looping around traffic lights with different phasing and eye level repeater lights. However, as they didn't have any cars trying to edge us out of the way, it was hardly realistic. *And I told them so*.


 

And their reply?


----------



## Flying Dodo (17 May 2013)

They said they'd tried earlier sessions using cars, but found it took far longer to get the test routes re-set with cyclists back round to where they should have been.

Well d'oh - of course. It's because the cars are slowing up the flow of cyclists. 

We also had to fill in a very lengthy questionnaire. My wrist ached with all the writing I did with my comments.


----------



## Andy_R (17 May 2013)

Instead of wasting silly money on a system thsat segregates one form of traffic from another, why not just change the driving test? Make drivers spend time on the road as cyclists, and change judiciary policy; driver/cyclist collisions have more onus on the driver. Sorted.


----------



## gavintc (17 May 2013)

Having used these roundabouts in Belgium, they worked well. But, there are other factors at play. Not least is the legal aspect of presumed negligence if you hit a cyclist and drivers are simply more bike aware. I think one element of the roundabout is being examined rather the system here.


----------



## GrasB (18 May 2013)

gavintc said:


> Having used these roundabouts in Belgium, they worked well. But, there are other factors at play. Not least is the legal aspect of presumed negligence if you hit a cyclist and drivers are simply more bike aware. I think one element of the roundabout is being examined rather the system here.


Despite what some people say on this forum the few days I spent in the Netherlands showed that drivers are much more considerate towards cyclists than in the UK. Also in general they seem to respect give way markings as near absolutes on the road with regard to pedestrians & cyclists, in the UK they seem to be advisory (at best) most of the time. This will have a huge effect on how effective this type of infrastructure is.


----------



## ozzage (20 May 2013)

User said:


> I do love the fact that those pushing the Dutch solution seem to assume that no-one who raises questions might ever have cycled in Holland...


 
Well when the "arguments" against generally consist of "stupid design that'll kill people" or draw parallels with completely different designs (eg in Luton), it's easy to draw the conclusion that the people making them have never SEEN it work and don't really understand what they are looking at.

and...



Flying Dodo said:


> And bear in mind this example has the exits/entrances all at 90°. In real life that often isn't the case.


 
err yes the 90% approach to the crossing is the whole point. If they don't that, it's dangerous. It MUST be the case in real life. This design isn't just "put a track around the outside" it's a basket of measures, all of which are necessary, the most important of which are the right-angle exits to slow speeds and massively increase visibility, and having enough space to stop.

Notice also that each arm has a different treatment in this test roundabout. They are playing with different options.

I'm also nervous about drivers in the UK and their ability to cope with this, but we have to start improvements somewhere. I realise that people in this forum think this is a backwards step, but well luckily even TFL is starting to disagree with you...


----------



## gavintc (20 May 2013)

ozzage said:


> Well when the "arguments" against generally consist of "stupid design that'll kill people" or draw parallels with completely different designs (eg in Luton), it's easy to draw the conclusion that the people making them have never SEEN it work and don't really understand what they are looking at.
> 
> and...
> 
> ...


 
What a remarkable post. Personally, I like the new roundabout, have seen it work well in Europe and HOPE it would succeed here. However, as I have said in my post, we have the potential to bring in one element of the European success rather than examining and understanding the 'system'. An example which you may remember was the 'street culture' of bars and cafe. This works well in Europe, was attempted here, but has failed. We did not understand that getting people into a different mindset of drinking demanded more than putting some tables outside on the street.


----------



## Flying Dodo (21 May 2013)

ozzage said:


> Well when the "arguments" against generally consist of "stupid design that'll kill people" or draw parallels with completely different designs (eg in Luton), it's easy to draw the conclusion that the people making them have never SEEN it work and don't really understand what they are looking at.
> 
> and...
> 
> ...


 
With respect, you're missing the point. In the example with the arms at 90°, the video on the news clearly showed a car stopping on a roundabout to give way to a cycllist, whilst on the other side, a car went merrily across and would have hit a cyclist, unless the cyclist hadn't stopped. Whilst I agree entirely it would be great to completely re-engineer car driver's attitudes, it's going to take years. To have a car suddenly stop on a roundabout, will cause accidents, and cyclists will be injured and killed if this sort of roundabout is introduced.

Having been to TRL last week, even though we didn't get to go on the magic roundabout, after talking to the staff quite a bit, although they have good intentions, I'm not sure they really understand all the issues faced by cyclists in a busy urban environment such as London. For example on the traffic light junction we were testing, they were trying different combinations of alternate working lights and timings. However most of the time it was with just 1 cyclist at a time, and there were no cars at all. So I did query with them how valid their data would be, and they did agree, but said they tried using cars as well, but found the tests took far longer.



Edit: Also, I should point out contrary to what you've said, the Luton roundabout isn't a completely different design. The TRL example have raised divisions, whilst the one here in Luton uses tarmac kerbs. In both cases cyclists are segregated. The TRL one has cyclists with the right of way all the way round. In Luton, cyclists are expected to give way at some of the interactions, but not all.


----------



## gavintc (21 May 2013)

I think you will find that this is described as 'Decision Based Evidence Making'.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 May 2013)

GrasB said:


> Despite what some people say on this forum the few days I spent in the Netherlands showed that drivers are much more considerate towards cyclists frightened by the law than in the UK. Also in general they seem to respect give way markings as near absolutes on the road with regard to pedestrians & cyclists, in the UK they seem to be advisory (at best) most of the time. This will have a huge effect on how effective this type of infrastructure is.


Presumed liability perhaps?


----------



## dellzeqq (22 May 2013)

marzjennings said:


> One was designed by an art student high on weed and the other a road management student low on IQ.
> 
> I really can't get over how bad a road design that is.
> 
> As a cyclist wishing to ride straight on, am I suppose to follow the special needs outer circle or would I be allowed to follow the more direct route?


I have no idea, and neither has anybody else.


----------



## bof (23 May 2013)

GrasB said:


> Despite what some people say on this forum the few days I spent in the Netherlands showed that drivers are much more considerate towards cyclists than in the UK. Also in general they seem to respect give way markings as near absolutes on the road with regard to pedestrians & cyclists, in the UK they seem to be advisory (at best) most of the time. This will have a huge effect on how effective this type of infrastructure is.





GregCollins said:


> Presumed liability perhaps?


I have spent some years living there and still have family connections...
1/ Dutch drivers are likely to be cyclists
2/ It is drilled into you when you learn to drive to respect cycle lanes & cyclists. Noticeable when I lived there that Dutch drivers were usually great with cyclists and almost invariably ignored pedestrian crossings ( it has got a bit better now).
3/ The hilly bit of the Netherlands had much less cycling and the attitude of drivers is generally more UK like.
4/ Hit a cyclist with a car in Amsterdam and you'll have your head kicked in (I have seen it)
5/ Roundabouts did not exist there until around 20 years ago, so there is less ingrained behaviour to change hence easier to introduce crop circles (which I hate using). The problem they seem to be addressing is inability to mix with traffic when necessary, induced by cycle lanes (which I am in favour of in some situations).

Incidentally overall road accident fatality rates are almost identical between the UK and Netherlands, though NL is significantly safer for cyclists.


----------



## snorri (25 May 2013)

marzjennings said:


> As a cyclist wishing to ride straight on, am I suppose to follow the special needs outer circle or would I be allowed to follow the more direct route?


The milliseconds lost in taking the slightly less direct route is more than made up by not having to give way to any motor traffic.


----------



## Flying Dodo (30 May 2013)

Notwithstanding all the derogatory comments we wrote on the TRL questionnaire about their road layouts (or possibly because of them), Rebecca and I have been invited back to TRL next Monday, to test the magic roundabout! Except they want us to drive their cars, so we get to try and not run down any cyclists!!!


----------



## summerdays (30 May 2013)

So they are going to use cyclists, who are more aware of cyclists in the first place, to drive the cars? I do hope they are going to use non-cycling car drivers to ride the bikes


----------



## velovoice (30 May 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> Notwithstanding all the derogatory comments we wrote on the TRL questionnaire about their road layouts (or possibly because of them), Rebecca and I have been invited back to TRL next Monday, to test the magic roundabout! Except they want us to drive their cars, so we get to try and not run down any cyclists!!!


Just to clarify - our chief criticism is that they wanted us to give feedback on whether low level cycle lights at junctions help cyclists 'get the jump' on motorists, but there were no motorists in the trial - we cyclists had the roads to ourselves!

Our being asked to participate in the Dutch RA trial came about because we were now already on their database. The woman handling this trial did not know which trials we had done previously and indeed had no idea we were cyclists. In fact, I've got a terrible suspicion that our sessions will involve motorists only -- no cyclists -- and so will be just as fundamentally flawed as the cyclists-only one we did last time. Hmmmmm.


----------



## Licramite (4 Jun 2013)

looks no sillier than the magic roundabout in swindon. - I think I would like to see one in westbury, admittedly you would probably have to demolish 3/4 of westbury to get it in - but that would be no bad thing.

I still don't see how it would stop cars/lorries just stopping on the bike lane or ignoring you and driving straight across in front of you.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Jun 2013)

Licramite said:


> looks no sillier than the magic roundabout in swindon. .


that's not difficult.....


----------



## Flying Dodo (4 Jun 2013)

Well, we went back to TRL yesterday, to have a go at driving round their Dutch style roundabout.

The actual roundabout itself seemed smaller than it appeared on TV. Each of the approach arms has a different style of segregating the cyclists off the road onto a cycle lane which in all cases is separated from the road by a raised tarmac section (so in that respect it's exactly like the example that we already have in Luton), with different styles of paint and markers for the crossing part. In some cases it's just a zebra crossing, in others a zebra crossing for pedestrians with a different style for cyclists.

We all had multiple journeys to do, testing going in all directions from each arm. The cyclists they were using to go around the roundabout the same time as the cars were TRL staff and contractors (as they said they felt it would be too dangerous to use the public). On each run, they asked us to provide a score out of 10 for both the ease of using the roundabout, and how safe it felt.

On a couple of occasions, I almost ran into the cyclist as they went around.

At the end of the afternoon, we had to fill in a long questionnaire explaining our feelings about each of the options; if we'd noticed the different styles of crossing; and any other comments.

In a test environment, with cars going no more than 10-15 mph and only 1 cyclist at a time crossing in front of you, some of the time, it works fine, but other times it felt very dangerous. With larger vehicles, you'd get roundabouts blocked up and bearing in mind the speeds used in real life, the design just doesn't work. And I told them that. The only way it can possibly work is if speeds are severely limited. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just I can't see that's achievable here.

Segregation (in this example) doesn't work.


----------



## Maylian (3 Jul 2013)

numbnuts said:


> We in Southampton are having one, well I'm not going to use it unless I've got a camera fitted to me helmet


 

Where is that going then? Interested in the idea but think it's more dangerous than useful myself.


----------



## thom (11 Aug 2013)

dellzeqq said:


>


Greenfield thinking pertains to both ;-)
The former is about preventing people being mown down while the latter just involved people mowing stuff down...


----------



## Licramite (12 Aug 2013)

methinks - top photo - lots of peed off motorists
bottom photo - lots of peed off farmers
first its bloody travellers and its bloody aliens!!


----------



## fimm (15 Aug 2013)

Flying Dodo said:


> On a couple of occasions, I almost ran into the cyclist as they went around.


Why?


----------



## Flying Dodo (16 Aug 2013)

On some of the junctions, they're trialling different crossings. On some they had cyclists going across on chevron marked lanes in front of a zebra crossing for pedestrians, whilst on others the cyclists and pedestirans were on the same path but marked with white lines. The effect was it meant it wasn't at all clear who had right of way - me in the car, or the cyclist crossing in front of me. 

Bear in mind I was driving round the roundabout fairly slowly whilst being fully aware of the cyclists and having a pro-cycling attitude - White Van Man would have been more aggressive.

I made the point very clear to them, if all motorised traffic went round the roundabout at 10-15 mph, then it could work - any higher speeds and they'll end up with dead cyclists.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Aug 2013)

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/4642/1/4642.pdf

I know. It's kind of a trudge, but worth the effort. Because, if you look at where this roundabout is taking us...........

(how the author thinks the Redways are a success is beyond me - I've written to him and asked)

(oh, and why? I'm working on a building in MK and it doesn't hurt to try and get in to the heads of the planners, who, rather like the LCC, cling to the outward forms of a long-redundant creed)


----------

