# CTC capitulation?



## ComedyPilot (20 Feb 2014)

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/cycle-safety-fund-and-bedford-turbo-roundabout-some-facts

As a prospective member, I am not going to join now....

Much as I dislike BC's image and (IMO) a 'helmets everywhere' promotion (from images on their website) I do like their Chris Boardman led campaign, so might join BC now....

Seems the CTC gave the nod to spend 20m of DFT cycle-safety money on a roundabout that does nack all to help cyclists as 'it was the best of a bad bunch'


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Feb 2014)

The CTC are useless.
And anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.


----------



## BSRU (20 Feb 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/cycle-safety-fund-and-bedford-turbo-roundabout-some-facts
> 
> As a prospective member, I am not going to join now....
> 
> ...


Yes, it's being the rounds on twitter and Chris Peck has been annoying people on the CTC forum.
I am seriously considering not renewing my membership.


----------



## snorri (20 Feb 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Seems the CTC gave the nod to spend 20m of DFT cycle-safety money on a roundabout that does nack all to help cyclists as 'it was the best of a bad bunch'


CTC along with BC.
This sort of thing crops up again and again in the UK where money for cycling has to be spent within a ridiculouly tight timescale or it is lost to some other project altogether, usually a non cycle project.


----------



## TheDoctor (20 Feb 2014)

If it's a choice between a farcility that's shite, or 'something else' I'd go for 'something else' every time.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Feb 2014)

TheDoctor said:


> If it's a choice between a farcility that's s***e, or 'something else' I'd go for 'something else' every time.



Yep, in my line of work we frequently encounter the "spend or lose" situation - I mostly go for the "just keep the money" approach if it's gong to be a rush-job or to be spent on something ridiculous.


----------



## ComedyPilot (20 Feb 2014)

Seems like there were two choices, wipe your bum on a towel or on the carpet, and toilet roll wasn't even offered as an option.


----------



## snorri (20 Feb 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Seems like there were two choices, wipe your bum on a towel or on the carpet, and toilet roll wasn't even offered as an option.


.........or opt out of the discussion group and later discover those who were left had come up with an even more flawed scheme.


----------



## totallyfixed (20 Feb 2014)

You can implement as many Dutch roundabouts as you like in this country, even if there was an unlimited fund to replace every one in the UK with Dutch style ones they would not work. The reason is glaringly obvious, unless traffic laws undergo a fundamental about face and give cyclists priority [in the Netherlands priority is signified by "sharks teeth" painted on the road] or their own traffic lights at major junctions, we can all forget it, it's pie in the sky.


----------



## ComedyPilot (21 Feb 2014)

We all know what is needed, and we (as a nation) don't blink an eye at highways spending - so isn't it about time the spending that IS done is done RIGHT?


----------



## oldstrath (21 Feb 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> We all know what is needed, and we (as a nation) don't blink an eye at highways spending - so isn't it about time the spending that IS done is done RIGHT?


The trouble is that as totallyfixed points out, what is needed is not just more money, but an acceptance that cycleways should have priority over crossing traffic. That's the key thing that makes the Dutch 'cycle round the outside' method work, but would be anathema to our carloving politicians, journalists and judiciary. Its also the thing CTC should be pushing for, but they are too busy being pally with the buggers.


----------



## benb (21 Feb 2014)

I had already decided not to renew my CTC membership, after their support for the awful "Nice Way Code" victim blaming BS.
This has made me even more sure.


----------



## bikepacker (21 Feb 2014)

When I was one of their RTR reps the CTC briefed against me at a public inquiry when I was making objections to road alterations on a reason of cycle safety.


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Feb 2014)

Here's another view ... We can debate the pros and cons until the cows come home, but the only way to gather some evidence of how it works in the UK is to run the experiment. Sometimes the results run contrary to expectations.


----------



## oldstrath (21 Feb 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> Here's another view ... We can debate the pros and cons until the cows come home, but the only way to gather some evidence of how it works in the UK is to run the experiment. Sometimes the results run contrary to expectations.


I agree, empirical evidence is a good thing. But we already have lots - surely the CTC should argue for building on that, not simply ignoring it and starting again?


----------



## benb (21 Feb 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> Here's another view ... We can debate the pros and cons until the cows come home, but the only way to gather some evidence of how it works in the UK is to run the experiment. Sometimes the results run contrary to expectations.



1. We already know what works
2. This is a motor vehicle roundabout, with zero cycling provision. It's scandalous that the money for this was taken from a cycling fund!


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> 1. We already know what works
> 2. This is a motor vehicle roundabout, with zero cycling provision. It's scandalous that the money for this was taken from a cycling fund!


Sometimes demonstrating that something doesn't work has value in the bigger scheme as well. I'm no fan if these things either and found they were crap in Holland.


----------



## benb (21 Feb 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> Sometimes demonstrating that something doesn't work has value in the bigger scheme as well. I'm no fan if these things either and found they were crap in Holland.



So we already know they don't work!


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> So we already know they don't work!


But nobody listens to me!


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Feb 2014)

User13710 said:


> Just as long as no-one gets killed or injured.


Well that's the big fear if course .... I'll bet somebody has done a Risk Assesment so that's all covered ....


----------



## theclaud (21 Feb 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> But nobody listens to me!


Can't blame 'em, what with the jacket potato thing 'n' all...


----------



## ComedyPilot (21 Feb 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> But nobody listens to me!


Then who ARE they listening to?

Is there a collective group of road users strenuously (and successfully) campaigning for sh1t infrastructure, and they always get their way?


----------



## theclaud (21 Feb 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Then who ARE they listening to?
> 
> Is there a collective group of road users strenuously (and successfully) campaigning for sh1t infrastructure, and they always get their way?



Yes.


----------



## ComedyPilot (21 Feb 2014)

What are you doing on here @theclaud ?

Haven't you got a rugby match to be watching?

My Jujitsu instructor (lovely bloke from Cardiff) called a halt to tonight's training early so he could get home in time to watch it...


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Feb 2014)

theclaud said:


> Can't blame 'em, what with the jacket potato thing 'n' all...



Oh c'mon, there are people here extolling the virtue of the WeinerSchnitzel as some kind of gastronomic delight .... 
Why ruin perfectly good beans with baked spud?
Why ruin perfectly good veal or pork or chicken with breadcrumbs ....


Oh, hang on again .....


----------



## theclaud (21 Feb 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> Oh c'mon, there are people here extolling the virtue of the WeinerSchnitzel as some kind of gastronomic delight ....



But is there anyone here who can spell it?


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Feb 2014)

W


theclaud said:


> But is there anyone here who can spell it?


What Wiener Schnitzel? Dunno


----------



## theclaud (21 Feb 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> What are you doing on here @theclaud ?
> 
> Haven't you got a rugby match to be watching?
> 
> My Jujitsu instructor (lovely bloke from Cardiff) called a halt to tonight's training early so he could get home in time to watch it...



It'll be on in the boozer so I will either catch the end or just the aftermath...


----------



## Flying Dodo (21 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> 1. We already know what works
> 2. This is a motor vehicle roundabout, with zero cycling provision. It's scandalous that the money for this was taken from a cycling fund!




As mentioned already, either some money is spent on a "nowhere as good as it could be" solution, or *nothing* gets spent on the roundabout at all. The compromise solution should improve cycling safety a bit. Not as much as if the local authority had put their weight behind insisting on a proper cycling first answer (sadly, that wasn't going to happen in Bedford). But better than nothing.


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Feb 2014)

It'll at least be a destination to cycle to and wonder!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Feb 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Then who ARE they listening to?
> 
> Is there a collective group of road users strenuously (and successfully) campaigning for sh1t infrastructure, and they always get their way?


Yes.

The roads lobby and their sock puppets the local authority Highway Engineers who are, for the most part, all about moving shiny expensive motor vehicles from A-to-B as quickly as possible.

We had a county cycling forum meeting last year. The venue was a few hundred metres from a mainline railway station. Every single county* employee/council member drove to the meeting. In "prestige" cars. Of which they were each the sole occupants. And then they wondered why we were not impressed.

*fair play the chap from the district council came on his Galaxy.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Feb 2014)

Marmion said:


> The CTC are useless.
> And anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.


if all the CTC did was campaigning, then they would be useless. But...........since they do a great deal else, then they are not useless. Then again, you've not got the social skills for a day (or night) ride with the CTC, so you may never get to know that or benefit from it.

Twenty million quid! Blimey! A crossroads would have been better.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (23 Feb 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Then again, you've not got the social skills for a day (or night) ride with the CTC, so you may never get to know that or benefit from it.



Eh?  

I take it that you are referring to something specific here, on which I have touched a raw nerve.


----------



## theclaud (23 Feb 2014)

Marmion said:


> Eh?
> 
> I take it that you are referring to something specific here, on which I have touched a raw nerve.



I guess he's referring to the post he quoted. The CTC is, among other things, a club, and your post was not likely to endear you to those of us who are members of it.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (23 Feb 2014)

theclaud said:


> I guess he's referring to the post he quoted. The CTC is, among other things, a club, and your post was not likely to endear you to those of us who are members of it.



Fair enough, but they are still useless. I would have thought that as this thread is in Campaigning and Public Policy that the glorious social skills possessed by CTC members (which I apparently lack) would also extend to having an intellect to work out that my response was in regard to that matter and not an attack on the members. 

I guess you don't need to be smart to have social skills.


----------



## Flying Dodo (23 Feb 2014)

Marmion said:


> Fair enough, but they are still useless.



A very sweeping generalisation, which is easy enough for anyone to make, without being fully aware of all the facts concerning this roundabout in Bedford.

As already stated, this compromise solution is the best that CTC and Sustrans could get all the relevant parties involved to actually agree to. The only criteria allowing for money to be spent on improvements to the roundabout was that any solution must reduce accidents involving cyclists on the road. Bedford Borough Council did not want to consider the situation of cyclists on shared use paths. The Council also didn't want anything which would reduce vehicular traffic flow. In addition, due to the large network of gas, water & electricity pipes running under the roundabout, a complete redesign to dig it up completely to make it far more cyclist friendly was not an option - there was no money for that.

By having the altered layout, and the fact that traffic won't be able to alter lanes due to raised sections around the roundabout, means that a cyclist can't be squeezed out by a vehicle, as they will have to sit behind the cyclist. This will make it safer for cyclists.


----------



## Flying Dodo (23 Feb 2014)

Not exactly - the TRL trials in Crowthorne were for a variety of different roundabout layouts, but they were for smaller roundabouts with only 1 lane going round. They did however use a similar example of zebra crossings with utility cyclists using an adjacent crossing.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Feb 2014)

Marmion said:


> Eh?
> 
> I take it that you are referring to something specific here, on which I have touched a raw nerve.


you waded in with a blanket statement, describing people you don't know as fools.


----------



## oldstrath (23 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> A very sweeping generalisation, which is easy enough for anyone to make, without being fully aware of all the facts concerning this roundabout in Bedford.
> 
> As already stated, this compromise solution is the best that CTC and Sustrans could get all the relevant parties involved to actually agree to. The only criteria allowing for money to be spent on improvements to the roundabout was that any solution must reduce accidents involving cyclists on the road. Bedford Borough Council did not want to consider the situation of cyclists on shared use paths. The Council also didn't want anything which would reduce vehicular traffic flow. In addition, due to the large network of gas, water & electricity pipes running under the roundabout, a complete redesign to dig it up completely to make it far more cyclist friendly was not an option - there was no money for that.
> 
> By having the altered layout, and the fact that traffic won't be able to alter lanes due to raised sections around the roundabout, means that a cyclist can't be squeezed out by a vehicle, as they will have to sit behind the cyclist. This will make it safer for cyclists.



Locking up anyone who dares cycle would "improve cyclist safety", as well as maximising motor traffic. Effectively it looks as if they are pushing cyclists onto shared use paths, but then making no provision for those cyclists to cross the road except by stopping, dismounting, waiting for someone to be gracious enough to stop, then hoping the cars will all wait patiently. It may improve safety, but will do nothing to encourage cycling among the current non-cyclists. I know this wasn't the designer's priority, but surely it should be CTC's.

Is there some reason the European approach of giving cyclists priority over cars crossing a bike lane could not be used?


----------



## buggi (23 Feb 2014)

FFS there is nothing wrong with our roads, they don't need a redesign. I never have a problem with getting from A to B. What is wrong is the attitude of the drivers and that can easily be fixed by a presumed liability law.


----------



## stowie (23 Feb 2014)

buggi said:


> FFS there is nothing wrong with our roads, they don't need a redesign. I never have a problem with getting from A to B. What is wrong is the attitude of the drivers and that can easily be fixed by a presumed liability law.



I don't believe that most people treat cyclists badly because they think that they have the presumption of civil liability on their side. The attitude is derived from a criminal law system which is woeful when cyclists (or pedestrians) are involved. This attitude pervades from the top, through courts, to the police and onto drivers. Even those in power who cycle - such as Boris - come out with crap about cyclists generally causing accidents when the facts show this not to be the case. Police lecturing about high-viz but shrugging their shoulders at policing 20mph zones sends a clear message out to drivers. As does every case where drivers are treated leniently because the sun was in their eyes or they need the car for work. Presumed liability is a civil matter and would be welcome in that victims of road accidents wouldn't then have an uphill battle with insurance companies but the attitude of drivers stems from a sense of entitlement afforded to them by the treatment of cyclists and pedestrians by those in power coupled with decades of massaging the road network to minimise inconvenience for drivers at the expense of every other road user.


----------



## Flying Dodo (23 Feb 2014)

oldstrath said:


> Locking up anyone who dares cycle would "improve cyclist safety", as well as maximising motor traffic. Effectively it looks as if they are pushing cyclists onto shared use paths, but then making no provision for those cyclists to cross the road except by stopping, dismounting, waiting for someone to be gracious enough to stop, then hoping the cars will all wait patiently. It may improve safety, but will do nothing to encourage cycling among the current non-cyclists. I know this wasn't the designer's priority, but surely it should be CTC's.
> 
> Is there some reason the European approach of giving cyclists priority over cars crossing a bike lane could not be used?



Not exactly. They're not pushing cyclists off the road. At the moment, you can drive round this roundabout fairly fast, which is the reason there have been a number of incidents involving cyclists. I've cycled round it, and you do have to keep looking around, especially at the exits, if you're carrying on around the roundabout but a car is veering towards you, to go off. The redesign will slow car approach speeds down from an average 25 mph to 10-15 mph, making it easier for cyclists to take the lane and proceed around the roundabout.

I agree entirely that it does nothing for encouraging cycling amongst non-cyclists. However, as I've said, sadly that wasn't on the table as an allowed outcome. If the CTC had said that was a priority, then nothing would have happened.

And the reason why the European approach for giving cyclists priority isn't used in the UK is an entirely different thing and would rely on primary legislation and (unfortunately) an unlikely complete shift in attitudes.


----------



## stowie (23 Feb 2014)

When I decided which organisation to join, the CTC were embroiled in some kind of internal fight over charity status, so I went to the LCC instead. As an outsider looking in, I can see some of the good stuff - road justice really sticks in my mind as being a powerful campaign. I also can imagine how difficult it must be to get councils to even acknowledge cycling when street planning and it must be frustrating when they fight tooth and nail for marginal improvements and then have smart-arses (like me) scoff at the results. So I am mindful of criticism, especially now that I have gained a little insight locally on some of the real problems local campainging groups for cycling or walking can face.

But there must come a point when you may as well just say "if this is the best, then let's not bother and I don't need to spend hours trying to convince people who won't listen." I have heard before now of cycling budget being used to increase on-street parking (in the guise of street improvements) and at these stages I think simply walking away is a valid option.


----------



## buggi (23 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Not exactly. They're not pushing cyclists off the road. At the moment, you can drive round this roundabout fairly fast, which is the reason there have been a number of incidents involving cyclists. I've cycled round it, and you do have to keep looking around, especially at the exits, if you're carrying on around the roundabout but a car is veering towards you, to go off. *The redesign will slow car approach* speeds down from an average 25 mph to 10-15 mph, making it easier for cyclists to take the lane and proceed around the roundabout.
> 
> I agree entirely that it does nothing for encouraging cycling amongst non-cyclists. However, as I've said, sadly that wasn't on the table as an allowed outcome. If the CTC had said that was a priority, then nothing would have happened.
> 
> And the reason why the European approach for giving cyclists priority isn't used in the UK is an entirely different thing and would rely on primary legislation and (unfortunately) an unlikely complete shift in attitudes.


 by my works they have just redesigned what was already a major busy roundabout to INCREASE the speed of traffic and in doing so have made the roundabout a death trap for cyclists. I spoke to a director at work about it, who said he was even worried now that it increased risk to drivers also. We have complained to Warwick council and they are bringing their post-construction risk assessment forward. Whether they will do anything is another matter but we have 90 cyclists who use that roundabout. There is a cycle path but you can't get to it from one side of the roundabout, even if you wanted to use it, unless you go round the roundabout!!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (23 Feb 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> you waded in with a blanket statement, describing people you don't know as fools.



No, I claimed that the CTC (an organisation) were useless, and then followed this by stating that anyone who disagreed with this were fools. There was a degree of humour intended in the latter sentence; perhaps don't possess sufficient skills to have been aware of this and I fully appreciate that you may have some attachment to the CTC which has influenced your perception.

Anyway, I thought your secretary had replied on your behalf earlier. <I'll let you decide if any humour is intended>


----------



## theclaud (23 Feb 2014)

2946277 said:


> Should have used a yellow face thing to denote humour.


Absolutely. One wouldn't want to impose a requirement for aspiring humorists to actually say something funny, after all...


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (23 Feb 2014)

Oh I seem to have rattled some cages.


----------



## theclaud (23 Feb 2014)

Marmion said:


> Oh I seem to have rattled some cages.


 etc etc...


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Feb 2014)

I whole-heartedly do not agree with the CTC on this action, however I believe the saying goes, "If you can't beat them, join them...."


----------



## benb (24 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> As mentioned already, either some money is spent on a "nowhere as good as it could be" solution, or *nothing* gets spent on the roundabout at all. The compromise solution should improve cycling safety a bit. Not as much as if the local authority had put their weight behind insisting on a proper cycling first answer (sadly, that wasn't going to happen in Bedford). But better than nothing.



Hmm. This money was taken from a cycling safety budget, and has in fact made the roundabout more dangerous for cyclists, as motor traffic will be passing through it at higher speeds. 

I'd rather no money was spent than money was spent on something crap and dangerous.


----------



## Flying Dodo (24 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> Hmm. This money was taken from a cycling safety budget, and has in fact made the roundabout more dangerous for cyclists, as motor traffic will be passing through it at higher speeds.
> 
> I'd rather no money was spent than money was spent on something crap and dangerous.


 
You clearly haven't bothered reading what's been proposed for this roundabout either in this topic, nor elsewhere, to come out with completely incorrect comments.

I'll repeat what I put in post #47 in bigger letters.



> The redesign will slow car approach speeds down from an average 25 mph to 10-15 mph, making it easier for cyclists to take the lane and proceed around the roundabout.


----------



## benb (24 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> You clearly haven't bothered reading what's been proposed for this roundabout either in this topic, nor elsewhere, to come out with completely incorrect comments.
> 
> I'll repeat what I put in post #47 in bigger letters.



I simply don't believe that, as the whole purpose of the "turbo" roundabout is to increase the throughput of motorised traffic.
It is more dangerous for cycling, not less.


----------



## benb (24 Feb 2014)

Anyone who thinks this travesty is an improvement for cycling provision is an idiot.
Read this.
http://departmentfortransport.wordp...raffic-department-you-are-a-bunch-of-cretins/


----------



## Sara_H (24 Feb 2014)

I've been very disapointed by some of the stuff coming out of the CTC recently. 

Like others, in these circumstances I think it would have been better to make a public statement that they couldn't approve the design of the roundabout and that the money wasn't being spent properly on what it had been ring fenced for.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Feb 2014)

Marmion said:


> No, I claimed that the CTC (an organisation) were useless, and then followed this by stating that anyone who disagreed with this were fools. There was a degree of humour intended in the latter sentence; perhaps don't possess sufficient skills to have been aware of this and I fully appreciate that you may have some attachment to the CTC which has influenced your perception.
> 
> Anyway, I thought your secretary had replied on your behalf earlier. <I'll let you decide if any humour is intended>


your post was pretty clear, and pretty insulting. Not to mention charmless. And ignorant.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Feb 2014)

Sara_H said:


> I've been very disapointed by some of the stuff coming out of the CTC recently.
> 
> Like others, in these circumstances I think it would have been better to make a public statement that they couldn't approve the design of the roundabout and that the money wasn't being spent properly on what it had been ring fenced for.


quite. When all is said and done, twenty million quid is a huge amount of money. If Chris Peck thought it wasn't being spent wisely, then he should have said so. My fear is that there's a bit of horse-trading going on - we support the latest wheeze from Sustrans in the hope that Sustrans will someday come to our aid - but, since Sustrans is staffed by people who regard the CTC as neither here nor there (and, unlike Marmion I do know the people concerned) then I can't see the merit.

And, at the back of this is the way that cycling campaigners keep score. Expenditure is seen as some kind of success. Gilligan wants to throw nine hundred million down after the two hundred million that went south on LCN+. It would be better spent on housing or health or just about anything rather than crazy bridges and roundabouts.


----------



## Flying Dodo (24 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> I simply don't believe that, as the whole purpose of the "turbo" roundabout is to increase the throughput of motorised traffic.
> It is more dangerous for cycling, not less.


 
What you might, or might not think is irrelevant as you've not bothered to read any of the technical analysis and have shown you don't know anything about this, other than speculation and comments from other armchair critics.


----------



## swansonj (24 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> What you might, or might not think is irrelevant as you've not bothered to read any of the technical analysis and have shown you don't know anything about this, other than speculation and comments from other armchair critics.


Flying Dodo - I appreciate your thoughtful posts about this specific scheme. But would you like to comment on the "bigger picture" argument - that, as long as on individual schemes we cyclists continue to accept the least -bad option, there's no incentive for anyone to break out of the mindset of only ever offering bad options for us to choose between - the only way to start getting good solutions is to stop acquiescing in the bad solutions just because they're the least bad in an individual case?


----------



## Flying Dodo (24 Feb 2014)

swansonj said:


> Flying Dodo - I appreciate your thoughtful posts about this specific scheme. But would you like to comment on the "bigger picture" argument - that, as long as on individual schemes we cyclists continue to accept the least -bad option, there's no incentive for anyone to break out of the mindset of only ever offering bad options for us to choose between - the only way to start getting good solutions is to stop acquiescing in the bad solutions just because they're the least bad in an individual case?



Good question!

It's not a question of automatically accepting the least bad option though. The more we as cyclists, and cyclists' organisations push back and highlight what's wrong and continue fighting to get things altered and improved, the better. The problem is that if organisations such as the CTC refuse to engage and say "No, we don't want to have anything to do with this half baked scheme", then due to the completely ingrained car-centric attitudes in central and local Government, commerce etc, nothing will change. And schemes will be built without any genuine cyclist input, but what some planner thinks is best. By trying to highlight the flaws in such plans and getting changes made is the only way that even small improvements to cycling safety can be made.

The reason why the Netherlands have spent so much more on their cycling infrastructure compared with the UK is down to the "Stop the Children Murder" campaign against the cult of the car from 1973. We haven't got that impetus here - the needs of the motorist is generally still seen as paramount, although slowly some notice is being taken. Walking away from negotiation won't help improve that.


----------



## stowie (24 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> What you might, or might not think is irrelevant as you've not bothered to read any of the technical analysis and have shown you don't know anything about this, other than speculation and comments from other armchair critics.



Not wishing to appear cynical, but what evidence is there that traffic will slow down for a turbo roundabout? Since this is the fist one in the UK I guess there is no precedent but they are used in the Netherlands - do they slow down cars there?

From the reports I have seen a turbo roundabout increases vehicular capacity. This doesn't necessarily mean an increase in speed but it definitely means an increase in traffic flow which I would have thought might make it more difficult to move to the right lane on the approach.

As far as I was aware a turbo roundabout was a sort of semi slip road concept where, because the lanes were more segregated motorists taking a first (or second?) turnoff would be able to progress more quickly onto the roundabout even if there was traffic already on it but going round to another exit. None of this seems to me to indicate that a turbo roundabout would be kind to cyclists.


----------



## Flying Dodo (24 Feb 2014)

stowie said:


> Not wishing to appear cynical, but what evidence is there that traffic will slow down for a turbo roundabout? Since this is the fist one in the UK I guess there is no precedent but they are used in the Netherlands - do they slow down cars there?
> 
> From the reports I have seen a turbo roundabout increases vehicular capacity. This doesn't necessarily mean an increase in speed but it definitely means an increase in traffic flow which I would have thought might make it more difficult to move to the right lane on the approach.
> 
> As far as I was aware a turbo roundabout was a sort of semi slip road concept where, because the lanes were more segregated motorists taking a first (or second?) turnoff would be able to progress more quickly onto the roundabout even if there was traffic already on it but going round to another exit. None of this seems to me to indicate that a turbo roundabout would be kind to cyclists.



The actual designer of the junction, Patrick Lingwood, who is the Walking & Cycling Officer at Bedford Borough Council explains the details here.



> based on the radius of curvature of vehicular paths, ..... this will reduce motorised vehicle speeds from current 25mph to around 10-15mph, approximating much more to cycling speeds.





> A detailed analysis of the accidents suggests a 75% reduction in serious accidents and 40% reduction in slight accidents for all modes, including cyclists.



As I've already stated, sadly it won't help off road cyclists partly because there's no space to put in fully segregated cycle paths all the way round. It's also due to the fact that toucan crossings are the only crossings that traffic will stop for. Here in the UK we haven't got anything like a zebra crossing for cyclists.


----------



## totallyfixed (24 Feb 2014)

Oh FFS! the whole crux of the problem is in this paragraph
_Secondly, *you cannot legally create a non-signalised annular cycle track and a pedestrian crossing in the UK context.* This is the significance of the TRL work. It is the first stage in seeking a change in Government regulations to allow this. So either pedestrians get priority at a Zebra or cyclists have priority using Give Way markings (not a feasible option in this context)._
In a nutshell, the reason there are always problems in implementing anything in this car-centric excuse for a country that will benefit cyclists is simply that. We are a nation of fat couch potatoes who think it is normal to drive a few hundred metres to the shop, our priorities are so twisted that even if fuel doubled in price it wouldn't change the average British person's "right" to drive ludicrously short distances.
I cycle to the local store, the car park is full, there are three bikes in the cycle parking area which when full will cater for a massive 12 bikes, 2 of them belong to staff, the third is mine. I go to the store in the Netherlands and the car park is deserted, there are innumerable bikes parked there.
The system in the Netherlands works simply because every driver is also a cyclist, there is no issue in giving way to a bike, and because there are so many bikes there are fewer cars and because there are fewer cars there is less pollution and a fitter healthier population.
Is this so f*****g difficult to understand? Chip away all you like, put sticking plasters on here and there but it is not the answer and never will be until the law and attitudes are changed.
I despair.


----------



## StuartG (25 Feb 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> ... even if fuel doubled in price it wouldn't change the average British person's "right" to drive ludicrously short distances.


The shorter the distance the less relevant the fuel price. Since the rest is sink cost the trip to the corner shop is effectively free. Its only lunatics who would cycle and if they have to fork out for helmets and hi-viz than the motorist is quids-in. People are just reacting naturally to the market.

The only way I can think of to change that is to raise the fixed costs and have an aggressive car share scheme (basically only club cars can park anywhere useful). When the user has to fork out dosh for every journey however short the real cost might just register and some modes change. But that has nothing to directly do with cycling and as cyclists I would hope the CTC would back an expansion of club car parking. Its going to be a guerilla war.

Ignoring car culture will mean we will not influence. Expecting immediate car culture capitulation is also a waste of time. Revolutions are not our thing and if we had them then should they be better concentrated on Westminster than roundabouts?

I suppose the best the CTC could have done is campaigned to get the £20 million spent on decent road surfaces. That might be as effective in safety terms and kept the motoring lobby onside instead of getting even more pi**ed off with us.


----------



## benb (25 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> What you might, or might not think is irrelevant as you've not bothered to read any of the technical analysis and have shown you don't know anything about this, other than speculation and comments from other armchair critics.



If you think this travesty is a positive step for cycling provision, then you are deluded.
Why do you think that in the Netherlands, turbo roundabouts like this always take the cycling route away from it - they never expect the cyclist to travel through the roundabout.

This is motoring provision, not cycling provision, and taking cycle safety money to pay for it is an outrage.


----------



## Flying Dodo (25 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> If you think this travesty is a positive step for cycling provision, then you are deluded.
> Why do you think that in the Netherlands, turbo roundabouts like this always take the cycling route away from it - they never expect the cyclist to travel through the roundabout.
> 
> This is motoring provision, not cycling provision, and taking cycle safety money to pay for it is an outrage.


 
If you'd bothered to read any of my comments, you'll see I have made it quite clear that the solution arrived at is far from ideal, and is definitely a compromise, which does nothing much for off road cyclists (although that's mainly due to the lack of space around the roundabout). It is however better than nothing, because if monies from the Cycle Safety Fund hadn't been used, then *nothing* would have altered on this roundabout at all. It would have remained a dangerous roundabout. With the changes, it becomes a bit less dangerous.

Sadly, in the real world, as UK cyclists we're not going to get perfect, safe conditions anytime in the near future. So in the short term we either negotiate and try and get small improvements, or not bother. I vote for small improvements.


----------



## benb (25 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> If you'd bothered to read any of my comments, you'll see I have made it quite clear that the solution arrived at is far from ideal, and is definitely a compromise, which does nothing much for off road cyclists (although that's mainly due to the lack of space around the roundabout). It is however better than nothing, because if monies from the Cycle Safety Fund hadn't been used, then *nothing* would have altered on this roundabout at all. It would have remained a dangerous roundabout. With the changes, it becomes a bit less dangerous.
> 
> Sadly, in the real world, as UK cyclists we're not going to get perfect, safe conditions anytime in the near future. So in the short term we either negotiate and try and get small improvements, or not bother. I vote for small improvements.



Fine, you keep telling yourself that.

If we accept crap, we will continue to get crap.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Feb 2014)

The challenge of striking the balance between opposing stakeholder views is what has caused me to suspend my own campaigning and membership of our local cycling forum. The circle cannot be squared. The unspeakable are chasing the uneatable. Or something.

Still, the GrumpyGregry Memorial ASL's are going in to Da 'sham over the next few weeks so I have something to show for the most recent five-years-worth of wasted time in meetings I won't ever get back. My former colleagues are now destined to drive themselves into a fury of frustration, and see all county council/central govt cycling funds get spent elsewhere in the county, as they push their pipedream of separate infrastructure

@benb and @Flying Dodo are each, in their own way, 100% right.


----------



## Flying Dodo (25 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> Fine, you keep telling yourself that.
> 
> If we accept crap, we will continue to get crap.



Two different points there. You're not aware of any facts concerning Bedford at all - it is the case that unless that money was used, NOTHING would have been done to the roundabout.

On your other statement, if cyclist pressure groups walk away from everything and just say "No" which is what you're advocating, then how will things ever change? You'll just be ignored completely, rather than having some of your views taken into account.

I'll give you another example why engaging and trying to change things helps. Here in Luton, they've just started work on "improvements" to Junction 10A of the M1, which basically means the M1 spur road carries onto a dual carriageway towards the airport, rather than ending in a roundabout which is jammed solid with traffic. I'm part of the local cycling campaign group and we could see that although something was being done to improve access for cyclists (as the current roundabout is a nightmare to cycle across), it wasn't particularly good. We suggested a number of changes, which also involved moving one of the proposed replacement roundabouts on the road underneath the M1 spur which would also mean less land being taken up by the project. Guess what - they amended the plans! Still not perfect, as they ignored some of our other suggestions, but much better than their original proposal.

If our group had looked at the original plans and just said "they're crap, we're not accepting that", do you really think they'd have changed things? If they consult and no-one objects, they'll just go ahead. Of course they're not obliged to consider recommendations, but turning your back doesn't do cyclists any favours at all.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (25 Feb 2014)

If you accept crap that's all you'll ever get.


----------



## Flying Dodo (25 Feb 2014)

Marmion said:


> If you accept crap that's all you'll ever get.



And your response is crap, in implying we should reject everything which isn't perfect.


----------



## snorri (25 Feb 2014)

Marmion said:


> If you accept crap that's all you'll ever get.


 These (short) one liners are really not cutting the mustard, why not throw modesty to the winds and tell us how to achieve successful outcomes following deliberations with road transport design engineer types?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (25 Feb 2014)

I set out my position earlier.
It was crap. Not even a "second best" option; crap.


----------



## stowie (26 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> The actual designer of the junction, Patrick Lingwood, who is the Walking & Cycling Officer at Bedford Borough Council explains the details here.
> 
> As I've already stated, sadly it won't help off road cyclists partly because there's no space to put in fully segregated cycle paths all the way round. It's also due to the fact that toucan crossings are the only crossings that traffic will stop for. Here in the UK we haven't got anything like a zebra crossing for cyclists.



Is the estimate of speed reduction to 10-15mph backed up by data from existing turbo roundabouts? I would imagine that there would be turbo roundabouts in the Netherlands with approximately the same dimensions that could be a yardstick to at least give some validation to the assertion.

The assertion of no space is valid if one accepts the requirement that motorised traffic capacity on the roundabout must be maintained at the same level. Otherwise the roundabout could be reduced to one lane with space left for whatever is desired to be implemented. But of course, the DfT guidelines are so motor centric anyway that priority would be ceded if the cyclist wasn't part of traffic flow, as you say, and I doubt many cyclists would be happy at waiting considerable lengths of time to cross especially if the traffic flow density is higher than now.

I have only slight exposure to traffic engineering but have gained an understanding of the considerable challenges to convince any council of the merits of catering for anything other than traffic flow. On the other hand spending cycling money on what looks like very marginal improvements seems a sorry compromise. Could the money not have been used elsewhere?


----------



## Flying Dodo (26 Feb 2014)

snorri said:


> These (short) one liners are really not cutting the mustard, why not throw modesty to the winds and tell us how to achieve successful outcomes following deliberations with road transport design engineer types?



That's the whole problem here in the UK, as I and others on here have stated. Everything does revolve around the car, and the main theme of any road related works is always on the basis of planning ahead for increased vehicular traffic, without radical thoughts that there is a better way, and that we should, for a variety of reasons, be looking at ways of discouraging motorised traffic.

So unless Government and more importantly, the general public have a sudden conversion, collectively, we as cyclists are not going to get truly successful outcomes overnight or even in the short to medium term. It's only by highlighting the discrepancies and flaws in schemes that slowly that message will get through and some improvements are made. Something is better than nothing. The CTC and Sustrans have all along stated that they're not happy with what's been arrived at in Bedford, having previously put forward a number of solutions with better cycling based outcomes, and Bedford Council and the DfT know that. But those other solutions weren't going to happen. Rejecting everything as suggested by Marmion and Benb won't get us anything. And the more little improvements occur in schemes, then gradually more people will see it's safe to cycle - take for example, the steady increase in cycling in London in recent years. It's all about trying to build up a critical mass, so that road planners will increasingly take into account the traffic flow of cyclists and their requirements. 

Going back to the Bedford example, in the explanation I'd linked to the planner's comments, he discussed the numbers of cyclists using the roundabout and the split of the type of cyclists, in order to try and take some of their needs into account. 15-20 years ago, I shouldn't think they'd have even mentioned cyclists in any consultations. Unless we as cyclists engage in the process and try and get things improved, then nothing will happen to make any improvements occur.


----------



## Flying Dodo (26 Feb 2014)

stowie said:


> Is the estimate of speed reduction to 10-15mph backed up by data from existing turbo roundabouts? I would imagine that there would be turbo roundabouts in the Netherlands with approximately the same dimensions that could be a yardstick to at least give some validation to the assertion.
> 
> The assertion of no space is valid if one accepts the requirement that motorised traffic capacity on the roundabout must be maintained at the same level. Otherwise the roundabout could be reduced to one lane with space left for whatever is desired to be implemented. But of course, the DfT guidelines are so motor centric anyway that priority would be ceded if the cyclist wasn't part of traffic flow, as you say, and I doubt many cyclists would be happy at waiting considerable lengths of time to cross especially if the traffic flow density is higher than now.
> 
> I have only slight exposure to traffic engineering but have gained an understanding of the considerable challenges to convince any council of the merits of catering for anything other than traffic flow. On the other hand spending cycling money on what looks like very marginal improvements seems a sorry compromise. Could the money not have been used elsewhere?



Re the speed reduction, I'd have to assume the Bedford Council Officer knows how the figures were arrived at unfortunately. It was Bedford Council's insistence that vehicular traffic capacity couldn't be reduced, which again is evidence of the wider problem in the UK. And that's the nub of the whole issue - it is a compromise. Having said that, I have cycled around that roundabout a few times and once the changes are made, personally I'd feel safer compared with before, on the basis I'm less likely to get cut up.

As to whether or not the money could have been used elsewhere, then yes, I'm sure there are other proposed road improvements elsewhere where the local councils have suggested better outcomes for cyclists. I've no idea though if the Cycle Safety Fund is underspent though (like TfL in London).


----------



## benb (26 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Two different points there. You're not aware of any facts concerning Bedford at all - it is the case that unless that money was used, NOTHING would have been done to the roundabout.



IMO, nothing would have been better than this half-arsed bodge.
This "solution" benefits motor vehicles, not cyclists.

You keep saying we should support, or at least accept, this change on the basis that it's better than doing nothing. I'm unconvinced of that.

I notice you can't actually back up your assertion that traffic speed through the roundabout is reduced. It looks to me like the complete opposite would be true. There's a reason why in the Netherlands, cycling routes completely bypass these turbo roundabouts - because they are provision for motorised traffic and not cycling.

I am not saying we should reject anything that isn't perfect, but we should certainly reject anything as crap as this.

This roundabout will do nothing to improve cycling conditions, and that's why CTC and Sustrans should have rejected it.


----------



## jonesy (26 Feb 2014)

Tighter geometry will reduce traffic speeds, that isn't even controversial. And that will make cyclists safer. There is no doubt that this is a compromise which raises legitimate concerns, but let's see how it works in practice.


----------



## benb (26 Feb 2014)

Don't you think there's a pretty good reason why almost no one is supportive of this?


----------



## benb (26 Feb 2014)

> *As long as cycle campaign groups “welcome” this kind of rubbish and then play along with the resulting mess, cycling will continue to receive the same kind of dismissive treatment.*


http://departmentfortransport.wordp...ople-wonder-what-is-being-done-in-their-name/


----------



## stowie (26 Feb 2014)

jonesy said:


> Tighter geometry will reduce traffic speeds, that isn't even controversial. And that will make cyclists safer. There is no doubt that this is a compromise which raises legitimate concerns, but let's see how it works in practice.



When my residential road became 20mph and one way the residents - who aired concerns that one-way traffic would speed through what can be used as a rat-run - were assured that the speed bumps would naturally bring down speeds to less than 20mph. Of course, the bumps are simply ridden over at speeds of 30mph + by those who want to speed. The lane dividers at the Bedford roundabout will be able to be crossed by motorvehicles (although apparently the driver would feel a "bump"). If a driver wants to flatten out the curves they can.

While accepting I am naturally pessimistic, I don't think it unreasonable to say that the scheme could end up with cyclists still be cut up as motorists bump over the dividers to overtake / undertake them on the roundabout and that getting in lane for a cyclist could be worse with this scheme if cars don't slow down to the speeds envisiged (say they slow to 20mph instead of 10-15mph) but the design allows cars to bunch up and flow more freely thus making asserting road position for a cyclist worse.

My cynicism is based on several things. Firstly, the speed reduction seems an "aspiration", I am concerned why no-one has said "actually we measured speeds on existing turbo roundabouts and believe speeds will be reduced from Y to X because this is what we see at turbo roundabouts at these locations". Secondly that the scheme uses the buzz words "dutch infrastructure" and the documentation alludes strongly to taking this "best practice" and yet I don't think the dutch have one instance of a turbo roundabout without separate cycle provision - most provision would have priority for cyclists in town roundabouts as well. So they have taken the "dutch model", stripped out all the cycle specific stuff and assumed that the change in vehicular flow will aid cyclists.

Finally, we know if these schemes are bad for cycling then they don't get changed. If motor traffic was hindered then money would be found to alter it to suit, but if the scheme makes cycling worse then the council will shrug their shoulders and say that it was signed off by the cycling organisations.

The money comes from £20M allocated nationally for cycle safety. I would contend that this scheme is marginal at absolute best and money better allocated to another area who may have better schemes. Doing nothing would lose the money for Bedford on this scheme, but if this is the best they can do then I would look to other councils and other plans.


----------



## Danny (26 Feb 2014)

jonesy said:


> Tighter geometry will reduce traffic speeds, that isn't even controversial. And that will make cyclists safer. There is no doubt that this is a compromise which raises legitimate concerns, but let's see how it works in practice.


Indeed. 

The scheme is a compromise, but considerably better than having no facilities for cyclists at all at this roundabout. Having read through the five pages of posts I can't see that anyone has come up with a _realistic_ alternative. 

And going back to the OP, this seems an odd reason for not taking out membership. I would personally rather see the CTC engage with planners overs schemes like this, than adopt lofty purists positions which might delight some members but would exclude it from any influence at all.


----------



## oldstrath (26 Feb 2014)

jonesy said:


> Tighter geometry will reduce traffic speeds, that isn't even controversial. And that will make cyclists safer. There is no doubt that this is a compromise which raises legitimate concerns, but let's see how it works in practice.



So where are the empirical data to demonstrate that 'tighter geometry will reduce vehicle speeds'? Currently this seems more an unsupported hope than an observed fact.


----------



## StuartG (26 Feb 2014)

stowie said:


> When my residential road became 20mph and one way the residents - who aired concerns that one-way traffic would speed through what can be used as a rat-run - were assured that the speed bumps would naturally bring down speeds to less than 20mph. Of course, the bumps are simply ridden over at speeds of 30mph + by those who want to speed.


And you are both probably right.

Bumps can and will be ridden at 30+ mph. Some may even get a thrill from it before their undercarriage collapses - but the evidence is the average speed across all vehicles does drop dramatically. And with it both collisions and severity of injury. One has to remember it isn't only bad drivers who kill or fail to compensate for errors by other road users.

Hence, on the face of it a reduction of speed and consequently a reduction in KSI risk would make the Bedford plan better than nothing. If the forecast is wrong - and it is important to insist on recording behaviour both before and after the change we will have learnt something to be applied (or not) elsewhere.

This really is a depressing thread of prejudice over fact.


----------



## theclaud (26 Feb 2014)

oldstrath said:


> So where are the empirical data to demonstrate that 'tighter geometry will reduce vehicle speeds'? Currently this seems more an unsupported hope than an observed fact.



If Jonesy says that tighter geometry will reduce vehicle speeds, then tighter geometry will reduce vehicle speeds. He will be sitting on a mountain of data to demonstrate it, but I prefer simply to believe him, and it certainly accords with both expectation and observation. This lousy roundabout is still a colossal waste of money, though. I see where @Flying Dodo is coming from, and I respect his position, but with other organizations queuing up to rubber-stamp duff infrastructure in return for largely pointless concessions, CTC in my view needs to distinguish itself with a more robust campaigning approach, not to mention a less expensive portfolio of demands.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Feb 2014)

In order to get the money someone from the County Highways submitted a bid to someone in Central government.

The trick, and I've been unable to pull it off consistently, is to ensure that the highway engineers speak to you, and are completely conversant with your local "wish list" of your top 10 desired improvements, before the bid gets submitted. At least that way there is a chance that when they rock up all labrador-like, at no-minutes-notice, with "We are on a deadline, of Friday, here's what we are proposing, do we have your support?" you can respond "Doesn't work for me/us, we'd rather a see Project X implemented from the current list" and then they sometimes go away and revise their bid accordingly.

The ASL's in da 'sham currently being installed got cooked up during a lunch-time conference call between me and the county Cycling Officer whilst she was working her redundancy notice. "I'm ringing you" she said "because none of the others' suggestions (separate infrastructure) will get into the bid and unless you and I come up with something the engineers can support and which is affordable Horsham will get nothing. Again." and I said "What's on the list that will float their boat?" and she said "Your ASL's in the town centre" and "Let's 'ave 'em!" was my reply.

It really is often as unscientific and hurried and unplanned as that.

Now I'd love perfect infrastructure; but my CC won't build it, and my ASL's will be crap and a are only bit of tokenism but they are a sign. And signs are important. They will say "Cyclists have a place right here in front of your car so get over it."

EDIT: And the Local CTC have been, and remain, nowhere to be seen throughout the piece. Their inept bureaucracy has failed three times to get a local RtR rep appointed and they keep telling us we have one in Crawley. Yep. He's interested in Crawley, funnily enough.


----------



## benb (26 Feb 2014)

Danny said:


> Indeed.
> 
> The scheme is a compromise, but considerably better than having no facilities for cyclists at all at this roundabout. Having read through the five pages of posts I can't see that anyone has come up with a _realistic_ alternative.



This isn't a facility for cyclists, so there were no facilities for cyclists before this scheme, and there are still no facilities for cyclists.
Nothing I have read has convinced me that this is an improvement.


----------



## summerdays (26 Feb 2014)

I fall into the group that would rather have a half measure than nothing at all. I think I would like to give it a chance, and hope that it does deliver the slower speeds. Apart from the angles the zebra's on all the arms will also have an effect in slowing the traffic down, if it is in an area with reasonable pedestrian footfall.


----------



## totallyfixed (26 Feb 2014)

Compromise and half measures, twas ever thus in the UK.


----------



## Danny (26 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> This isn't a facility for cyclists, so there were no facilities for cyclists before this scheme, and there are still no facilities for cyclists.
> Nothing I have read has convinced me that this is an improvement.


So what would you have wanted to see instead?


----------



## benb (26 Feb 2014)

Danny said:


> So what would you have wanted to see instead?



A proper Dutch style cycling roundabout, along these lines:


----------



## totallyfixed (26 Feb 2014)

Please take the time to read this short piece and look at the video, obviously they can do things cheaper in the Netherlands. Is anyone querying the cost of this roundabout? It would be cheaper to have one of these bridges with 4 arms to it and it's own intersection above the road. Just bring the Dutch engineers and planners over here and let them get on with it because we surely cannot.
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/spectacular-zoetermeer-cycle-bridge/


----------



## summerdays (26 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> A proper Dutch style cycling roundabout, along these lines:


I'm intrigued to know what I would do if I came across one ... if I was going right it would probably be quicker to stay on the central road section.


----------



## Danny (26 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> A proper Dutch style cycling roundabout, along these lines:


I take it that this is an 'ideal' roundabout built in a test centre. In practice even the Dutch have had to compromise on this ideal when faced with modifying real world roads. I've seen roundabouts layouts in Amsterdam that are not so different to the Bedford one.


----------



## theclaud (26 Feb 2014)

summerdays said:


> I'm intrigued to know what I would do if I came across one ... *if I was going right* it would probably be quicker to stay on the central road section.



Or indeed straight on...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Feb 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> Please take the time to read this short piece and look at the video, obviously they can do things cheaper in the Netherlands. Is anyone querying the cost of this roundabout? It would be cheaper to have one of these bridges with 4 arms to it and it's own intersection above the road. Just bring the Dutch engineers and planners over here and let them get on with it because we surely cannot.
> http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/spectacular-zoetermeer-cycle-bridge/


That video warms the cockles of my heart. Wonder what it would be like peak time in a more urban setting. Planned development within the (political) right priorities can deliver wonderful outcomes.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Feb 2014)

theclaud said:


> Or indeed straight on...


----------



## StuartG (26 Feb 2014)

summerdays said:


> I'm intrigued to know what I would do if I came across one ... if I was going right it would probably be quicker to stay on the central road section.


Yes, that's UK thinking and the conflicting UK motorist's confusion might also be an issue.

Because they presumably work in the Netherlands does not imply they will work here tomorrow. The Dutch have been on a long journey to reach their current infrastructure. Their attitudes and behaviour have evolved along the way. We have hardly started on ours. Realistically many (most?) changes in modal use and modal behaviour are gradualist both from a political point of view and for people to adapt safely to them.

Arguing about the speed of progress (which is highly correlated with cash) is one thing. To demand revolution or pram evacuation will leave you unentertained.


----------



## benb (26 Feb 2014)

Danny said:


> I take it that this is an 'ideal' roundabout built in a test centre. In practice even the Dutch have had to compromise on this ideal when faced with modifying real world roads. I've seen roundabouts layouts in Amsterdam that are not so different to the Bedford one.



Yes, but they are all motoring roundabouts, not cycling ones: none of them require cyclists to go through them.
Please, read this: http://departmentfortransport.wordp...ople-wonder-what-is-being-done-in-their-name/


----------



## jonesy (26 Feb 2014)

User said:


> Will it? Can you say that absolutely? The reality is probably that there will be an initial reduction in average speeds but these will soon creep back up as people get used to the layout.
> 
> 
> Will it? Even if it does reduce speeds, the other issues highlighted with this particular project may mean that overall the risk to cyclists is increased.



Just to be clear, we need to distinguish between the general point that tighter geometry will reduce speeds and the specific question about how effective this design of roundabout is at tightening geometry. Taking the first point: simplistically, but fairly obviously, people drive faster on straight, wide roads than they do on narrow windy ones; and they go round wide corners faster than round sharp ones. That's way junctions on fast roads have larger turning radiius than those on lower speed roads. The basic principle of what is often referred to as 'continental' design roundabouts is to have much shorter turning radii than is usually the case in the UK, which both reduces speeds and places the turning vehicle more perpendicularly to the flow of cyclists going round the roundabout, thereby improving visibility, see for example this (now fairly old) Traffic Advisory Leaflet:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....gov.uk/adobepdf/165240/244921/244924/TAL_9-97

Now, one of the ways in which the continental geometry roundabout achieves tighter geometry is to have only a single circulating lane, usually with a wide island that has an over-run area to allow long vehicles to get round, though at reduced speed. This further benefits cyclists by making it harder for drivers to over or undertake cyclists on the roundabout. However, clearly this reduces capacity, so the 'turbo' design uses two lanes, but with lane separators, to try to achieve the same thing. I fully accept the concern that this may not be sufficiently effective, not least because the lane dividers might not be sufficient deterrent. But, as I understand it, the rest of the design does create the tighter geometry, so lower speeds, and better positioning would still be reasonably expected. 

Ben makes the point that in the Netherlands these roundabouts are used with segregated cycle provision, rather than expecting cyclists to go round with the traffic. Afraid I can't comment on that, but I do accept that this is likely. However, the broader 'continental' approach is used both with (e.g. the TfL trial design) and without segregated cycle tracks, so I wouldn't rule out using the turbo roundabout for use with mainly on-road cycling, if it does prove to be effective at reducing traffic speeds, discouraging cutting-up and improving positioning for sightlines. So, on the whole, while I understand the concerns, I'd prefer to see how it works in practice rather than dismiss it in advance. I'd add that the cycling officer behind this is most certainly not from the conventional pro-car highway engineering school of thought and probably knows more about international practice and research literature in cycling than most people working in the field.


----------



## jonesy (26 Feb 2014)

Danny said:


> I take it that this is an 'ideal' roundabout built in a test centre. In practice even the Dutch have had to compromise on this ideal when faced with modifying real world roads. I've seen roundabouts layouts in Amsterdam that are not so different to the Bedford one.



Indeed. This is just one of several different 'Dutch' design methods, not all of which give cyclists on the orbital lane priority over turning traffic. However, there is a general rule in the Netherlands that cyclists using a cycle track adjacent to carriageway will usually have priority over vehicles turning across them, the opposite way round to normal UK practice. Clearly it would make it easier to implement designs such as the one TfL is trialling if such a rule were adopted in the UK. However, legal priority is only part of the story, even where drivers should give way (for example to pedestrians that have started to cross) they rarely do so if the design of the infrastructure sends the opposite message, for example when large turning radii encourage high speeds. Conversely, if a junction is designed to force drivers to slow down, and positions them so that pedestrians or cyclists about to cross are directly in their line of sight, then they are much more likely to give way even if the formal priority rules say they don't have to. So there is a role for new approaches to infrastructure design in changing behaviour.


----------



## stowie (26 Feb 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> Please take the time to read this short piece and look at the video, obviously they can do things cheaper in the Netherlands. Is anyone querying the cost of this roundabout? It would be cheaper to have one of these bridges with 4 arms to it and it's own intersection above the road. Just bring the Dutch engineers and planners over here and let them get on with it because we surely cannot.
> http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/spectacular-zoetermeer-cycle-bridge/



I think there is some confusion on costing. From what I can see (from CTC website) the Bedford changes will cost £300k, all of which is coming from the £20M pot set aside for improving cycle safety. I believe all the money for the change is coming from this fund.


----------



## totallyfixed (26 Feb 2014)

stowie said:


> I think there is some confusion on costing. From what I can see (from CTC website) the Bedford changes will cost £300k, all of which is coming from the £20M pot set aside for improving cycle safety. I believe all the money for the change is coming from this fund.


My mistake if that is the case, still seems a lot for relatively minor changes. My view has not changed though, it is still just tinkering. We toured the Netherlands last year and until you have experienced the difference it is difficult to fully understand how pleasant it is, completely stress free.


----------



## snorri (26 Feb 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> . We toured the Netherlands last year and until you have experienced the difference it is difficult to fully understand how pleasant it is, completely stress free.


I agree, but a vociferous band of anti-segregationist cyclists remain to be convinced in the UK.


----------



## totallyfixed (26 Feb 2014)

snorri said:


> I agree, but a vociferous band of anti-segregationist cyclists remain to be convinced in the UK.


There are plenty of open roads / country lanes over there where the road is shared with polite drivers and the cycle ways [I hesitate to call them paths because often they are as wide as a country lane] that run parallel to the major roads are wide enough to take a club run on, indeed we saw several doing just that. You only really notice the segregation in the bigger towns and cities, and very welcome it is too. I like my freedom as much as anyone, but this works. On many occasions we did mile after mile through forests and even sand dunes on dedicated cycle ways without sight or sound of a vehicle, bliss.


----------



## Flying Dodo (26 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> A proper Dutch style cycling roundabout, along these lines:



I'd agree - that would be lovely................in theory.

However, as stated previously, you'll know that sadly there isn't space to install that type of roundabout in Bedford. I took part in the TRL trials of this type of roundabout last summer, and used the exact one shown above, and so I can assure you it would be absolutely lethal to cyclists. You'll note that for the exit for vehicles from the roundabout, there are shark's teeth markings and then square blocks of paint. These are not current road markings - drivers will have no experience or knowledge about what they mean. Cyclists going round on the segregated track are supposed to have priority, meaning vehicles will be expected to stop on the roundabout, to give way to a cyclist. Do you think that will happen?

Edit:

I should also point out that when I was driving round the TRL roundabout, there was only 1 cyclist on each arm, with 1 car approaching, and generally only 1 car actually on the roundabout. So it was a totally false environment, with no dealings of high traffic volumes. Even so, several times I nearly ran over the cyclist, even though I was driving no more than 15-20 mph, and I knew the cyclist was there. It will need a radical shift in driver perceptions and attitudes for these roundabouts to be safe to use in the UK. In the Netherlands, they've had decades of experience, and more importantly, unlike here, most drivers are regular cyclists as well.


----------



## Flying Dodo (26 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> I notice you can't actually back up your assertion that traffic speed through the roundabout is reduced. It looks to me like the complete opposite would be true. There's a reason why in the Netherlands, cycling routes completely bypass these turbo roundabouts - because they are provision for motorised traffic and not cycling.



As I've made clear, I was merely quoting the Bedford Council Officer and provided the link to his explanation about why vehicular speeds should be lower. As I've already stated, I have to assume he knows about traffic.


----------



## oldstrath (26 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> I'd agree - that would be lovely................in theory.
> 
> However, as stated previously, you'll know that sadly there isn't space to install that type of roundabout in Bedford. I took part in the TRL trials of this type of roundabout last summer, and used the exact one shown above, and so I can assure you it would be absolutely lethal to cyclists. You'll note that for the exit for vehicles from the roundabout, there are shark's teeth markings and then square blocks of paint. These are not current road markings - drivers will have no experience or knowledge about what they mean. Cyclists going round on the segregated track are supposed to have priority, meaning vehicles will be expected to stop on the roundabout, to give way to a cyclist. Do you think that will happen?



Well, it happens in NL - I don't remember any problem with this system over there. I don't actually think Dutch drivers are any pleasanter, kinder or more intelligent than ours, so I suppose education and enforcement are the solutions?


----------



## benb (26 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> As I've made clear, I was merely quoting the Bedford Council Officer and provided the link to his explanation about why vehicular speeds should be lower. As I've already stated, I have to assume he knows about traffic.



That's a rather massive assumption. I'm unconvinced.


----------



## Danny (26 Feb 2014)

jonesy said:


> However, there is a general rule in the Netherlands that cyclists using a cycle track adjacent to carriageway will usually have priority over vehicles turning across them, the opposite way round to normal UK practice. Clearly it would make it easier to implement designs such as the one TfL is trialling if such a rule were adopted in the UK.


Which I presume requires a national change in the traffic regulations. If so, people can hardly expect the CTC to abstain from involvement in schemes to improve cycling until we have the perfect legal framework in place.


----------



## ComedyPilot (26 Feb 2014)

I have driven cars and ridden bicycles in the Netherlands.

With VERY LITTLE thought (or inconvenience to me WHATSOEVER) I managed to drive without incident and give way to cyclists/vulnerable road users in the NL at ANY junction I came to

If I can change my driving to suit the legal framework of the country I happen to be in so easily (and trust me, I'm as thick as they come) then how come our 'great' British public can't/won't do the same?



> A *rhetorical question* is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point.[1] The question, a rhetorical device, is posed not to elicit a specific answer, but rather to encourage the listener to consider a message or viewpoint. Though classically stated as a proper question, such a device may be posed declaratively but _implying_ a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written. Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message.


----------



## oldstrath (26 Feb 2014)

Danny said:


> Which I presume requires a national change in the traffic regulations. If so, people can hardly expect the CTC to abstain from involvement in schemes to improve cycling until we have the perfect legal framework in place.


We might, however, expect them to campaign for such changes, possibly even to make agreement conditional on such changes, instead of simply accepting the rather unconvincing " changes in 12 to 15 months" that Chris Peck has been quoting for at least half that time already.


----------



## srw (26 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> http://departmentfortransport.wordp...ople-wonder-what-is-being-done-in-their-name/


Anyone who can write a blog post with the title


> Bedford Borough Council traffic department, you are a bunch of cretins


isn't going to get anywhere with whatever they're campaigning for. The response next time from any council traffic department, quite rightly, will start with "f" and end with "off".


----------



## Flying Dodo (26 Feb 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> I have driven cars and ridden bicycles in the Netherlands.
> 
> With VERY LITTLE thought (or inconvenience to me WHATSOEVER) I managed to drive without incident and give way to cyclists/vulnerable road users in the NL at ANY junction I came to
> 
> If I can change my driving to suit the legal framework of the country I happen to be in so easily (and trust me, I'm as thick as they come) then how come our 'great' British public can't/won't do the same?



You can drive and give way to cyclists because you're a cyclist and a decent human being. Sadly, here in the UK, most people just don't seem to have the same respect for those on 2/3 wheels.


----------



## Flying Dodo (26 Feb 2014)

benb said:


> That's a rather massive assumption. I'm unconvinced.



Armchair pundit who doesn't want to do anything for cyclists unless it's 100% perfect v Local Government Walking & Cycling Officer. 

It's a tricky one to decide who might know more about traffic.


----------



## jonesy (27 Feb 2014)

But, as I've already pointed out, this is not a generalisation that can fairly be applied to Patrick Lingwood, who has been working and studying in the field of cycling and walking for years, as well as being involved in green politics more generally. Google if you don't want to take my word for it


----------



## oldstrath (27 Feb 2014)

jonesy said:


> But, as I've already pointed out, this is not a generalisation that can fairly be applied to Patrick Lingwood, who has been working and studying in the field of cycling and walking for years, as well as being involved in green politics more generally. Google if you don't want to take my word for it


That is clearly all true, but he has still designed a roundabout whose first goal is to increase motorised traffic capacity, and happily ignored the needs of "not yet cyclists", which hardly makes him a reasonable hero figure for cyclists.


----------



## jonesy (27 Feb 2014)

If its primary objective is to increase traffic capacity I doubt it would be designed like that. High capacity roundabouts have lots of lanes and large turning radii. As for the needs of 'not yet cyclists', well unfortunately an awful lot of the rubbish segregation we've been inflicted with over the last few decades, including on national 'flagship' schemes like the NCN, was done in the name of the new or inexperienced cyclist, to the very significant detriment of existing cyclists. So if a local authority, faced with conflicting pressures and constraints, tries something out that is intended to make conditions safer for existing cyclists then that strikes me as a good start. As to how well it will actually work in practice, let's see. I'm certainly not going to dismiss something in advance on the word of some rather offensive bloggers who will get angry about any cycling scheme that isn't segregated.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Feb 2014)

User said:


> Given some of the local government Walking & Cycling Officers I've met (two of whom have never cycled and most of whom drove everywhere - including two who wanted to drive round a CRISP route), that could be a tough call....


apropos of nothing the old WSCC one, before she was let go as part of the cuts, was a former CTC employee and had three different Enigma's and used to get very sniffy when folk turned up by car. The new Travelsmart chap drives everywhere including between County Hall, Chicester and County Hall North, Horsham which are joined by a fine and fast mainline railway service. But then the reception at County hall North tried to tell me I couldn't take my Brommie in the building and at another evening meeting I was detained and almost arrested by some child protection plod who had a meeting on site at the same time and clearly think people who cycle are just 'odd'. The privatised pothole repair service "surveyors" drive to a central location and then trundle around on a pair of three speed Brommie's as they reckon they are more effective that way.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Feb 2014)

oldstrath said:


> That is clearly all true, but he has still designed a roundabout whose first goal is to increase motorised traffic capacity, and happily ignored the needs of "not yet cyclists", which hardly makes him a reasonable hero figure for cyclists.


Heretically, when campaigning, I prioritise the needs of existing cyclists over the "not yets". ime too many of the "not yets" turn out to be "never ares". Within the existing cyclists I prioritise the needs of those who use their bikes for transport over those who use them solely for leisure.

I am anathema to Sustrans, large chunks of the CTC, local authorities, et cetera, and nowadays the cycling forum I helped set up, who see the way forward as building seperate infrastructure that young families can use on a Sunday afternoon and then trumpeting that as some kind of success for cylcing. Because, obviously, that leisure provision translates into increased modal share eventually doesn't it? Doesn't it?


----------



## oldstrath (27 Feb 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Heretically, when campaigning, I prioritise the needs of existing cyclists over the "not yets". ime too many of the "not yets" turn out to be "never ares". Within the existing cyclists I prioritise the needs of those who use their bikes for transport over those who use them solely for leisure.
> 
> I am anathema to Sustrans, large chunks of the CTC, local authorities, et cetera, and nowadays the cycling forum I helped set up, who see the way forward as building seperate infrastructure that young families can use on a Sunday afternoon and then trumpeting that as some kind of success for cylcing. Because, obviously, that leisure provision translates into increased modal share eventually doesn't it? Doesn't it?



Agreed, it clearly doesn't. But in part surely this is because such separated infrastructure as is built has almost no utility for anyone commuting to work, shopping, ot doing any other ordinary things. Certainly round here the cycle paths don't go anywhere useful, don't add to anyone's convenience or actual safety, and aren't well maintained. But it doesn't actually have to look like that, and doesn't in NL, or in Bayern, where paths generally do useful things, and get well used, often I suspect by the kind of peple who wouldn't cycle on road here.


----------



## summerdays (27 Feb 2014)

I don't know the area, so I don't know the types of cyclists that would even try to use that area. I think the concept of prioritising the safety of existing cyclists is sensible. Build the routes for aspirational cyclists in nice places, that hopefully link up with residential bits or car parks where they take their bike to by car. (That is how I started ... the once a year trip to the Forest of Dean, but it would be madness to waste limited resources on that once a year person). The places that I would like to see prioritized for cycle paths would be routes to school, so that we can encourage the next generation (and particularly their parents), onto bikes.


----------



## jonesy (27 Feb 2014)

The world does not divide neatly into existing cyclists who are all confident vehicular cyclists and potential cyclists who all want segregation. You don't see supermarkets treating existing customers as a completely different market from potential new ones, or thinking that providing a good service for existing customers has nothing to do with attracting new ones.


----------



## Flying Dodo (27 Feb 2014)

oldstrath said:


> That is clearly all true, but he has still designed a roundabout whose first goal is to increase motorised traffic capacity, and happily ignored the needs of "not yet cyclists", which hardly makes him a reasonable hero figure for cyclists.




"Not yet cyclists" aren't ignored, as they will be using the widened zebra crossings to be installed on all arms. As mentioned previously, there isn't space to put in a fully segregated solution such as a proper Dutch style roundabout.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Feb 2014)

jonesy said:


> The world does not divide neatly into existing cyclists who are all confident vehicular cyclists and potential cyclists who all want segregation. You don't see supermarkets treating existing customers as a completely different market from potential new ones, or thinking that providing a good service for existing customers has nothing to do with attracting new ones.


Explain that to Sustrans.


----------



## stowie (27 Feb 2014)

I notice in this article from road.cc that the lane widths will allow a car to overtake a cycle on the roundabout if the cyclist is near the divider, but a lorry won't be able to get past without moving lane. Sounds like a recipe for close passing of cyclists to the left of the lane and harassment of cyclists taking primary. If they are going to do this then they need to make the lanes narrow enough to stop cars overtaking, but I guess this would then mean a lorry wouldn't be able to negotiate the roundabout in lane.

If the lanes don't slow down cars to 10-15mph around the roundabout this scheme sounds really poor. I have driven around the roundabout in question a number of times and the cars tend to attack it at pretty high speed and drift from lane to lane. To get a slow down to 10-15mph will involve some serious tightening of the roundabout lanes.


----------



## Flying Dodo (27 Feb 2014)

User said:


> And then you'll have all the drivers whinging about cyclists' using zebra crossings if they cycle over... as, of course, cyclists are not allowed to cycle across Zebra, Pelican or Puffin crossings.



Exactly. And unfortunately.


----------



## stowie (27 Feb 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> "Not yet cyclists" aren't ignored, as they will be using the widened zebra crossings to be installed on all arms. As mentioned previously, there isn't space to put in a fully segregated solution such as a proper Dutch style roundabout.



There is space, but not without taking out a motor lane and reducing roundabout capacity.

The decision to not implement a dutch style roundabout is a political one which places the need for traffic throughput above the need for cycle infrastructure. It is not a case that there is physically not enough room on the roadway to build the infrastructure. Who knows, maybe that decision is the correct one for this junction. What is known is that the changes are going to be funded by the cyclist safety fund (Bedford council state this on their documentation, although they don't say how much the works will cost).

We have had decades of road planning where all consideration was given to movement of motor traffic. DfT rules on road planning all reflect this mentality. I understand the changing of this will also take decades. But I still think not backing this plan is a valid option. Money hopefully would stay in the safety pot for another scheme, one where the improvement to safety may be more than this scheme.


----------



## Pete Owens (27 Feb 2014)

No, this is a scheme that very much prioritises cycling by reducing the motor traffic to cyclist speed. Now of course, a single lane compact roundabout would be preferable if the traffic volumes were low enough, but the design still very much incorporates the essential features that make Dutch roundabouts so much safer than ours by keeping speed low - perpendicular entrances and exits, tight constrained circulating lanes and single lane exits. And it is not just theory or speculation but empirical study of a large number of such conversions in the NL that showed a large improvement in safety as a result of the significant reduction in speeds (and that safety improvement was for existing Dutch roundabouts that already had a good safety record compared to ours).

As one who has actively campaigned (without success due the fierce resistance of highway engineers who are segregationist to a man) for this sort of thing for years it seems absurd to suggest that this represents a "capitulation" to them. If that was the case there would be thousands of these things installed in the UK rather than this being the first case.

It is not a matter of maximising throughput (which this will certainly not do) but of designing a junction that will massively improve conditions for cyclists while still maintaining the ability to carry the current volume of motor traffic. To argue for your personal favourite form of infrastructure irrespective of the impact on other road users is not going to get you very far. Even if you were to persuade them to install a junction with lower capacity than the current usage the subsequent gridlock would generate a massive political backlash that would ensure the junction was restored to its former state within a matter of weeks.


----------



## totallyfixed (28 Feb 2014)

I do wish we would stop calling this a "Dutch" style roundabout, it is not. I have ridden around plenty in the Netherlands and this is not anything like them. The few "turbo" roundabouts that exist in the Netherlands are actually designed to get motorised traffic moving quicker! Please read this before commenting further.
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/a-modern-amsterdam-roundabout/


----------



## Pete Owens (28 Feb 2014)

For fans or orbital cycle paths it is worth taking a look at the BBC video of the one being tested by the TRL.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22347184
Remember this is in an idealised and controlled setting, with no distractions or pedestrians and low volumes of traffic. The drivers know that they are being observed so they are on their best behaviour and they know that they are testing out cycle infrastructure so they know to be expecting cyclists - who are all travelling at a modest pace. Yet in just a short visit by the camera crew they managed to spot see a near crash. Scroll the video to 2 minutes - it is a good job she was covering the brakes. 

Again the basic geometry of the roundabout is good, with the single lane perpendicular approaches and exits and tight circulating lane. It would be a huge safety benefit for cyclists riding on the carriageway, but unfortunately I think the results of the trial will end up prohibiting the use of this geometry due to the only monitoring cyclists riding on the dangerous orbital path.

It is also worth noting that the Dutch road safety institute (SWOV) recommends that priority should NOT be given to cycle tracks orbiting roundabouts for safety reasons - See page 4:
http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Roundabouts.pdf
where it says:


> Fortuijn (2005b) concludes that the number of injury crashes on roundabouts with priority for cyclists was more than twice the number on roundabouts where they have no priority


----------



## Pete Owens (28 Feb 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> I do wish we would stop calling this a "Dutch" style roundabout, it is not. I have ridden around plenty in the Netherlands and this is not anything like them. The few "turbo" roundabouts that exist in the Netherlands are actually designed to get motorised traffic moving quicker!



I use "Dutch" in the conventional sense of the word meaning "something originating from the Netherlands" - rather than the way some segregationist campaigners use it to mean "Something I personally approve of". Turbo roundabouts were introduced to improve the safety of multi-lane roundabouts - which they did with dramatic effect. Now since Dutch multi-lane roundabouts were already designed with safety in mind (rather than speed and capacity as in the UK) they were pretty inefficient so the turbo design does improve the capacity (not speed) as well as a side effect. 

They are used in compact urban situations (and this is what the Bedford design is modelled on) as well as the larger rural high speed major road junctions referred to in that link.


----------



## jonesy (28 Feb 2014)

User, you could start by reading the TAL on continental geometry roundabouts I posted previously.


Ps- and if you are going to start demanding links off people, then one to support your theories as to why Dutch roundabouts are safer would be helpful...


----------



## stowie (28 Feb 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> For fans or orbital cycle paths it is worth taking a look at the BBC video of the one being tested by the TRL.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22347184
> Remember this is in an idealised and controlled setting, with no distractions or pedestrians and low volumes of traffic. The drivers know that they are being observed so they are on their best behaviour and they know that they are testing out cycle infrastructure so they know to be expecting cyclists - who are all travelling at a modest pace. Yet in just a short visit by the camera crew they managed to spot see a near crash. Scroll the video to 2 minutes - it is a good job she was covering the brakes.
> 
> ...



What are the safety statistics between having a dutch style roundabout with off-road tracks (prioritised or otherwise) and the scheme proposed in Bedford where cyclists go around with the traffic flow?

Why do you think the NL has (without exception?) implemented turbo roundabout with separate provision? Is this more ideology than based on data?

I do hope the turbo roundabout has the desired effect for cyclists, not least because it would be easier to implement this elsewhere. But I cannot see some basic questions not being answered

The safety aspect, if cyclists are to be made safer whilst riding in the traffic flow relies very heavily on two conditions

1) Traffic flow is reduced - by roundabout design - to 10-15mph, so all traffic is travelling at around the same speed. I see expectation of this happening, but does anyone have data on entry / exit speeds for traffic on existing turbo roundabouts with approximately the same dimensions? I have driven this roundabout in the past and entry / exit speeds by drivers can be in excess of 30mph - it is actually a horrible roundabout for drivers as well because of inappropriate speeds. A reduction to 10-15mph seems ambitious especially without understanding the traffic speeds that can normally be expected on turbo roundabouts.

2) Close passing, left hooks are eliminated by forcing traffic to hold a lane and preventing traffic from being able to overtake cyclists on the roundabout whilst in the same lane. From some of the diagrams it seems that cars will be able to overtake cyclists on the roundabout if the cyclist isn't in primary, and the lane delineations can be crossed by drivers as well.

If the design allows speeds significantly in excess of cyclist speeds, and also doesn't prevent overtaking on the roundabout I have deep concerns over how this will improve matters for cyclists.

I assume that existing designers of turbo roundabouts in places like the NL have been consulted - what do they think to the scheme?


----------



## benb (28 Feb 2014)

I do wish people would stop presenting this as a Dutch cycle-friendly roundabout, when it's nothing of the sort.
In NL, when they use turbo roundabouts like this, they always, always have separate cycle provision rather than expecting the cyclists to mix with motorised traffic on the roundabout.

This is motoring infrastructure, not cycling infrastructure, and to pretend otherwise is deeply disingenuous.
The fact that it was paid for out of a cycling safety fund is scandalous.


----------



## jonesy (28 Feb 2014)

Benb- I feel this is getting repetitive, but again, if this were being designed primarily as motoring infrastructure it would have a completely different design, wider lanes, longer turning radii. The whole point is to reduce traffic speeds, reduce passing and improve sightlines. This is a different application of continental geometry, which is safer for cyclists both with and without segregated lanes. How effective this particular design will be remains to be seen, that's the whole point of doing trials. Please can we stop this assumption that we know what the outcome will be, based on outrage from bloggers for whom segregation is the one and only truth!

Stowie- as before, I understand your concerns, some of which I share. Let's see what the outcome of the trial is. But please don't assume your experience of speeds on the current layout is a good predictor, as, if it is being redesigned as described (I've not seen detailed drawings) then the geometry will be very different. 

Picking up some of your questions:
The Dutch use far more segregation anyway, so it isn't surprising they would more usually use the turbo design with segregation. But that doesn't mean it can't deliver benefits for unsegregated cyclists. It is very useful to explore what can be done in a UK context. That means trials and we can't assume that Dutch experience can simply be transferred. Regarding comparative data, there isn't actually that much available. Pete Owens has posted the only comparison that I've come across yet- and note the concerns about priority orbital lanes. Note also that there are difficulties comparing like with like because I don't think they've fully accounted for exposure. Clearly you can't expect there to be good comparative data available for the Bedford proposals and other Dutch roundabout designs if it is being used in a different way anyway. That's why we need trials!


----------



## benb (4 Mar 2014)

So, I thought this would be quite interesting. There's a guest blog post on the GB Cycling Embassy site by a traffic engineer.
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/blog/2014/03/03/a-view-from-the-drawing-board-turbogate


> it is important not to lose sight of the fact that *turbo-roundabouts are all about capacity for traffic*. Due to the potential for cyclists to be masked by vehicles when crossing multiple lanes, and due to the increase time cyclists need to cross the wider arms, the risks and nuisance posed by motor traffic are greater than at single lane roundabouts. *The Dutch prefer cycle routes [that] are grade separated at turbo-roundabouts as a consequence*.


 (my bold)


----------



## Flying Dodo (5 Mar 2014)

That article is wrong in implying the Bedford roundabout will only have painted lines separating the lanes, which isn't the case, but apart from that it doesn't add anything that hasn't been said already. A very pertinent point is right at the end:-



> Given these difficulties, a turbo-roundabout with annular cycle tracks wouldn't be my choice of Dutch infrastructure to introduce somewhere not used to it!


 And of course this isn't a piece of Dutch infrastructure. But that does go back to the point I raised in connection with the TRL trial roundabout, in that UK drivers just won't be able to deal with something new and radical, and that a proper Dutch style roundabout in the UK with fully segregated cycle lanes where cyclists should have priority will, sadly, end up killing more cyclists.


----------



## stowie (5 Mar 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> That article is wrong in implying the Bedford roundabout will only have painted lines separating the lanes, which isn't the case, but apart from that it doesn't add anything that hasn't been said already. A very pertinent point is right at the end:-
> 
> And of course this isn't a piece of Dutch infrastructure. But that does go back to the point I raised in connection with the TRL trial roundabout, in that UK drivers just won't be able to deal with something new and radical, and that a proper Dutch style roundabout in the UK with fully segregated cycle lanes where cyclists should have priority will, sadly, end up killing more cyclists.



If we cannot trust drivers to deal with anything new then we will need to accept that the current road configurations which are completely geared towards motor traffic is going to remain unaltered. Which begs the question why CTC would bother at all working on new schemes. Also, the turbo roundabout is completely new for UK drivers - are we saying that they will be unable to cope with this? Shared space was new in places like Poynton but drivers seemed to get the idea fairly rapidly. 

The issue you are actually saying is that drivers are very used to taking complete priority on most of our road network and cannot be trusted when they need to cede priority. This is learned behaviour and needs to start somewhere. I would contest that councils are making matters worse in this respect as many have a policy of ripping out infrastructure which needs drivers to cede priority (such as zebras) instead of addressing the root cause (drivers not expecting to have to give way to non motor traffic).

The article demonstrates to me that the whole road network configuration including markings is geared solely for motor traffic. The debacle that would have to be implemented to allow cyclists priority on the roundabouts shows that. In practice many cyclists will come off onto the shared pavement and cycle across the zebras assuming they have priority because they won't be reading the minutiae of the highway beforehand. Maybe we should take what is familiar to drivers (zebra crossings) and adapt to also give cyclists priority but in a way that retains familiarity to drivers? But then I guess we are up against transport planners who have spent their careers adhering to rules that prioritise drivers and are inherently conservative because any "confusing" markings will be blamed for accidents as opposed to the fact that road users should take more care.


----------



## stowie (6 Mar 2014)

User said:


> No it's not. There are other versions of turbo roundabouts in the UK and there have been for years. I can think of two on the A5 at Shrewsbury alone. Plus one in Cambridge and another on the A505/A1M junction...



Really? Because I have used these junctions and none are like the Bedford proposal. Unless I am mistaken, the roundabouts you mention are very dissimilar in design. They are fast, large roundabout with slip roads for traffic taking the left turn. There are no dividers on the roundabout itself and indeed if you want to go left without using the slip road you can. None of these roundabout have the turbo roundabout segregation of lanes on the roundabout. This design is completely new to the UK. Or at least Bedford council certainly think so as it says this on their literature.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Mar 2014)

Horsham's town centre 20-mph zone was the first in the country. It was hailed as a model for others to follow. It was a radical alteration not far short of Poynton.

Drivers got used to it.

Time passed.

Drivers got used to it so much they now drive through it at 40mph.


----------



## totallyfixed (6 Mar 2014)

I am thoroughly sick of hearing how "it will never work in the UK". The reason it is so much more difficult than elsewhere in Europe, is that in the UK the government kowtows to the motoring lobby and therefore will not introduce traffic laws that support infrastructure changes. When we do implement something new it is only in a few places in the country as a "trial", never mind that it has been tried and tested elsewhere in Europe and works perfectly well, this sets it up to fail because drivers will never encounter it enough to get used to it and of course it will then be deemed a failure, terrific.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> Is that a reason not to have it at all though?


A good question.

Just building it / having it isn't enough. If folk can drive through a piece of road infrastructure in a way contrary to the designers intent because the as-built infrastructure allows them to, e.g. painted lane lines rather than hard kerbs to create lanes, then they will. Repeatedly. As a result of their doing so other more vulnerable users of that shared space will modify their behaviour in ways the designers didn't intend either. This will include cyclists riding on the pavement, folk simply staying away in droves, or using a tin box themselves.

We need to build shared spaces in our towns that actively, and permanently, deter people from driving, that inconvenience the motorists and take away their speed advantage, and which make them think twice about using their cars, and are spaces where the rules around intended driver behaviour are enforced aggressively. We should not create spaces which inconvenience those who rely on muscle power alone, which prioritise a driver's "right of way" over that of pedestrians, and which deploy optimism and paint as a means of policing driver behaviour.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Mar 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> I am thoroughly sick of hearing how "it will never work in the UK". *The reason it is so much more difficult than elsewhere in Europe, is that in the UK the government kowtows to the motoring lobby and therefore will not introduce traffic laws that support infrastructure changes.* When we do implement something new it is only in a few places in the country as a "trial", never mind that it has been tried and tested elsewhere in Europe and works perfectly well, this sets it up to fail because drivers will never encounter it enough to get used to it and of course it will then be deemed a failure, terrific.


^This. 

Simply put; the UK public love their cars, and all the illusory dreams of car ownership, more than they love other people's children.

A few thousand deaths a year on a roads? Just the acceptable price of doing business.


----------



## totallyfixed (6 Mar 2014)

Going slightly off topic but bear with me as it is relevant, I was driving back from the Air Ambulance ride in Coventry a few weeks ago and entered one stretch of dual carriageway that had a clearly marked 40 mph limit. This DC also had speed cameras on it but on this day someone in authority had deemed it necessary to put extra signs out saying "speed cameras out of action". Why?? Anyway, so there I am doing no more than the speed limit while everyone else was doing 60 or 70 mph, and I do mean everyone else, I was the only one obeying the law. I found this immensely depressing, the only conclusion I can draw is that unless the law is present or the consequences are sufficiently severe, the average UK motorist will ignore anything that might slow them down.
I have just depressed myself all over again.


----------



## jonesy (6 Mar 2014)

The fundamental differences between standard UK roundabouts and the turbo roundabout are physical separation between the lanes and the 'continental' geometry. What you are describing is a standard UK roundabout with spiral lane markings. However, I would agree that the basic principles of how a driver navigates the turbo roundabout are the same- there are no fundamental changes in priority to consider (as is the case with the Dutch roundabout with the priory orbital cycle lane being trialled by TfL) so in that respect it is presenting fewer challenges for implementation.


----------



## jonesy (6 Mar 2014)

benb said:


> So, I thought this would be quite interesting. There's a guest blog post on the GB Cycling Embassy site by a traffic engineer.
> http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/blog/2014/03/03/a-view-from-the-drawing-board-turbogate
> (my bold)



Ok, managed to have a proper read of this. Some points I agree with, however the attacks on the designers: "fraud', "bullshit" etc rather detract from the professional objectivity that the website is clearly trying to claim through inclusion of this blog. And, of course, alternative opinions from traffic engineers are available...

Flying Dodo has already picked up on one important error- the author is wrong on physical separation, suggesting he hasn't got enough information to make a proper assessment of the scheme. He has also misunderstood the point made in the SWOV factsheet about capacity of turbo roundabouts compared with other roundabouts: this is comparison between different types of _Dutch_ geometry roundabouts, not between a Dutch turbo and standard UK two lane roundabout. As I've explained previously, Dutch roundabouts have a tighter geometry, which reduces speed but also reduces capacity. Adding the turbo lanes reduces some of that lost capacity certainly, but there is nothing in the reference cited to suggest that a turbo roundabout with tight (continental) geometry, as proposed for Bedford will offer greater capacity than a two lane UK roundabout optimised for capacity. If capacity for motor vehicles really was the primary objective of the designers then they'd go for a high capacity design based on UK geometry, which isn't what is proposed.

Note also that the author is linking together two quite separate arguments- the merits or otherwise of the turbo design, and the case for introducing Dutch style roundabouts with priority orbital cycle lanes. Even if the turbo proves not to be a suitable design (and I accept that may be the outcome), it still doesn't follow that the latter type is the right solution. Bear in mind that even if the Netherlands there is still a debate on giving cyclists priority on orbital roundabouts (this is clear in the SWOV leaflet cited by the blog); that there are different approaches to roundabout design within the Netherlands, that they generally don't use roundabouts as much as the UK does anyway, still preferring signalised junctions in urban areas, and that there are different priority rules there, so drivers are used to having to give way to cyclists when then turn in and out of side roads. Not to mention different liability rules. 

https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Roundabouts.pdf
"There is no consensus about the priority regulations for cyclists on roundabouts with separate bicycle 
tracks. CROW recommends priority for cyclists on urban roundabouts, but no priority on rural 
roundabouts. However, from a road safety perspective cyclists should have no priority on urban 
roundabouts either. "

Given that TfL has been trialling one particular design off-street, with a view to progressing to on-street trials, why would you expect any other authority to wade in and implement one without waiting to see what the outcome of these trials will be?


----------



## Pete Owens (8 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Says who?


1. Drivers: Its bleedin obvious to anyone who has ever driven a car that you need to slow down for bends - and the tighter the bend the more you need to slow down.
2. Dutch Highway Engineers: The empirical research the Dutch did after they converted the first 100 or so roundabouts. The idea was to improve safety by reducing speeds - speeds did reduce resulting in a 70% reduction in crashes - so they rolled it out to convert all 2-lane roundabouts. 
3. 'O' level physics - The coefficient of friction of rubber on tarmac limits the speed you can drive round a bend without skidding.


> In theory there may be a reduction, or there may be in practice - but it will be time limited once drivers get used to the roundabout.


Its not a matter of getting used to it it is a matter of physical limitations.


> And we don't have those already in the UK?


No. This is a first.


> The reality is that the reason that Dutch roundabouts appear to be safer is:
> 
> Dutch driver are more likely to be cyclists themselves.
> How to drive around cyclists is a big part of driver training and testing in the Netherlands
> ...


Points 1, 2, 4 are valid - but it is hard to see how any safety scheme in the UK would address this (other than requiring Dutch citizenship as a condition of holding a UK driving licence).
Point 3 is not the case - all the evidence points to cycle tracks increasing the danger at junctions.

And the argument is not just that Dutch roundabouts perform better than UK ones (precisely because they are designed to restrict speeds while ours are intended to maximise them) It is that applying turbo geometry vastly improved the safety of what were already relatively safe roundabouts - they already had all the features you list before they were converted - and already had some of the geometrical features such as perpendicular approaches and exits. If they can reduce crashes on Dutch roundabouts by 70% we can expect an even greater improvement by converting UK ones.


> Care to provide some links to the empirical evidence, which supports your assertion?


Perhaps when you provide some supporting your opinion.


> You appear to be confusing your opinion with fact...



OK here is a tutorial from a numerate biker explaining how tight bends limit vehicle speed:
http://www.stevemunden.com/leanangle.html


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Mar 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> OK here is a tutorial from a numerate biker explaining how tight bends limit vehicle speed:
> http://www.stevemunden.com/leanangle.html


Fine. But in my neck of the woods cyclists are killed by vehicles dong fifteen miles an hour or less while turning.

And all roundabouts are crap. FACT.


----------



## totallyfixed (8 Mar 2014)

What of course is needed is a method of changing direction on a bike at busy major and relatively minor 4 or 5 way junctions that does not slow you down much while at the same time not bringing you into any sort of conflict with a vehicle.
It is called a roundabout. Netherlands style, never felt safer. To have priority and respect from motor vehicles is quite something. I don't particularly care if it takes away your "right" to mix it with traffic, cyclists are getting injured and sometimes dying on UK roundabouts, the solution does not include faffing around with compromises and half measures as is this governments wont.
Either go the whole hog or don't bother, everywhere.


----------



## jonesy (8 Mar 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Fine. But in my neck of the woods cyclists are killed by vehicles dong fifteen miles an hour or less while turning.
> 
> And all roundabouts are crap. FACT.


It's about position as well as speed- placing turning vehicles at right angles to circulating traffic to minimise the risk of cyclists being in blindspots.


----------



## Pete Owens (8 Mar 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> And all roundabouts are crap. FACT.


All *UK* roundabouts are indeed crap - which is why dealing with them by schemes such as this is such a worthwhile exercise.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Mar 2014)

jonesy said:


> It's about position as well as speed- placing turning vehicles at right angles to circulating traffic to minimise the risk of cyclists being in blindspots.


as in traffic lights?


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Mar 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> All *UK* roundabouts are indeed crap - which is why dealing with them by schemes such as this is such a worthwhile exercise.


every roundabout I've ever seen in any country, including Holland has been crap. But for reasons you're going to have to work out for yourself.


----------



## jonesy (9 Mar 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> as in traffic lights?


Conflicts between turning vehicles and cyclists also occur at signalised junctions.


----------



## Wobblers (9 Mar 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> 1. Drivers: Its bleedin obvious to anyone who has ever driven a car that you need to slow down for bends - and the tighter the bend the more you need to slow down.
> 2. Dutch Highway Engineers: The empirical research the Dutch did after they converted the first 100 or so roundabouts. The idea was to improve safety by reducing speeds - speeds did reduce resulting in a 70% reduction in crashes - so they rolled it out to convert all 2-lane roundabouts.
> 3. 'O' level physics - The coefficient of friction of rubber on tarmac limits the speed you can drive round a bend without skidding.
> 
> ...



There are a few unspoken assumptions here. You're assuming that motorists are rational, and thus will behave in a rational way (slow down!) when confronted by this new model of roundabout. The fact that fatalities in rural roads are considerably higher than motorways which have faster speeds and higher traffic volumes casts some doubt onto this assumption.

You are assuming that slower vehicles automatically means a safer environment for cyclists. While this at first glance seems reasonable you do not consider any confounding factors. Are sight lines better or worse than conventional roundabouts? If the design means that cyclists are less likely to be seen, this would make it considerably less safe. Furthermore, sharper turns mean that large vehicles are much more likely to intrude into spaces that vulnerable users may consider safe - the side of the road, or pavements. I have to point out that the majority of cyclists killed in London in recent years have been due collisions with large vehicles. Does this design make this type of incident more likely?

You claim that this sort of feature will improve safety for vulnerable users. Yes, I think that this is not at all unreasonable - but this is still a supposition. You have failed to provide any supporting evidence. No, saying that crashes have been reduced by 70% according to Dutch traffic engineers doesn't count. I need to see the source of that. Most importantly, you have failed to supply the confidence figures for that 70%. Without that, it is entirely impossible to make any assessment as to the validity of that data. (And I also note that you say "crashes", *not *"cyclist casualties" - does this figure include all traffic? If it does, it is meaningless from the aspect of vulnerable user safety.)

As a physicist, when I publish something, I am obliged to support it with all data, and demonstrate that my conclusions are supported by the data. My work has no safety implications - this does. As such, I don't think it unfair to ask you to provide supporting evidence to the same standards as are required in science publications.


----------



## Pete Owens (10 Mar 2014)

McWobble said:


> As a physicist, when I publish something, I am obliged to support it with all data, and demonstrate that my conclusions are supported by the data. My work has no safety implications - this does. As such, I don't think it unfair to ask you to provide supporting evidence to the same standards as are required in science publications.



Well, you managed to "publish" those 4 paragraphs with no supporting evidence at all! - but I suppose you also refrained from actually making any point whatsoever - just giving the impression of doubt.

It is not an "assumption" that drivers need to slow down for tight bends - it is a physical limitation. Perhaps as a physicist you could take the trouble yourself to do the maths to calculate the maximum possible speed that a vehicle can follow a 15m radius bend with only the friction of the tyres to provide the necessary centripetal force - allow say a coefficient of friction of 0.65 for a rolling tyre on tarmac. I did supply a helpful link if you cant remember the basics:
http://www.stevemunden.com/leanangle.html

Are you seriously doubting that lower speeds make for a safer environment? or just making a silly debating point?
Perhaps this might help:
https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed.pdf

Now for sightlines. The perpendicular arms mean that drivers nearing the junction will have a better view of circulating traffic than with the standard UK tangential arms. So drivers are more likely to cyclists, thus making the junction safer. 

Lane dividers are provided to ensure vehicles keep to the lanes and trucks will need to occupy the whole lane. The lanes won't be wide enough for cyclists to overtake on the wrong side or for left turning trucks to attempt to overtake cyclists - and there won't be cycle lanes to encourage conflicting movements through the junction or traffic lights to generate stationary traffic, so this should greatly reduce the left hook problem.


----------



## jonesy (10 Mar 2014)

It would help take this discussion forwards if people read the documents on roundabouts and continental geometry that have already been posted. It really is not controversial to assert that people drive more slowly round a corner if the turning radius is reduced.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Mar 2014)

jonesy said:


> It would help take this discussion forwards if people read the documents on roundabouts and continental geometry that have already been posted. It really is not controversial to assert that people drive more slowly round a corner if the turning radius is reduced.


To what degree must the turning radius on a roundabout, junction, or corner/bend, be reduced in order to ensure a motor vehicle must reduce its speed to below 20mph to 'make' the turn? 15mph? 10mph? 5mph?


----------



## benb (10 Mar 2014)

McWobble said:


> Most importantly, you have failed to supply the confidence figures for that 70%. Without that, it is entirely impossible to make any assessment as to the validity of that data. (And I also note that you say "crashes", *not *"cyclist casualties" - does this figure include all traffic? If it does, it is meaningless from the aspect of vulnerable user safety.)



Well seeing as in the Netherlands they specifically route cycling traffic away from these turbo roundabouts, because they are actually quite dangerous for cyclists, so there's your answer.


----------



## jonesy (10 Mar 2014)

benb said:


> Well seeing as in the Netherlands they specifically route cycling traffic away from these turbo roundabouts, because they are actually quite dangerous for cyclists, so there's your answer.


Er no. That's your interpretation. Apart from anything else you are forgetting that the Dutch are adding these to existing roads where the cycle networks already exist and already involve extensive segregation. You are also forgetting that the Dutch approach to roundabout design is quite different from the UK, so you can't assume that applying a turbo design to replace a UK roundabout will be worse for cyclists. Any chance of anyone bothering to read the reports posted earlier?


----------



## oldstrath (10 Mar 2014)

jonesy said:


> It would help take this discussion forwards if people read the documents on roundabouts and continental geometry that have already been posted. It really is not controversial to assert that people drive more slowly round a corner if the turning radius is reduced.


My problem with a lot of this is the assumption that the lane division will produce predictable behaviours and reduce speeds. If these lanes were, in fact, physically separated this would clearly be the case. But they will be separated only by small plastic 'bumps' apparently, and I (and probably others) have no faith that hurrying, late, or confused motorists won't simply ignore the lanes. In short, believing that this will aid cyclist safety requires believing that motorists will drive considerately, carefully, and in accordance with the rules of this piece of road. Given that according to the AA over half of motorists imagine that bikes sometimes 'come out of nowhere (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...groups-welcome-aas-think-bike-campaign-116946) I think relying on their intelligence, courtesy or eyesight may be optimistic.


----------



## Flying Dodo (10 Mar 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> What of course is needed is a method of changing direction on a bike at busy major and relatively minor 4 or 5 way junctions that does not slow you down much while at the same time not bringing you into any sort of conflict with a vehicle.
> It is called a roundabout. Netherlands style, never felt safer. To have priority and respect from motor vehicles is quite something. I don't particularly care if it takes away your "right" to mix it with traffic, cyclists are getting injured and sometimes dying on UK roundabouts, the solution does not include faffing around with compromises and half measures as is this governments wont.
> Either go the whole hog or don't bother, everywhere.


 
The big problem is that in the Netherlands, most motorists are also cyclists, and so the whole culture is different. Cyclists are respected, not treated with contempt as they generally are here in the UK. So it's not a change in infrastructure that's required, but a complete change in attitude. And that's the complicated bit.


----------



## stowie (10 Mar 2014)

jonesy said:


> Er no. That's your interpretation. Apart from anything else you are forgetting that the Dutch are adding these to existing roads where the cycle networks already exist and already involve extensive segregation. You are also forgetting that the Dutch approach to roundabout design is quite different from the UK, so you can't assume that applying a turbo design to replace a UK roundabout will be worse for cyclists. Any chance of anyone bothering to read the reports posted earlier?



The issue I have is that the reports - from what I can see - do not take data from existing turbo roundabouts on traffic speed and use this to inform whether the 10-15mph speeds are attainable. Looking at the coefficient of friction is lovely, but I am really doubting that the highway engineers are going to make a busy roundabout where the speed limitation is 15mph before drivers start feeling their car sliding. The speed reduction is critical to aiding cyclists. The turbo roundabout is supposed to at least maintain, if not increase, traffic flow through it, and if speed is reduced, the only way to do this is increase traffic density. Which is what a turbo roundabout does by segregating the lanes and allowing vehicles to use all the space instead of having vehicles on the roundabout use the lanes to maintain speed. If the speed is only reduced to 25mph (which is still slower than now) then I would be concerned that the traffic density and speed would be such that a cyclist would find negotiating space challenging.

Then there is the fact that the lanes will be wide enough for HGVs which means that, by the councils own admission, the lanes may be wide enough for cars to overtake cyclists in them. This sounds very uncomfortable and we are back to relying on cyclists taking primary (and stick from impatient drivers) to maintain space.

Finally, the divisions are plastic and can be driven over. It doesn't take a hugely cynical attitude to think that, once drivers have got used to the design they may maintain speed by driving over the divisions. This depends on how big the divisions are. Again Netherlands drivers aren't a special breed, they will be impatient at times and look for a short cut - how does Holland maintain segregation, how easy is to go over the divisions there? Are we using the same dividers or something different?

These are simple questions. I have seen the 10-15mph repeated often, yet it is an ambitious target for vehicle use and I wonder what existing turbo roundabout speeds are like?


----------



## stowie (10 Mar 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> The big problem is that in the Netherlands, most motorists are also cyclists, and so the whole culture is different. Cyclists are respected, not treated with contempt as they generally are here in the UK. So it's not a change in infrastructure that's required, but a complete change in attitude. And that's the complicated bit.



This is true, although attitude is changing slowly - principally in London. Don't think that drivers all delight in cyclists though - I have heard colleagues in Copenhagen cursing cyclists on the roads when they have been driving, but the difference is that drivers are concerned / scared enough of hitting a cyclist to be really wary when driving.

The attitude change needs to come from the top - from politicians, local government, police and the courts. I do think that a change in attitude can be driven in tandem with a change in infrastructure. I am very open to the possibility that changing the attitudes of those in - or with - power is more urgent than infrastructure, but that doesn't excuse poorly designed schemes which use money that might be better used elsewhere (maybe put into the CTC road justice campaign for instance).


----------



## totallyfixed (10 Mar 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> The big problem is that in the Netherlands, most motorists are also cyclists, and so the whole culture is different. Cyclists are respected, not treated with contempt as they generally are here in the UK. So it's not a change in infrastructure that's required, but a complete change in attitude. And that's the complicated bit.


Yes absolutely agree, but of course it's a bit chicken and egg. What could well be true though is that if enough infrastructure is provided plus more incentive to ride then numbers ought to increase and a tipping point is reached where the majority of people ride a bike. When this happens then cyclists will have a bigger say in changing the traffic laws.
Very good friends of ours live in Nijmegen in the Netherlands, they also lived in Cambridge for several years, highly intelligent, one runs a beginners racing group for women. Their view on cycling in the UK is that we are living in the past and worship cars, all their friends are of a similar opinion. They came over to visit a couple of years ago pulling a kiddie trailer with their daughter, they said planning a safe route on the UK side was a nightmare. They are not slow cyclists, but in the city they just ride at a similar pace to everyone else, and that is a crucial difference also between people on bikes, no one is trying to "scalp" anyone else, it's all just very laid back, very refreshing.


----------



## benb (10 Mar 2014)

jonesy said:


> Er no. That's your interpretation. Apart from anything else you are forgetting that the Dutch are adding these to existing roads where the cycle networks already exist and already involve extensive segregation. You are also forgetting that the Dutch approach to roundabout design is quite different from the UK, so you can't assume that applying a turbo design to replace a UK roundabout will be worse for cyclists. Any chance of anyone bothering to read the reports posted earlier?



Er, no. The Dutch approach is not to have cycle traffic going through turbo roundabouts.


----------



## jonesy (10 Mar 2014)

benb said:


> Er, no. The Dutch approach is not to have cycle traffic going through turbo roundabouts.


I take it the 'no' is your answer to my last question...


----------



## benb (10 Mar 2014)

jonesy said:


> I take it the 'no' is your answer to my last question...



Perhaps you can clarify what you mean, as I am having trouble following you.
Do the Dutch turbo roundabouts route cycling traffic through them, as will be the case here? yes or no? (hint: the answer is no)


----------



## User169 (10 Mar 2014)

stowie said:


> This depends on how big the divisions are. Again Netherlands drivers aren't a special breed, they will be impatient at times and look for a short cut - how does Holland maintain segregation, _how easy is to go over the divisions there_?



I think it's something you'd only do once (per car).


----------



## jonesy (10 Mar 2014)

Thank you @TMN. 

I would have hoped by now that the complainers would have appreciated that there is rather more to roundabout design than a simplistic "if it isn't exactly the same as the Dutch then it must be wrong" argument, taking no account of context, starting point etc...


----------



## jonesy (10 Mar 2014)

M


benb said:


> Perhaps you can clarify what you mean, as I am having trouble following you.
> Do the Dutch turbo roundabouts route cycling traffic through them, as will be the case here? yes or no? (hint: the answer is no)


My question was about whether anyone was going to take the trouble to read the reports posted previously. Clearly your answer is no...


----------



## jonesy (10 Mar 2014)

Continental geometry is of itself not new ( but then I never said it was), however it is still not standard practice in the UK. High capacity roundabouts do not use it. The turbo roundabout, which uses aspects of continental geometry as well as physicallly separated spiral lanes, is new however. I'm unclear what regulator's point is though.


----------



## Wobblers (10 Mar 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> Well, you managed to "publish" those 4 paragraphs with no supporting evidence at all! - but I suppose you also refrained from actually making any point whatsoever - just giving the impression of doubt.
> 
> It is not an "assumption" that drivers need to slow down for tight bends - it is a physical limitation. Perhaps as a physicist you could take the trouble yourself to do the maths to calculate the maximum possible speed that a vehicle can follow a 15m radius bend with only the friction of the tyres to provide the necessary centripetal force - allow say a coefficient of friction of 0.65 for a rolling tyre on tarmac. I did supply a helpful link if you cant remember the basics:
> http://www.stevemunden.com/leanangle.html
> ...



Dearie me. Had a bad morning? Why not put your feet up and have a cup of tea.

If you want to be taken seriously, it's probably best not to go off on some tiresome tirade. _Especially _in reply to someone who's already said that an increase in safety is "not unreasonable". If that double negative was too troublesome the I'll restate it: "I think that it is reasonable that this type of roundabout may increase the safety of vulnerable road users". 

I do hope this helps.

Now, if you could kindly refrain from petulance, can you answer my questions on this 70% reduction in crashes. This, after all, is the evidence you need to support your conclusions. Do these figures include all vehicles, as well as cyclists? And what is the standard deviation?

PS: A friction coefficient of 0.65 is what I'd expect to see for a tyre on a poor surface in the wet. I think it unlikely that part of the improvements would be to replace the road surface with broken concrete and convert it into a skid pan. After all, the water bill would be horrendous! Assuming that motorists are _au fait _with the finer points of physics seems a trifle... optimistic. Physics is only a part of the whole package of factors - psychological factors are at least as important: which is why a blanket assumption that slower speeds automatically means increased safety in all circumstances is unwise.


----------



## StuartG (11 Mar 2014)

In support of McW's comments I would add that a driver is acting on his/her perception of the road or junction and not necessarily with the reality. The two can differ significantly. This can be advantageous when a junction appears more dangerous than it is. Disaster when it is the other way round.

Hence we have a problem when people want the apparent danger removed. It would seem the sensible thing to do to a lay person. Which is why it is not a good idea to let lay people design junctions. It is a good idea that the professionals be held to account on the results and ensure these results are produced in an accessible way to lay people. Of course if lay people don't bother with the evidence they should, for safety's sake, be ignored.

My career was based on statistics and modelling. I would have been out of a job if we could rely on common sense or not taking into account hidden interdependencies. It was discovering the unexpected, where common sense is wrong, that saves lots of money, lives or both depending on the application. This is particularly true in traffic management. The biggest hurdle is when the safety situation is counter-intuitive. No matter how strong the evidence a certain section will always resist because they just 'know'.


----------



## jonesy (11 Mar 2014)

As a general statement that is fine, Nonetheless, it simply isn't controversial that reducing turning radii reduces traffic speed...


----------



## jonesy (11 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Because such designs don't normally have cyclists funneled around them nor are they trumpeted as being 'cyclist friendly'...


Such designs aren't normal in the UK, full stop. It is a trial, you can't make general statements about what is or is not normal. There are some design features that would be expected to make it better than the existing layout, there are others that raise concerns. But until it is tried we don't know. Simplistic comparisons with Dutch practice, where a lot of other factors are different, don't enable us to prejudge the outcome of this trial.


----------



## jonesy (11 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Except they are more 'normal' than people wish to acknowledge. First we're told we don't have 'turbo roundabouts' in the UK... and then it's pointed out that we do and examples provided. Then it's suggested (via a rather outdated TAL) that the angles of approach etc are different.... except such angles of approach etc. are becoming more common on smaller roundabouts.
> 
> Other than the amount of white paint used, the reality is that there's actually not a great deal of difference between the Bedford design and many similar designs already in use in the UK.
> 
> ...



At the risk of boring repetition, the fundamental design feature is the physical separation of the lanes and that is new to the UK. The use of tight geometry is necessary to reduce speed, but, and I will keep banging on about it until it sinks in, this is not controversial. Indeed, it isn't new.- hence the .1997 TAL - and is clearly recommended in DFT and Tfl's guidance on cycling infrastructure. It just isn't usually used on high flow roundabouts because it reduces capacity. So, once again, I'll point out that if traffic capacity was the main objective they would simply have built a high capacity roundabout to UK geometry, and it would be a nightmare for cyclists.


----------



## jonesy (11 Mar 2014)

Quite. So we are all in agreement that there are potential benefits, but also potential problems, so let's see what the trial brings?


----------



## Flying Dodo (11 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Yes they are. That's the whole point of providing the farcilities on the new Bedford roundabout. It's about getting cyclists out of the way of drivers and putting them onto the paths and crossings around the roundabout..



You definitely haven't bothered reading the link I'd referred to some time ago to what Patrick Lingwood, the Bedford Cycling Officer posted, bearing in mind the ratio of "road" cyclists to non road cyclists was 60:40 and he expected the road cyclists to carry on using the road, and taking the lane.



jonesy said:


> Quite. So we are all in agreement that there are potential benefits, but also potential problems, so let's see what the trial brings?



Yes. 

Although bearing in mind I'm probably the only one posting about it who's actually been around this roundabout, I'm not sure how to tempt all these arm chair critics to actually get on a bike and try the new version.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Mar 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Although bearing in mind I'm probably the only one posting about it who's actually been around this roundabout, I'm not sure how to tempt all these arm chair critics to actually get on a bike and try the new version.


Travel to Bedford to try a roundabout.

Hmmmm..... can I volunteer for root canal work instead?


----------



## Flying Dodo (11 Mar 2014)

Ah - yes, you both do have a point. Although trains do run to take you back again, away from Bedford.


----------



## jonesy (11 Mar 2014)

I'll come and have a go, when the railway from Oxford is re- opened!


----------



## Flying Dodo (11 Mar 2014)

Contract awarded yesterday for the work! First trains expected to start running December 2017.


----------



## snorri (11 Mar 2014)

2972888 said:


> Excellent. Can they also build a second south coast mainline to stop London getting cut off quite so often?


I think we have enough on our plates at present without taking rail into the equation..

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtxEZINCpCw


----------



## Wobblers (12 Mar 2014)

jonesy said:


> As a general statement that is fine, Nonetheless, it simply isn't controversial that reducing turning radii reduces traffic speed...



Therein lies a problem. Indeed, the idea that reducing speed improves safety is uncontroversial. In fact, it is almost axiomatic. Thus this concept is applied to every and all situations. The problem is that when this axiomatic thinking replaces evidence based practice. As @StuartG put it so eloquently, this sort of common sense approach does not always accord with reality. For instance, road narrowing as a means to reduce traffic speed merely creates points of conflict between vulnerable road users and motorists: they are always unpleasant and occasionally downright dangerous. It has been argued on this forum that putting in cycle lanes reduces traffic speeds by narrowing the road. Yet evidence shows that motorists pass cyclists more closely when they're in cycle lanes. It also puts the cyclist in a position where he or she is less visible. Speaking for myself, I'd far prefer to be overtaken by some prat at 50 mph five feet away than at 30 mph six inches from my elbow. This attitude that vulnerable road users are merely some sort of mobile bollard who exist to slow down motorists is the perfect illustration of all that is wrong with traffic management in the UK.

The thing is, "lower speed equals safer" is a rule of thumb. It is to be used as a handy shortcut to good design. It is certainly not a substitute for reasoning or to be used in lieu of evidence. Yet I worry that this is exactly what happens all too often. (Though hopefully not in this specific example.)


----------



## jonesy (12 Mar 2014)

I know. That's why we do trials!


----------



## StuartG (12 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Oh so you're the only person whose cycled round that roundabout are you?


I will save FD the time and effort to say he never said or implied that. If we are into point scoring I can say I have probably been round those A5 roundabouts more times than you and I think, like others, that your point is, at best, rather stretched.

I wonder if @dellzeqq is reading this and pondering a FNRttR ... if you would be prepared to lead us all round the trialled roundabour and host a real discussion over a Bedford Banger Breakfast ,,, your call!


----------



## snorri (12 Mar 2014)

Can someone post Googlemap links to a few of these Dutch turbo roundabouts please?
I've covered a few miles over there and seen plenty of roundabouts but can't recall seeing a turbo.


----------



## User169 (12 Mar 2014)

snorri said:


> Can someone post Googlemap links to a few of these Dutch turbo roundabouts please?
> I've covered a few miles over there and seen plenty of roundabouts but can't recall seeing a turbo.


 
Hope this works - Roundabouts of Pijnacker!

https://maps.google.nl/maps/ms?msid=211709456663150933703.0004a8a93add6c4098869&msa=0

If you look at the key on the left-hand side, the last three are turbo roundabouts. I regularly use the one at the junction of N472/N470 (on bike, never driven around it).


----------



## snorri (12 Mar 2014)

Delftse Post said:


> Hope this works - Roundabouts of Pijnacker!


Yes it worked, thank you.
Now I will have to study at my leisure.


----------



## theclaud (12 Mar 2014)

2973511 said:


> Why is is called turbo?


I've been wondering this, but have been too shy to ask...


----------



## jonesy (12 Mar 2014)

I think it is the fan like appearance of the spiral lanes when viewed from above.


Edit-'shy'?!


----------



## User169 (12 Mar 2014)

snorri said:


> Can someone post Googlemap links to a few of these Dutch turbo roundabouts please?
> I've covered a few miles over there and seen plenty of roundabouts but can't recall seeing a turbo.


 
Here's a link to all of them world-wide, as of 2013...

https://www.google.nl/maps/ms?msid=...6797&spn=16.617776,28.520508&z=5&source=embed


----------



## Flying Dodo (12 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Oh so you're the only person whose cycled round that roundabout are you?
> 
> As it is, I've cycled round the existing roundabout (I used to have to visit Bedford on a regular basis, as it was part of my patch) and I've cycled round some of the Dutch turbo roundabouts (one of the advantages of living in East Anglia is easy - and cheap - access to Holland) - not just some mock up at the TRL testing ground.



As you well know, "probably" doesn't mean definitely. And the sole reason why I'd raised the issue is that it is relevant, having also been on the TRL trial roundabout which others have stated would be their preferred solution, so unlike others who haven't done either, I can see that the turbo roundabout, whilst by no means a good solution, should be better than the current roundabout.


Edit: And I should be cycling in Amsterdam when I go back there again at the end of the month, so I'll see if I can find a Dutch turbo roundabout.


----------



## Pete Owens (12 Mar 2014)

2973511 said:


> Why is is called turbo?


Because it looks a bit like a cross section through a water turbine.


----------



## jonesy (13 Mar 2014)

Find us a single example of a UK roundabout with raised lane separators and continental geometry and you'll have a case that the Bedford design isn't new in the UK.


----------



## jonesy (13 Mar 2014)

Shame User didn't stumble across something quite so useful.


----------



## BSRU (28 Mar 2014)

It seems MAG, Motorcycle Action Group, has been campaigning in opposition to this scheme, on the grounds that the raised kerb lane dividers are dangerous for motorcycles and cyclists,

http://www.mag-uk.org/en/newsdetail/a7169


----------



## Pete Owens (28 Mar 2014)

BSRU said:


> It seems MAG, Motorcycle Action Group, has been campaigning in opposition to this scheme, on the grounds that the raised kerb lane dividers are dangerous for motorcycles and cyclists,
> 
> http://www.mag-uk.org/en/newsdetail/a7169



When a scheme is designed to improve the safety of vulnerable road users by forcing motor vehicles to slow down then the opposition of motorised road users is only to be expected. Indeed, I consider it a key test of whether a scheme is worthwhile that it generates howls of anguish from motorists. Now they cannot openly admit that their real reason for objection is that the design is that it will slow them down by preventing them taking a racing line through the junction (ie that it will work as intended) so they dress it up as a concern for safety - just as the anti-speed-camera brigade pretend to be safety organisations.


----------



## stowie (28 Mar 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> When a scheme is designed to improve the safety of vulnerable road users by forcing motor vehicles to slow down then the opposition of motorised road users is only to be expected. Indeed, I consider it a key test of whether a scheme is worthwhile that it generates howls of anguish from motorists. Now they cannot openly admit that their real reason for objection is that the design is that it will slow them down by preventing them taking a racing line through the junction (ie that it will work as intended) so they dress it up as a concern for safety - just as the anti-speed-camera brigade pretend to be safety organisations.



Possibly. What happens on turbo roundabouts in Holland? Do they use the same plastic dividers and do they have an accident issue with PTW?

Maybe you should present to them the option of taking out one lane from the roundabout as cycle provision and then there won't be any dividers for PTW or any other motor traffic. Very clear where drivers should be.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Mar 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> When a scheme is designed to improve the safety of vulnerable road users by forcing motor vehicles to slow down then the opposition of motorised road users is only to be expected. Indeed, I consider it a key test of whether a scheme is worthwhile that it generates howls of anguish from motorists. Now they cannot openly admit that their real reason for objection is that the design is that it will slow them down by preventing them taking a racing line through the junction (ie that it will work as intended) so they dress it up as a concern for safety - just as the anti-speed-camera brigade pretend to be safety organisations.


no, it means that they're fearful that people will hit a low barrier and get hurt. And, my experience of the neo-turbo roundabout outside Chichester is that they have a point.


----------



## Pete Owens (31 Mar 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> no, it means that they're fearful that people will hit a low barrier and get hurt. And, my experience of the neo-turbo roundabout outside Chichester is that they have a point.


And since viritually all urban roads come equipped with low barriers on either side (including the existing layout) it is rather a coincidence to that they suddenly develelp a kerb-phobia for this particular scheme.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Apr 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> And since viritually all urban roads come equipped with low barriers on either side (including the existing layout) it is rather a coincidence to that they suddenly develelp a kerb-phobia for this particular scheme.


kerbs where you expect them to be are one thing. Kerbs strewn hither, thither and yon.....not so good. My point is this - it ill behoves us to be cynical about people that have as much to lose of gain in terms of risk as we do. 

Oh - and can we get past the 'vulnerable road user' stuff? Especially when we're discussing a bit of engineering that looks like it's set up to inconvenience pedestrians.


----------



## Pete Owens (1 Apr 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Especially when we're discussing a bit of engineering that looks like it's set up to inconvenience pedestrians.


Yes indeed - those direct zebra crossings across all the arms of the junction (made possible by the reduced design speed of the roundabout) will be a real bind for anyone trying to cross the road on foot.


----------



## stowie (2 Apr 2014)

I would have thought the only positive thing to come out of this scheme is that pedestrians now have a method of crossing the road with some priority via the crossings as opposed to the existing scheme where they have to cross by darting inbetween traffic. The crossing points look like they are pretty much in exactly the same place and not a million miles off the desire lines. I am a bit confused as to how this scheme has made life worse for pedestrians - what else should be implemented (bearing in mind the all important caveat of "traffic flow")? I consider zebra crossings hugely superior to pelican crossings and would think that pedestrians would be inconvenienced more even in a crossroad situation where they had to wait for the green phase.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Apr 2014)

it's about the distance people have to walk. Make it a crossroads, stick some traffic lights in, and put right-angle and diagonal crossings with a pedestrian only phase and you've got yourself a place rather than a diagram that people have to navigate around. (And, yes, we've had them for years in London). And, in the Bedford instance, you could have a bit more planting in the land you reclaim from roadway.


----------



## jonesy (2 Apr 2014)

User said:


> Oh dear... can we laugh and point?


We could try having a sensible discussion...


----------



## jonesy (2 Apr 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> it's about the distance people have to walk. Make it a crossroads, stick some traffic lights in, and put right-angle and diagonal crossings with a pedestrian only phase and you've got yourself a place rather than a diagram that people have to navigate around. (And, yes, we've had them for years in London). And, in the Bedford instance, you could have a bit more planting in the land you reclaim from roadway.



Yes, there is an argument that replacing it with a signalised junction would be better for vulnerable road users. But that doesn't make Pete Owens wrong in pointing out that providing zebra crossings is an improvement on what there is at the moment. Getting an improved roundabout is surely better than asking for a signalised crossing and getting no change at all?


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Apr 2014)

jonesy said:


> Yes, there is an argument that replacing it with a signalised junction would be better for vulnerable road users. But that doesn't make Pete Owens wrong in pointing out that providing zebra crossings is an improvement on what there is at the moment. Getting an improved roundabout is surely better than asking for a signalised crossing and getting no change at all?


asking and spending twenty million quid on an ideological totem are two very different things. 

Let's be clear about this - the roundabout in Bedford has nothing to do with anything other than the kind of instrumental thought that holds conceptualising dear. Somebody decided this was a good idea, and they decided on the basis of a conceptualised model of movement that has diddlysquit to do with placemaking and everything to do with a cast of mind. And, actually, it's not a very nice cast of mind.

And here............is a place at which people gather, recognise each other and feel like they belong.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Apr 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> asking and spending twenty million quid on an ideological totem are two very different things.
> 
> Let's be clear about this - the roundabout in Bedford has nothing to do with anything other than the kind of instrumental thought that holds conceptualising dear. Somebody decided this was a good idea, and they decided on the basis of a conceptualised model of movement that has diddlysquit to do with placemaking and everything to do with a cast of mind. And, actually, it's not a very nice cast of mind.
> 
> And here............is a place at which people gather, recognise each other and feel like they belong.


Hmm, it looks a bit like the primary reason people are gathering together is because they're all waiting to cross the road.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Apr 2014)

people meet there. They converse. It's part of their geography.


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Apr 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> people meet there. They converse. It's part of their geography.


Mostly they talk about how to escape Balham ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Apr 2014)

User said:


> The gateway to the south


The Jewel of the East ....


----------



## stowie (3 Apr 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> asking and spending twenty million quid on an ideological totem are two very different things.
> 
> Let's be clear about this - the roundabout in Bedford has nothing to do with anything other than the kind of instrumental thought that holds conceptualising dear. Somebody decided this was a good idea, and they decided on the basis of a conceptualised model of movement that has diddlysquit to do with placemaking and everything to do with a cast of mind. And, actually, it's not a very nice cast of mind.



It what happens when all roads are treated as an engineering issue where the frame of reference is maintaining, or increasing, motorised traffic flow.

The turbo roundabout is an elegant solution when viewed from this perspective. Within the terms of traffic flow, the objective of reducing the chance of drivers hitting stuff is resolved by slowing down traffic whilst allowing density to increase. It is a pity that from every other perspective it sucks.


----------



## benb (27 Jun 2014)

So it turns out it's going to be even worse that I feared.
They are taking out the lane dividers from the design, so it's now: just a roundabout. 
And this is something that got money from the cycling safety fund. How do we get a refund?
http://departmentfortransport.wordp...dfords-turbo-roundabout-plans-get-even-worse/

Anyone still willing to defend this use of money specifically designated for cycling safety infrastructure?


----------



## Pete Owens (28 Jun 2014)

benb said:


> So it turns out it's going to be even worse that I feared.
> They are taking out the lane dividers from the design, so it's now: just a roundabout.


Sadly, the motor loby is rather more powerful than us so will tend top put a stop any measure that genuinely benifits cyclists should tis impose any restriction on motors.


> And this is something that got money from the cycling safety fund. How do we get a refund?
> http://departmentfortransport.wordp...dfords-turbo-roundabout-plans-get-even-worse/


It is pretty laughable that the angry bloggers who spent so much effort complaning how dangerous the proposal would have been are now complaining that it has been scrapped. 


> Anyone still willing to defend this use of money specifically designated for cycling safety infrastructure?


Well since the cycling element of the scheme has been scrapped presumably there won't be any requirement to spend that money.

As one who thought the original scheme was probably the best and most genuinely innovative proposal of the lot I certainly don't welcome its cancelation. I do find it odd to discover that those who opposed the scheme and were arguing against the design in this very thread seem to consider it is somehow worse that the design they opposed will not be implemented!


----------



## benb (28 Jun 2014)

I think that's an odd way of putting it.

I was against it when cycle-safety money was used to create a roundabout that, IMO, would do nothing for the safety of cyclists.

Now they've done away with even the lane dividers, so it is even worse for cyclists, I am even more against using cycling money to build it.


----------



## oldstrath (28 Jun 2014)

@Pete Owens 
Insofar as there was ever a justification for spending cycle safety money on this, it was that the division into lanes would force a reduction in traffic speed. Now that even this minimal justification has been removed, there is clearly no benefit to safety, despite Sustrans' continuing press puffery (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/press-releases/new-roundabout-bedford-improve-cycle-safety). I can't speak for others, but the continuing unwillingness of those who allegedly represent cyclists' interests actually to do so is the most annoying aspect of this.


----------



## Pete Owens (1 Jul 2014)

benb said:


> I think that's an odd way of putting it.
> I was against it when cycle-safety money was used to create a roundabout that, IMO, would do nothing for the safety of cyclists.


You went rather further than that - you have made several posts claiming that the design was dangerous to cyclists.
Well if you or ADT actually meant what you said then you should welcome the dropping of a scheme you were actively opposing, rather than express anger.


> Now they've done away with even the lane dividers, so it is even worse for cyclists,


But the lane dividers were the key to the design -* the* feature that distinguishes a turbo roundabout and the key to why it would have been such a worthwhile scheme. (along with the tight geometry that is also being scrapped). You repeatedly argued against this design and took issue with those of us who explained the benefits. Heck, even your first sentence of this post still denies there would have been any safety benefit in the scheme, yet you complain at the loss of that very safety benefit.


> I am even more against using cycling money to build it.


So you were opposed the building of a turbo roundabout.
Now you are opposed to *not* building a turbo roundabout.

Those of us who have long campaigned for cycle freindly changes to the geometry to roundabouts to slow traffic are entitled to feed dissapointed that the scheme has been dropped. The sheer hypocricy of those who campaigned against the scheme complain that it has been dropped defies belief.


----------



## BSRU (1 Jul 2014)

I think you have missed the point, people were against using money designated for cycling to pay for a roundabout that benefited car drivers.
Now the lane dividers are gone it is even more car friendly.


----------



## benb (1 Jul 2014)

BSRU said:


> I think you have missed the point, people were against using money designated for cycling to pay for a roundabout that benefited car drivers.
> Now the lane dividers it is even more car friendly.



Yes, what he said.

If they want to build a roundabout that has little or no benefit to cyclists, fine. Just don't steal cycling money to do it!

Anyway, this is a pretty good post about how something being merely "better than nothing" is simply not good enough: http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/better-than-nothing/


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Jul 2014)

Pete Owens said:


> As one who thought the original scheme was probably the best and most genuinely innovative proposal of the lot I certainly don't welcome its cancelation. I do find it odd to discover that those who opposed the scheme and were arguing against the design in this very thread seem to consider it is somehow worse that the design they opposed will not be implemented!


Chichester. Northern approach to. Give it a go. And weep.


----------



## StuAff (2 Jul 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Chichester. Northern approach to. Give it a go. And weep.


I go through Chichester on a regular basis. I try not to weep. I just try to get through it ASAP.....
It's not just the northern approach (I assume you mean via the A286, agreed that's nasty). The _least horrible_ route in/out to the north or west, via the B2178, still involves one or two roundabouts best approached with caution. Via the A259 (itself OK for the most part) involves either another scary roundabout or fiddly twiddly footbridges etc at Fishbourne. Going south towards Bognor involves either yet another footbridge or your choice of one of two busy roundabouts, depending which road you want to take. A259 going towards Bognor is generally unpleasant with only sporadic and somewhat bumpy bike paths if you don't want to mix it with the traffic. And as for the A27.....been there, done that, not doing it again......


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Jul 2014)

Stu - there is one way in to Chichester that's just fine. Oving Road has a revolutionary traffic-calming device that allows cyclists to cross the six lanes of the A27 in comfort, and, dare I say it, style. It's called a traffic light.


----------



## StuAff (3 Jul 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> Stu - there is one way in to Chichester that's just fine. Oving Road has a revolutionary traffic-calming device that allows cyclists to cross the six lanes of the A27 in comfort, and, dare I say it, style. It's called a traffic light.


Oh yes, that seems to work OK....used it on Tuesday. Of course, one still has to get to that point.......


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (3 Jul 2014)

Lets face it, in this country a roundabout is an overtaking mechanism with no set lanes, to be taken at the highest speed possible while driving one handed on the mobile with motorbikes weaving in and out being 'free', and cyclists are rodents to be pushed aside and yelled at or have McDonalds crap thrown at them (preferably after the most dangerous parts have been eaten).
Quite a dark view, but it's been one of those weeks. Or it's the result of someone trying to push a large speeding Mitsubishi (50 at least in a 30) up my anal passage this morning


----------



## Paspie (8 Jul 2014)

Turbo roundabouts should be fine as long as both drivers and cyclists are equipped to deal with them.

Most of the problems you're describing (I read first two pages) are more to do with driver behaviour, and that needs improving more than anything else.


----------



## summerdays (8 Jul 2014)

Paspie said:


> Turbo roundabouts should be fine as long as both drivers and cyclists are equipped to deal with them.
> 
> Most of the problems you're describing (I read first two pages) are more to do with driver behaviour, and that needs improving more than anything else.


Does that include some kind of force field to repel cars or rocket launchers on the bike .... (I think the power might just go to my head!)


----------



## Paspie (8 Jul 2014)

You would probably have no trouble getting round it if there were no cars on it.

From there it is a case of how many motor vehicles will actually be using it each day before using it any other way becomes undesirable.

This isn't explicitly car 'infrastructure', the same design will apply to you, and both will have to learn to get around it properly and with care/attention. It's no different with dual carriageways, gyratories, and grade separated junctions.


----------



## stowie (8 Jul 2014)

Paspie said:


> You would probably have no trouble getting round it if there were no cars on it.
> 
> From there it is a case of how many motor vehicles will actually be using it each day before using it any other way becomes undesirable.
> 
> This isn't explicitly car 'infrastructure', the same design will apply to you, and both will have to learn to get around it properly and with care/attention. It's no different with dual carriageways, gyratories, and grade separated junctions.



If there were no cars on it then a roundabout almost certainly wouldn't be needed. The roundabout is a construct designed to merge vehicles at a junction and cyclists and pedestrians simply have to fit into the scheme.

From your previous post, if drivers were universally calm, stuck to the highway code and were rational then this would be perfect. How do we get to this situation? I am in favour of strategically placed snipers to weed out the bad ones, but apparently this isn't considered good form. Short of permanent police presence, or punitive punishments for those caught, the only way to get drivers to behave is by road design. I do think that "driver education" has its place, but will sometimes be like appealing to the school bully not to pick on you. They might take pity and listen but probably won't.


----------



## Paspie (8 Jul 2014)

I was and still am in a free study period, so you can suck that. And my cab was twenty minutes early. 

As for the constructive stuff: how can I prove I'm a rational road user myself? I don't want to have anything to do with bad drivers. My point is you shouldn't be blaming road design for driver behaviour.


----------



## Flying Dodo (8 Jul 2014)

Paspie said:


> My point is you shouldn't be blaming road design for driver behaviour.



Bad road design can and does encourage bad driver behaviour. There'll always be idiots on all forms of transportation, but it would be nice if road layout could try and eliminate some of the issues caused by bad driver behaviour.


----------



## jonesy (8 Jul 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Bad road design can and does encourage bad driver behaviour. There'll always be idiots on all forms of transportation, but it would be nice if road layout could try and eliminate some of the issues caused by bad driver behaviour.


Quite. And drivers do respond to the message given out by the infrastructure, in terms of how fast they drive, who has priority. Which is why roundabout geometry is so important: designs that constrain how fast you can go and position you at 90% to crossing pedestrians and cyclists when entering and exiting will encourage safer behaviour generally, and help mitigate the worst effects of the idiots.


----------



## marknotgeorge (8 Jul 2014)

dellzeqq said:


> every roundabout I've ever seen in any country, including Holland has been crap. But for reasons you're going to have to work out for yourself.


Frank Blackmore once stole your lollipop?


----------



## swansonj (8 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I think the bus for the special school is late.... probably stuck in traffic.


Reg - it's a free world, and I don't have to read your posts if they offend me - but as a parent who puts a child on the bus for the special school most days, I can't help musing on the strangeness of someone who has apparently championed the cause of various disparaged minority groups contributing to the disparaging of another minority group themself in this way?

(In case there are any pedants around, it's actually a taxi not a bus in our case)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Jul 2014)

Flying Dodo said:


> Bad road design can and does encourage bad driver behaviour. There'll always be idiots on all forms of transportation, but it would be nice if road layout could try and eliminate some of the issues caused by bad driver behaviour.



Junction design which allows drivers to take the racing line encourages drivers to take the racing line. QED.


----------



## swansonj (10 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I must apologise if you were offended by it / I caused offence. Comment deleted.


Thanks. I wasn't particularly offended, and whilst there's a discussion to be had about the bounds of appropriate insults, in view of your generous apology, now is not the place to have it.


----------



## Paspie (17 Jul 2014)

jonesy said:


> Quite. And drivers do respond to the message given out by the infrastructure, in terms of how fast they drive, who has priority. Which is why roundabout geometry is so important: designs that constrain how fast you can go and position you at 90% to crossing pedestrians and cyclists when entering and exiting will encourage safer behaviour generally, and help mitigate the worst effects of the idiots.


Brainless worship of the Great God of Slowness. 

New roundabout designs do, require a slower speed but their entry points are much sharper and feel more unnatural. This encourages the driver to take a racing line and it is much more likely they will be sideswiped, compared to older designs.

Also, if the cyclist and driver are taking the same line around a roundabout, there should be no conflicts (are you referring to cyclo-peds?).

No matter how we design our roads there will always be idiots on both sides.


----------



## Paspie (17 Jul 2014)

Slowness, excuse me.


----------



## Paspie (18 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I know you're still at school... but you do talk a load of bollocks. Perhaps you should leave the serious conversations to the grown ups...


If only you could speak to me like a grown-up. You do realise that the more you insult, the less I'm going to listen to you.


----------



## Paspie (18 Jul 2014)

The context of that word was quite limited, I'm not saying you're incapable of reasoning and intelligence, but perhaps not so much in that field.

I'm at least grown-up enough to go on to something that _isn't an insult_, the first response cherrypicked one word and took it personally. If you can't even endure a debate being passive to some name calling, then why should I bother posting here.


----------



## Paspie (18 Jul 2014)

User13710 said:


> What, all of us?


User.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jul 2014)

Paspie said:


> why should I bother posting here.



A very good question...


----------



## Paspie (18 Jul 2014)

Not great for first impressions though.


----------



## Paspie (18 Jul 2014)

That speed is the most important factor about road safety, and that anything that compromises the possibility to speed is safe.


----------



## summerdays (18 Jul 2014)

Paspie said:


> That speed is the most important factor about road safety, and that anything that compromises the possibility to speed is safe.


Does that make sense? Did you mean the last word to be unsafe?

I would disagree about speed being the most important thing on the road and say that it was looking.


----------

