and the difference is....?

[numbnuts]

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

 

[marzjennings]

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

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

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

 

[jefmcg]

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

FIFY

 

[Flying Dodo]

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

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

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

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

 

[plastic99]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GrasB]

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

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

 

[Flying Dodo]

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

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

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

 

[ianrauk]

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

And their reply?

 

[Flying Dodo]

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

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

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

 

[Andy_R]

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

 

[gavintc]

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

 

[GrasB]

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

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

 

[ozzage]

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

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

and...

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

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

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

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

 

[gavintc]

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

and...



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

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

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

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

 

[Flying Dodo]

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

and...



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

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

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

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

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



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